The Battle for Fermanagh and South Tyrone

[Zapatista]

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.

[Nally Stand]

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.

[Nally Stand]

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.

[Gaffer]

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 !!!

[MW]

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?

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

[Ulick]

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

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?

[trileacman]

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.

[Nally Stand]

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.

[longrunsthefox]

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.

[A Quinn Martin Production]

UCUNTS will be sweating now!

[Ulick]

Disappointed by this. McDonnell still won't get my vote.

[Doogie Browser]

I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.

[longrunsthefox]

I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.

No sh*t Sherlock 

[EC Unique]

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!

[Doogie Browser]

I assume Gerry is hoping the voters of F&ST reciprocate the gesture in kind by voting for Michelle Gildernew.

No sh*t Sherlock 

Shit is something you have a close relationship with given that 99.9% of your posts stink of the aforementioned brown stuff