SF now the largest political party in the north.

Iwasfrozen

DoireNod wrote: »

Aye, Peter Robinson and the like might have invaded.

Haha, that is brilliant. I grew up in Clontibret !

P. Breathnach

dlofnep wrote: »

And what exactly is Sinn Féin's type of United Ireland, and what makes it different than any other party who entertains the idea of such and is engaged within the peace process.

So they decided the pen was mightier than the sword, so what? So did Nelson Mandela.

Give me 3 policies you have an issue with.

Perhaps we might discuss it in the context of 2010, rather than 1970.

Perhaps you might expand on that one?

As I already said, I could say more, but it's not worth the effort.

dlofnep

Fair enough - I've better things to do anyway. All the best.

K-9

DoireNod wrote: »

Sinn Féin: 171,942
DUP: 168,216
SDLP: 110,970

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/region/6.stm

To me the result of the election, barring Alliance obviously, is the SDLP hopefully are correcting the slide and will not become the joke that is the UUP. Somebody needs to keep a check on SF.

The only reason SF was stronger than the DUP, was how fractured the DUP was. Hopefully Alliance can build and point out how stupid these arguments are.

DoireNod

DoireNod wrote: »

...The DUP has the most seats, but Sinn Féin got the most votes. Hence, Sinn Féin are the largest party.

I should clarify. Sinn Féin have the strongest mandate, backed by the fact they have the most support out of all the parties.

aDeener

I know this will probably never happen, but id like to know how people, specifically our northern brothers here, would feel about a joint nationalist party if sinn fein and the sdlp were ever to come to a compromise?

likewise a joint unionist party? which seems all the more possible considering what occured in fermanagh south tyrone

DoireNod

K-9 wrote: »

To me the result of the election, barring Alliance obviously, is the SDLP hopefully are correcting the slide and will not become the joke that is the UUP. Somebody needs to keep a check on SF.

Although the SDLP have held onto their 3 seats, at a glance, I don't think they've necessarily corrected their slide. Even though Ritchie received a strong vote in South Down, I think her tenure as leader of the party could signal another downward turn. Their performance in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is telling and while Gildernew's amazing poll was most probably due to anger caused by the unionist pact, I think a lot of people would see Ritchie as being stubborn - she gives the impression that she's more anti-Sinn Féin than pro-nationalist*. I'd guess that Sinn Féin could hold on to a sizeable portion of those who would otherwise have voted SDLP in Fermanagh & South Tyrone as a consequence.

K-9 wrote: »

The only reason SF was stronger than the DUP, was how fractured the DUP was. Hopefully Alliance can build and point out how stupid these arguments are.

It's hardly the only reason. Demographics are in favour of nationalism, as is evident from Sinn Féin's growth in support, perhaps most notably with Gerry Kelly in North Belfast. Unionism itself is dramatically fractured and demoralised and the proverbial ball has been sent flying emphatically to their court. The failed 'unity pact' will raise questions in their camp but despite its failure, I think it's safe to say that there will be a lot more co-operation from the unionist 'family' in future. The question is, what will the SDLP and Sinn Féin do to counter any more such tactics?

*Of course, this may not be the case and it must be noted that Ritchie was pretty much in a no-win situation. SDLP were never going to win F&ST, but she couldn't be seen to 'be in cahoots', so to speak, with perceived 'terrorists', given that the SDLP are increasingly trying to gain would-be unionist voters.

lugha

DoireNod wrote: »

That's an issue for SDLP voters to contend with. I'd imagine many if not all of them wouldn't like it. Mark Durkan himself says he doesn't like it.

It strikes me as curious that in the spirit of GFA where anyone in NI could assert any identify, political or otherwise, that they want, that they didn't look at the option of an alternative to the oath for NI nationalist MPs. Perhaps they decided that the affairs of Westminster were sufficiently irrelevant not to warrant any tinkering?

P. Breathnach

aDeener wrote: »

I know this will probably never happen, but id like to know how people, specifically our northern brothers here, would feel about a joint nationalist party if sinn fein and the sdlp were ever to come to a compromise?

likewise a joint unionist party? which seems all the more possible considering what occured in fermanagh south tyrone

Wonderful. Perpetuate an approach to politics where the only issue is the "constitutional question".

DoireNod

lugha wrote: »

It strikes me as curious that in the spirit of GFA where anyone in NI could assert any identify, political or otherwise, that they want, that they didn't look at the option of an alternative to the oath for NI nationalist MPs. Perhaps they decided that the affairs of Westminster were sufficiently irrelevant not to warrant any tinkering?

I'm not sure. Perhaps if there was an exception, albeit a small one, it would further undermine the British system and the position of the monarch?

Or perhaps it was accepted that Sinn Féin would be abstentionist and the rest were ok with the status quo. Maybe, as you say, it wasn't even an issue.

K-9

DoireNod wrote: »

Although the SDLP have held onto their 3 seats, at a glance, I don't think they've necessarily corrected their slide. Even though Ritchie received a strong vote in South Down, I think her tenure as leader of the party could signal another downward turn. Their performance in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is telling and while Gildernew's amazing poll was most probably due to anger caused by the unionist pact, I think a lot of people would see Ritchie as being stubborn - she gives the impression that she's more anti-Sinn Féin than pro-nationalist*. I'd guess that Sinn Féin could hold on to a sizeable portion of those who would otherwise have voted SDLP in Fermanagh & South Tyrone as a consequence.

It's hardly the only reason. Demographics are in favour of nationalism, as is evident from Sinn Féin's growth in support, perhaps most notably with Gerry Kelly in North Belfast. Unionism itself is dramatically fractured and demoralised and the proverbial ball has been sent flying emphatically to their court. The failed 'unity pact' will raise questions in their camp but despite its failure, I think it's safe to say that there will be a lot more co-operation from the unionist 'family' in future. The question is, what will the SDLP and Sinn Féin do to counter any more such tactics?

*Of course, this may not be the case and it must be noted that Ritchie was pretty much in a no-win situation. SDLP were never going to win F&ST, but she couldn't be seen to 'be in cahoots', so to speak, with perceived 'terrorists'.

OK, from a non SF point of view, Durkan is a strong candidate and South Down will have a strategic Unionist vote if push comes to shove. There vote may go down but if anything Durkan is more vulnerable. Again, strategic Unionist voting could keep that one safe for another GE.

FST probably had strategic voting by SDLP voters, especially considering a unified Unionist candidate and the very real risk, LOL, of that seat going Unionist.

Demographics obviously are in favour but the split in Unionism was a factor this time. Denying that is pointless. Robinson winning East Belfast would have changed who was the biggest party alone.

I'd hardly call the unity pact failed, they lost on a third recount! A Tory Council won his seat on the drawing of a card, it was that close!

From a non SF perspective, the SDLP have to keep their own identity. Pacts may actually backfire and many would argue is the reason they have lost their vote over the last 10 years.

aDeener

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wonderful. Perpetuate an approach to politics where the only issue is the "constitutional question".

that more or less is the approach at the moment anyway, would you not say so?

DoireNod

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wonderful. Perpetuate an approach to politics where the only issue is the "constitutional question".

It's been such since the inception of the statelet, which itself wasn't exactly 'normal'. Do you really expect there to ever be 'normal politics' in the north?

P. Breathnach

aDeener wrote: »

that more or less is the approach at the moment anyway, would you not say so?

Largely. But if the different unionist and nationalist parties merged into just one of each, that division would be consolidated.

ardmacha

It strikes me as curious that in the spirit of GFA where anyone in NI could assert any identify, political or otherwise, that they want, that they didn't look at the option of an alternative to the oath for NI nationalist MPs. Perhaps they decided that the affairs of Westminster were sufficiently irrelevant not to warrant any tinkering?

The GFA is strictly an Irish affair, the London authorities pay little heed to it whether in their institutions or their policies in things like controlled from London. Since SF didn't want to go to Westminister anyway they didn't argue with this.

aDeener

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Largely. But if the different unionist and nationalist parties merged into just one of each, that division would be consolidated.

the choice would be there to vote alliance too. which would make it a 3 party choice which is basically what we have here and in england too. i would imagine other non-nationalist/unionist parties would form in the wake of such mergers.

DoireNod

K-9 wrote: »

OK, from a non SF point of view, Durkan is a strong candidate and South Down will have a strategic Unionist vote if push comes to shove. There vote may go down but if anything Durkan is more vulnerable. Again, strategic Unionist voting could keep that one safe for another GE.

In Foyle, Eamonn McCann undoubtedly took a percentage of voters off Sinn Féin and the SDLP. There was only around 4,000 difference between Durkan and Anderson and McCann took about 3,000. Depending on how McCann and his People Before Profit crew get on in future, Sinn Féin could still close the gap in Derry.

K-9 wrote: »

Demographics obviously are in favour but the split in Unionism was a factor this time. Denying that is pointless. Robinson winning East Belfast would have changed who was the biggest party alone.

I haven't denied that unionism is split, but even with their 'unity pacts' they couldn't take a seat from nationalists.

K-9 wrote: »

I'd hardly call the unity pact failed, they lost on a third recount! A Tory Council won his seat on the drawing of a card, it was that close!

It failed, simple as. It also helped galvanise the nationalist voice in F&ST (and probably across the North), which can be construed as another failure.

K-9 wrote: »

From a non SF perspective, the SDLP have to keep their own identity. Pacts may actually backfire and many would argue is the reason they have lost their vote over the last 10 years.

I understand completely where the SDLP are coming from, but as I've said, the wider nationalist family may not appreciate the fact that they are appearing more and more anti-SF than pro-nationalist and also, they may begin to feel that the threat posed by the uniting of unionist parties needs to be addressed.

K-9

DoireNod wrote: »

I haven't denied that unionism is split, but even with their 'unity pacts' they couldn't take a seat from nationalists.

It failed, simple as. It also helped galvanise the nationalist voice in F&ST (and probably across the North), which can be construed as another failure.

Ah now, what was the final difference?

Agree on McCann, hard to know where is votes would go in a tight contest or a new system. There is as much chance of Unionism uniting as Nationalism. FST goes back a long way.

Bottle_of_Smoke

DoireNod wrote: »

I understand completely where the SDLP are coming from, but as I've said, the wider nationalist family may not appreciate the fact that they are appearing more and more anti-SF than pro-nationalist and also, they may begin to feel that the threat posed by the uniting of unionist parties needs to be addressed.

The thing is, they're kind of being forced into appearing anti-Sinn Fein because Sinn Fein are being anti-SDLP.

It was Gerry Adams who first said Ritchie had failed to show leadership for not goign into a nationalist pact, that was uncalled for. Then in the tv debates he spent more time bullying Ritchie than arguing his points to the Unionists.

Regarding the nationalist pacts, SDLP knew they could win comfortably without Sinn Fein votes in South Belfast whereas Sinn Fein were worried the unionists could take F/ST, fortunately they didn't but it was very very tight.

So by going into the pact they had little to gain, by staying out they could claim they were against sectarian headcounts and avoid losing unionist votes in South Down. Sinn Fein simply weren't offering them a good deal, perhaps had they offered to stand down in Newry/Armagh the SDLP might have been tempted.

I do accept Ritchie was labouring the abstension point far too much.

Caoimhín

SF won Fermanagh/South Tyrone by 4 votes...

What implications will this have on the power-sharing agreement?

Id be a little bit hesitant voting for a political representative who refuses to go to the Parliament to represent me..

snow ghost

Caoimhín wrote: »

Id be a little bit hesitant voting for a political representative who refuses to go to the Parliament to represent me..

The parlament in Westminster is becoming increasingly irrelevant to Northern Ireland - most of the day-to-day decisions are now being made n the assembly.

Essentially, Westminister is only there to hand out the cash to the North - and the DUP and SF both want as much as they can and will push who ever is in government in London for it.

You could argue that SF aren't in parliament to comment on the big issues facing the UK as a whole, such as say taxation, etc. But in real terms none of the Northern parties have had any say for quite some time, other than to express their opinions.

It's unlikely this will change, unless the Tories don't form a government with the Lib-Dems and need the DUP's support.

The irony is that whenever anything important for the North comes up - such as transfer of policing powers - the Westminster government goes running to N.I. to listen to SF and the DUP anyway.

Unless Labour somehow form a government the SDLP will be little more than a talkng shop in the Westminster parliament that no one is really listening to.

So essentially the shinners have just as much sway not gong to Westminster as they are likely to have if they are there. They probably actually have more by staying away.

getz

snow ghost wrote: »

The parlament in Westminster is becoming increasingly irrelevant to Northern Ireland - most of the day-to-day decisions are now being made n the assembly.

Essentially, Westminister is only there to hand out the cash to the North - and the DUP and SF both want as much as they can and will push who ever is in government in London for it.

You could argue that SF aren't in parliament to comment on the big issues facing the UK as a whole, such as say taxation, etc. But in real terms none of the Northern parties have had any say for quite some time, other than to express their opinions.

It's unlikely this will change, unless the Tories don't form a government with the Lib-Dems and need the DUP's support.

The irony is that whenever anything important for the North comes up - such as transfer of policing powers - the Westminster government goes running to N.I. to listen to SF and the DUP anyway.

Unless Labour somehow form a government the SDLP will be little more than a talkng shop in the Westminster parliament that no one is really listening to.

So essentially the shinners have just as much sway not gong to Westminster as they are likely to have if they are there. They probably actually have more by staying away.

there is more to a member of parliament,than sitting at home ,i have used my MP to get problems sorted,,if he had not sat in parliament he would not have had the access to the ministers to get the my problems solved,in one case i had a hand penned letter from one goverment minister fully admitting his responsibility, by some northern irish MPs not representing their voters,they have no grounds to complain if injustices happen

Caoimhín

snow ghost wrote: »

They probably actually have more by staying away.

Except for the expenses

snow ghost

getz wrote: »

there is more to a member of parliament,than sitting at home ,i have used my MP to get problems sorted,,if he had not sat in parliament he would not have had the access to the ministers to get the my problems solved,in one case i had a hand penned letter from one goverment minister fully admitting his responsibility, by some northern irish MPs not representing their voters,they have no grounds to complain if injustices happen

I hear what you're saying Getz, and if you lived in England I'd agree totally with you.

But I can't honestly think of many ocassions this would be that relevant for Northern Ireland - if you want to give me an example I'd be grateful.

TBH if there was such an issue that could only be resolved with ministerial intervention from London them I'm sure Martin McGunness could express himself to the N.I. secretary or even pick up the phone - as deputy first minister in the North - to the prime minister, and he'll be listened to more than most opposition party MP's in Britain.

The reality is - regardless of poltcal persaussion - that the government in Westminster is very ego-centric and spends most of its time concerning itself with what is happening in England (more accuratley the South East of England).

getz

snow ghost wrote: »

I hear what you're saying Getz, and if you lived in England I'd agree totally with you.

But I can't honestly think of many ocassions this would be that relevant for Northern Ireland - if you want to give me an example I'd be grateful.

TBH if there was such an issue that could only be resolved with ministerial intervention from London them I'm sure Martin McGunness could express himself to the N.I. secretary or even pick up the phone - as deputy first minister in the North - to the prime minister, and he'll be listened to more than most opposition party MP's in Britain.

The reality is - regardless of poltcal persaussion - that the government in Westminster is very ego-centric and spends most of its time concerning itself with what is happening in England (more accuratley the South East of England).

the new elected MP has to represent all his/her people living in the constituency,by staying at home,49.999% of will have a legal claim to remove him/her

snow ghost

getz wrote: »

the new elected MP has to represent all his/her people living in the constituency,by staying at home,49.999% of will have a legal claim to remove him/her

I doubt they'd have any legal claim at all - as 50.111% would have the democratic right to vote for a representative who abstains from parliament.

The point I'm making is that in the real world of Northern politcs SF MP's can represent their constituents just as readily by not going to Westminster.

If someone would like to explain how them flying over to London, booking into a luxurious hotel and sitting watching the main parties debating what they will have no say in anyway - as oppossed to getting on with issues in N.I. - is going to make a difference to their constituents, I'd love to hear it.

ynotdu

getz wrote: »

there is more to a member of parliament,than sitting at home ,i have used my MP to get problems sorted,,if he had not sat in parliament he would not have had the access to the ministers to get the my problems solved,in one case i had a hand penned letter from one goverment minister fully admitting his responsibility, by some northern irish MPs not representing their voters,they have no grounds to complain if injustices happen

Best argument i have heard so far getz for doing away with only having a choice of one MP in each constituancy to approach for help!

FPTP is a nonsense!

getz

snow ghost wrote: »

I doubt they'd have any legal claim at all - as 50.111% would have the democratic right to vote for a representative who abstains from parliament.

The point I'm making is that in the real world of Northern politcs SF MP's can represent their constituents just as readily by not going to Westminster.

If someone would like to explain how them flying over to London, booking into a luxurious hotel and sitting watching the main parties debating what they will have no say in anyway - as oppossed to getting on with issues in N.I. - is going to make a difference to their constituents, I'd love to hear it.

if i have to explain that you have no understanding of politics [i take it you dont believe in EU MPs taking their seat in the EU parliament also ? ] , or is this just one of those hate the british threads

karma_

SF do go to Westminister, they just don't take the oath or their seats but, they have offices, so to try and say they have no access to other ministers is slightly wide of the mark.

Also, if the nationalists had lost F & ST seat, just which part of the electorate would have been more hurt? that's why the SDLP made a mistake in not pulling out of that seat. They have constantly made these kinds of mistakes for the last 15 years and it's hemorrhaging them nationalists voters who were always strong SDLP supporters. I can see this continue until they eventually lose Durkans seat too.

Another poster made teh point about NI politicians having little effect at Westminister, this is completely true. Unionists were just used for their party vote and teh SDLP numbers meant little, and they just voted with the labour party. Westminister is completely irrelevant to everyday life in NI.

getz

karma_ wrote: »

SF do go to Westminister, they just don't take the oath or their seats but, they have offices, so to try and say they have no access to other ministers is slightly wide of the mark.

Also, if the nationalists had lost F & ST seat, just which part of the electorate would have been more hurt? that's why the SDLP made a mistake in not pulling out of that seat. They have constantly made these kinds of mistakes for the last 15 years and it's hemorrhaging them nationalists voters who were always strong SDLP supporters. I can see this continue until they eventually lose Durkans seat too.

Another poster made teh point about NI politicians having little effect at Westminister, this is completely true. Unionists were just used for their party vote and teh SDLP numbers meant little, and they just voted with the labour party. Westminister is completely irrelevant to everyday life in NI.

if you take your seat in westminster you have direct access to the ministers shadow ministers face to face. as well as other parties,dont take your seat,and hope your contact picks up the phone, i know what i would prefer