It's estimated Sinn Féin will need close to 9 out of every 10 nationalist votes to hold onto this seat. An almost impossible task but going by the manner in which Fearghal McKinney was absolutely slaughtered on the Politics Show yesterday by Gerry Kelly, it looks like they are going to give it a go.
Six days left to see it (28 minutes in):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/the_politics_show_northern_ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/the_politics_show_northern_ireland)
Warning: Some images are likely to offend those sensitive to scenes of pain and blood.
Cheers Ulick, missed the Politics Show yesterday. Was reading on Twitter last night that Fearghal made a dog's ear of it. This coming from people of all walks of life.
I will have a look at it later but I think it's worth pointing out that Gerry Kelly isn't standing in FST
In that case it's worth pointing out that the debate isn't solely about FST either, but that is the obvious subtext. The SDLP put McKinney forward as their representative for a televised debate to boost his profile ahead of the FST election. Bad mistake. To say his is well out of his depth is a vast understatement.
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:51:45 AM
In that case it's worth pointing out that the debate isn't solely about FST either, but that is the obvious subtext. The SDLP put McKinney forward as their representative for a televised debate to boost his profile ahead of the FST election. Bad mistake. To say his is well out of his depth is a vast understatement.
Will it have that big of an effect? Would it make a difference in South Down? It's some own goal if it does.
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:51:45 AM
In that case it's worth pointing out that the debate isn't solely about FST either, but that is the obvious subtext. The SDLP put McKinney forward as their representative for a televised debate to boost his profile ahead of the FST election. Bad mistake. To say his is well out of his depth is a vast understatement.
Christ almighty he was AWFUL. What's all this "arms around unionists"...
Fecking not available here. Will it be out on youtube?
atrocious - rambling on there about nothing, shared future, holding hangs blah blah - is it SDLP or the Alliance party he's running for
oh good god and as you watch on he gets worse! cringe.
Was never a fan of the stoops but I do think they are in freefall. Ritchie has to be one of the worst party leaders of all time, totally out of her depth. Throwing McKinney into FST smacked of desperation and it looks that way now with his poor performance yesterday.
Hopefully the Nationalists of FST show their disgust at the sectarian electoral pact and re-elect the sitting MP.
Jaysis...
Actually uncomfortable to watch... Even before he opened his mouth he made me uncomfortable with his swaying about and hand wringing. Looks like he had a wild dose of the piles or something
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:36:25 AM
Warning: Some images are likely to offend those sensitive to scenes of pain and blood.
Having seen the likes of Hostel and Evil Dead, I can safely say I was more uncomfortable watching Fearghal McKinney blether about absolutely nothing at all.
Quote from: whiskeysteve on April 19, 2010, 11:50:07 AM
Jaysis...
Actually uncomfortable to watch... Even before he opened his mouth he made me uncomfortable with his swaying about and hand wringing. Looks like he had a wild dose of the piles or something
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:36:25 AM
Warning: Some images are likely to offend those sensitive to scenes of pain and blood.
Having seen the likes of Hostel and Evil Dead, I can safely say I was more uncomfortable watching Fearghal McKinney blether about absolutely nothing at all.
yeah I noted that too, what was that about :D
I have not watched the show, I only seen the end of it, why was it filmed in Armagh with the views on the street in Keady?
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 19, 2010, 11:48:47 AM
Was never a fan of the stoops but I do think they are in freefall. Ritchie has to be one of the worst party leaders of all time, totally out of her depth. Throwing McKinney into FST smacked of desperation and it looks that way now with his poor performance yesterday.
Hopefully the Nationalists of FST show their disgust at the sectarian electoral pact and re-elect the sitting MP.
Didn't the Shinners suggest such a thing for S. Down and S. Belfast?
Quote from: sammymaguire on April 19, 2010, 12:31:19 PM
I have not watched the show, I only seen the end of it, why was it filmed in Armagh with the views on the street in Keady?
I only saw the last few mins also - I thought they were only in Richill and Forkhill.
The stoops were going to have their work cut out sending anyone in against G. Kelly. Say what you want about him but he can handle himself on tv (and off it too no doubt!).
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 19, 2010, 12:55:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 19, 2010, 11:48:47 AM
Was never a fan of the stoops but I do think they are in freefall. Ritchie has to be one of the worst party leaders of all time, totally out of her depth. Throwing McKinney into FST smacked of desperation and it looks that way now with his poor performance yesterday.
Hopefully the Nationalists of FST show their disgust at the sectarian electoral pact and re-elect the sitting MP.
Didn't the Shinners suggest such a thing for S. Down and S. Belfast?
Possibly, but I am sure it was in reply to FST. Two wrongs don't make a right etc etc
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 19, 2010, 01:05:41 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 19, 2010, 12:55:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 19, 2010, 11:48:47 AM
Was never a fan of the stoops but I do think they are in freefall. Ritchie has to be one of the worst party leaders of all time, totally out of her depth. Throwing McKinney into FST smacked of desperation and it looks that way now with his poor performance yesterday.
Hopefully the Nationalists of FST show their disgust at the sectarian electoral pact and re-elect the sitting MP.
Didn't the Shinners suggest such a thing for S. Down and S. Belfast?
Possibly, but I am sure it was in reply to FST. Two wrongs don't make a right etc etc
It was in reply to F/ST and you're right, two wrongs don't make a right. However in this case the SDLP should have stepped aside. I'm sick of this tribal nonsense and had hoped we'd moved away from it. DUP, UCUNF and TUV are resisting, so play them at their own game.
Mckinney was brutal, Kelly was pressing him on the SDLP's attendance at Westminster then kelly snookered him about the 42 and 28 day detention period and made him admit they voted for 28 days.
McKinney was on the ropes then. I turned it over, it was like watching a packo f hounds hover over a fox i.e. i couldn't beat to watch anymore.
The man is a clown
Quote from: ziggysego on April 19, 2010, 01:16:05 PM
It was in reply to F/ST and you're right, two wrongs don't make a right. However in this case the SDLP should have stepped aside. I'm sick of this tribal nonsense and had hoped we'd moved away from it. DUP, UCUNF and TUV are resisting, so play them at their own game.
I have to disagree. It was the wrong thing for SF to do. These are westminster elections and regardless of who is elected it will do feck all for FST. SF should have stood on their own. The SDLP are no better than unionists in westminster and should be challenged everywhere. The only way to change the tribal politics is to change it. Even if that takes 20 years we are a step closer to it than if there had have been a pact. The trouble is I don't for one second think the SDLP refused it for this reason.
Just watched it there. Oh my, that was painful to watch. Fearghal was just woeful on it. I guess the SDLP put him in there as he's a media "celebrity". Style over substance.
Agree with you on that Ziggy. It shows you how the SDLP are thinking. You wouldn't think it was a woman running that pack of clowns now. They will not have the young people's vote that is for sure.
I think the SDLP could be facing one of their worst elections ever, it is looking terminal at this stage for them. People can call electoral pacts sectarian or whatever, let's face it, the north is still sectarian and the days of religion not mattering in an election is a long, long way off. The day they decided to draw up the border made the north an inherently sectarian statelet.
Ritchie made a fatal mistake in not looking at a possible electoral pact with Sinn Fein, to turn that down and possibly hand two seats to the cause of Unionism is the last blow for the SDLP.
As for McKinney, cringeworthy at best.
Is this important? Sinn Féin don't take their seat, SDLP are toothless and the local decisions will be made in Stormont. Is getting MLAs in not the priority? I am open to being corrected but seems much ado about nothing.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 19, 2010, 03:11:21 PM
Is this important? Sinn Féin don't take their seat, SDLP are toothless and the local decisions will be made in Stormont. Is getting MLAs in not the priority? I am open to being corrected but seems much ado about nothing.
I fully agree. Westmister nerver did and never will serve in our interest. All this hype about these seats devalues the Assembly.
Maybe it is symbolic... with the emphasis on bollock.. :o
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 03:22:58 PM
I fully agree. Westmister nerver did and never will serve in our interest. All this hype about these seats devalues the Assembly.
I'm inclined to agree with you Zap but in one way this will be SF and SDLP positioning themselves for next years Assembly election.
Part of me wouldn't actually mind that much if a unionist pact took FST this time out because it will surely return in five years time by which time we will also see the publishing of the 2011 census figures, SF First Minister, loss of unionist majority in the Assembly, combined with the loss of North Belfast and possibly Upper Bann. A series of demoralising blows one after one the other in the two years running up to the 1916 centenary. Better to play the long game.
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 03:38:53 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 03:22:58 PM
I fully agree. Westmister nerver did and never will serve in our interest. All this hype about these seats devalues the Assembly.
I'm inclined to agree with you Zap but in one way this will be SF and SDLP positioning themselves for next years Assembly election.
Part of me wouldn't actually mind that much if a unionist pact took FST this time out because it will surely return in five years time by which time we will also see the publishing of the 2011 census figures, SF First Minister, loss of unionist majority in the Assembly, combined with the loss of North Belfast and possibly Upper Bann. A series of demoralising blows one after one the other in the two years running up to the 1916 centenary. Better to play the long game.
Ulick, that reads like: "if Carlsberg did politics then........."
Of course it is all highly feasible, though I would under-estimate the power the unionist bloc could weald in a hung Parliament!
As for McKinney, that was just awful!
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 19, 2010, 04:22:41 PM
Ulick, that reads like: "if Carlsberg did politics then........."
Of course it is all highly feasible, though I would under-estimate the power the unionist bloc could weald in a hung Parliament!As for McKinney, that was just awful!
What would they do with that power?
I thought McKinney showed his total lack of experience when up against Kelly...nothing more. He was a bit like a generation game contestant except he was up against an expert. For a complete novice I'd give him 6/7 out of 10 (didn't he do well!!!). He wasn't AS bad as some are making out although I'd agree that the SDLP are in for a right trouncing.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 04:35:40 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 19, 2010, 04:22:41 PM
Ulick, that reads like: "if Carlsberg did politics then........."
Of course it is all highly feasible, though I would under-estimate the power the unionist bloc could weald in a hung Parliament!As for McKinney, that was just awful!
What would they do with that power?
Garner concessions from (more then likely) the Tories. Granted because alot to the power is now with Stormont, it won't be as bad as years ago, but the DUP will still be in a good position to do some serious "horse trading".
...and while we're on the subject it is a joke Barry McElduff has to watch on as Pat Doherty is parachuted in from Donegal. Barry is as capable of fighting our corner as Pat Doherty... in fact more in touch with West Tyrone.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 19, 2010, 04:44:45 PM
Garner concessions from (more then likely) the Tories. Granted because alot to the power is now with Stormont, it won't be as bad as years ago, but the DUP will still be in a good position to do some serious "horse trading".
I understand that but what might these concessions be?
As have said before what happens in westminster election will make feck all difference. The Unionists and the sdlp have been selling votes to the highest bidder for years and none of it will change as long as it's in westminster. Concessions mean nothing when they can request anything they like from unaccountable ministers who couldn't give a feck what we get or don't get and an opposition with the same regard for the Irish.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 19, 2010, 04:50:28 PM
...and while we're on the subject it is a joke Barry McElduff has to watch on as Pat Doherty is parachuted in from Donegal. Barry is as capable of fighting our corner as Pat Doherty... in fact more in touch with West Tyrone.
It hardly makes a difference to an abstentionist party. They could run MrEd or McKinney ;) and he would be as capable of the job.
Like eveyone else here I thought McKinney was laughable and will no doubt be wiped out when the votes are counted. There's only so many times you can hear the same old cliches like "shared future", "holding hands together", "brand new image for a brand new Ireland" and such nonsense being rolled out before you want to be sick.
As an unashamed republican, I would be sad to see anyone representing the tories being elected to the same seat held by Bobby Sands. The fact that the stoops refused to agree to a FST/S.Belfast pact that would serve their own interests; and that they would rather see a conservative hold Fermanagh/South Tyrone than an Irish Republican in what is a majority nationalist area says it all about their loyalty to their own potential constituents in both FST & S Belfast.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 19, 2010, 04:50:28 PM
...and while we're on the subject it is a joke Barry McElduff has to watch on as Pat Doherty is parachuted in from Donegal. Barry is as capable of fighting our corner as Pat Doherty... in fact more in touch with West Tyrone.
Pat Doc has been MP for almost 10yrs now and an MLA 12yrs for West Tyrone and has done sterling work for his constituents. Barry McElduff whilst a great lobbyist has awful media skills which unfortunately is a pre-requisite for most senior politicians these days.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 04:54:48 PM
As an unashamed republican, I would be sad to see anyone representing the tories being elected to the same seat held by Bobby Sands.
Bobby Sands didn't give a f**k about that seat. he knew only to well that the seat meant nothing. The support of the people was the only imporant factor.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 19, 2010, 04:56:14 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 19, 2010, 04:50:28 PM
...and while we're on the subject it is a joke Barry McElduff has to watch on as Pat Doherty is parachuted in from Donegal. Barry is as capable of fighting our corner as Pat Doherty... in fact more in touch with West Tyrone.
Pat Doc has been MP for almost 10yrs now and an MLA 12yrs for West Tyrone and has done sterling work for his constituents. Barry McElduff whilst a great lobbyist has awful media skills which unfortunately is a pre-requisite for most senior politicians these days.
Barry McElduff has done more for West Tyrone than Pat will ever do!
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 05:02:56 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 04:54:48 PM
As an unashamed republican, I would be sad to see anyone representing the tories being elected to the same seat held by Bobby Sands.
Bobby Sands didn't give a f**k about that seat. he knew only to well that the seat meant nothing. The support of the people was the only imporant factor.
Bobby Sands was not in a position to do constituency work. The people knew this and 30,000 people still came out on polling day for him. I am making the point that it would (and thanks to stoops, probably will) be a sickening blow to see a conservative sitting as the MP for the area for this reason.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 19, 2010, 05:07:18 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 19, 2010, 04:56:14 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 19, 2010, 04:50:28 PM
...and while we're on the subject it is a joke Barry McElduff has to watch on as Pat Doherty is parachuted in from Donegal. Barry is as capable of fighting our corner as Pat Doherty... in fact more in touch with West Tyrone.
Pat Doc has been MP for almost 10yrs now and an MLA 12yrs for West Tyrone and has done sterling work for his constituents. Barry McElduff whilst a great lobbyist has awful media skills which unfortunately is a pre-requisite for most senior politicians these days.
Barry McElduff has done more for West Tyrone than Pat will ever do!
In your opinion obviously.
obviously ;)
Gerry Kelly ripped McKinney a new one!
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:08:33 PM
Bobby Sands was not in a position to do constituency work. The people knew this and 30,000 people still came out on polling day for him. I am making the point that it would (and thanks to stoops, probably will) be a sickening blow to see a conservative sitting as the MP for the area for this reason.
Unfortunately we can only judge Sands on his views before he died. He would not have done any constituency work as he did not want the seat. His election was in order to prove beyond any doubt that the hungerstrikers had support in the communities. The election was a tool used to support the hungerstike. The seat was meaningless and had he survived would never have thought of the seat again. He did not want nor care for a seat in westminster. The same can be applied to the Dail seat.
The real battle is for the saving of jobs in Quinn insurance. Without Quinn insurance fermanagh is a unemployment black spot.
I'm in Enniskillen at the minute and it was sickening to see the DUP office plastered with Rodney Connors posters. Really hammered home the sectarian head count agenda currently in operation. So much for proper politics in the north.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:08:33 PM
Bobby Sands was not in a position to do constituency work. The people knew this and 30,000 people still came out on polling day for him. I am making the point that it would (and thanks to stoops, probably will) be a sickening blow to see a conservative sitting as the MP for the area for this reason.
Unfortunately we can only judge Sands on his views before he died. He would not have done any constituency work as he did not want the seat. His election was in order to prove beyond any doubt that the hungerstrikers had support in the communities. The election was a tool used to support the hungerstike. The seat was meaningless and had he survived would never have thought of the seat again. He did not want nor care for a seat in westminster. The same can be applied to the Dail seat.
No one would contend that his reason for standing was to prove that support for the hunger strikers was there and to put pressure on the Thatcher government. I again make the point that as this was a seat held by Bobby Sands I would hate to see it being held by the tories. This is for symbolic reasons and reasons related to pride in the hunger strikers. So I really dont understand what your objection is to my post.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:58:40 PM
No one would contend that his reason for standing was to prove that support for the hunger strikers was there and to put pressure on the Thatcher government. I again make the point that as this was a seat held by Bobby Sands I would hate to see it being held by the tories. This is for symbolic reasons and reasons related to pride in the hunger strikers. So I really dont understand what your objection is to my post.
I understand your reasons I just think that it gives to much credit to the real value of the seat.
I'm a a little shocked at how much emphasis has been put on this seat over the past week or so. I think the seat is a non issue. The person holding and using the seat is practicing token politics. I understand the need to compete for te seat and all seats in this election but i don't understand how it will make a difference who wins it. From SF's point of view if they increase on their vote the election should be seen as a success even if they don't take the seat. If it is a tory it just goes to prove even further how fruitless westminster elections are for the Irish.
I think attacking the sdlp for loseing Bobby Sand's seat gives the seat even more false credit. I don't care who takes it as long as Republicans can increase support. The assembly is the onl show in town. Hopefully in the near future te dail will be too but westminster is a lost cause.
Another reason is that I don't do romance very well.
South Down is a big one as a party leader is running and she actually thinks it will make a difference if she is elected. By doing this it will only make a difference if she is not elected.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 06:22:30 PM
I understand your reasons I just think that it gives to much credit to the real value of the seat.
I'm a a little shocked at how much emphasis has been put on this seat over the past week or so. I think the seat is a non issue. The person holding and using the seat is practicing token politics. I understand the need to compete for te seat and all seats in this election but i don't understand how it will make a difference who wins it. From SF's point of view if they increase on their vote the election should be seen as a success even if they don't take the seat. If it is a tory it just goes to prove even further how fruitless westminster elections are for the Irish.
Zap their strategy is to centralise as much political power as possible in this country not Britain. That is why SF want the seat to stay here. The seat in itself is practically worthless but add it to the other abstentionist seats, devolved administration, future demands for more control of fiscal powers and it's a big f**k you to the NIO and British establishment (and anyone else who thinks Westminster should have any say in this country).
The politics show was awful to watch yesterday as I actually think Fearghal McKinney has the potential to be a pretty good politican once he gained some experience. He was thrown in right at the end deep yesterday. I'm not sure who's idea to was, but it was a PR disaster for the SDLP.
Given that there is only one "Unionist" candidate running, it's likely that the SDLP will take an awul hammering in this constituency with nearly all Catholic votes going to Sinn Fein. It's sad times when the main objective of the DUP/UUP is to simply taking the seat back into Protestant hands. What's the point in them even existing as a political parties if they are unprepared to stand for election?
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 06:34:37 PM
Zap their strategy is to centralise as much political power as possible in this country not Britain. That is why SF want the seat to stay here. The seat in itself is practically worthless but add it to the other abstentionist seats, devolved administration, future demands for more control of fiscal powers and it's a big f**k you to the NIO and British establishment (and anyone else who thinks Westminster should have any say in this country).
That makes sense. It should be treated as a marathon rahter than a sprint tough.
The tribal politics is a tool of past and (what is evident now) future British Governments. I honestly think that SF should resist this as much as possible even if it means the loss of a seat. I'm sure it would only be temporary.
The British idea of a return to normality is a situation were they still divide and conquer. Republicans have a different view on normality. In our normality divisional politics don't exist. This is a bigger target than the FST seat at the moment.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 06:22:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:58:40 PM
No one would contend that his reason for standing was to prove that support for the hunger strikers was there and to put pressure on the Thatcher government. I again make the point that as this was a seat held by Bobby Sands I would hate to see it being held by the tories. This is for symbolic reasons and reasons related to pride in the hunger strikers. So I really dont understand what your objection is to my post.
I understand your reasons I just think that it gives to much credit to the real value of the seat.
I'm a a little shocked at how much emphasis has been put on this seat over the past week or so. I think the seat is a non issue. The person holding and using the seat is practicing token politics. I understand the need to compete for te seat and all seats in this election but i don't understand how it will make a difference who wins it. From SF's point of view if they increase on their vote the election should be seen as a success even if they don't take the seat. If it is a tory it just goes to prove even further how fruitless westminster elections are for the Irish.
I think attacking the sdlp for loseing Bobby Sand's seat gives the seat even more false credit. I don't care who takes it as long as Republicans can increase support. The assembly is the onl show in town. Hopefully in the near future te dail will be too but westminster is a lost cause.
Another reason is that I don't do romance very well.
South Down is a big one as a party leader is running and she actually thinks it will make a difference if she is elected. By doing this it will only make a difference if she is not elected.
Completely agree that Westminster is of diddly squat inportance in Ireland (however it unfortunately is still something that has to be dealt with. If you dont attach much heed to the symbolism of it then fair enough, but the same worthlesness can be attached to every westminster election battle in the north. It can be used as a platform to build upon the strength of the parties involved and that is about it. Though as I say on a personal level, I just dislike the idea of the tories holding what will in my mind always be remembered as Bobby Sands' seat.
Quote from: the_daddy on April 19, 2010, 09:41:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 09:33:31 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 06:22:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:58:40 PM
No one would contend that his reason for standing was to prove that support for the hunger strikers was there and to put pressure on the Thatcher government. I again make the point that as this was a seat held by Bobby Sands I would hate to see it being held by the tories. This is for symbolic reasons and reasons related to pride in the hunger strikers. So I really dont understand what your objection is to my post.
I understand your reasons I just think that it gives to much credit to the real value of the seat.
I'm a a little shocked at how much emphasis has been put on this seat over the past week or so. I think the seat is a non issue. The person holding and using the seat is practicing token politics. I understand the need to compete for te seat and all seats in this election but i don't understand how it will make a difference who wins it. From SF's point of view if they increase on their vote the election should be seen as a success even if they don't take the seat. If it is a tory it just goes to prove even further how fruitless westminster elections are for the Irish.
I think attacking the sdlp for loseing Bobby Sand's seat gives the seat even more false credit. I don't care who takes it as long as Republicans can increase support. The assembly is the onl show in town. Hopefully in the near future te dail will be too but westminster is a lost cause.
Another reason is that I don't do romance very well.
South Down is a big one as a party leader is running and she actually thinks it will make a difference if she is elected. By doing this it will only make a difference if she is not elected.
Completely agree that Westminster is of diddly squat inportance in Ireland (however it unfortunately is still something that has to be dealt with. If you dont attach much heed to the symbolism of it then fair enough, but the same worthlesness can be attached to every westminster election battle in the north. It can be used as a platform to build upon the strength of the parties involved and that is about it. Though as I say on a personal level, I just dislike the idea of the tories holding what will in my mind always be remembered as Bobby Sands' seat.
A Tory holding the seat would be worse than Ken Maginnis how?
I didn't know Ken was running again. Since he isnt running in this election, and the tories are, my point addresses the tories. I think you can probably imagine how I viewed Ken Maguinness holding the seat.
Quote from: Banana Man on April 19, 2010, 01:48:35 PM
Mckinney was brutal, Kelly was pressing him on the SDLP's attendance at Westminster then kelly snookered him about the 42 and 28 day detention period and made him admit they voted for 28 days.
McKinney was on the ropes then. I turned it over, it was like watching a packo f hounds hover over a fox i.e. i couldn't beat to watch anymore.
The man is a clown
You couldn't have expected McKinney to compete with someone as experienced as Kelly/ It reminded me of one time Ken Magennis making wee boys out of Gerry Adams and soon after, Martin McGuinness. Its all about experience !!!
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 03:38:53 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 03:22:58 PM
I fully agree. Westmister nerver did and never will serve in our interest. All this hype about these seats devalues the Assembly.
I'm inclined to agree with you Zap but in one way this will be SF and SDLP positioning themselves for next years Assembly election.
Part of me wouldn't actually mind that much if a unionist pact took FST this time out because it will surely return in five years time by which time we will also see the publishing of the 2011 census figures, SF First Minister, loss of unionist majority in the Assembly, combined with the loss of North Belfast and possibly Upper Bann. A series of demoralising blows one after one the other in the two years running up to the 1916 centenary. Better to play the long game.
That's your political fantasy for the coming years? "A series of demoralising blows" to themmuns?
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 06:34:37 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 06:22:30 PM
I understand your reasons I just think that it gives to much credit to the real value of the seat.
I'm a a little shocked at how much emphasis has been put on this seat over the past week or so. I think the seat is a non issue. The person holding and using the seat is practicing token politics. I understand the need to compete for te seat and all seats in this election but i don't understand how it will make a difference who wins it. From SF's point of view if they increase on their vote the election should be seen as a success even if they don't take the seat. If it is a tory it just goes to prove even further how fruitless westminster elections are for the Irish.
Zap their strategy is to centralise as much political power as possible in this country not Britain. That is why SF want the seat to stay here. The seat in itself is practically worthless but add it to the other abstentionist seats, devolved administration, future demands for more control of fiscal powers and it's a big f**k you to the NIO and British establishment (and anyone else who thinks Westminster should have any say in this country).
Also dreaming of "a big f**k you" to every single unionist in Northern Ireland...my, my, elections really do bring out the worst in some people here don't they :o
Quote from: MW on April 19, 2010, 10:52:16 PM
That's your political fantasy for the coming years? "A series of demoralising blows" to themmuns?
Also dreaming of "a big f**k you" to every single unionist in Northern Ireland...my, my, elections really do bring out the worst in some people here don't they :o
To unionists and unionism, yes - don't take it so personally. Im an Irish republican, what do you want me to do - go out and canvas for Jim Allister?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:08:33 PM
Bobby Sands was not in a position to do constituency work. The people knew this and 30,000 people still came out on polling day for him. I am making the point that it would (and thanks to stoops, probably will) be a sickening blow to see a conservative sitting as the MP for the area for this reason.
Unfortunately we can only judge Sands on his views before he died. He would not have done any constituency work as he did not want the seat. His election was in order to prove beyond any doubt that the hungerstrikers had support in the communities. The election was a tool used to support the hungerstike. The seat was meaningless and had he survived would never have thought of the seat again. He did not want nor care for a seat in westminster. The same can be applied to the Dail seat.
No one would contend that his reason for standing was to prove that support for the hunger strikers was there and to put pressure on the Thatcher government. I again make the point that as this was a seat held by Bobby Sands I would hate to see it being held by the tories. This is for symbolic reasons and reasons related to pride in the hunger strikers. So I really dont understand what your objection is to my post.
This is the biggest problem I have with SF, they don't see the bigger picture and take such joy out of meaningless victories. Losing Bobby Sands's seat to a conservative means nothing bar the sentimentinal notion that SF would like it to stay with a nationalist. Bobby Sands died for a greater goal than "us-uns" being MP for FST and I'd take the educated guess (considering the system at the time) he would disagree with his name being used to further the support for a sectarian headcount. Thats my opinion anyway.
Quote from: trileacman on April 20, 2010, 12:15:10 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 19, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 19, 2010, 05:08:33 PM
Bobby Sands was not in a position to do constituency work. The people knew this and 30,000 people still came out on polling day for him. I am making the point that it would (and thanks to stoops, probably will) be a sickening blow to see a conservative sitting as the MP for the area for this reason.
Unfortunately we can only judge Sands on his views before he died. He would not have done any constituency work as he did not want the seat. His election was in order to prove beyond any doubt that the hungerstrikers had support in the communities. The election was a tool used to support the hungerstike. The seat was meaningless and had he survived would never have thought of the seat again. He did not want nor care for a seat in westminster. The same can be applied to the Dail seat.
No one would contend that his reason for standing was to prove that support for the hunger strikers was there and to put pressure on the Thatcher government. I again make the point that as this was a seat held by Bobby Sands I would hate to see it being held by the tories. This is for symbolic reasons and reasons related to pride in the hunger strikers. So I really dont understand what your objection is to my post.
This is the biggest problem I have with SF, they don't see the bigger picture and take such joy out of meaningless victories. Losing Bobby Sands's seat to a conservative means nothing bar the sentimentinal notion that SF would like it to stay with a nationalist. Bobby Sands died for a greater goal than "us-uns" being MP for FST and I'd take the educated guess (considering the system at the time) he would disagree with his name being used to further the support for a sectarian headcount. Thats my opinion anyway.
I'm not buying into your argument Trileacman. I made this point as someone who is a republican. For practical reasons I do not think that the Bobby Sands connection is the only reason I dont want the tories holding onto the seat. That does not mean it isn't an issue
for me. I havent heard SF make a big deal out of the Sands connection to the seat either, so perhaps you could give examples of all these instances where they are making such a big issue of it. One practical reason I feel it should belong to a nationalist is because it is a predominantly nationalist area. There is nothing sectarian about this. I couldn't care less what religion any candidate is or the religion of who votes for them. This is a notion that has been accepted even by the UUP in the past as when Pat Doherty first won his seat in West Tyrone in 2001, Willie Thompson in his speech at the final count conceeded that West Trone was "a nationalist area". To claim that "losing Bobby Sands' seat to a conservative means nothing bar the sentimental notion that SF would like it to stay with a nationalist" is a cynical and inaccurate assumption. I would suspect that SF's main motivation for wanting to win the seat is because they want to maximise their vote ahead of the next assembly elections, they dont want to lose a sitting MP and because, as already mentioned, they might feel that a tory MP might not have the best interests of the majority population at heart in this constituency.
Interesting development... on BBC
SF 'to stand down in city seat'
It is understood Sinn Fein's Alex Maskey is not to stand in South Belfast
It is understood Sinn Fein is to withdraw its South Belfast candidate Alex Maskey from the general election.
It is believed the party president Gerry Adams is set to announce the move shortly.
However, it is thought unlikely that the SDLP will withdraw its candidate Fearghal McKinney in Fermanagh South Tyrone.
Last week, the SDLP rejected the offer of a pact from Sinn Fein to cover the two constituencies.
The main nationalist parties have clashed over the SDLP's rejection of a Sinn Fein offer of an electoral pact.
Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams criticised the SDLP leader Margaret Ritchie for not meeting him to discuss the issue.
Sinn Fein's chances of retaining the Fermanagh South Tyrone seat has been hit by the agreement of the DUP and UCU to step aside in favour of a independent candidate.
UCUNTS will be sweating now!
Disappointed by this. McDonnell still won't get my vote.
I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:09:21 PM
I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.
No sh*t Sherlock :o
I would guess most SDLP voters are of the older generation and will not be swayed so easy!
SDLP should do the right thing and stand down.
I think there will be no SDLP in 5 - 10 years anyway!
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 20, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:09:21 PM
I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.
No sh*t Sherlock :o
Shit is something you have a close relationship with given that 99.9% of your posts stink of the aforementioned brown stuff ;)
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 20, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:09:21 PM
I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.
No sh*t Sherlock :o
Shit is something you have a close relationship with given that 99.9% of your posts stink of the aforementioned brown stuff ;)
Touchy reply from the political expert ::)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 20, 2010, 05:31:53 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 20, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:09:21 PM
I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.
No sh*t Sherlock :o
Shit is something you have a close relationship with given that 99.9% of your posts stink of the aforementioned brown stuff ;)
Touchy reply from the political expert ::)
100% - well done! You are a fully qualified A1, 100% bullshitter, take a bow.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:37:18 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 20, 2010, 05:31:53 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 20, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 20, 2010, 05:09:21 PM
I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.
No sh*t Sherlock :o
Shit is something you have a close relationship with given that 99.9% of your posts stink of the aforementioned brown stuff ;)
Touchy reply from the political expert ::)
100% - well done! You are a fully qualified A1, 100% bullshitter, take a bow.
Is that right Noel Thompson? :D
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 01:32:56 PM
I havent heard SF make a big deal out of the Sands connection to the seat either.
Fair point.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 01:32:56 PM
I would suspect that SF's main motivation for wanting to win the seat is because they want to maximise their vote ahead of the next assembly elections, they dont want to lose a sitting MP and because, as already mentioned, they might feel that a tory MP might not have the best interests of the majority population at heart in this constituency.
I don't think the MP for FST will have much of an influence on the status quo there. Hence I must disregard your last point.
Interesting move by the shinners today. Will be fun to see the SDLP reaction. I don't expect them to take the bait as they have already given their word against a sectarian headcount.
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
that would be a smart move by sf. as someone who has always supported the sdlp they need to wake to the new reality in the north. if the conservatives and the dup are in for a sectarian headcount, then give them one
I had heard gerry kelly on rte (on Monday?) refer to that they had already offered this deal to the SDLP and they had rejected it.
Are Sinn Fein looking to hear a louder, more emphatic, public rejection? or is the pressure being heaped upon the SDLP to agree.?
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2010, 07:46:30 PM
I had heard gerry kelly on rte (on Monday?) refer to that they had already offered this deal to the SDLP and they had rejected it.
Are Sinn Fein looking to hear a louder, more emphatic, public rejection? or is the pressure being heaped upon the SDLP to agree.?
If it's the latter, I hope they don't bow to the Shinners
The only way that nationalists should be behaving is in a way which is better than political unionism and not stooping to their level of blatant sectarianism
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 20, 2010, 08:19:17 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2010, 07:46:30 PM
I had heard gerry kelly on rte (on Monday?) refer to that they had already offered this deal to the SDLP and they had rejected it.
Are Sinn Fein looking to hear a louder, more emphatic, public rejection? or is the pressure being heaped upon the SDLP to agree.?
If it's the latter, I hope they don't bow to the Shinners
The only way that nationalists should be behaving is in a way which is better than political unionism and not stooping to their level of blatant sectarianism
the meek shall inherit the earth..................... if everyone else lets them
Does this mean that the SDLP will retain South Belfast?
SDLP should not give into this pressure. Shinners trying to dictate nationalist votes. If they are so against Unionists gaining FST why dont they withdraw Gildernew and let McKinney have it. It appears they would rather have Unionism in FST than McKinney. They are desperate for Gildernew not to be unseated. Looks bad for them after the dismal showing in the south.
Today was the last day to register for a vote in every consituency. If your not in the hat now, then your not going to be.
Jude Collins
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Action not words
Maybe we shouldn't expect it. I've seen Laurence Olivier, a demi-god when he had a Shakespeare script to deliver, reduced to a silly windbag when he delivered his own thoughts and words. And John Lennon was a pretty good lyricist but he talked tripe when he was interviewed about politics. So no, we shouldn't have been surprised when Fearghal McKinney appeared on the BBC's 'Politics Show' on Sunday and showed himself to be next to tongue-tied on most of the questions asked of him. Even if he had been able to field them, his opponent, Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly, was at his side to slice him – verbally – into very small pieces. You might want to encourage Fearghal by pointing out that he's only starting off in politics and that Gerry Kelly initially was just about as tongue-tied as Fearghal is today. True, true. Unfortunately, as Kelly pointed out, Fearghal isn't really making a career switch from the media to politics: he has as much chance of winning in Fermanagh/South Tyrone as Gerry Kelly has of becoming president of the US of A. Here today, gone in a couple of weeks.
And now, as if that hadn't shrunk the SDLP chances in Fermanagh/South Tyrone enough, there's this evening's news that Alex Maskey has withdrawn from the South Belfast race – AND that the news was delivered in Fermanagh/South Tyrone. Ouch, ouch and yarooh, you cads, that hurts! Having made the verbal offer of a nationalist voting pact and been rebuffed, Sinn Fein have now gone in for a spot of unilateral disarmament. If Maggie Ritchie's rebuff of the Adams overture looked churlish and anti-nationalist a few days back, there must be another word for what it looks like, now that Alex Maskey has given the good Doctor MacDonnell a clear run...Ah yes, now I remember. Self-harming. That's the word. Really really really self-harming. Well done, Maggie and Fearghal.
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
What odds would it make to him?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
What odds would it make to him?
I assume he wanted to fight the election otherwise he wouldn't have stood.
Now the men in grey suits have told him he is not standing.
iNo doubt his opinion wasn't asked for !
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 09:18:30 PM
I assume he wanted to fight the election otherwise he wouldn't have stood.
Now the men in grey suits have told him he is not standing.
iNo doubt his opinion wasn't asked for !
He seemed grand about it on the radio earlier.
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 09:18:30 PM
I assume he wanted to fight the election otherwise he wouldn't have stood.
Now the men in grey suits have told him he is not standing.
iNo doubt his opinion wasn't asked for !
He seemed grand about it on the radio earlier.
Cos he was told to be grand about it no doubt again!!
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 09:29:50 PM
Cos he was told to be grand about it no doubt again!!
Aye, maybe...
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 09:29:50 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 09:18:30 PM
I assume he wanted to fight the election otherwise he wouldn't have stood.
Now the men in grey suits have told him he is not standing.
iNo doubt his opinion wasn't asked for !
He seemed grand about it on the radio earlier.
Cos he was told to be grand about it no doubt again!!
How do you know?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
Dead.
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
Dead.Dead failures.
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Relieved? He knows he wasn't going to win South Belfast and now he can spend his time canvassing in a constituency where the Shinners have a chance.
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
Dead.
Dead failures.
Dead or not the question is was their position sectarian?
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:13:21 AM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
Dead.
Dead failures.
Dead or not the question is was their position sectarian?
Yes
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:15:23 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:13:21 AM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
Dead.
Dead failures.
Dead or not the question is was their position sectarian?
Yes
In what way?
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:37:48 PM
SDLP should not give into this pressure. Shinners trying to dictate nationalist votes. If they are so against Unionists gaining FST why dont they withdraw Gildernew and let McKinney have it. It appears they would rather have Unionism in FST than McKinney. They are desperate for Gildernew not to be unseated. Looks bad for them after the dismal showing in the south.
Because he is a complete buffoon?
What do you mean Ulick? Surely you know what sectarianism is?
In what way does your interpretation of sectarianism apply to Parnell and Tone?
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2010, 09:40:23 AM
In what way does your interpretation of sectarianism apply to Parnell and Tone?
Where did I say that? Oh that's right, I didn't ::)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:56 AM
What do you mean Ulick? Surely you know what sectarianism is?
You said Tone and Parnell, both Protestants, were sectarian. I'm honestly dumbfounded at that, so I'm asking you to explain your thinking for me.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:15:23 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:13:21 AM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
Dead.
Dead failures.
Dead or not the question is was their position sectarian?
Yes
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Has ardmhachaabu run away from another discussion? I wonder why he even bothers to contribute in the first place. ::)
I suspect he doesn't/didn't understand the question as he denies he answered the question as it so appears.
The lesson is, don't reply 'yes' before you understand the question.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
You'll have to forgive him, it's still a relatively new one to the Shinners.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
I'm a little unclear as to the relevance of this. What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
While I disagree with SFs proposal of a pact i fully believe the refusal to accept by the SDLP was on an anyone but a shinner platform.
Quote from: ziggysego on April 21, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
I wouldn't but then again, I didn't, did I?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 21, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
I wouldn't but then again, I didn't, did I?
I wasn't referring to your comment. trileacman's comment.
The day the SDLP did this - http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlidcwmhsn/
it became clear that opossing SF was their only purpose.
They were willing to sacrafice Devolution of Policing and Justice to Ireland in favour of isolating SF. This for me was the SDLP going beyond anything John Hume might have worked for.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 21, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
I wouldn't but then again, I didn't, did I?
I understand it perfectly gallsman. Perhaps you could explain to me how my interpretation is wrong? Or is your bitterness towards SF just preventing you from understanding that voting can also be done tactically? Is is as clear as day that the stoops main motivation in FST is to avoid a republican holding the seat even if that means allowing a tory to hold it. If they did genuinely want a nationalist representing this nationalist constituency, why would they not do as SF did in S.Belfast, and withdraw? Let's not forget that FST is mainly nationalist and the motivations for the unionist pact were purely sectarian as it was instigated by the Orange Order with the aim of securing a unionist MP to represent a majority nationalist area. The stoops in their bitterness and intransigience are facilitating this.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:43:18 AM
Has ardmhachaabu run away from another discussion? I wonder why he even bothers to contribute in the first place. ::)
He's gone to the official launch of his new washing detergent..
(http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/colour-safe-run-away.jpg)
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
The word 'democracy' can mean many different things, I just asking gallsman to clarify his understanding of it and the relevance of it to this situation.
Quote from: ziggysego on April 21, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
Where did I say it was?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 01:27:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 21, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
I wouldn't but then again, I didn't, did I?
The stoops in their bitterness and intransigience are facilitating this.
When you are reduced to name-calling and mockery then I don't think you can comfortably call anyone "bitter".
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 01:27:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 21, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
I wouldn't but then again, I didn't, did I?
The stoops in their bitterness and intransigience are facilitating this.
When you are reduced to name-calling and mockery then I don't think you can comfortably call anyone "bitter".
When you are reduced to avoiding the actual point of my post, I don't think you can be taken seriously.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 01:27:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 21, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
I wouldn't but then again, I didn't, did I?
I understand it perfectly gallsman. Perhaps you could explain to me how my interpretation is wrong? Or is your bitterness towards SF just preventing you from understanding that voting can also be done tactically? Is is as clear as day that the stoops main motivation in FST is to avoid a republican holding the seat even if that means allowing a tory to hold it. If they did genuinely want a nationalist representing this nationalist constituency, why would they not do as SF did in S.Belfast, and withdraw? Let's not forget that FST is mainly nationalist and the motivations for the unionist pact were purely sectarian as it was instigated by the Orange Order with the aim of securing a unionist MP to represent a majority nationalist area. The stoops in their bitterness and intransigience are facilitating this.
Really? You really want me to point out your erroneous statements?
You think the SDLP want a Unionist elected in FST, and that's why they won't withdraw McKinney? You don't think it has anything to do with their desire to best represent the voters in FST who are unwilling to vote Sinn Fein? SF have shown a blatant desire to follow the UUP and DUP down the same old path where you either vote orange or green. I'm sorry if the SDLP's decision to finally try and rise above all that upsets you. Hang on, I'm not, you're clearly a fool who doesn't have a f**king clue what he's talking about so I've no sympathy for you whatsoever.
SF are seeking to do exactly what the DUP and UUP are, yet you're so blinded you can't even see it. Otherwise you just don't care, because it's "our" side, which would make you a bigot.
Are you a bigot NS?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 02:52:17 PM
SF are seeking to do exactly what the DUP and UUP are, yet you're so blinded you can't even see it. Otherwise you just don't care, because it's "our" side, which would make you a bigot.
Are you a bigot NS?
The example I linked to above suggests different. The SDLP were only intrerested in isolating SF in that case. In this case though I think SFmade the wrong move.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 02:52:17 PM
Really? You really want me to point out your erroneous statements?
You think the SDLP want a Unionist elected in FST, and that's why they won't withdraw McKinney? You don't think it has anything to do with their desire to best represent the voters in FST who are unwilling to vote Sinn Fein? SF have shown a blatant desire to follow the UUP and DUP down the same old path where you either vote orange or green. I'm sorry if the SDLP's decision to finally try and rise above all that upsets you. Hang on, I'm not, you're clearly a fool who doesn't have a f**king clue what he's talking about so I've no sympathy for you whatsoever.
SF are seeking to do exactly what the DUP and UUP are, yet you're so blinded you can't even see it. Otherwise you just don't care, because it's "our" side, which would make you a bigot.
Are you a bigot NS?
Very little substance there Gallsman. Your suggestion the SDLP are running McKinney in order to represent voters in FST who don't vote SF belies the fact that McKinney doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. By running for the seat the SDLP allow the minority political viewpoint to represent the majority – not exactly representative democracy in action.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 02:52:17 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 01:27:16 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 21, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote from: trileacman on April 21, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 20, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Thought it was an inspired move from a SF perspective. Win win you could say.
One one hand, if the stoops had bowed under the pressure and withdrew McKinney, then SF could have been confident of holding FST.
On the other hand, if (as it turned out to be the case) the stoops still refused to withdraw McKinney, it shows up the SDLP's narrow mindedness and the fact that they genuinely would prefer a tory repesenting a mainly nationalist area than a Sinn Fein candidate at any cost.
Just when you think they can stoop no lower...
Ridiculous statement to make.
Do you actually understand the concept of democracy???
What has the FST election got to do with democracy?
Are you being serious? What does an election have to do with democracy?
You can hardly call the actions of the Tories, UUP, DUP, TUV and Orange Order the act of democracy in F/ST.
I wouldn't but then again, I didn't, did I?
I understand it perfectly gallsman. Perhaps you could explain to me how my interpretation is wrong? Or is your bitterness towards SF just preventing you from understanding that voting can also be done tactically? Is is as clear as day that the stoops main motivation in FST is to avoid a republican holding the seat even if that means allowing a tory to hold it. If they did genuinely want a nationalist representing this nationalist constituency, why would they not do as SF did in S.Belfast, and withdraw? Let's not forget that FST is mainly nationalist and the motivations for the unionist pact were purely sectarian as it was instigated by the Orange Order with the aim of securing a unionist MP to represent a majority nationalist area. The stoops in their bitterness and intransigience are facilitating this.
Really? You really want me to point out your erroneous statements?
You think the SDLP want a Unionist elected in FST, and that's why they won't withdraw McKinney? You don't think it has anything to do with their desire to best represent the voters in FST who are unwilling to vote Sinn Fein? SF have shown a blatant desire to follow the UUP and DUP down the same old path where you either vote orange or green. I'm sorry if the SDLP's decision to finally try and rise above all that upsets you. Hang on, I'm not, you're clearly a fool who doesn't have a f**king clue what he's talking about so I've no sympathy for you whatsoever.
SF are seeking to do exactly what the DUP and UUP are, yet you're so blinded you can't even see it. Otherwise you just don't care, because it's "our" side, which would make you a bigot.
Are you a bigot NS?
And now you resort to personal attacks? How mature of you Gallsman. Now how about we try to be realistic?? The SDLP know as well as you and I know, that they never stood a chance in FST, so to say they were standing in order to best represent people there is a non starter of an argument. What, as I already explained is bigoted, is the Orange Order making it's input to attempt to manipulate unionist parties to join together to take a seat where the majority community doesn't want them. The people in FST are now being shoe horned by the Orange Order/Unionist Party block and now with SDLP assistance, into having a unionist MP. No amount of fairytale thinking can deny the fact that SF were the only party which could realistically hope to defeat this sectarian electoral pact.
As I mentioned earlier, I am fiercely anti-sectarian. I couldn't give a toss what faith anyone belongs too, I am speaking from the viewpoint of who would provide the best representation to the area based on the predominant political views of those living there. I am not however naive enough to think that the POLITICAL divide that exists here actually doesn't exist. Having a political view that differs from another is not bigoted.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:43:18 AM
Has ardmhachaabu run away from another discussion? I wonder why he even bothers to contribute in the first place. ::)
I have what's called a life Ulick unlike you or some others on here.
Your question was about what the Shinners are at, don't put Tone or any other decent man in the same bracket as them
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it.
Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
Fortunately I'm missing a lot of this election banter with very little Internet access at the minute.
Interestingly, I read the following in last Saturday's Irish News where SF Cllr O'Reilly said of Rodney Connor's retirement from Fermanagh DC:
"As Chief Executive, people always had a hotline to his office on all manner of issues. He always has done his best and everyone got a fair share when it came to getting their needs met. I wish him well in the future."
With an endorsement like that, what's to worry about!
Also, on all seriousness, what has Gildernew done for Nationalists/Republicans that:
a) Rodney Connor won't; or
b) That Michelle Gildernew can't continue to do as MLA and Minister?
Also, have to agree that McKinney was very poor on the Politics Show. How much that will effect him is hard to tell.
At the end of the day though, the electorate will effectively decide whether they want a single Nationalist candidate.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 21, 2010, 12:52:05 PM
While I disagree with SFs proposal of a pact i fully believe the refusal to accept by the SDLP was on an anyone but a shinner platform.
I fail to see the problem.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 03:02:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 02:52:17 PM
Really? You really want me to point out your erroneous statements?
You think the SDLP want a Unionist elected in FST, and that's why they won't withdraw McKinney? You don't think it has anything to do with their desire to best represent the voters in FST who are unwilling to vote Sinn Fein? SF have shown a blatant desire to follow the UUP and DUP down the same old path where you either vote orange or green. I'm sorry if the SDLP's decision to finally try and rise above all that upsets you. Hang on, I'm not, you're clearly a fool who doesn't have a f**king clue what he's talking about so I've no sympathy for you whatsoever.
SF are seeking to do exactly what the DUP and UUP are, yet you're so blinded you can't even see it. Otherwise you just don't care, because it's "our" side, which would make you a bigot.
Are you a bigot NS?
Very little substance there Gallsman. Your suggestion the SDLP are running McKinney in order to represent voters in FST who don't vote SF belies the fact that McKinney doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. By running for the seat the SDLP allow the minority political viewpoint to represent the majority – not exactly representative democracy in action.
Little substance me hole. They're doing what any political party should do and stand in every constituency. Why should any SDLP voters in FST vote for SF if McKinney was to stand down? Just because Gildernew is one of us instead of those nasty unionists? My point is that shouldn't be the mindset of people. If the SDLP vote is significant enough to hurt Gildernew, why should they abandon their voters to the mercy of a sectarian dogfight?
NS, if you get offended by someone calling you a fool, enjoy your life. There won't be much of one if you keep getting het up. When did I say the SDLP were standing to best represent the whole population of FST. SF have won every election and increased their vote since 2001, so to suggest this would be ludicrous. What I said was that the SDLP have a significant vote in FST who they are unwilling to abandon. Where's the shame in that? The whole point of this is that we're supposed to be moving beyond green and orange but some people are unwilling. The Assembly elections are where the action is. Who care's who the f**k wins FST, it's not as if Gildernew sits in the first place, so to say she "represents" voters is slightly skewed.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:43:18 AM
Has ardmhachaabu run away from another discussion? I wonder why he even bothers to contribute in the first place. ::)
I have what's called a life Ulick unlike you or some others on here.
Your question was about what the Shinners are at, don't put Tone or any other decent man in the same bracket as them
So are you going to answer the question now you have finished with the pathetic insults?
The Shinners are as sectarian as they come. Does that answer suit you?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 06:57:38 PM
Little substance me hole. They're doing what any political party should do and stand in every constituency. Why should any SDLP voters in FST vote for SF if McKinney was to stand down? Just because Gildernew is one of us instead of those nasty unionists? My point is that shouldn't be the mindset of people. If the SDLP vote is significant enough to hurt Gildernew, why should they abandon their voters to the mercy of a sectarian dogfight?
Okay this gets back to what I was saying before trileacman and gaffer sidetracked things and ardmhachaabu made a fool of himself again - what is sectarian about maximising support for your position on the national question?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 07:18:11 PM
The Shinners are as sectarian as they come. Does that answer suit you?
The question was about Parnell and Tone (as if you didn't know). Besides I thought it was the SDLP with all the links to the Church - yourself a case in point perhaps?
Since when were Parnell or Tone sectarian? You may continue to dodge if you like
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 07:18:44 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 06:57:38 PM
Little substance me hole. They're doing what any political party should do and stand in every constituency. Why should any SDLP voters in FST vote for SF if McKinney was to stand down? Just because Gildernew is one of us instead of those nasty unionists? My point is that shouldn't be the mindset of people. If the SDLP vote is significant enough to hurt Gildernew, why should they abandon their voters to the mercy of a sectarian dogfight?
Okay this gets back to what I was saying before trileacman and gaffer sidetracked things and ardmhachaabu made a fool of himself again - what is sectarian about maximising support for your position on the national question?
The fact that a significant number of SDLP voter in FST would not wish to be "represented" by Sinn Fein. You think everyone decides that if they can't vote SDLP then they'll want to vote SF?
[quote
Interestingly, I read the following in last Saturday's Irish News where SF Cllr O'Reilly said of Rodney Connor's retirement from Fermanagh DC:
"As Chief Executive, people always had a hotline to his office on all manner of issues. He always has done his best and everyone got a fair share when it came to getting their needs met. I wish him well in the future."
[/quote]
Says it all about the present Sinn Fein.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 07:23:45 PM
Since when were Parnell or Tone sectarian? You may continue to dodge if you like
Then you have to clarify why you answered yes in this post.
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16011.msg770068#msg770068 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16011.msg770068#msg770068)
Ulick If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
Treacleman Dead. Dead failures.
Ulick Dead or not the question is was their position sectarian?
ardmhachaabu Yes
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
Unlike the SDLP who always look out for the interests of nationalism? The SDLP who, as I pointed out on this board before, only supported Sinn Fein in THREE out of EIGHTEEN councils on a motion put forward by SF in these councils to press for more All-Ireland co-operation with the Dublin Government a number of years ago? The same SDLP who in 2006 supported Irish citizens living in the north of Ireland to be subjected to compulsory "British National Identity" scheme? The same SDLP who voted in favour of 28 day detention without trial? The same SDLP who argued for provision for diplock courts in 2006? The same SDLP who in the same year argued in favour of primacy of MI5 in certain cases over a devolved policing system, and who once remarked that they had "no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north? The same SDLP who regarded Ronnie Flanagan as someone who was trying to "edge policing forward"? The same SDLP who are today assisting the Orange Order in their sectarian pact which aims to secure a unionist MP in a constituency with a maily nationalist population?
If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 07:23:45 PM
Since when were Parnell or Tone sectarian? You may continue to dodge if you like
You were the one that said they were not me.
NS, SF are the one's assisting the Orange Order by vindicating and replicating their actions.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 06:57:38 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 03:02:06 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 02:52:17 PM
Really? You really want me to point out your erroneous statements?
You think the SDLP want a Unionist elected in FST, and that's why they won't withdraw McKinney? You don't think it has anything to do with their desire to best represent the voters in FST who are unwilling to vote Sinn Fein? SF have shown a blatant desire to follow the UUP and DUP down the same old path where you either vote orange or green. I'm sorry if the SDLP's decision to finally try and rise above all that upsets you. Hang on, I'm not, you're clearly a fool who doesn't have a f**king clue what he's talking about so I've no sympathy for you whatsoever.
SF are seeking to do exactly what the DUP and UUP are, yet you're so blinded you can't even see it. Otherwise you just don't care, because it's "our" side, which would make you a bigot.
Are you a bigot NS?
Very little substance there Gallsman. Your suggestion the SDLP are running McKinney in order to represent voters in FST who don't vote SF belies the fact that McKinney doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. By running for the seat the SDLP allow the minority political viewpoint to represent the majority – not exactly representative democracy in action.
Little substance me hole. They're doing what any political party should do and stand in every constituency. Why should any SDLP voters in FST vote for SF if McKinney was to stand down? Just because Gildernew is one of us instead of those nasty unionists? My point is that shouldn't be the mindset of people. If the SDLP vote is significant enough to hurt Gildernew, why should they abandon their voters to the mercy of a sectarian dogfight?
NS, if you get offended by someone calling you a fool, enjoy your life. There won't be much of one if you keep getting het up. When did I say the SDLP were standing to best represent the whole population of FST. SF have won every election and increased their vote since 2001, so to suggest this would be ludicrous. What I said was that the SDLP have a significant vote in FST who they are unwilling to abandon. Where's the shame in that? The whole point of this is that we're supposed to be moving beyond green and orange but some people are unwilling. The Assembly elections are where the action is. Who care's who the f**k wins FST, it's not as if Gildernew sits in the first place, so to say she "represents" voters is slightly skewed.
I highlighted the part in bold for you Gallsman. And to imply that the SDLP would represent the peoplle by sitting in westminster is pushing it for much the same reason. At least SF are honest in being openly abstentionist. The SDLP take their pledge of allegience to the British queen and yet still have an attendance record which is practically abstentionist anyway.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:26:22 PM
The fact that a significant number of SDLP voter in FST would not wish to be "represented" by Sinn Fein.
But you are saying for the SDLP to stand down would be sectarian. What's sectarian about it i.e. maximising support for a position that both SF and the SDLP hold?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:26:22 PM
You think everyone decides that if they can't vote SDLP then they'll want to vote SF?
Of course not but you were the one going on about democracy. By standing the SDLP give the seat some someone who represents a minority view - that doesn't seem very democratic.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:52:19 PM
NS, SF are the one's assisting the Orange Order by vindicating and replicating their actions.
No you see the Orange Order are trying to secure a Unionist representative over a mainly nationalist population. SF aren't replicating that. The SDLP are facilitating it.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 07:54:08 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:26:22 PM
The fact that a significant number of SDLP voter in FST would not wish to be "represented" by Sinn Fein.
But you are saying for the SDLP to stand down would be sectarian. What's sectarian about it i.e. maximising support for a position that both SF and the SDLP hold?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:26:22 PM
You think everyone decides that if they can't vote SDLP then they'll want to vote SF?
Of course not but you were the one going on about democracy. By standing the SDLP give the seat some someone who represents a minority view - that doesn't seem very democratic.
What's democratic about reducing the number of candidates for whom an individual can vote?
can we all just not agree that they're both shite.
SDLP - useless, pathetic and barely nationalist - at a local level non existent until election time
SF - full of sheep, foot soldiers who walk around thinking they own the place - a large percentage of brain dead idiots who do what they're told
God help us ::)
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 07:23:45 PM
Since when were Parnell or Tone sectarian? You may continue to dodge if you like
You were the one that said they were not me.
In this thread you coined the phrase sectarian headcounting. That post was clearly about the elections since this thread is about the elections. You brought up Parnell and Tone in it, I misread that bit when I was in a hurry this morning. I have since clarified that I think the Shinners are being sectarian
How can you link Parnell and Tone to sectarian headcounting or the Shinners?
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 07:54:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:52:19 PM
NS, SF are the one's assisting the Orange Order by vindicating and replicating their actions.
No you see the Orange Order are trying to secure a Unionist representative over a mainly nationalist population. SF aren't replicating that. The SDLP are facilitating it.
Bollocks they are. Sinn Fein vindicated the OO and Unionist parties stance when they withdrew from South Belfast. Also, check the 2005 figures for the Westminster election. Orange is clearly the prevailing colour.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 21, 2010, 07:57:22 PM
can we all just not agree that they're both shite.
SDLP - useless, pathetic and barely nationalist - at a local level non existent until election time
SF - full of sheep, foot soldiers who walk around thinking they own the place - a large percentage of brain dead idiots who do what they're told
God help us ::)
Well said
The other election thread seems to have disappeared so I'll stick this here.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dgRsjCSHWQI/S881pTZLgrI/AAAAAAAAAbM/VCJ0l6Vlhx4/s1600/spotthe_difference.jpg)
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:57:08 PM
What's democratic about reducing the number of candidates for whom an individual can vote?
You're the one going on about democracy not me.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 07:57:59 PM
In this thread you coined the phrase sectarian headcounting. That post was clearly about the elections since this thread is about the elections. You brought up Parnell and Tone in it, I misread that bit when I was in a hurry this morning. I have since clarified that I think the Shinners are being sectarian
How can you link Parnell and Tone to sectarian headcounting or the Shinners?
There you see that wasn't difficult.
Now to get back to the point whether SF are sectarian or not is besides the point. We are discussing whether it is sectarian to put up a single candidate in response to the unionist voting pack in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Pathetic of you Ulick, they air-brushed everyone out of the photo apart from Obama and Ritchie. Since it is clearly a photo of the 2 of them with others milling about in the background I fail to see what your issue is. Big deal they air-brushed people out of a photo :o
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 08:08:30 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:57:08 PM
What's democratic about reducing the number of candidates for whom an individual can vote?
You're the one going on about democracy not me.
The relevance of this? Does this prevent you from answering the question Donagh?
I mentioned democracy as certain idiots on this thread are suggesting that the SDLP's refusal to stand down is purely to spite Sinn Fein.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 08:11:26 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 07:57:59 PM
In this thread you coined the phrase sectarian headcounting. That post was clearly about the elections since this thread is about the elections. You brought up Parnell and Tone in it, I misread that bit when I was in a hurry this morning. I have since clarified that I think the Shinners are being sectarian
How can you link Parnell and Tone to sectarian headcounting or the Shinners?
There you see that wasn't difficult.
Now to get back to the point whether SF are sectarian or not is besides the point. We are discussing whether it is sectarian to put up a single candidate in response to the unionist voting pack in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Yes it is. Rather simple really. If you don't accept it is then I would like to know why
Also while you are at it, can you answer why you linked Parnell and Tone to sectarian headcounting?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 08:13:36 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 08:08:30 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:57:08 PM
What's democratic about reducing the number of candidates for whom an individual can vote?
You're the one going on about democracy not me.
The relevance of this? Does this prevent you from answering the question Donagh?
I mentioned democracy as certain idiots on this thread are suggesting that the SDLP's refusal to stand down is purely to spite Sinn Fein.
Why should I answer it - the question is irrelevant to the concept of democracy, but as you are the one that chided others for not understanding the meaning of it, you would know that gallsman wouldn't you?
when they were airbrushing the photo they could have straightened up the background - I can do that with a free program I downloaded...
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 08:15:28 PM
Now to get back to the point whether SF are sectarian or not is besides the point. We are discussing whether it is sectarian to put up a single candidate in response to the unionist voting pack in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.Yes it is. Rather simple really. If you don't accept it is then I would like to know why
Also while you are at it, can you answer why you linked Parnell and Tone to sectarian headcounting?
Tell you what ardmhachaabu, just read the post again. Here I've even copied it in for you:
"
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question. "
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 08:12:22 PM
Pathetic of you Ulick, they air-brushed everyone out of the photo apart from Obama and Ritchie. Since it is clearly a photo of the 2 of them with others milling about in the background I fail to see what your issue is. Big deal they air-brushed people out of a photo :o
Lol... very good ardmhachaabu. And Pints there has the Shinners down as the sheep - he might have to revise that assertion based on that post.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
Unlike the SDLP who always look out for the interests of nationalism? The SDLP who, as I pointed out on this board before, only supported Sinn Fein in THREE out of EIGHTEEN councils on a motion put forward by SF in these councils to press for more All-Ireland co-operation with the Dublin Government a number of years ago? The same SDLP who in 2006 supported Irish citizens living in the north of Ireland to be subjected to compulsory "British National Identity" scheme? The same SDLP who voted in favour of 28 day detention without trial? The same SDLP who argued for provision for diplock courts in 2006? The same SDLP who in the same year argued in favour of primacy of MI5 in certain cases over a devolved policing system, and who once remarked that they had "no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north? The same SDLP who regarded Ronnie Flanagan as someone who was trying to "edge policing forward"? The same SDLP who are today assisting the Orange Order in their sectarian pact which aims to secure a unionist MP in a constituency with a maily nationalist population?
If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?
If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved.
You seem to care alot about Nationalists. You must therefore have been totally disgusted when Sinn Fein supported the IRA whenever they subjected Nationalists to intimidation, hijackings, threats, blowing up their homes while blowing up police stations, house takeovers etc
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 08:16:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 08:13:36 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 08:08:30 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 07:57:08 PM
What's democratic about reducing the number of candidates for whom an individual can vote?
You're the one going on about democracy not me.
The relevance of this? Does this prevent you from answering the question Donagh?
I mentioned democracy as certain idiots on this thread are suggesting that the SDLP's refusal to stand down is purely to spite Sinn Fein.
Why should I answer it - the question is irrelevant to the concept of democracy, but as you are the one that chided others for not understanding the meaning of it, you would know that gallsman wouldn't you?
Donagh, saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Why should you answer it? Because you're on a discussion board, that's why. The question is very obviously relevant to the concept of democracy. The ability to "choose" is one of the cornerstones of democracy, is it not?
Also, seeing as you dislike the SDLP so much, would you vote for them if you were a South Belfast resident? Would you not feel betrayed and angry that your party had abandoned you?
You are getting to be rather tiresome Ulick, I much preferred you when you were Donagh. Either you accept that the Shinners have been guilty of blatant sectarianism or you don't. If you don't I would like to know why
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 08:26:40 PM
Donagh, saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Why should you answer it? Because you're on a discussion board, that's why. The question is very obviously relevant to the concept of democracy. The ability to "choose" is one of the cornerstones of democracy, is it not?
Also, seeing as you dislike the SDLP so much, would you vote for them if you were a South Belfast resident? Would you not feel betrayed and angry that your party had abandoned you?
Is it? You tell me, I would have thought
the cornerstone of democracy was representation of the people - I don't see what choice has to do with it, but maybe you want to explain that bit to me.
I've already said I will not vote for Alistair McDonnell. I'm not angry at my party abandoning me as I don't have a party.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 08:27:40 PM
You are getting to be rather tiresome Ulick, I much preferred you when you were Donagh. Either you accept that the Shinners have been guilty of blatant sectarianism or you don't. If you don't I would like to know why
ardmhachaabu, if you've nothing constructive to add to the debate you're better off staying out of it.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 08:53:05 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 08:27:40 PM
You are getting to be rather tiresome Ulick, I much preferred you when you were Donagh. Either you accept that the Shinners have been guilty of blatant sectarianism or you don't. If you don't I would like to know why
ardmhachaabu, if you've nothing constructive to add to the debate you're better off staying out of it.
In other words you don't want to answer me
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 08:26:40 PM
Donagh, saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Why should you answer it? Because you're on a discussion board, that's why. The question is very obviously relevant to the concept of democracy. The ability to "choose" is one of the cornerstones of democracy, is it not?
Also, seeing as you dislike the SDLP so much, would you vote for them if you were a South Belfast resident? Would you not feel betrayed and angry that your party had abandoned you?
Is it? You tell me, I would have thought the cornerstone of democracy was representation of the people - I don't see what choice has to do with it, but maybe you want to explain that bit to me.
I've already said I will not vote for Alistair McDonnell. I'm not angry at my party abandoning me as I don't have a party.
Representation by who though? Anyone can claim to be representing someone or other. The beauty of democracy is that people get to choose who represents them.
If you won't vote for Alisdair McDonnell, why would or should an SDLP voter in FST vote for Gildernew if the SDLP stood down?
Why don't you do the democratic thing Ulick and stick up a quick poll:
Are Sinn Fein being sectarian by withdrawing Alex Maskey from S Belfast?
Yes
No
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:01:01 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 08:53:05 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 08:27:40 PM
You are getting to be rather tiresome Ulick, I much preferred you when you were Donagh. Either you accept that the Shinners have been guilty of blatant sectarianism or you don't. If you don't I would like to know why
ardmhachaabu, if you've nothing constructive to add to the debate you're better off staying out of it.
In other words you don't want to answer me
ardmhachaabu I've put a number of propositions, suggestions and questions to you and you've avoided them all, only to come back with snide comments and inane insults. Now if you want to start behaving like a grown-up and debate the issues in mature and polite manner, I have no problems answering anything you want but first do me the courtesy of first contributing something to this debate before sidetracking it off somewhere else.
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 08:23:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
Unlike the SDLP who always look out for the interests of nationalism? The SDLP who, as I pointed out on this board before, only supported Sinn Fein in THREE out of EIGHTEEN councils on a motion put forward by SF in these councils to press for more All-Ireland co-operation with the Dublin Government a number of years ago? The same SDLP who in 2006 supported Irish citizens living in the north of Ireland to be subjected to compulsory "British National Identity" scheme? The same SDLP who voted in favour of 28 day detention without trial? The same SDLP who argued for provision for diplock courts in 2006? The same SDLP who in the same year argued in favour of primacy of MI5 in certain cases over a devolved policing system, and who once remarked that they had "no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north? The same SDLP who regarded Ronnie Flanagan as someone who was trying to "edge policing forward"? The same SDLP who are today assisting the Orange Order in their sectarian pact which aims to secure a unionist MP in a constituency with a maily nationalist population?
If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?
If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved.
You seem to care alot about Nationalists. You must therefore have been totally disgusted when Sinn Fein supported the IRA whenever they subjected Nationalists to intimidation, hijackings, threats, blowing up their homes while blowing up police stations, house takeovers etc
Honestly Gaffer I'm trying to take this seriously, meet me half way here. What is the use in remarks like "If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved"?? Don't you understand the whole concept of a pact? The deal was the SDLP stand aside in one constituency (FST) and SF would do so in another (S. Belfast). And you have once again replied to a post without taking on any of my points, even the point about the justice position which was actually an issue YOU choose to bring up!! A real talent.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:05:51 PM
Representation by who though? Anyone can claim to be representing someone or other. The beauty of democracy is that people get to choose who represents them.
If you won't vote for Alisdair McDonnell, why would or should an SDLP voter in FST vote for Gildernew if the SDLP stood down?
Representing the views of the people, which gets back to my original point again. By standing in FST are the SDLP not denying the right of the majority people there to be represented by someone who shares their view? You seem to be advocating choice for choices sake, not as an integral part of the democratic concept - which is why I originally said your question was not relevant.
I didn't say an SDLP voter in FST should vote for Gildernew. They still have a choice, don't vote, spoil their vote, or vote for the one advocating the union with Britain - it's not as though voting for the SDLP will somehow add up to anything more than a spoiled vote.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 08:23:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
Unlike the SDLP who always look out for the interests of nationalism? The SDLP who, as I pointed out on this board before, only supported Sinn Fein in THREE out of EIGHTEEN councils on a motion put forward by SF in these councils to press for more All-Ireland co-operation with the Dublin Government a number of years ago? The same SDLP who in 2006 supported Irish citizens living in the north of Ireland to be subjected to compulsory "British National Identity" scheme? The same SDLP who voted in favour of 28 day detention without trial? The same SDLP who argued for provision for diplock courts in 2006? The same SDLP who in the same year argued in favour of primacy of MI5 in certain cases over a devolved policing system, and who once remarked that they had "no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north? The same SDLP who regarded Ronnie Flanagan as someone who was trying to "edge policing forward"? The same SDLP who are today assisting the Orange Order in their sectarian pact which aims to secure a unionist MP in a constituency with a maily nationalist population?
If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?
If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved.
You seem to care alot about Nationalists. You must therefore have been totally disgusted when Sinn Fein supported the IRA whenever they subjected Nationalists to intimidation, hijackings, threats, blowing up their homes while blowing up police stations, house takeovers etc
Honestly Gallsman I'm trying to take this seriously, meet me half way here. What is the use in remarks like "If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved"?? Don't you understand the whole concept of a pact? The deal was the SDLP stand aside in one constituency (FST) and SF would do so in another (S. Belfast). And you have once again replied to a post without taking on any of my points. A real talent.
And you have once again displayed your inability to read. A real (lack of) talent. Jumping headfirst into a debate without being sure of your footing is just slightly foolish now.
I'm still waiting for you to answer me whether or not you're a bigot.
Quote from: omagh_gael on April 21, 2010, 09:06:43 PM
Why don't you do the democratic thing Ulick and stick up a quick poll:
Are Sinn Fein being sectarian by withdrawing Alex Maskey from S Belfast?
Yes
No
Not a bad suggestion omagh_gael, but how about:
Is maximising the support for your position on the 'National Question' sectarian?
Yes
No
Ulick, I have answered your questions each and every time yet when I have asked you this one simple thing you refuse to.
I have given my contribution to the question whether or not the Shinners were being sectarian. I have said I believe that they were and have asked you several times if you consider them to be sectarain in their actions. You have so far refused to answer that and now in your characteristic manner you are attempting to patronise me and say that somehow I am sidetracking the 'debate'
You are so full of your own self-importance that you can't see the wood for the trees.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:17:02 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on April 21, 2010, 09:06:43 PM
Why don't you do the democratic thing Ulick and stick up a quick poll:
Are Sinn Fein being sectarian by withdrawing Alex Maskey from S Belfast?
Yes
No
Not a bad suggestion omagh_gael, but how about:
Is maximising the support for your position on the 'National Question' sectarian?
Yes
No
Are you capable of doing anything without spin?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 08:23:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
[quote author=Gaffer link=topic=16011.msg769924#msg769924 date=1271793507]
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
Unlike the SDLP who always look out for the interests of nationalism? The SDLP who, as I pointed out on this board before, only supported Sinn Fein in THREE out of EIGHTEEN councils on a motion put forward by SF in these councils to press for more All-Ireland co-operation with the Dublin Government a number of years ago? The same SDLP who in 2006 supported Irish citizens living in the north of Ireland to be subjected to compulsory "British National Identity" scheme? The same SDLP who voted in favour of 28 day detention without trial? The same SDLP who argued for provision for diplock courts in 2006? The same SDLP who in the same year argued in favour of primacy of MI5 in certain cases over a devolved policing system, and who once remarked that they had "no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north? The same SDLP who regarded Ronnie Flanagan as someone who was trying to "edge policing forward"? The same SDLP who are today assisting the Orange Order in their sectarian pact which aims to secure a unionist MP in a constituency with a maily nationalist population?
If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?
If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved.
You seem to care alot about Nationalists. You must therefore have been totally disgusted when Sinn Fein supported the IRA whenever they subjected Nationalists to intimidation, hijackings, threats, blowing up their homes while blowing up police stations, house takeovers etc
Honestly Gallsman I'm trying to take this seriously, meet me half way here. What is the use in remarks like "If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved"?? Don't you understand the whole concept of a pact? The deal was the SDLP stand aside in one constituency (FST) and SF would do so in another (S. Belfast). And you have once again replied to a post without taking on any of my points. A real talent.
And you have once again displayed your inability to read. A real (lack of) talent.
[/quote]
Well Gallsman, I did actually read your response and I also read your point about the Justice position, and gave a response to it with a question which you for some reason have chosen not to answer.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:18:40 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:17:02 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on April 21, 2010, 09:06:43 PM
Why don't you do the democratic thing Ulick and stick up a quick poll:
Are Sinn Fein being sectarian by withdrawing Alex Maskey from S Belfast?
Yes
No
Not a bad suggestion omagh_gael, but how about:
Is maximising the support for your position on the 'National Question' sectarian?
Yes
No
Are you capable of doing anything without spin?
Erm, if you go back four or five pages you will see that is the proposition I have been discussing - why, what are you discussing?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:17:18 PM
Ulick, I have answered your questions each and every time yet when I have asked you this one simple thing you refuse to.
I have given my contribution to the question whether or not the Shinners were being sectarian. I have said I believe that they were and have asked you several times if you consider them to be sectarain in their actions. You have so far refused to answer that and now in your characteristic manner you are attempting to patronise me and say that somehow I am sidetracking the 'debate'
You are so full of your own self-importance that you can't see the wood for the trees.
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:20:22 PM
Well Gallsman, I did actually read your response and I also read your point about the Justice position, and gave a response to it with a question which you for some reason have chosen not to answer.
What response?
Where did I talk about justice?
I have a three year old niece who recognises the difference between letters ad words. I'll send you the details of her Montessori if you need some help.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 08:15:28 PM
Now to get back to the point whether SF are sectarian or not is besides the point. We are discussing whether it is sectarian to put up a single candidate in response to the unionist voting pack in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.Yes it is. Rather simple really. If you don't accept it is then I would like to know why
did you consider it sectarian of the conservatives and dup to put up a single candidate?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:26:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:20:22 PM
Well Gallsman, I did actually read your response and I also read your point about the Justice position, and gave a response to it with a question which you for some reason have chosen not to answer.
What response?
Where did I talk about justice?
I have a three year old niece who recognises the difference between letters ad words. I'll send you the details of her Montessori if you need some help.
Where did you talk about the justice position?? :D When you said "This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one". Is the memory fading in you?? To which I responded:
"If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?"
So I was just wondering why you didn't respond.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:30:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:26:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:20:22 PM
Well Gallsman, I did actually read your response and I also read your point about the Justice position, and gave a response to it with a question which you for some reason have chosen not to answer.
What response?
Where did I talk about justice?
I have a three year old niece who recognises the difference between letters ad words. I'll send you the details of her Montessori if you need some help.
Where did you talk about the justice position?? :D When you said "This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one". Is the memory fading in you?? To which I responded:
"If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?"
So I was just wondering why you didn't respond.
Find me the exact link where I said that and quote it. You might be in for a surprise.
Do you want me to arrange a JCB for you? That spade must be borderline useless for now considering how deeply you've dug the hole you're stuck in.
Quote from: magickingdom on April 21, 2010, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 08:15:28 PM
Now to get back to the point whether SF are sectarian or not is besides the point. We are discussing whether it is sectarian to put up a single candidate in response to the unionist voting pack in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.Yes it is. Rather simple really. If you don't accept it is then I would like to know why
did you consider it sectarian of the conservatives and dup to put up a single candidate?
Of course ::)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:39:05 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on April 21, 2010, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 08:15:28 PM
Now to get back to the point whether SF are sectarian or not is besides the point. We are discussing whether it is sectarian to put up a single candidate in response to the unionist voting pack in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.Yes it is. Rather simple really. If you don't accept it is then I would like to know why
did you consider it sectarian of the conservatives and dup to put up a single candidate?
Of course ::)
so would you like them to go on and win the seat for doing that
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
Are you saying that nationalism and republicanism are sectarian ideologies or the tactic of trying to maximise the support for the nationalist/republican position is sectarian? If the latter, please explain the difference to me because I don't get the difference.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:38:44 PM
Find me the exact link where I said that and quote it. You might be in for a surprise.
Do you want me to arrange a JCB for you? That spade must be borderline useless for now considering how deeply you've dug the hole you're stuck in.
Tick-tock son.
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:48:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:38:44 PM
Find me the exact link where I said that and quote it. You might be in for a surprise.
Do you want me to arrange a JCB for you? That spade must be borderline useless for now considering how deeply you've dug the hole you're stuck in.
Tick-tock son.
Apologies, It was directed at Gaffer, so it's of no concern to you. As for whether or not I am a bigot, I can categorically state that I am in no way a bigot and unlike you do not resort to insults in a debate. Perhaps you could explain how I am a bigot??
Son
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:46:40 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
Are you saying that nationalism and republicanism are sectarian ideologies or the tactic of trying to maximise the support for the nationalist/republican position is sectarian? If the latter, please explain the difference to me because I don't get the difference.
The approach of garnering public support based on sectarian headcounts rather than some sort of proper politics is sectarian. I think that the SDLP's position is a non-sectarian one. Pretending that politics in the north has nothing to do with what side of the fence you are on is somewhat naive to say the least Ulick
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
It's not sectarian, it is common sense to try and get someone into a seat (that SF are unlikely to win themselves) that share the same main objective.(ie. A united Ireland). Nationalists believe in a United Ireland and they should be trying to strengthen their position, if that means using tactical voting or stepping aside then thats what they should do. If believing in a United Ireland and trying to strengthen nationalism/ republicanism makes someone sectarian, then i'm guilty. (personally dont regard it as being sectarian)
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:54:42 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:48:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:38:44 PM
Find me the exact link where I said that and quote it. You might be in for a surprise.
Do you want me to arrange a JCB for you? That spade must be borderline useless for now considering how deeply you've dug the hole you're stuck in.
Tick-tock son.
Apologies, It was directed at Gaffer, so it's of no concern to you. As for whether or not I am a bigot, I can categorically state that I am in no way a bigot and unlike you do not resort to insults in a debate. Perhaps you could explain how I am a bigot??
One, I didn't call you a bigot. I asked you if you were one.
Two, I put a proposal to you, asked you if you agreed with it and stated that if you did, you were a bigot. You read everything apparently though, so I'm not sure how you're confused over the issue.
Three, it clearly was of concern to be as you repeatedly accused me of dodging questions. If someone had joined the thread at that point and didn't understand the context of the discussion, then I'd look as if I wasn't prepared to answer any question put to me. However, that wouldn't have been as bad as the fool you now look so perhaps you should have stuck to your guns and continued to rant and rave without ever actually reading anything properly.
Quote from: armagho9 on April 21, 2010, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
It's not sectarian, it is common sense to try and get someone into a seat (that SF are unlikely to win themselves) that share the same main objective.(ie. A united Ireland). Nationalists believe in a United Ireland and they should be trying to strengthen their position, if that means using tactical voting or stepping aside then thats what they should do. If believing in a United Ireland and trying to strengthen nationalism/ republicanism makes someone sectarian, then i'm guilty. (personally dont regard it as being sectarian)
Was it common sense or sectarian when unionists did it ?
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 10:21:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:54:42 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:48:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:38:44 PM
Find me the exact link where I said that and quote it. You might be in for a surprise.
Do you want me to arrange a JCB for you? That spade must be borderline useless for now considering how deeply you've dug the hole you're stuck in.
Tick-tock son.
Apologies, It was directed at Gaffer, so it's of no concern to you. As for whether or not I am a bigot, I can categorically state that I am in no way a bigot and unlike you do not resort to insults in a debate. Perhaps you could explain how I am a bigot??
One, I didn't call you a bigot. I asked you if you were one.
Two, I put a proposal to you, asked you if you agreed with it and stated that if you did, you were a bigot. You read everything apparently though, so I'm not sure how you're confused over the issue.
Three, it clearly was of concern to be as you repeatedly accused me of dodging questions. If someone had joined the thread at that point and didn't understand the context of the discussion, then I'd look as if I wasn't prepared to answer any question put to me. However, that wouldn't have been as bad as the fool you now look so perhaps you should have stuck to your guns and continued to rant and rave without ever actually reading anything properly.
And once again you can only resort to personal attacks. Come on man, act with some maturity please.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:03:24 PM
The approach of garnering public support based on sectarian headcounts rather than some sort of proper politics is sectarian. I think that the SDLP's position is a non-sectarian one. Pretending that politics in the north has nothing to do with what side of the fence you are on is somewhat naive to say the least Ulick
There you go again, but why is support for national determination in Ireland sectarian? That is the question I posed 7 or 8 pages back and no one has been able to explain it to me.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 10:27:54 PM
And once again you can only resort to personal attacks. Come on man, act with some maturity please.
And once again I'll tell you that if you get so upset by someone calling you a fool you need some thicker skin. As for the "only" bit, there's an awful lot more in that post than me calling you a fool. I dunno, maybe you didn't read it thoroughly.
Perhaps now you could answer the question?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:25:51 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 21, 2010, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
It's not sectarian, it is common sense to try and get someone into a seat (that SF are unlikely to win themselves) that share the same main objective.(ie. A united Ireland). Nationalists believe in a United Ireland and they should be trying to strengthen their position, if that means using tactical voting or stepping aside then thats what they should do. If believing in a United Ireland and trying to strengthen nationalism/ republicanism makes someone sectarian, then i'm guilty. (personally dont regard it as being sectarian)
Was it common sense or sectarian when unionists did it ?
Two reasons why the unionist pact in FST is sectarian.
1. It was instigated by the Orange Order
2. It aims to produce a Unionist MP in what is a constituency with a nationalist majority.
The SDLP choose to facilitate this.
Having political viewpoints that differ from someone elses (i.e. unionist vs nationalist) is not sectarian. It is politics.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 10:28:15 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:03:24 PM
The approach of garnering public support based on sectarian headcounts rather than some sort of proper politics is sectarian. I think that the SDLP's position is a non-sectarian one. Pretending that politics in the north has nothing to do with what side of the fence you are on is somewhat naive to say the least Ulick
There you go again, but why is support for national determination in Ireland sectarian? That is the question I posed 7 or 8 pages back and no one has been able to explain it to me.
There you go again, I didn't say support for national determination in Ireland was sectarian. Did I?
I said that getting people's support based on sectarian headcounts is sectarian. That's what I said, stop trying to twist it.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:34:10 PM
There you go again, I didn't say support for national determination in Ireland was sectarian. Did I?
I said that getting people's support based on sectarian headcounts is sectarian. That's what I said, stop trying to twist it.
Getting their support for the position of national self-determination? It's the same thing.
NS, why is the SF withdrawal any different? Trying to secure a nationalist seat in South Belfast which has a unionist majority.
I pointed out that believing what's good for the goose is bad for the gander is bigoted, and you've just confirmed this as your point of view.
Good night.
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 11:03:06 PM
Quote from: MW on April 19, 2010, 10:52:16 PM
That's your political fantasy for the coming years? "A series of demoralising blows" to themmuns?
Also dreaming of "a big f**k you" to every single unionist in Northern Ireland...my, my, elections really do bring out the worst in some people here don't they :o
To unionists and unionism, yes - don't take it so personally. Im an Irish republican, what do you want me to do - go out and canvas for Jim Allister?
Well, looking from my own "side", I think it's possible to want to retain the Union without hoping for "a big f**k you" to anyone who wants powers over NI going to Dublin.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 01:27:16 PM
Let's not forget that FST is mainly nationalist and the motivations for the unionist pact were purely sectarian as it was instigated by the Orange Order with the aim of securing a unionist MP to represent a majority nationalist area. The stoops in their bitterness and intransigience are facilitating this.
So, you think it's wrong to try to secure a nationalist MP for a majority unionist constituency?
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 03:02:06 PM
Very little substance there Gallsman. Your suggestion the SDLP are running McKinney in order to represent voters in FST who don't vote SF belies the fact that McKinney doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. By running for the seat the SDLP allow the minority political viewpoint to represent the majority – not exactly representative democracy in action.
Surely by withdrawing in South Belfast, SF are trying to achieve the same?
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:34:10 PM
There you go again, I didn't say support for national determination in Ireland was sectarian. Did I?
I said that getting people's support based on sectarian headcounts is sectarian. That's what I said, stop trying to twist it.
Getting their support for the position of national self-determination? It's the same thing.
No it's not, the unionists have done what you suggested and are every bit as sectarian in that scenario, I really don't think that supports your argument
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 10:30:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 10:27:54 PM
And once again you can only resort to personal attacks. Come on man, act with some maturity please.
And once again I'll tell you that if you get so upset by someone calling you a fool you need some thicker skin. As for the "only" bit, there's an awful lot more in that post than me calling you a fool. I dunno, maybe you didn't read it thoroughly.
Perhaps now you could answer the question?
The thickness of my skin should not have to be an issue as if you had any sense of decency in debate, you would not feel the need to resort to petty personal attacks.
Now considering I already explained that I am not a bigot, exactly what question would you like me to answer? And as for your mention of South Belfast, talk of a pact there came as a result of the sectarian pact among unionists/orange order in FST. And I see once again you are incapable of discussing a topic without more personal insults. Pathetic at this stage. If you haven't the confidence in your own argument, then stop posting. Personal insults make you look desperate and unconvincing.
How about introducing a rule that says that every "major" party must field a candidate in each electoral area and also introduce proportional representation (major of course would have to be defined in some way).
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 21, 2010, 10:45:26 PM
How about introducing a rule that says that every "major" party must field a candidate in each electoral area and also introduce proportional representation (major of course would have to be defined in some way).
That's a sensible suggestion. PR could possibly help the political landscape in the north to evolve along left/right lines rather than the depressing sectarian tribal drivel which exists at the moment
Quote from: MW on April 21, 2010, 10:39:07 PM
Well, looking from my own "side", I think it's possible to want to retain the Union without hoping for "a big f**k you" to anyone who wants powers over NI going to Dublin.
Good man MW, that's very noble of you.
Quote from: MW on April 21, 2010, 10:42:30 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 03:02:06 PM
Very little substance there Gallsman. Your suggestion the SDLP are running McKinney in order to represent voters in FST who don't vote SF belies the fact that McKinney doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. By running for the seat the SDLP allow the minority political viewpoint to represent the majority – not exactly representative democracy in action.
Surely by withdrawing in South Belfast, SF are trying to achieve the same?
Indeed but that post was in relation to gallsman introducing 'democracy' to the discussion. Personally that's something I think is over-rated.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:42:58 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:34:10 PM
There you go again, I didn't say support for national determination in Ireland was sectarian. Did I?
I said that getting people's support based on sectarian headcounts is sectarian. That's what I said, stop trying to twist it.
Getting their support for the position of national self-determination? It's the same thing.
No it's not, the unionists have done what you suggested and are every bit as sectarian in that scenario, I really don't think that supports your argument
What is sectarian about it?
Do you even know what the word means Ulick?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
Do you even know what the word means Ulick?
I do yes, I think I do, but I'm a bit of a stickler of words being used imprecisely so I'm genuinely asking you to explain why maximising strength for a political position that has nothing to do with religion is sectarian.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:14:41 PM
By standing in FST are the SDLP not denying the right of the majority people there to be represented by someone who shares their view?
Absolutely not. If the majority of people in FST think Michelle Gildernew shares their view, they'll vote for her and she'll be elected. The SDLP's standing won't deny Nationalists anything - at the end of the day, the electorare will make the decision.
I think the SDLP hate Sinn Fein much more than they love their non-sectarian stance, their hate for SF is personal, not political or born out of some non sectarian vision.
When Bobby Sands stood, it took a long time and a lot of pressure to get the SDLP candidate to stand down. Considering the state of affairs then and now, nothing short of a bullet would have got the SDLP to stand down.
But AFAICS, Maskey's withdrawal is a negative, it has the look of a petty retaliation against the SDLP for not agreeing to a unity candidate in F&ST. Maybe there is some longer vision that I don't see.
The 6 counties is a different political theatre. The Unionist parties all have to throw mud at each other in order to get elected to oppose the party that survives the nationalist mud throwing contest.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 21, 2010, 11:06:21 PM
Absolutely not. If the majority of people in FST think Michelle Gildernew shares their view, they'll vote for her and she'll be elected. The SDLP's standing won't deny Nationalists anything - at the end of the day, the electorare will make the decision.
Eh? Of course they lose something, they lose representation by someone who reflects their views in favour of someone diametrically opposed to their views.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:14:00 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 21, 2010, 11:06:21 PM
Absolutely not. If the majority of people in FST think Michelle Gildernew shares their view, they'll vote for her and she'll be elected. The SDLP's standing won't deny Nationalists anything - at the end of the day, the electorare will make the decision.
Eh? Of course they lose something, they lose representation by someone who reflects their views in favour of someone diametrically opposed to their views.
They won't! If Michelle Gildernew represents the majority, she will be elected regardless of who else is standing.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 21, 2010, 11:18:36 PM
They won't! If Michelle Gildernew represents the majority, she will be elected regardless of who else is standing.
Of course they will. Who said anything about 'represents the majority'? I meant representing the majority viewpoint viewpoint on the national question. It quite obvious if you have two candidates representing that viewpoint who split the vote against a single candidate opposed to it, then the single candidate will get in despite representing the minority viewpoint.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:32:02 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 21, 2010, 11:18:36 PM
They won't! If Michelle Gildernew represents the majority, she will be elected regardless of who else is standing.
Of course they will. Who said anything about 'represents the majority'? I meant representing the majority viewpoint viewpoint on the national question. It quite obvious if you have two candidates representing that viewpoint who split the vote against a single candidate opposed to it, then the single candidate will get in despite representing the minority viewpoint.
Well if that is yours and SF's only worry then tell gildernew to stand down and McKinnney will take the seat and "represent the majority viewpoint on the majorty issue for the majority people". Capish?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 06:50:32 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 21, 2010, 12:52:05 PM
While I disagree with SFs proposal of a pact i fully believe the refusal to accept by the SDLP was on an anyone but a shinner platform.
I fail to see the problem.
No problem. Like I said I didn't agree with it anyway. I was just pointing out that I don't think the SDLP decision was on a moarl basis.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 09:54:42 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:48:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 21, 2010, 09:38:44 PM
Find me the exact link where I said that and quote it. You might be in for a surprise.
Do you want me to arrange a JCB for you? That spade must be borderline useless for now considering how deeply you've dug the hole you're stuck in.
Tick-tock son.
Apologies, It was directed at Gaffer, so it's of no concern to you. As for whether or not I am a bigot, I can categorically state that I am in no way a bigot and unlike you do not resort to insults in a debate. Perhaps you could explain how I am a bigot??
What was directed at me?
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:32:02 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 21, 2010, 11:18:36 PM
They won't! If Michelle Gildernew represents the majority, she will be elected regardless of who else is standing.
Of course they will. Who said anything about 'represents the majority'? I meant representing the majority viewpoint viewpoint on the national question. It quite obvious if you have two candidates representing that viewpoint who split the vote against a single candidate opposed to it, then the single candidate will get in despite representing the minority viewpoint.
Once again, I'll try to make it clear: the electorate will split the vote if they wish, not one party.
And why should people vote on the one constitutional issue? Has the GFA not already determined what's happening in that regard? How will the constitutional issue be impacted by the result of these Westminster elections? Should the electorate's primary concern be the constitutional issue?
And again, I'll ask:
If Rodney Connor is elected, what will we lose from Michelle Gildernew's time in power?
And
What would Michelle Gildernew deliver, if reelected, that she couldn't do as an MLA and Minister?
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 08:23:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
Unlike the SDLP who always look out for the interests of nationalism? The SDLP who, as I pointed out on this board before, only supported Sinn Fein in THREE out of EIGHTEEN councils on a motion put forward by SF in these councils to press for more All-Ireland co-operation with the Dublin Government a number of years ago? The same SDLP who in 2006 supported Irish citizens living in the north of Ireland to be subjected to compulsory "British National Identity" scheme? The same SDLP who voted in favour of 28 day detention without trial? The same SDLP who argued for provision for diplock courts in 2006? The same SDLP who in the same year argued in favour of primacy of MI5 in certain cases over a devolved policing system, and who once remarked that they had "no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north? The same SDLP who regarded Ronnie Flanagan as someone who was trying to "edge policing forward"? The same SDLP who are today assisting the Orange Order in their sectarian pact which aims to secure a unionist MP in a constituency with a maily nationalist population?
If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?
If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved.
You seem to care alot about Nationalists. You must therefore have been totally disgusted when Sinn Fein supported the IRA whenever they subjected Nationalists to intimidation, hijackings, threats, blowing up their homes while blowing up police stations, house takeovers etc
Well, are you disgusted, Nally Stand?
I think it's time there was a distinction made between Nationalism and Republicanism.
For as long as SF pay homage to Nationalism they will be in competition with the SDLP in every election they run. If the SDLP are wiped out then they will just be replaced with another form of Nationalism. The great trick in Nationalism is that there are no ideals. It is the lowest common denominator. Unionism is British Nationalism and has no ideals. The SDLP have no ideals but draw from Irish Nationals for reasons I can't fathom. SF use nationalism to futher their republicanism making it a diluted republicanism. There are only two real political ideals in the north and it's time to draw a thicker line between them.
Maskey should run on a Republican ticket and let the SDLP run on a Nationalism ticket. The same goes for FST. 12 years into the GFA I think it's time to start some politics. There is no better place to do it than a westminster election. Assembly elections are perhaps a little delicate yet. It may result in short term losses for the leaders of it but it is in the interest of us all.
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
Do you even know what the word means Ulick?
I do yes, I think I do, but I'm a bit of a stickler of words being used imprecisely so I'm genuinely asking you to explain why maximising strength for a political position that has nothing to do with religion is sectarian.
It has everything to do with religion and you know it
I don't know why I am even wasting my time with yet another armchair republican on here. It's like this Donagh, if they are seeking votes on orange/green lines they are being sectarian and that's exactly the scenario you painted whether you like it or not.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 08:33:46 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
Do you even know what the word means Ulick?
I do yes, I think I do, but I'm a bit of a stickler of words being used imprecisely so I'm genuinely asking you to explain why maximising strength for a political position that has nothing to do with religion is sectarian.
It has everything to do with religion and you know it
I don't know why I am even wasting my time with yet another armchair republican on here. It's like this Donagh, if they are seeking votes on orange/green lines they are being sectarian and that's exactly the scenario you painted whether you like it or not.
To be fair, Nationalism isn't sectarian. It's bullshit but not sectarian. It's the OO element that makes the Unionist decision sectarian as Unionism itself isn't sectarian.
NS, you're an absolute embarrassment. Answer the following question at long , long last - no spin, no whinging.
Why is it unacceptable for unionists to attempt to secure a seat in a predominantly nationalist constituency (FST) but it is fine for nationalists to do the same with a majority unionist constituency (SB)?
This thread should be renamed Acronyms Anonymous!
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 08:46:56 AM
NS, you're an absolute embarrassment. Answer the following question at long , long last - no spin, no whinging.
Why is it unacceptable for unionists to attempt to secure a seat in a predominantly nationalist constituency (FST) but it is fine for nationalists to do the same with a majority unionist constituency (SB)?
This thread should be renamed Acronyms Anonymous!
QuoteNationalism isn't sectarian. It's bullshit but not sectarian. It's the OO element that makes the Unionist decision sectarian as Unionism itself isn't sectarian
I don't think it's fine as both SF and the SDLP claim to be very different but it doesn't have the sectarian element. That's not a good enough reason. I suppose tactical voting on an anti-sectarian motive can be justified but not on a pro-sectarian motive.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 22, 2010, 08:42:38 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 08:33:46 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:01:34 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
Do you even know what the word means Ulick?
I do yes, I think I do, but I'm a bit of a stickler of words being used imprecisely so I'm genuinely asking you to explain why maximising strength for a political position that has nothing to do with religion is sectarian.
It has everything to do with religion and you know it
I don't know why I am even wasting my time with yet another armchair republican on here. It's like this Donagh, if they are seeking votes on orange/green lines they are being sectarian and that's exactly the scenario you painted whether you like it or not.
To be fair, Nationalism isn't sectarian. It's bullshit but not sectarian. It's the OO element that makes the Unionist decision sectarian as Unionism itself isn't sectarian.
Zap, with respect, that's rubbish. Seeking votes along green/orange lines is sectarian whether it's unionism or the shinners at it. Sectarianism isn't a one way street. If unionists are at it you can't say the shinners aren't in the same breath.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 08:52:23 AM
Zap, with respect, that's rubbish. Seeking votes along green/orange lines is sectarian whether it's unionism or the shinners at it. Sectarianism isn't a one way street. If unionists are at it you can't say the shinners aren't in the same breath.
The key element you're leaving out is the OO. I'm basing my opinion on theory and giving the reason SF justify this. It can be argued that it's accurate but i'll admit it isn't conclusive. You aslo seem to be dividing Green and Orange as Protestant and Catholic (which in itself could be defined as sectarian) and if that is your default view I will never be able to convince you otherwise.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 22, 2010, 12:32:32 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 11:32:02 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 21, 2010, 11:18:36 PM
They won't! If Michelle Gildernew represents the majority, she will be elected regardless of who else is standing.
Of course they will. Who said anything about 'represents the majority'? I meant representing the majority viewpoint viewpoint on the national question. It quite obvious if you have two candidates representing that viewpoint who split the vote against a single candidate opposed to it, then the single candidate will get in despite representing the minority viewpoint.
Once again, I'll try to make it clear: the electorate will split the vote if they wish, not one party.
And why should people vote on the one constitutional issue? Has the GFA not already determined what's happening in that regard? How will the constitutional issue be impacted by the result of these Westminster elections? Should the electorate's primary concern be the constitutional issue?
And again, I'll ask:
If Rodney Connor is elected, what will we lose from Michelle Gildernew's time in power?
And
What would Michelle Gildernew deliver, if reelected, that she couldn't do as an MLA and Minister?
Well if you refuse to see the effects of a vote splitting or spoiler candidate then there is no point in continuing but I think most can make their own mind up on that.
As for your other questions:
1. no point asking me why - I didn't create the situation
2. I've already said what they'll lose elsewhere on this thread and I've no intention of wasting my employers time trying to explain it again.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 08:33:46 AM
It has everything to do with religion and you know it
I don't know why I am even wasting my time with yet another armchair republican on here. It's like this Donagh, if they are seeking votes on orange/green lines they are being sectarian and that's exactly the scenario you painted whether you like it or not.
But you keep repeating that without explaining why - what is it in nationalism or republicanism that is sectarian?
They could both step aside and let The Workers party have a rattle at it for a bit of craic if nothing else.
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
how did they chose to have a Unionist over a Nationalist :oAs I explained on another post for people like you who obviously don't understand the working of the Executive or D'Hont,if D'Hont had been run for the Justice minister all the posts would have had to be put back up for grabs and therefore the DUP would have had 1st pick and guess what?They would have picked Policing and Justice and then there would have been something to cry about and the SDLP would have had the 5th chose.So here ends your history lesson.RememberGaffer always try and get your facts right before you print.
Quote from: glens abu on April 22, 2010, 10:22:46 AM
how did they chose to have a Unionist over a Nationalist :oAs I explained on another post for people like you who obviously don't understand the working of the Executive or D'Hont,if D'Hont had been run for the Justice minister all the posts would have had to be put back up for grabs and therefore the DUP would have had 1st pick and guess what?They would have picked Policing and Justice and then there would have been something to cry about and the SDLP would have had the 5th chose.So here ends your history lesson.RememberGaffer always try and get your facts right before you print.
No they wouldn't, they needed cross community support and they didn't have if for that Ministery. It was a case of get an alliance guy to do it or no devolution due to the D'hont system. If the DUP had have backed the SDLP they would have the post but having a nationalist as minister for P&J was a step too far for the DUP.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 22, 2010, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: glens abu on April 22, 2010, 10:22:46 AM
how did they chose to have a Unionist over a Nationalist :oAs I explained on another post for people like you who obviously don't understand the working of the Executive or D'Hont,if D'Hont had been run for the Justice minister all the posts would have had to be put back up for grabs and therefore the DUP would have had 1st pick and guess what?They would have picked Policing and Justice and then there would have been something to cry about and the SDLP would have had the 5th chose.So here ends your history lesson.RememberGaffer always try and get your facts right before you print.
No they wouldn't, they needed cross community support and they didn't have if for that Ministery. It was a case of get an alliance guy to do it or no devolution due to the D'hont system. If the DUP had have backed the SDLP they would have the post but having a nationalist as minister for P&J was a step too far for the DUP.
Correct thats what I am saying but if D'Hont had have ran which the SDLP wanted then the DUP would have taken the post.Sinn Fein did support the SDLP for the post but there was not enough cross community support.
Quote from: glens abu on April 22, 2010, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 22, 2010, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: glens abu on April 22, 2010, 10:22:46 AM
how did they chose to have a Unionist over a Nationalist :oAs I explained on another post for people like you who obviously don't understand the working of the Executive or D'Hont,if D'Hont had been run for the Justice minister all the posts would have had to be put back up for grabs and therefore the DUP would have had 1st pick and guess what?They would have picked Policing and Justice and then there would have been something to cry about and the SDLP would have had the 5th chose.So here ends your history lesson.RememberGaffer always try and get your facts right before you print.
No they wouldn't, they needed cross community support and they didn't have if for that Ministery. It was a case of get an alliance guy to do it or no devolution due to the D'hont system. If the DUP had have backed the SDLP they would have the post but having a nationalist as minister for P&J was a step too far for the DUP.
Correct thats what I am saying but if D'Hont had have ran which the SDLP wanted then the DUP would have taken the post.Sinn Fein did support the SDLP for the post but there was not enough cross community support.
They would have chose Finance as there first choice as would any Party worth their salt.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 22, 2010, 12:02:58 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 22, 2010, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 22, 2010, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: glens abu on April 22, 2010, 10:22:46 AM
how did they chose to have a Unionist over a Nationalist :oAs I explained on another post for people like you who obviously don't understand the working of the Executive or D'Hont,if D'Hont had been run for the Justice minister all the posts would have had to be put back up for grabs and therefore the DUP would have had 1st pick and guess what?They would have picked Policing and Justice and then there would have been something to cry about and the SDLP would have had the 5th chose.So here ends your history lesson.RememberGaffer always try and get your facts right before you print.
No they wouldn't, they needed cross community support and they didn't have if for that Ministery. It was a case of get an alliance guy to do it or no devolution due to the D'hont system. If the DUP had have backed the SDLP they would have the post but having a nationalist as minister for P&J was a step too far for the DUP.
Correct thats what I am saying but if D'Hont had have ran which the SDLP wanted then the DUP would have taken the post.Sinn Fein did support the SDLP for the post but there was not enough cross community support.
They would have chose Finance as there first choice as would any Party worth their salt.
i'd have thought the DUP would have jumped at P&J considering the baggage it entails.
In a normal administration you'd say finance would normally be the biggie but things are a little bit different here.
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 08:46:56 AM
NS, you're an absolute embarrassment. Answer the following question at long , long last - no spin, no whinging.
Why is it unacceptable for unionists to attempt to secure a seat in a predominantly nationalist constituency (FST) but it is fine for nationalists to do the same with a majority unionist constituency (SB)?
This thread should be renamed Acronyms Anonymous!
Ok Ok I'll answer the question at long long last....go to the top of page 14 where I already answered it. I hate to
stoop to your level by starting with the personal insults but it seems that you are the embarassment.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 08:46:56 AM
NS, you're an absolute embarrassment. Answer the following question at long , long last - no spin, no whinging.
Why is it unacceptable for unionists to attempt to secure a seat in a predominantly nationalist constituency (FST) but it is fine for nationalists to do the same with a majority unionist constituency (SB)?
This thread should be renamed Acronyms Anonymous!
Ok Ok I'll answer the question at long long last....go to the top of page 14 where I already answered it. I hate to stoop to your level by starting with the personal insults but it seems that you are the embarassment.
Oh you're a witty one. If you consider your response on page 14 as an answer to the question, then you've shown yourself to be exactly the bigot you claim not to be. You have no credibility whatsoever.
Quote from: Gaffer on April 22, 2010, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 08:23:55 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 21, 2010, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 21, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 21, 2010, 10:24:02 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 20, 2010, 08:58:27 PM
Wonder what Maskey thinks of being told to stand down?
Alex Maskey wasn't told to stand down it was a collective decision by the leadership of the party which includes Alex Maskey.This was a decision that was taken after nearly two days of deliberations and is an effort the maximise the Republican/Nationalist represention across the North. Yes Alex Maskey and all the Sinn Fein workers in South Belfast are dissappointed that they will not be fighting the election after all the hard work they have been doing in resent months but they except this decision and will now be throwing their weight behind their comrades in North Belfast who are trying to get Gerry Kelly elected.As for this being a sectarian move the big difference we see in the orange order bringing together all shades of Unionism to keep out a Nationalist is when these people get into positions of power they act in a sectarian manner by refusing to share power with the Nationalist Representatives as can been seen in council areas they control {eg Newtownabbey, Lisburn etc;} whereas when the SDLP or Sinn Fein hold the power in other areas they administer that power on an equal basis,this can be seen in council areas right across the North.So for me that what makes the decision in F&ST sectarian and and the decision for Sinn Fein to give the SDLP a free run in SB nonsectarian as we know that at least Alistair McDonnell will work for all his constituents on an equal basis
Let's face it. Everything Sinn Fein do is in the interests of Sinn Fein, not the broad nationalist community but Sinn Fein.
This is the same Sinn Fein who chose to have a Unionist Justice Minister over a nationalist one.
Unlike the SDLP who always look out for the interests of nationalism? The SDLP who, as I pointed out on this board before, only supported Sinn Fein in THREE out of EIGHTEEN councils on a motion put forward by SF in these councils to press for more All-Ireland co-operation with the Dublin Government a number of years ago? The same SDLP who in 2006 supported Irish citizens living in the north of Ireland to be subjected to compulsory "British National Identity" scheme? The same SDLP who voted in favour of 28 day detention without trial? The same SDLP who argued for provision for diplock courts in 2006? The same SDLP who in the same year argued in favour of primacy of MI5 in certain cases over a devolved policing system, and who once remarked that they had "no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north? The same SDLP who regarded Ronnie Flanagan as someone who was trying to "edge policing forward"? The same SDLP who are today assisting the Orange Order in their sectarian pact which aims to secure a unionist MP in a constituency with a maily nationalist population?
If you want to talk about the Justice post, rewind back to May 2006, when Mark Durkan stood in Westminster and said he supported - "the possibility of a single Justice minister to be elected by cross-community support and by parallel consent" . That is EXACTLY what happened, so what are the SDLP now complaining about?
If you dont want a Unionist in FST the answer is simple. Stand Gildernew down so that Nationalistts can support McKinney and problem is solved.
You seem to care alot about Nationalists. You must therefore have been totally disgusted when Sinn Fein supported the IRA whenever they subjected Nationalists to intimidation, hijackings, threats, blowing up their homes while blowing up police stations, house takeovers etc
Well, are you disgusted, Nally Stand?
How about you make an attempt to answer my post properly and then I'll address your post? If you say SF are not interested in looking after the needs of the nationalist community, what do my list of examples say about the sdlp's track record in westminster??
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 08:46:56 AM
NS, you're an absolute embarrassment. Answer the following question at long , long last - no spin, no whinging.
Why is it unacceptable for unionists to attempt to secure a seat in a predominantly nationalist constituency (FST) but it is fine for nationalists to do the same with a majority unionist constituency (SB)?
This thread should be renamed Acronyms Anonymous!
Ok Ok I'll answer the question at long long last....go to the top of page 14 where I already answered it. I hate to stoop to your level by starting with the personal insults but it seems that you are the embarassment.
Oh you're a witty one. If you consider your response on page 14 as an answer to the question, then you've shown yourself to be exactly the bigot you claim not to be. You have no credibility whatsoever.
More personal abuse instead of addressing the actual issue
SHOCK :o
What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!
Is that one offensive as well?
Quote from: johnneycool on April 22, 2010, 12:09:00 PM
i'd have thought the DUP would have jumped at P&J considering the baggage it entails.
In a normal administration you'd say finance would normally be the biggie but things are a little bit different here.
NEVER!!!!
(http://www.irelandlogue.com/files/2006/09/ianpaisley.jpg)
The purse strings are always number 1
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 12:40:45 PM
What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!
Is that one offensive as well?
Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.
But no, not coming from you.
And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 12:40:45 PM
What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!
Is that one offensive as well?
Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.
But no, not coming from you.
And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.
Where? I was under the impression I'd clearly articulated my position on the issue.
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 01:28:36 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 12:40:45 PM
What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!
Is that one offensive as well?
Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.
But no, not coming from you.
And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.
Where? I was under the impression I'd clearly articulated my position on the issue.
:D
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 01:40:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 01:28:36 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 12:40:45 PM
What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!
Is that one offensive as well?
Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.
But no, not coming from you.
And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.
Where? I was under the impression I'd clearly articulated my position on the issue.
:D
Apologies, I completely forgot about your inability to read.
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 01:40:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 01:28:36 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on April 22, 2010, 12:40:45 PM
What issue?! I've made my feelings clear and you haven't asked me any direct questions, so what have I to address you absolute clown?!
Is that one offensive as well?
Offensive? Nah. Maybe if it came from someone with some credibility it would be though.
But no, not coming from you.
And not all discussions require a question. You're long enough posting on gaaboard to know that by now. I was talking about the issue of electoral pacts and you made the decision to disregard the topic of discussion in favour of desperate sounding personal attacks.
Where? I was under the impression I'd clearly articulated my position on the issue.
:D
Apologies, I completely forgot about your inability to read.
::) How intellectual
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:25:51 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 21, 2010, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
It's not sectarian, it is common sense to try and get someone into a seat (that SF are unlikely to win themselves) that share the same main objective.(ie. A united Ireland). Nationalists believe in a United Ireland and they should be trying to strengthen their position, if that means using tactical voting or stepping aside then thats what they should do. If believing in a United Ireland and trying to strengthen nationalism/ republicanism makes someone sectarian, then i'm guilty. (personally dont regard it as being sectarian)
Was it common sense or sectarian when unionists did it ?
common sense on their behalf, surely it makes more sense to get someone into a seat that is closer in opinion than someone who is off the total opposite opinion. (that is if your own party are unlikely to win it). There are pacts between parties all the time in every government around the world.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 22, 2010, 08:57:57 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 08:52:23 AM
Zap, with respect, that's rubbish. Seeking votes along green/orange lines is sectarian whether it's unionism or the shinners at it. Sectarianism isn't a one way street. If unionists are at it you can't say the shinners aren't in the same breath.
The key element you're leaving out is the OO. I'm basing my opinion on theory and giving the reason SF justify this. It can be argued that it's accurate but i'll admit it isn't conclusive. You aslo seem to be dividing Green and Orange as Protestant and Catholic (which in itself could be defined as sectarian) and if that is your default view I will never be able to convince you otherwise.
Is there another way of explaining the situation? If there is, I for one would love to hear it
Quote from: armagho9 on April 22, 2010, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:25:51 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 21, 2010, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
It's not sectarian, it is common sense to try and get someone into a seat (that SF are unlikely to win themselves) that share the same main objective.(ie. A united Ireland). Nationalists believe in a United Ireland and they should be trying to strengthen their position, if that means using tactical voting or stepping aside then thats what they should do. If believing in a United Ireland and trying to strengthen nationalism/ republicanism makes someone sectarian, then i'm guilty. (personally dont regard it as being sectarian)
Was it common sense or sectarian when unionists did it ?
common sense on their behalf, surely it makes more sense to get someone into a seat that is closer in opinion than someone who is off the total opposite opinion. (that is if your own party are unlikely to win it). There are pacts between parties all the time in every government around the world.
I give up, it's hard to debate with people who don't understand the concepts which you are debating
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 05:16:20 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 22, 2010, 08:57:57 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 08:52:23 AM
Zap, with respect, that's rubbish. Seeking votes along green/orange lines is sectarian whether it's unionism or the shinners at it. Sectarianism isn't a one way street. If unionists are at it you can't say the shinners aren't in the same breath.
The key element you're leaving out is the OO. I'm basing my opinion on theory and giving the reason SF justify this. It can be argued that it's accurate but i'll admit it isn't conclusive. You aslo seem to be dividing Green and Orange as Protestant and Catholic (which in itself could be defined as sectarian) and if that is your default view I will never be able to convince you otherwise.
Is there another way of explaining the situation? If there is, I for one would love to hear it
Republican and Unionsit? Where have you been?
I think you get the gist of were I'm coming from regarding the theme of the thread. Please counter that or don't. Please don't pass off stupid questions as replies that add nothing to the debate. We will end up with 30 pages of needless clarification while the main points are ignored..
No Zap, not what I meant and definitely not what the theme of the thread is about.
Unionists being sectarian is the same as shinners being sectarian. That's what you and some others on here seem to miss completely.
Now, orange/green = unionist/nationalist - yes? Who votes unionist and who votes nationalist parties? It's a simple question zap and one I would prefer that you give a simple answer to. That's where the sectarianism lies in terms of politics here. People don't vote for bread and butter issues, they vote for the flag which is bullshit. Any party who wishes to indulge in/indulges in electoral pacts for the sake of keeping one constituency or other green or orange is engaging in sectarian politics
So we should all take the SDLP approach and neglect the issue of national self determination for fear of being labelled sectarian? Orange and green politics is the reality here and no 'head in the clouds' attitude can change that. It is not sectarian politics, it is the reality of the political situation people live under here. Partition still exists. Having a political opinion that professes an opposition to partition does not make someone sectarian. Having a political opinion that supports partition does not make someone sectarian.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 06:44:54 PM
No Zap, not what I meant and definitely not what the theme of the thread is about.
Unionists being sectarian is the same as shinners being sectarian. That's what you and some others on here seem to miss completely.
Now, orange/green = unionist/nationalist - yes? Who votes unionist and who votes nationalist parties? It's a simple question zap and one I would prefer that you give a simple answer to. That's where the sectarianism lies in terms of politics here. People don't vote for bread and butter issues, they vote for the flag which is bullshit. Any party who wishes to indulge in/indulges in electoral pacts for the sake of keeping one constituency or other green or orange is engaging in sectarian politics
Nationalist vote Green and Unionist Vote Orange. Green and orange are only tags though they are not political stances. G&O are the 'dumbling down' of the political divide.
People do vote for a flag which is Nationalism. If you vote for an Irish Flag it's Irish Nationalism and for the UJ it's British Nationalism. Nationalism is not sectarian it's just Nationalism. And yes it is stupid.
Most people I know would vote SF because they are Republican. I'd say that Gerry Adams doesn't run around west Belfast saying 'vote for me I'm a catholic'. I'd say the voters of west Belfast don't think 'I'm going to vote for Gerry Adams because he is a catholic'. They would vote for him as a Nationalist or as a Republican.
However in FST, the Unionist strategy has been organised by the OO. They did this in order to get a Protestant elected. The OO are sectarian. This makes it a sectarian candidate. SF did not approach the SDLP asking them to enter a pact to get their candidates elected as they are Catholics opposed to Protestantism. They did it because they are opposed to the sectarian strategy of the OO and opposed to Unionism. This is something very different than what you are trying to say.
Nationalism, Republicanism and Unionism are not sectarian. The OO are and the OO order strategy is. Why do you ignore this? Why do you claim SF are standing on an anti protestant ticket when it is quite clear that it isn't the case?
Yes they are zap.
Politics in the north is sectarian politics whether you or other shinner sypathisers want to admit it or not, at least the SDLP are trying to rise above it, the provos/shinners have always taken advantage of it and always will. You see, I am proud of men like Tone, Adams et al aren't fit to lace the man's shoes - Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter is the very last thing the shinners could ever claim to represent. Anyone trying to argue that sectarian politics in the north is something else really needs to take some time out and have a fresh look at the situation without bias, oh and also look up the word in the dictionary, it might help you to understand what it's all about
That's my last word to you or anyone else. Have all the jibes youse like knowing I won't reply, sure it makes men of some of you
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 07:11:51 PM
Yes they are zap.
Politics in the north is sectarian politics whether you or other shinner sypathisers want to admit it or not, at least the SDLP are trying to rise above it, the provos/shinners have always taken advantage of it and always will. You see, I am proud of men like Tone, Adams et al aren't fit to lace the man's shoes - Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter is the very last thing the shinners could ever claim to represent. Anyone trying to argue that sectarian politics in the north is something else really needs to take some time out and have a fresh look at the situation without bias, oh and also look up the word in the dictionary, it might help you to understand what it's all about
That's my last word to you or anyone else. Have all the jibes youse like knowing I won't reply, sure it makes men of some of you
It's the inability of the narrow minded that keep sectarianism in Irish politics. Your only argument is "Yes they are", that's weak. It's a vague responce to avoid detail. You make no attempt to adress my points other than to say I'm wrong and that Adams isn't like Wolfetone.
You and I are different as I never give wolfetone a second thought. The guy has been dead for 200 years. I'm not proud of anybody who has been dead 200 years. I'm not proud of the boys of 1916 or the the boys who fought in the war of independance or the Hungerstrikers. I admire many of them though. If I was proud of them I'd have to be equally ashamed of the Irish men and women who have done their damndest to try to stop them.
I am argguing that there is sectarian politics in the North as my previous post clearly says. In this case it comes from the OO. I'm also saying that Nationalism, Republicanism and Unionism are not sectarian. You say i'm wrong but that's all you say.
Hard luck Zap, but you got to admit this was a clinker:
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 05:42:07 PM
I give up, it's hard to debate with people who don't understand the concepts which you are debating
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 07:11:51 PM
That's my last word to you or anyone else. Have all the jibes youse like knowing I won't reply, sure it makes men of some of you
Makes a real man of you, not replying though does it?
Quote from: Ulick on April 22, 2010, 07:56:46 PM
Hard luck Zap, but you got to admit this was a clinker:
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 05:42:07 PM
I give up, it's hard to debate with people who don't understand the concepts which you are debating
I didn't quite get that. Some sort of irony? Irony is always lost on me. ;)
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 22, 2010, 06:52:06 PM
So we should all take the SDLP approach and neglect the issue of national self determination for fear of being labelled sectarian? Orange and green politics is the reality here and no 'head in the clouds' attitude can change that. It is not sectarian politics, it is the reality of the political situation people live under here. Partition still exists. Having a political opinion that professes an opposition to partition does not make someone sectarian. Having a political opinion that supports partition does not make someone sectarian.
The issue of national determination has been settled and voted on in referenda north and south of the border. Irishmen and women have exercised their right to self determination by deciding that, until there is a majority in favour of reunification on both sides of the border, the island will continue in its current two state form. All the main political parties on the island supported this, as did some 75% of those who voted. Given that there is unlikely to be a seismic change in unionist opinion in the immediate future, the issue has been sorted for at least a generation, possibly two. The problem for Sinn Fein, is that they're not sure how to explain this to their electorate. They have therefore to keep on making ludicrous claims, such as the one about there being a united Ireland by 2016. It is also the reason why electoral pacts around the constitutional issue are bogus.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 22, 2010, 10:23:25 PM
claims, such as the one about there being a united Ireland by 1916. .
There was a United Ireland in 1916 ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 22, 2010, 10:54:20 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 22, 2010, 10:23:25 PM
claims, such as the one about there being a united Ireland by 1916. .
There was a United Ireland in 1916 ;)
:D
yeah, alright. I'll give you that one.
Fixed it. ;)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 05:42:07 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 22, 2010, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 10:25:51 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 21, 2010, 10:08:17 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 21, 2010, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 21, 2010, 09:23:07 PM
ardmhachaabu, I even copied my post a second time for you because you admitted you didn't read it properly this morning. You still haven't replied to it.
You mean this one?
Quote from: Ulick on April 20, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
I don't know about all this sectarian headcounting business. Surely the difference between the two sides is a constitutional matter not an ecumenical one as Fr Dougal might say? If you buy into the sectarian thing then you are also buying into the British led propaganda so prevalent in the 70s, 80s and 90s that we had a religious conflict here i.e. it was not about the constitutional position of the north and our right to complete self-determination. If the sectarian headcounting business is true where does that leave good Protestant nationalists like CS Parnell and good Protestant republicans like T Wolfe Tone?
I'm disappointed by Maskey's withdrawl as it leaves me no one to vote for as I promised myself after the last election that I wouldn't give Anna Lo another vote, however I find it hard to ague against a position which aims to maximise support for the Irish nationalist and republican position on the national question.
That approach is sectarian and anyone who supports that stance for reasons of sectarian headcounting is sectarian
It's not sectarian, it is common sense to try and get someone into a seat (that SF are unlikely to win themselves) that share the same main objective.(ie. A united Ireland). Nationalists believe in a United Ireland and they should be trying to strengthen their position, if that means using tactical voting or stepping aside then thats what they should do. If believing in a United Ireland and trying to strengthen nationalism/ republicanism makes someone sectarian, then i'm guilty. (personally dont regard it as being sectarian)
Was it common sense or sectarian when unionists did it ?
common sense on their behalf, surely it makes more sense to get someone into a seat that is closer in opinion than someone who is off the total opposite opinion. (that is if your own party are unlikely to win it). There are pacts between parties all the time in every government around the world.
I give up, it's hard to debate with people who don't understand the concepts which you are debating
You have just a very simplistic way of looking at things (they're protestant, we're catholics we dont get along so that makes it sectarian). To be Sectarian means to be show predjudice against someone based on religion. I am a republican, but i have many protestant friends. I disagree with their politics not their religion which is why it is not sectarian.
Is Billy Lenoard the SF MLA for East Derry not a Protestant and former Orange man - he must have slipped through the SF anti-Protestant net ::)
FFS catch a grip it's not a religious issue, republican mans anti-monarchy not anti-protestant, I'd say half of the SF reps haven't seen the inside of a chapel since their confirmation
Quote from: Banana Man on April 23, 2010, 10:47:56 AM
Is Billy Lenoard the SF MLA for East Derry not a Protestant and former Orange man - he must have slipped through the SF anti-Protestant net ::)
FFS catch a grip it's not a religious issue, republican mans anti-monarchy not anti-protestant, I'd say half of the SF reps haven't seen the inside of a chapel since their confirmation
Sinn Fein were also trying to promote the integration of school children as well.
Has the SDLP made a public comment about the Church abuse scandals?
No they are too busy trying to find out how Tommy Burns got on in Iraq
Seems Gerry Adams and Gerry McGeogh had a row ouside Mass in Eglish at the weekend when Sinn Fein were out canvassing. McGeogh tackled the bould Gerry about something or other. Is in the Irish News.
As Posted in the SDLP trend!!
Its Richie's fault if Unionist's take fermanagh and south Tyrone as the SDLP are not going to claim a seat they are only there to make up numbers and possibility take the deciding votes. McKinney was on TV last sunday and make look a fool by Gerry Kelly in a debate. Another celebrity politician - crap
Get out a vote sinn fein:)
It is alleged Rodney Connor got the top job in the council by default and cost the council lots of compensation due to equality regulations. Hope he doesn't get in everyone try and get out and vote
Quote from: Gaffer on April 19, 2010, 10:01:25 PM
Quote from: Banana Man on April 19, 2010, 01:48:35 PM
Mckinney was brutal, Kelly was pressing him on the SDLP's attendance at Westminster then kelly snookered him about the 42 and 28 day detention period and made him admit they voted for 28 days.
McKinney was on the ropes then. I turned it over, it was like watching a packo f hounds hover over a fox i.e. i couldn't beat to watch anymore.
The man is a clown
You couldn't have expected McKinney to compete with someone as experienced as Kelly/ It reminded me of one time Ken Magennis making wee boys out of Gerry Adams and soon after, Martin McGuinness. Its all about experience !!!
Prehaps not, but I thought Mike Nesbitt held him a lot better against Jeffrey Donaldson than Fergal McKinney did against Gerry Kelly.
Mike would have the same political experience as Fergal wouldn't he?
Quote from: unitedireland on April 26, 2010, 11:47:30 AM
It is alleged Rodney Connor got the top job in the council by default and cost the council lots of compensation due to equality regulations. Hope he doesn't get in everyone try and get out and vote
Probably best not to repeat allegations you can't defend. By the way, what do you think of SF Cllr O'Reilly and his glowing tribute to Mr Connor, posted earlier in this thread?
Quote from: armagho9 on April 23, 2010, 09:55:58 AM
To be Sectarian means to be show predjudice against someone based on religion.
May I suggest you consult a dictionary? There is no need for prejudice for something to be sectarian.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 04:42:40 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 23, 2010, 09:55:58 AM
To be Sectarian means to be show predjudice against someone based on religion.
May I suggest you consult a dictionary? There is no need for prejudice for something to be sectarian.
a dislike, hatred whatever way you want to put it. but it is based on religion which is the point i was making.
Quote from: armagho9 on April 26, 2010, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 04:42:40 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 23, 2010, 09:55:58 AM
To be Sectarian means to be show predjudice against someone based on religion.
May I suggest you consult a dictionary? There is no need for prejudice for something to be sectarian.
a dislike, hatred whatever way you want to put it. but it is based on religion which is the point i was making.
Firstly, it's not exclusively based on religion, although is understood as such by most people, especially here. Secondly, it doesn't necessarily imply dislike, hatred or other such connotations.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 05:01:13 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 26, 2010, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 04:42:40 PM
Quote from: armagho9 on April 23, 2010, 09:55:58 AM
To be Sectarian means to be show predjudice against someone based on religion.
May I suggest you consult a dictionary? There is no need for prejudice for something to be sectarian.
a dislike, hatred whatever way you want to put it. but it is based on religion which is the point i was making.
Firstly, it's not exclusively based on religion, although is understood as such by most people, especially here. Secondly, it doesn't necessarily imply dislike, hatred or other such connotations.
So you're telling us what it doesnt mean. Tell us exactly what it means then?
Try a dictionary, or Google. Type in 'sectarian'; you may also need to look up 'sect'. I'm replying on a mobile, so I'm not going to start searching for you.
Well i studied Irish History and politics for 3 years at uni, so i dont feel the need to google it. You have a point that it is not totally based on religion and there can be other forms. The reality is however that basically religion is the main issue in sectarianism.
Quote from: armagho9 on April 26, 2010, 05:22:46 PM
Well i studied Irish History and politics for 3 years at uni, so i dont feel the need to google it. You have a point that it is not totally based on religion and there can be other forms. The reality is however that basically religion is the main issue in sectarianism.
Your initial points in relation to it were a bit narrow for someone who studied these issues to such a level. Hence my google suggestion.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 05:16:20 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 22, 2010, 08:57:57 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 22, 2010, 08:52:23 AM
Zap, with respect, that's rubbish. Seeking votes along green/orange lines is sectarian whether it's unionism or the shinners at it. Sectarianism isn't a one way street. If unionists are at it you can't say the shinners aren't in the same breath.
The key element you're leaving out is the OO. I'm basing my opinion on theory and giving the reason SF justify this. It can be argued that it's accurate but i'll admit it isn't conclusive. You aslo seem to be dividing Green and Orange as Protestant and Catholic (which in itself could be defined as sectarian) and if that is your default view I will never be able to convince you otherwise.
Is there another way of explaining the situation? If there is, I for one would love to hear it
yes nationalists and unionists. although there is a strong correlation between nationalists/catholics and unionists/protestants there not mutually exclusive
seen this clown with his hand wrote posters up round chippy street in enniskillen this week, also fermanagh hearld had a wee dig at him today on their back page comparing him to a school child
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/ (http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/)
Quote from: gerry on April 28, 2010, 10:40:53 PM
seen this clown with his hand wrote posters up round chippy street in enniskillen this week, also fermanagh hearld had a wee dig at him today on their back page comparing him to a school child
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/ (http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/)
He's going down, just like the Titantic.
Quote from: gerry on April 28, 2010, 10:40:53 PM
seen this clown with his hand wrote posters up round chippy street in enniskillen this week, also fermanagh hearld had a wee dig at him today on their back page comparing him to a school child
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/ (http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/)
Ach ! Leave the lad alone.
He s hardly gonna do much damage, Is he? eh?
Quote from: Gaffer on April 29, 2010, 01:45:11 AM
Quote from: gerry on April 28, 2010, 10:40:53 PM
seen this clown with his hand wrote posters up round chippy street in enniskillen this week, also fermanagh hearld had a wee dig at him today on their back page comparing him to a school child
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/ (http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/)
Ach ! Leave the lad alone.
He s hardly gonna do much damage, Is he? eh?
100 votes going to him could make the differance
When I got home last night Rodney Connor's "manifesto" was lying in the hall. Absolutely no policies, doesn't say where he stands on anything, doesn't mention he's going to take the Tory whip. It has one message "I'm a Protestant/unionist, vote for me". It's like a election leaflet from 25-30 years ago!
Quote from: gerry on April 29, 2010, 08:50:24 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 29, 2010, 01:45:11 AM
Quote from: gerry on April 28, 2010, 10:40:53 PM
seen this clown with his hand wrote posters up round chippy street in enniskillen this week, also fermanagh hearld had a wee dig at him today on their back page comparing him to a school child
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/ (http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/04/22/391281-the-real-winners-says-surprise-fifth-candidate-stevenson/)
Ach ! Leave the lad alone.
He s hardly gonna do much damage, Is he? eh?
100 votes going to him could make the differance
Would be delighted if he gets a few hundred votes as they won't be coming from the nationalist side!
"He says he is not backed by any party or by anyone with vested interests.
"The electorate are not getting a choice.
The two main parties are not standing and it gives me, a rival candidate a chance to take the seat," he said, vowing to stand at every future Westminster and Assembly election."
Gildernew was on BBC Newsline. Not much better than McKinney to be honest. She seemed to miss the point re Westminster elections.
Shes not great - doesnt seem to have a mind of her own or any individual authority. Still, my postal votes away!! :D
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 06:54:36 PM
Gildernew was on BBC Newsline. Not much better than McKinney to be honest. She seemed to miss the point re Westminster elections.
I think you are being rather harsh. She was toeing the party line with regards the policy of abstaining. From what I've heard down at home, of all the local politicans, Michelle Gildernew has been doing the greatest work in trying to save jobs at Quinn Insurance, including going to see the financial regulator in London.
Quote from: FermPundit on April 30, 2010, 08:18:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 06:54:36 PM
Gildernew was on BBC Newsline. Not much better than McKinney to be honest. She seemed to miss the point re Westminster elections.
I think you are being rather harsh. She was toeing the party line with regards the policy of abstaining. From what I've heard down at home, of all the local politicans, Michelle Gildernew has been doing the greatest work in trying to save jobs at Quinn Insurance, including going to see the financial regulator in London.
And is there any of that she couldn't do as MLA and Minister?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 08:25:14 PM
Quote from: FermPundit on April 30, 2010, 08:18:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 06:54:36 PM
Gildernew was on BBC Newsline. Not much better than McKinney to be honest. She seemed to miss the point re Westminster elections.
I think you are being rather harsh. She was toeing the party line with regards the policy of abstaining. From what I've heard down at home, of all the local politicans, Michelle Gildernew has been doing the greatest work in trying to save jobs at Quinn Insurance, including going to see the financial regulator in London.
And is there any of that she couldn't do as MLA and Minister?
No, you're right, but in your post you were suggesting that she missed the point about Westminster elections. I was simply stating that she was sticking with the party line. Also, to say that she wasn't much better than Fearghal McKinney, a newcomer with zero political experience, is ridiculous.
I was talking about her performance in an interview, not her record as a politician. On that basis, the comparison of two TV performances is valid enough.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 08:58:56 PM
I was talking about her performance in an interview, not her record as a politician. On that basis, the comparison of two TV performances is valid enough.
Fair enough. Unfortunately neither Gildernew nor McKinney have much hope of winning on Thursday.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 08:58:56 PM
I was talking about her performance in an interview, not her record as a politician. On that basis, the comparison of two TV performances is valid enough.
No it's not.
Michelle Gildernew in all her roles has performed better then most of the others, Maguire01 if you could take the "stoop/anti SF" coloured specs off you would see that.
The girl getting the usual "brit election" crap about abstensism handed out to SF candidates by the media (unbiased of course) is hardly an indicator on her performance in her role.
To try and compare this with Fergass McKinney is just
stupid wrong.
GDA you could also be accused of having your "pro Sinn Fein" specs on...............
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 08:25:14 PM
Quote from: FermPundit on April 30, 2010, 08:18:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 06:54:36 PM
Gildernew was on BBC Newsline. Not much better than McKinney to be honest. She seemed to miss the point re Westminster elections.
I think you are being rather harsh. She was toeing the party line with regards the policy of abstaining. From what I've heard down at home, of all the local politicans, Michelle Gildernew has been doing the greatest work in trying to save jobs at Quinn Insurance, including going to see the financial regulator in London.
And is there any of that she couldn't do as MLA and Minister?
And if she attended Westminster the outcome would still be the same.
Gildernew evens - http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/northern-irish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=251537
Worth a flutter?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 30, 2010, 08:58:56 PM
I was talking about her performance in an interview, not her record as a politician. On that basis, the comparison of two TV performances is valid enough.
Watched her up against McKinney in the fermanagh.tv debate last night and there really is no comparison between them.
Too close to call. Won't be more than a few hundred votes in it either way.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 30, 2010, 11:29:56 PM
Michelle Gildernew in all her roles has performed better then most of the others, Maguire01 if you could take the "stoop/anti SF" coloured specs off you would see that.
The girl getting the usual "brit election" crap about abstensism handed out to SF candidates by the media (unbiased of course) is hardly an indicator on her performance in her role.
To try and compare this with Fergass McKinney is just stupid wrong.
I didn't question her record as a politician, I pointed out that she wasn't very impressive in a TV interview. I also said, on a number of occassions, how poor McKinney was. I have no glasses on for any party.
As for "brit election" crap, what do you expect when you're running for a 'brit election'? There's little point in rehashing what you'll do as an MLA if you're running to be an MP. And the media is quite entitled to ask SF reps about such issues. I'd assume they'd ask the same questions of any party who took that stance, so calls of bias are unfounded.
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
That would be from 'other' income, such as book sales, 40k (I think it was) for taking part in a recent C4 documentry etc. Although I'm not an expert on economics so I'm not sure how that fits in with the socialist model.
Also, on top of the wage, there may well be 'expenses'. Car for work? Clothing allowance? For the record, I'd see such allowances as pretty reasonable, but would put a different spin on the 'industrial wage' claim.
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 01, 2010, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
Perhaps, not many would have 3 or 4 'holiday homes' though like Adams does. This 'industrial wage' they keep going on about, does anyone know what they mean? What's the figure?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:36:42 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 01, 2010, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
Perhaps, not many would have 3 or 4 'holiday homes' though like Adams does. This 'industrial wage' they keep going on about, does anyone know what they mean? What's the figure?
£356 per week.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:36:42 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 01, 2010, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
Perhaps, not many would have 3 or 4 'holiday homes' though like Adams does. This 'industrial wage' they keep going on about, does anyone know what they mean? What's the figure?
Liar...
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 01, 2010, 08:54:06 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:36:42 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 01, 2010, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
Perhaps, not many would have 3 or 4 'holiday homes' though like Adams does. This 'industrial wage' they keep going on about, does anyone know what they mean? What's the figure?
£356 per week.
Not bad for doing fcuk all
Ulick, stop talking shite for a change and put up or shut up. I know for a fact Adams has homes in Donegal, Monaghan and Kerry. That's only the ones I am sure of
Ulick, stop talking shite for a change and put up or shut up. I know for a fact Adams has homes in Donegal, Monaghan and Kerry.
Would they be safe houses? ;)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 01, 2010, 08:54:06 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:36:42 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 01, 2010, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
Perhaps, not many would have 3 or 4 'holiday homes' though like Adams does. This 'industrial wage' they keep going on about, does anyone know what they mean? What's the figure?
£356 per week.
Not bad for doing fcuk all
Ulick, stop talking shite for a change and put up or shut up. I know for a fact Adams has homes in Donegal, Monaghan and Kerry. That's only the ones I am sure of
Alright then, prove it. Hint: a good place to start might be the 'Register of Members Interests'.
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 05:59:45 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 01, 2010, 08:54:06 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:36:42 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 01, 2010, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
Perhaps, not many would have 3 or 4 'holiday homes' though like Adams does. This 'industrial wage' they keep going on about, does anyone know what they mean? What's the figure?
£356 per week.
Not bad for doing fcuk all
Ulick, stop talking shite for a change and put up or shut up. I know for a fact Adams has homes in Donegal, Monaghan and Kerry. That's only the ones I am sure of
Alright then, prove it. Hint: a good place to start might be the 'Register of Members Interests'.
That means nothing, Adams is a proven liar
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 05:59:45 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 01, 2010, 08:54:06 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:36:42 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 01, 2010, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
Perhaps, not many would have 3 or 4 'holiday homes' though like Adams does. This 'industrial wage' they keep going on about, does anyone know what they mean? What's the figure?
£356 per week.
Not bad for doing fcuk all
Ulick, stop talking shite for a change and put up or shut up. I know for a fact Adams has homes in Donegal, Monaghan and Kerry. That's only the ones I am sure of
Alright then, prove it. Hint: a good place to start might be the 'Register of Members Interests'.
That means nothing, Adams is a proven liar
He either owns three houses or he doesn't. The register says he doesn't and you say he does. Now in the absence of any other evidence, it looks like the only liar here is you.
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Really, what's his name?
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Is nothing to gloat about with a lot of people struggling to get by. Fair play to him if your into the gap between the rich and poor getting wider. As the man in multi cultural New York said to me as he waved a 100 dollar bill and said,'that is everyone's flag here.'
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
I was being sarcastic.
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
I was being sarcastic.
No name? Maybe he hangs around with the SDLP fella Dominic Marsella, who was running all those brothels in North Belfast.
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
I was being sarcastic.
No name? Maybe he hangs around with the SDLP fella Dominic Marsella, who was running all those brothels in North Belfast.
He has a name.
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 06:35:10 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 05:59:45 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 01, 2010, 08:54:06 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:36:42 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 01, 2010, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 01, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
What is Gildernew able to offer as an MP that she can t deliver as an MLA?
2 jobs to do the one job?
And spare me the Sinn Fein 'We only get paid the industrial wage' crap
Never believed it for a second
How can Gerry afford a holiday home then?
He has published quite a lot of books so thats how he can afford a holiday home. Whats wrong with him owning a holiday home anyway i'm sure lots of politicians have holiday homes.
Perhaps, not many would have 3 or 4 'holiday homes' though like Adams does. This 'industrial wage' they keep going on about, does anyone know what they mean? What's the figure?
£356 per week.
Not bad for doing fcuk all
Ulick, stop talking shite for a change and put up or shut up. I know for a fact Adams has homes in Donegal, Monaghan and Kerry. That's only the ones I am sure of
Alright then, prove it. Hint: a good place to start might be the 'Register of Members Interests'.
That means nothing, Adams is a proven liar
He either owns three houses or he doesn't. The register says he doesn't and you say he does. Now in the absence of any other evidence, it looks like the only liar here is you.
You really do have your head up his ass for someone who doesn't support them. Adams is a proven liar on so many things, why would he not lie even more about what he owns? ::)
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
I was being sarcastic.
Sorry, should have known your form by now :)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 06:35:10 PM
He either owns three houses or he doesn't. The register says he doesn't and you say he does. Now in the absence of any other evidence, it looks like the only liar here is you.
You really do have your head up his ass for someone who doesn't support them. Adams is a proven liar on so many things, why would he not lie even more about what he owns? ::)
I'm not saying he isn't a liar or doesn't own three houses. He may do, but it's most improbable given that they aren't declared anywhere and he's probably the most scrutinized man in Ireland.
What I am saying is that
you are a liar because you said you know for a "fact" that he owns three houses. So time to put up...
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
I was being sarcastic.
No name? Maybe he hangs around with the SDLP fella Dominic Marsella, who was running all those brothels in North Belfast.
He has a name.
So why not tell us?
Ulick, it seems to me you spend your life clutching at straws on here. Why don't you grow up?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 07:22:02 PM
Ulick, it seems to me you spend your life clutching at straws on here. Why don't you grow up?
Clutching at straws in what way? You are the man who has been caught out spoofing again. Not very becoming behaviour for such a self-proclaimed religious fella like yourself. Maybe you would be better off brushing up on the seven virtues in your catechism.
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 07:22:02 PM
Ulick, it seems to me you spend your life clutching at straws on here. Why don't you grow up?
Clutching at straws in what way? You are the man who has been caught out spoofing again. Not very becoming behaviour for such a self-proclaimed religious fella like yourself. Maybe you would be better off brushing up on the seven virtues in your catechism.
This post makes it seem to me that you are a total asshole :)
How would you suggest I prove conversations with shinners who were boasting what he has?
EXCLUSIVE Behind The Scenes in Fermanagh/South Tyrone
Author: The Rebels Yell! | Posted at: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 | Filed Under: NI Elections 2010,
In a recent BBC's Hearts n' Minds episode dealing with the forthcoming May 6th Westminster Elections, Mark Davenport and Noel Thompson, drew attention to the migration of a few high profile media personnel to the political cauldron of Norn Iron politics. However, the following snippet from this conversation between the two journalists concerning the SDLP/Ulster Unionist candidates, Fearghal McKinney and Rodney Connor, may be of special interest to the electorate of Fermanagh/South Tyrone;
'And McKinney who most recently worked for Fermanagh TV will be battling the unionist unity candidate Rodney Connor who had been a client of his on the station.'
Whilst at face value this relationship in itself may seem quite cordial the Rebels Yell can EXCLUSIVELY reveal that the connection between both men regarding media production in Fermanagh dates right back to the very inception of Fermanagh.tv which was the flagship product of a company which employed Fearghal McKinney as Sole Director.
Fermanagh.tv: The Prologue
Back in 2007, this company, County Link Media Ltd with Fearghal at the helm, succeeded in obtaining a combined £90,000 contract for Fermanagh.tv offered by Fermanagh District Council as overseen by its then Chief Executive, Rodney Connor. The Fermanagh District Council minutes are as follows:
D82/07 FERMANAGH.TV
The Director of Finance/IT reported on correspondence received from County Link Media Ltd. The company was proposing to launch Fermanagh.tv, a digital television website which could be viewed via the Internet. In addition to promoting Fermanagh worldwide, the platform would also have a home element, in that it would inform the increasing number of local people of all ages using the Internet of events in their own County. A wide range of content was planned; news, sports, local entertainment, schools and colleges activities, Fermanagh District Council news, tourism and much more. Initially, Fermanagh.tv would create four jobs in 2008, County Link Media Ltd would directly create and fund three of the posts, with a fourth in conjunction with Fermanagh College. County Link Media Ltd requested that the Council enter into a three-year arrangement to buy nine packages, three per year, at a cost of £10,000 per package. All of the Council footage made for Fermanagh.tv would be available on DVD to Fermanagh District Council to use as promotional material.
RECOMMENDED: That Fermanagh District Council proceed with a three-year arrangement to buy nine packages at a maximum cost of £10,000 per package subject to:
a) Annual Review, and
b) Further clarification on particular details.
The normal protocol for a contract of this value would be for it to be offered on tender in an open and public process to ensure that the ratepayer is assured of best value. But strangely, in this case, someone within Fermanagh District Council decided to break it up into nine separate contracts for £10,000 each. Moreover, this was not a case of funding a private company (which would be inappropriate) but, rather, as Mr Connor is on record as stating, the council 'would purchase services as required' from the company.
As these small contracts fell below the threshold for such open, competitive tendering (at 10k) the deal was concluded with County Link without any other bids being considered (as noted in the council's development committee minutes of April 2007). By May 2009, the company was formally launched and the contracts were renewed through agreement at the Development Committee meeting of that date.
Fearghal's company's success in winning such a tender (no doubt bolstering the sales ledger of his company's outstanding contracts to the local council) was swiftly followed up by the company being snapped up by Bob Geldof's Ten Alps PLC in February 2009. The business was bought for an undisclosed sum although a similar operation, 'Below the Radar Ltd', is known to have been purchased by Ten Alps for just under £800k. Subsequently, Fearghal McKinney was employed by the Belfast-based 'Below the Radar Ltd' as an investigative journalist.
As stated previously, in May 2009 Fermanagh TV was launched as a partnership between the Impartial Reporter and the production company 'Below the Radar Ltd'. The following minutes from Fermanagh District Council were recorded:
D45/09 Fermanagh.tv
The Chief Executive informed the Committee that Fermanagh.tv was holding a Launch in the Clinton Centre on Friday, 22 May 2009. All Councillors would receive an invitation. The Chief Executive reported that Fermanagh District Council was not funding the Fermanagh.tv project but would purchase services as required and as previously agreed by the Committee.
Fermanagh.tv was developed with the involvement of iGeneration (iGen) which was "tasked with designing, developing and marketing the online media platform". By a strange coincidence, that company, iGen also found itself tied to Ten Alps Vision in December 2009 and its owner was made a director of Geldof's growing media business. In another tie back to Fermanagh, iGen's website indicates that it too was also a beneficiary of a contract awarded by Fermanagh District Council for its 'digitalisation campaign'.
Local on-demand TV: The Big Picture
Rodney Connor is expected to take the Conservative whip and it's party leader, David Cameron, has as part of his manifesto, pledged to scrap local and regional media ownership rules and allow struggling newspaper groups to merge with rival companies and operate across print, TV, radio and online. Cameron intends to;
"sweep away the bureaucratic rules that mean that a rigid law decides who owns what bits of the media in local communities"
Despite the Office of Fair Trading currently reviewing media ownership rules following the interim Digital Britain interim report by Lord Carter, the Conservatives believe their review to be;
"too narrowly focused on the merger regime between print media companies and fails to examine the media ownership rules with regards to different media outlets".
The Conservative approach is that the relaxation of the current rules will entice UK newspaper groups (currently suffering from massive reductions in advertising revenues due to the recession and increased competition from the internet etc) to diversify into ultra-local television services.
In the summer of 2009 the BBC's proposals to invest £68m in providing local on-demand video news throughout the UK by 2013 (two of which were proposed for Northern Ireland) on a network of 65 websites. However, their plans were thwarted by the BBC Trust and were met by strong disapproval from the Newspaper Society who described the proposals as "very damaging" and would directly impact upon the viability of over 100 regional press titles. The shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said that:
"The current rules were established in a pre-digital era...It is now time to allow new industry models to emerge that will encourage investment not just in local papers but local online services and new local TV companies."
Responding to the Conservative plans the NUJ general secretary said:
"These plans fail to deal with the problems facing local journalists. Consolidation of media ownership has meant office and title closures, it has meant journalists taken out of their communities, fundamentally undermining their ability to do their jobs well. The Conservative response to these problems seems to be more of the same, which will do nothing to help quality journalism...The Conservatives might see media regulation as burdensome red tape but it is what ensures people have access to varied media and different voices. To throw that protection away in response to business demands without any plans to secure improvement in journalism is foolhardy and an insult to our local communities."
As part of the News 3 consortium, which also includes Trinity Mirror and the Press Association, they have just been awarded the contract to provide commercial news bulletins in the Borders and Tyne Tees Region. Also Bob Geldof's business partner, Alex Connock, called on the BBC to open up a minimum of 25% of its' £135m-a-year internet content budget to outside producers in a similar fashion to how the BBC already commissions TV programmes to independent production companies.
A Touch of Tory/Unionist/Orange Air Brushing Perhaps?
As regards Ten Alps, through their acquisitions of County Media Links Ltd, Beyond The Radar Ltd and IGeneration and their affiliation with 'The Impartial Reporter', definitely fit Jeremy Hunt's idea of 'a new business model'. Consequently, they are perfectly poised to enter the market in Northern Ireland if the fore mentioned proposals outlined by David Cameron lead Tories come to fruition post May 6th.
Ironically, the election of Ulster unionist 'unity' candidate, Rodney Connor, would also be sympathetic to lobbying on behalf of Fermanagh TV given that he has declared that he will take the conservative whip on issues pertinent to Northern Ireland. Furthermore, he is in a unique position to fully comprehend the implications of this issue given his first hand dealings with Fermanagh TV as Chief Executive of Fermanagh District Council.
A Suspicious Minds rather than Hearts 'n' Minds Finale?
As for the SDLP's Fearghal McKinney, he is still listed on 'Below the Radar's' website as an investigative journalist for the company. Whilst, currently devoting his time to running in this election campaign, one assumes he will be either returning to his former employer or gainfully seeking employment elsewhere post May 6th since he is tipped at 25-1 by William Hill to win!
More importantly, one would assume that he has made clear to the new SDLP Leader, Margaret Ritchie, that he had no short/long term vested interest in the outcome of this Fermanagh/South Tyrone Election. However, the ramifications of any unseemly innuendos being exposed in the future, would undoubtedly have a tsunami effect on the SDLP's credibility throughout Northern Ireland for an eternity. One can only deduce that Margaret Ritchie has instilled her 'moving on' approach through out the SDLP especially since she was the architect of an internal SDLP document entitled "Transparency in Politics"!
I will leave you to ponder upon a quote by US diplomat/politician, John Adams (1st vice-president of US 1789-1797; 2nd president of US 1797-1801) to help you draw your own conclusions:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 07:44:37 PM
This post makes it seem to me that you are a total asshole :)
How would you suggest I prove conversations with shinners who were boasting what he has?
You said
you knew for a fact that Adams owned three houses. That was a lie was it not?
No, it wasn't a lie and don't be childish about it and ask me to name names because I won't
I bet you have never done any time and all you do is talk about freeing Ireland. That would be my opinion of you based on your posts here in both ulick and donagh 'personalities
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:00:49 PM
No, it wasn't a lie and don't be childish about it and ask me to name names because I won't
I bet you have never done any time and all you do is talk about freeing Ireland. That would be my opinion of you based on your posts here in both ulick and donagh 'personalities
But you don't know that he owns three holiday homes, so it is a lie. How else could it be explained that the most watched man in Ireland has three houses that nobody knows about apart from you? When does he stay in all of these houses? Do the neighbours never see him? How come the Free State government aren't chasing him for the second home tax? Why is it not in the 'Register of Members Interests' for the Assembly or Westminster?
I bet you have never done any time or anything else for that matter and all you do is talk about freeing Ireland. That would be my opinion of you based on your posts here in both ulick and donagh 'personalities'
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 07:14:52 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
I was being sarcastic.
No name? Maybe he hangs around with the SDLP fella Dominic Marsella, who was running all those brothels in North Belfast.
He has a name.
So why not tell us?
Because I choose not to.
Minder there are countless people like that in west and north Belfast
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:16:25 PM
I bet you have never done any time or anything else for that matter and all you do is talk about freeing Ireland. That would be my opinion of you based on your posts here in both ulick and donagh 'personalities'
Do you think I care for the opinion of a liar?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:22:49 PM
Minder there are countless people like that in west and north Belfast
Indeed, I've just named one on this thread, longtime SDLP activist Dominic Marsella. Even though I can back that up unlike Minder with his little tale, does this mean that the Stoops are whoremasters?
Shinner living the life of Riley with no obvious means of income shocker! :D
What next Minder, the Pope is a Catholic?!
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 01, 2010, 08:49:49 PM
Shinner living the life of Riley with no obvious means of income shocker! :D
What next Minder, the Pope is a Catholic?!
Bears shit in woods
How is the battle going? I couldn't be bothered rreading over all the pages of posts which has turned into a slagging match betwen Ulick and ardmhacaabu.
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 08:34:16 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:22:49 PM
Minder there are countless people like that in west and north Belfast
Indeed, I've just named one on this thread, longtime SDLP activist Dominic Marsella. Even though I can back that up unlike Minder with his little tale, does this mean that the Stoops are whoremasters?
You see I don't have to "back it up" to you Donagh or anyone else though, just because you don't/want to believe something does not make it untrue.
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 08:34:16 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 08:22:49 PM
Minder there are countless people like that in west and north Belfast
Indeed, I've just named one on this thread, longtime SDLP activist Dominic Marsella. Even though I can back that up unlike Minder with his little tale, does this mean that the Stoops are whoremasters?
You see I don't have to "back it up" to you Donagh or anyone else though, just because you don't/want to believe something does not make it untrue.
I didn't say it wasn't true, just curious as to why you're not confident enough in your tale to name names and why you thought or relevant to this thread. But hey its a discussion forum afterall, excuse me for, erm, trying to discuss things. Of course you could be telling porkies like the other fella but as you have the sense to be as vauge as you possibly can without looking the complete eijit, I guess you get the benefit of the doubt.
Anyone reading the thread will make their own judgements as to who the gullible fool is Ulick. Proclaiming yourself the winner every time doesn't make it so. It also helps if you can spell
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
Anyone reading the thread will make their own judgements as to who the gullible fool is Ulick. Proclaiming yourself the winner every time doesn't make it so. It also helps if you can spell
Indeed, it's quite clear who's trying to get away with telling lies? Pulling me on spelling? That's a bit desperate. Simple answer though, the predictive text on my mobile device. What you thought I could be bothered booting up a PC for this juvenile encounter? Am afraid this is just my amusement during the ad breaks.
So what about all those holiday homes then?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
Anyone reading the thread will make their own judgements as to who the gullible fool is Ulick. Proclaiming yourself the winner every time doesn't make it so. It also helps if you can spell
Why dont you answer the question put to you? Why do you make statements and then when asked to back them up go off on a different direction.
Quote from: hardstation on May 02, 2010, 12:32:05 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 02, 2010, 12:23:23 AM
Why dont you answer the question put to you? Why do you make statements and then when asked to back them up go off on a different direction.
Now that you mention Francie McPeake and Will ye go Lassie go......
Ye got something tonight hardstation and its not that sparkling water ;D ;D
In the mid 90's an American delegation of politicians met with Sinn Fein. These politicians suggested that Sinn Fein start to dress the part by wearing more professional clothing.
Gerry Adams lives in a humble semi-detached house in Ballymurphy. He has one child and his wife owns a bakery that shes had for years. So given their age and a house hold with two incomes its not beyond them to have a holiday home.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on May 02, 2010, 02:22:15 AM
In the mid 90's an American delegation of politicians met with Sinn Fein. These politicians suggested that Sinn Fein start to dress the part by wearing more professional clothing.
Gerry Adams lives in a humble semi-detached house in Ballymurphy. He has one child and his wife owns a bakery that shes had for years. So given their age and a house hold with two incomes its not beyond them to have a holiday home.
To put i t quite simply, I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me. FYI, Adams lives in a very nice semi off the Glen Road. I don't know what his wife does for a living, I am not interested either. Adams has only had an income over the past 10-15 years, before that he was signing on the dole
Does anyone else remember the documentary on his holiday homes?
Does anyone else remember the documentary on his holiday homes?
Was it called Discover unitedIreland? ;)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 02, 2010, 11:10:19 AM
To put i t quite simply, I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me. FYI, Adams lives in a very nice semi off the Glen Road. I don't know what his wife does for a living, I am not interested either. Adams has only had an income over the past 10-15 years, before that he was signing on the dole
Does anyone else remember the documentary on his holiday homes?
You can't prove it because it's a lie.
Ardmhaca, how desperate are you to bad mouth SF that you have to refer to a documentary aired many moons ago about holiday homes?
This is a discussion about Fermanagh/South Tyrone. Remarks like " I know it to be true because of who told me" don't give you ANY credibility. Maybe I know it to be false because of who told me! Now where does that leave us in a discussion?? If you cant back your arguments, keep your mouth closed ("Better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"). And even if Gerry Adams did own these homes, does the fact that he is one of the biggest selling authors in Ireland in recent times not give you an inkling as to how he might afford a holiday home??
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 02, 2010, 04:57:33 PM
the fact that he is one of the biggest selling authors in Ireland in recent times
I hadn't realised he was this big!
After trawling through all the bickering over Gerry's holiday home(s) the question has to be asked, why do some people care so much? He is not even running in FST
Quote from: dodgy umpire on May 02, 2010, 05:19:38 PM
After trawling through all the bickering over Gerry's holiday home(s) the question has to be asked, why do some people care so much? He is not even running in FST
He has half a dozen houses in Benburb and a scenic apartment in the Moy.
Quote from: dodgy umpire on May 02, 2010, 05:19:38 PM
After trawling through all the bickering over Gerry's holiday home(s) the question has to be asked, why do some people care so much? He is not even running in FST
Like on most other occassions, it usual surfaces in response to someone saying how great SF reps are with their industrial wage.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 02, 2010, 05:35:22 PM
Like on most other occassions, it usual surfaces in response to someone saying how great SF reps are with their industrial wage.
Still no excuse for telling blatant lies.
Quote from: Ulick on May 02, 2010, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 02, 2010, 05:35:22 PM
Like on most other occassions, it usual surfaces in response to someone saying how great SF reps are with their industrial wage.
Still no excuse for telling blatant lies.
I didn't tell any lies.
Quote from: Ulick on May 02, 2010, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 02, 2010, 05:35:22 PM
Like on most other occassions, it usual surfaces in response to someone saying how great SF reps are with their industrial wage.
Still no excuse for telling blatant lies.
It usually surfaces when someone like ardmhaca is so desperate to sling mud that they resort to claims from a documentary aired many years ago about holiday homes and "knows it to be fact" because "someone who I cant name told me so".
I haven't told any lies and I don't care what the provo sympathisers on here say about me. I won't lose any sleep over them. They are living in cloud cuckoo land with their heads up Adams arse but like, I don't care
SF down from 10 to 6 today in sunday business post Red C poll. Would the British election have an impact on this? It's the first time that they have taken such a drop.
I very rarely post on this board but without doubt ardmhachaabu has to be the biggest p***k that posts here-a serial liar and has no shame when he is found out!!
Quote from: Boolerhead Mel on May 02, 2010, 10:00:43 PM
I very rarely post on this board but without doubt ardmhachaabu has to be the biggest p***k that posts here-a serial liar and has no shame when he is found out!!
Why? Because he's not a Provo lover?
Quote from: Boolerhead Mel on May 02, 2010, 10:00:43 PM
I very rarely post on this board but without doubt ardmhachaabu has to be the biggest p***k that posts here-a serial liar and has no shame when he is found out!!
Thank heavens for small mercies...
Has anyone actually put your head up anyone's arse?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 02, 2010, 06:04:50 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 02, 2010, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 02, 2010, 05:35:22 PM
Like on most other occassions, it usual surfaces in response to someone saying how great SF reps are with their industrial wage.
Still no excuse for telling blatant lies.
I didn't tell any lies.
Didn't say you did, I was commenting on ardmhachaabu who started it all by telling a lie which he doesn't have the courage to admit even though it's been exposed again for all to see.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 02, 2010, 06:52:20 PM
I haven't told any lies and I don't care what the provo sympathisers on here say about me. I won't lose any sleep over them. They are living in cloud cuckoo land with their heads up Adams arse but like, I don't care
I won't lose any sleep over you either Ard Mhaca. Maybe I'll be on tomorrow after a good night sleep and you might have more "facts" that you have "no proof of" but know to be fact because "someone I can't name on the board told me so". Talk about cloud cookoo land.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 02, 2010, 11:24:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 02, 2010, 06:52:20 PM
I haven't told any lies and I don't care what the provo sympathisers on here say about me. I won't lose any sleep over them. They are living in cloud cuckoo land with their heads up Adams arse but like, I don't care
I won't lose any sleep over you either Ard Mhaca. Maybe I'll be on tomorrow after a good night sleep and you might have more "facts" that you have "no proof of" but know to be fact because "someone I can't name on the board told me so". Talk about cloud cookoo land.
On the subject of losing sleep, youse are struggling in the league. I mean your football taem not Sinn fein :o
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 02, 2010, 11:28:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 02, 2010, 11:24:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 02, 2010, 06:52:20 PM
I haven't told any lies and I don't care what the provo sympathisers on here say about me. I won't lose any sleep over them. They are living in cloud cuckoo land with their heads up Adams arse but like, I don't care
I won't lose any sleep over you either Ard Mhaca. Maybe I'll be on tomorrow after a good night sleep and you might have more "facts" that you have "no proof of" but know to be fact because "someone I can't name on the board told me so". Talk about cloud cookoo land.
On the subject of losing sleep, youse are struggling in the league. I mean your football taem not Sinn fein :o
Now there's something I'd lose sleep over a lot easier. Long way to go Fox ;) No high hopes tbh.
I wonder how much higher up the party's ranks you'd have to go before you'd get a satisfactory answer to that one. If you'd get one at all.
Quote from: Mac Eoghain on May 03, 2010, 08:56:10 AM
I'm sure someone on here could enilighten me as to what Sinn Fein's tax and economic policies are? No harm to Michelle but if she was looking to attract 'undecided' voters around the Moy she could have done better than send the two gimps who landed at my door the other night - I asked the question as above and was met with a blank expression and told that every vote counts - maybe I was being too vague?
Mac,
Tax and economic policies are irrelevant as we will soon be living in a 32 county socialist Republic, they where at the same shite outside Mass yesterday over a loudspeaker. They didnt take kindly to being asked to turn it down as it was scaring the two children.
Quote from: Mac Eoghain on May 03, 2010, 08:56:10 AM
I'm sure someone on here could enilighten me as to what Sinn Fein's tax and economic policies are? No harm to Michelle but if she was looking to attract 'undecided' voters around the Moy she could have done better than send the two gimps who landed at my door the other night - I asked the question as above and was met with a blank expression and told that every vote counts - maybe I was being too vague?
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Gaffer on May 03, 2010, 10:36:28 AM
Quote from: Mac Eoghain on May 03, 2010, 08:56:10 AM
I'm sure someone on here could enilighten me as to what Sinn Fein's tax and economic policies are? No harm to Michelle but if she was looking to attract 'undecided' voters around the Moy she could have done better than send the two gimps who landed at my door the other night - I asked the question as above and was met with a blank expression and told that every vote counts - maybe I was being too vague?
;D ;D ;D
Intelligent reply gaffer
Could you have a go at answering the question?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 03, 2010, 04:10:10 PM
Could you have a go at answering the question?
Give him a few hours to get something cobbled together.
Read a manifesto. Or is that too much like hard work? Easier to just come on here and sling mud?
No one making any comment on McKinney's links with Connor via fermanagh.tv and the £90,000 services purchase conveniently broken into 9 separate packages to take it below the tender threshold?
Quote from: Mac Eoghain on May 03, 2010, 04:19:10 PM
The leaflet that was given to me did not have one policy on it - and surely if someone is standing at your front door canvassing for votes is it not my perogative to ask them on a policy
Absolutely and you were completely right to. I'm only writing in response to Maguire who asked me to explain SF's economic policies here even though it was you who raised the issue. Maguire on the other hand I suspect is writing solely to sling mud. Again.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 03, 2010, 02:15:33 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on May 03, 2010, 10:36:28 AM
Quote from: Mac Eoghain on May 03, 2010, 08:56:10 AM
I'm sure someone on here could enilighten me as to what Sinn Fein's tax and economic policies are? No harm to Michelle but if she was looking to attract 'undecided' voters around the Moy she could have done better than send the two gimps who landed at my door the other night - I asked the question as above and was met with a blank expression and told that every vote counts - maybe I was being too vague?
;D ;D ;D
Intelligent reply gaffer
I like an aul laugh every now and then !!!
Quote from: Mac Eoghain on May 03, 2010, 08:56:10 AM
I'm sure someone on here could enilighten me as to what Sinn Fein's tax and economic policies are? No harm to Michelle but if she was looking to attract 'undecided' voters around the Moy she could have done better than send the two gimps who landed at my door the other night - I asked the question as above and was met with a blank expression and told that every vote counts - maybe I was being too vague?
You'll tend to get that 'blank expression' with local campaigners who arrive at your door if you dare to ask a question which in anyway relates to real social/economic issues. The majority of these campaigners would have entered politics on the back of the political struggle and would still have a bit to learn regarding real policies. Dare I say, this would be more evident within Sinn Fein than in the SDLP. However, there seems to be real effort within parties to develop their youth wings (Ogra SF etc) and it's this young talent that SF will be confident can help them further shine at a local level as time goes on - ever so gradually replacing the older guard.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 03, 2010, 04:12:54 PM
Read a manifesto. Or is that too much like hard work? Easier to just come on here and sling mud?
Where did I sling mud? Someone has asked what one of the party's position is on tax and economics, no one has been able to answer him. Where's the mud?
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs305.snc3/28850_384912378013_705163013_4064829_4688485_n.jpg)
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 03, 2010, 06:10:41 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 03, 2010, 04:12:54 PM
Read a manifesto. Or is that too much like hard work? Easier to just come on here and sling mud?
Where did I sling mud? Someone has asked what one of the party's position is on tax and economics, no one has been able to answer him. Where's the mud?
Oh you were just being helpful and considerate? Gud man ::)
Nally I think it is fair enough for Maguire to comment on a previous post outlining the ineptitude of people canvassing doors for political parties while having no notion about pertinent issues at hand - especially if Sinn Fein want to gather more electoral votes on the basis of the politics - not the sectarian headcount.
Ill admit he got both man and ball in the tackle - but you focusing on the wrong point that is being made. Usually you do argue your points and dont resort to the eye rolling smileys - so what do you think about SF sending people out to the doors who havnt a notion about the party stance on economical issues (which in this current climate is probably more important to the on the fence voter than making sure Bobby Sand's seat doesnt fall to a unionist candidate)?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 03, 2010, 08:15:26 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 03, 2010, 06:10:41 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 03, 2010, 04:12:54 PM
Read a manifesto. Or is that too much like hard work? Easier to just come on here and sling mud?
Where did I sling mud? Someone has asked what one of the party's position is on tax and economics, no one has been able to answer him. Where's the mud?
Oh you were just being helpful and considerate? Gud man ::)
You might not like it if it's negative for your party, but that doesn't make it mud.
Quote from: Puckoon on May 03, 2010, 08:47:50 PM
Nally I think it is fair enough for Maguire to comment on a previous post outlining the ineptitude of people canvassing doors for political parties while having no notion about pertinent issues at hand - especially if Sinn Fein want to gather more electoral votes on the basis of the politics - not the sectarian headcount.
Ill admit he got both man and ball in the tackle - but you focusing on the wrong point that is being made. Usually you do argue your points and dont resort to the eye rolling smileys - so what do you think about SF sending people out to the doors who havnt a notion about the party stance on economical issues (which in this current climate is probably more important to the on the fence voter than making sure Bobby Sand's seat doesnt fall to a unionist candidate)?
Well as you say, man and ball. I've already mentioned to Mac Eoghain, he was perfectly right to ask about the economy if that is a concern. And if the lads on the doorstep didn't know their stuff, it's foolish of them, that's what I think.
As you say, the economy is a central theme in this election. One thing it should probably be remembered is that most SF people on the doorstep, as Cusack Og already suggested, "would have entered politics on the back of the political struggle" and have joined SF on the basis of a burning passion for Irish Unity (which is, as I've been at pains to argue on this board many times) is NOT sectarian. The reality is that the newer breed (eg Ógra Shinn Fein or new SF members) must be prepared to answer questions on issues like the economy. I think it should also be noted that this is not an issue unique to Sinn Féin for the sake of slinging mud. I recently asked an SDLP member in omagh how the SDLP planned, in this time of recession and on the back of the Quinn crisis etc, to produce the 40,000 jobs the party spoke of and he too had an expression simlar to a man left behind on the moon. And this question was asked to him due to a similar fact refered to by Mac Eoghain in that the ONLY SDLP leaflet put through my door contained not only no mention of economic policies, but no policies whatsoever, (just a cheap dig at SF abstentionism).
You cant have an economic policy if you dont control the purse strings and are just left administer what is being doled out from the exchequer. This applies to all parties, though some like to pretend different. The only real economic policy, which is espoused by SF, is for all parties to unite and fight the budgetary cuts which are coming. This can best be achieved through the OMDFM, nothing will be achieved from the backbenches of Westminister, never has,never will
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 03, 2010, 10:10:27 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on May 03, 2010, 08:47:50 PM
Nally I think it is fair enough for Maguire to comment on a previous post outlining the ineptitude of people canvassing doors for political parties while having no notion about pertinent issues at hand - especially if Sinn Fein want to gather more electoral votes on the basis of the politics - not the sectarian headcount.
Ill admit he got both man and ball in the tackle - but you focusing on the wrong point that is being made. Usually you do argue your points and dont resort to the eye rolling smileys - so what do you think about SF sending people out to the doors who havnt a notion about the party stance on economical issues (which in this current climate is probably more important to the on the fence voter than making sure Bobby Sand's seat doesnt fall to a unionist candidate)?
Well as you say, man and ball. I've already mentioned to Mac Eoghain, he was perfectly right to ask about the economy if that is a concern. And if the lads on the doorstep didn't know their stuff, it's foolish of them, that's what I think.
As you say, the economy is a central theme in this election. One thing it should probably be remembered is that most SF people on the doorstep, as Cusack Og already suggested, "would have entered politics on the back of the political struggle" and have joined SF on the basis of a burning passion for Irish Unity (which is, as I've been at pains to argue on this board many times) is NOT sectarian. The reality is that the newer breed (eg Ógra Shinn Fein or new SF members) must be prepared to answer questions on issues like the economy. I think it should also be noted that this is not an issue unique to Sinn Féin for the sake of slinging mud. I recently asked an SDLP member in omagh how the SDLP planned, in this time of recession and on the back of the Quinn crisis etc, to produce the 40,000 jobs the party spoke of and he too had an expression simlar to a man left behind on the moon. And this question was asked to him due to a similar fact refered to by Mac Eoghain in that the ONLY SDLP leaflet put through my door contained not only no mention of economic policies, but no policies whatsoever, (just a cheap dig at SF abstentionism).
What questions, if any, did you ask Sin Fein about how they would deal with the recession and what was their reply?
http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy (http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy)
Quote from: ziggysego on May 04, 2010, 12:26:54 AM
http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy (http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy)
Yes, the Sinn Fein guys on the doorstep have this of to a tee!!! ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: Pangurban on May 03, 2010, 10:17:21 PM
You cant have an economic policy if you dont control the purse strings and are just left administer what is being doled out from the exchequer. This applies to all parties, though some like to pretend different. The only real economic policy, which is espoused by SF, is for all parties to unite and fight the budgetary cuts which are coming. This can best be achieved through the OMDFM, nothing will be achieved from the backbenches of Westminister, never has,never will
Correcto - contrary to what many believe here SF have stated their economic policy openly but more importantly IMO honestly. They have stated that until fiscal powers are devolved then it is virtually impossible to make predictions on what the handout from the exchequor is going to be. They have stated that corporation tax should be levied on an All island basis at 12.5%. I think their assumptions are correct in this matter. Other parties have pulled figures out of the air for 40,000 new jobs however they have yet to put up a viable argument as to how this will happen when the inevitable cuts come in! They're living in dreamland. How can you have solid economic policies when you don't know the amount available - just not possible and so far I think SF have ben the only party to be honest on this issue!
Quote from: Gaffer on May 04, 2010, 12:29:08 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 04, 2010, 12:26:54 AM
http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy (http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy)
Yes, the Sinn Fein guys on the doorstep have this of to a tee!!! ::) ::) ::)
I can't imagine they all do, no. However the ones that don't, shouldn't be selected to go on television and talk about it.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 03, 2010, 10:10:27 PMI recently asked an SDLP member in omagh how the SDLP planned, in this time of recession and on the back of the Quinn crisis etc, to produce the 40,000 jobs the party spoke of and he too had an expression simlar to a man left behind on the moon.
What a coincidence! The same thing happened to you, only with the SDLP, but you've just decided to recall it now! It's like David Cameron and his "I met a man the other day..." anecdotes.
For the record, I'm sure there are people working for all parties who are clueless - in fact I'm sure some of the candidates would meet you with a similar expression.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 04, 2010, 08:11:43 AM
What a coincidence! The same thing happened to you, only with the SDLP, but you've just decided to recall it now! It's like David Cameron and his "I met a man the other day..." anecdotes.
Or Minder and his Shinner with the flash car.
Quote from: Ulick on May 04, 2010, 08:22:36 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 04, 2010, 08:11:43 AM
What a coincidence! The same thing happened to you, only with the SDLP, but you've just decided to recall it now! It's like David Cameron and his "I met a man the other day..." anecdotes.
Or Minder and his Shinner with the flash car.
I saw it the other day and isn't as flash as I first thought.
During an election campain SF try to visit as many homes as possible and mobilise all party members and others to help.There are many issues raised on the doorstep,economics,abortion,education,health,social welfare,and local issues,if the person at the door is unable to answer any of the questions asked they will get someone with all the relevent information to call back and explain the party policy on these issues.
Quote from: Minder on May 04, 2010, 08:58:59 AM
I saw it the other day and isn't as flash as I first thought.
I know the feeling. Thinking of upgrading mine to a '10.
Speaking of F&ST ;), I have two neighbours, one of whom is still registered down there, but both are dyed in the wool SDLP supporters. They have both stated their disgust at the SDLP stance with regards gestures made on SB and F&ST and have said that they will both be voting Sinn Fein (albeit only in this election to start with).
Quote from: Ulick on May 03, 2010, 07:15:50 PM
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs305.snc3/28850_384912378013_705163013_4064829_4688485_n.jpg)
wtf?!
'Lord' Morrow has no helmet :o
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 04, 2010, 10:15:29 AM
Speaking of F&ST ;), I have two neighbours, one of whom is still registered down there, but both are dyed in the wool SDLP supporters. They have both stated their disgust at the SDLP stance with regards gestures made on SB and F&ST and have said that they will both be voting Sinn Fein (albeit only in this election to start with).
Being from F&ST the feeling here is if this seat is lost to a tory a lot of people will not forget when it comes to the Assembly election (when PR kicks in). McKinney's vote in the Assembly election in my opinion will suffer.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 04, 2010, 08:11:43 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 03, 2010, 10:10:27 PMI recently asked an SDLP member in omagh how the SDLP planned, in this time of recession and on the back of the Quinn crisis etc, to produce the 40,000 jobs the party spoke of and he too had an expression simlar to a man left behind on the moon.
What a coincidence! The same thing happened to you, only with the SDLP, but you've just decided to recall it now! It's like David Cameron and his "I met a man the other day..." anecdotes.
For the record, I'm sure there are people working for all parties who are clueless - in fact I'm sure some of the candidates would meet you with a similar expression.
No, I didn't bring it up because I don't honestly think the economy is something the parties here have a whole lot of influence in anyway and therefor didn't feel the need to raise the issue in a debate about Fermanagh/South Tyrone (besides, we all know the real issue in Fermanagh/South Tyrone is the SDLP's co-operation with the Orange Order).
I raised the issue to this SDLP member (SDLP youth I should probably point out) to ask how in the current climate his party proposed to create FOURTY THOUSAND jobs. If you are incapable of engaging in debate Maguire, at least don't resort to "you're telling lies". So hard to believe I would ask an SDLP member about an election promise during an election campaign?
I never said you were telling lies. I just thought it was a great coincidence.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 04, 2010, 01:31:03 PM
I never said you were telling lies. I just thought it was a great coincidence.
I know, two people asking two parties about the economy during an election campaign. I can see your point.
O'Reilly expresses shock at latest Connor revelation
Published: 4 May, 2010
Sinn Féin Councillor Thomas O'Reilly has expressed shock and outrage at further revelations that between his appointment and his resignation as Chief Executive of Fermanagh District Council Rodney Connor is to cost rate payers almost half a million pounds.
Councillor O'Reilly said:
"We are in the middle of a recession. People are struggling to meet their bills and pay their mortgages. It is in this context that hundreds of jobs are being lost in Quinn Insurance in this constituency and many others face losing their jobs all over Ireland. And in the middle of all of this we hear that Rodney Connor is to cost ratepayers in Fermanagh almost half a million pounds between his controversial appointment and the enhanced severance package, which he immediately received upon his resignation as Chief Executive of Fermanagh District Council in March 2010.
"Many constituents have expressed their outrage and disgust to myself and my party colleagues and are asking is it possible that Rodney Connor is using money from the hard pressed ratepayers of Fermanagh to fund his election campaign.
"There is a huge degree of hypocrisy in all of this. Rodney Connor is asking voters to back him and to back the cuts being planned by the Tories. Ordinary people are being asked to tighten their belts and to take wage cuts and Rodney Connor is shedding crocodile tears at the job losses within Quinn Insurance. The Tories are planning to cut unemployment benefit and housing benefit, and reduce working tax credits and child tax credits for families who are struggling to get by. Meanwhile, here we have the Tory candidate in Fermanagh South Tyrone with his wallet stuffed with wads of ratepayers money from his golden handshake seeking to get on the gravy train to Westminster.
"Rodney Connor now has numerous questions to answer. Why did he not declare when he got this generous financial package that he was planning to contest the Westminster election? Does he plan to keep both his pension and his enhanced severance package as well as an MP salary in the unlikely event that he was elected? Does he think it is right that Fermanagh rate payers should face substantial rate hikes to cover the half a million pounds he has cost?"
http://www.fermanaghsouthtyronesf.com/news/16499 (http://www.fermanaghsouthtyronesf.com/news/16499)
Is that the same Cllr O'Reilly who spoke so highly of Mr Connor when he stepped down?
Also Cllr O'Reilly talks about the "unlikely event" of Mr Connor bring elected.... why are SF supporters giving out about the SDLP if his election is so unlikely.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 04, 2010, 06:06:13 PM
Is that the same Cllr O'Reilly who spoke so highly of Mr Connor when he stepped down?
Also Cllr O'Reilly talks about the "unlikely event" of Mr Connor bring elected.... why are SF supporters giving out about the SDLP if his election is so unlikely.
Eh, what has that got to do with anything? Have you nothing to say about the questions asked?
I'm not sure why he should have had to declare his intentions before he did. I'm not sure about normal protocol regarding drawing a pension and becoming an MP so i'm not sure how appropriate or otherwise this is.
Of course it's a disaster that this episode has cost Fermanagh DC so much money, but I'm unclear as to how much of this was the fault of Rodney Connor himself.
It's also hard to make serious comment on most of the articles you post as most of them are clearly from biased sources.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 04, 2010, 07:06:42 PM
I'm not sure why he should have had to declare his intentions before he did. I'm not sure about normal protocol regarding drawing a pension and becoming an MP so i'm not sure how appropriate or otherwise this is.
Of course it's a disaster that this episode has cost Fermanagh DC so much money, but I'm unclear as to how much of this was the fault of Rodney Connor himself.
It's also hard to make serious comment on most of the articles you post as most of them are clearly from biased sources.
The source is irrelevant if the claims are valid. I notice you didn't comment on the previous piece about McKinney and contracts his company were awarded from the council as well. Has he no questions to answer there either?
I'd have no problem with the NIAO looking into the claims on contract award to see if there's anything in them. I'm surprised none of the mainstream media has picked up on it. The only place this story seems to appear is on that one republican blog - and it raised little more interest there than it has here.
Also, I wasn't clear as to who made the award decision - was it just Connor or was it the Council (i.e. including Councillors)?
I'd be happy to see it investigated if deemed necessary.
I wouldn't be a Nally stand type Sinn Feiner but I am becoming more and more disgusted that the SDLP are prepared to let this seat go to unionists with them having absolutly no chance of giving it a run. Disgrace.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 04, 2010, 08:59:56 PM
I wouldn't be a Nally stand type Sinn Feiner but I am becoming more and more disgusted that the SDLP are prepared to let this seat go to unionists with them having absolutly no chance of giving it a run. Disgrace.
i concur
I have a feeling that The SDLP vote will collapse in Fermanagh, South Tyrone.
What will stop Sinn Fein from winning here could be the die hard republican vote along the Fermanagh border.
Sinn Fein has had serious problems here and if they abstain from voting, then Michelle could be gone
Quote from: FermGael on May 04, 2010, 09:14:00 PM
I have a feeling that The SDLP vote will collapse in Fermanagh, South Tyrone.
What will stop Sinn Fein from winning here could be the die hard republican vote along the Fermanagh border.
Sinn Fein has had serious problems here and if they abstain from voting, then Michelle could be gone
It mightn't collapse enough tho
Not sure Fox.
Tommy Gallagher had a lot of loyal, local support around Belleek, Belcoo, Garrison and the surrounding area.
He did alot of good work for the area
From talking to a few, alot are dismayed about the way he was shoved to one side and McKinney has been parachuted in to a seat that he has no realistic chance of winning.
Did Tommy want to stand again? Is he intending to stand for Stormont again?
Paddy Power current odds: Rodney the Castlederg man looking good.
Rodney Connor 8/13
Michelle Gildernew 6/5
Fearghal McElhinney 33/1
TUV 66/1
John Stevenson 100/1
Alliance 200/1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWQ5VBBoUJg&feature=player_embedded
Gildernew's final plea
Michelle would do well to remember what gets the young Republican vote out. More cleavage.
You wouldn't mess with Maskey, even in a cardigan - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7WzElT9Lbg&NR=1
Ha! Watch the dander of the lad on the right in the opening shot.
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs573.snc3/31257_385904618013_705163013_4089514_6900509_n.jpg)
God on the case
The Rhythm Of Time
There's an inner thing in every man,
Do you know this thing my friend?
It has withstood the blows of a million years,
And will do so to the end.
It was born when time did not exist,
And it grew up out of life,
It cut down evil's strangling vines,
Like a slashing searing knife.
It lit fires when fires were not,
And burnt the mind of man,
Tempering leadened hearts to steel,
From the time that time began.
It wept by the waters of Babylon,
And when all men were a loss,
It screeched in writhing agony,
And it hung bleeding from the Cross.
It died in Rome by lion and sword,
And in defiant cruel array,
When the deathly word was 'Spartacus'
Along the Appian Way.
It marched with Wat the Tyler's poor,
And frightened lord and king,
And it was emblazoned in their deathly stare,
As e'er a living thing.
It smiled in holy innocence,
Before conquistadors of old,
So meek and tame and unaware,
Of the deathly power of gold.
It burst forth through pitiful Paris streets,
And stormed the old Bastille,
And marched upon the serpent's head,
And crushed it 'neath its heel.
It died in blood on Buffalo Plains,
And starved by moons of rain,
Its heart was buried in Wounded Knee,
But it will come to rise again.
It screamed aloud by Kerry lakes,
As it was knelt upon the ground,
And it died in great defiance,
As they coldly shot it down.
It is found in every light of hope,
It knows no bounds nor space
It has risen in red and black and white,
It is there in every race.
It lies in the hearts of heroes dead,
It screams in tyrants' eyes,
It has reached the peak of mountains high,
It comes searing 'cross the skies.
It lights the dark of this prison cell,
It thunders forth its might,
It is 'the undauntable thought', my friend,
That thought that says 'I'm right!'
Bobby Sands MP for Fermanagh & South Tyrone died at 1.17am on Tuesday the 5th May 1981 RIP
O'Neill, it was rumoured at one time that canavan had been approached by the shinners to stand for them and he turned them down, from what I heard
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 05, 2010, 05:12:12 PM
O'Neill, it was rumoured at one time that canavan had been approached by the shinners to stand for them and he turned them down, from what I heard
Wasn't the same people that told you about Gerry's three holiday homes by any chance?
It was rumoured - in a local newspaper article a couple years ago if I remember correctly.
Right, I'm sticking my fiver on Michelle. I'm putting a smidgeon of faith in the wavering SDLPers and non-voting republicans to turn out en masse and stick their axe beside The Gilder.
Quote from: Puckoon on May 05, 2010, 05:59:03 PM
It was rumoured - in a local newspaper article a couple years ago if I remember correctly.
You do
if it ends up a hung parliment in london and the torys win f&st will the SDLP (bold L for labour) be happy that they allowed 1 tory seat?
Once again, all the party has given the voters is a choice. The electorate will decide who to return. And if they think Gildernew is the best option, she'll win. If she doesn't win, it's because not enough people voted for her.
As Gerry'd say catch yourself on.
Once again, all the party has done is given Rodney Connor a real chance.
Someone needs to reign in McKinney's ego and I suspect the electorate will.
A good last point Maguire if she fails to get elected its because not enough of the electorate have voted for her. You have provided a staunch support over the previous pages for the SDLP. Do you accept that the party is in terminal decline because in previous elections not enough of the electorate have voted for them? At most elections people make individual choices and if Connor takes this seat I doubt if I would ever vote SDLP again even under the PR system!
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 05, 2010, 08:52:04 PM
Once again, all the party has given the voters is a choice. The electorate will decide who to return. And if they think Gildernew is the best option, she'll win. If she doesn't win, it's because not enough people voted for her.
thats naive..
Quote from: ONeill on May 05, 2010, 06:07:44 PM
Right, I'm sticking my fiver on Michelle. I'm putting a smidgeon of faith in the wavering SDLPers and non-voting republicans to turn out en masse and stick their axe beside The Gilder.
I think you will win that bet Shane, a couple of thousand defectors from the toothless sdlp will see her over the line, the shinners are very confident it will happen I can tell you that.
I never voted for them in my life but if I was living in that constituency I would vote for them this time around and not only that but the sdlp would never get my vote again, what a useless shower of hoors they are.
The best of luck to my old mate Michelle. I hope she does it, a few stoops I have been talking to are now going to vote SF because of the stoops refusal to withdraw in FST including the biggest stoop I know.
Quote from: Sandino on May 05, 2010, 09:07:37 PM
A good last point Maguire if she fails to get elected its because not enough of the electorate have voted for her. You have provided a staunch support over the previous pages for the SDLP. Do you accept that the party is in terminal decline because in previous elections not enough of the electorate have voted for them? At most elections people make individual choices and if Connor takes this seat I doubt if I would ever vote SDLP again even under the PR system!
If the SDLP lose votes over this then that will be the price they'll pay for their decision. Maybe SF should have really tried to call their bluff and looked for a credible nationalist unity candidate who would take their seat at Westminster? Prove that they didn't just want to protect their own seat and were really only concerned about 'putting nationalism first'?
Quote from: magickingdom on May 05, 2010, 07:41:08 PM
if it ends up a hung parliment in london and the torys win f&st will the SDLP (bold L for labour) be happy that they allowed 1 tory seat?
I think the SDLP couldn't care less if there is a hung parliment or not. regardless of all their faults and all their claims, they know they are only plaing token politics in westminster.
Loada postal votes rejected I hear, including my own. Wonder if thats across the board...
Quote from: haranguerer on May 05, 2010, 11:05:50 PM
Loada postal votes rejected I hear, including my own. Wonder if thats across the board...
How do you know that?
I read that postal votes were down by about 50%.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 05, 2010, 11:11:39 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 05, 2010, 11:05:50 PM
Loada postal votes rejected I hear, including my own. Wonder if thats across the board...
How do you know that?
I posted and signed them all personally - in fact the Electoral Office had the cheek to question some - it is my understanding that anyone who died after 1960 has still got a viable vote!
However, if I was to put £50 on a bet tomorrow - is Michelle a good sweat? I feel that the Unionist vote might not hit 24,000 - thus if the son of the pig-owning class (Feaaarrrghhaalll) gets 5,000 .. I see MG coming home with 25,000?????
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on May 05, 2010, 11:20:53 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 05, 2010, 11:11:39 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 05, 2010, 11:05:50 PM
Loada postal votes rejected I hear, including my own. Wonder if thats across the board...
How do you know that?
I posted and signed them all personally - in fact the Electoral Office had the cheek to question some - it is my understanding that anyone who died after 1960 has still got a viable vote!
Do you think there is fraud going on in the postal votes?
Blanket denial of proxy/postal applications west of the Bann
Published: 2 May, 2010
Omagh Sinn Fein Councillor Seán Begley and the party's West Tyrone Director of Elections, has expressed deep concern about he claims to be the blanket denial of postal and proxy vote applications by the Electoral Office in areas West of the Bann. He said,
"A trend has emerged in areas West of the Bann which points to the blanket refusal by the Electoral Office to grant entirely legitimate postal and proxy voter applications. This trend is particularly pronounced in Fermanagh South Tyrone, Mid-Ulster, Foyle and our own constituency of West Tyrone.
"Our party is being inundated with complaints from angry voters who have been denied the right to vote despite providing the Electoral Office with the evidence they were asked for to validate their postal/proxy vote application.
"For example, we have examples of people who will be away on holiday on Election Day and who have provided the Electoral Office with documentary evidence such a flight and accommodation details. Despite this, they have been told that there is not sufficient evidence to grant a proxy or postal vote. We have countless examples of people who have applied for proxy/postal votes for medical reasons and who are housebound and despite having their applications validated by their GP or other professionally qualified medical personnel, they have also been told that there is not insufficient evidence to grant their application. We also have examples of applicants who are housebound and who have provided the requested documentary evidence that they are in receipt of the High Rate Mobility Component of DLA being turned down. And many other applicants have been turned down for a multiple of other spurious reasons.
"Unfortunately, there is no appeals mechanism to contest these highly arbitrary decisions. Serious questions now arise about the handling of this issue by the Chief Electoral Officer Douglas Bain. Incredibily, when speaking on radio this week, Douglas Bain himself acknowledged that the vast vast majority of applications that had been denied were entirely legitimate. So Sinn Fein will be seeking an urgent meeting with him and we will also be making urgent representations to the Electoral Commission about what has transpired. Serious questions arise and they must be answered."
http://www.westtyronesinnfein.com/news/16484
Eamon Mallie, just now on Twitter: Is it possible the only survey done in NI has got it wrong?One of UK's top polling companies is challenging accuracy of BT poll.
A little something I created tonight :)
(http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k389/quantumleaping/original_image.png)
Good luck to Michelle today!
Vote early, vote often ;)
Quote from: Zapatista on May 05, 2010, 11:11:39 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 05, 2010, 11:05:50 PM
Loada postal votes rejected I hear, including my own. Wonder if thats across the board...
How do you know that?
Letter landed to home saying it had been rejected, something to do with the signature, heard from someone involved in the constituency that a lot had been rejected. This is just in reference to FST, and predominantly nationalist votes, thats not to say others havent been rejected too, just I havent heard about them. Given that SF are notable for working hard in pursuing postal votes, I'd imagine that they would suffer most from a high number of rejections.
I dont know how significant the figures would be, at the minute its looking like a long trip home this evening. Every vote counts and that. Maybe stick a few quid on MG and hope to recoup costs...
Quote from: haranguerer on May 06, 2010, 09:14:16 AM
I dont know how significant the figures would be, at the minute its looking like a long trip home this evening. Every vote counts and that. Maybe stick a few quid on MG and hope to recoup costs...
Fair balls to ye.
O'Connor is 8/11 -
Gildernew is evens
What do you'se reckon ???
Quote from: haranguerer on May 06, 2010, 09:14:16 AM
Letter landed to home saying it had been rejected, something to do with the signature, heard from someone involved in the constituency that a lot had been rejected. This is just in reference to FST, and predominantly nationalist votes, thats not to say others havent been rejected too, just I havent heard about them. Given that SF are notable for working hard in pursuing postal votes, I'd imagine that they would suffer most from a high number of rejections.
I dont know how significant the figures would be, at the minute its looking like a long trip home this evening. Every vote counts and that. Maybe stick a few quid on MG and hope to recoup costs...
Where are you based haranguerer? Ogra SF have free buses running a return trip from Belfast via Dungannon:
"The Buses will leave QUB Students Union at 1pm, & 6pm on Thursday the 6th of May. Return Buses will leave Enniskillen at 9pm that Evening, also stopping in Balllygawley and Dungannon.
Please contact Colleen for more details on 07709130339
MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT - Vote for Michelle Gildenew!!"
It is impossible to guess. If she doesn't get in, SDLP will never be forgiven.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 06, 2010, 10:29:23 AM
It is impossible to guess. If she doesn't get in, SDLP will never be forgiven.
It'll be reflected in the Assembly vote, that's for sure.
Clever response Maguire alas it makes no attempt to answer my question. You should get involved in politics theres bound to be some party our there who could do with a clear thinker like you!
Aye Ulick, got a message about it. Twas when I replied I found out my postal vote was in doubt, rang home and that was confirmed. Enniskillens a right bit away from me, so I'll prob just drive and call in home for a while, but fair play to them.
I just heard Eamonn Mallie speaking on Radio 1, he says that Feargal McKinney's profile has dropped like a stone in the last 7 days, and he hinted that there may have been something happening behind the scenes locally in FST. He says that Tom Elliot and local unionists are very concerned.
He also said that obscene amounts of money have been placed on Rodney Connor, and that is why he is slight favourite with the bookies, but in reality there is nothing in it.
Quote from: Feckitt on May 06, 2010, 11:43:02 AM
I just heard Eamonn Mallie speaking on Radio 1, he says that Feargal McKinney's profile has dropped like a stone in the last 7 days, and he hinted that there may have been something happening behind the scenes locally in FST. He says that Tom Elliot and local unionists are very concerned.
He also said that obscene amounts of money have been placed on Rodney Connor, and that is why he is slight favourite with the bookies, but in reality there is nothing in it.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5H6ry9lvzmc/SxYP164zdwI/AAAAAAAAARM/ijsgcdJTPug/s1600/grin.png)
?
Quote from: Feckitt on May 06, 2010, 11:43:02 AM
I just heard Eamonn Mallie speaking on Radio 1, he says that Feargal McKinney's profile has dropped like a stone in the last 7 days, and he hinted that there may have been something happening behind the scenes locally in FST. He says that Tom Elliot and local unionists are very concerned.
He also said that obscene amounts of money have been placed on Rodney Connor, and that is why he is slight favourite with the bookies, but in reality there is nothing in it.
By whom I wonder ??
The SF tally men ??? ;)
Quote from: Feckitt on May 06, 2010, 11:43:02 AM
I just heard Eamonn Mallie speaking on Radio 1, he says that Feargal McKinney's profile has dropped like a stone in the last 7 days, and he hinted that there may have been something happening behind the scenes locally in FST. He says that Tom Elliot and local unionists are very concerned.
He also said that obscene amounts of money have been placed on Rodney Connor, and that is why he is slight favourite with the bookies, but in reality there is nothing in it.
If you beleive it then you should bet big on MG whilst the odds are in your favour.
where are people getting these odds from ?
i have just backed Michelle Gildernew at 7/4 with Paddy Power. Connor is favourite at 2/5.
Quote from: Onlooker on May 06, 2010, 12:18:01 PM
i have just backed Michelle Gildernew at 7/4 with Paddy Power. Connor is favourite at 2/5.
No betting on north antrim with paddy power at the moment, seems the odds are being recalculated, is the TUV making more inroads into the DUP vote??
Can we back the Alliance candidate each way?
"The Buses will leave QUB Students Union at 1pm, & 6pm on Thursday the 6th of May. Return Buses will leave Enniskillen at 9pm that Evening, also stopping in Balllygawley and Dungannon.
Please contact Colleen for more details on 07709130339
MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT - Vote for Michelle Gildenew!!"
[/quote]
I think that this is worth repeating, if you know anyone in Belfast from Fermanagh or South Tyrone, send them a text and let them know
Quote from: Feckitt on May 06, 2010, 01:22:47 PM
"The Buses will leave QUB Students Union at 1pm, & 6pm on Thursday the 6th of May. Return Buses will leave Enniskillen at 9pm that Evening, also stopping in Balllygawley and Dungannon.
Please contact Colleen for more details on 07709130339
MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT - Vote for Michelle Gildenew!!"
I think that this is worth repeating, if you know anyone in Belfast from Fermanagh or South Tyrone, send them a text and let them know
[/quote]
That message is flying everywhere on Twitter this morning. No doubt it's on Facebook and BEBO too.
Quote from: Feckitt on May 06, 2010, 11:43:02 AM
I just heard Eamonn Mallie speaking on Radio 1, he says that Feargal McKinney's profile has dropped like a stone in the last 7 days, and he hinted that there may have been something happening behind the scenes locally in FST. He says that Tom Elliot and local unionists are very concerned.
He also said that obscene amounts of money have been placed on Rodney Connor, and that is why he is slight favourite with the bookies, but in reality there is nothing in it.
Heard last week that Connor had gone rogue and one or other of the unionist parties were refusing canvass for him
she's a bit of a cliff hanger in this one :-\ :-\
The Fermanagh/South Tyrone count was suspended at 0430 BST after two recounts in which Michelle Gildernew and Rodney Connor were neck and neck.
After the second recount, Mrs Gildernew, Sinn Fein, was just two votes ahead of independent unionist unity candidate Rodney Connor.
She had 21,300 votes to Mr Connor's 21,298.
Counting is due to resume at 1100 BST on Friday
how was our Arlene getting on ??? she'll be pleased... oh aye, and Ferghal, is he in the running :-\ :'(
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OvD7y01oznw/SKad8j-aYsI/AAAAAAAACGg/rzX8QhBlJZk/s400/ArleneFoster.gif)
This is a win win for SF and Gildernew.
I have not voted for a few years but yesterday I went and brought my parents who have not been in a while either. Really hope it makes the difference. :)
I am so delighted for Michelle Gildernew, she fought a great campaign. Very proud of her and the excellent canvassing by her team in FST. In West Tyrone yesterday the only constituency anyone was talking about was FST!
whether Gildernew wins this or not, I am surprised at how close this was.
I honestly thought that Connor would win by several hundred at least (actually thought it would be over a thousand).
Gildernews team played a fantastic game it seems. I thought it was mathematically impossible for them. Was the unionist turnout somewhat low in this constituency?
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 09:44:20 AM
I am so delighted for Michelle Gildernew, she fought a great campaign. Very proud of her and the excellent canvassing by her team in FST. In West Tyrone yesterday the only constituency anyone was talking about was FST!
you are a bit early with that statement as the recount not unto 11am
Quote from: EC Unique on May 07, 2010, 09:38:52 AM
I have not voted for a few years but yesterday I went and brought my parents who have not been in a while either. Really hope it makes the difference. :)
How does it feel to have maybe swayed the election?
Quote from: gerry on May 07, 2010, 09:49:12 AM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 09:44:20 AM
I am so delighted for Michelle Gildernew, she fought a great campaign. Very proud of her and the excellent canvassing by her team in FST. In West Tyrone yesterday the only constituency anyone was talking about was FST!
you are a bit early with that statement as the recount not unto 11am
Regardless of the recount I stand over every word. One of the best campaigns I can recall.
what was the result at the end of the original count ?
Quote from: gerry on May 07, 2010, 09:49:12 AM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 09:44:20 AM
I am so delighted for Michelle Gildernew, she fought a great campaign. Very proud of her and the excellent canvassing by her team in FST. In West Tyrone yesterday the only constituency anyone was talking about was FST!
you are a bit early with that statement as the recount not unto 11am
She still can't lose. The only thing at stake for her now is a Westminster seat and who cares about it. She wins either way. No one will notice or give a feck about who is or isn't running off to London in a few weeks time but they will remember what happened at this election.
I'm hearing there is some old antiquated law that in the event of a draw a coin is tossed to decide the winner. Anyone know about this? Would be ironic if Sinn Féin went through on the Queen's head :o
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 07, 2010, 10:12:08 AM
I'm hearing there is some old antiquated law that in the event of a draw a coin is tossed to decide the winner. Anyone know about this? Would be ironic if Sinn Féin went through on the Queen's head :o
Heard that before too. Would be class if it did happen :D
Quote from: Bensars on May 07, 2010, 10:08:48 AM
what was the result at the end of the original count ?
+6 for connor.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 07, 2010, 10:12:08 AM
I'm hearing there is some old antiquated law that in the event of a draw a coin is tossed to decide the winner. Anyone know about this? Would be ironic if Sinn Féin went through on the Queen's head :o
That was the premise of a a jeffrey archer book, i doubt either candidate would have the grace to accept a loss, i can see this one being decided in the courts.
Quote from: Bensars on May 07, 2010, 10:08:48 AM
what was the result at the end of the original count ?
CONNOR: 21296 GILDERNEW: 21288
Quote from: Zapatista on May 07, 2010, 10:13:40 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 07, 2010, 10:12:08 AM
I'm hearing there is some old antiquated law that in the event of a draw a coin is tossed to decide the winner. Anyone know about this? Would be ironic if Sinn Féin went through on the Queen's head :o
Heard that before too. Would be class if it did happen :D
If Sinn Féin refuse to recognise the crown they could superglue a euro and stirling 10p together... sorry, I had a very late night :-\
In fairness I know a lot of Protestant farmers who voted (or at least said they were going to) vote for Michelle. She has done a lot for the farming communities with one complaint iv heard being that she has done more for the protestant farmer than for the catholic equivilant. Regardless, if she has appeased the protestant community to some extent to vote for her well then she has done an admirable job. With the upcoming budget cuts and slashing of public expenditure, now is the time for the green and the orange to stand side by side.
Secterian politics is on its way out, slowly but surely!
Quote from: Final Whistle on May 07, 2010, 10:22:38 AM
In fairness I know a lot of Protestant farmers who voted (or at least said they were going to) vote for Michelle. She has done a lot for the farming communities with one complaint iv heard being that she has done more for the protestant farmer than for the catholic equivilant. Regardless, if she has appeased the protestant community to some extent to vote for her well then she has done an admirable job. With the upcoming budget cuts and slashing of public expenditure, now is the time for the green and the orange to stand side by side.
Secterian politics is on its way out, slowly but surely!
Haven't followed this thread much but I'd have to disagree. A unionist 'unity' candidate resulting in a sectarian headcount rather than a proper election on those silly notions such as issues and merit. Depressingly like the old days I think.
It seems you didnt follow his post - anecdotally there were protestants who voted for gildernew, on merit rather than creed.
Quote from: Final Whistle on May 07, 2010, 10:22:38 AM
Secterian politics is on its way out, slowly but surely!
I completely agree.
The biggest draw back on that at the minute is when it is being used to attack parties through rhetoric rather than fact. The more I here the SDLP refer to 'not returning to the politics of the past' (ala SF) the more I think they're are relying on it.
Hot off the press - Unionist camp are alleging fraud in some postal votes.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 11:28:14 AM
Hot off the press - Unionist camp are alleging fraud in some postal votes.
Where'd you hear this?
Quote from: omagh_gael on May 07, 2010, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 11:28:14 AM
Hot off the press - Unionist camp are alleging fraud in some postal votes.
Where'd you hear this?
Inside info from the count ;)
(http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/files/2010/02/the-count.jpg)
I can understand recounts being called and giving different results in a PR count ...transfer sample bundles being different e.g ... but in a one sheet/one vote and tot them all up ...how can there be differences?
Or is it a case of ::) ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on May 07, 2010, 11:39:05 AM
I can understand recounts being called and giving different results in a PR count ...transfer sample bundles being different e.g ... but in a one sheet/one vote and tot them all up ...how can there be differences?
Or is it a case of ::) ::) ::) ::)
There're only human.
Alleged fraud :o
This will never end.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 11:38:40 AM
Quote from: omagh_gael on May 07, 2010, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 11:28:14 AM
Hot off the press - Unionist camp are alleging fraud in some postal votes.
Where'd you hear this?
Inside info from the count ;)
(http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/files/2010/02/the-count.jpg)
Ah...he's a solid source alright! He'll be stuck there for a good while though as he won't be able to leave the hall into the daylight!
Quote from: Zapatista on May 07, 2010, 11:41:44 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 07, 2010, 11:39:05 AM
I can understand recounts being called and giving different results in a PR count ...transfer sample bundles being different e.g ... but in a one sheet/one vote and tot them all up ...how can there be differences?
Or is it a case of ::) ::) ::) ::)
There're only human.
Alleged fraud :o
This will never end.
It is no surprise with Arlene Foster pulling the strings, smacks of desperation now which I think is a great sign for Michelle Gildernew. This election after all was the most water tight ever in terms of postal and proxy votes.
FST count just under way, clarification that if vote remains the same MG will be declared on BBC radio ulster. Wendy Austin questioning Sinn Fein's dilema of choosing the coin side if it comes to it ;)
Whoever is declared winner will be in pole position regardless of any allged fraud / wrong doing etc etc.
What's the chances of a sympathetic cop putting a couple of votes in his pocket and walking away with them ?
Use an old Irish 10p piece and then its Harp or the fish.
Counting has been suspended untill the fix the counter device
(http://www.tyntesfieldestate.com/images%20two/abacus.jpg)
AldousDuke
.There's a saying round these parts sinn Fein know well. 'Say nothing til you see fahy!' Sinn Fein's solicitor is well in the mix today. ...
It's as well that people weren't turned away from pollinng stations in FST, as happened in several places in England, that would really stir things up.
Quote from: the_daddy on May 07, 2010, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: mick999 on May 07, 2010, 12:29:17 PM
AldousDuke
.There's a saying round these parts sinn Fein know well. 'Say nothing til you see fahy!' Sinn Fein's solicitor is well in the mix today. ...
Pah, I said that 8 hours ago
Indeed you did, I remember reading it. Got to bed at 4:15am. Tried sitting up for F/ST
Radio Ulster are reporting that the count in F & ST will take another hour!
AldousDuke
.The 3rd recount for FST is a slow and precise one. Talk of 37 votes in particular being looked at closely. Most rumour's been spot on so ...
are they missing or are they being looked for in relation to the mark on the paper
Quote from: AidyMac on May 07, 2010, 01:25:30 PM
are they missing or are they being looked for in relation to the mark on the paper
I believe that this is the analysis of the spoiled votes ...
FST Count staff on lunch break. Going to be a long day....
any idea of what time we can expect a result?
No matter what happens this is some smack in the face for
(a) The unionist parties in FST. They thought the unity candidate would have won this at his ease. Shows just how good Sinn Fein are at mobilizing there support.
(b) The SDLP in FST. Should not have ditched Gallagher and could have endangered his seat in the next assembly elections.
If Sinn Fein win this then it will also put Rodney Connor in his box. A more obnoxious p***k you could not meet
Quote from: mick999 on May 07, 2010, 01:14:54 PM
AldousDuke
.The 3rd recount for FST is a slow and precise one. Talk of 37 votes in particular being looked at closely. Most rumour's been spot on so ...
Thought it said on the radio that there was 36 votes that were dubious ( that wasnt the exact phrase and im paraphrasing) and that they had been removed !
As it looks likely that there will be another election shortly I would think (regardless of the result today) that Gildernew in interviews etc should thank and rethank the SDLP voters who voted for her and NOT whinge about its decision to stand.
One other thing I notice is the absence of smiling from the Sinn Féin MPs........ imo they need to take some outside PR advice...... although to be fair Gildernew is the exception.
The Unionists seemed from TV a more pleasant group.
Quote from: mick999 on May 07, 2010, 01:27:56 PM
Quote from: AidyMac on May 07, 2010, 01:25:30 PM
are they missing or are they being looked for in relation to the mark on the paper
I believe that this is the analysis of the spoiled votes ...
FST Count staff on lunch break. Going to be a long day....
Just to correct myself, it appears that there are a few extra ballot papers discovered ..
Both sides havel legal teams there.
36 more ballot papers counted, than were issued !!
Looks like ending up in court.
Hanging Chad time alright.
Quote from: Canalman on May 07, 2010, 01:31:43 PM
As it looks likely that there will be another election shortly I would think (regardless of the result today) that Gildernew in interviews etc should thank and rethank the SDLP voters who voted for her and NOT whinge about its decision to stand.
One other thing I notice is the absence of smiling from the Sinn Féin MPs........ imo they need to take some outside PR advice...... although to be fair Gildernew is the exception.
The Unionists seemed from TV a more pleasant group.
try living with them
BBC now reporting the 36 extra vote story ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/northern_ireland/8667134.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/northern_ireland/8667134.stm)
Sources have claimed 36 more ballot papers were counted in Fermanagh South Tyrone than were recorded as having been issued by the Electoral Office.
In addition, it is understood a handful of what have been described as suspect papers have been identified.
There has been no adjudication yet on these ballot papers.
Mistakes made at the booths while marking of the register i'd say. The same could be found in any constituency. I'd be very surprised if there was that type of stupid fraud at play. Voting for your brother or what not i expect but printing ballot papers is a little hard to see.
If you were going to do it you wouldnt be stopping at 36 either. Its an administrative error rather than fraud I reckon
It said they were tracking them by the barcodes. The postal ballots had the barcode on the back and the normal ballot had it at the front. Surely there is no way of tracking who was assigned a particular piece of ballot paper ?
Cant be the case - if it's possible to identify who voted for who then each and every ballot is scrap and the election a farce.
Quote from: Franko on May 07, 2010, 02:07:29 PM
Cant be the case - if it's possible to identify who voted for who then each and every ballot is scrap and the election a farce.
It is and it is
A green, red, white & blue UK rainbow coalition govt between Conservatives, DUP & Sinn Fein in the offing. You heard it here first!
Quote from: Franko on May 07, 2010, 02:07:29 PM
Cant be the case - if it's possible to identify who voted for who then each and every ballot is scrap and the election a farce.
I'd say it's very possible. It might be illegal to findout and publish it though.
QuoteCant be the case - if it's possible to identify who voted for who then each and every ballot is scrap and the election a farce.
I'd say it's very possible. It might be illegal to findout and publish it though.
You cannot identify a voter by their ballot. It's the foundation stone of democracy.
I believe that regardless of the outcome in FST, this is a big result for Sinn Fein. I think that the SDLP have probably polarised a lot of there followers and there will be a big swing to Sinn Fein in the stormont elections.
Sinn Fein will be officially the largest party in Northern Ireland on the basis of overall vote's, after the FST result comes in. It surely wont be long now till they are the largest party in stormont, with a Sinn Fein 1st Minister.
Either way, this has been a big result for Sinn Fein!!!!!
Quote from: StGallsGAA on May 07, 2010, 02:22:34 PM
QuoteCant be the case - if it's possible to identify who voted for who then each and every ballot is scrap and the election a farce.
I'd say it's very possible. It might be illegal to findout and publish it though.
You cannot identify a voter by their ballot. It's the foundation stone of democracy.
http://www.hart.gov.uk/index/your_council/democracy_elections/even_more_about_elections/is_my_vote_secret.htm
AldousDuke
Count finished but verification will take a while. The 36 ballots are from last nights figures. Things cud have changed.
MG by 4 votes - official
AldousDuke
.Gildernew wins by 4
Congratulations Michelle! Great stuff!
Some result for Michelle.
I can't see the Unionists accepting it all the same.
What an achievement! It was fitting in the week of Bobby Sand's anniversary that this seat remained in Republican Hands. As big a shock as Peter the CPunt getting turfed out.
Final tally Gildernew 21304 connor 21300
(http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh118/xopherwhite/f5.gif)
Quote from: orangeman on May 07, 2010, 02:44:35 PM
Some result for Michelle.
I can't see the Unionists accepting it all the same.
James Cooper went to the high court in 2001 and got told to f**k off.
That's great. Well done Michelle and SF. A very positive victory for all the people of the north.
Can anyone confirm a recount has been refused?
All the unionists, the english tories and a fat tangoed ex UTV presenter couldn't beat a young woman from Tyrone...
Great news - well done Michelle!
JUST BEEN DECLARED!!!
GIlDERNEW WINS BY FOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Great stuff, and a well done the good folk of F & S Tyrone.
Congrats to Michelle. The people of fst are no fools!
The people have spoken- Sinn Fein the largest party ! Yee HA !!!
A good result but a poor night for democracy in my opinion. Clegg playing kingmaker is a disaster waiting to happen.
Quote from: sheamy on May 07, 2010, 02:50:43 PM
All the unionists, the english tories and a fat tangoed ex UTV presenter couldn't beat a young woman from Tyrone...
It runs in her family! Against all odds again!
Quote from: trileacman on May 07, 2010, 02:53:30 PM
A good result but a poor night for democracy in my opinion. Clegg playing kingmaker is a disaster waiting to happen.
It's the only result that could hold hope for democracy.
It's irrelevant in these parts.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
What an achievement! It was fitting in the week of Bobby Sand's anniversary that this seat remained in Republican Hands.
Equally fitting too then that SF's abstentionist policy may make it that bit more likely that a Tory led government will be formed in the same week.
Incredible result.
Massive result.
Just listening to the declaration now, this is brilliant stuff.
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2008/06/05/caledone.jpg)
Quote from: saffron sam2 on May 07, 2010, 02:54:57 PM
Equally fitting too then that SF's abstentionist policy may make it that bit more likely that a Tory led government will be formed in the same week.
Well, it puts SF in a stronger position to demand futher powers which will eventually make the London Government less important in these elections. Rather than support their token politics SF will futher empower the people of the north though abstentionism.
That turnout can't be correct , Can it ??
98.4 %
http://www.u.tv/Election2010/Constituency/Ferm-Sth-Tyrone/10
Brilliant well done Michelle
Quote from: saffron sam2 on May 07, 2010, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 07, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
What an achievement! It was fitting in the week of Bobby Sand's anniversary that this seat remained in Republican Hands.
Equally fitting too then that SF's abstentionist policy may make it that bit more likely that a Tory led government will be formed in the same week.
Not the way I would look at it to be honest SS2, SF have went to the people with a consistent abstentionist policy and been consistent on that position.
Lets see Arelene fosters celebrating now, like she did last night ;D
Sinn Fein hold
BBC have it correct ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/707.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/707.stm)
UTV have 10k extra votes each :-))
Quote from: strongbow316 on May 07, 2010, 03:03:49 PM
Lets see Arelene fosters celebrating now, like she did last night ;D
If anyone could get a clip of that I'd really appreciate it.
AHHHH this declaration is music to the ears. Unlucky sdlp. Stooped too far this time ;D
Quote from: sheamy on May 07, 2010, 02:50:43 PM
All the unionists, the english tories and a fat tangoed ex UTV presenter couldn't beat a young woman from Tyrone...
Didn't know Julian Simmons was running
Quote from: Minder on May 07, 2010, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: sheamy on May 07, 2010, 02:50:43 PM
All the unionists, the english tories and a fat tangoed ex UTV presenter couldn't beat a young woman from Tyrone...
Didn't know Julian Simmons was running
He wasn't. They found someone even less electable!
Quote from: Zapatista on May 07, 2010, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: strongbow316 on May 07, 2010, 03:03:49 PM
Lets see Arelene fosters celebrating now, like she did last night ;D
If anyone could get a clip of that I'd really appreciate it.
It was brilliant. She wasn't long in getting up the motorway after it. :D
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:07:16 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 07, 2010, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: sheamy on May 07, 2010, 02:50:43 PM
All the unionists, the english tories and a fat tangoed ex UTV presenter couldn't beat a young woman from Tyrone...
Didn't know Julian Simmons was running
He wasn't. They found someone even less electable!
What was his name again? :D
There has to be a suspicion that the SDLP pulled up on this one, fielding a team to fulfil the fixture without trying too hard, having an eye to the assembly elections.
There may never a unionist MP in Fermanagh/South Tyrone again.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 07, 2010, 03:08:21 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:07:16 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 07, 2010, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: sheamy on May 07, 2010, 02:50:43 PM
All the unionists, the english tories and a fat tangoed ex UTV presenter couldn't beat a young woman from Tyrone...
Didn't know Julian Simmons was running
He wasn't. They found someone even less electable!
What was his name again? :D
Ehhh....I know this....
no. its GONE!
Best thread ever!!
Quote from: strongbow316 on May 07, 2010, 03:03:49 PM
Lets see Arelene fosters celebrating now, like she did last night ;D
Was watching last night online, was a great evenings veiwing but this part nearly made me sick. Well up her hole the auld bag!!
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
I think its fair to say Unionism is dieing on its feet. :)
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Fair played to Michelle and the team
Folks on the radio saying well done to Conors for getting so close having only entered the race late.
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Says Einstein!
Quote from: Carmen Stateside on May 07, 2010, 03:17:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Says Einstein!
I prefer Newton.
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Well Gallsman, the SDLP admitted as much themselves. Didn't they call themselves POST-NATIONALIST??? They have shown their true colours as always and the people have one again shown them the middle finger and in bigger numbers than ever!
Quote from: Carmen Stateside on May 07, 2010, 03:17:38 PM
Says Einstein!
The famous dog from back to the future or the less well known guy from the funny photo?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Well Gallsman, the SDLP admitted as much themselves. Didn't they call themselves POST-NATIONALIST??? They have shown their true colours as always and the peoplehave, one again, shown them the middle finger in bigger numbers than ever!
They comfortably retained all three seats...Even Ritchie, who anyone with half a brain cell finds difficult to like had no bother winning.
Quote from: Carmen Stateside on May 07, 2010, 03:11:12 PM
Quote from: strongbow316 on May 07, 2010, 03:03:49 PM
Lets see Arelene fosters celebrating now, like she did last night ;D
Was watching last night online, was a great evenings veiwing but this part nearly made me sick. Well up her hole the auld bag!!
Anybody know what time roughly that she was at this celebrating craic?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
Well Gallsman, the SDLP admitted as much themselves. Didn't they call themselves POST-NATIONALIST??? They have shown their true colours as always and the people have one again shown them the middle finger and in bigger numbers than ever!
Someone said earlier on the thread that it might be worth appreciating the trad SDLP voters who casted their voters for SF. Good advice I think.
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Well Gallsman, the SDLP admitted as much themselves. Didn't they call themselves POST-NATIONALIST??? They have shown their true colours as always and the peoplehave, one again, shown them the middle finger in bigger numbers than ever!
They comfortably retained all three seats...Even Ritchie, who anyone with half a brain cell finds difficult to like had no bother winning.
With Reduced minorities. And the strategist brains in the SDLP still did foresee that their refusal to withdraw from Fermanagh/South Tyrone was a suicide attempt. HALVED THEIR VOTE :D :D :D And they will further rue their decision come the assembly elections!
QuoteAnybody know what time roughly that she was at this celebrating craic?
BBC NI just after the first figures came in showing Connor 4 votes ahead. Check the time of that count (01:30 or whenever).
Quote from: JohnDenver on May 07, 2010, 03:21:38 PM
Quote from: Carmen Stateside on May 07, 2010, 03:11:12 PM
Quote from: strongbow316 on May 07, 2010, 03:03:49 PM
Lets see Arelene fosters celebrating now, like she did last night ;D
Was watching last night online, was a great evenings veiwing but this part nearly made me sick. Well up her hole the auld bag!!
Anybody know what time roughly that she was at this celebrating craic?
she was sneering and punching the air in the studio after the first result came in at about 3 am as far as I remember! It's all a blur :D
This is not a day for soundbites... we can leave those at home... but I feel the hand of history upon our shoulder with this, I really do :D
Quote from: AidyMac on May 07, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
Fair played to Michelle and the team
Scour on the radio saying well done to Conors for getting so close having only entered the race late.
Tough sh&^e - it was 2 orange against the green and we won
^^^Hardly the progressive opinion that is likely to make our protestant neighbouirs see eye to eye with us. Yes Unionism may be in a state right now, but petty point scoring will do nothing but alienate them further. We are all on here bestowing our congratulations to Michelle, how about we take a leaf out of her book and extend the hand of friendship to our protestant neighbours.
As we will find out soon enough, there is an oppertunity for green and orange to unite in the same fights, and on two different battlefronts also.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:23:27 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Well Gallsman, the SDLP admitted as much themselves. Didn't they call themselves POST-NATIONALIST??? They have shown their true colours as always and the peoplehave, one again, shown them the middle finger in bigger numbers than ever!
They comfortably retained all three seats...Even Ritchie, who anyone with half a brain cell finds difficult to like had no bother winning.
With Reduced minorities. And the strategist brains in the SDLP still did foresee that their refusal to withdraw from Fermanagh/South Tyrone was a suicide attempt. HALVED THEIR VOTE :D :D :D And they will further rue their decision come the assembly elections!
A reduced minority? How does someone win a first-past-the-post election with a minority?
SDLP vote halved? You think unionists are the only ones who know how to vote tactically?
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:27:43 PM
How does someone win a first-past-the-post election with a minority?
A lot of them do. Most parliamentary candidates, certainly in the North, win a FPTP election with a minority of the votes cast.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 02:51:40 PM
Great stuff, and a well done the good folk of F & S Tyrone.
thanks....
congrats to michelle...
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:27:43 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:23:27 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Well Gallsman, the SDLP admitted as much themselves. Didn't they call themselves POST-NATIONALIST??? They have shown their true colours as always and the peoplehave, one again, shown them the middle finger in bigger numbers than ever!
They comfortably retained all three seats...Even Ritchie, who anyone with half a brain cell finds difficult to like had no bother winning.
With Reduced minorities. And the strategist brains in the SDLP still did foresee that their refusal to withdraw from Fermanagh/South Tyrone was a suicide attempt. HALVED THEIR VOTE :D :D :D And they will further rue their decision come the assembly elections!
A reduced minority? How does someone win a first-past-the-post election with a minority?
SDLP vote halved? You think unionists are the only ones who know how to vote tactically?
Ah wud ye cheer up! You'd think you would be happy to see a nationalist take a nationalist seat! Oh wait, your obviously a stoop so maybe not :D
It shows how important every vote is! What was the turn out % in Fermanagh/South Tyrone
Quote from: stibhan on May 07, 2010, 03:29:32 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:27:43 PM
How does someone win a first-past-the-post election with a minority?
A lot of them do. Most parliamentary candidates, certainly in the North, win a FPTP election with a minority of the votes cast.
Apologies, didn't think that one through. I thought NS was attempting to imply that the SDLP managed to win seats despite not having the largest share of the vote.
well done Michelle ,& in particular to the tireless party workers who lobbied the big east european & portugese speaking community in Dungannon to come out & vote Sf.
Well done Michelle. Never let anyone say their vote does not count. Today shows that we all count. ;D
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:32:56 PM
Apologies, didn't think that one through. I thought NS was attempting to imply that the SDLP managed to win seats despite not having the largest share of the vote.
It was poor phrasing on his part.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:31:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:27:43 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:23:27 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 07, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: thegael on May 07, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Well done to Michelle Gildernew and rightly deserved. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone are no mugs.
But please could everyone stop referring to the sdlp as a nationalist party - they are not and are a pro union party who take their seats in Westminster and have a 'leader' who constantly refers to the 6 counties as ' northern ireland' . Rant over .
But yee haa time !!!
Intelligent fellow.
Well Gallsman, the SDLP admitted as much themselves. Didn't they call themselves POST-NATIONALIST??? They have shown their true colours as always and the peoplehave, one again, shown them the middle finger in bigger numbers than ever!
They comfortably retained all three seats...Even Ritchie, who anyone with half a brain cell finds difficult to like had no bother winning.
With Reduced minorities. And the strategist brains in the SDLP still did foresee that their refusal to withdraw from Fermanagh/South Tyrone was a suicide attempt. HALVED THEIR VOTE :D :D :D And they will further rue their decision come the assembly elections!
A reduced minority? How does someone win a first-past-the-post election with a minority?
SDLP vote halved? You think unionists are the only ones who know how to vote tactically?
Ah wud ye cheer up! You'd think you would be happy to see a nationalist take a nationalist seat! Oh wait, your obviously a stoop so maybe not :D
Cheer up? I'm happy for Gildernew. She fought off to unionist parties and did so deservedly. Why am I clearly as stoop? Because I refuse to believe the sun shine's out of every shinners arse?
Gallsman you don't know what you are !
Nally, you're right. It was 3.00 am Foster and McNarry were very smug engaging in their self congratulations with Foster punching the air and McNarry crowing that the unionist family should, "rejoice" whilst waxing about the benefits of unionist unity.
Don't count yer chickens and all that craic.
Gallsman you probably pre Ruc reform supported the abolition of rule 21 in the gaa!
Quote from: Final Whistle on May 07, 2010, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: AidyMac on May 07, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
Fair played to Michelle and the team
Folks on the radio saying well done to Conors for getting so close having only entered the race late.
^^^Hardly the progressive opinion that is likely to make our protestant neighbouirs see eye to eye with us. Yes Unionism may be in a state right now, but petty point scoring will do nothing but alienate them further. We are all on here bestowing our congratulations to Michelle, how about we take a leaf out of her book and extend the hand of friendship to our protestant neighbours.
As we will find out soon enough, there is an oppertunity for green and orange to unite in the same fights, and on two different battlefronts also.
I have no issue with anyone and well done Michelle and her team on a fantastic result. What really annoyed me was the way that the radio were implying that if everyone came out to vote things might have been different.
Quote from: funtime frankie on May 07, 2010, 03:39:38 PM
Nally, you're right. It was 3.00 am Foster and McNarry were very smug engaging in their self congratulations with Foster punching the air and McNarry crowing that the unionist family should, "rejoice" whilst waxing about the benefits of unionist unity.
Don't count yer chickens and all that craic.
She wasn't long getting from the studio in Belfast to the Leisure Centre in Omagh. I don't know what precise time she arrived at but exactly 1hr 10mins after punching the air in the studio, we were told she was already in the Leisure Centre. I'm sure the speed cameras got her anyway :D
QuoteAnd they will further rue their decision come the assembly elections!
Quite a few people will vote differently in the assembly elections. SDLP voters voted for Long, Hermon and Gildernew, but will vote for SDLP candidates in Assembly and council elections, just as SF voters in South Belfast will vote SF rather than SDLP.
Quotewell done Michelle ,& in particular to the tireless party workers who lobbied the big east european & portugese speaking community in Dungannon to come out & vote Sf.
Tireless they may be, but perhaps they should have been aware that EU citizens generally cannot vote in Westminster elections, so unless they got them a local passport they wouldn't be much help.
Thegael, if I don't know what I am, you certainly don't. However, I'd say I could make a stab at figuring out what you are. I'd be tempted to throw you in with pals of mine on this board like ross4life.
Quote from: AidyMac on May 07, 2010, 03:40:19 PM
Quote from: Final Whistle on May 07, 2010, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: AidyMac on May 07, 2010, 03:16:15 PM
Fair played to Michelle and the team
Folks on the radio saying well done to Conors for getting so close having only entered the race late.
^^^Hardly the progressive opinion that is likely to make our protestant neighbouirs see eye to eye with us. Yes Unionism may be in a state right now, but petty point scoring will do nothing but alienate them further. We are all on here bestowing our congratulations to Michelle, how about we take a leaf out of her book and extend the hand of friendship to our protestant neighbours.
As we will find out soon enough, there is an oppertunity for green and orange to unite in the same fights, and on two different battlefronts also.
I have no issue with anyone and well done Michelle and her team on a fantastic result. What really annoyed me was the way that the radio were implying that if everyone came out to vote things might have been different.
Aideymac-you seem to have dropped part of your original post, why?
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2010, 03:44:47 PM
QuoteAnd they will further rue their decision come the assembly elections!
Quite a few people will vote differently in the assembly elections. SDLP voters voted for Long, Hermon and Gildernew, but will vote for SDLP candidates in Assembly and council elections, just as SF voters in South Belfast will vote SF rather than SDLP.
Agreed - my number 1 in the assembly elections will probably not match where I put my X yesterday.
Fair play and well done to Michelle and Sinn Fein on an excellent result. Wasn't there someone on here in the last number of days talking about a rumour of Mc Kinney more less pulling out in terms of very little activity on the campaign trail etc. Not sure how much truth there is in this though!
Well done to the SDLP voters who switched candidates, clearly was quite a number and had the desired effect!
Quote from: funtime frankie on May 07, 2010, 03:39:38 PM
Nally, you're right. It was 3.00 am Foster and McNarry were very smug engaging in their self congratulations with Foster punching the air and McNarry crowing that the unionist family should, "rejoice" whilst waxing about the benefits of unionist unity.
Don't count yer chickens and all that craic.
http://bbc.co.uk/i/shnhg/?t=52m37s
And it doesn't matter about the DUP numbers now anyway and squeezing the raparees Tories in -- not enough to get over the outright majority line. :D
Quote from: Rois on May 07, 2010, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2010, 03:44:47 PM
QuoteAnd they will further rue their decision come the assembly elections!
Quite a few people will vote differently in the assembly elections. SDLP voters voted for Long, Hermon and Gildernew, but will vote for SDLP candidates in Assembly and council elections, just as SF voters in South Belfast will vote SF rather than SDLP.
Agreed - my number 1 in the assembly elections will probably not match where I put my X yesterday.
I would normally vote for all nationalists in PR elections but not next time. The SDLP will not be getting my vote. Thats a general feeling with a lot of people I have spoken to recently. I was sickened last night when it came through that a tory with the backing of the orange order had won. Thank god that result has now changed.
AldousDuke Very emotionally charged result for Sinn Fein. Atmosphere was electric. McKinney was battered. Connor somewhat bitter
AldousDuke Emotions almost boiled over in Omagh after the result, but it was the soothing words of Adams as gaelige that kept the thing calm
Congratulations to Michelle on a terrific win in Fermanagh South Tyrone today at Omagh.
The combined forces of the DUP, UUP, Tory and TUV could not stop you. F/ST is now a safe Nationalist/Republican seat.
As for Margaret Richie, you said you wanted the people of F/ST to speak. Well I hope you're listening, they spoke with a very loud voice yesterday!
gildernew4mp What can I say? (Twitter)
QuoteI would normally vote for all nationalists in PR elections but not next time.
This would be a stupid "
dog in the manger" attitude. In a PR election you should vote for all candidates in order of preference, SF, SDLP, Alliance, UU, DUP etc. Leaving the TUV type people last. Even if you believe that that the SDLP contributed to handing a seat to a unionist (albeit a pretty moderate one) and you object to this, your handing a seat to a unionist is hardly an appropriate response.
Ziggy u could post up a link to that fella's Twitter page?
Quote from: funtime frankie on May 07, 2010, 03:39:38 PM
Nally, you're right. It was 3.00 am Foster and McNarry were very smug engaging in their self congratulations with Foster punching the air and McNarry crowing that the unionist family should, "rejoice" whilst waxing about the benefits of unionist unity.
Don't count yer chickens and all that craic.
:D Aye, saw that ... Robbie Coltrane looked like she was having an orgasm ... some slap in the bake Gildernew winning
Quote from: omagh_gael on May 07, 2010, 04:16:24 PM
Ziggy u could post up a link to that fella's Twitter page?
http://twitter.com/AldousDuke (http://twitter.com/AldousDuke)
Quote from: Zapatista on May 07, 2010, 02:54:21 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 07, 2010, 02:53:30 PM
A good result but a poor night for democracy in my opinion. Clegg playing kingmaker is a disaster waiting to happen.
It's the only result that could hold hope for democracy.
It's irrelevant in these parts.
Don't see how it holds hope for democracy. When people who would rather engage in politics are left with no option but to engage in a fenian/brit headcount (at the behest of irrational unionist fears about a nationalist MP) then I think the ideals of democracy are not being best served.
Also this election is especially relevant in these parts. Do not forget we are currently bankrolled by the British governement to the tune of some several billion. Over half the population in the public service. If Cameron gets in (as SS2 has indicated) he has promised to slash the national expenditure during a recession, making reference to NI in particular. Ucomf has failed as well so he now has no obligation to fund NI and is free to fcuk us over however he pleases, safe in the knowledge that our mix of absentee politicians and independents will be to fractured and powerless to stop him.
Of one thing I am certain it is that these elections are not irrelevant. I'm happy to see Gildernew take FST but in the bigger picture it is a very small and irrelevant victory. A unhappy night for the two unionists parties increases the chance of a unionist unity pact and this combined with a conservative government bodes extremely poorly for nationalists of NI and the hopes for reunification.
People are slating Foster for counting her chickens before they hatch. Perhaps she's not the only one who doesn't see the bigger picture.
But once again congratulations to the people of FST for destroying the Unionist pact. It is a great achievement and sends a clear message.
AldousDuke Sinn Fein train touring Omagh in celebration cranking out "Something inside so strong"
Well done to Michelle and her team for securing the seat.
As someone said before, Margaret wanted the people to speak, and they did.
This will certainly hurt the SDLP in the long run.
Watching Foster and Allen (McNarry) last night when the 1st count came in
was pathetic. They will be sore loosers today no doubt.
Is this a record for the tightest winning margin in an election?
In terms of UK General Election records there was a tie for the seat in Ashton under Lyne in 1886. After the result being decided by drawing lots was challenged in court, the sitting MP was declared the winner.
The smallest majority ever recorded by a candidate was in Exeter in 1910 when one vote decided the winner.
Wikifox with the answers.....................
Prize in the post for you.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 07, 2010, 04:07:44 PM
As for Margaret Richie, you said you wanted the people of F/ST to speak. Well I hope you're listening, they spoke with a very loud voice yesterday.
Yes they did and I'm sure Ritchie will take this on board. Ritchie offered the people of FST a choice, there's nothing wrong with that. Unionists ruled this province for the guts of 60 years because the ideals of democracy were not upheld or provided to the nationalist people, I won't hold anything against Maragret for giving them a choice.
There was/is alot of finger-pointing and gloating being directed at the SDLP and some people would do well to consider one thing. There are people in FST who will never vote SF. They have various reasons which are completely unarguable and sound. These people in a fair, just and democratic society should have the option of voting for the SDLP and the SDLP have an obligation to offer these people an alternative nationalist mandate. Whether the SDLP get the seat or not is irrelevant but thse non-SF nationalists have a right to vote and as long as there exsists people within FST who want to vote for the SDLP then they should be provided the oppurtunity to do so.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 06, 2010, 09:14:16 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 05, 2010, 11:11:39 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on May 05, 2010, 11:05:50 PM
Loada postal votes rejected I hear, including my own. Wonder if thats across the board...
How do you know that?
Letter landed to home saying it had been rejected, something to do with the signature, heard from someone involved in the constituency that a lot had been rejected. This is just in reference to FST, and predominantly nationalist votes, thats not to say others havent been rejected too, just I havent heard about them. Given that SF are notable for working hard in pursuing postal votes, I'd imagine that they would suffer most from a high number of rejections.
I dont know how significant the figures would be, at the minute its looking like a long trip home this evening. Every vote counts and that. Maybe stick a few quid on MG and hope to recoup costs...
Well, that worked out! MG in, and I put £20 on at 7/4. Fair play to me and my fellow constituents :D :D
Quote from: give her dixie on May 07, 2010, 04:41:50 PM
Wikifox with the answers.....................
Prize in the post for you.
You did ask ::)
Quote from: trileacman on May 07, 2010, 04:43:11 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 07, 2010, 04:07:44 PM
As for Margaret Richie, you said you wanted the people of F/ST to speak. Well I hope you're listening, they spoke with a very loud voice yesterday.
Yes they did and I'm sure Ritchie will take this on board. Ritchie offered the people of FST a choice, there's nothing wrong with that. Unionists ruled this province for the guts of 60 years because the ideals of democracy were not upheld or provided to the nationalist people, I won't hold anything against Maragret for giving them a choice.
There was/is alot of finger-pointing and gloating being directed at the SDLP and some people would
do well to consider one thing. There are people in FST who will never vote SF. They have various reasons which are completely unarguable and sound. These people in a fair, just and democratic society should have the option of voting for the SDLP and the SDLP have an obligation to offer these people an alternative nationalist mandate. Whether the SDLP get the seat or not is irrelevant but thse non-SF nationalists have a right to vote and as long as there exsists people within FST who want to vote for the SDLP then they should be provided the oppurtunity to do so.
Fair comments, there should always be an alternative party that nationalists can vote for. Try explaining that to some of the knuckleheads on here though.
Will they accept this or can we expect some sort of legal challenge?
Quote from: EC Unique on May 07, 2010, 04:53:59 PM
Will they accept this or can we expect some sort of legal challenge?
Just checked, paddy hasnt paid me yet, so he thinks so :-\
Hilarious seeing McNarry saying how reassuring it was to see democacy working, when he thought Connors had won...
Quote from: EC Unique on May 07, 2010, 04:53:59 PM
Will they accept this or can we expect some sort of legal challenge?
I expect one but everyone knows it will fail including Connor and Foster. I just hope there were no underhand tactics by SF ( i.e. missing/extra votes) that could undermine the result. However SF are far too tuned in to risk such a humilating story over the head of an unimportant seat to them. They wouldn't have been at that craic this weather so FST is safe.
Quote from: trileacman on May 07, 2010, 04:43:11 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 07, 2010, 04:07:44 PM
As for Margaret Richie, you said you wanted the people of F/ST to speak. Well I hope you're listening, they spoke with a very loud voice yesterday.
Yes they did and I'm sure Ritchie will take this on board. Ritchie offered the people of FST a choice, there's nothing wrong with that. Unionists ruled this province for the guts of 60 years because the ideals of democracy were not upheld or provided to the nationalist people, I won't hold anything against Maragret for giving them a choice.
There was/is alot of finger-pointing and gloating being directed at the SDLP and some people would do well to consider one thing. There are people in FST who will never vote SF. They have various reasons which are completely unarguable and sound. These people in a fair, just and democratic society should have the option of voting for the SDLP and the SDLP have an obligation to offer these people an alternative nationalist mandate. Whether the SDLP get the seat or not is irrelevant but thse non-SF nationalists have a right to vote and as long as there exsists people within FST who want to vote for the SDLP then they should be provided the oppurtunity to do so.
Well said Trileacman.
Yes, well said.
Firstly, well done to Michelle on a very impressive victory.
However, they say there's one thing worse than a bad loser and that's a bad winner. SF should be delighted that they won in FST without a pact. The voters were given a choice and they elected their candidate - that's democracy. I had said all along that the SDLP were not denying anyone, that the electorate would decide - and they did. The voters of FST knew the score and voted accordingly; it's reasonable to assume that SF were not getting those other 3,700 SDLP votes regardless.
Some of the SF supporters on here show a real lack of respect for alternative political opinion. They preach equality, talk about an Ireland for everyone and how to engage with Unionists, yet can't respect an alternative nationalist opinion. It's right that nationalists should have a choice - it's not a one size fits all.
The SDLP's vote held up and their 3 MPs comfortably returned. We've probably reached the levelling out of the SF and SDLP vote now. The dire warnings of the SDLP stance on pacts were unfounded. I think there needs to be a recognition that there is more than one colour of nationalism and that a choice between the two should be respected.
Great election for nationalism.
unionism is on the ropes
The only thing that binds nationalists as a group together is the constitutional one. Since the GFA, that issue is now off the table in the short to medium term. The status of the north won't change without the consent of the majority of the people here and in the south - even the Shinners signed up to that - and that's not going to happen for 30 or 40 years. That being the case, voters can now consider other issues and on many of these the Shinners come up short. It is right that the SDLP stand in every constituency to give nationalists a proper choice.
Yeah, and you're such an expert on nationalism
Quote from: red hander on May 07, 2010, 06:30:16 PM
Yeah, and you're such an expert on nationalism
Intelligent response. ;)
Connor "seeking legal advice" according to Newsline.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 07, 2010, 06:42:34 PM
Connor "seeking legal advice" according to Newsline.
I would do the same if sunbeds done that to me!
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 07, 2010, 06:07:47 PM
The voters of FST knew the score and voted accordingly; it's reasonable to assume that SF were not getting those other 3,700 SDLP votes regardless.
Some of the SF supporters on here show a real lack of respect for alternative political opinion. They preach equality, talk about an Ireland for everyone and how to engage with Unionists, yet can't respect an alternative nationalist opinion. It's right that nationalists should have a choice - it's not a one size fits all.
Its not reasonable to assume that at all. Michelle Gildernews vote would definitely have been higher if the SDLP had not contested the seat.
What did the SDLP hope to achieve by putting McKinney up for election? They were never going to win it, and were likely to allow a unionist in which certainly wouldnt have helped their own voters.
They sought to damage SF, and in seeking to do so showed amazing ignorance of their constituency, in particular the support the likes of Tommy Gallagher personally had commanded, and which wasnt going to transfer to McKinney.
There is something nationalism should take from the recent elections though. Unionism has spent quite a while tearing strips out of each other for very little gainings. Now there is an increase in the calls for unionist unity which I believe will be pursued quite strongly in tomorrow's Newsletter.
Both SF and the SDLP need to be wary to not make the same mistakes. An unopposed Shinnership or unopposed Stoopship is in no-ones best interests.
I wouldn't worry too much about the influence of the News Letter, its circulation (and its journalism, come to that) is derisory
Quote from: red hander on May 07, 2010, 07:06:52 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about the influence of the News Letter, its circulation (and its journalism, come to that) is derisory
Regardless of what is in the News Letter, "Unionist Unity" is in the post I would think.
Doddsy seemed to pooh-pooh calls for a single unionist party while talking about unionist unity on UTV earlier ... while they might talk about it to the cows come home, I can't see them ever agreeing to it... it's no more likely than nationalist unity
Quote from: haranguerer on May 07, 2010, 06:52:59 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 07, 2010, 06:07:47 PM
The voters of FST knew the score and voted accordingly; it's reasonable to assume that SF were not getting those other 3,700 SDLP votes regardless.
Some of the SF supporters on here show a real lack of respect for alternative political opinion. They preach equality, talk about an Ireland for everyone and how to engage with Unionists, yet can't respect an alternative nationalist opinion. It's right that nationalists should have a choice - it's not a one size fits all.
What did the SDLP hope to achieve by putting McKinney up for election? They were never going to win it, and were likely to allow a unionist in which certainly wouldn't have helped their own voters.
I refer you to this post.Quote from: trileacman on May 07, 2010, 04:43:11 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 07, 2010, 04:07:44 PM
As for Margaret Richie, you said you wanted the people of F/ST to speak. Well I hope you're listening, they spoke with a very loud voice yesterday.
Yes they did and I'm sure Ritchie will take this on board. Ritchie offered the people of FST a choice, there's nothing wrong with that. Unionists ruled this province for the guts of 60 years because the ideals of democracy were not upheld or provided to the nationalist people, I won't hold anything against Margaret for giving them a choice.
There was/is alot of finger-pointing and gloating being directed at the SDLP and some people would do well to consider one thing. There are people in FST who will never vote SF. They have various reasons which are completely unarguable and sound. These people in a fair, just and democratic society should have the option of voting for the SDLP and the SDLP have an obligation to offer these people an alternative nationalist mandate. Whether the SDLP get the seat or not is irrelevant but these non-SF nationalists have a right to vote and as long as there exists people within FST who want to vote for the SDLP then they should be provided the opportunity to do so.
As for your opinion that a unionist would not have served the SDLP voters at all then I'm afraid the people who voted SDLP must have thought otherwise. It's perfectly legitimate that they would consider a sitting MP (protestant or not) would do better to retain jobs/funding and healthcare in the area than an absent MP.
The SDLP ran a candidate in FST to give the people of that area their democratic right to vote for a party if they wanted to. 3,700 people did and despite your protests you cannot deny them that. Vashundra Kamble or John Stevenson did not have a chance of winning either but they ran because they wanted to represent a certain aspect of the population of FST. You cannot deny a person the right to representation. SDLP provided representation to the people of FST and unless you have problems with the fundamental principles of democracy then you cannot deny them that.
Quote from: red hander on May 07, 2010, 07:06:52 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about the influence of the News Letter, its circulation (and its journalism, come to that) is derisory
That may be true, its influence on the larger unionist population might be negligible but it does give a certain indication of where the wind is blowing.
Quote from: red hander on May 07, 2010, 07:14:33 PM
Doddsy seemed to pooh-pooh calls for a single unionist party while talking about unionist unity on UTV earlier ... while they might talk about it to the cows come home, I can't see them ever agreeing to it... it's no more likely than nationalist unity
Perhaps it is unlikely but even at the top of this page people realise difficult times for unionism and there are calls for unity that are absent in the nationalist spectrum at this time. It mightn't happen but I worry that it might.
No more than some Nationalists do not want to have anything to do with SF I presume there are some Unionists who will never be in favour of Unity under the DUP.
The UUP were annihilated last night, and although they will have MLAs elected next year, the TUV are the second party of unionism now ... there's no way Allister is going to unite with the DUP unless they withdraw from government with the Shinners, so it'll not happen ... there'll be the odd electoral pact here and there, but they hate each other as much as the Shinners and the Stoops hate each other
Quote from: red hander on May 07, 2010, 07:32:21 PM
The UUP were annihilated last night, and although they will have MLAs elected next year, the TUV are the second party of unionism now ...
Did you miss the results? The TUV were humiliated - a distant third in unionism. There's talk they won't even contest the Assembly elections at all. The UUP will retain a core vote once they lose the Conservative tag.
Am delighted with the extra time winner for Sinn Fein and the nationalists in F&ST
I don't go along with the claim that SDLP were standing their candidate to give a choice of nationalist parties to the voters of F&ST. The main motive was obviously to stop Sinn Fein and some hope to rebuild their profile
Now they will play the victim card, a sacrifice made for the sake of democracy.
It was a stupid decision to field their no hope candidate and a real hammer blow was served to poxy Unionists despite their ill advised intervention onto the field. The SDLP actions attempted to scuttle the strategy that best served the vast majority of nationalists.
Not only were the SDLP incapable of representing nationalists against a Unionist candidate, they were hopelessly inadequate in every way.
"He who wishes to fight must first count the cost" Sun Tzu
Have SF been confirmed as the largest party by popular vote?
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 08:18:30 PM
Have SF been confirmed as the largest party by popular vote?
Yeah they topped the popular vote on 25.5% with the DUP half a point back on 20%
Quote from: omagh_gael on May 07, 2010, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 08:18:30 PM
Have SF been confirmed as the largest party by popular vote?
Yeah they topped the popular vote on 25.5% with the DUP half a point back on 20%
If you had been involved as a teller in the F & ST counts, the unionists would have a strong case for an appeal.
Does 5.5% not equate to half a point? ;)
Apologies SF 25.5% DUP 25% that's a bit better
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 08:18:30 PM
Have SF been confirmed as the largest party by popular vote?
DUP didn't stand in Fermanagh & S Tyrone or North Down. A meaningless statistic.
Quote from: Lecale2 on May 07, 2010, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 07, 2010, 08:18:30 PM
Have SF been confirmed as the largest party by popular vote?
DUP didn't stand in Fermanagh & S Tyrone or North Down. A meaningless statistic.
There's no such thing as a 'meaningless' statistic in north of Ireland politics don't you know! ;)
A Unionist merger is a good thing, the less unionist parties there are on this island the better IMO
Quote from: trileacman on May 07, 2010, 07:18:10 PM
What did the SDLP hope to achieve by putting McKinney up for election? They were never going to win it, and were likely to allow a unionist in which certainly wouldn't have helped their own voters.
I refer you to this post.Quote from: trileacman on May 07, 2010, 04:43:11 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 07, 2010, 04:07:44 PM
As for Margaret Richie, you said you wanted the people of F/ST to speak. Well I hope you're listening, they spoke with a very loud voice yesterday.
Yes they did and I'm sure Ritchie will take this on board. Ritchie offered the people of FST a choice, there's nothing wrong with that. Unionists ruled this province for the guts of 60 years because the ideals of democracy were not upheld or provided to the nationalist people, I won't hold anything against Margaret for giving them a choice.
There was/is alot of finger-pointing and gloating being directed at the SDLP and some people would do well to consider one thing. There are people in FST who will never vote SF. They have various reasons which are completely unarguable and sound. These people in a fair, just and democratic society should have the option of voting for the SDLP and the SDLP have an obligation to offer these people an alternative nationalist mandate. Whether the SDLP get the seat or not is irrelevant but these non-SF nationalists have a right to vote and as long as there exists people within FST who want to vote for the SDLP then they should be provided the opportunity to do so.
As for your opinion that a unionist would not have served the SDLP voters at all then I'm afraid the people who voted SDLP must have thought otherwise. It's perfectly legitimate that they would consider a sitting MP (protestant or not) would do better to retain jobs/funding and healthcare in the area than an absent MP.
The SDLP ran a candidate in FST to give the people of that area their democratic right to vote for a party if they wanted to. 3,700 people did and despite your protests you cannot deny them that. Vashundra Kamble or John Stevenson did not have a chance of winning either but they ran because they wanted to represent a certain aspect of the population of FST. You cannot deny a person the right to representation. SDLP provided representation to the people of FST and unless you have problems with the fundamental principles of democracy then you cannot deny them that.
[/quote]
Refer all you want, its still bollocks. Why doesnt everyone just run for election sure, to hell with any parties? No party can represent anyone totally, politics is a game of compromise. The SDLP gave people 'a democratic right to vote for a party if they wanted to...' for a day, in doing so they could well have lessened the voice of their own supporters for 4 years. Say what you like, Rodney Connors wouldnt have been seen in many nationalist areas. I only ever saw Ken Maginnis on TV (thank god) whenever he was my elected representative.
Haranguerer - If you had an issue you needed resolved or needed representation he would have to play ball and it would look bad for him for not helping out someone from the other side of the house. Someone alluded earlier, on this thread I think, that Michelle Gildernew was accused in parts of F & ST of helping Protestant farmers more than Catholic farmers, I would imagine so that she couldn't be accused of bias.
I know in my old constituency of North Antrim we had the devil himself, Big Ian, for 30 odd years and I know farmers at home, many staunch Republicans, had nothing but good things to say about the oul **** and reckoned he went above and beyond the call of duty at times for them
In an interview on U.T.V. today, Margaret Ritchie again cast a slur on the Nationalist people of the 6 Counties, when she explained her refusal to enter into a pact by saying she would not indulge in sectarian headcounts. Could some of her apologists on here please explain what is sectarian about Nationalism, or wishing to maximise the nationalist vote. I never heard her call unionism sectarian, when they enter into pacts, and she is right not to do so.
Quote from: Pangurban on May 07, 2010, 10:59:31 PM
In an interview on U.T.V. today, Margaret Ritchie again cast a slur on the Nationalist people of the 6 Counties, when she explained her refusal to enter into a pact by saying she would not indulge in sectarian headcounts. Could some of her apologists on here please explain what is sectarian about Nationalism, or wishing to maximise the nationalist vote. I never heard her call unionism sectarian, when they enter into pacts, and she is right not to do so.
Surely there is an element of sectarianism if you deny the people the right to vote on policies (imagine that!) and instead you can only vote along tribal lines. Jesus do away with any pretence of parties at all and just go in and tick orange, green or yellow.
its always been a sectarian vote in N.Ireland, or tactical voting if you live in an area where no Catholic/prod can get in. anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling him/herself. Long got her vote down to Peter's fook up really. as with her being the first Allinace MP
QuoteIf you had an issue you needed resolved or needed representation he would have to play ball and it would look bad for him for not helping out someone from the other side of the house.
I don't know much about Connor, but if he was running the council then he would be well used to dealing with allsorts and all parts of Fermanagh. He might have been a better representative, apart from actually sitting in the parliament he was not double jobbing in Stormont like most of the MPs, including Gildernew.
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 07, 2010, 04:12:55 PM
This would be a stupid "dog in the manger" attitude. In a PR election you should vote for all candidates in order of preference, SF, SDLP, Alliance, UU, DUP etc. Leaving the TUV type people last. Even if you believe that that the SDLP contributed to handing a seat to a unionist (albeit a pretty moderate one) and you object to this, your handing a seat to a unionist is hardly an appropriate response.
I disagree. In certain areas I would vote Unionism before i would vote the SDLP. If I thought the SDLP were not going to get elected I would put them last behind Unionists I thought weren't going to be elected. The SDLP have done nothing to empower Irish people in Ireland yet bluff their way through Nationalist politics. Their Nationalism is as genuine as FF's Republicanism.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 07, 2010, 11:31:20 PM
its always been a sectarian vote in N.Ireland, or tactical voting if you live in an area where no Catholic/prod can get in. anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling him/herself. Long got her vote down to Peter's fook up really. as with her being the first Allinace MP
So it's always been like that except.....
We are playing the brits game for them.
Disillusioned was making a good case until he started referring to politicians in terms of Catholic and Protesant, thus displaying that he has been influenced by a sectarian mindset. As for Tony Baloney, would he care to define what difference in social or economic policies the voters were being given an option to choose between
Quote from: Disillusioned on May 07, 2010, 11:51:04 PM
No one can live in N.Ireland can claim to be unaffected by sectarianism. In mentioning the religion of the politicians and voters I was referring to the previous posts.
What do you mean by unaffected?
Do you mean it like the same way we are affected by the weather?
Quote from: hardstation on May 07, 2010, 11:59:55 PM
This pact stuff is lazy, gutless bullshit. Having a pact with fcukers who you can't stand the sight of just to keep 'them cnuts' out.
Democracy my hole.
+1
I said from the start it was the wrong thing to do. Not that I thought she'd win though more that I thought Republican politics will win eventually and feck the seat for now.
Quote from: hardstation on May 07, 2010, 11:59:55 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 11:42:45 PM
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
Although putting pressure on another party to pull the plug so that 'our side' get in is wrong imo. It's this type of shite that the CRM stood up against all those years ago. Have the nads to stand on your own feet, work hard to get the people to vote for you. Sinn Fein did this in FST and it worked. Fair fcuks to Gildernew and Sinn Fein. It was a tremendous result.
This pact stuff is lazy, gutless bullshit. Having a pact with fcukers who you can't stand the sight of just to keep 'them cnuts' out.
Democracy my hole.
I'm not in agreement with that, simply stating that this is what it inevitably descends into when the whole foundation of a statelet is based on sectarian numbers: those in whose favour it was initially established will always be fearful for the preponderance of their numbers. That's unavoidable, and remember that the unionists triggered the whole fcukfest for themselves in F & ST with their 'Unity' candidate.
Quote from: hardstation on May 08, 2010, 12:16:44 AM
The "Well, if they're doing it, we're doing it" argument. Nonsense.
Where did I say that? You can leave the words out of my mouth, thanks anyway, not.
Quote from: hardstation on May 08, 2010, 12:21:05 AM
OK then "They started it".
Bullshit. The Brits started it.
Quote from: hardstation on May 08, 2010, 12:16:44 AM
The "Well, if they're doing it, we're doing it" argument. Nonsense.
There was to be no gain and no loss from the proposed pact. The only positive was that they would both secure seats. It would have been of benefit to SF and the SDLP as they would have been guarenteed to retain seats they already held and which they did hold. It was far from nonsense but it was still the wrong decision.
I'm looking forward to my day out at Fruithill Lawn Tennis & Bowling Club.
I reckon hardstation will take him.
I'll take the two of ye soft Antrim feckers in my bare feet, no problem at all.
If its a battle of wits, you will win hands down Hardy
Quote from: Pangurban on May 08, 2010, 12:40:10 AM
If its a battle of wits, you will win hands down Hardy
So long as that doesn't leave his head near Fears bare feet.
Quote from: hardstation on May 08, 2010, 12:43:58 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 08, 2010, 12:37:01 AM
I'll take the two of ye soft Antrim feckers in my bare feet, no problem at all.
I'm more intersted in Antrim winning on the pitch to be honest but if you are going to go all Green Street on me, 1400 at North Link park. I suppose you'll form a pact with a load of Derry hoors and we'll be out numbered. We have "Something inside so strong" so we do.
I see, 'tis a bit of soccer hooliganism you're after -- no can do. A mucksavage rake-about in the Fruithill car-park is more my style, or nothing at all. I'm particular about my rumbles.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 08, 2010, 12:44:24 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on May 08, 2010, 12:40:10 AM
If its a battle of wits, you will win hands down Hardy
So long as that doesn't leave his head near Fears bare feet.
Now you're talking Zap, I could be positively lethal on the day! :D
Lads, don't soften up Hardstation too much...after all there is his ma to contend with (eeek)
Getting serious again, I'd agree with Hardstation. I recall talking to a Shinner a couple of years ago regarding a pact and he claimed it wasn't something they'd consider such was the SDLP collapse and the strength of Sinn Fein itself. They had no interest in the state of the SDLP. To me that was a good argument.
I know the landscape changed regarding the Unionist bedding iniative during this election and it made electoral sense to counter this, but there was a sense of compromising what you stand for (in S Belfast particularly) for the sake of painting another area some shade of green. Surely there were some miffed SF supporters in S Belfast. What was the point in gradually building sound foundation in that area, and then opt out and tell their supporters to stick an X beside the odious McDonnell?
Michelle's victory (albeit helped by the SDLP's decision not to play ball) was much more satisfying in terms of standing for what you represent, although I understand the hypocrisy there in that she wouldn't have won only for the bad feeling towards the SDLP.
It has worked out well for SF but I think they've pulled the SDLP's knickers down knowing how it'd hopefully pan out.
Would Hume have made a pact?
Quote from: ONeill on May 08, 2010, 09:04:29 AM
Would Hume have made a pact?
I doubt it very much
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 08, 2010, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: ONeill on May 08, 2010, 09:04:29 AM
Would Hume have made a pact?
I doubt it very much
I think he would've. The from the older school; those who remember when Nationalists had little or no say in this part of the world.
Quote from: Disillusioned on May 07, 2010, 11:28:36 PM
I have lived through the period of the troubles from the age of 10 and I remember almost every significant event. The trend for revisionism of the period has not occurred for me, the sickening violence from every sector remain as a vivid memories. I cannot bring myself to vote for SF under any circumstances.
According to the logic of many posters on this thread I should be prepared to abandon my beliefs and principles to vote for SF to ensure that a Protestant politician cannot be elected becaue I am a Catholic nationalist. Sounds like sectarianism to me.
funnily enough you are very close to the militant IRA mindset - they refuse to vote for sf also, because they believe sf do not represent them at all. so they dont or wont vote sf, sdlp would have a better shot at their vote !
Rodney seemed very pissed off with the electoral office - what was all that about ?? Bad loser - he ended with "there'll one time !!! " - when ?? :D
Quote from: Disillusioned on May 07, 2010, 11:28:36 PM
I have lived through the period of the troubles from the age of 10 and I remember almost every significant event. The trend for revisionism of the period has not occurred for me, the sickening violence from every sector remain as a vivid memories. I cannot bring myself to vote for SF under any circumstances.
According to the logic of many posters on this thread I should be prepared to abandon my beliefs and principles to vote for SF to ensure that a Protestant politician cannot be elected becaue I am a Catholic nationalist. Sounds like sectarianism to me.
For someone who has lived through the troubles you have very little understanding of it.
Why, just because he has a different perspective on it? He wouldn't be the only one to think like that.
Is it me or is there something really, really, and I mean, really irritating about the newly elected MP for South Down. I can't put my finger on it. Arlene is just a bitter wee bitch but Mags Richtea....arghhhh.
Well done Michelle. Let them take ye to court if they want.
Mind, I'd give Sylvia one, and that's saying something.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 08, 2010, 11:22:35 AM
Why, just because he has a different perspective on it? He wouldn't be the only one to think like that.
Because it's got nothing to do with religion so he could leave that out of it.
Quote from: ONeill on May 08, 2010, 11:03:23 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 08, 2010, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: ONeill on May 08, 2010, 09:04:29 AM
Would Hume have made a pact?
I doubt it very much
I think he would've. The from the older school; those who remember when Nationalists had little or no say in this part of the world.
There is that. He also hated violence so that would mean he wouldn't have entertained a pact with those who support(ed) the use of violence to achieve political goals. That's my reasoning on it anyway
Quote from: Pangurban on May 08, 2010, 12:40:10 AM
If its a battle of wits, you will win hands down Hardy
That'd be like Meath winning a match between Antrim and Tyrone. It'd be impressive, but I'm not really up for it.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 08, 2010, 11:14:52 AM
Quote from: Disillusioned on May 07, 2010, 11:28:36 PM
I have lived through the period of the troubles from the age of 10 and I remember almost every significant event. The trend for revisionism of the period has not occurred for me, the sickening violence from every sector remain as a vivid memories. I cannot bring myself to vote for SF under any circumstances.
According to the logic of many posters on this thread I should be prepared to abandon my beliefs and principles to vote for SF to ensure that a Protestant politician cannot be elected becaue I am a Catholic nationalist. Sounds like sectarianism to me.
For someone who has lived through the troubles you have very little understanding of it.
Thats a very cheap accusation. When there's some substance to your snipes people might read what you say.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 11:42:45 PM
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
True, there will be a certain edge to the election but do you want to move back towards a more religiously-orientated voting or move away from it.
If SDLP had pulled out of FST then the population there could have just by stating their religion on the ballot paper or as hardstation says "are you a green, an orange or a yellow?"
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 08, 2010, 11:54:49 AM
There is that. He also hated violence so that would mean he wouldn't have entertained a pact with those who support(ed) the use of violence to achieve political goals. That's my reasoning on it anyway
He was the King of pacts when the place was in rubble.
Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2010, 12:04:06 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 11:42:45 PM
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
True, there will be a certain edge to the election but do you want to move back towards a more religiously-orientated voting or move away from it.
If SDLP had pulled out of FST then the population there could have just by stating their religion on the ballot paper or as hardstation says "are you a green, an orange or a yellow?"
Do the people who vote along Nationalist/Republican and Unionist lines get included in that? I would have voted SF in that case but it's because I'm a republican not a Catholic. There are also those who would have voted SF as a vote against the sectarian Tory candidate. There are probably those who would have voted tory against SF/IRA and not because they are prodestant. Some might have even voted tory against SF abstentionist policy.
Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2010, 12:04:06 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 11:42:45 PM
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
True, there will be a certain edge to the election but do you want to move back towards a more religiously-orientated voting or move away from it.
If SDLP had pulled out of FST then the population there could have just by stating their religion on the ballot paper or as hardstation says "are you a green, an orange or a yellow?"
No question, we need to move away from the tribal headcounts.
My point is that in a statelet that was founded on that basis (primitive sectarian headcount) it's highly unlikely that we'll ever reach a point where the sectarian aspect will be totally eradicated, so when it does surface it's no surprise (that's not to say that I think SF should engage in same).
That said, however, one of the most gratifying aspects of this most recent election was to hear Adams thank those loyalists/unionists in his constituency who had voted for him (small but hugely significant). That is truly progressive and hopeful (and amazing).
Michelle it is thought got some protestant farmer voyes given her role in agriculture.
I'd say they'll be keeping it to themselves all the same given the narrow margin of victory. ;)
Quote from: orangeman on May 08, 2010, 12:32:11 PM
Michelle it is thought got some protestant farmer voyes given her role in agriculture.
I'd say they'll be keeping it to themselves all the same given the narrow margin of victory. ;)
That's strange for a General Election. I suppose this stuff sticks with ye even if you are abstaining. In fact it might go in some way to supporting the idea that we are well capable of Governing ourselves and that taking seats at Westminster doesn't matter. What matters is empowering local people in the assembley.
Quote from: orangeman on May 08, 2010, 12:32:11 PM
Michelle it is thought got some protestant farmer voyes given her role in agriculture.
Indeed, and doubtless there'll be a few on the outer fringes of greenery who'd swear "to never (again) vote for a party that they [Protestants/unionists/loyalists] would vote for!" ;)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 08, 2010, 12:22:24 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2010, 12:04:06 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 11:42:45 PM
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
True, there will be a certain edge to the election but do you want to move back towards a more religiously-orientated voting or move away from it.
If SDLP had pulled out of FST then the population there could have just by stating their religion on the ballot paper or as hardstation says "are you a green, an orange or a yellow?"
No question, we need to move away from the tribal headcounts.
My point is that in a statelet that was founded on that basis (primitive sectarian headcount) it's highly unlikely that we'll ever reach a point where the sectarian aspect will be totally eradicated, so when it does surface it's no surprise (that's not to say that I think SF should engage in same).
That said, however, one of the most gratifying aspects of this most recent election was to hear Adams thank those loyalists/unionists in his constituency who had voted for him (small but hugely significant). That is truly progressive and hopeful (and amazing).
Adams was cute enough though, he knows that it is Catholic voters in the Suffolk area. He didn't mention the religion of the people who voted for him.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 08, 2010, 12:54:51 PM
Adams was cute enough though, he knows that it is Catholic voters in the Suffolk area. He didn't mention the religion of the people who voted for him.
Neither did I (mention the religion) -- little bit of pavlovian reduction there ardmhachaabu? ;)
He did indeed mention loyalsists & unionists.
By the way, congrats on number 2 ;)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 08, 2010, 12:59:04 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 08, 2010, 12:54:51 PM
Adams was cute enough though, he knows that it is Catholic voters in the Suffolk area. He didn't mention the religion of the people who voted for him.
Neither did I (mention the religion) -- little bit of pavlovian reduction there ardmhachaabu? ;)
He did indeed mention loyalsists & unionists.
By the way, congrats on number 2 ;)
Sorry FoSB, that's what I meant. He knows fine rightly that it wasn't loyalists/unionists in the Suffolk area. There have always been a few republicans/nationalists living in there, not to say they haven't had a hard time of it over the years. I know 2 families in there very well and all of them would be shinner supporters, they live behind grills on their windows though or did at any rate, that may have changed as I haven't been in there in a brave while
Thanks for the congrats, the fun really starts now!
Quote from: StGallsGAA on May 07, 2010, 02:22:34 PM
QuoteCant be the case - if it's possible to identify who voted for who then each and every ballot is scrap and the election a farce.
I'd say it's very possible. It might be illegal to findout and publish it though.
You cannot identify a voter by their ballot. It's the foundation stone of democracy.
Yes you can.
Though you would need an awful lot of time and access to the warehouse which stores the ballots and stubs and all other sundries.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 08, 2010, 12:59:04 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 08, 2010, 12:54:51 PM
Adams was cute enough though, he knows that it is Catholic voters in the Suffolk area. He didn't mention the religion of the people who voted for him.
Neither did I (mention the religion) -- little bit of pavlovian reduction there ardmhachaabu? ;)
He did indeed mention loyalsists & unionists.
Yeah, but if they voted for him then they can't be Unionists/Loyalists, can they? There really is no evidence that Adams got any votes from the 'other side', be that Unionist or Protestant. Nothing "significant" to see here at all.
At the same time though, it's funny that the SDLP's vote in South Down and Derry is ridiculed by SF supporters on here because they attracted Unionists.
Quote from: Disillusioned on May 08, 2010, 01:22:45 PM
It is sickening for thousands of nationalists in N.Ireland who hear SF representatives talk about their peace initiative/process. It can only be compared to a laughable situation if the British or US declared that they were ceasing their hostilties in Iraq or Afghanistan to bring peace to those countries when they were the main protagonists.
No it isn't, Thats a complete untruth. It would be like the Iraqi people who are fighting back against these protagonists declaring a ceasation of hostilities.
Quote from: Disillusioned on May 08, 2010, 01:22:45 PM
A point missed by most in the leaders debate on BBC was made to Gerry Adams by Mark Carruthers, "why is the first reference to the economy on page 42 of the SF manifesto for the election?"
\We have no controll over the economy! Would you rather they told you on the first page they were going to solve a problem they have no conrol over?
Quote from: Minder on May 07, 2010, 10:45:36 PM
Haranguerer - If you had an issue you needed resolved or needed representation he would have to play ball and it would look bad for him for not helping out someone from the other side of the house. Someone alluded earlier, on this thread I think, that Michelle Gildernew was accused in parts of F & ST of helping Protestant farmers more than Catholic farmers, I would imagine so that she couldn't be accused of bias.
I know in my old constituency of North Antrim we had the devil himself, Big Ian, for 30 odd years and I know farmers at home, many staunch Republicans, had nothing but good things to say about the oul **** and reckoned he went above and beyond the call of duty at times for them
See this is the thing that gets me.
Alot of people on here saying that SF MPs will do less for their constituants because they abstain from "sitting in" Westminister. Now tell me what is achieved by any MP on behalf of their constituants by sitting in Parliament - sweet feck all, thats what.
Most of the meaningful work done by an MP is done in their local constituancy office or if reallly needs be in their Westminister office (which SF have recourse to).
Michelle will do as well for her constituants as any other person could have!
Well done Michelle.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 08, 2010, 02:59:30 PM
See this is the thing that gets me.
Alot of people on here saying that SF MPs will do less for their constituants because they abstain from "sitting in" Westminister. Now tell me what is achieved by any MP on behalf of their constituants by sitting in Parliament - sweet feck all, thats what.
Most of the meaningful work done by an MP is done in their local constituancy office or if reallly needs be in their Westminister office (which SF have recourse to).
Michelle will do as well for her constituants as any other person could have!
So really there's nothing she'll do for the constituency that she couldn't have done as MLA?
Why bother then?
I reckon what now is needed is for Sinn Féin to set up as a party in England proper. Let the elected officials from England hold down Westminister Seats and use their seats as a method to sway more weight behind a united Ireland! ;D
Anybody who votes for SDLP is the same as a bloody Fianna Fáiler. They are linked together last I heard. That is enough to tell me that the SDLP really is SCUM.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 08, 2010, 03:17:52 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 08, 2010, 02:59:30 PM
See this is the thing that gets me.
Alot of people on here saying that SF MPs will do less for their constituants because they abstain from "sitting in" Westminister. Now tell me what is achieved by any MP on behalf of their constituants by sitting in Parliament - sweet feck all, thats what.
Most of the meaningful work done by an MP is done in their local constituancy office or if reallly needs be in their Westminister office (which SF have recourse to).
Michelle will do as well for her constituants as any other person could have!
So really there's nothing she'll do for the constituency that she couldn't have done as MLA?
Why bother then?
Ergo why have any of the 18 MPs then.
As we all know that the "big" decisions are taken by the English and civil servents.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 08, 2010, 12:22:24 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2010, 12:04:06 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 11:42:45 PM
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
True, there will be a certain edge to the election but do you want to move back towards a more religiously-orientated voting or move away from it.
If SDLP had pulled out of FST then the population there could have just by stating their religion on the ballot paper or as hardstation says "are you a green, an orange or a yellow?"
No question, we need to move away from the tribal headcounts.
My point is that in a statelet that was founded on that basis (primitive sectarian headcount) it's highly unlikely that we'll ever reach a point where the sectarian aspect will be totally eradicated, so when it does surface it's no surprise (that's not to say that I think SF should engage in same).
That said, however, one of the most gratifying aspects of this most recent election was to hear Adams thank those loyalists/unionists in his constituency who had voted for him (small but hugely significant). That is truly progressive and hopeful (and amazing).
Fair enough. I agree with all of that. Think Gildernew could have taken the same leaf as Adams. Maybe she did, I didn't hear every word she said post election.
Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2010, 08:03:50 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 08, 2010, 12:22:24 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2010, 12:04:06 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 11:42:45 PM
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
True, there will be a certain edge to the election but do you want to move back towards a more religiously-orientated voting or move away from it.
If SDLP had pulled out of FST then the population there could have just by stating their religion on the ballot paper or as hardstation says "are you a green, an orange or a yellow?"
No question, we need to move away from the tribal headcounts.
My point is that in a statelet that was founded on that basis (primitive sectarian headcount) it's highly unlikely that we'll ever reach a point where the sectarian aspect will be totally eradicated, so when it does surface it's no surprise (that's not to say that I think SF should engage in same).
That said, however, one of the most gratifying aspects of this most recent election was to hear Adams thank those loyalists/unionists in his constituency who had voted for him (small but hugely significant). That is truly progressive and hopeful (and amazing).
Fair enough. I agree with all of that. Think Gildernew could have taken the same leaf as Adams. Maybe she did, I didn't hear every word she said post election.
She did.
She thanked the sensible stoops who voted for her along with everyone else.
Quote from: Disillusioned on May 08, 2010, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 08, 2010, 11:14:52 AM
For someone who has lived through the troubles you have very little understanding of it.
I would venture that I have a greater and more balanced view of the troubles than you given the tenor of your posts. You seem to believe that religion had nothing to do with the troubles.
Why was it that Catholics were targeted by Loyalist killers throughout the period? Why did the IRA see fit to kill working class Protestants who even within the twisted IRA mindset could not be considered to be "legitimate" targets?
It is sickening for thousands of nationalists in N.Ireland who hear SF representatives talk about their peace initiative/process. It can only be compared to a laughable situation if the British or US declared that they were ceasing their hostilties in Iraq or Afghanistan to bring peace to those countries when they were the main protagonists.
It's the revisionist propaganda being spewed out by the SF machine and the arrogance of the SF representatives towards anyone who disagrees or challenges their viewpoint that is most worrying to me. It is that totalitarianism that is most frightening, it was evident throughout the election and in the behaviour of those placed in Stormont ministries, where many actions are carried out to deliberately aimed at antagonising the unionist community, where political ideology is always ahead of the needs of the whole comunity.
A point missed by most in the leaders debate on BBC was made to Gerry Adams by Mark Carruthers, "why is the first reference to the economy on page 42 of the SF manifesto for the election?"
Most of that has f**k all to do with this thread. You were not asked to vote for a Catholic as you are a catholic (is gildernew even a practising Catholic? are you? who the f**k knows), you would be asked to vote for a nationalist/republican as you are one. Religion has f**k all to do with it.
Disillusioned were you 10 at the start of the "troubles" or at the end?
Good thing there was 4 votes in it, seems this is the current method of choice for selecting the winner in a tie.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8668624.stm
Queue jokes about winning by drawing a queen
Just a question for those who think the SDLP are finished. They received 40% of the nationalist/republican vote, do you think this will hold up at the assembly and translate to seats? I would doubt it myself. I have very little time for politicians in general but I have yet to come across one as irritating and condescending as Richie.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 08, 2010, 09:13:36 PM
Disillusioned were you 10 at the start of the "troubles" or at the end?
must have been tough during the Troubles in Gaoth Dobhair :o
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 08, 2010, 09:57:09 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 08, 2010, 09:13:36 PM
Disillusioned were you 10 at the start of the "troubles" or at the end?
must have been tough during the Troubles in Gaoth Dobhair :o
Ah well there was alot to do!
Quote from: oakleafgael on May 08, 2010, 09:29:01 PM
Just a question for those who think the SDLP are finished. They received 40% of the nationalist/republican vote, do you think this will hold up at the assembly and translate to seats? I would doubt it myself. I have very little time for politicians in general but I have yet to come across one as irritating and condescending as Richie.
even my mothers who is a life long sdlp voter can't have her
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 08, 2010, 08:31:53 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2010, 08:03:50 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 08, 2010, 12:22:24 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 08, 2010, 12:04:06 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 07, 2010, 11:42:45 PM
A lot of being in denial in this thread: whilst Britain maintains a presence in Ireland there will always be a sectarian edge to any election: it's the unavoidable consequence of a (continued) presence that was established and predicated on a sectarian headcount. It's that simple, get over it.
True, there will be a certain edge to the election but do you want to move back towards a more religiously-orientated voting or move away from it.
If SDLP had pulled out of FST then the population there could have just by stating their religion on the ballot paper or as hardstation says "are you a green, an orange or a yellow?"
No question, we need to move away from the tribal headcounts.
My point is that in a statelet that was founded on that basis (primitive sectarian headcount) it's highly unlikely that we'll ever reach a point where the sectarian aspect will be totally eradicated, so when it does surface it's no surprise (that's not to say that I think SF should engage in same).
That said, however, one of the most gratifying aspects of this most recent election was to hear Adams thank those loyalists/unionists in his constituency who had voted for him (small but hugely significant). That is truly progressive and hopeful (and amazing).
Fair enough. I agree with all of that. Think Gildernew could have taken the same leaf as Adams. Maybe she did, I didn't hear every word she said post election.
She did.
She thanked the sensible stoops who voted for her along with everyone else.
i wasn't refering to that.
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Very condescending comment, Myles. Are you saying 26% of the north's voting population are idiots? What is wrong with keeping a unionist out? The whole point of being a republican is to strive for a united Ireland.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Reminds me of the girl in Sinn Fein's Party Political Broadcast in either 2001 or 2005.
"I'm gonna vote Sinn Fein 'cos, well, all me mates are votin for them like"
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
the shinners may have a lot of sheep but if you think about it it would be because a lot of shinner voters don't/didn't see anything wrong with being part of the IRA. The rest probably accept he was a member but has moved on.
The thing is where did all these extra SF votes come from? Nowhere else but disaffected SDLP voters who release it's better in the long-term to back a winner, a stronger party and people who have some credence at the negotiation table. All this about the IRA links and troubled past is in the past, and dragging it up and wearing it like a badge is just playing out a very long and boring mantra.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
How dare you! I vote for who the party I trust and believe in. I also vote in relation to their performances at Council level and Stormont level. For you to say I'm following what others do and because of only the constitutional issue is highly insulting.
Quote from: gallsman on May 09, 2010, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Reminds me of the girl in Sinn Fein's Party Political Broadcast in either 2001 or 2005.
"I'm gonna vote Sinn Fein 'cos, well, all me mates are votin for them like"
Think it was more along the lines of "I'll be voting Sinn Fein because that's who all the young people around here are voting for"
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 09, 2010, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Very condescending comment, Myles. Are you saying 26% of the north's voting population are idiots? What is wrong with keeping a unionist out? The whole point of being a republican is to strive for a united Ireland.
Where does the republic part come in to play then??
Quote from: dodgy umpire on May 09, 2010, 12:56:41 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 09, 2010, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Reminds me of the girl in Sinn Fein's Party Political Broadcast in either 2001 or 2005.
"I'm gonna vote Sinn Fein 'cos, well, all me mates are votin for them like"
Think it was more along the lines of "I'll be voting Sinn Fein because that's who all the young people around here are voting for"
Which is any better because......?
The phrases "all my mates" or "all my friends" were definitely used.
I understand that most SF voters wouldn't be put off by claims that Gerry Adams was I'm the IRA, though I thought that specific stories, such as linking him with Jean McConville, may have had some impact. Such individual cases can often remove the rose-tinted glasses many wear when recalling the campaign.
I also thought that his reported inaction regarding his brother - that he reportedly did little to stop him working where he did in his constituency, would have had some affect.
It makes me wonder - Bertie was the Teflon Taoiseach - what would Adams have to do for the voters of West Belfast to turn the way they did in the East of the city?
Have a wife thats riding the country; beat said wife; have a close personal relationship with numerous unscrupulous developers, and benefit financially from those relationships; be an arrogant p***k on TV when interviewed about this?
Quote from: haranguerer on May 09, 2010, 03:51:44 PM
Have a wife thats riding the country; beat said wife; have a close personal relationship with numerous unscrupulous developers, and benefit financially from those relationships; be an arrogant p***k on TV when interviewed about this?
And that's worse than allegations of ordering the murder of a mother, or allegations of not doing enough in relation to proect his constituents from an alleged paedophile?
Either the West Belfast public didn't belive those stories, or you think that dodgy financial dealings, consensual extra marital affairs and arrogance are worse than the above. And for the record, Pete got what was coming to him. I just find it difficult to understand how so much negative publicity had such little affect on the SF vote in West Belfast.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 04:03:04 PM
I just find it difficult to understand how so much negative publicity had such little affect on the SF vote in West Belfast.
its a staunchly republican area, so i believe. that might be why.
Quote from: windyshepardhenderson on May 09, 2010, 04:55:13 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 04:03:04 PM
I just find it difficult to understand how so much negative publicity had such little affect on the SF vote in West Belfast.
its a staunchly republican area, so i believe. that might be why.
And East Belfast isn't staunchly loyalist?
Quote from: windyshepardhenderson on May 09, 2010, 04:55:13 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 04:03:04 PM
I just find it difficult to understand how so much negative publicity had such little affect on the SF vote in West Belfast.
its a staunchly republican area, so i believe. that might be why.
Just as East Belfast is staunchly Unionist /Loyalist. That didn't stop Robinson getting the boot.
Quote from: hardstation on May 09, 2010, 04:59:32 PM
Alex Attwood................
Yes, Atwood is a poor alternative. But there's ways the option of not voting or spoiling your vote. The fact is the voters of WB chose to positively return Adams.
Quote from: hardstation on May 09, 2010, 07:10:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWCkufdOuGo&feature=related
Who did he vote for?
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 09, 2010, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Very condescending comment, Myles. Are you saying 26% of the north's voting population are idiots? What is wrong with keeping a unionist out? The whole point of being a republican is to strive for a united Ireland.
That question has been settled, at least in the medium term. No change to the north's position without the consent of the people living there. Anyone think the unionists look like signing up to a united Ireland any time soon? No? Fair enough. Can we get on with ordinary bread and butter politics then, and come back to the constitutional issue in 30 or 40 years?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 09, 2010, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Very condescending comment, Myles. Are you saying 26% of the north's voting population are idiots? What is wrong with keeping a unionist out? The whole point of being a republican is to strive for a united Ireland.
That question has been settled, at least in the medium term. No change to the north's position without the consent of the people living there. Anyone think the unionists look like signing up to a united Ireland any time soon? No? Fair enough. Can we get on with ordinary bread and butter politics then, and come back to the constitutional issue in 30 or 40 years?
Unionists are hardly puttind bread and butter issues first as they are horrified at the idea of a Sinn Fein first minister and contrived that pact in F-ST
Happy days on the result!!!!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) ;D ;D ;D ;) ;)
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 08, 2010, 01:12:50 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 08, 2010, 12:59:04 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 08, 2010, 12:54:51 PM
Adams was cute enough though, he knows that it is Catholic voters in the Suffolk area. He didn't mention the religion of the people who voted for him.
Neither did I (mention the religion) -- little bit of pavlovian reduction there ardmhachaabu? ;)
He did indeed mention loyalsists & unionists.
Yeah, but if they voted for him then they can't be Unionists/Loyalists, can they? There really is no evidence that Adams got any votes from the 'other side', be that Unionist or Protestant. Nothing "significant" to see here at all.
It was a Westminster vote, not a border poll, so your contention that they
can't be unionists/loyalists is nonsensical (or how much greater an achievement it would be had he 'converted' them) -- and you doubt the veractiy of his claims if you like, but he did emphasise that he was talking about relatively few voters; but (even) one or two would be significant.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 09, 2010, 08:00:15 PM
Unionists are hardly puttind bread and butter issues first as they are horrified at the idea of a Sinn Fein first minister and contrived that pact in F-ST
They definitely aren't, but two wrongs and all that...
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 03:44:03 PM
I understand that most SF voters wouldn't be put off by claims that Gerry Adams was I'm the IRA, though I thought that specific stories, such as linking him with Jean McConville, may have had some impact. Such individual cases can often remove the rose-tinted glasses many wear when recalling the campaign.
I also thought that his reported inaction regarding his brother - that he reportedly did little to stop him working where he did in his constituency, would have had some affect.
It makes me wonder - Bertie was the Teflon Taoiseach - what would Adams have to do for the voters of West Belfast to turn the way they did in the East of the city?
Maguire just accept it, the people of West Belfast trust Gerry on his performance, as do the people of West Tyrone, Mid Ulster, FST, Newry & Armagh trust their representatives. I'll not go into the other constituancies as it's like rubbing salt into... You can spout the same auld shite that the stoops have been spouting but it won't change the results.
Suck an applejack and move on.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 09, 2010, 10:02:58 PM
It was a Westminster vote, not a border poll, so your contention that they can't be unionists/loyalists is nonsensical (or how much greater an achievement it would be had he 'converted' them) -- and you doubt the veractiy of his claims if you like, but he did emphasise that he was talking about relatively few voters; but (even) one or two would be significant.
There is no way of really knowing that there aren't just a few 'nationalists' stuck in a Unionist ward.
At the same time, it's funny how SF attracting Unionist or Protestant voters is so significant and an endorsement of SF, yet when the SDLP attract such votes, it's a matter of ridicule by many of the same SF voters.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 09, 2010, 10:09:52 PM
Maguire just accept it, the people of West Belfast trust Gerry on his performance, as do the people of West Tyrone, Mid Ulster, FST, Newry & Armagh trust their representatives. I'll not go into the other constituancies as it's like rubbing salt into... You can spout the same auld shite that the stoops have been spouting but it won't change the results.
Suck an applejack and move on.
The usual mature response. I was only asking the question. I'm not sure what Gerry has delivered for West Belfast. I have no desire to change the outcome of the democratic outcome - I'm just interested to know the motivation of the WB voters, given what happened in the East. There's no need to be so sensitive.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 10:18:44 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 09, 2010, 10:09:52 PM
Maguire just accept it, the people of West Belfast trust Gerry on his performance, as do the people of West Tyrone, Mid Ulster, FST, Newry & Armagh trust their representatives. I'll not go into the other constituancies as it's like rubbing salt into... You can spout the same auld shite that the stoops have been spouting but it won't change the results.
Suck an applejack and move on.
The usual mature response. ::) I was only asking the question. I'm not sure what Gerry has delivered for West Belfast. I have no desire to change the outcome of the democratic outcome - I'm just interested to know the motivation of the WB voters, given what happened in the East. There's no need to be so sensitive.
Well you have no "agenda" then! ::)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 09, 2010, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Very condescending comment, Myles. Are you saying 26% of the north's voting population are idiots? What is wrong with keeping a unionist out? The whole point of being a republican is to strive for a united Ireland.
That question has been settled, at least in the medium term. No change to the north's position without the consent of the people living there. Anyone think the unionists look like signing up to a united Ireland any time soon? No? Fair enough. Can we get on with ordinary bread and butter politics then, and come back to the constitutional issue in 30 or 40 years?
there are lies damn lies and statistics but the trend in the graph here is fairly clear
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/gallsum.htm
1983 17 mps 15 unionists 2 nationalists
2010 18 mps 9 unionists 8 nationalists 1 alliance
the next 20 to 30 years will be interesting
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 03:44:03 PM
I understand that most SF voters wouldn't be put off by claims that Gerry Adams was I'm the IRA, though I thought that specific stories, such as linking him with Jean McConville, may have had some impact. Such individual cases can often remove the rose-tinted glasses many wear when recalling the campaign.
I doubt it. Either he was in the IRA or he wasn't. They either dislike him for it or they support him for it. Individual cases (especially when they are 'allegations andd claims') would have no impact. I'd imagine most voters in WB realise the context of war.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 03:44:03 PM
I also thought that his reported inaction regarding his brother - that he reportedly did little to stop him working where he did in his constituency, would have had some affect.
More stuff reported on ADams the IRA man.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 03:44:03 PM
It makes me wonder - Bertie was the Teflon Taoiseach - what would Adams have to do for the voters of West Belfast to turn the way they did in the East of the city?
The two are not comparable. Adams delivers while Ahern takes. If Adams started taking then it might change voters minds.
Quote from: magickingdom on May 09, 2010, 10:50:54 PM
there are lies damn lies and statistics but the trend in the graph here is fairly clear
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/gallsum.htm
1983 17 mps 15 unionists 2 nationalists
2010 18 mps 9 unionists 8 nationalists 1 alliance
the next 20 to 30 years will be interesting
Yes, although the only vote that really matters is a border poll. It wouldn't matter if all 18 MPs were Nationalist if Unionists still accounted for over 50%.
Also, many SF supporters on here have called the SDLP 'another Unionist party' and they generally refer to Alliance in the same way. As such, I'm sure they'll be consistent and say that there are only 5 nationalist MPs and nationalists only attract c.26% of the vote.
But yes, there's no denying the shift. And I reckon you're closer to the truth on the timeframe than many would like to believe.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 11:19:42 PM
Also, many SF supporters on here have called the SDLP 'another Unionist party' and they generally refer to Alliance in the same way. As such, I'm sure they'll be consistent and say that there are only 5 nationalist MPs and nationalists only attract c.26% of the vote.
A referendum can't be predicted on those statistics. The SDLP are a Unionist party. It not an ideology they chose it's just something the don't care to challenge. Unionism is the default position in the north and the SDLP are happy with the default position. If the north was a Republic the SDLP would probably be happy with that too. Much like the parties in the south the SDLP are inactive Unionists.
You can also argue that Sinn Fein is a Unionist party. It supports the continued existence of the Union.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2010, 12:59:14 AM
You can also argue that Sinn Fein is a Unionist party. It supports the continued existence of the Union.
You can argue that Unionist are Nationalists, as they turned away from a UUP/Tory alliance, thus strengthening the union.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2010, 12:59:14 AM
You can also argue that Sinn Fein is a Unionist party. It supports the continued existence of the Union.
Now you're being silly.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 01:13:54 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2010, 12:59:14 AM
You can also argue that Sinn Fein is a Unionist party. It supports the continued existence of the Union.
Now you're being silly.
Did they not support the GFA? In that respect, they're no different to the SDLP.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 12:53:00 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 11:19:42 PM
Also, many SF supporters on here have called the SDLP 'another Unionist party' and they generally refer to Alliance in the same way. As such, I'm sure they'll be consistent and say that there are only 5 nationalist MPs and nationalists only attract c.26% of the vote.
A referendum can't be predicted on those statistics.
So what stats would you use?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2010, 07:27:25 AM
Did they not support the GFA? In that respect, they're no different to the SDLP.
Yes they did support it. In what respect? That they both supported the GFA? That's that broad it has no meaning.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 07:38:40 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2010, 07:27:25 AM
Did they not support the GFA? In that respect, they're no different to the SDLP.
Yes they did support it. In what respect? That they both supported the GFA? That's that broad it has no meaning.
Well if defined the constitutional position and how that might be changed. And both parties signed up to those principles.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2010, 08:06:48 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 07:38:40 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2010, 07:27:25 AM
Did they not support the GFA? In that respect, they're no different to the SDLP.
Yes they did support it. In what respect? That they both supported the GFA? That's that broad it has no meaning.
Well if defined the constitutional position and how that might be changed. And both parties signed up to those principles.
Even the laziest of observers wouldn't use the GFA to define anyone interested party's position on a UI. The GFA was agreed as a new default position and can be considered a work in progress by anyone. Right now it's the only show in town but it doesn't change anyones ambition. Any observer will tell you that SF and the SDLP differ on the UI issue. As do pro GFA unionists.
Thay may be true Zap but it doesn't get away from the fact the SF are administering British rule in the north by partaking in Stormont. What makes them a unionist party in my opinion is that they are recognising it, maintaining it and working in its structures. What happened to 'No return to Stormont' and 'Not a bullet, not an ounce' ?
I believe it was inevitable that they were dragged into the 20th century and shown the merits of democracy. At least it stopped them killing people but let's remember that they are so far off their stated aims at the outset of their war that it's now blatantly obvious (to anyone who doesn't believe their lies) that all they can do is posture about a united Ireland and how they are actively bringing it about. It's only posture though with no real political significance, Adams and his cabal know this deep down, that's why we see these gimmicks all the time like their activists painting postboxes green. magickingdom is right in his marker of 20-30 years
On another note, someone had claimed that the shift of votes to SF and DUP means that they are moving more towards the middle. I fundamentally disagree with this position. I think what has actually happened is that their positions have hardened and gotten even more extreme than they already were
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 09:46:46 AM
Thay may be true Zap but it doesn't get away from the fact the SF are administering British rule in the north by partaking in Stormont. What makes them a unionist party in my opinion is that they are recognising it, maintaining it and working in its structures. What happened to 'No return to Stormont' and 'Not a bullet, not an ounce' ?
I believe it was inevitable that they were dragged into the 20th century and shown the merits of democracy. At least it stopped them killing people but let's remember that they are so far off their stated aims at the outset of their war that it's now blatantly obvious (to anyone who doesn't believe their lies) that all they can do is posture about a united Ireland and how they are actively bringing it about. It's only posture though with no real political significance, Adams and his cabal know this deep down, that's why we see these gimmicks all the time like their activists painting postboxes green. magickingdom is right in his marker of 20-30 years
On another note, someone had claimed that the shift of votes to SF and DUP means that they are moving more towards the middle. I fundamentally disagree with this position. I think what has actually happened is that their positions have hardened and gotten even more extreme than they already were
Someone would need to drag you into the 21st century ardmhachaabu ;)
Maybe ziggy but I meant them calling a ceasefire and renouncing violence. That happened when it was still the 20th century ;)
What a great result for the Shinners and Michelle in particular,just hope the people of F&ST never think about electing another stoop again,they are slowly but surely being found out for what they are.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 09:46:46 AM
Thay may be true Zap but it doesn't get away from the fact the SF are administering British rule in the north by partaking in Stormont. What makes them a unionist party in my opinion is that they are recognising it, maintaining it and working in its structures. What happened to 'No return to Stormont' and 'Not a bullet, not an ounce' ?
I believe it was inevitable that they were dragged into the 20th century and shown the merits of democracy. At least it stopped them killing people but let's remember that they are so far off their stated aims at the outset of their war that it's now blatantly obvious (to anyone who doesn't believe their lies) that all they can do is posture about a united Ireland and how they are actively bringing it about. It's only posture though with no real political significance, Adams and his cabal know this deep down, that's why we see these gimmicks all the time like their activists painting postboxes green. magickingdom is right in his marker of 20-30 years
On another note, someone had claimed that the shift of votes to SF and DUP means that they are moving more towards the middle. I fundamentally disagree with this position. I think what has actually happened is that their positions have hardened and gotten even more extreme than they already were
Most of what you said is 'lets pretend'. Recognising Partition is not Unionism. How the feck are ye suposed to change anything if you believe it doesn't exist? It seems to me that the SDLP are bitter that SF are now at the political table upstaging them. Grow up.
SF helped drag politics in the north into the 20th century away from the aparthied politics that wasn't even acceptable in Africa at the time.
So now you reckon SF have hardened and got more extreme ???
QuoteAny observer will tell you that SF and the SDLP differ on the UI issue.
And what is that difference, exactly?
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 08:16:26 AM
Even the laziest of observers wouldn't use the GFA to define anyone interested party's position on a UI. The GFA was agreed as a new default position and can be considered a work in progress by anyone. Right now it's the only show in town but it doesn't change anyones ambition. Any observer will tell you that SF and the SDLP differ on the UI issue. As do pro GFA unionists.
So consent is out the window then? What's the new strategy? We all have ambition, but that's not much good on it's own.
And if it's not consent, why the general excitement among republicans at any sign of futher movement towards the 50%?
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 09:46:46 AM
Thay may be true Zap but it doesn't get away from the fact the SF are administering British rule in the north by partaking in Stormont. What makes them a unionist party in my opinion is that they are recognising it, maintaining it and working in its structures. What happened to 'No return to Stormont' and 'Not a bullet, not an ounce' ?
I believe it was inevitable that they were dragged into the 20th century and shown the merits of democracy. At least it stopped them killing people but let's remember that they are so far off their stated aims at the outset of their war that it's now blatantly obvious (to anyone who doesn't believe their lies) that all they can do is posture about a united Ireland and how they are actively bringing it about. It's only posture though with no real political significance, Adams and his cabal know this deep down, that's why we see these gimmicks all the time like their activists painting postboxes green. magickingdom is right in his marker of 20-30 years
On another note, someone had claimed that the shift of votes to SF and DUP means that they are moving more towards the middle. I fundamentally disagree with this position. I think what has actually happened is that their positions have hardened and gotten even more extreme than they already were
Most of what you said is 'lets pretend'. Recognising Partition is not Unionism. How the feck are ye suposed to change anything if you believe it doesn't exist? It seems to me that the SDLP are bitter that SF are now at the political table upstaging them. Grow up.
SF helped drag politics in the north into the 20th century away from the aparthied politics that wasn't even acceptable in Africa at the time.
So now you reckon SF have hardened and got more extreme ???
It's not let's pretend, it's reality. Zap, if the SDLP are unionist then so is SF. They are maintaining, implementing and administering a unionist Assembly. What I mean by that is, the Assembly
is the political manifestation of the union therefore it's a unionist Assembly, not a Unionist Assembly. So all the parties who are in there are unionist parties
Seriously, how do you make out the Sf helped drag politics in the north into the 20th century? By getting their armed wing to stop killing people?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 10, 2010, 01:25:44 PM
So consent is out the window then? What's the new strategy? We all have ambition, but that's not much good on it's own.
And if it's not consent, why the general excitement among republicans at any sign of futher movement towards the 50%?
Of course it's consent. It's also getting that consent. RAther than sit about and hope enough people become republican SF are activly encouraging Republicanism. They are doing this on both sides of the Border. They are in the Dail and the assembley trying to promote republicanism and also implement policy that works in harmony on both sides of the border. SF are nit sitting about waiting for consent, they are pursueing it.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 01:35:56 PM
It's not let's pretend, it's reality. Zap, if the SDLP are unionist then so is SF. They are maintaining, implementing and administering a unionist Assembly. What I mean by that is, the Assembly is the political manifestation of the union therefore it's a unionist Assembly, not a Unionist Assembly. So all the parties who are in there are unionist parties
The assembley is as much politics as possible at the minute in the hands of Irish people. SF are fighting for more of that. They are maintaing implementing and adminstrated from Ireland. This is not ideal but it's a step in the right direction. Again they are fighting for more of this. Your definition is black and white to suit you. This is childish, can you be grwon up about it? You can subscribe to any political ideal you wish but you must work within the structures that are there in order to get it. Working outside the structure against the wishes of the people will achieve nothing. By your definition you can't be a socailist elected to the European Union or a Unionist elected to the Dail. That's just rediculous.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 01:35:56 PM
Seriously, how do you make out the Sf helped drag politics in the north into the 20th century? By getting their armed wing to stop killing people?
Yes, It helped at the right time.
Some of the Stoops in this discussion are really stooping down low -- to the bottom of the barrel -- in their attempts to paint SF as unionist as the SDLP ;)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 10, 2010, 02:26:42 PM
Some of the Stoops in this discussion are really stooping down low -- to the bottom of the barrel -- in their attempts to paint SF as unionist as the SDLP ;)
you wouldn't believe how low they can stoop >:(
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 02:02:21 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 01:35:56 PM
It's not let's pretend, it's reality. Zap, if the SDLP are unionist then so is SF. They are maintaining, implementing and administering a unionist Assembly. What I mean by that is, the Assembly is the political manifestation of the union therefore it's a unionist Assembly, not a Unionist Assembly. So all the parties who are in there are unionist parties
The assembley is as much politics as possible at the minute in the hands of Irish people. SF are fighting for more of that.
So are the SDLP.
QuoteThey are maintaing implementing and adminstrated from Ireland.
So are the SDLP.
QuoteThis is not ideal but it's a step in the right direction. Again they are fighting for more of this. Your definition is black and white to suit you. This is childish, can you be grwon up about it? You can subscribe to any political ideal you wish but you must work within the structures that are there in order to get it. (What SF and the SLDP are doing?) Working outside the structure against the wishes of the people will achieve nothing. By your definition you can't be a socailist elected to the European Union or a Unionist elected to the Dail. That's just rediculous.
Apart from that one part thats all completely irrelevant bull.
Can you come with any evidence that SF are not a unionist party and the SDLP are?
QuoteSome of the Stoops in this discussion are really stooping down low -- to the bottom of the barrel -- in their attempts to paint SF as unionist as the SDLP
I don't think anyone is claiming that SF is unionist, but rather that the SDLP and they are both nationalists.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2010, 03:14:32 PM
QuoteSome of the Stoops in this discussion are really stooping down low -- to the bottom of the barrel -- in their attempts to paint SF as unionist as the SDLP
I don't think anyone is claiming that SF is unionist, but rather that the SDLP and they are both nationalists.
Surely you mean that the SDLP are Post-Nationalist, as they have been telling us throughout the election?
Zap, be a good man and answer trileacman's question. I see little point in re-hashing my views with you, if you can answer the question we can take it further from there
Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2010, 03:14:21 PM
Can you come with any evidence that SF are not a unionist party and the SDLP are?
I'd have thought that they are the only All Ireland political party shows they are working on both fronts for a re-unification.I take it this is the 'evidence' yourself and ardmhachaabu are looking for !
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 04:34:45 PM
Zap, be a good man and answer trileacman's question. I see little point in re-hashing my views with you, if you can answer the question we can take it further from there
Trileacman came a little late to the debate. The post he quoted was me explaining to you why being in the assembley does not make sf unionist. It does not make the SDLP unionist either but they had no part in your original point which I was addressing. I see little point in rehashing my views in order to answer answer a question trileacman pulled from a post that had nothing to do with the SDLP (but it can be applied to them). My views are on the thread.
Whats with all this unionist party infighting on here lately :D
Zap, I know yours view are on the thread, that's why I engaged with you and am now asking you to qualify how you can say that the SDLP are a Unionist party and somehow SF aren't. SF are doing the same thing now that the SDLP have done for years before them. Don't give me any crap about SF fighting for reunification, it ain't going to happen in my lifetime or yours. It will happen 50 or more years down the line. Politics in the north has to be normalised before that can happen though, that's for sure. Election pacts along orange/green lines are never going to further re-unification. It has to be done in a way so as to include everyone on the island being comfortable with whatever longterm solution is in place which ensures no discrimination could take place and that every tradition etc would be respected. As it stands, a bill of rights is needed before any of that can happen. Senior SF strategists are bound to know this though it would look bad if they were to tell their activists that keeping a united Ireland on the political agenda is pointless. After all, what would the war have all been about?
Q. What's the difference between the UU and a Bus?
A. A bus has seats!
Q.What's the difference between SF and an insurance company?
A. An insurance company has economic policies that appeal to the prudent.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 05:06:33 PM
Zap, I know yours view are on the thread, that's why I engaged with you and am now asking you to qualify how you can say that the SDLP are a Unionist party and somehow SF aren't. SF are doing the same thing now that the SDLP have done for years before them. Don't give me any crap about SF fighting for reunification, it ain't going to happen in my lifetime or yours. It will happen 50 or more years down the line. Politics in the north has to be normalised before that can happen though, that's for sure. Election pacts along orange/green lines are never going to further re-unification. It has to be done in a way so as to include everyone on the island being comfortable with whatever longterm solution is in place which ensures no discrimination could take place and that every tradition etc would be respected. As it stands, a bill of rights is needed before any of that can happen. Senior SF strategists are bound to know this though it would look bad if they were to tell their activists that keeping a united Ireland on the political agenda is pointless. After all, what would the war have all been about?
Once again, unionism is the default position for anyone not activily persuing a Republic. The SDLP fall into this category while SF do not.
Regardless if a UI is ten million years away you can still be a Republican working towards those ten million years. If you don't it might never happen ;). SF's strategy could fail miserabley but that has no bearing on wether they are republican or not. Your seem to be suggestion SF are unionists because a UI won't happen in your lifetime. That doesn't make sense.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 05:06:33 PM
Zap, I know yours view are on the thread, that's why I engaged with you and am now asking you to qualify how you can say that the SDLP are a Unionist party and somehow SF aren't. SF are doing the same thing now that the SDLP have done for years before them. Don't give me any crap about SF fighting for reunification, it ain't going to happen in my lifetime or yours. It will happen 50 or more years down the line. Politics in the north has to be normalised before that can happen though, that's for sure. Election pacts along orange/green lines are never going to further re-unification. It has to be done in a way so as to include everyone on the island being comfortable with whatever longterm solution is in place which ensures no discrimination could take place and that every tradition etc would be respected. As it stands, a bill of rights is needed before any of that can happen. Senior SF strategists are bound to know this though it would look bad if they were to tell their activists that keeping a united Ireland on the political agenda is pointless. After all, what would the war have all been about?
funnily enough , people said the same about peace, about sf getting votes/seats/mandate etc etc
also regarding sf's economic policies - they are no worse than the rest of the Irish political parties economic policies, as seen by the mismanagement of this gov, and the woeful ideas that hopefully fine gael will never get a chance to put into use and completley destroy the country.
as for economic policies for the six county political parties- do any of them have one !
:D
No Zap, SF have accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be under the union with Britain. That's what the GFA states. Now, how is that different from the SDLP's position?
It's all about consent.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 05:21:16 PM
No Zap, SF have accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be under the union with Britain. That's what the GFA states. Now, how is that different from the SDLP's position?
It's all about consent.
SF do not accet the default position. That is the SDLP position. You can't tell me the SDLP position and then ask me how is it different from the SDLP position. That's not discussion.
That is a completely thoughtless argument. SF have accepted consent and persue it. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If Ireland fail to reach their quotas in Green house emmissions does that mean the Green Party aren't environmentalist even though they did everything they could to reach it? No it doesn't. It would be unreasonable to say it did. It is unreasonable to say SF are the same as the SDLP becuase of the GFA. It's not even a point. It's just makey uppy play school politics that means nothing.
SF have accepted consent therefore they have accepted the 6 counties will remain British for as long as the people in the 6 counties want to remain in the union with Britain. SF are administering and implementing British rule in the north just like the SDLP have done for years. Look Zap, no matter how much you deny it, SF accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be in the union with Britain whether sf spindoctors say it or not.
Quote from: magickingdom on May 09, 2010, 10:50:54 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on May 09, 2010, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 09, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 09, 2010, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 09, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Ritchie is uncommonly uncharismatic for a politician, but she doesn't take people for fools as Adams does when he expects us to believe that he was never in the IRA.
Even after 30 years of bringing this up some people will never realise it doesn't harm Adams or SF.
That's because republicans would give their vote to a ham sandwich, providing it came wrapped in a tricolour and kept a unionist from taking the seat.
Very condescending comment, Myles. Are you saying 26% of the north's voting population are idiots? What is wrong with keeping a unionist out? The whole point of being a republican is to strive for a united Ireland.
That question has been settled, at least in the medium term. No change to the north's position without the consent of the people living there. Anyone think the unionists look like signing up to a united Ireland any time soon? No? Fair enough. Can we get on with ordinary bread and butter politics then, and come back to the constitutional issue in 30 or 40 years?
there are lies damn lies and statistics but the trend in the graph here is fairly clear
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/gallsum.htm
1983 17 mps 15 unionists 2 nationalists
2010 18 mps 9 unionists 8 nationalists 1 alliance
the next 20 to 30 years will be interesting
Myles, such an ostrich notion that Irish unity has just gone away, and so we should all tuck ourselves into our beds until, suddenly, our children or grandchildren wake up in 40 years' time and Ireland is a nice and united wee island. Moving towards Irish unity, whatever it will mean, is an aim any republican works for now, every day, and every inch of the way. And yes, it's got to be a mutual agreement between all sides, including the south, but it's not something that's off the agenda now, this election or any up and coming poll.
I hate to have to rehash an old post but it seems that in answer to questions of how the SDLP are unionist, I just have to do a quick rehash.
I'll list a number of examples which to me, typify the SDLP and their shade of unionism.
1. "We are a Post Nationalist Party" (Mark Durkan)
The phrase which sums up th SDLP westminster campaign of 2001. Describing themselves as post nationalist seems to have been the turning point in that key election and they have never properly recovered.
3. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlidcwmhsn/
- In this instance they showed a complete disregard for the mandate given to SF by their voters and showed their level of committment to nationalism by joining a dirty pact with the two unionist parties. This was evidenced at a local level in my own are also at several recent elections. Coming from a Republican area, the SDLP in my local polling station often had a tactic of objecting to as many people as possible inside the station in the evening time; thereby preventing the lines of people still in the queue outside from voting once closing time came.
4. Attitude to All Ireland co-operation and voting rights for Irish Citizens in the north in Irish Presidential Elections
- As I pointed out on this board before, When SF proposed, in 13 councils, that these councils press the Dublin Govn to be more proactive in developing All Ireland strategies and for voting rights for people in the north in Irish Presidential Elections, only two got full SDLP support, the rest either got a split SDLP vote, SDLP members abstaining, SDLP refusing to attend etc. 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?
The Unionists of the SDLP also:
5. Felt that equality had been achieved in the 1980's claiming this equality was "now a reality"
6. Takes an oath of allegience to a British monarchy all to have the right to sit in Westminster, despite rarely attending anyway
7. Stated that they have "have no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north of Ireland
8. Voted in favour of 28 day detention
9. In 2006, argued in favour of diplock courts stating it was "essential that adequate provision for non-jury trials for appropriate offences in Northern Ireland is maintained"
10. Supported Irish citizens in the north being legally compelled to be included in a "British National Identity Register".
11. Regarded Ronnie Flanagan as a man who "wanted to edge policing forward"
12. Opposed Derry Council proceeding with its stated policy of petitioning the Privy Council to restore the name of Derry to the city
13. Assisted the Orange Order in having their joint unionist candidate capture the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat just to avoid a SF member taking the seat. (Thankfully the people showed them the middle finger on this one.)
14. Sends a member of it's Assembly team on a British Ministry of Defence trip to Afghanistan
15. Voted in in the Assembly for increased pensions for the RUC Part-Time Reservists
16. Voted in Belfast City Council for the placing of dozens of British Army plaques, including two UDR plaques around the walls inside City Hall.
17. For years claimed allegations of collusion between the British state and Loyalist gangs was "republican propeganda"
No matter what you say nally, the fact remains Sf are still administering, implementing and even creating British rule in the north. Whatever happened to 'No return to Stormont'?
TRAITORS
What a convenient way of refusing to acknowledge every single point I've just made.
What I can't square is Sinn Fein don't recognise the Wesminster British seat but take part in the vote. It is like they kind of recognise it and are proud to call their members MPs. I think it should be one or other... abstain totally or go into Westminster. Frank Maguire and Bernadette Devlin went to Westminster although I am not sure what the reaction was to that. Certainly they got enough nationalist-Republican votes to get in. If Sinn Fein decided tomorrow it will go in and take their seats thousands who are against it would suddenly agree with it. People need to stop being sheep and hanging onto every word a party says.
Also is not the 26 counties an artificial state imposed by British rule and they recoginse that government by taking their seat... just seems very contradictory, but maybe life ain't that black and white. (Just thinking out loud...)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 06:19:06 PM
Look Zap, no matter how much you deny it, SF accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be in the union with Britain whether sf spindoctors say it or not.
You have nothing to offer this thread or discussion on this topic in general.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 10, 2010, 10:51:15 PM
What I can't square is Sinn Fein don't recognise the Wesminster British seat but take part in the vote. It is like they kind of recognise it and are proud to call their members MPs. I think it should be one or other... abstain totally or go into Westminster. Frank Maguire and Bernadette Devlin went to Westminster although I am not sure what the reaction was to that. Certainly they got enough nationalist-Republican votes to get in. If Sinn Fein decided tomorrow it will go in and take their seats thousands who are against it would suddenly agree with it. Also is not the 26 counties an artificial state imposed by British rule and they recoginse that government by taking their seat... just seem svery contradictory, but maybe life ain't that black and white. (Just thinking out loud...)
It boils down to having a mandate. There is no better way to attack someone than get a mandate and use it to attack others who have no mandate.
They take their seats on both sides of the border. That's not a contradiction.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 10:51:51 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 06:19:06 PM
Look Zap, no matter how much you deny it, SF accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be in the union with Britain whether sf spindoctors say it or not.
You have nothing to offer this thread or discussion on this topic in general.
Says who? You? You are just another armchair republican who refuses to see facts for what they are.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 10, 2010, 10:51:15 PM
What I can't square is Sinn Fein don't recognise the Wesminster British seat but take part in the vote. It is like they kind of recognise it and are proud to call their members MPs. I think it should be one or other... abstain totally or go into Westminster. Frank Maguire and Bernadette Devlin went to Westminster although I am not sure what the reaction was to that. Certainly they got enough nationalist-Republican votes to get in. If Sinn Fein decided tomorrow it will go in and take their seats thousands who are against it would suddenly agree with it. People need to stop being sheep and hanging onto every word a party says.
Also is not the 26 counties an artificial state imposed by British rule and they recoginse that government by taking their seat... just seems very contradictory, but maybe life ain't that black and white. (Just thinking out loud...)
SF have done things in recent years that they would never have dreamed of doing years ago, so I'd say before long, there will be a change of heart on this one as well. There'll be some way around it.
It's all a matter of timing.
Quote from: orangeman on May 10, 2010, 10:57:13 PM
SF have done things in recent years that they would never have dreamed of doing years ago, so I'd say before long, there will be a change of heart on this one as well. There'll be some way around it.
It's all a matter of timing.
There is no pressure coming from anywhere to make them do it. Espeacially not from the electorate. In fact it seems like a winner. The SDLP should try it.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 10:41:43 PM
No matter what you say nally, the fact remains Sf are still administering, implementing and even creating British rule in the north. Whatever happened to 'No return to Stormont'?
Translation: that's a fairly damning list of shame you have there nally, but no matter what facts you adduce, I'll just stick to the only stick that I can beat the Shinners with in relation to the north... they took seats in Stormont. *
* This translation of ardmhacaabu-speak is a free service ;)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 10:51:51 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 06:19:06 PM
Look Zap, no matter how much you deny it, SF accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be in the union with Britain whether sf spindoctors say it or not.
You have nothing to offer this thread or discussion on this topic in general.
Says who? You? You are just another armchair republican who refuses to see facts for what they are.
Whats an armchair republican?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 10:41:43 PM
No matter what you say nally, the fact remains Sf are still administering, implementing and even creating British rule in the north. Whatever happened to 'No return to Stormont'?
Things have come full circle when you're taking tips from RSF.
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 10:51:51 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 06:19:06 PM
Look Zap, no matter how much you deny it, SF accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be in the union with Britain whether sf spindoctors say it or not.
You have nothing to offer this thread or discussion on this topic in general.
Says who? You? You are just another armchair republican who refuses to see facts for what they are.
Whats an armchair republican?
(http://www.celticattic.com/scandinavian/images/irish_chair.jpg)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 10, 2010, 11:26:46 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 10:41:43 PM
No matter what you say nally, the fact remains Sf are still administering, implementing and even creating British rule in the north. Whatever happened to 'No return to Stormont'?
Translation: that's a fairly damning list of shame you have there nally, but no matter what facts you adduce, I'll just stick to the only stick that I can beat the Shinners with in relation to the north... they took seats in Stormont. *
* This translation of ardmhacaabu-speak is a free service ;)
Why am I even being asked about the SDLP. I wasn't discussing them ;)
Zap, I am not taking tips from anyone, I am just telling it like it is
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 10:51:51 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 06:19:06 PM
Look Zap, no matter how much you deny it, SF accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be in the union with Britain whether sf spindoctors say it or not.
You have nothing to offer this thread or discussion on this topic in general.
Says who? You? You are just another armchair republican who refuses to see facts for what they are.
Whats an armchair republican?
His Uncle
Quote from: ONeill on May 10, 2010, 11:47:25 PM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 10:55:29 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 10, 2010, 10:51:51 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 06:19:06 PM
Look Zap, no matter how much you deny it, SF accepted the default position of the 6 counties to be in the union with Britain whether sf spindoctors say it or not.
You have nothing to offer this thread or discussion on this topic in general.
Says who? You? You are just another armchair republican who refuses to see facts for what they are.
Whats an armchair republican?
(http://www.celticattic.com/scandinavian/images/irish_chair.jpg)
No no no. That's a "Republican" armchair.
Now Hardy, you know full well it's a deckchair. Are there deckchair republicans? I think not.
:D
There are Republican low-lifes li-lows, I know that.
Must be time for this to enter the picture:
(http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu206/Hardyarse/barstool.jpg)
Quote from: Hardy on May 11, 2010, 10:38:52 AM
:D
There are Republican low-lifes li-lows, I know that.
Must be time for this to enter the picture:
(http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu206/Hardyarse/barstool.jpg)
The arms on that chair were decomissioned.
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Whats an armchair republican?
I am surprised you never heard the expression before. The term is used to describe people who talk and argue about republicanism and try to show off to their mates about how big of a republican they are when in reality they have never got off their armchair/barstool/computer chair to do anything for 'the cause'
On reflection, the term ceasefire soldier may describe people such as nally etc. In case you don't know what that is, that's someone who popped up as a republican after the ceasefire and usually refers to people who never did anything pre-ceasefire. Armchair republican/ceasefire soldier, it amounts to the same thing really in my view. Those who talk about fighting and that and have never done a thing to support their convictions
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Whats an armchair republican?
I am surprised you never heard the expression before. The term is used to describe people who talk and argue about republicanism and try to show off to their mates about how big of a republican they are when in reality they have never got off their armchair/barstool/computer chair to do anything for 'the cause'
On reflection, the term ceasefire soldier may describe people such as nally etc. In case you don't know what that is, that's someone who popped up as a republican after the ceasefire and usually refers to people who never did anything pre-ceasefire. Armchair republican/ceasefire soldier, it amounts to the same thing really in my view. Those who talk about fighting and that and have never done a thing to support their convictions
Anyone under the age of 35.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Whats an armchair republican?
I am surprised you never heard the expression before. The term is used to describe people who talk and argue about republicanism and try to show off to their mates about how big of a republican they are when in reality they have never got off their armchair/barstool/computer chair to do anything for 'the cause'
On reflection, the term ceasefire soldier may describe people such as nally etc. In case you don't know what that is, that's someone who popped up as a republican after the ceasefire and usually refers to people who never did anything pre-ceasefire. Armchair republican/ceasefire soldier, it amounts to the same thing really in my view. Those who talk about fighting and that and have never done a thing to support their convictions
Anyone under the age of 35.
Exactly Zap, can never understand the amount of people in their early-mid 20's involved in dissident groupings.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Whats an armchair republican?
I am surprised you never heard the expression before. The term is used to describe people who talk and argue about republicanism and try to show off to their mates about how big of a republican they are when in reality they have never got off their armchair/barstool/computer chair to do anything for 'the cause'
On reflection, the term ceasefire soldier may describe people such as nally etc. In case you don't know what that is, that's someone who popped up as a republican after the ceasefire and usually refers to people who never did anything pre-ceasefire. Armchair republican/ceasefire soldier, it amounts to the same thing really in my view. Those who talk about fighting and that and have never done a thing to support their convictions
Oh I've heard the term alright just wasnt sure what was meant by it. You used it to describe Zapista and ceasefire soldier to describe nally. How do you know anything about Zapista or nally? Are you saying that no one can become part of the republican movement unless they took part in any fighting? Are FF ceasefire soldiers?
I take it back - I'm reliably informed that Bundoran is full of deckchair republicans.
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 11, 2010, 12:35:33 PM
I take it back - I'm reliably informed that Bundoran is full of deckchair republicans.
Gweedore too apparently.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 10, 2010, 10:51:15 PM
What I can't square is Sinn Fein don't recognise the Wesminster British seat but take part in the vote. It is like they kind of recognise it and are proud to call their members MPs. I think it should be one or other... abstain totally or go into Westminster. Frank Maguire and Bernadette Devlin went to Westminster although I am not sure what the reaction was to that. Certainly they got enough nationalist-Republican votes to get in. If Sinn Fein decided tomorrow it will go in and take their seats thousands who are against it would suddenly agree with it. People need to stop being sheep and hanging onto every word a party says.
Also is not the 26 counties an artificial state imposed by British rule and they recoginse that government by taking their seat... just seems very contradictory, but maybe life ain't that black and white. (Just thinking out loud...)
There are many reasons for SF to stand for Westminster & abstain.
A unionist bloc of 15-18 MPs as it would have been in previous decades would be much more powerful lobbying group in today's hung parliament environment. The Sf seats lessen the impact of the unionists.
Expenses, secretarial costs, London accommodation .
I would suspect the MP moniker gives greater access in Westminster for lobbying government decision makers on bread & butter issues, as well as the more strategic united Ireland agenda.
Internationally it also adds gravitas to lobbying foreign government for support.
Quote from: gallsman on May 11, 2010, 12:41:11 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 11, 2010, 12:35:33 PM
I take it back - I'm reliably informed that Bundoran is full of deckchair republicans.
Gweedore too apparently.
Thats right cos the only people who contributed to the war were from Belfast! ::)
QuoteThe Sf seats lessen the impact of the unionists.
Nonsense. IF SF didn't stand their seats would have won by the SDLP.
Quote from: hardstation on May 09, 2010, 10:27:23 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 10:18:44 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 09, 2010, 10:09:52 PM
Maguire just accept it, the people of West Belfast trust Gerry on his performance, as do the people of West Tyrone, Mid Ulster, FST, Newry & Armagh trust their representatives. I'll not go into the other constituancies as it's like rubbing salt into... You can spout the same auld shite that the stoops have been spouting but it won't change the results.
Suck an applejack and move on.
The usual mature response. I was only asking the question. I'm not sure what Gerry has delivered for West Belfast. I have no desire to change the outcome of the democratic outcome - I'm just interested to know the motivation of the WB voters, given what happened in the East. There's no need to be so sensitive.
Ya see, all you were able to suggest was "not voting or spoiling your vote". It's not really going to happen.
In the east, Naomi is "the wee girl from the east who has been on every doorstep" which is a reasonable alternative to Peter Robinson.
You could cut my balls off before I'd even think about giving a vote to that odious wee cnut standing for the SDLP in west Belfast.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8675766.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8675766.stm)
Quote from: tyrone86 on May 11, 2010, 04:35:13 PM
Quote from: hardstation on May 09, 2010, 10:27:23 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 09, 2010, 10:18:44 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 09, 2010, 10:09:52 PM
Maguire just accept it, the people of West Belfast trust Gerry on his performance, as do the people of West Tyrone, Mid Ulster, FST, Newry & Armagh trust their representatives. I'll not go into the other constituancies as it's like rubbing salt into... You can spout the same auld shite that the stoops have been spouting but it won't change the results.
Suck an applejack and move on.
The usual mature response. I was only asking the question. I'm not sure what Gerry has delivered for West Belfast. I have no desire to change the outcome of the democratic outcome - I'm just interested to know the motivation of the WB voters, given what happened in the East. There's no need to be so sensitive.
Ya see, all you were able to suggest was "not voting or spoiling your vote". It's not really going to happen.
In the east, Naomi is "the wee girl from the east who has been on every doorstep" which is a reasonable alternative to Peter Robinson.
You could cut my balls off before I'd even think about giving a vote to that odious wee cnut standing for the SDLP in west Belfast.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8675766.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8675766.stm)
Trying to incease his profile I see.
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 11, 2010, 12:35:33 PM
I take it back - I'm reliably informed that Bundoran is full of deckchair republicans.
....meanwhile the real 'death merchants' are the politicians of Longford ! ;)
:D
(eg PK ;))
Quote from: qz on May 11, 2010, 01:19:48 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 10, 2010, 10:51:15 PM
What I can't square is Sinn Fein don't recognise the Wesminster British seat but take part in the vote. It is like they kind of recognise it and are proud to call their members MPs. I think it should be one or other... abstain totally or go into Westminster. Frank Maguire and Bernadette Devlin went to Westminster although I am not sure what the reaction was to that. Certainly they got enough nationalist-Republican votes to get in. If Sinn Fein decided tomorrow it will go in and take their seats thousands who are against it would suddenly agree with it. People need to stop being sheep and hanging onto every word a party says.
Also is not the 26 counties an artificial state imposed by British rule and they recoginse that government by taking their seat... just seems very contradictory, but maybe life ain't that black and white. (Just thinking out loud...)
There are many reasons for SF to stand for Westminster & abstain.
A unionist bloc of 15-18 MPs as it would have been in previous decades would be much more powerful lobbying group in today's hung parliament environment. The Sf seats lessen the impact of the unionists.
Expenses, secretarial costs, London accommodation .
I would suspect the MP moniker gives greater access in Westminster for lobbying government decision makers on bread & butter issues, as well as the more strategic united Ireland agenda.
Internationally it also adds gravitas to lobbying foreign government for support.
:D :D
maybe SF are also actually being really GREEN and eco-friendly with a decision to save on air miles and carbon pollution and stay at home and not go to westminister ! :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2010, 04:54:59 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 11, 2010, 12:35:33 PM
I take it back - I'm reliably informed that Bundoran is full of deckchair republicans.
....meanwhile the real 'death merchants' are the politicians of Longford ! ;)
:D
(eg PK ;))
Did ye hear that Mae Sexton has 'swung' from the PDs to Labour - who said political ideology is dead? ;D
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 11, 2010, 05:02:56 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 11, 2010, 04:54:59 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on May 11, 2010, 12:35:33 PM
I take it back - I'm reliably informed that Bundoran is full of deckchair republicans.
....meanwhile the real 'death merchants' are the politicians of Longford ! ;)
:D
(eg PK ;))
Did ye hear that Mae Sexton has 'swung' from the PDs to Labour - who said political ideology is dead? ;D
shes not an undertaker as well ?
political ideology - sure these feckin chancers wouldnt kow their own manifestos or party mantras let alone a whole party political ideology !
(apart from a few hard liners like Emmett Stagg and real left wingers etc)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 10, 2010, 11:26:46 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 10, 2010, 10:41:43 PM
No matter what you say nally, the fact remains Sf are still administering, implementing and even creating British rule in the north. Whatever happened to 'No return to Stormont'?
Translation: that's a fairly damning list of shame you have there nally, but no matter what facts you adduce, I'll just stick to the only stick that I can beat the Shinners with in relation to the north... they took seats in Stormont. *
* This translation of ardmhacaabu-speak is a free service ;)
And what a service it is. Go raibh mile
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Whats an armchair republican?
I am surprised you never heard the expression before. The term is used to describe people who talk and argue about republicanism and try to show off to their mates about how big of a republican they are when in reality they have never got off their armchair/barstool/computer chair to do anything for 'the cause'
On reflection, the term ceasefire soldier may describe people such as nally etc. In case you don't know what that is, that's someone who popped up as a republican after the ceasefire and usually refers to people who never did anything pre-ceasefire. Armchair republican/ceasefire soldier, it amounts to the same thing really in my view. Those who talk about fighting and that and have never done a thing to support their convictions
So basically, you have a problem with SF supposed links to armed force, a problem with those who supported armed force but not SF, and a problem with those who supported SF but didn't join the IRA? Why you just plain hate anyone to do with Sinn Fein don't you. Get over yourself.
As for your question "Why am I even being asked about the SDLP. I wasn't discussing them", I'll clarify that you did discuss them when you stated "I am now asking you to qualify how you can say that the SDLP are a Unionist party". I gave you seventeen good reasons. You failed to discuss them so I may post them
again for you....
SDLP UNIONISM IN SEVENTEEN EASY TO FOLLOW STEPS:
1. "We are a Post Nationalist Party" (Mark Durkan)
The phrase which sums up th SDLP westminster campaign of 2001. Describing themselves as post nationalist seems to have been the turning point in that key election and they have never properly recovered.
3. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlidcwmhsn/
- In this instance they showed a complete disregard for the mandate given to SF by their voters and showed their level of committment to nationalism by joining a dirty pact with the two unionist parties. This was evidenced at a local level in my own are also at several recent elections. Coming from a Republican area, the SDLP in my local polling station often had a tactic of objecting to as many people as possible inside the station in the evening time; thereby preventing the lines of people still in the queue outside from voting once closing time came.
4. Attitude to All Ireland co-operation and voting rights for Irish Citizens in the north in Irish Presidential Elections
- As I pointed out on this board before, When SF proposed, in 13 councils, that these councils press the Dublin Govn to be more proactive in developing All Ireland strategies and for voting rights for people in the north in Irish Presidential Elections, only two got full SDLP support, the rest either got a split SDLP vote, SDLP members abstaining, SDLP refusing to attend etc. 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?
The Unionists of the SDLP also:
5. Felt that equality had been achieved in the 1980's claiming this equality was "now a reality"
6. Takes an oath of allegience to a British monarchy all to have the right to sit in Westminster, despite rarely attending anyway
7. Stated that they have "have no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north of Ireland
8. Voted in favour of 28 day detention
9. In 2006, argued in favour of diplock courts stating it was "essential that adequate provision for non-jury trials for appropriate offences in Northern Ireland is maintained"
10. Supported Irish citizens in the north being legally compelled to be included in a "British National Identity Register".
11. Regarded Ronnie Flanagan as a man who "wanted to edge policing forward"
12. Opposed Derry Council proceeding with its stated policy of petitioning the Privy Council to restore the name of Derry to the city
13. Assisted the Orange Order in having their joint unionist candidate capture the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat just to avoid a SF member taking the seat. (Thankfully the people showed them the middle finger on this one.)
14. Sends a member of it's Assembly team on a British Ministry of Defence trip to Afghanistan
15. Voted in in the Assembly for increased pensions for the RUC Part-Time Reservists
16. Voted in Belfast City Council for the placing of dozens of British Army plaques, including two UDR plaques around the walls inside City Hall.
17. For years claimed allegations of collusion between the British state and Loyalist gangs was "republican propeganda"
Be careful Nally. If your argument becomes too compelling the clown will just ignore you.
Then the readers of the thread would have nobody to laugh at. :)
Quote from: Franko on May 11, 2010, 05:23:26 PM
Be careful Nally. If your argument becomes to compelling the clown will just ignore you.
Then the readers of the thread would have nobody to laugh at. :)
Oh s**t your right
17 reasons why you don't like the SDLP, 17 reasons where they're not in line with SF policy or 17 reasons why the SDLP didn't cooperate with SF does not mean they're a Unionist party! Your grasp of the concepts of unionism or nationalism appears very narrow.
No, seventeen reasons why the SDLP can be seen as unionist. If I was to give reasons why I dont like them, I could also put forward that they have ZERO involvement in my largely nationalist/republican area/community and yet appear on the doorstep expecting a vote at election time amongst many many other reasons.
And if my concept of unionism was narrow, I'd have included one or maybe two examples. I have included examples which demonstrate the SDLP making what can only be described as unionist responses to what is actually a wide range of aspects including policing, equality, oaths to the British Queen, All Ireland Co-Operation, the british army etc. As for ardmhacaabu's question as to why the SDLP are unionist, I understand his silence on these seventeen points. It's hard to defend the indefensible.
Sixteen reasons really.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 06:59:02 PM
No, seventeen reasons why the SDLP can be seen as unionist. If I was to give reasons why I dont like them, I could also put forward that they have ZERO involvement in my largely nationalist/republican area/community and yet appear on the doorstep expecting a vote at election time amongst many many other reasons.
And if my concept of unionism was narrow, I'd have included one or maybe two examples. I have included examples which demonstrate the SDLP making what can only be described as unionist responses to what is actually a wide range of aspects including policing, equality, oaths to the British Queen, All Ireland Co-Operation, the british army etc. As for ardmhacaabu's question as to why the SDLP are unionist, I understand his silence on these seventeen points. It's hard to defend the indefensible.
Yet you don't believe helping to administer British rule in the north is Unionist?!
These 'reasons' don't make the SDLP Unionists. Are they working to maintain the Union? Are they opposing a United Ireland (and I don't just mean SF policies)?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 05:18:29 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 10, 2010, 11:27:33 PM
Whats an armchair republican?
I am surprised you never heard the expression before. The term is used to describe people who talk and argue about republicanism and try to show off to their mates about how big of a republican they are when in reality they have never got off their armchair/barstool/computer chair to do anything for 'the cause'
On reflection, the term ceasefire soldier may describe people such as nally etc. In case you don't know what that is, that's someone who popped up as a republican after the ceasefire and usually refers to people who never did anything pre-ceasefire. Armchair republican/ceasefire soldier, it amounts to the same thing really in my view. Those who talk about fighting and that and have never done a thing to support their convictions
So basically, you have a problem with SF supposed links to armed force, a problem with those who supported armed force but not SF, and a problem with those who supported SF but didn't join the IRA? Why you just plain hate anyone to do with Sinn Fein don't you. Get over yourself.
As for your question "Why am I even being asked about the SDLP. I wasn't discussing them", I'll clarify that you did discuss them when you stated "I am now asking you to qualify how you can say that the SDLP are a Unionist party". I gave you seventeen good reasons. You failed to discuss them so I may post them again for you....
SDLP UNIONISM IN SEVENTEEN EASY TO FOLLOW STEPS:
1. "We are a Post Nationalist Party" (Mark Durkan)
The phrase which sums up th SDLP westminster campaign of 2001. Describing themselves as post nationalist seems to have been the turning point in that key election and they have never properly recovered.
3. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlidcwmhsn/
- In this instance they showed a complete disregard for the mandate given to SF by their voters and showed their level of committment to nationalism by joining a dirty pact with the two unionist parties. This was evidenced at a local level in my own are also at several recent elections. Coming from a Republican area, the SDLP in my local polling station often had a tactic of objecting to as many people as possible inside the station in the evening time; thereby preventing the lines of people still in the queue outside from voting once closing time came.
4. Attitude to All Ireland co-operation and voting rights for Irish Citizens in the north in Irish Presidential Elections
- As I pointed out on this board before, When SF proposed, in 13 councils, that these councils press the Dublin Govn to be more proactive in developing All Ireland strategies and for voting rights for people in the north in Irish Presidential Elections, only two got full SDLP support, the rest either got a split SDLP vote, SDLP members abstaining, SDLP refusing to attend etc. 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?
The Unionists of the SDLP also:
5. Felt that equality had been achieved in the 1980's claiming this equality was "now a reality"
6. Takes an oath of allegience to a British monarchy all to have the right to sit in Westminster, despite rarely attending anyway
7. Stated that they have "have no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north of Ireland
8. Voted in favour of 28 day detention
9. In 2006, argued in favour of diplock courts stating it was "essential that adequate provision for non-jury trials for appropriate offences in Northern Ireland is maintained"
10. Supported Irish citizens in the north being legally compelled to be included in a "British National Identity Register".
11. Regarded Ronnie Flanagan as a man who "wanted to edge policing forward"
12. Opposed Derry Council proceeding with its stated policy of petitioning the Privy Council to restore the name of Derry to the city
13. Assisted the Orange Order in having their joint unionist candidate capture the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat just to avoid a SF member taking the seat. (Thankfully the people showed them the middle finger on this one.)
14. Sends a member of it's Assembly team on a British Ministry of Defence trip to Afghanistan
15. Voted in in the Assembly for increased pensions for the RUC Part-Time Reservists
16. Voted in Belfast City Council for the placing of dozens of British Army plaques, including two UDR plaques around the walls inside City Hall.
17. For years claimed allegations of collusion between the British state and Loyalist gangs was "republican propeganda"
ill give you 1 reason why the sdlp are not unionists.
http://www.sdlp.ie/index.php/the_issues/a_united_ireland/
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
Is that the same thread that you told us you went to SF seeking their help. Bit hypocritical really.
That's not what I said, I have never asked them for a damm thing. My wife has though, that's what I said.
Well we do know that there's a fair bit of spin in Nally Stand's 17 points.
For example, that the SDLP "sent" one of their MLAs to Afghanistan - unless you know more than the rest of us. There's also the one on petitioning the privvy council re the Derry naming issue; this was discussed at length on here and it was far from the SDLP trying to block a name change - more opposition to SF trying to progress something that was doomed to failure under the circumstances at that time.
However, even if the SDLP did 'send' someone to Afghanistan, or if they did block a change to Derry's name, that still wouldn't make them Unionist.
Quote from: magickingdom on May 11, 2010, 07:24:41 PM
ill give you 1 reason why the sdlp are not unionists.
http://www.sdlp.ie/index.php/the_issues/a_united_ireland/
I'm none the wiser after reading that. It reads as if the SDLP don't want a referendum and are stating vague targets they will decide they will reach if they want to, sometime, maybe, but whatever, anyway, if it happens, but ye know. It reads like the DUP's claim that policing will not be devolved untill there is full community confidence. We all know that was the DUP saying never. Luckily other thought different.
Why Sinn Fein Are A Bunch of Hypocrites
1. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, SF recognised and signed up to what they had previously derided as the 'unionist veto'. It was rebranded as the consent of the people of the north to spare their blushes. As an SDLP supporter I've always supported the consent principle. Republicans used to brand people like me as subservient for doing so.
2. Under the same Agreement, SF agreed to enter the Stormont Assembly and take part in the administration of British Rule in Ireland. Indeed, their burning ambition now is to hold the post of First Minister in this Assembly. As an SDLP supporter I've no problem with a local Assembly. However, republicans used to brand people like me as west Brits for holding such a view.
3. SF supported the right of every Irishman and woman to take up arms against the British 'occupation'. 'Ireland unfree will never be at peace', etc etc. SF now consider the so called republicans dissidents as 'traitors' to Ireland for doing so. Only Gerry and Marty, apparently, have the right to declare war.
4. SF preach equality for all and the rights of women, yet they deny justice to women who've been abused or raped by leading republicans.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line
"I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
Quote from: AFS on May 11, 2010, 07:12:09 PM
Sixteen reasons really.
:D Correct, I apologise. Sixteen good reasons though.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
Slightly off topic but I asked you a good few times on a thread a while ago to prove your claim of a SDLP/Unionist voting pact on Omagh District Council. Why where you unwilling to prove that? Catch yourself on indeed.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
Why Sinn Fein Are A Bunch of Hypocrites
1. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, SF recognised and signed up to what they had previously derided as the 'unionist veto'. It was rebranded as the consent of the people of the north to spare their blushes. As an SDLP supporter I've always supported the consent principle. Republicans used to brand people like me as subservient for doing so.
So? It was not rebranded. It was the culmination of talks with all interested parties and players and it was endorsed by all the people of Ireland. It also had a Nationalist Veto. You can't compre the GFA with anything previous.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
2. Under the same Agreement, SF agreed to enter the Stormont Assembly and take part in the administration of British Rule in Ireland. Indeed, their burning ambition now is to hold the post of First Minister in this Assembly. As an SDLP supporter I've no problem with a local Assembly. However, republicans used to brand people like me as west Brits for holding such a view.
Under the same agreement SF were mandated by a referendum of the Irish people to enter the assembly. As were the DUP who opposed the agreement. It's called respecting the wishes of the people. SF are already joint first minister. They have a burning ambition to become the biggest party in Ireland. The first Minister title is not important. The SDLP are still called 'west brits' by Republicans.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
3. SF supported the right of every Irishman and woman to take up arms against the British 'occupation'. 'Ireland unfree will never be at peace', etc etc. SF now consider the so called republicans dissidents as 'traitors' to Ireland for doing so. Only Gerry and Marty, apparently, have the right to declare war.
SF still hold the opinion that there is a right to take up arms against the British occupation. They believe that there are certain conditions that must be in place for this to be justified. Those conditions are not there and anyone who takes up arms in the present political climate is a traitor to Ireland.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
4. SF preach equality for all and the rights of women, yet they deny justice to women who've been abused or raped by leading republicans.
f**k you for that last comment.
Quote from: oakleafgael on May 11, 2010, 10:41:47 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
Slightly off topic but I asked you a good few times on a thread a while ago to prove your claim of a SDLP/Unionist voting pact on Omagh District Council. Why where you unwilling to prove that? Catch yourself on indeed.
I did twice if I recall and to the very best of my abilities which you will concede is hardly straight forward considering that those parties obviously didnt speak of or write about anti-SF pacts in public. If my explanation wasnt to your liking then I apologise.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
:D :D :D THAT WAS THE LAZIEST RESPONSE I'VE EVER READ :D :D :D
1. Prove to me that I am lying, and quote to me where I said you supported the SDLP
2. See response to Oakleaf
3. How is this one a lie ??? ???, I quoted you directly
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:36:27 PM
That's not what I said, I have never asked them for a damm thing. My wife has though, that's what I said.
I had reason to contact SF and the SDLP over an issue my wife was having. Neither of them really did anything about it even though it was clearly within their power to do so, shinners sent an email while the SDLP did a bit of donkey work in terms of phone calls, emails, letters, I won't go into details on here about it for obvious reasons but nothing seemed to work. By chance I happened to bump into Ken Magennis on a bus from Belfast to Enniskillen and I thought I would chance my arm with him. I was wearing an Armagh shirt at the time and had a bit of craic with him about Tyrone and that he was a bit of a hypocrite watching matches on TV when he wouldn't go to one if it was on a Sunday. He proved to be way more helpful than either of the SDLP or the shinners.
This is what you said.
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 12, 2010, 10:19:01 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:36:27 PM
That's not what I said, I have never asked them for a damm thing. My wife has though, that's what I said.
I had reason to contact SF and the SDLP over an issue my wife was having. Neither of them really did anything about it even though it was clearly within their power to do so, shinners sent an email while the SDLP did a bit of donkey work in terms of phone calls, emails, letters, I won't go into details on here about it for obvious reasons but nothing seemed to work. By chance I happened to bump into Ken Magennis on a bus from Belfast to Enniskillen and I thought I would chance my arm with him. I was wearing an Armagh shirt at the time and had a bit of craic with him about Tyrone and that he was a bit of a hypocrite watching matches on TV when he wouldn't go to one if it was on a Sunday. He proved to be way more helpful than either of the SDLP or the shinners.
This is what you said.
;DAh sure he doesn't tell lies.
Quote from: reddgnhand on May 12, 2010, 10:19:01 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:36:27 PM
That's not what I said, I have never asked them for a damm thing. My wife has though, that's what I said.
I had reason to contact SF and the SDLP over an issue my wife was having. Neither of them really did anything about it even though it was clearly within their power to do so, shinners sent an email while the SDLP did a bit of donkey work in terms of phone calls, emails, letters, I won't go into details on here about it for obvious reasons but nothing seemed to work. By chance I happened to bump into Ken Magennis on a bus from Belfast to Enniskillen and I thought I would chance my arm with him. I was wearing an Armagh shirt at the time and had a bit of craic with him about Tyrone and that he was a bit of a hypocrite watching matches on TV when he wouldn't go to one if it was on a Sunday. He proved to be way more helpful than either of the SDLP or the shinners.
This is what you said.
Fair enough, apologies, I can't be expected to remember every word I type. Anyway, I use we/I when I am talking about my family. The last time I even spoke to a shinner it ended up in a row, I wouldn't ask them for a thing and I have many reasons why. I might even do a post on them at some point
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
Why Sinn Fein Are A Bunch of Hypocrites
1. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, SF recognised and signed up to what they had previously derided as the 'unionist veto'. It was rebranded as the consent of the people of the north to spare their blushes. As an SDLP supporter I've always supported the consent principle. Republicans used to brand people like me as subservient for doing so.
So? It was not rebranded. It was the culmination of talks with all interested parties and players and it was endorsed by all the people of Ireland. It also had a Nationalist Veto. You can't compre the GFA with anything previous.
You can compare it to Sunningdale.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
2. Under the same Agreement, SF agreed to enter the Stormont Assembly and take part in the administration of British Rule in Ireland. Indeed, their burning ambition now is to hold the post of First Minister in this Assembly. As an SDLP supporter I've no problem with a local Assembly. However, republicans used to brand people like me as west Brits for holding such a view.
Under the same agreement SF were mandated by a referendum of the Irish people to enter the assembly .... It's called respecting the wishes of the people.
Since they didn't seem to need a mandate from the Irish people for the "armed struggle", nor show much respect for the wishes of the people, that's not much of an argument.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
3. SF supported the right of every Irishman and woman to take up arms against the British 'occupation'. 'Ireland unfree will never be at peace', etc etc. SF now consider the so called republicans dissidents as 'traitors' to Ireland for doing so. Only Gerry and Marty, apparently, have the right to declare war.
SF still hold the opinion that there is a right to take up arms against the British occupation. They believe that there are certain conditions that must be in place for this to be justified. Those conditions are not there and anyone who takes up arms in the present political climate is a traitor to Ireland.
Who elected SF as arbiters of the justification for war?
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
4. SF preach equality for all and the rights of women, yet they deny justice to women who've been abused or raped by leading republicans.
f**k you for that last comment.
What's wrong with that comment? Are SF more sacred than the Catholic Church in immunity from criticism in this forum?
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2010, 11:13:11 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
Why Sinn Fein Are A Bunch of Hypocrites
1. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, SF recognised and signed up to what they had previously derided as the 'unionist veto'. It was rebranded as the consent of the people of the north to spare their blushes. As an SDLP supporter I've always supported the consent principle. Republicans used to brand people like me as subservient for doing so.
So? It was not rebranded. It was the culmination of talks with all interested parties and players and it was endorsed by all the people of Ireland. It also had a Nationalist Veto. You can't compre the GFA with anything previous.
You can compare it to Sunningdale.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
2. Under the same Agreement, SF agreed to enter the Stormont Assembly and take part in the administration of British Rule in Ireland. Indeed, their burning ambition now is to hold the post of First Minister in this Assembly. As an SDLP supporter I've no problem with a local Assembly. However, republicans used to brand people like me as west Brits for holding such a view.
Under the same agreement SF were mandated by a referendum of the Irish people to enter the assembly .... It's called respecting the wishes of the people.
Since they didn't seem to need a mandate from the Irish people for the "armed struggle", nor show much respect for the wishes of the people, that's not much of an argument.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
3. SF supported the right of every Irishman and woman to take up arms against the British 'occupation'. 'Ireland unfree will never be at peace', etc etc. SF now consider the so called republicans dissidents as 'traitors' to Ireland for doing so. Only Gerry and Marty, apparently, have the right to declare war.
SF still hold the opinion that there is a right to take up arms against the British occupation. They believe that there are certain conditions that must be in place for this to be justified. Those conditions are not there and anyone who takes up arms in the present political climate is a traitor to Ireland.
Who elected SF as arbiters of the justification for war?
Quote from: Zapatista on May 11, 2010, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 11, 2010, 10:21:37 PM
4. SF preach equality for all and the rights of women, yet they deny justice to women who've been abused or raped by leading republicans.
f**k you for that last comment.
What's wrong with that comment? Are SF more sacred than the Catholic Church in immunity from criticism in this forum?
What women did they deny justice to that were raped by leading Republicans
What do you think about the Áine Tyrrell case?
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2010, 11:31:28 AM
What do you think about the Áine Tyrrell case?
That was a child who allegedly was abused by her Father and her family were told to report it to the police which they did and it was also reported to SS so don't understand how Sinn Fein has denied her justice.She definitely hasn't got justice yet but not Sinn Fein fault.If she ever gets justice I expect will depend on the courts.
This is my opinion. This thread shows all that is wrong with the SDLP, their supporters and those who canvass for them, at least the ones who have come to my door. I have not seen anyone on here arguing why someone should vote the SDLP or than vote for us we're not the Shinners. Too much of their rhetoric is all about Sinn Fein and not about themselves and what their vision is. Not the sound bite vision we normally hear on TV. They have actually come to may door and ridiculed other members of their own party. Splitting the Pro-United Ireland vote in Fermanagh and South Tyrone was the last straw for me. By the way for those who are not SDLP and are who are just anti Sinn Fein that's your opinion so good luck to you!
so sf are guilty of allowing criminal abuse towards women - and are the only people this is applicable to
jeez, thats a bit of a mad, far fetched grasp of an attempt !
also, i'd see sf in stormont , not as administering british rule - but dilutng it by adding themselves to the gathering- and injecting the Irishness into the assembly that is needed.
Years ago it was pointless for SDLP (as sf didnt exist then) because of the inequality in the establishment and system. Now things have changed thus sf should be able to do their bit.
sdlp could do the same if they got off their arses !
Hardy - there was a mandate from the people under attack that the ira were protecting. Ask anyone from any of these areas and they may abhor violence now, but were glad of the intervention at the time. We wouldnt have the status that exists now otherwise !
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2010, 11:13:11 AM
You can compare it to Sunningdale.
For the exact same reasons I pointed out, you can't. Sunningdale was typical of the arrogance and lack of real understanding of the people still evident in the SDLP. The SDLP sense of entitlement knows no bounds.
Quote
Since they didn't seem to need a mandate from the Irish people for the "armed struggle", nor show much respect for the wishes of the people, that's not much of an argument.
The mandate for that was taken from the 2nd Dail. The last election held on an all ireland basis without duress (untill the GFA). Also, as I said, the conditions were right for it.
QuoteWho elected SF as arbiters of the justification for war?
The Irish people decided that of their own free will, SF just act according to that.
QuoteWhat's wrong with that comment? Are SF more sacred than the Catholic Church in immunity from criticism in this forum?
Criticism is fine even though your question is loaded and not related to the original post. Throwing out false accusations of the crimes the poster said is not fine.
Have worked with ken before. The man takes no shit. If he says he will do something for you he see's it through to the end.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 12, 2010, 11:45:03 AM
Hardy - there was a mandate from the people under attack that the ira were protecting. Ask anyone from any of these areas and they may abhor violence now, but were glad of the intervention at the time. We wouldnt have the status that exists now otherwise !
Thats a big bite for a lot of our southern colleagues to fathum and if you ever vist AFR as I do they just don't buy it as it doesn't suit their SF/IRA bad everyone else good simplistic thinking.
There are the odd few southern posters on here and AFR who are slightly more open minded but do seem to be in the minority.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 12, 2010, 11:52:44 AM
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2010, 11:13:11 AM
You can compare it to Sunningdale.
For the exact same reasons I pointed out, you can't. Sunningdale was typical of the arrogance and lack of real understanding of the people still evident in the SDLP. The SDLP sense of entitlement knows no bounds.
Quote
Since they didn't seem to need a mandate from the Irish people for the "armed struggle", nor show much respect for the wishes of the people, that's not much of an argument.
The mandate for that was taken from the 2nd Dail. The last election held on an all ireland basis without duress (untill the GFA). Also, as I said, the conditions were right for it.
QuoteWho elected SF as arbiters of the justification for war?
The Irish people decided that of their own free will, SF just act according to that.
QuoteWhat's wrong with that comment? Are SF more sacred than the Catholic Church in immunity from criticism in this forum?
Criticism is fine even though your question is loaded and not related to the original post. Throwing out false accusations of the crimes the poster said is not fine.
From the 2nd Dail you say? So we all live our lives according to the wishes of an electorate which had mostly died off by the time the troubles started? And what's so special about that all Ireland election? Why not elevate one of the elections won by Parnell's party and demand home rule instead of independence? Why is the election of 1918 given preeminence? Oh that's right - because it produced a result Irish republicans liked. Every single political party in Ireland from 1970 onwards called for the IRA to end its campaign. Did republicans respect the mandate of these people? Did they hell. Gerry and Marty had declared war and the war would only end when Gerry and Marty decided. The Irish people could go fcuk themselves as far as they were concerned.
We didn't get the chance to live our lives according to the wishes of the electorate because our imperial masters decided to ignore the democratically expressed wishes of the Irish people and impose partition ... for you to suggest the Troubles were not directly linked to same just highlights your ongoing ignorance on this board, as does your throwing of the Home Rule argument in ... another example of the democratic wishes of the Irish people being stifled by a pro-Unionist parliament ... do you not think the constant, undemocratic stalling on Home Rule in the House of Lords contributed to hardening attitudes and support for full independence via armed struggle as opposed to dominion status, Einstein?
Every Irish election after the introduction of anything approaching a representative franchise showed a majority in favour of separation from Britain, something entirely ignored by the colonial masters. This ignorance from London effectively indicated that home rule type arrangements were untenable as there would not be good faith from the British. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
(http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ritchie-529x400.jpg)
Quote from: armaghniac on May 12, 2010, 09:12:29 PM
Every Irish election after the introduction of anything approaching a representative franchise showed a majority in favour of separation from Britain, something entirely ignored by the colonial masters. This ignorance from London effectively indicated that home rule type arrangements were untenable as there would not be good faith from the British. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Every election after 1970 in both states on this island produced majorities for parties who condemned the so called 'armed stuggle' and called on republicans to end it. Why were the wishes of these voters ignored by republicans, yet the wishes of people long dead were held by republicans to be undeniable? Why are dead people more important?
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
:D :D :D THAT WAS THE LAZIEST RESPONSE I'VE EVER READ :D :D :D
1. Prove to me that I am lying, and quote to me where I said you supported the SDLP
2. See response to Oakleaf
3. How is this one a lie ??? ???, I quoted you directly
tick tock....come on ardmhaca, I am waiting on your response......................
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 12, 2010, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
:D :D :D THAT WAS THE LAZIEST RESPONSE I'VE EVER READ :D :D :D
1. Prove to me that I am lying, and quote to me where I said you supported the SDLP
2. See response to Oakleaf
3. How is this one a lie ??? ???, I quoted you directly
tick tock....come on ardmhaca, I am waiting on your response......................
Nally Stand,
Your last post wasnt at me but as Im mentioned at number 2. If your still claiming there is a voting pact between SDLP and the Unionists on Omagh District council either produce the evidence or withdraw the claim.
QuoteEvery election after 1970 in both states on this island produced majorities for parties who condemned the so called 'armed stuggle' and called on republicans to end it.
I can say that MnG, but you cannot as you not accept the democratic ability of the Irish people to determine their own destiny.
Quote from: oakleafgael on May 12, 2010, 09:39:47 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 12, 2010, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
:D :D :D THAT WAS THE LAZIEST RESPONSE I'VE EVER READ :D :D :D
1. Prove to me that I am lying, and quote to me where I said you supported the SDLP
2. See response to Oakleaf
3. How is this one a lie ??? ???, I quoted you directly
tick tock....come on ardmhaca, I am waiting on your response......................
Nally Stand,
Your last post wasnt at me but as Im mentioned at number 2. If your still claiming there is a voting pact between SDLP and the Unionists on Omagh District council either produce the evidence or withdraw the claim.
Correct. It was not aimed at you.
And as I have already respoded to your earlier post on this, I don't feel the need to again.
Thats quitre accurate Ulick :(
Plus, anyone who is asexual, worries me.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 12, 2010, 09:47:08 PM
QuoteEvery election after 1970 in both states on this island produced majorities for parties who condemned the so called 'armed stuggle' and called on republicans to end it.
I can say that MnG, but you cannot as you not accept the democratic ability of the Irish people to determine their own destiny.
You can say it, but can't answer the question posed at the end of that post?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 12, 2010, 06:54:13 PM
From the 2nd Dail you say? So we all live our lives according to the wishes of an electorate which had mostly died off by the time the troubles started? And what's so special about that all Ireland election? Why not elevate one of the elections won by Parnell's party and demand home rule instead of independence? Why is the election of 1918 given preeminence? Oh that's right - because it produced a result Irish republicans liked. Every single political party in Ireland from 1970 onwards called for the IRA to end its campaign. Did republicans respect the mandate of these people? Did they hell. Gerry and Marty had declared war and the war would only end when Gerry and Marty decided. The Irish people could go fcuk themselves as far as they were concerned.
Actually most of that electorate were still alive by the time the troubles started. That election was special as the rest were held in gerrymandered sates. They were held under the threat of British violence and in a Ireland Partitioned along sectarian lines.
The war ended with the GFA when the Irish people decided it would. Gerry and Marty had no option as republicans but to accept that.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 12, 2010, 09:58:31 PM
Quote from: oakleafgael on May 12, 2010, 09:39:47 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 12, 2010, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
:D :D :D THAT WAS THE LAZIEST RESPONSE I'VE EVER READ :D :D :D
1. Prove to me that I am lying, and quote to me where I said you supported the SDLP
2. See response to Oakleaf
3. How is this one a lie ??? ???, I quoted you directly
tick tock....come on ardmhaca, I am waiting on your response......................
Nally Stand,
Your last post wasnt at me but as Im mentioned at number 2. If your still claiming there is a voting pact between SDLP and the Unionists on Omagh District council either produce the evidence or withdraw the claim.
Correct. It was not aimed at you.
And as I have already respoded to your earlier post on this, I don't feel the need to again.
Okay then, can we accept that you have no proof of this voting pact at all then?
Quote from: oakleafgael on May 12, 2010, 10:20:06 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 12, 2010, 09:58:31 PM
Quote from: oakleafgael on May 12, 2010, 09:39:47 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 12, 2010, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
:D :D :D THAT WAS THE LAZIEST RESPONSE I'VE EVER READ :D :D :D
1. Prove to me that I am lying, and quote to me where I said you supported the SDLP
2. See response to Oakleaf
3. How is this one a lie ??? ???, I quoted you directly
tick tock....come on ardmhaca, I am waiting on your response......................
Nally Stand,
Your last post wasnt at me but as Im mentioned at number 2. If your still claiming there is a voting pact between SDLP and the Unionists on Omagh District council either produce the evidence or withdraw the claim.
Correct. It was not aimed at you.
And as I have already respoded to your earlier post on this, I don't feel the need to again.
Okay then, can we accept that you have no proof of this voting pact at all then?
If you read my previous reply I make it clear that I gave you proof on another thread. If you don't like it, suck it up.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 12, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 12, 2010, 06:54:13 PM
From the 2nd Dail you say? So we all live our lives according to the wishes of an electorate which had mostly died off by the time the troubles started? And what's so special about that all Ireland election? Why not elevate one of the elections won by Parnell's party and demand home rule instead of independence? Why is the election of 1918 given preeminence? Oh that's right - because it produced a result Irish republicans liked. Every single political party in Ireland from 1970 onwards called for the IRA to end its campaign. Did republicans respect the mandate of these people? Did they hell. Gerry and Marty had declared war and the war would only end when Gerry and Marty decided. The Irish people could go fcuk themselves as far as they were concerned.
Actually most of that electorate were still alive by the time the troubles started.
That election was special as the rest were held in gerrymandered sates. They were held under the threat of British violence and in a Ireland Partitioned along sectarian lines.
The war ended with the GFA when the Irish people decided it would. Gerry and Marty had no option as republicans but to accept that.
The elections held before 1918 were held in an all Ireland state. Where's the difference?
Most of that electorate was still alive? Somebody who was 18 in 1918 would've been 70 in 1970. Somebody who was 40 would've been 92. Somebody who was 50...
And if they
were still alive, presumably they were still voting in the elections which were returning parties calling for an end to the violence. So, why weren't their most recent wishes as expressed at the ballot box respected by republicans?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 12, 2010, 10:23:03 PM
The elections held before 1918 were held in an all Ireland state. Where's the difference?
Most of that electorate was still alive? Somebody who was 18 in 1918 would've been 70 in 1970. Somebody who was 40 would've been 92. Somebody who was 50...
And if they were still alive, presumably they were still voting in the elections which were returning parties calling for an end to the violence. So, why weren't their most recent wishes as expressed at the ballot box respected by republicans?
The difference is there was another election ::) which was held in 1921.
The IRA had campaigns in the 50s 60s and 70s. If you were 18 in 21 you were 47 in 1950, 57 in 1960. In 1970 you would have been 66 etc. Even if most were dead it makes no difference to were the mandate came from. RSF still respect this mandate. Just like in 100 years time we will still have to respect the Lisbon treaty unless there is a referendum to say otherwise.
Your last question was answered in my last post.
The part you highlighted. I'm not defending it i'm just explaining it.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 12, 2010, 10:23:03 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 12, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 12, 2010, 06:54:13 PM
From the 2nd Dail you say? So we all live our lives according to the wishes of an electorate which had mostly died off by the time the troubles started? And what's so special about that all Ireland election? Why not elevate one of the elections won by Parnell's party and demand home rule instead of independence? Why is the election of 1918 given preeminence? Oh that's right - because it produced a result Irish republicans liked. Every single political party in Ireland from 1970 onwards called for the IRA to end its campaign. Did republicans respect the mandate of these people? Did they hell. Gerry and Marty had declared war and the war would only end when Gerry and Marty decided. The Irish people could go fcuk themselves as far as they were concerned.
Actually most of that electorate were still alive by the time the troubles started.
That election was special as the rest were held in gerrymandered sates. They were held under the threat of British violence and in a Ireland Partitioned along sectarian lines.
The war ended with the GFA when the Irish people decided it would. Gerry and Marty had no option as republicans but to accept that.
The elections held before 1918 were held in an all Ireland state. Where's the difference?
Most of that electorate was still alive? Somebody who was 18 in 1918 would've been 70 in 1970. Somebody who was 40 would've been 92. Somebody who was 50...
And if they were still alive, presumably they were still voting in the elections which were returning parties calling for an end to the violence. So, why weren't their most recent wishes as expressed at the ballot box respected by republicans?
When in a hole it's usually wise to stop digging ... but in your case, carry on... hopefully you'll strike an undergound power cable with an all-metal spade
Re: Myles, why do we even keep responding to him, he obviously is a complete WUM and ignores (or posts drivel) to every thread when he FAILS.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 12, 2010, 10:34:56 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 12, 2010, 10:23:03 PM
The elections held before 1918 were held in an all Ireland state. Where's the difference?
Most of that electorate was still alive? Somebody who was 18 in 1918 would've been 70 in 1970. Somebody who was 40 would've been 92. Somebody who was 50...
And if they were still alive, presumably they were still voting in the elections which were returning parties calling for an end to the violence. So, why weren't their most recent wishes as expressed at the ballot box respected by republicans?
The difference is there was another election ::) which was held in 1921.
The IRA had campaigns in the 50s 60s and 70s. If you were 18 in 21 you were 47 in 1950, 57 in 1960. In 1970 you would have been 66 etc. Even if most were dead it makes no difference to were the mandate came from. RSF still respect this mandate. Just like in 100 years time we will still have to respect the Lisbon treaty unless there is a referendum to say otherwise.
Your last question was answered in my last post. The part you highlighted. I'm not defending it i'm just explaining it.
You said the war ended when the Irish people decided it should end, and expressed this wish through the GFA referendum. But the Irish people, for decades, had been expressing their wish for the war to end by voting for parties, on both sides of the border, who were demanding an end to republican violence. Republicans ignored this. Yet, come the GFA agreement, all of a sudden the Irish people have spoken and their wishes must be respected. What happened? Simple. Republicans had decided themselves, after they had finally realised that they couldn't bomb the British out of Ireland, to call the violence off. Only when it suited them did they finally decide to recognise and respect the wishes of the Irish people.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on May 13, 2010, 07:16:59 AM
You said the war ended when the Irish people decided it should end, and expressed this wish through the GFA referendum. But the Irish people, for decades, had been expressing their wish for the war to end by voting for parties, on both sides of the border, who were demanding an end to republican violence. Republicans ignored this. Yet, come the GFA agreement, all of a sudden the Irish people have spoken and their wishes must be respected. What happened? Simple. Republicans had decided themselves, after they had finally realised that they couldn't bomb the British out of Ireland, to call the violence off. Only when it suited them did they finally decide to recognise and respect the wishes of the Irish people.
You're probably right. Better late than never I suppose.
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 12, 2010, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on May 11, 2010, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM
I don't claim to support the SDLP. Have you got issues with reading nally? I started a thread a while back and stated what I thought of the SDLP. I don't support them so why should I know about any of the things you claim to be true? I don't have the time to go through each of your 'points' but I seem to remember you being asked to produce evidence on at least one of your 'points' before and you couldn't produce it
1. Have you got issues with reading? Because I didn't say anything about you supporting the SDLP :-\
2. What "point" was I unable to prove?
3. Speaking of unable to prove things, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, after all on this very thread you came out with the ridiculous line "I can't prove what I have said even though I know it to be true because of who told me" (ardmhacaabu, May 2nd). I also remember you making claims on another thread that you "knew to be true" due to people you "know" to be involved in the IRA in Belfast "telling you so". Catch yourself on man.
1/ Liar
2/ see oakleaf
3/ Liar
:D :D :D THAT WAS THE LAZIEST RESPONSE I'VE EVER READ :D :D :D
1. Prove to me that I am lying, and quote to me where I said you supported the SDLP
2. See response to Oakleaf
3. How is this one a lie ??? ???, I quoted you directly
tick tock....come on ardmhaca, I am waiting on your response......................
I hate to bring this thread back to the fore again by posting here but I just cant let you accuse me of being a liar ardmhacaabbu. I have asked you REPEATEDLY to answer the above post to you as quoted, and you have been a total coward by ignoring me. Act your age and back up your claim here. I await your reply where you will back up the claim or will you retract your allegations that I am a liar?
Come on ardmhaca, don't be such a coward
Rodney wants a review.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10175137.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10175137.stm)
Quote from: FermGael on May 27, 2010, 06:41:00 PM
Rodney wants a review.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10175137.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10175137.stm)
no court will change the result
away and dry your eyes Rodders :P
Quote from: sammymaguire on May 27, 2010, 10:07:14 PM
away and dry your eyes Rodders :P
It's more a case of No Surrender ;)
In fairness Sinn Féin trieed to overturn the West Belfast result of 1992 (I think) by going to court. Almost sure they "won" but the result stood.
Almost impossible to overturn an election result after returning officer announces result.
Im not sure if it deserves a thread of its own so I thought this was the best place. I see the nominations for the Assembly elections are due soon in the SDLP. Gallagher will be looking to stand again and McKinney will also be after the seat. Two into one doesnt go. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11291048 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11291048)
Interesting
That is ridiculous, she just threw votes in the bin. I wonder who had a word in her ear.
Ardmhacha can you not see past your blind hatred of SF to see that this claim is the desperate rantings and ravings of an embarrassed Orange Order/Unionist Parties candidate? Laughable :D (you, that is)
Rodney Connor's challenge rejected: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11604851
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2010, 12:30:47 PM
Rodney Connor's challenge rejected: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11604851
What a waste of time and money.
Another jab to the nose of cold house unionism :)
Quote from: Doogie Browser on October 22, 2010, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2010, 12:30:47 PM
Rodney Connor's challenge rejected: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11604851
What a waste of time and money.
Completely agree. The only reason they contested it was to save face at the time. They knew all along that there was no missing votes. Rodney Connor should be sued.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on October 22, 2010, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on October 22, 2010, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2010, 12:30:47 PM
Rodney Connor's challenge rejected: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11604851
What a waste of time and money.
Completely agree. The only reason they contested it was to save face at the time. They knew all along that there was no missing votes. Rodney Connor should be sued.
Did you read the article? It clearly said
QuoteFollowing a three-day hearing in Dungannon last month, the number of disputed ballots was found to be three.
Since Gildernew won by 4 votes the judge said the disputed ballots didn't matter
Who paid for the case?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 07:01:08 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on October 22, 2010, 06:57:26 PM
Who paid for the case?
Probably us!
I read that Sinn Fein got involved even though the case was against the electoral office, so they now have to pay their costs.
Quote from: Minder on October 22, 2010, 07:09:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 07:01:08 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on October 22, 2010, 06:57:26 PM
Who paid for the case?
Probably us!
I read that Sinn Fein got involved even though the case was against the electoral office, so they now have to pay their costs.
I don't care who has to pay for it, as long as it's not the taxpayers. Let them waste their money on stupid cases.
Quote from: Minder on October 22, 2010, 07:09:44 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on October 22, 2010, 07:01:08 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on October 22, 2010, 06:57:26 PM
Who paid for the case?
Probably us!
I read that Sinn Fein got involved even though the case was against the electoral office, so they now have to pay their costs.
Just desserts indeed
From Eamonn Mallie's Twitter:
T/Gallagher destined to be SDLP's standard bearer again in FST after tomorrow night. Told Fearghal Mc Kinney now party employee. Deal?
Likely to hold the seat? SDLP leadership clearly realised that McKinney wasn't going to work. Gallagher will have a personal vote in addition to those who will remain loyal to the SDLP (and who voted for McKinney last year). Some of the 'loaned' votes will also return.
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 07:14:52 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
I was being sarcastic.
No name? Maybe he hangs around with the SDLP fella Dominic Marsella, who was running all those brothels in North Belfast.
He has a name.
So why not tell us?
I see this business has been raided by the peelers and is now "under new management". Strange goings on for a "legitimate business". Maybe the police thought it was a legitimate target.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 26, 2011, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 07:14:52 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:50:58 PM
Quote from: Ulick on May 01, 2010, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 01, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 01, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
A fella round my way that is heavily involved with the Shinners and had never worked (but drives a nice BMW) has no means of income that I have seen has just opened a cafe/restaurant. Fair play to him.
Fair play to him?
I was being sarcastic.
No name? Maybe he hangs around with the SDLP fella Dominic Marsella, who was running all those brothels in North Belfast.
He has a name.
So why not tell us?
I see this business has been raided by the peelers and is now "under new management". Strange goings on for a "legitimate business". Maybe the police thought it was a legitimate target.
Marsella?