Westminster General Election 2024

[gallsman]

Farage's first day as an MP off to an interesting start. Non stop heckling at his peers conference.

[tiempo]

Pat Bosco McFadden, kind of man that should be fit to progress Irish interests no end
Abstentionism works
f**k the Tories

[marty34]

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

Did the SDLP set aside in NB the last time?

Hyprocites! 

You seem to be confused by the fact that 2024 is not 2019.

Ah, ok to do a 'sectarian pact' in 2019 but not ok in 2024.

Lol...stop digging.

"Lol" I haven't used the word sectarian here once.

You want Cara Hunter's votes up in East Derry? Go and win them.

Haha.  Can't even answer the question re: SDLP in north Belfast the last time.

You should ask your mate Colum - as a matter of fact ask him how he got on with stopping Brexit on the green benches 

[Franko]

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

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

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

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

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

If you really think this you are deluded.

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

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

Ah now don't go running. What makes a pact sectarian rather than political other than your own cynicism? If I believe in electing as many pro-Irish Unity candidates as I'm pro-Irish Unity, then why is it sectarian to think maybe it might help if pro-unity candidates come to an electoral arrangement to strengthen their chances? Just because you don't like pacts doesn't mean they are sectarian rather than political.

Like many, I suspect RH has heard the phrase 'sectarian headcount' and thought he'd repeat it to make himself sound clever... without really understanding it.  I wouldn't pay much heed

[armaghniac]

Because Reform and the DUP got so few seats, they are listed as "others" by the BBC while SF, who do not attend, are listed among the important parties

[RedHand88]

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

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

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

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

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

If you really think this you are deluded.

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

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

Ah now don't go running. What makes a pact sectarian rather than political other than your own cynicism? If I believe in electing as many pro-Irish Unity candidates as I'm pro-Irish Unity, then why is it sectarian to think maybe it might help if pro-unity candidates come to an electoral arrangement to strengthen their chances? Just because you don't like pacts doesn't mean they are sectarian rather than political.

Like many, I suspect RH has heard the phrase 'sectarian headcount' and thought he'd repeat it to make himself sound clever... without really understanding it.  I wouldn't pay much heed

Nice man playing there, maybe go for the ball next time Franko? Or is that the only thing you have in your playbook?
I know exactly what a sectarian headcount is. I suggest you learn it yourself.

When your election strategy is to remove any other candidates from your sectional interest purely so you can say "you must vote for our guy to remove the guy from the opposing sectional interest", you have by very definition a sectarian headcount. You are removing any real democratic choice for people from either side and turning the whole province into a orange and green carve up. And to what end? So either side can max out at 9-10 seats forever?

[Snapchap]

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

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

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

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

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

If you really think this you are deluded.

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

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

Ah now don't go running. What makes a pact sectarian rather than political other than your own cynicism? If I believe in electing as many pro-Irish Unity candidates as I'm pro-Irish Unity, then why is it sectarian to think maybe it might help if pro-unity candidates come to an electoral arrangement to strengthen their chances? Just because you don't like pacts doesn't mean they are sectarian rather than political.

Like many, I suspect RH has heard the phrase 'sectarian headcount' and thought he'd repeat it to make himself sound clever... without really understanding it.  I wouldn't pay much heed

Nice man playing there, maybe go for the ball next time Franko? Or is that the only thing you have in your playbook?
I know exactly what a sectarian headcount is. I suggest you learn it yourself.

When your election strategy is to remove any other candidates from your sectional interest purely so you can say "you must vote for our guy to remove the guy from the opposing sectional interest", you have by very definition a sectarian headcount. You are removing any real democratic choice for people from either side and turning the whole province into a orange and green carve up. And to what end? So either side can max out at 9-10 seats forever?

Redhand, just because you use the term "sectional" interest to describe parties coming to an agreement, that doesn't mean it's "sectarian". A party by itself is a sectional interest after all, but that doesn't make it a sectarian organisation.

What makes two parties with similar chielf objectives coming to an electoral agreement "sectarian" rather than political? If I want to maximise the chances of getting pro-unity politicians into office becuase I'm pro-unity, why does that make me sectarian?

[Armagh18]

Because Reform and the DUP got so few seats, they are listed as "others" by the BBC while SF, who do not attend, are listed among the important parties

Shinners are number 5 partyzx that's a laugh.

[Armagh18]

Is it sectarian of me to want SF/SDLP to stand aside in places like EB to give Alliance the best chance?

[Franko]

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

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

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

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

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

If you really think this you are deluded.

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

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

Ah now don't go running. What makes a pact sectarian rather than political other than your own cynicism? If I believe in electing as many pro-Irish Unity candidates as I'm pro-Irish Unity, then why is it sectarian to think maybe it might help if pro-unity candidates come to an electoral arrangement to strengthen their chances? Just because you don't like pacts doesn't mean they are sectarian rather than political.

Like many, I suspect RH has heard the phrase 'sectarian headcount' and thought he'd repeat it to make himself sound clever... without really understanding it.  I wouldn't pay much heed

Nice man playing there, maybe go for the ball next time Franko? Or is that the only thing you have in your playbook?
I know exactly what a sectarian headcount is. I suggest you learn it yourself.

When your election strategy is to remove any other candidates from your sectional interest purely so you can say "you must vote for our guy to remove the guy from the opposing sectional interest", you have by very definition a sectarian headcount. You are removing any real democratic choice for people from either side and turning the whole province into a orange and green carve up. And to what end? So either side can max out at 9-10 seats forever?

An election is a headcount, so we can disregard that

The issue is with the sectarian bit

I notice Snapchap has put it better than I could so I'll leave it at that in terms of an explanation

The Reform Party (in Brexit Party guise) stood aside in many areas in England in 2019 to allow the Tories a clear run

Was the 2019 UK election a sectarian headcount?

Or is it only a sectarian headcount when the agreement is based around the constitutional status of the area?

[thewobbler]

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

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

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

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

Did the SDLP set aside in NB the last time?

Hyprocites! 

My tuppence.

If Sinn Fein really wanted East Derry, if Sinn Fein really wanted to see DUP trounced: they should have agreed to step out of South Down in return the the Derry seat.

Yes it would be 5 years when a sitting SDLP might change the current in South Down. So there would be a risk. But to be honest I think SF could run Jimmy Saville in South Down and would still win.

Maybe this discussion was mooted in the background. Maybe not. I don't know.

I just don't like the one eyed Uber Nationalist trolling and finger pointing going on over on Twitter.

[imtommygunn]

Is it sectarian of me to want SF/SDLP to stand aside in places like EB to give Alliance the best chance?

There's a difference between wanting them to and calling them a joke if they don't...

[Armagh18]

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

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

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

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

Did the SDLP set aside in NB the last time?

Hyprocites! 

My tuppence.

If Sinn Fein really wanted East Derry, if Sinn Fein really wanted to see DUP trounced: they should have agreed to step out of South Down in return the the Derry seat.

Yes it would be 5 years when a sitting SDLP might change the current in South Down. So there would be a risk. But to be honest I think SF could run Jimmy Saville in South Down and would still win.

Maybe this discussion was mooted in the background. Maybe not. I don't know.

I just don't like the one eyed Uber Nationalist trolling and finger pointing going on over on Twitter.

Why on earth would you gave up a safe seat to go for one that's 50/50 at best?

[Armagh18]

Is it sectarian of me to want SF/SDLP to stand aside in places like EB to give Alliance the best chance?

There's a difference between wanting them to and calling them a joke if they don't...

Pete Byrne not doing much to disprove the SDLP are a joke narrative...

[imtommygunn]

I don't know much about him and they are not a party going places let's face it but nor should they be expected to just stand aside either and then ridiculed if they don't.

There is probably plenty to give out about which is not that...