Unionist filibustering

luckat

Last week the unionists were saying they couldn't possibly enter government with Sinn Fein unless SF agreed to support policing. Now the Robert McCartney murder is about to be used as the next filibuster.

Before that it was the 'spy ring in Westminster' invented by the British special forces, before that Articles 2 and 3 in the Irish Constitution, and so on and so forth.

How long is this going to be allowed?

Isn't it time the two governments said "All right, you've put it off long enough, now commit."

sovtek

I'm probably showing my vast ignorance of this situation...but aren't the unionist paramilitaries still active as well?

luckat

Perhaps the governments need to really demonstrate to them how it'll be to their advantage to have devolved government.

ghostdancer

sovtek wrote:

I'm probably showing my vast ignorance of this situation...but aren't the unionist paramilitaries still active as well?

yes but the DUP doesn't have any formal links with any of the groups.
several DUP-ers including Big Ian himself started one, The Third Force, in the 80's but it died out.

flogen

luckat wrote:

Last week the unionists were saying they couldn't possibly enter government with Sinn Fein unless SF agreed to support policing. Now the Robert McCartney murder is about to be used as the next filibuster.

Before that it was the 'spy ring in Westminster' invented by the British special forces, before that Articles 2 and 3 in the Irish Constitution, and so on and so forth.

How long is this going to be allowed?

Isn't it time the two governments said "All right, you've put it off long enough, now commit."

Well the McCartney sisters are the ones saying that will be a sign of progress, but the DUP have said for some time that it'll take more than words (which is all we have so far) to convince them that SF are for real.

Of course, the DUP would love SF to hand them a reason to pull out, and that's all SF have been doing for the last X amount of years. At this stage though I'm sure the DUP realise that while a withdrawal could be done with the finger pointing to SF, there's now a pretty good chance that they'll get the blame too or exclusively.
All depends on how it plays out, but I don't expect the DUP to put too many clear cut conditions just yet (maybe in mid Feb as they try to tell voters what they'll do if they retain their majority), at the moment they're being very fuzzy, but it's all part of the game.

cormac_s

i think the upcoming elections will move things along. the facts are the SF have moved on, done what they have promised and have now passed the ball (mostly) over to the DUP. If the DUP do nothing with it, or make more demands, I believe they'll be left with only their hard core support when it comes to election time. you never know, they might consider such consequences in the meantime and decide to bite the bullet and move ahead with powersharing.

to be fair though, they did say that if SF supported the policing board they would go into a devolved government - and SF have done that - but in the same breath, it would be no surprise if they tried to pull the carpet out from under everyone again and stall things for the umpteenth time. after all, they dont really want peace imo - they want land, money and power.

cormac_s

ghostdancer wrote:

yes but the DUP doesn't have any formal links with any of the groups.
several DUP-ers including Big Ian himself started one, The Third Force, in the 80's but it died out.

most unionist parties are linked to the orange order, which is linked to the unionist paramilitaries (think of trimbles dance a decade ago). mightnt be formal, but links all the same

purple'n'gold

Unionists do not want to share power. As a matter of fact they are uncomfortable with peace. They were very happy when the IRA was at war. It made them feel under siege and more British. What really irks them is the fact that to the average English man a northern protestant is “Paddy” just the same as a southern catholic is. Believe me; I have seen this in action.

csk

purplengold wrote:

What really irks them is the fact that to the average English man a northern protestant is “Paddy” just the same as a southern catholic is.

This is to some extent true, however in the grand scheme of things their opinion does not count. It's Mr. Blair's opinion that matters, will he continue to let the Unionist tail wag his governments dog ?

Will Bertie grow a pair and get strict with Blair and the Unionists ? Not likely!

LordSutch

Three days ago Sinn Fein said they would endorse 'Civic Policing' in the North (whatever Civic means)? and unfortunately this use of the word 'Civic' has already got a few people scratching ther heads both here & up North! why not just say that they will support Policing full stop?

As regards the DUP dragging their heels, come on now, how many years did it take the IRA to disarm & disband? and how long has it taken Sinn Fein to come to the conclusion that they will support Civic Policing? & how long will it take Sinn Fein to hand over the murderers & witnesses to the McCartney murder ........................ ? its been two years already.

So lets wait & see what happens on the ground in the coming months and lets see If young Republicans really do start joining the Police, lets also see how long it takes members of Sinn Fein to start reporting Murders, Rapes, Kidnappings & Burglary to the PSNI, and lets see if they can back-up their words with deeds 'before' they are allowed into Government with the DUP/ UUP/ SDLP etc.

I say 'The proof is in the pudding' and if they really deliver then thats Great News for everybody concerned, and the DUP will have no option but to share Power with them (however distasteful it might be) to the DUP.

luckat

The IRA has been stood down for 10 years now. Surely that's demonstration enough.

I honestly think the filibuster is going to go on for years, if it's allowed to.

Voipjunkie

ArthurF wrote:

Three days ago Sinn Fein said they would endorse 'Civic Policing' in the North (whatever Civic means)? and unfortunately this use of the word 'Civic' has already got a few people scratching ther heads both here & up North! why not just say that they will support Policing full stop?

As regards the DUP dragging their heels, come on now, how many years did it take the IRA to disarm & disband? and how long has it taken Sinn Fein to come to the conclusion that they will support Civic Policing? & how long will it take Sinn Fein to hand over the murderers & witnesses to the McCartney murder ........................ ? its been two years already.

So lets wait & see what happens on the ground in the coming months and lets see If young Republicans really do start joining the Police, lets also see how long it takes members of Sinn Fein to start reporting Murders, Rapes, Kidnappings & Burglary to the PSNI, and lets see if they can back-up their words with deeds 'before' they are allowed into Government with the DUP/ UUP/ SDLP etc.

I say 'The proof is in the pudding' and if they really deliver then thats Great News for everybody concerned, and the DUP will have no option but to share Power with them (however distasteful it might be) to the DUP.

I presume that the civic policing reference means that they are not going to help out the Special Branch investigations into activities that republicans were involved in during their "armed Struggle".
Although that will probably be the next Filibuster that the DUP engage in Adams and co must inform on themselves to PSNI special branch including pictures to verify that they are informing on themselves. Preferably they will have sackcloth and ashes for the informing.
After that all they have to do is kiss Elizabeth Windsors feet and wait 3 generations to be decontaminated and then the DUP will think about it.

luckat

csk wrote:

This is to some extent true, however in the grand scheme of things their opinion does not count. It's Mr. Blair's opinion that matters, will he continue to let the Unionist tail wag his governments dog ?

Will Bertie grow a pair and get strict with Blair and the Unionists ? Not likely!

This is the thing. The unionists can continue to find excuses not to go into government with Sinn Fein for 70 years - as they did historically over Home Rule. It's already clear that this is now a game.

To change it from a game into something real, the only way is to make it clear to the unionist grassroots that there are big advantages to them to lean on their politicians to go into the devolved government right now.

El Stuntman

cormac_s wrote:

i think the upcoming elections will move things along. the facts are the SF have moved on, done what they have promised and have now passed the ball (mostly) over to the DUP. If the DUP do nothing with it, or make more demands, I believe they'll be left with only their hard core support when it comes to election time. you never know, they might consider such consequences in the meantime and decide to bite the bullet and move ahead with powersharing.

to be fair though, they did say that if SF supported the policing board they would go into a devolved government - and SF have done that - but in the same breath, it would be no surprise if they tried to pull the carpet out from under everyone again and stall things for the umpteenth time. after all, they dont really want peace imo - they want land, money and power.[/QUOTE]

by a happy conincidence, the exact same things that SF want!

power-sharing will happen for this reason

Fratton Fred

As I have posted on the “Adamspeak” thread, when this is all sorted out, will there be a political career for the unionist leadership? By warning their supporters there are still things to sort out they are telling them to be on their guard and keep voting for them.

I would suggest this is positioning within their own community as much as anything else.

stovelid

Maybe a generation?

Don't think it's just bigotry or even an understandable distaste of sharing government with same-generation terrorists that is making them hedge.

DUP recalcitrance to SF is mostly due to the fact the it's only really that recalcitrance that differentiates them from the UUP (a fact they destroyed the UUP with) and when they give it up, they may lose the current position as main unionist party.

I really feel that power sharing won't be properly realized until the 70s-present players and their shared history(Adams, McGuniness, Paisley, Dodds, Donaldson. McCrea) grey out and pass on.

luckat wrote:

How long is this going to be allowed?

stovelid

so Trimble endorsed a power sharing experiment, was widely vilified and saw his career and party destroyed as some sort of facetious prank eh :rolleyes:

purplengold wrote:

Unionists do not want to share power. As a matter of fact they are uncomfortable with peace. They were very happy when the IRA was at war. It made them feel under siege and more British. What really irks them is the fact that to the average English man a northern protestant is “Paddy” just the same as a southern catholic is. Believe me; I have seen this in action.

csk

luckat wrote:

This is the thing. The unionists can continue to find excuses not to go into government with Sinn Fein for 70 years - as they did historically over Home Rule. It's already clear that this is now a game.

Yes the DUP's whole game is to make Sinn Féin jump impossible hoops in the hope they get tired and fall apart. Personally I think they have now lost their game with Sinn Féin's acceptance of policing. This was a huge step and the fact that Sinn Féin came through united has to be worrying the DUP.

To change it from a game into something real, the only way is to make it clear to the unionist grassroots that there are big advantages to them to lean on their politicians to go into the devolved government right now.

I can't help but feel that Unionist grassroots would not be too far away from the leaders stance. I'm sure that to these people sharing power with Sinn Féin would be like sharing power with the devil which in turn fuels the DUP leadership. That's why we need Bertie and Tony to lean on the DUP.

The historical appeasement of Unionists by Britain suggests Blair may not be the man for the job unless his legacy building gets the better of him. That's why I think Bertie Ahern has to step up and get tough.

I think what can be agreed though, is that the time for pussy footing around the Unionists lest we offend their sensibilities has got to stop NOW.

purple'n'gold

stovelid wrote:

so Trimble endorsed a power sharing experiment, was widely vilified and saw his career and party destroyed as some sort of facetious prank eh :rolleyes:

Yes Trimble did all that, but as subsequent events proved he was going against the wishes of the Unionist majority.

Zombrex

luckat wrote:

I honestly think the filibuster is going to go on for years, if it's allowed to.

What do you suggest..? How do either government "not allow" the DUP to drag their feet?

A Dub in Glasgo

For a start, the British government can stop pouring their taxpayers money into the salaries of the assembly members.

Rock Climber

If it was up to me,I'd send them a bill for the last 4 years for the assembly.
It could be deducted from their real life other job salaries in the form of a penal tax rate,
T'wud be good enough for them.

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

For a start, the British government can stop pouring their taxpayers money into the salaries of the assembly members.

Is that not rather undemocratic? Do as we say or we won't pay you?

Imagine if the British government said that to the Conservatives or the Lib Dems?

I doubt Republicans would be two happy if the British government ordered Sinn Fein to accept such and such or else they would not be paid salaries.

At the end of the day so long as people are voting for the DUP the DUP have a legitimate right to do what ever the hell they want. I don't agree with it, I think the DUP are a bunch of morons, but then I think the same thing about Sinn Fein.

But people still vote for them (they themselves are probably morons), and at the end of the day it is the people who vote for them that they have ultimate responsibility to, not to the British or Irish governments.

RedPlanet

What they (HMG) can do, is give the parties 3 months to form a government.
If the parties cannot do that, or will not do that, then we should go back to the polls.
Election after Election until the people vote for a compromise.
That is the democratic way.
If we have to bankrupt a political party or two or three along the way then so be it.

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

What they (HMG) can do, is give the parties 3 months to form a government.
If the parties cannot do that, or will not do that, then we should go back to the polls.
Election after Election until the people vote for a compromise.
That is the democratic way.

Sounds fair .. eventually the people will get sick of electing them if they do nothing and they will elect someone else.

RedPlanet

Exactly.
Or the people can place demands on their respective parties to form a government.
If it takes a year or more of elections HMG can still claim the higher ground, for sticking up for democracy.

A Dub in Glasgo

Wicknight wrote:

Is that not rather undemocratic? Do as we say or we won't pay you?

Imagine if the British government said that to the Conservatives or the Lib Dems?

I doubt Republicans would be two happy if the British government ordered Sinn Fein to accept such and such or else they would not be paid salaries.

At the end of the day so long as people are voting for the DUP the DUP have a legitimate right to do what ever the hell they want. I don't agree with it, I think the DUP are a bunch of morons, but then I think the same thing about Sinn Fein.

But people still vote for them (they themselves are probably morons), and at the end of the day it is the people who vote for them that they have ultimate responsibility to, not to the British or Irish governments.

Well considering the Assembly was disbanded because of the members refused to work it, I would say it is fair and democratic to stop paying salaries for that assembly. You obviously do not?

They have been taking taxpayers money since 2002 for an assembly but not actually working an assembly. Cut the funds.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Well considering the Assembly was disbanded because of the members refused to work it, I would say it is fair and democratic to stop paying salaries for that assembly.

Sounds reasonable.

luckat

Hmmm, well, extra funds could be put aside, for instance, that would be given for schools, hospitals, local development, etc in the unionist grassroots areas - and will start to be released as soon as devolved government is in place, and continue to be released as long as it goes on successfully, in, say, a 10-year plan. Just a thought.

stovelid

'Doing as we say' is providing government for NI as mandated. They currently don't and should only get payed for the job if they perform it.

Wicknight wrote:

Is that not rather undemocratic? Do as we say or we won't pay you?

luckat

Or maybe the next time one bunch walks out, the paymasters should say "OK, stay out and come back when you feel like it; meanwhile the other lot can run the country..."

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Well considering the Assembly was disbanded because of the members refused to work it, I would say it is fair and democratic to stop paying salaries for that assembly. You obviously do not?

No, not really. It should be a democratic right for an elected representative to refuse to participate in a political system that they, representing those who elected them, do not agree with. You get paid for representing the people, not for representing the people in the Assembly.

I seem to remember Sinn Fein tried a similar trick about 90 years ago.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

They have been taking taxpayers money since 2002 for an assembly but not actually working an assembly. Cut the funds.

They aren't taking tax payers money for an Assembly, they are taking tax payers money for being democratic representatives of a section of the community.

You only want to cut their funds because you want to force them to act the way you wish them to. That is undemocratic.

If it was determined that one could only get paid to represent the community if they also agreed to work in side a political framework they disagreed with or face the prospect of simply not get paid then the only people who could afford to protest this political framework would be rich people with other income. If someone wished to be an elective representative and have money to live they would be forced to agree to something they do not agree with.

Which isn't very democratic is it.

Just as it should be a democratic right to not vote without threat of reprisal from the government (such as a fine), it should also be a democratic right for an elected representative to refuse to participle in an political system they disagree with without reprisal such as having salary cut or removed.

So long as people are willing to elect them they should be paid.

stovelid

I'm confused here. Help me out.

Elected members should get paid for not representing an electorate who turned out in their thousands to elect those members as a obscure protest against the assembly they don't agree with?.

Wicknight wrote:

No, not really. It should be a democratic right for an elected representative to refuse to participate in a political system that they, representing those who elected them, do not agree with.

Zombrex

stovelid wrote:

I'm confused here. Help me out.

No problem, I will do my best.

stovelid wrote:

Elected members should get paid for not representing an electorate

Elected members should get paid for representing an electorate, full stop. Whether they sit in the Assembly is rather irrelevant to that.

They can represent those that elected them by refusing to participate in a system of government that they do not agree with, if those that elected them so wish.

The DUP are acting based on what they believe the wishes of those that voted for them are. The fact that people keep voting for them would tend suggest that they actually are the wishes of those that voted for them.

Just as it is a democratic right for a member of a democracy to refuse to vote without threat of punishment from the government or state, it is also a democratic right for an elected representative to refuse to participate in a system of government they object to, without punishment from the government or state. Punishment would include imprisonment, harassment, fines, or the removal of salary necessary to provide full time representation to the electorate.

You may recall that Sinn Fein members that were elected in the 1918 election refused to take there seats in the Houses of Parliament as they did not recognise the Parliament as the legitimate power over Ireland.

Now I don't know if the members of SF continued to be paid a salary by Parliament, but if they weren't they should have been because they were doing nothing more than exercising their democratic right to non-participation.

I find it rather bizarre that some seem all for democracy until others start doing things, in a democratic fashion, that annoy them.

Then they want "democracy" altered to force the others to act as they wish them to act.

stovelid

Wicknight, with respect to your views, I didn't question the principle of non-participation per se, just the payment of public salaries to non-participants.

In this case, it's the DUP but I would oppose it for any party.

If I voted for a representative - and wished that representative to take their seat - and they subsequently refused to take a seat, I would resent the payment of their salary from public coffers.

I would abide by the decision of representatives to not participate (especially under mandate from their voters) but not to subsequently expect a salary paid out of public coffers.

And when I say public coffers, I mean public coffers. Coffers that comprise the taxes of all voters, nationalists, unionists, whatever.

In the case that a majority of voters expect non-participation; should even a small minority of voters who expect participation have to fund non-participant salaries from their taxes?

Should UUP, SDLP and SF voters (who voted for a functioning assembly) have to fund DUP salaries in the event of ideologically motivated non-participation that they don't agree with?

I take your point about cherry picking aspects of democracy that we agree or don't agree with...especially my points about SDLP and UUP voters not funding public salaries; but I feel that NI is currently not a typical situation. Given the gross squandering of essential UK/NI exchequer funds on both sides of the community over the years; as a NI taxpayer, I would justifiably consider a publicly funded non-functioning assembly as a final straw, no matter what the ideological finer points were...

Wicknight wrote:

The DUP are acting based on what they believe the wishes of those that voted for them are. The fact that people keep voting for them would tend suggest that they actually are the wishes of those that voted for them.

I might be wrong about this but perhaps if many voters have swung from the UUP to DUP because of the decommissioning impasse , who else would they vote for. The Workers Party or SDLP? :0P

Wicknight wrote:

The fact that people keep voting for them would tend suggest that they actually are the wishes of those that voted for them.

Zombrex

stovelid wrote:

Wicknight, with respect to your views, I didn't question the principle of non-participation per se, just the payment of public salaries to non-participants.

But if you accept that they are legitimately representing those that elected them then on what grounds do you suppose stopping their salaries?

If they are elected to be full time public representatives, and are being full time representatives, what do you expect them to do for money?

stovelid wrote:

If I voted for a representative - and wished that representative to take their seat - and they subsequently refused to take a seat, I would resent the payment of their salary from public coffers.

Well then why would you vote for them in the first place if they weren't going to do what you wanted them to?

stovelid wrote:

I would abide by the decision of representatives to not participate (especially under mandate from their voters) but not to subsequently expect a salary paid out of public coffers.

Well that is generous of you, but what would you expect your elected representative to do for money? Would you fund them yourself?

stovelid wrote:

In the case that a majority of voters expect non-participation; should even a small minority of voters who expect participation have to fund non-participant salaries from their taxes?

Taxes should fund democracy, even democracy that you don't agree with.

As I said, you either support democracy or you don't.

If someone is elected as a representative of a part of the community, they should be paid for that representation, even if the person spends his whole day skiing (though quite why the community would elect them to do this, I'm not sure).

You cannot decide that you, be you the majority or simply another part of the community, will dictate what a representative of another part of the community should do as a representative by threatening to removal of vital financial funding. That is up to those that voted and elected that person, and those alone.

Imagine if the government down here told an independent TD that they had to vote with them in a particular meeting of the Dail less they find themselves without a salary. There would be out rage.

stovelid wrote:

Should UUP, SDLP and SF voters (who voted for a functioning assembly) have to fund DUP salaries in the event of ideologically motivated non-participation that they don't agree with?

Yes, of course they should!!

Again, imagine if down here FF said to Labour that they must "You either do this this or this or else we will cut off your salaries. Our supporters, who vastly out number your supporters by quite a lot, are sick of paying for you simply to oppose, embarrass and annoy the government"

Do you think that would go down well?

What you are talking about stovelid is political blackmail, demanding that one political party act the way others want them to do, less they find themselves punished with a lack of salaries.

In a democracy that is not acceptable.

I can understand that you are frustrated by the actions of the DUP. To me the DUP seem like a bunch of inbred morons.

But at the end of the day you either want a democracy or you don't. As I said cherry picking a "democracy" that suits you, while rejecting what doesn't, is not democracy.

stovelid wrote:

as a NI taxpayer, I would justifiably consider a publicly funded non-functioning assembly as a final straw, no matter what the ideological finer points were...

Well then don't vote for the DUP. And try and convince as many other people to not vote for the DUP.

stovelid

Work, frankly

Wicknight wrote:

but what would you expect your elected representative to do for money?

Point taken but a better analogy would be if Labour had entered elections, collected large salaries as a consequence but effectively stymied government for years because of an ideological difference with a single party that was seen as either irrelevant or at least workable by the all the other parties and their voters.

I have already said that I am not completely happy with 'democratic cherry picking' myself but the NI situation (in it's intractability and vast drain on resources needed elsewhere) is unique.

Wicknight wrote:

Again, imagine if down here FF said to Labour that they must "You either do this this or this or else we will cut off your salaries. Our supporters, who vastly out number your supporters by quite a lot, are sick of paying for you simply to oppose, embarrass and annoy the government"

One more question too as I'm not actually completely sure of this. This is not a challenge, just a question. Are you 100% certain that every single person that voted for the DUP completely endorses non-participation? What if even a tiny majority of DUP voters felt that the doc should enter government?

What if some of the new DUP vote arose from the fact that the UUP copped a lot of the flak for the then SF stance on policing, decommissioning, Columbia etc and these voters probably went to the DUP by default?

I would be interested to know how unanimous the endorsement of non-participation is within the DUP electorate (I'm sure its very high ) and if it is not 100%, don't these people - as well as the voters of other parties - have a right to representation?

Perhaps DUP non-participation as a means of representing your electorate should really read: pandering to the sectarianism or distrust of a significant proportion of your voters especially those you are afraid to lose in the next election.

Perhaps the coming elections will further clarify the non-participation mandate you talk about?

Zombrex

stovelid wrote:

Point taken but a better analogy would be if Labour had entered elections, collected large salaries as a consequence but effectively stymied government for years because of an ideological difference with a single party that was seen as either irrelevant or at least workable by the all the other parties and their voters.

That would still be fine, from a democratic point of view.

If Labour, who have been looking to get into government for years, had the chance in May to enter government with say FF but turned down that chance there would be no problem with that, democratically speaking, so long as that was what their voters wished them to do.

And I certainly don't think anyone in FF would be calling for Labour to lose their salaries, even if not having the backing of Labour meant FF lost out to something like a FG-Greens coalition forming a new government.

stovelid wrote:

I have already said that I am not completely happy with 'democratic cherry picking' myself but the NI situation (in it's intractability and vast drain on resources needed elsewhere) is unique.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

At the end of the day you are either for democracy or you aren't for democracy.

Northern Ireland has spend years trying to get rid of political interference in the democratic process, such as Unionists jerrymandering (re-drawing of election borders so Unionists come out on top in elections). I would think in Northern Ireland above a lot of other places it is extra important that democracy be seen to be free of interference

stovelid wrote:

Are you 100% certain that every single person that voted for the DUP completely endorses non-participation? What if even a tiny majority of DUP voters felt that the doc should enter government?

Then they shouldn't have voted for the DUP, since the DUP's position has been clear for a while now.

At the end of the day it would be very hard to find a representative who shares exactly 100% the views of all those who elected him. Representation is about leadership as well as representing the democratic wishes of community.

Considering that the DUP seem to be going from strength to strength in N.I I don't see much sign that they are annoying those that voted for them that much by resisting power sharing with SF. In fact quite the opposite, it seems they are risking alienating some of their traditional hard line support by "cosying up" to SF.

stovelid wrote:

What if some of the new DUP vote arose from the fact that the UUP copped a lot of the flak for the then SF stance on policing, decommissioning, Columbia etc and these voters probably went to the DUP by default?

I'm not sure what you mean .... ? How would that change anything?

stovelid wrote:

I would be interested to know how unanimous the endorsement of non-participation is within the DUP electorate (I'm sure its very high ) and if it is not 100%, don't these people - as well as the voters of other parties - have a right to representation?

They do have a right to representation and they chose the DUP to represent them.

If they don't wish the DUP to represent them any more they can vote for someone else at the next election.

Or they can go to their local DUP representative and tell them that they don't like how they are being represented and tell them that they will be voting for another person at the next election, and see if this registers with the party.

stovelid wrote:

Perhaps DUP non-participation as a means of representing your electorate should really read: pandering to the sectarianism or distrust of a significant proportion of your voters especially those you are afraid to lose in the next election.

It can, but again that doesn't change the nature of the democracy.

If enough people vote for them the DUP can pander to the sectarianism or distrust of a significant proportion of their voters all they like.

stovelid wrote:

Perhaps the coming elections will further clarify the non-participation mandate you talk about?

Well I expect the DUP to do quite well in the election.

But if there are DUP supporters who are unhappy with how the DUP have represented them then the March '07 elections will be a chance for them to register this dissatisfaction with the party by voting for someone else.

I see in the news that all ready a DUP member has left the DUP to join the UK Unionists party because he feels the DUP have betrayed their 2005 manifesto by agreeing to enter power sharing with Sinn Fein. I would imagine scenes like this are going to be more common that voter dissatisfaction that the DUP has taken so long to enter power sharing with SF.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6356441.stm

stovelid

Apologies.

I meant that maybe some of the new DUP voters (that swung in the last election) may have voted DUP as a protest against the UUP's long dance with SF. Given the absence of a genuine left/centre/right political culture in NI, they may have felt that they had no other option to go with the Doc?

Given SFs movement on the issues that derailed Trimble since then; maybe a minority of the DUP electorate may be more accepting of power sharing than we think?

Of course this is wishful, perhaps even conjecture. I think the elections will be interesting especially the unionist vote.

BTW, Ive never seen as many NI threads on boards. Great what a rugby game can do eh

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean .... ? How would that change anything?

Yeah I read that there is a lot of party dissent on this. Aren't the DUP also threatening to fine or expel party dissidents? :eek:

Wicknight wrote:

I see in the news that all ready a DUP member has left the DUP to join the UK Unionists party because he feels the DUP have betrayed their 2005 manifesto by agreeing to enter power sharing with Sinn Fein. I would imagine scenes like this are going to be more common that voter dissatisfaction that the DUP has taken so long to enter power sharing with SF.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6356441.stm

Zombrex

stovelid wrote:

Given SFs movement on the issues that derailed Trimble since then; maybe a minority of the DUP electorate may be more accepting of power sharing than we think?

Well the DUP in recent days seem to be moving towards power sharing with SF, which has caused at least one DUP member to leave the party. So I would say it is looking good for power sharing. But with the DUP you never know what could happen.

stovelid wrote:

Yeah I read that there is a lot of party dissent on this. Aren't the DUP also threatening to fine or expel party dissidents? :eek:

You have to sign a resignation letter and the party chairman (or someone senior) can use that letter if they view you as having gone against the party line. I'm not sure why such a round about process is necessary (probably something to do with party by-laws) but the effect is as you say, they can fine or expel party members who the party as a whole consideres dissident.

But then I have always considered the DUP to be a party of muppets, so nothing surprises me.