Sinn Féin leaflet - "Protestant 45.67%, Catholic 46.94%. Make History"

MakeEmLaugh

Gerry Kelly of Sinn Féin has been criticised for circulating a leaflet in North Belfast which quoted the figures from the 2011 Census in order to appeal to voters on the basis of their religion.

"Protestant 45.67%, Catholic 46.94%. Make a Change. Make History"

Seán Fearon, Sinn Féin Republican Youth committee member, said: “This is an absolute disgrace. The very antithesis of what republicanism represents. . . .not how many bloody Catholics and Protestants live in an area and assuming they’ll vote on ethno-nationalist lines as a result.”

Cumann member Joseph Donaghy also said: “Turning the race for the seat in North Belfast into a sectarian head count is absolutely disgraceful from the party I have dedicated so much of my time to and had so much belief in. Republicanism has been let down greatly by the Gerry Kelly leaflet.”

I do think there would be outrage if, say, the Labour party in the UK circulated a leaflet in London which said: "White British - 44.9%, Non-White British - 55.1%. Make the Change. Make History."

I swindled the NSA

Yet again the Shinner mask slips but.......

Catholics and Protestants ...... assuming they’ll vote on ethno-nationalist lines

If they do it means that for the foreseeable future the rest of us hold the balance of power....Tá ár lá teacht ?

(our day has come)

10000maniacs

276041 = Numbers who voted for SF and SDLP
299195 = Numbers who voted for DUP and UUP
That's less than 1% of a difference.

Is it fair that SF and SDLP only got 7 seats while the DUP and UUP got 10?
First Past The Post is truly un-democratic.

I swindled the NSA

Interesting to see the share of the vote in North Belfast (and across NI generally) down for both SF and the SDLP.

Maybe basing all one hope on demographic shifts wasn't the winning strategy Kelly was hoping for ?

Iwasfrozen

10000maniacs wrote: »

276041 = Numbers who voted for SF and SDLP
299195 = Numbers who voted for DUP and UUP
That's less than 1% of a difference.

Is it fair that SF and SDLP only got 7 seats while the DUP and UUP got 10?
First Past The Post is truly un-democratic.

Tell it to the SNP, 50% of the vote and 95% of the seats.

Anyway glad to see Kelly has lost his seat. Sectarianism has no place in politics.

Sand

I'm quite cynical about SF, so I expect the worst from them but in fairness one or two SF figures did criticise the thought process behind the flyer (which goes to show SF figures could criticise senior party members for for the child abuse scandals - if they disagreed with them). Its completely bizarre something as dumb as this made it past the first idea of the morning or last idea of the night stage. And with a figure as central as Kelly - not a fringe whacko. What were they thinking? The Wolfe Tone/United Ireland shtick doesn't go all that deep past the token Protestant.

Just goes to show there's a deep well of sectarian feeling on both sides in Northern Ireland.

I swindled the NSA

Sand wrote: »

Just goes to show there's a deep well of sectarian feeling on both sides in Northern Ireland.

Within the body politic there certainly is.

Take a drive around Belfast near election time and even in the leafiest suburbs the location of each "sectarian interface" can be located to an accuracy of a few meters by observing which parties posters appear on the lamp posts. Only the of Alliance, Greens (where running) and some of the smaller left wing parties -including (oddly) the Workers party make any serious attempt to seek the votes of "themmuns".

Berserker

I swindled the NSA wrote: »

Take a drive around Belfast near election time and even in the leafiest suburbs the location of each "sectarian interface" can be located to an accuracy of a few meters by observing which parties posters appear on the lamp posts.

Was up there today. I must miss all this obvious sectarianism on my weekly visits to Belfast. A few DUP, UUP, Alliance & SDLP posters along with the odd few SF posters here and there of late. Nothing to get excited about.

NIMAN

Its just under the surface, about 1mm or so!

Crooked Jack

It was a daft move to make, no doubt, but it's being blown way out of proportion. The chart is being displayed in the media without the accompanying text to explain it, taking it way out of context. As they were census figures they also had to use the terms Protestant and Catholic instead of nationalist and unionist.
The main point of it was to show that demographics in the area had changed and that it was now possible for a SF representative to be elected rather than people tactically voting to keep the DUP out.
Im also finding all the cries of "sectarianism" over this to be a tad hypocritical from people who are quite happy to use the terms catholic/protestant to handily encompass nationalist/republican/unionist/loyalist etc...

On the whole, daft move but taken way out of context and blown even further out of proportion by hysterical anti-SFers just looking for something, ANYTHING, to leap on.

I swindled the NSA

Crooked Jack wrote: »

As they were census figures they also had to use the terms Protestant and Catholic instead of nationalist and unionist.
The main point of it was to show that demographics in the area had changed and that it was now possible for a SF representative to be elected.

So the leaflet was sectarian then !

Crooked Jack

I swindled the NSA wrote: »

So the leaflet was sectarian then !

Did the leaflet make any derogatory statements about a specific religion or culture? Did it express bigotry, hatred or intolerance?
Or did it in fact just report the findings of the census (was the census sectarian) to show demographic changes meant that a previously unwinnable seat was now winnable?
Answer those questions and you'll have your answer.

This is just another example of the ludicrous levels certain people will go to to have a pop at SF

Crooked Jack

10000maniacs wrote: »

276041 = Numbers who voted for SF and SDLP
299195 = Numbers who voted for DUP and UUP
That's less than 1% of a difference.

Is it fair that SF and SDLP only got 7 seats while the DUP and UUP got 10?
First Past The Post is truly un-democratic.

In the previous westminster election Sinn Fein got more votes than the DUP but 3 less seats

Thomas_.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Did the leaflet make any derogatory statements about a specific religion or culture? Did it express bigotry, hatred or intolerance?
Or did it in fact just report the findings of the census (was the census sectarian) to show demographic changes meant that a previously unwinnable seat was now winnable?
Answer those questions and you'll have your answer.

This is just another example of the ludicrous levels certain people will go to to have a pop at SF

That part of your post put in bold means, that all those Catholics would vote for SF and no other party. Such would be your calculation in accordance to that.

It´s even harder for SFers to accept that people from the CNR community are against SF and vote as they please, such as it is the way in every normal society. Northern Ireland is on the path to democratic normality if it continues with this change among the electorate. Time to move on from the old patterns and leave them behind.

It´s good to see that the SF majority isn´t secure anymore.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_. wrote: »

That part of your post put in bold means, that all those Catholics would vote for SF and no other party. Such would be your calculation in accordance to that.

No it doesn't. It highlights that a demographic shift had occurred in the area and that people who were more likely to vote SF were now in the majority. Are you disputing that people in north Belfast from a catholic background are more likely to vote SF than those from a protestant background?

It´s even harder for SFers to accept that people from the CNR community are against SF and vote as they please, such as it is the way in every normal society.

More insane, baseless anti-SF allegations.

Northern Ireland is on the path to democratic normality if it continues with this change among the electorate. Time to move on from the old patterns and leave them behind.

Yeah, electoral pacts between people who think gays are more likely to be paedos and the earth is 6000 years old. Onwards to normality. But no, Gerry Kelly highlighting factual demographic changes, that's what's dragging our society backwards

It´s good to see that the SF majority isn´t secure anymore.

What SF majority? What are you talking about? The absolute guff from some people on this site is baffling

Thomas_.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No it doesn't. It highlights that a demographic shift had occurred in the area and that people who were more likely to vote SF were now in the majority. Are you disputing that people in north Belfast from a catholic background are more likely to vote SF than those from a protestant background?

In a democracy, people who are going to the polling stations, take the ballot paper, make their decision on it and put it folded into the ballot box are not to be questioned nor are they to be looked over the shoulder for whom they voted. So every one who admits for whom candidate he gave his voted is doint this by his free will and nobody can blame him if he doesn´t tells the truth. The vote is secret, that´s an electoral principle.

More insane, baseless anti-SF allegations.

I don´t think so, you appear to give the very proof to what I said. You appear to have a problem with people from the CNR community not voting for the Shinner party.

Yeah, electoral pacts between people who think gays are more likely to be paedos and the earth is 6000 years old. Onwards to normality. But no, Gerry Kelly highlighting factual demographic changes, that's what's dragging our society backwards

Shifting the political argument issues from sectarian arguing towards normal politics is "dragging your society forwards not backwards".

What SF majority? What are you talking about? The absolute guff from some people on this site is baffling

The SF majority they have been not just dreaming of but even anticipating given the way they dealt with the SDLP in an attempt to "wipe them out" in the election, but that failed. So I´d like to put this question to you: What´s the use of voting for SF in a UK general election given the fact that they still refuse to take their seats in the Commons?

I think that it´s of no use at all, except to draw votes from other parties who would participate in the Commons and take their seats there.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_. wrote: »

In a democracy, people who are going to the polling stations, take the ballot paper, make their decision on it and put it folded into the ballot box are not to be questioned nor are they to be looked over the shoulder for whom they voted. So every one who admits for whom candidate he gave his voted is doint this by his free will and nobody can blame him if he doesn´t tells the truth. The vote is secret, that´s an electoral principle.

I don´t think so, you appear to give the very proof to what I said. You appear to have a problem with people from the CNR community not voting for the Shinner party.

I clearly support SF. Obviously Id prefer if everybody did, regardless of religion. Your arguments are nonsensical.

Shifting the political argument issues from sectarian arguing towards normal politics is "dragging your society forwards not backwards".

I'm sorry, are you drunk?

The SF majority they have been not just dreaming of but even anticipating given the way they dealt with the SDLP in an attempt to "wipe them out" in the election, but that failed.

So I´d like to put this question to you: What´s the use of voting for SF in a UK general election given the fact that they still refuse to take their seats in the Commons?

Thank Christ! A coherent sentence. Firstly, sitting in Westminster is actually a very small part of an MP's role. Average attendance sits at around 60ish per cent, that drops even lower when you talk about Irish MPs given the amount of issues actually dealt with by the Assembly.
Out of the 650 seats in the HOC, 18 go to Ireland. Even if, and that's a HUGE IF, Irish MPs could get over their fundamental differences and vote the same way, they would, and do, have zero effect on any outcome. We are an utter irrelevance there. On the rare occasions when irish issues come up I urge you to tune in to the Live Parliament on TV. The place is practically empty apart from a handful of sleeping MPs.
Sinn Fein, however, unencumbered by wasting time with all the pomp and bollocks that goes with the HOC have more time to work on constituency issues and actually be in their constituency.
They use their mandate to lobby political parties, unions, interest groups and ambassadors on any number of issues.
They still attend all the meetings to do with constituency or regional work, for example, SF's Conor Murphy was involved in all the same meetings as SDLP's Margaret Ritchie when it came to opposing the removal of certain government jobs from the north to England.

They also effect real change by negotiating directly with the British Government rather than being ignored on the floor of the commons.

From a purely ideological point of view I wouldnt want my representative sitting in a British parliament or taking an oath to any monarch anyway.
Sinn Fein do not attempt to trick people with this. They have been quite open about this policy for almost 100 years. People vote for them knowing this full well.

I think that it´s of no use at all, except to draw votes from other parties who would participate in the Commons and take their seats there.

If you are actively voting for an abstentionist party why would you want your vote to go to the opposite of that? You seem to have an issue grasping even the most basic concept of politics.

stan larsen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Sinn Fein do not attempt to trick people with this. They have been quite open about this policy for almost 100 years. People vote for them knowing this full well.

Indeed their voters do know this. But a member of any parliament is supposed to represent all of their constituents and not just those that vote for them.

And there is something incongruous about a constituency in a democracy being denied representation. Which was exactly the argument Pearse Doherty made when he successfully challenged the last government who were heel-dragging on calling a bye election in Donegal.

I recall Doherty making this point at the time – I certainly got the impression that he was being sincere!

I swindled the NSA

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Out of the 650 seats in the HOC, 18 go to Ireland. Even if, and that's a HUGE IF, Irish MPs could get over their fundamental differences and vote the same way, they would, and do, have zero effect on any outcome. .

Maybe someone should tell the Liberal Democrats and UKIP and the Greens and Plaid Cymru and the SDLP and the UUP and the DUP that theyre wasting their time representing their respective constituents in the House of Commons as well ?

Crooked Jack

stan larsen wrote: »

Indeed their voters do know this. But a member of any parliament is supposed to represent all of their constituents and not just those that vote for them.

And they do, as active abstentionists. Like I said, more time in the constituency, more time working on constituency matters, more actual influence as part of a team negotiating directly with the brit gov rather than being ignored on the floor of the HOC

And there is something incongruous about a constituency in a democracy being denied representation. Which was exactly the argument Pearse Doherty made when he successfully challenged the last government who were heel-dragging on calling a bye election in Donegal.

I recall Doherty making this point at the time – I certainly got the impression that he was being sincere!

But there's no comparison between the Dail and Westminster. TDs can have influence in the Dail. As i outlined in my last post, Irish MPs have little to no influence in Westminster. They jet off over there and arent heard from for 5 years because most of their time is wasted on debates that mean nothing to us, preventing them from doing constituency work. Unlike SF MPs, who can and do represent their constituencies where it matters, instead of wasting their mandate by sleeping on green benches during debates on english tax law.

Hmm, second image doesnt seem to be working but it's a screenshot of margaret ritchie giving her constituents some similarly top notch representation on an issue no doubt vital to the people of Ireland

Crooked Jack

I swindled the NSA wrote: »

Maybe someone should tell the Liberal Democrats and UKIP and the Greens and Plaid Cymru and the SDLP and the UUP and the DUP that theyre wasting their time representing their respective constituents in the House of Commons as well ?

SDLP certainly are.

UUP and DUP I'd imagine know they are but just love all the pomp and British eccentricity that comes with being a member of the "mother parliament." Might even be able to knock a lordship out of it, get into that old boys club

Godge

stan larsen wrote: »

I recall Doherty making this point at the time – I certainly got the impression that he was being sincere!

Pearse does sincerity well. He was also sincere when he said there were no kangaroo courts dealing with child sexual abuse.

The problem is, as well as being sincere, he is ignorant of what really goes on. That makes it ok for the Belfast Brigade because they can let him out front while the real stuff goes on unnoticed behind the scenes.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

Pearse does sincerity well. He was also sincere when he said there were no kangaroo courts dealing with child sexual abuse.

The problem is, as well as being sincere, he is ignorant of what really goes on. That makes it ok for the Belfast Brigade because they can let him out front while the real stuff goes on unnoticed behind the scenes.

Except by you. You have this crystal ball that lets you and only you see behind "the scenes."
Your descriptions of SF as some shady organisation from a noir film get increasingly farcical with each post.

I swindled the NSA

Crooked Jack wrote: »

SDLP certainly are.

And what of the other parties ?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

instead of wasting their mandate by sleeping on green benches during debates on english tax law.

Don't most "English" tax laws apply in Northern Ireland too ?

stan larsen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

And they do, as active abstentionists. Like I said, more time in the constituency, more time working on constituency matters, more actual influence as part of a team negotiating directly with the brit gov rather than being ignored on the floor of the HOC

That’s a curious view. Many of us think that one of the problems with the Dáil is that it contains far too many members who are of the mindset that you are championing - i.e. county councillors sitting in the national parliament.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But there's no comparison between the Dail and Westminster. TDs can have influence in the Dail. As i outlined in my last post, Irish MPs have little to no influence in Westminster. They jet off over there and arent heard from for 5 years because most of their time is wasted on debates that mean nothing to us, preventing them from doing constituency work. Unlike SF MPs, who can and do represent their constituencies where it matters, instead of wasting their mandate by sleeping on green benches during debates on english tax law.

If you take the view (or suggest that Sinn Féin take the view) that engaging in parliamentary politics serves no purpose then surely the logical position for SF to take is to shun national elections altogether and put their efforts in to local elections? And allow those who do see a purpose in having representation in the house of commons the opportunity to have it?


Your reasoning that the voters of the constituencies held by SF can mange just fine without parliamentary representation strikes me as very similar to Fianna Fáil’s reasoning in relation to that bye-election in Donegal.

And your argument that a member of the Dáil has more influence that a member of the H of C, while true, does not rebut the argument that SF have one attitude to the right to parliamentary representation North of the border and a different one South.

Thomas_.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I clearly support SF. Obviously Id prefer if everybody did, regardless of religion. ...

Of course you do, I always knew that.

... Firstly, sitting in Westminster is actually a very small part of an MP's role. Average attendance sits at around 60ish per cent, that drops even lower when you talk about Irish MPs given the amount of issues actually dealt with by the Assembly.
Out of the 650 seats in the HOC, 18 go to Ireland. Even if, and that's a HUGE IF, Irish MPs could get over their fundamental differences and vote the same way, they would, and do, have zero effect on any outcome. We are an utter irrelevance there. On the rare occasions when irish issues come up I urge you to tune in to the Live Parliament on TV. The place is practically empty apart from a handful of sleeping MPs.
Sinn Fein, however, unencumbered by wasting time with all the pomp and bollocks that goes with the HOC have more time to work on constituency issues and actually be in their constituency.
They use their mandate to lobby political parties, unions, interest groups and ambassadors on any number of issues.
They still attend all the meetings to do with constituency or regional work, for example, SF's Conor Murphy was involved in all the same meetings as SDLP's Margaret Ritchie when it came to opposing the removal of certain government jobs from the north to England.

They also effect real change by negotiating directly with the British Government rather than being ignored on the floor of the commons.

From a purely ideological point of view I wouldnt want my representative sitting in a British parliament or taking an oath to any monarch anyway.
Sinn Fein do not attempt to trick people with this. They have been quite open about this policy for almost 100 years. People vote for them knowing this full well.

If you are actively voting for an abstentionist party why would you want your vote to go to the opposite of that? You seem to have an issue grasping even the most basic concept of politics.

That´s the usual Shinner talk.

Crooked Jack

stan larsen wrote: »

That’s a curious view. Many of us think that one of the problems with the Dáil is that it contains far too many members who are of the mindset that you are championing - i.e. county councillors sitting in the national parliament.

What? Just...what? IF you want to engage then engage on the points I'm making, not the ones you make up in your wee head for me

If you take the view (or suggest that Sinn Féin take the view) that engaging in parliamentary politics serves no purpose

I dont and havent

then surely the logical position for SF to take is to shun national elections altogether and put their efforts in to local elections?

Perhaps, in this parallel world you've invented

And allow those who do see a purpose in having representation in the house of commons the opportunity to have it?

They do have the opportunity. For example in my own constituency of Newry/Armagh, four other people put themselves forward for election along with the Sinn Fein candidate. The Sinn Fein candidate won decisively.

Your reasoning that the voters of the constituencies held by SF can mange just fine without parliamentary representation

Again, not even nearly what I said. Im referring specifically to HOC. They're well represented in the Assembly, local gov and Europe. HOC is a waste of a mandate and abstentionist MPs but their mandate to better use than sitting half asleep on the green benches listening to toffy english etonians waffle about shit totally irrelevant to us.

strikes me as very similar to Fianna Fáil’s reasoning in relation to that bye-election in Donegal.

Well it would, because going by this post your reason is utterly skewed and bizarre.

And your argument that a member of the Dáil has more influence that a member of the H of C, while true, does not rebut the argument that SF have one attitude to the right to parliamentary representation North of the border and a different one South.

No, the fact the Sinn Fein do NOT have one attitude to the right to parliamentary representation north of the border and a different one south rebuts that daft argument.
Are you now suggesting sinn fein dont take their seats in the Assembly?

Crooked Jack

Thomas_. wrote: »

Of course you do, I always knew that.

Yet you felt the need to get worked up about someone who supports a party wanting other people to support that party. You do know how the political system works, dont you?

That´s the usual Shinner talk.

And that's the usual anti-SF talk. Nothing to say, nothing to offer, no rebuttal, no counter, no corrections, no alternative view, no competing points, no links, no evidence, no debate; just one snide, dismissive line and then run away.

I'll take "Shinner talk" over that level of ignorant cowardice any day

MRnotlob606

That doesn't imply that those Catholic are republicans. I have a lot of Catholic friends in Northern Ireland who are Unionist.

stan larsen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What? Just...what? IF you want to engage then engage on the points I'm making, not the ones you make up in your wee head for me

The point only got in to my head because it first appeared in your post. I said that many of us disapprove of politicians who are elected to the Dáil but who are focused on local politics. And you very much endorsed this approach in relation to Northern politics.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Like I said, more time in the constituency, more time working on constituency matters

They (Irish MPs) jet off over there and arent heard from for 5 years because most of their time is wasted on debates that mean nothing to us, preventing them from doing constituency work.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont and haven’t

You’re kidding? The substantial point you made was that there was no point in Irish MPs sitting in the house of commons.

In any case, that was a side observation. My main point was that there quite clearly was an inconsistency, to put it mildly, when SF complained about been denied representation in Donegal while they refuse to represent their constituents in parliament.

And the whole abstaining thing it a bit daft anyway. It derives from the long-held view of SF that Britain has no authority to govern Ireland and to engage electorally gives them legitimacy. That ship has long since sailed.

Crooked Jack

stan larsen wrote: »

The point only got in to my head because it first appeared in your post. I said that many of us disapprove of politicians who are elected to the Dáil but who are focused on local politics. And you very much endorsed this approach in relation to Northern politics.

No, i did not. Like I said, SF take their seats in the assembly and europe. They dont sit in the HOC, which has little to do with us. Constituency work was one example of what an abstentionist MP does. You merrily ignored the other examples because they dont suit your agenda.
Again, if you want to engage, please engage based on what I actually said.

You’re kidding? The substantial point you made was that there was no point in Irish MPs sitting in the house of commons.

Bingo!

In any case, that was a side observation. My main point was that there quite clearly was an inconsistency, to put it mildly, when SF complained about been denied representation in Donegal while they refuse to represent their constituents in parliament.

Wrong! The sit in the Dail, the Assembly and Europe. Anyway, there is no comparison between the Dail and the HOC. Irish reps sitting in Irish parliaments discussing Irish issues? All for it.
Irish reps heading over to an old boys club to swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch and then proceed to waste their time listening to debates on issues that have nothing to do with us AND that they couldnt possibly have any influence over anyway given the composition of the HOC? Nah, balls to that.

And the whole abstaining thing it a bit daft anyway.

176,000+ people seem to disagree with you there

It derives from the long-held view of SF that Britain has no authority to govern Ireland and to engage electorally gives them legitimacy.

Oh, look at that, a statement based in reality. well done.

That ship has long since sailed.

How, we have Irish representatives, elected by Irish people, sitting in Irish parliaments discussing Irish issues. Balls to Westminster. How does it becoming increasingly irrelevant to people here do anything other than help SF's goal?

I swindled the NSA

How is Westminster "increasingly irrelevant" ?

It still has jurisdiction over Northern Ireland you may disapprove of this state of affairs for whatever reason and that is your prerogative but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la Irrelevant" is not going to change it.

johnnyskeleton

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Oh, look at that, a statement based in reality. well done.

During the period running up to the election the mods will have their hands full, especially as we are currently a lady down at the moment. So I'm going to ask posters in difficult threads like this one to be extra nice to each other so that the mods have one less thing to worry about over the next few weeks.

You can all go back to thumping each other gleefully after next friday (within limits)

Crooked Jack

I swindled the NSA wrote: »

How is Westminster "increasingly irrelevant" ?

As more and more powers move to the Assembly it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
As Westminster continues to prove that it is in fact an english parliament where english MPs have supremacy and those in the colonies have little to no influence (just look at their attitude to 56 SNP MPs) it will become increasingly irrelevant in those places.

It still has jurisdiction over Northern Ireland you may disapprove of this state of affairs for whatever reason and that is your prerogative but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la Irrelevant" is not going to change it.

Never said it would, but the stuff i outlined above will

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

As more and more powers move to the Assembly it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
As Westminster continues to prove that it is in fact an english parliament where english MPs have supremacy and those in the colonies have little to no influence (just look at their attitude to 56 SNP MPs) it will become increasingly irrelevant in those places.

That's factually incorrect. England doesn't have a Parliament.

Also I don't buy the "Irish MPs won't have a voice" or "the issues aren't relevant" line as the same applies moreso to the European Parliament where SF sit.

Just be honest SF won't sit in the Commons because they have a chip on their shoulder and would deny their own constituents representation due to their own prejudices.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's factually incorrect. England doesn't have a Parliament.

I never said it has a parliament (although the EVEL thing is becoming increasingly likely) I said that's how it operates. The example i offered was both labour and the tories saying theyd have nothing to do with the SNP no matter how many votes they got. They didnt care what their mandate was, they'd rather not be in power than be in power with any of the colonies.

Also I don't buy the "Irish MPs won't have a voice"

Our 18MPs, even if they did all vote together, which they never do, make no difference in there whatsoever.

or "the issues aren't relevant"

The vast majority of them arent. Look at the attendance figures for Irish MPs. The SDLP hover in and around 20-25%. Mallon, even during direct rule, attended about 3% of the time. Even unionist MPs who love all that "mother of parliaments" nonsense are well below average at anywhere between 45% and 60%.

line as the same applies more so to the European Parliament where SF sit.

Nah. SF sit in the GUE/NGL block and as the biggest Irish party there (well, equal to FG) have more influence than most Irish MEPs. There are huge decisions made in Europe and it's important we have representation there. The same cannot be said for the HOC where any decision that affect Ireland are decided in negotiations between the brit gov and OFMDMF/The Assembly parties.
It's also important we have representation in europe, particularly in the north, so we can raise issues there on issues such as, for example, human rights abuses, which the brits are hardly gonna investigate properly themselves.
And that's just off the top of my head. No comparison between Irish reps in Europe and HOC.

Just be honest SF won't sit in the Commons because they have a chip on their shoulder and would deny their own constituents representation due to their own prejudices.

A long held political belief is now a "chip on your shoulder."
Completely betraying everything you stand for (cant exactly be a republican and swear an oath to a monarch) is a "chip on your shoulder.
Well, 176,000+ people voted for SF knowing full well their policy so they must all have a "chip on their shoulder."
How exactly are they denying their constituents anything when they are doing exactly what they were elected to do. To go into HOC would be to deny their constituents the representation they want. You cant run a campaign on an abstentionist mandate and then when elected change your mind.
Some absolute waffle on this issue.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I never said it has a parliament (although the EVEL thing is becoming increasingly likely) I said that's how it operates. The example i offered was both labour and the tories saying theyd have nothing to do with the SNP no matter how many votes they got. They didnt care what their mandate was, they'd rather not be in power than be in power with any of the colonies.

I think you'll find Labour and the SNP were planning an anti-Tory alliance. Westminster is not an English parliament, you can huff and puff about numbers but the fact the majority of British people live in England does not make Westminster an English parliament.

btw I heard Gerry during the count refer to it as "West Minister". He should know the name of the parliament his party is contesting. :P

Our 18MPs, even if they did all vote together, which they never do, make no difference in there whatsoever.

Same with the Dail. If all opposition TDs voted together, which they never do, it would make no difference whatsoever. That's not unique to Westminster.

The vast majority of them arent. Look at the attendance figures for Irish MPs. The SDLP hover in and around 20-25%. Mallon, even during direct rule, attended about 3% of the time. Even unionist MPs who love all that "mother of parliaments" nonsense are well below average at anywhere between 45% and 60%.

Attendence records don't indicate the relevence of what is being discussed. In Europe very little is relevant but SF take their seats there so I don't buy the "it's not relevant" line.

Nah. SF sit in the GUE/NGL block and as the biggest Irish party there (well, equal to FG) have more influence than most Irish MEPs. There are huge decisions made in Europe and it's important we have representation there. The same cannot be said for the HOC where any decision that affect Ireland are decided in negotiations between the brit gov and OFMDMF/The Assembly parties.
It's also important we have representation in europe, particularly in the north, so we can raise issues there on issues such as, for example, human rights abuses, which the brits are hardly gonna investigate properly themselves.
And that's just off the top of my head. No comparison between Irish reps in Europe and HOC.

The GUE/NGL hold only 52 out of 752 seats in the European Parliment and SF only hold 4 out of the 52. They're utterly irrelevant, every criticism you've levelled against the Commons can be levelled against the European Parliament. Which shows these aren't really the reasons.

A long held political belief is now a "chip on your shoulder."
Completely betraying everything you stand for (cant exactly be a republican and swear an oath to a monarch) is a "chip on your shoulder.
Well, 176,000+ people voted for SF knowing full well their policy so they must all have a "chip on their shoulder."
How exactly are they denying their constituents anything when they are doing exactly what they were elected to do. To go into HOC would be to deny their constituents the representation they want. You cant run a campaign on an abstentionist mandate and then when elected change your mind.
Some absolute waffle on this issue.

An MP does not only represent the people who vote for them. An MP represents all their constituents and SF are denying these people representation in the Commons due to their own prejudices.

catbear

If the queen turned catholic in the morning would it be assumed that all Catholics are monarchists?

I ask as some assume all Catholics are republican.

stan larsen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An MP does not only represent the people who vote for them. An MP represents all their constituents and SF are denying these people representation in the Commons due to their own prejudices.

And complained when FF were doing exactly the same thing in Donegal!

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think you'll find Labour and the SNP were planning an anti-Tory alliance. Westminster is not an English parliament, you can huff and puff about numbers but the fact the majority of British people live in England does not make Westminster an English parliament.

btw I heard Gerry during the count refer to it as "West Minister". He should know the name of the parliament his party is contesting. :P

Oops. Nope. Try again.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/ed-miliband-i-would-rather-not-be-in-downing-street-than-do-snp-deal.124842766

Same with the Dail. If all opposition TDs voted together, which they never do, it would make no difference whatsoever. That's not unique to Westminster.

Im not talking about opposition here. Im talking about any issue that affected the north. Even if all the northern MPs were against it, it wouldnt matter, it would be decided by 500 odd english MPs. Totally different. how can you not see that.

Attendence records don't indicate the relevence of what is being discussed. In Europe very little is relevant but SF take their seats there so I don't buy the "it's not relevant" line.

Of course, obviously people arent showing up because its so important and relevant :rolleyes:

The GUE/NGL hold only 52 out of 752 seats in the European Parliment and SF only hold 4 out of the 52. They're utterly irrelevant, every criticism you've levelled against the Commons can be levelled against the European Parliament. Which shows these aren't really the reasons.

52 is quite a significant block when you consider that all the other blocks range from the 40s to around 200. thats a significant enough number to have influence. Absolutely nothing like having 18 (14, really) disparate MPs in a house of 650.

An MP does not only represent the people who vote for them. An MP represents all their constituents and SF are denying these people representation in the Commons due to their own prejudices.

They are elected on an abstentionist basis. While an MP does indeed represent everybody they dont then turn around and reject their own policies just to please everyone. A unionist MP wont vote in favour of something his nationalist constituents want just because he's supposed to represent everyone. you simply cant represent everyone on everything. If you could there'd be no need for elections.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Oops. Nope. Try again.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/ed-miliband-i-would-rather-not-be-in-downing-street-than-do-snp-deal.124842766

They say that before the election and now after the result but if they had been able to form a government they would have.

Im not talking about opposition here. Im talking about any issue that affected the north. Even if all the northern MPs were against it, it wouldnt matter, it would be decided by 500 odd english MPs. Totally different. how can you not see that.

It's the same thing in the Dail, even if every opposition TD voted against any issue that would affect SF constituents it wouldn't matter. SF have the same power in the Dail than they would in Westminster.

Of course, obviously people arent showing up because its so important and relevant.

They're politicians, they wouldn't show up even if it was.

52 is quite a significant block when you consider that all the other blocks range from the 40s to around 200. thats a significant enough number to have influence. Absolutely nothing like having 18 (14, really) disparate MPs in a house of 650.

52 is nothing among 750, and SF only have 4 seats in that bloc of 52. Now you're really grasping for straws.

They are elected on an abstentionist basis. While an MP does indeed represent everybody they dont then turn around and reject their own policies just to please everyone. A unionist MP wont vote in favour of something his nationalist constituents want just because he's supposed to represent everyone. you simply cant represent everyone on everything. If you could there'd be no need for elections.

SF are denying these people their representation in Parliament, they're denying their constituents their right to democratic representation.

SF absenteeism has nothing to do with not having influence or the issues not being relevant. We this with the European Parliament. SF absenteeism is due to a chip on their shoulder and long running prejudice and they are willing to selfishly deny democratic representation to their own constituents due to this.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They say that before the election and now after the result but if they had been able to form a government they would have.

well firstly, youve no way of knowing that and secondly, that's not actually what you said. You said they had a pre-election agreement on this issue, which they patently did not.

I think you'll find Labour and the SNP were planning an anti-Tory alliance

It's the same thing in the Dail, even if every opposition TD voted against any issue that would affect SF constituents it wouldn't matter. SF have the same power in the Dail than they would in Westminster.

No they dont. The Dail is an Irish parliament full of Irish representatives dealing with irish issues. Westminster is overwhelmingly english and if something doesnt suit them they can railroad it over all the other MPs. The same situation does not exist in the Dail where representatives from different countries can force something on another country.
Not to mention the fact that this is just one of a number of reasons they dont take their seats.
This is very basic stuff.

They're politicians, they wouldn't show up even if it was.

cute but baseless. Average attendance in the Assembly is in the high 90s while in the Dail it's in the 70s but that doesnt count the difference between someone who simply wasnt present and somebody who consciously abstained from a vote. Both a long way off Seamus Mallons 3%.

52 is nothing among 750, and SF only have 4 seats in that bloc of 52. Now you're really grasping for straws.

I've already addressed this and your response was to write the same thing again. Go back and read my original reply, feel free to re-read it as much as you like.

SF are denying these people their representation in Parliament, they're denying their constituents their right to democratic representation.

Their constituents democratically voted for abstentionism. Their democratic choice was for their representative to be loyal to them, not a foreign queen and to be there when they need them, not sleeping in westminster.
To go into HOC when people voted for abstentionism would be to deny their constituents their right to democratic representation.
How can you not grasp this?
You also seem to have a very limited knowledge about the role of an MP. As pointed out, sitting in HOC is only a small part of the role, a role that becomes even small and less relevant when youre an Irish MP

keeponhurling

Crooked Jack wrote: »

In the previous westminster election Sinn Fein got more votes than the DUP but 3 less seats

Gerrymandering ??!!

Crooked Jack

keeponhurling wrote: »

Gerrymandering ??!!

It's more to do with FPTP and the way constituency boundaries are drawn but it does raise a number of questions

keeponhurling

stan larsen wrote: »

And complained when FF were doing exactly the same thing in Donegal!

Surely you can see the difference between an abstentionist candidate being democratically elected, and the case where constituents aren't given a vote at all ?

Anyways, to go back to the OP, it was a very inappropriate leaflet by Gerry Kelly, and he should know better.
In defence of SF, they do seem to have recognized this pretty quickly and cone out to criticize Kelly.
Not sure if the party have internal processes to follow.

I think the "he's only quoting facts from the census" defence is pretty weak

stan larsen

keeponhurling wrote: »

Surely you can see the difference between an abstentionist candidate being democratically elected, and the case where constituents aren't given a vote at all ?

Certainly the motives of FF and SF were different. And at least with our multi-seat constituencies the people had some (2 ?) representatives in parliament. Constituencies held by SF in NI have none.

But you are right, it's off topic. I will cease and desist.

Crooked Jack

stan larsen wrote: »

Certainly the motives of FF and SF were different. And at least with our multi-seat constituencies the people had some (2 ?) representatives in parliament. Constituencies held by SF in NI have none.

But you are right, it's off topic. I will cease and desist.

youre also just plain wrong

I swindled the NSA

catbear wrote: »

If the queen turned catholic in the morning would it be assumed that all Catholics are monarchists?

I ask as some assume all Catholics are republican.

If Britain ditched the Queen in the morning and became a Republic would any "Republican's" change their minds about this United Ireland thing ?

Crooked Jack

I swindled the NSA wrote: »

If Britain ditched the Queen in the morning and became a Republic would any "Republican's" change their minds about this United Ireland thing ?

why would they?

I swindled the NSA

Crooked Jack wrote: »

why would they?

Because theyre "Republicans" -(or claim to be) why wouldn't they ?

Crooked Jack

I swindled the NSA wrote: »

Because theyre "Republicans" -(or claim to be) why wouldn't they ?

Irish republicans. What difference would it make if its a republican state occupying us? America is a republic. Do you not think if america invaded tomorrow we'd oppose that?