Séamus Mallon interview on RTÉ Radio 1 now

[Deleted User]

Jesus (Marian Finucane Show now). What a poignant interview in so many respects. The story about the councillor's comment on pigs and allocation of council homes that moved him from teaching into politics was spinechilling. As was his recollection of Kingsmill and the Reavey family deaths. So, so much in a single interview. He talks about building a friendship with Trimble and its "challenges" (to put it mildly) and how he grew to respect him and is equally frank about Peter Mandelson (whom he distrusts intensely).

He's 82 now and he carries so much experience in his voice. I always had an awful lot of time for the man and he was a breath of fresh air from the Alban Maginness types in the SDLP.

ILoveYourVibes

Fuaranach wrote: »

Jesus (Marian Finucane Show now). What a poignant interview in so many respects. The story about the councillor's comment on pigs and allocation of council homes that moved him from teaching into politics was spinechilling. As was his recollection of Kingsmill and the Reavey family deaths. So, so much in a single interview. He talks about building a friendship with Trimble and its "challenges" (to put it mildly) and how he grew to respect him and is equally frank about Peter Mandelson (whom he distrusts intensely).

He's 82 now and he carries so much experience in his voice. I always had an awful lot of time for the man and he was a breath of fresh air from the Alban Maginness types in the SDLP.

He never really meant to be politician he just wanted to help people.

FrancieBrady

He comes across as being very bitter about the demise of the SDLP when it was their own failures that ruined them.
They made a bags of Sunningdale and committed what was correctly viewed as treachery taking seats after it, with no end to internment and no reform of policing. He doesn't get questioned closely enough about himself and O'Grady and others making Hume go on a solo run with his pivotal peacemaking. His worry was about the party and not peace.

All in all the SDLP were too easily used by Unionism and the British, at the expense of Nationalists and they paid the price for that.

votecounts

A bitter old man who cannot comprehand that SF are the voice of nationalism now who won't pander to unionists like the SDLP. Good Riddance

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

He comes across as being very bitter about the demise of the SDLP when it was their own failures that ruined them. They made a bags of Sunningdale and committed what was correctly viewed as treachery taking seats after it, with no end to internment and no reform of policing. He doesn't get questioned closely enough about himself and O'Grady and others making Hume go on a solo run with his pivotal peacemaking. His worry was about the party and not peace.

The guy won the Nobel Peace Prize. That's sums up how much his contribution to peace was viewed internationally. To accuse him and others on both sides of the divide of putting party before peace is insulting. They did the exact opposite and in John Humes case his party suffered for it.

Unfortunately the politics in the North still revolves around a sectarian headcount and moderates are punished as you so perfectly illustrate the compromises required are considered treachery on both sides. Remember SF and the DUP didn't become the largest parties on either side of the divide until both moderated their policies. For both SF and the DUP the current situation as bad as it is, is still a massive compromise compared to when both parties were born in the late 60s early 70s. It's people like John Hume who deserve a lot of credit for laying the foundations for that.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

The guy won the Nobel Peace Prize. That's sums up how much his contribution to peace was viewed internationally. To accuse him and others on both sides of the divide of putting party before peace is insulting. They did the exact opposite and in John Humes case his party suffered for it.

Unfortunately the politics in the North still revolves around a sectarian headcount and moderates are punished as you so perfectly illustrate the compromises required are considered treachery on both sides. Remember SF and the DUP didn't become the largest parties on either side of the divide until both moderated their policies. For both SF and the DUP the current situation as bad as it is, is still a massive compromise compared to when both parties were born in the late 60s early 70s. It's people like John Hume who deserve a lot of credit for laying the foundations for that.

Mallon didn't win the NP. Hume did, and it was for his solo run against the wishes of the most of the SDLP.
I will remind you that Obama also won the NP as did David Trimble who had 'moderately' threatened the need for violence to bring down the Anglo Irish Agreement previously and didn't garnish himself in the moderate accolades when he triumphantly got marching down Garvaghy Road.

Hume deserves credit for what he did, but had Sunningdale worked (without and end to internment, reform of policing and a Council Of Ireland - that was an ineffectual talking shop controlled ultimately by the Unionist Veto, he'd have been just as happy with that, so too would Mallon.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

Hume deserves credit for what he did, but had Sunningdale worked (without and end to internment, reform of policing and a Council Of Ireland - that was an ineffectual talking shop controlled ultimately by the Unionist Veto, he'd have been just as happy with that, so too would Mallon.

I got Hume and Mallon mixed up apologies. However when it comes to the relative peace NI enjoys Mallon and the SDLP in general deserve huge credit for what they did. They did that in spite of the violence on both sides.

Calling people like Hume traitors and the SDLP in general shows nothing has been learnt. The same logic could be applied to the modern SF and DUP. Imagine if back in the 1970s SF had been told what they'd actually end up with after all the violence(actually we don't just look at the dissidents who use the exact same logic you use against the GFA and SF). The same for Paisley and the DUP that he'd actually not only agree to power sharing but would also share power with a former senior member of the IRA. It was people like that for whom moderates fought on both sides and ultimately agreed the messy compromises required for peace. Without people like that the troubles would have lasted even longer.

It's a shame the SDLP have declined however at this stage how different are SF when compared to the SDLP of the 1970s?

blanch152

PeadarCo wrote: »

I got Hume and Mallon mixed up apologies. However when it comes to the relative peace NI enjoys Mallon and the SDLP in general deserve huge credit for what they did. They did that in spite of the violence on both sides.

Calling people like Hume traitors and the SDLP in general shows nothing has been learnt. The same logic could be applied to the modern SF and DUP. Imagine if back in the 1970s SF had been told what they'd actually end up with after all the violence(actually we don't just look at the dissidents who use the exact same logic you use against the GFA and SF). The same for Paisley and the DUP that he'd actually not only agree to power sharing but would also share power with a former senior member of the IRA. It was people like that for whom moderates fought on both sides and ultimately agreed the messy compromises required for peace. Without people like that the troubles would have lasted even longer.

It's a shame the SDLP have declined however at this stage how different are SF when compared to the SDLP of the 1970s?

And that is why Hume and Trimble got the Nobel Peace Prize, while the likes of Adams and Paisley did not.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

I got Hume and Mallon mixed up apologies. However when it comes to the relative peace NI enjoys Mallon and the SDLP in general deserve huge credit for what they did. They did that in spite of the violence on both sides.

Calling people like Hume traitors and the SDLP in general shows nothing has been learnt. The same logic could be applied to the modern SF and DUP. Imagine if back in the 1970s SF had been told what they'd actually end up with after all the violence(actually we don't just look at the dissidents who use the exact same logic you use against the GFA and SF). The same for Paisley and the DUP that he'd actually not only agree to power sharing but would also share power with a former senior member of the IRA. It was people like that for whom moderates fought on both sides and ultimately agreed the messy compromises required for peace. Without people like that the troubles would have lasted even longer.

It's a shame the SDLP have declined however at this stage how different are SF when compared to the SDLP of the 1970s?

I have given Hume his due for finally realising you would never have peace until all were at the table and for convincing others of that.
However, I think it does nobody any favours if you try to re-write history.

The SDLP declined because they were (rightly IMO) seen as being more interested in the party and the comfy seats as the primary nationalists despite failing to achieve all that much for them.
Taking their seats after having a red line on policing reform and internment was a betrayal of nationalists.

Mallon routinely tries to portray himself as a victim of somebody stealing his clothes but a real understanding of the facts does not support that.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

I have given Hume his due for finally realising you would never have peace until all were at the table and for convincing others of that. However, I think it does nobody any favours if you try to re-write history.

I'm not rewriting history. Until the IRA stopped in violence the SDLP got the majority of nationalist votes and were the voice of the nationalist community for 30 odd years. Which is good going when unfortunately the main competition comes from within the tribal lines. Once the IRA gave up their arms and SF committed themselves to peaceful politics if you wanted a peaceful but yet hardline nationalist stance why would anyone vote SDLP over SF. The DUP has attracted votes for similar reasons.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'm not rewriting history. Until the IRA stopped in violence the SDLP got the majority of nationalist votes and were the voice of the nationalist community for 30 odd years. Which is good going when unfortunately the main competition comes from within the tribal lines. Once the IRA gave up their arms and SF committed themselves to peaceful politics if you wanted a peaceful but yet hardline nationalist stance why would anyone vote SDLP over SF. The DUP has attracted votes for similar reasons.

You are trying to rewrite history Peadar in fairness, in refusing to accept the rightful criticism of the SDLP and Hume.

All too often they capitulated short of actually achieving anything. Sunningdale being a case in point. In fact their naivety played no small part in Faulkner and Unionists backing out of Sunningdale. They were going about trumpeting that Sunningdale would 'trundle Unionists into a United Ireland' when it had no chance of ever doing that, given Unionists could still veto anything they didn't like.
You cannot seriously pretend that a party that was banned until 1974 and who were so blackened in the media, who were intimidated, shot and arrested had a chance to compete on a level playing field at the ballot box?

That is just the type of self serving rubbish Mallon comes out with.

jm08

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'm not rewriting history. Until the IRA stopped in violence the SDLP got the majority of nationalist votes and were the voice of the nationalist community for 30 odd years. Which is good going when unfortunately the main competition comes from within the tribal lines. Once the IRA gave up their arms and SF committed themselves to peaceful politics if you wanted a peaceful but yet hardline nationalist stance why would anyone vote SDLP over SF. The DUP has attracted votes for similar reasons.

First of all, Sinn Fein were abstentionists and didn't change that policy until the hunger strikes when Bobby Sands was elected MP. Then there was the voice ban (which was lifted in 1994).

Whether anyone likes it or not, the nationalist community in NI have turned their backs on the SDLP for whatever reason and are now voting for Sinn Fein. Seamus Mallon and co. should respect that.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

First of all, Sinn Fein were abstentionists and didn't change that policy until the hunger strikes when Bobby Sands was elected MP. Then there was the voice ban (which was lifted in 1994).

Whether anyone likes it or not, the nationalist community in NI have turned their backs on the SDLP for whatever reason and are now voting for Sinn Fein. Seamus Mallon and co. should respect that.

It is no accident that the SDLP like to look at the electoral history as if there was a level playing field. It appeals to and satisfies those who only want to take a cursory look.
Very few look beyond Mallon's bitter and bitchy contention that the GFA was 'Sunningdale for slow learners' as well. it very much wasn't. The SDLP came back from Sunningdale with nothing of any import, no reform of policing and no resolution on internment and the Council of Ireland that 'would be the mechanism to trundle Unionists into a United Ireland' was dismissed correctly by Brian Faulkner:

Brian Faulkner wrote:

Nothing agreed on at Sunningdale infringed on the powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly by which everything would have to be approved and delegated. Given the overwhelming Unionist composition of that body and the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers we were satisfied that the constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland was secure. … The Council of Ireland was not the massive Trojan Horse people were led … to believe. … We had … control over the direction and pace of its developments
and … its establishment would in no way compromise … [our] position as citizens of the United Kingdom

Dyr

Seamus Mallon, the fella who's still proposing a unionist veto on a United Ireland.

The SDLP downfall had a lot to do with Mallon and Hume's shortcomings as leaders

realdanbreen

It's pathetic( and I said it would be at the time) that all that hand wringing and crocodile tears that were shed and all the politicians jockeying for seats in the church when that young journalist was murdered a few weeks back counts for jack ****. All of those elected politicians who are refusing to attend Stormont and work together should be turfed out immediately.Course it won't even be proposed never mind happen.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's pathetic( and I said it would be at the time) that all that hand wringing and crocodile tears that were shed and all the politicians jockeying for seats in the church when that young journalist was murdered a few weeks back counts for jack ****. All of those elected politicians who are refusing to attend Stormont and work together should be turfed out immediately.Course it won't even be proposed never mind happen.

The SDLP had no problem absenting themselves from Stormont when it suited them.

There is a democratic deficit in Stormont and it has to be sorted out. The fault here lies with an uncaring Tory party and British government reneging on it's duties and responsibilities again with respect to the last vestiges of the Unionist veto.
They have hijacked the petition of concern to cling onto that veto and it has brought politics to a standstill. As long as that pertains normal politics is impossible, even negotiating a deal is impossible as we have already seen.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The SDLP had no problem absenting themselves from Stormont when it suited them.

There is a democratic deficit in Stormont and it has to be sorted out. The fault here lies with an uncaring Tory party and British government reneging on it's duties and responsibilities again with respect to the last vestiges of the Unionist veto.
They have hijacked the petition of concern to cling onto that veto and it has brought politics to a standstill. As long as that pertains normal politics is impossible, even negotiating a deal is impossible as we have already seen.

I really don't know what you're on about but be that as it may, do you think that the politicians who are not doing what they were elected to do should be sacked?

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

I really don't know what you're on about but be that as it may, do you think that the politicians who are not doing what they were elected to do should be sacked?

You are not dealing with a government(Stormont) like any other. There is an international agreement that oversees (or should over see) how they work powersharing.

This oversight has failed in not pinpointing the problem that has caused the stagnation of the GFA process and doing something about it.
Sacking politicians is not going to solve the fundamental problems.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are not dealing with a government(Stormont) like any other. There is an international agreement that oversees (or should over see) how they work powersharing.

This oversight has failed in not pinpointing the problem that has caused the stagnation of the GFA process and doing something about it.
Sacking politicians is not going to solve the fundamental problems.

So you think paying them in full plus all the expenses etc is acceptable? Like I say they appeared on TV with solemn mournful and concerned faces when that young woman was murdered, they would leave no stone unturned blah blah blah, and yet they still can not sit down and try to govern a tiny portion of land, hypocrytes the lot of them.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

So you think paying them in full plus all the expenses etc is acceptable? Like I say they appeared on TV with solemn mournful and concerned faces when that young woman was murdered, they would leave no stone unturned blah blah blah, and yet they still can not sit down and try to govern a tiny portion of land, hypocrytes the lot of them.

If you don't fix the fundamental problems then no matter who is elected after sacking them, you will be back here soon enough.

The 'problem' is that the co-guarantor governments have abdicated their responsibilities and firstly turned a blind eye over 20 years as it slowly ground to a halt and by allowing themselves to be in hock to one of the parties. (IMO the problem party, the one using Petition Of Concern to preserve the last vestige of the Unionist Veto - which is there was a need for an 'agreement' in the first place)

realdanbreen

I'll try again, should they be paid in full or not?

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'll try again, should they be paid in full or not?

'Not paying them' now, as a coercive way of getting them back in Stormont would be counterproductive, it is can-kicking.

I wouldn't have a problem when they do get back of laying down a rule that they don't get paid in future if it collapses for 3 or 4 months or more.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Not paying them' now, as a coercive way of getting them back in Stormont would be counterproductive, it is can-kicking.

I wouldn't have a problem when they do get back of laying down a rule that they don't get paid in future if it collapses for 3 or 4 months or more.

Between politicians getting paid handsomely for not doing what they are supposed to be doing and hundreds of 'community activists' being paid to not do what they had been doing in the past it's no wonder the place is a basket case.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

Between politicians getting paid handsomely for not doing what they are supposed to be doing and hundreds of 'community activists' being paid to not do what they had been doing in the past it's no wonder the place is a basket case.

That is just trite finger pointing tbh and lacking in any solutions.
None of this would have happened at all had those with responsibility, taken it.

Here we are letting the place go to sh** and letting them away with it again.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't fix the fundamental problems then no matter who is elected after sacking them, you will be back here soon enough.

Not necessarily. If the people of the North have the sense to move away from the two extremist parties and vote for something sensible, then we could see a government in place fairly quickly. It comes down to how much the Northern people want Stormont. Have an election and vote out the DUP and SF and Stormont would be up and running very quickly.

I suspect that neither DUP nor SF actually wants Stormont, and they are only play-acting.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Not necessarily. If the people of the North have the sense to move away from the two extremist parties and vote for something sensible, then we could see a government in place fairly quickly. It comes down to how much the Northern people want Stormont. Have an election and vote out the DUP and SF and Stormont would be up and running very quickly.

I suspect that neither DUP nor SF actually wants Stormont, and they are only play-acting.

And again, the 'vote the way I want you to' attitude caused enough problems in northern Ireland already.

What you are trying to do is run away from the inherent problem of partition and the concentrating of one identity unnaturally. That is why voting is polarised and there is no end in sight to that fundamental.
Again, that is why we have a unique system of government and an international agreement to oversee it. Oversight that is failing the process.

gizmo555

PeadarCo wrote: »

Once the IRA gave up their arms and SF committed themselves to peaceful politics if you wanted a peaceful but yet hardline nationalist stance why would anyone vote SDLP over SF.

I find the SF slogan on its current Euro and local election posters absolutely repulsive. "Fighting for you", or "Fighting for Ireland". Fighting who, exactly?

To me it's just a nudge, nudge, wink, wink expression that it's still the political wing of the IRA which "hasn't gone away, you know."

McMurphy

gizmo555 wrote: »

I find the SF slogan on its current Euro and local election posters absolutely repulsive. "Fighting for you", or "Fighting for Ireland". Fighting who, exactly?

To me it's just a nudge, nudge, wink, wink expression that it's still the political wing of the IRA which "hasn't gone away, you know."

Text book example of someone looking for something to be outraged by.

It's common European election speak, - fighting for Irelands interests in a European parliament.

If that common language is confusing you, perhaps politics isn't for you?

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Text book example of someone looking for something to be outraged by.

It's common European election speak, - fighting for Irelands interests in a European parliament.

If that common language is confusing you, perhaps politics isn't for you?

We have seen it all before. 'If you use the wrong word, reference an event, no matter what your intention was, we are going to be your judge'.

Just another form of subtle censorship and curtailment.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have seen it all before. 'If you use the wrong word, reference an event, no matter what your intention was, we are going to be your judge'.

Just another form of subtle censorship and curtailment.

I wouldn't call it censorship.

A person is free to put a loaf of bread on his head on the anniversary of Kingsmill. A political party with a chequered history is free to use the word "fighting" in their slogans. A different party is free to associate itself with the Orange Order.

Reasonable people are free to conclude that none of them deserve to be elected to public office. If those politicians and parties wish to avoid reasonable people drawing reasonable conclusions and forming reasonable opinions about them as a result, well the simple answer is don't be stupid in the first place.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I wouldn't call it censorship.

A person is free to put a loaf of bread on his head on the anniversary of Kingsmill. A political party with a chequered history is free to use the word "fighting" in their slogans. A different party is free to associate itself with the Orange Order.

Reasonable people are free to conclude that none of them deserve to be elected to public office. If those politicians and parties wish to avoid reasonable people drawing reasonable conclusions and forming reasonable opinions about them as a result, well the simple answer is don't be stupid in the first place.

Oh dear.

Perhaps this is a thinly veiled Blue Shirt reference so?

FGs 2019 MEP manifesto.

Fine Gael MEPs will:
• Fight to retain an adequate budget for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2020 that protects our farmers, is distributed fairly and targeted towards active farmers.

Fight to secure the €10 billion budget for research and innovation in agriculture and food
production under the new Horizon programme.

Cool the faux outrage and concern, eh?