SF now the largest political party in the north.

Mike 1972

weepee wrote: »

Your anti Republicanism is apparent.

So the poster is a Monarchist ?

Nothing wrong with being anti Sinn Fein (or even anti Republican). Its at least as valid a political position as being pro Sinn Fein

weepee

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So the poster is a Monarchist ?

I dont know whether the poster is or not.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with being anti Sinn Fein (or even anti Republican). Its at least a valid political position as being pro Sinn Fein

Cant disagree with that.

fryup

The main reason SF have been so successful of late is because of the collapse of the SDLP vote...ever since John Hume stepped down the SDLP have been lost in the wilderness, and SF have taken advantage of this.

Annasopra

dlofnep wrote: »

Sinn Féin is the largest party in the north, Get over it.

It's not though - DUP is bigger seat wise and SF only got more votes then DUP because there was no DUP candidate in Fermanagh/South Tyrone

dlofnep

Johnnymcg wrote: »

It's not though - DUP is bigger seat wise and SF only got more votes then DUP because there was no DUP candidate in Fermanagh/South Tyrone

Sinn Féin received more votes than any other party, as such they have the largest mandate. If the DUP wanted to run a pact (which they lost), then that's their problem. They could have run a single candidate, to which they would have not even come close to winning the seat. Sinn Féin still won it, without a pact. It's to be noted that 2 other seats in North Belfast and Foyle are well within Sinn Féin's - So expect the trend to continue.

LordSutch

fryup wrote: »

The main reason SF have been so successful of late is because of the collapse of the SDLP vote...ever since John Hume stepped down the SDLP have been lost in the wilderness, and SF have taken advantage of this.

I agree, and I still wonder about this too . . . its almost as if Hume & Mallon left the party without the future focus of the party being mapped out, almost like they deliberately sacrificed the SDLP for the 'Greater good' of Nationslist Ireland in the form of Sinn Fein :cool: Admittedly this is very hard to swallow too, considering all the bad blood between the two. After all the heavy lifting the SDLP did, while the Republicans wrestled with their conscience (and their arms) and then the SDLP just crumble while the Shinners take all the Glory (just because the IRA stopped killing people), sickeng, sickeng indeed. :mad:

Nodin

Here's a simpler answer - The SDLP were backed and held up by both British and Irish Governments, who also actively worked against Sinn Fein. Now thats stopped, they've fallen apart.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Here's a simpler answer - The SDLP were backed and held up by both British and Irish Governments, who also actively worked against Sinn Fein. Now thats stopped, they've fallen apart.

I presume when you say 'held up' you mean propped up? by the two Governments (not sure about that), anyway my understanding would be that the good Nationalist people of NI voted for the SDLP because they did not have blood on their hands, while the Shinners/IRA were steeped in it, hence the two governments understandably working against them (SF), until they fully embraced both political & exclusively peaceful methods to acheive their aims, (no more ballot box in one hand & AK47 in the other). The SDLP never had any connections with the death & destruction brought upon NI during the troubles, alas > the same cannot be said of Sinn Fein, who untill very recently, still had the faint 'whiff of sulphur' wafting from their collective Aran tweed jacket :cool:

weepee

It appraes that SF success is down to the decline of the SDLP, I would suggest its the other way around.
The SDLP are in decline because of SF success.

owenc

dlofnep wrote: »

Sinn Féin received more votes than any other party, as such they have the largest mandate. If the DUP wanted to run a pact (which they lost), then that's their problem. They could have run a single candidate, to which they would have not even come close to winning the seat. Sinn Féin still won it, without a pact. It's to be noted that 2 other seats in North Belfast and Foyle are well within Sinn Féin's - So expect the trend to continue.

Foyle is not sinn fien!!! They are the more respectable nationalists thank you, and the unionists lost out by 4 votes:rolleyes: if the dup were there they would've probably won.

dlofnep

owenc wrote: »

Foyle is not sinn fien!!! They are the more respectable nationalists thank you, and the unionists lost out by 4 votes:rolleyes: if the dup were there they would've probably won.

Can you post in a mature manner please. If you continue to over-use exclamation marks, I will place you on ignore.

I never said Foyle was "Sinn Féin". I said, Foyle as a constituency was within Sinn Féin's grasp in the near future.

And no, the DUP would not win a seat in Foyle, ever. The DUP is there, and they only got 11.8% of the vote. Sinn Féin received 32%, while the SDLP received 44.7%.

Did you actually read the results of the elections? You are annoyingly uninformed. :rolleyes:

owenc

I ment Fermanagh.

dlofnep

owenc wrote: »

I ment Fermanagh.

You might say Fermanagh next time then, instead of Foyle. And no, the DUP will not win a seat in Feramangh/South Tyrone either. They did not come within 4 votes of winning. A "pact" came within 4 votes of winning. They were still defeated by a single party.

owenc

dlofnep wrote: »

You might say Fermanagh next time then, instead of Foyle. And no, the DUP will not win a seat in Feramangh/South Tyrone either. They did not come within 4 votes of winning. A "pact" came within 4 votes of winning. They were still defeated by a single party.

As i said they were still only 4 votes away.

karma_

owenc wrote: »

As i said they were still only 4 votes away.

You said that had the DUP ran they 'probably would have won'. Which really isn't the case now is it.

The DUP are not the bastion of democracy you seem to think they are, go read a bit of their history, pay attention to some of their actions in the 70's & 80's.

I admit they have definitely moved to calm their rhetoric but they were part of the problem in NI for many a year.

dlofnep

owenc wrote: »

As i said they were still only 4 votes away.

But they weren't 4 votes away. It was a pact of more than 1 party. The DUP did not have a single candidate. If they did, the votes would be shared over 2 unionist candidates, halving the vote - which would mean that they would have been short by a few thousand votes.

Jaap

karma_ wrote: »

The DUP are not the bastion of democracy you seem to think they are, go read a bit of their history, pay attention to some of their actions in the 70's & 80's.

I admit they have definitely moved to calm their rhetoric but they were part of the problem in NI for many a year.

I think when people remember the bloody history of Northern Ireland they remember the bombings and the mass murders committed by Sinn Fein/IRA, the UDA/UVF and other republican and loyalist terrorist groups!!!...not really what people or parties said!!!

Sinn Fein have definitely calmed their rhetoric which has had more of an influence over the peace process than the DUP have!!! Their members now don't carry the coffins of mass murders who they supported or refuse to help the police...they are well behaved boys and girls now...which is to be applauded!!!
Hence their electorate has increased!!!
Pity they (and loyalist terrorists) didn't realise the benefits of the peace process earlier!!! Would've saved Northern Ireland's residents a lot of hurt...and we would've been already well in to a future where orange views and green views were diminishing...and people were more concerned with how to get the best out of our wee country and its mixture of talented and resilient people!!!

trapsagenius

Jaap wrote: »

Sinn Fein have definitely calmed their rhetoric which has had more of an influence over the peace process than the DUP have!!! Their members now don't carry the coffins of mass murders who thet supported or refuse to help the police...they are well behaved boys and girls now...which is to be applauded!!!
Hence their electorate has increased!!!
Pity they didn't realise the benefits of the peace process earlier!!!

In fairness, when time SF were pushing for peace in the early 90s, the loyalist murder squads stepped up their "campaigns" in the hope of getting the IRA to retaliate and thereby derail the process.SF deserve more credit than people give them for staying the course.

I also think I'm correct in saying that the DUP opposed the process for longer than SF.Didn't Paisley and a group of misguided followers burst in prior to the signing of the GFA and denounce it?

owenc

trapsagenius wrote: »

In fairness, when time SF were pushing for peace in the early 90s, the loyalist murder squads stepped up their "campaigns" in the hope of getting the IRA to retaliate and thereby derail the process.SF deserve more credit than people give them for staying the course.

I also think I'm correct in saying that the DUP opposed the process for longer than SF.Didn't Paisley and a group of misguided followers burst in prior to the signing of the GFA and denounce it?

THATs because they are free presbyterians and they are VERY VERY VERY VERY... bitter! Look wikipedia even agree with it "For many outside the church, political and religious opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, construed by the Free Presbyterians as Protestant reformation principles, represents the single most distinctive characteristic of this denomination, not least because this is the single most distinctive characteristic of Ian Paisley's own theological outlook."

Jaap

trapsagenius wrote: »

In fairness, when time SF were pushing for peace in the early 90s, the loyalist murder squads stepped up their "campaigns" in the hope of getting the IRA to retaliate and thereby derail the process.SF deserve more credit than people give them for staying the course.

I also think I'm correct in saying that the DUP opposed the process for longer than SF.Didn't Paisley and a group of misguided followers burst in prior to the signing of the GFA and denounce it?

The poster karma was talking about the 70s and 80s in Northern Ireland...that is what I was responding to.
In the 90s after declaring a ceasefire and holding it for 2 years the IRA of course produced the Docklands bomb (2 people died), followed by the Manchester bomb (200 injured)...a kind of "don't mess us about or this is what we can go back to"...which is kinda worse than what the DUP did...don't you think???
Are violence and bombing a better alternative if the talks process isn't going your way???

karma_

Jaap wrote: »

The poster karma was talking about the 70s and 80s in Northern Ireland...that is what I was responding to!!!
In the 90s after declaring a ceasefire and holding it for 2 years the IRA of course produced the Docklands bomb (2 people died), followed by the Manchester bomb (200 injured)...a kind of "don't mess us about or this is what we can go back to"...which is kinda worse than what the DUP did...don't you think???

I'm not trying to compare DUP and IRA actions at all Jaap. I raise the point that certain DUP intransigent elements prolonged the troubles by a good margin. During that time, and I remember it well, Ian Paisley was literally a recruiting tool for the IRA. A more moderate approach at the time would have brought agreement much sooner.

trapsagenius

Jaap wrote: »

The poster karma was talking about the 70s and 80s in Northern Ireland...that is what I was responding to!!!
In the 90s after declaring a ceasefire and holding it for 2 years the IRA of course produced the Docklands bomb (2 people died), followed by the Manchester bomb (200 injured)...a kind of "don't mess us about or this is what we can go back to"...which is kinda worse than what the DUP did...don't you think???
Is violence a better alternative if the talks process isn't going your way???

Yes, the IRA were wrong on this count(and on many others), but I would argue the unionists were also at fault.They kept pushing for decommisioning of the IRA's weapons, which, AFAIK, is not a prelude to any conflict resolution anywhere in the world and was bound to be vehemently opposed by the Republicans.John Bruton and John Major also deserve a lot of the blame for not putting sufficient pressure on the unionists to quit their incessant griping and for not dealing with the Republicans properly.So the blame is not entirely with the IRA.

The DUP were also at fault in their actions prior to the GFA.

Jaap

karma_ wrote: »

I'm not trying to compare DUP and IRA actions at all Jaap. I raise the point that certain DUP intransigent elements prolonged the troubles by a good margin. During that time, and I remember it well, Ian Paisley was literally a recruiting tool for the IRA. A more moderate approach at the time would have brought agreement much sooner.

I don't think any moderate approach should be taken with terrorists...my own personal opinion!!!
What you must remember is all the big parties in Northern Ireland except Sinn Fein were weaponless and bombless going in to discussions...they had to make sure the deal on the table was right for the people they represented...and quell any fears that Sinn Fein/IRA weren't really in it for peace!!! What was the big rush to get things right for everybody!!!
As for Ian Paisley being a recruiting tool for the IRA...he may well have been...but words by someone would never make me want to lift up a gun or plant a bomb!!! Would it make you eager to go out and kill??
I think the terrorists on both sides (IRA, UDA, INLA, UVF) were the main players when it came to bringing Northern Ireland to its knees for so long!!! Their actions spoke far louder than any politician's voice!!!

Jaap

trapsagenius wrote: »

Yes, the IRA were wrong on this count(and on many others), but I would argue the unionists were also at fault.They kept pushing for decommisioning of the IRA's weapons, which, AFAIK, is not a prelude to any conflict resolution anywhere in the world and was bound to be vehemently opposed by the Republicans.John Bruton and John Major also deserve a lot of the blame for not putting sufficient pressure on the unionists to quit their incessant griping and for not dealing with the Republicans properly.So the blame is not entirely with the IRA.

The DUP were also at fault in their actions prior to the GFA.

So a party wanting to see arms taken out of the political process are wrong???
Would you negotiate with a man who had a gun under the table...who said "well it's there, but I'm on a ceasefire I won't use it"...I certainly wouldn't want to be in the same room as the armed man never mind sit down and talk about building some form of political agreement with them!!!

trapsagenius

Jaap wrote: »

So a party wanting to see arms taken out of the political process are wrong???
Would you negotiate with a man who had a gun under the table...who said "well it's there, but I'm on a ceasefire I won't use it"...I certainly wouldn't want to be in the same room as the armed man never mind sit down and talk about building some form of political agreement with them!!!

Let's be realistic about this.Decommisioning was obviously a tetchy issue for the Republicans.The unionists should have left it until last, instead of pushing the agenda, which was bound to cause stagnation and breakdown in the talks.Yeah, it's a pain, but sometimes you have to do hard things if you want to achieve anything in politics.

karma_

Jaap wrote: »

I don't think any moderate approach should be taken with terrorists...my own personal opinion!!!

Surely given that approach they would still be at each others throats up here then?

I know the old 'don't negotiate with terrorists' is a great slogan to bandy around but in reality a moderate approach that tackles the root of the problem is better in the long run.

sceptre

Ten posts of irrelevant and off-topic crud-standard posts deleted.

/mod

owenc

owenc wrote: »

THATs because they are free presbyterians and they are VERY VERY VERY VERY... bitter! Look wikipedia even agree with it "For many outside the church, political and religious opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, construed by the Free Presbyterians as Protestant reformation principles, represents the single most distinctive characteristic of this denomination, not least because this is the single most distinctive characteristic of Ian Paisley's own theological outlook."

Ian Paisley was in Dáil Éireann today in the visitors gallery ( link)
I think he's moved on..

Sigh... why can't everybody else ?