Westminster General Election 2024

[Snapchap]

I find the rationale that asking difficult questions about the past is abusing the victims both dubious and dangerous. It is of a piece with the government's legacy legislation. It plays on the idea of victim protection but it's really an attempt to cover up and deny the need to deal with the past. It's truly cynical and decent people see through it.

Do you see anyone arguing that the opposing side shouldn't be asked difficult questions because of its impacts on victims? Something to think about.

OK so the UUP are not using the victims for electoral purposes, and to sugest otherwise is "cynical"? Gotcha.

So the UUP election candidate, who was trying to push the SF election candidate, mid way through an election campaign, to condemn only one specific bombing carried out (by remarkable coincidence) in the very constituency in which the candidates are running, is really a genuine attempt to "deal with the past" and has nothing to do with the forthcoming election? OK. I've a bridge to Scotland to for sale if you're interested?

For what it's worth, Diane Armstrong, the UUP candidate in question, has been in elected office since 2016. A quick google search for prior to this week throws up not one single uterance from her about the bombing she has taken a sudden interest in. But yeah, I'm sure her newfound concern for the victims is absolutely genuine.

On another note, it may have passed her by, but yesterday was the 30th Anniversary of the Loughinisland Massacre. I wonder was the new champion of victims rights out on the media demanding condemnation and answers from the DUP, given that it was the DUP which set up the Ulster Resistance Paramilitary group, whos weapons were used in the attack. Wait, what?? She didn't say a word??? Surely it can't be the case that those victims were the wrong religion, or worse, in the wrong electoral constituency, to be bothered about them? Perish the thought. After all, her tireless, almost week-long campaign for victims is absolutely genuine as you keep teling us.

[Milltown Row2]

I don't think the questions are difficult. She could have said something, but it's Political point scoring, if you are going back nearly 4 decades to get a rise you are clearly struggling

Really good questions could have been about

Infrastructure
Roads
Employment
Housing
Education
Child care
NHS
Cost of living
And so on

And how will you help that without being actually at Westminster?

Is there a time limit to when these atrocities can go back to? 40, 50, 75, 100?

By all means ask all those questions. The existence of those very good questions is neither a reason nor an excuse to ask other good questions.

But what are we gaining for asking questions on what happened that dreadful morning, which, I can remember very vividly at the time, give me one benefit that it will achieve?

Good things that inter alia, politicians can do:
Recognise the horrors of the past.
Treat the atrocities of the past as atrocities irrespective of which side committed.
Empathising equally with all the victims of the past, irrespective of which side they are on.
Holding the wrongdoers to account irrespective of which side they were on.

Clearly showing that you are on the side of decency and accountability on these issue is a good thing for candidates to do. Many will fail. We should point out that failure.

How far back are we going though? I think there was a an apology for all victims of the troubles when the ceasefire was announced by both sides?

Think you know that, but I think you'd still not be happy with a 30 page apology

oh wait

The IRA yesterday issued an unprecedented apology to the families of those it termed "non-combatants" whom it killed during its 30-year campaign of violence in Northern Ireland.

[smelmoth]

Okay Snapchat

OK so the UUP are not using the victims for electoral purposes, and to sugest otherwise is "cynical"? Gotcha.

I don't want to accuse you of being some sort of liar and clearly you have the right of reply but all of my posts are there to be read. When exactly did I defend the motivations of the UUP candidate or party?

So the UUP election candidate, who was trying to push the SF election candidate, mid way through an election campaign, to condemn only one specific bombing carried out (by remarkable coincidence) in the very constituency in which the candidates are running, is really a genuine attempt to "deal with the past" and has nothing to do with the forthcoming election? OK. I've a bridge to Scotland to for sale if you're interested?

For what it's worth, Diane Armstrong, the UUP candidate in question, has been in elected office since 2016. A quick google search for prior to this week throws up not one single uterance from her about the bombing she has taken a sudden interest in. But yeah, I'm sure her newfound concern for the victims is absolutely genuine.

Again, I'm not defending Armstrong, simply saying Cullen should have answered the question, a refusal to answer the question and the reasons given for not answering the question are disingenuous.

The most frequently given reason to not answer a question about an atrocity has been out of respect of the victims. Firstly I would point out that more respect for the victims at the time might have been a good idea but too late for that now. But secondly it hard to imagine what would illustrate more clearly a disrespect for the victims that any sort of commemoration or glorification of the perpetrators or planners of an atrocity. If the republican or loyalist movements or those who defend the atrocities perpetrated by those in State uniforms are genuinely respectful of victims then no such commemoration or glorification would take place. But as the do, how genuine is this tactic of not answering questions out of respect for victims?

On another note, it may have passed her by, but yesterday was the 30th Anniversary of the Loughinisland Massacre. I wonder was the new champion of victims rights out on the media demanding condemnation and answers from the DUP, given that it was the DUP which set up the Ulster Resistance Paramilitary group, whos weapons were used in the attack. Wait, what?? She didn't say a word??? Surely it can't be the case that those victims were the wrong religion, or worse, in the wrong electoral constituency, to be bothered about them? Perish the thought. After all, her tireless, almost week-long campaign for victims is absolutely genuine as you keep teling us.

Well as I said above. UUP can speak for itself. Republicanism can speak for itself. If it condemns one it must condemn all. If it seeks justice for one it must seek justice for all. The London government has shown it is not interested in justice for all. I am not allied to that view. People are entitled to justice and truth about all these incidents. We can't have truth unless we talk truthfully about these incidents. There is no integrity in calling for truth and justice about one set of incidents and covering up another set. And as we are all about supporting victims I'm sure we can all agree on that at least?

[Armagh18]

Anyone getting Sid Waddell flashbacks?

[Applesisapples]

FFS the troubles are 30 years in the past or near as damn it. Any unionist raising this with anyone that never participated is bullshit what aboutery. How about pulling the log out of your own eye and address the ongoing existence of the UDA and UVF, terrorising their own communities or the ongoing sectarian antics of some of the  OO/Flute Bands and their hangers on.

[tiempo]

Tory betting scandal us some shit show
What a bunch of c***ts
And useless c***ts at that

[pbat]

I despise the Tories, every rotten one of them and what they have done over the last 14 years and what they done here long before that. But trying to screw over the bookies is actually something I could get on board with.

[tiempo]

I despise the Tories, every rotten one of them and what they have done over the last 14 years and what they done here long before that. But trying to screw over the bookies is actually something I could get on board with.

Stupid pricks for even trying
Tech is too good at sniffing this nonsense out
Odious breed of people

[armaghniac]

I despise the Tories, every rotten one of them and what they have done over the last 14 years and what they done here long before that. But trying to screw over the bookies is actually something I could get on board with.

Stupid pricks for even trying
Tech is too good at sniffing this nonsense out
Odious breed of people

They could have won a couple of thousand, which is feck all in the context of their jobs. Why on earth takes the risk. They are truly thick.

[johnnycool]

I despise the Tories, every rotten one of them and what they have done over the last 14 years and what they done here long before that. But trying to screw over the bookies is actually something I could get on board with.

Stupid pricks for even trying
Tech is too good at sniffing this nonsense out
Odious breed of people

They could have won a couple of thousand, which is feck all in the context of their jobs. Why on earth takes the risk. They are truly thick.

No moral compass at all, just lining their pockets on the way out!

Sunak, Gove, the whole lot of them, during Covid giving their mates big Gov contracts for PPE even if they hadn't a clue how to get it and then to include these Billions wasted as a "record spend on the NHS".

Grifters.

[imtommygunn]

Grifter is one thing. Flat out criminal is another...

[johnnycool]

Grifter is one thing. Flat out criminal is another...

The only difference is the colour of the collar.

[Snapchap]

I don't want to accuse you of being some sort of liar and clearly you have the right of reply but all of my posts are there to be read. When exactly did I defend the motivations of the UUP candidate or party?

You have repeatedly suggested that her "questions" are relevant and important. Even as far as to sugest thet it was an attempt top "deal with the past". "Do you condemn..." questions have nothing to do with "dealing with the past".

Again, I'm not defending Armstrong, simply saying Cullen should have answered the question, a refusal to answer the question and the reasons given for not answering the question are disingenuous.

No, the reasons for asking the question was disingenuous. People (unionists, typically) have been throwing out the "do you condemn x" questions for decades. The rest of us can see through it, even if you cannot.

The most frequently given reason to not answer a question about an atrocity has been out of respect of the victims. Firstly I would point out that more respect for the victims at the time might have been a good idea but too late for that now.

So fire away with using and absuing them in the hunt for a few votes every election cycle?

But secondly it hard to imagine what would illustrate more clearly a disrespect for the victims that any sort of commemoration or glorification of the perpetrators or planners of an atrocity. If the republican or loyalist movements or those who defend the atrocities perpetrated by those in State uniforms are genuinely respectful of victims then no such commemoration or glorification would take place. But as the do, how genuine is this tactic of not answering questions out of respect for victims?

Kind of on to a separate debate there, but if you are suggesting that nobody should be allowed commemorate any organisation that ever carried out an atrocity, then I can only assume that you believe there isn't a single armed conflict/group anywhere in history that should be allowed to be commemorated?

Well as I said above. UUP can speak for itself. Republicanism can speak for itself. If it condemns one it must condemn all. If it seeks justice for one it must seek justice for all.

Diana Armstrong, however, wasn't trying to condemn all. She was limiting her question to one specific event. When's the last time a unionist was asked to condemn the actions of the state? Those who indulge in the "do you condemn..." nonsense deserve to be called out, not indulged and defended. Their motivation has precisely NOTHING to do with "calling for truth and justice" and everything to do with stirring up division.

The London government has shown it is not interested in justice for all. I am not allied to that view. People are entitled to justice and truth about all these incidents. We can't have truth unless we talk truthfully about these incidents. There is no integrity in calling for truth and justice about one set of incidents and covering up another set. And as we are all about supporting victims I'm sure we can all agree on that at least?

Indeed. Though again you're onto a totally differnt subject, becuase as I said above, asking someone two condemn x, y or z has absolutely nothing got to do with genuine attempts at "truth and justice". It's nothing more than Stephen Nolan-esque sectarian bear-baiting and ought not be legitimised as anything other than that.


Robin Livingstone (aka Squinter on twitter), who is the brother of Julie Livingstone, a 14 year old girl shot dea with a ruber bullet by a British Soldier in 1981, posted a couple of excellent tweets in realtion to this debate surrounding Pat Cullen:

- "Pat Cullen – and others – shouldn't condemn a single thing people demand she condemn. I wouldn't condemn Bloody Sunday if someone had to the gall to demand it of me.
That exhausted tactic remains popular with a diminishing band of conflict addicts, but it's a busted flush."

- "If somebody asked me to say something in words they supplied then my reply would be two short words which they hadn't supplied."

[Feckitt]

Last year in the 2022 Northern Ireland Local Elections, Nationalists outpolled Unionists for the first time ever in the 100 year history of the Northern state.  My prediction for this election is that this will happen again next week.  The demographic tide cannot be turned and Unionists will never ever win another election again, including the Unity Referendum.

1974 General Election, Unionists 61.9% - Nationalists 30.2%

1998 Assembly Election, Unionists 50.7% - Nationalists 39.6%

2019 General Election, Unionists 43.2% - Nationalists 40.1%

2022 Assembly Election, Unionists 42.3% - Nationalists 40.5%

2023 Local Election, Unionists 40.1% - Nationalists 43.9%

2024 General Election

[JPGJOHNNYG]

Last year in the 2022 Northern Ireland Local Elections, Nationalists outpolled Unionists for the first time ever in the 100 year history of the Northern state.  My prediction for this election is that this will happen again next week.  The demographic tide cannot be turned and Unionists will never ever win another election again, including the Unity Referendum.

1974 General Election, Unionists 61.9% - Nationalists 30.2%

1998 Assembly Election, Unionists 50.7% - Nationalists 39.6%

2019 General Election, Unionists 43.2% - Nationalists 40.1%

2022 Assembly Election, Unionists 42.3% - Nationalists 40.5%

2023 Local Election, Unionists 40.1% - Nationalists 43.9%

2024 General Election

The alliance vote is also considerably greener these days. There was a euro election in 99 were nationalists hit 45% hence why unionists keep saying the nationalist vote hasn't moved in 25 years they conveniently ignore the 15% drop in the unionist vote.