Arlene, Edwin, her replacement and his replacement as leader of the DUP

gmisk

Mad_maxx wrote: »

So you think yelling " homophoebe " at the DUP is likely to achieve something Politically?

Calling out homophobic behaviour...is not yelling "homophoebe".
God forbid LGBT people should have equality in their own country, if the DUP had their way marriage equality would never have been brought in.

lurleen lumpkin

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Elaborate on what you mean by "left behind " ?

They're regressive. Their voter base is ageing out and isn't being replaced.

FrancieBrady

Mad_maxx wrote: »

So you think yelling " homophoebe " at the DUP is likely to achieve something Politically?

Who was 'yelling'?

He was trying to make a point on a show he was invited on to. He wasn't allowed to because apparently telling the truth is deemed offensive by RTE as there was nobody there to defend the party (but who later in the same show allowed another party to be spoken off offensively with no right of reply, a number of times BTW) If he achieved the loss of votes to the DUP by describing how they are perceived then he would have achieved something politically.

eddie73

This happened very quickly. I suppose politics can be like that. I have mixed feelings about it. I think the DUP are a Stone Aged party that could cause a lot of trouble for the Republic and Northern Ireland going forward in the months ahead. I think that Arlene was a moderate influence within this party. She appeared quite reasonable when interviewed. For that reason I think that she will be missed, quite badly actually. This is in comparison to those who are ready to take power within the DUP.

gmisk

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Elaborate on what you mean by "left behind " ?

I would take it as their core voting base is becoming increasingly small and is aging, people especially younger people are generally more progressive in their outlooks.
The DUP is looking increasingly like a dinosaur with regards their policies and politics thankfully.
Like other people on here said, Arlene Foster would be a moderate in the DUP, chances are the next leader will be a lot less (e.g. Poots)

Mad_maxx

lurleen lumpkin wrote: »

They're regressive. Their voter base is ageing out and isn't being replaced.

Ah ok , thank you for clarifying, they are only around since circa 1970 , perhaps they will die out but it's unlikely to be wise to bludgeon socially conservative unionists into supporting progressive values

They aren't going to turn into Soc Dems overnight

FrancieBrady

gmisk wrote: »

I would take it as their core voting base is becoming increasingly small and is aging, people especially younger people are generally more progressive in their outlooks.
The DUP is looking increasingly like a dinosaur with regards their policies and politics thankfully.

I'm wondering have we reached the 'well maybe' stage of the 'Never Never ...well maybe' DUP behaviour since the GFA.

They appoint a new leadership and slowly step back from the Protocol objections and protests. Somebody has taken the protestors off the streets, it all stopped as if it was on a switch.

Even they must realise they have lost on the border.

Junkyard Tom

The DUP's main problem is it's the 21st Century and there's not a whole lot that can be done to change that. Unionism will surely have to split into a modern, liberally-minded, wing and an Old Testament type wing.

breezy1985

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Ah ok , thank you for clarifying, they are only around since circa 1970 , perhaps they will die out but it's unlikely to be wise to bludgeon socially conservative unionists into supporting progressive values

They aren't going to turn into Soc Dems overnight

"socially conservative" is a very sanitised way of saying homophobic bigots.

gmisk

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Ah ok , thank you for clarifying, they are only around since circa 1970 , perhaps they will die out but it's unlikely to be wise to bludgeon socially conservative unionists into supporting progressive values

They aren't going to turn into Soc Dems overnight

I don't think anyone would suggest they will turn into the social democrats or a more progressive party in the short term.
But if they do go more conservative with someone like Poots it would be a mistake imo, it's an increasingly small pond and other parties are in that area e.g. TUV (they will likely run a few more candidates in next elections).

A good example of the conflict in the DUP would be the below
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/council/shock-and-discomfort-dup-ranks-over-gay-councillor-977727
There was a lot of strife in the party behind the scenes seemingly as well.

Arlene foster is/was a moderating influence in a number of areas
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/arlene-foster-defends-decision-to-go-to-landmark-lgbt-event-and-says-dup-may-have-lesbian-and-gay-representatives-37024987.html

gmisk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The DUP's main problem is it's the 21st Century and there's not a whole lot that can be done to change that. Unionism will surely have to split into a modern, liberally-minded, wing and an Old Testament type wing.

That would be my thinking, maybe an expansion in a party like the TUV.

Mad_maxx

breezy1985 wrote: »

"socially conservative" is a very sanitised way of saying homophobic bigots.

I realise it's quite self satisfying for you to do that but I don't see it achieving much else

gmisk

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I realise it's quite self satisfying for you to do that but I don't see it achieving much else

It might not achieve much but it doesn't mean it isn't true I am afraid

breezy1985

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I realise it's quite self satisfying for you to do that but I don't see it achieving much else

It actually achieves quite a lot as recent history has shown. Not calling out homophobia lets parties and people continue to act like bigots and it has been through not being quiet and sometimes "bludgeoning" peoples previously held opinions that led to widespread change in Western Europe

FrancieBrady

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I realise it's quite self satisfying for you to do that but I don't see it achieving much else

If one voter turns away from them as a result, it is worth it. Why are you so protective of them, they aren't behind the wall heaping disdain and criticism on views they don't like.

It is politics.

gmisk

breezy1985 wrote: »

It actually achieves quite a lot as recent history has shown. Not calling out homophobia lets parties and people continue to act like bigots and it has been through not being quiet and sometimes "bludgeoning" peoples previously held opinions that led to widespread change in Western Europe

Totally agree
Below would be a good example imo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-free_zone
There were and are serious consequences for LGBT people, doing something like withdrawing EU funding is a real consequence.

Anyway kind of off topic.

I am from Northern Ireland by the way....near Ballymena....so I know what living in a "socially conservative" place can be like.

Junkyard Tom

In many ways Arlene Foster got promoted to chief engineer of a steam train when everyone else had switched to electric. Nigel 'Negotiator of the Year' Dodds should be held responsible for the Brexit mess not Arlene, there was little she could do about demographic changes either.

Mad_maxx

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If one voter turns away from them as a result, it is worth it. Why are you so protective of them, they aren't behind the wall heaping disdain and criticism on views they don't like.

It is politics.

I want a United Ireland and believe unionists are incredibly intransigent when it comes to the protocol etc but i dont believe the DUP or even people who vote DUP must embrace progressive politics and values if they dont wish to , the DUP are not calling for people to be hurt , they are not Nazis , until quite recently, most people were not in favour of gay marriage , in much of Europe its still only a minority who support it , thinking of perfectly civilised nations like Poland.

a lot of unionists are traditional on matters like that , so what ? , the vast majority of muslims in the UK ( and probably in Ireland ) are deeply conservative on these matters yet progressives have no beef with that ?

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

In many ways Arlene Foster got promoted to chief engineer of a steam train when everyone else had switched to electric. Nigel 'Negotiator of the Year' Dodds should be held responsible for the Brexit mess not Arlene, there was little she could do about demographic changes either.

It was patently obvious when Arlene got pushed out to reject Theresa May's deal (shafted May in other words) that she was not the leader. The backroom boys were having none of it and Arlene did the deed. Same with the Irish Language act, without a doubt Arlene and her team negotiated a deal there (read Eamon Mallie on this, he's no Shinner) and agreed it in prnciple, when the backroon boys got sight she was told to reject it.

Necro

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I want a United Ireland and believe unionists are incredibly intransigent when it comes to the protocol etc but i dont believe the DUP or even people who vote DUP must embrace progressive politics and values if they dont wish to , the DUP are not calling for people to be hurt , they are not Nazis , until quite recently, most people were not in favour of gay marriage , in much of Europe its still only a minority who support it , thinking of perfectly civilised nations like Poland.

a lot of unionists are traditional on matters like that , so what ?

Well, for one - it's not the 1950s any more.

FrancieBrady

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I want a United Ireland and believe unionists are incredibly intransigent when it comes to the protocol etc but i dont believe the DUP or even people who vote DUP must embrace progressive politics and values if they dont wish to , the DUP are not calling for people to be hurt , they are not Nazis , until quite recently, most people were not in favour of gay marriage , in much of Europe its still only a minority who support it , thinking of perfectly civilised nations like Poland.

a lot of unionists are traditional on matters like that , so what ?

They cannot use a veto (improperly) to foist their religious views on the people. Simple.

Do what they want in their own lives and churches (same as Roman Catholics) but you have NO right to force it on anyone else.
They are quite entitled to argue their views as are those who oppose them, but, repeat, they are not allowed to block legislation by misuse of a petition of concern.

Fionn1952

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I want a United Ireland and believe unionists are incredibly intransigent when it comes to the protocol etc but i dont believe the DUP or even people who vote DUP must embrace progressive politics and values if they dont wish to , the DUP are not calling for people to be hurt , they are not Nazis , until quite recently, most people were not in favour of gay marriage , in much of Europe its still only a minority who support it , thinking of perfectly civilised nations like Poland.

a lot of unionists are traditional on matters like that , so what ? , the vast majority of muslims in the UK ( and probably in Ireland ) are deeply conservative on these matters yet progressives have no beef with that ?

.....So essentially you're defending the DUP as some weird way of sticking it to, 'the libs/lefties'.

Christ almighty.

Calahonda52

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I want a United Ireland and believe unionists are incredibly intransigent when it comes to the protocol etc but i dont believe the DUP or even people who vote DUP must embrace progressive politics and values if they dont wish to , the DUP are not calling for people to be hurt , they are not Nazis , until quite recently, most people were not in favour of gay marriage , in much of Europe its still only a minority who support it , thinking of perfectly civilised nations like Poland.

a lot of unionists are traditional on matters like that , so what ? , the vast majority of muslims in the UK ( and probably in Ireland ) are deeply conservative on these matters yet progressives have no beef with that ?

Who is making your Kool-Aid?

gmisk

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I want a United Ireland and believe unionists are incredibly intransigent when it comes to the protocol etc but i dont believe the DUP or even people who vote DUP must embrace progressive politics and values if they dont wish to , the DUP are not calling for people to be hurt , they are not Nazis , until quite recently, most people were not in favour of gay marriage , in much of Europe its still only a minority who support it , thinking of perfectly civilised nations like Poland.
a lot of unionists are traditional on matters like that , so what ? , the vast majority of muslims in the UK ( and probably in Ireland ) are deeply conservative on these matters yet progressives have no beef with that ?

It doesn't mean they shouldn't be challenged.
They are not calling for people to be "hurt"....oh whoopee! Talk about a low bar.
Poots has linked LGBT people to paedophiles (plenty of other nasty comments)
Ian Paisley jr has said he is repulsed by gay people.
Oh and the below
"I find this sort of relationship as both immoral, offensive and obnoxious."
I can find a tonne more DUP politicians comments on a similar if not worse vein.

Poland notoriously accepting of gay people yeh...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-free_zone
There is a link in that to a report on the effects it has had on LGBT people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/world/europe/poland-lgbtq-gay-migration.html

Beechwoodspark

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Who is making your Kool-Aid?

Silly American term

BonnieSituation

MadYaker wrote: »

I love how the DUP have spent the last 4 years working their way into this position and all off a sudden now they're like "oh my god, were f*cked!"

That's how they've always been. Back themselves into a corner and then just agree with some small concession to save face. We got the NIP because of that nonsense in Dec 2017 and we'll be back here again with something new.

And on and on it goes...

Don't feed the crocodiles sure.

breezy1985

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I want a United Ireland and believe unionists are incredibly intransigent when it comes to the protocol etc but i dont believe the DUP or even people who vote DUP must embrace progressive politics and values if they dont wish to , the DUP are not calling for people to be hurt , they are not Nazis , until quite recently, most people were not in favour of gay marriage , in much of Europe its still only a minority who support it , thinking of perfectly civilised nations like Poland.

a lot of unionists are traditional on matters like that , so what ? , the vast majority of muslims in the UK ( and probably in Ireland ) are deeply conservative on these matters yet progressives have no beef with that ?

Things like gay conversion therapy which they refuse to condone does hurt people and is often linked to a high level of suicide.


As you your little anti "woke" whataboutery well I will happily say DUP homophobes are wrong and muslim homophobes are wrong too as are Polish homophobes.


In some countries the male monarch rules and it was once true in Europe too so should Elizabeth step down because other countries are backward towards women and Foster and O'Neill too

Charles Babbage

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They cannot use a veto (improperly) to foist their religious views on the people. Simple.

Do what they want in their own lives and churches (same as Roman Catholics) but you have NO right to force it on anyone else.
They are quite entitled to argue their views as are those who oppose them, but, repeat, they are not allowed to block legislation by misuse of a petition of concern.

They have every right to argue for the regulation of marriage, which is a civil institution with associated legal and taxation implications, or to ague that people should not be allowed eliminate their own children. They go beyond this of course and the petition of concern is a misuse of something designed for another situation entirely.

FrancieBrady

Charles Babbage wrote: »

They have every right to argue for the regulation of marriage, which is a civil institution with associated legal and taxation implications, or to ague that people should not be allowed eliminate their own children. They go beyond this of course and the petition of concern is a misuse of something designed for another situation entirely.

That's what I said. They can argue for what they want until the cows come home. They cannot block change though.

briany

Petitions of Concern are used by both sides, although it appears that Unionist parties have used it a bit more than Nationalist ones. It's definitely been used as blunt instrument too much, but it's part of the GFA, so we are where we are with it.