The DUP refusing to let Sinn Fein have First Minister means a December Assembly Election. Will the numbers change in a fresh Election?
What parties seats are vulnerable or who might make gains in any constituencies ??
You seem to have completely misunderstood what the word "whitewash" means in regards to my point. Or mistaken me with Francie. Your race to be affronted blinds you to good faith debate
SF have not advocated a military/armed response for 25 years and so that is irrelevant to anyone voting for them now. You however wish to support the DUP and TUV and their current/future policy.
I believed that some people saw no alternative long before MoN said it and long before I gave SF a vote. The inevitability that partition would go up in flames was forseen by more than I.
……And as posted above, do we therefore assume that you believe there was no alternative to murdering my neighbours and friends?
Do you honestly believe that all sf voters believe there was no alternative to murdering men, women, children and babies? Seems to be what you are saying. If true, there will never be peace on this island
Take a week look at what the sf leaders say and do re sectarian murderous history
Now that’s an unbelievable post. Extreme republicanism topped the poll. The party whose northern leader said recently that they was no alternative to the sectarian conflict (you know the detail, I don’t need to lay it out) the party that continues to have connections with terrorists around the world. The party where my local MP has categorically refused to condemn the murder of a civilian Protestant constituent. I could go on but you are displaying exactly what the guy interviewing keilty displayed. It’s either extremely naive or extremely nasty.
But you wouldn't be claiming 'I don't support the Labour Party I support The Greens or Fine Gael'. 🙄
I voted for SF last time out = I support SF until I vote again.
And I voted for FG and while I dont agree with all their policies or actions I understand that by voting for them I have directly supported all their actions while they are in government. You can say you disagree with what they have done but trying to absolve yourself of responsibility like downcow is trying to do by saying they literally don't support them yet continually vote for them is pathetic.
"If you vote for somebody you are directly supporting their views, opinions and goals whether you like it or not as they will use your vote along with many others to push those views, opinions and goals once elected."
This is par for the course though. I voted No1 for the Labour Party candidate last election - I approve of some Labour policy but not every policy they promote. You can't possibly avoid accidentally endorsing some policies that you don't care for. Otherwise you'd never vote at all. And many don't vote I guess on that basis, that 'they're all at it' etc etc
Except voting for someone to fill a seat for a 5 year term is not the same as wanting Arsenal to beat City on a Saturday afternoon. The analogy doesn't work and nobody is making it out to be complicated as you claim. If you vote for somebody you are directly supporting their views, opinions and goals whether you like it or not as they will use your vote along with many others to push those views, opinions and goals once elected.
Saying you voted for someone but disagree with the majority of what they stand for is cognitive dissonance at its finest, people should own their voting decisions for better or worse trying to pretend your not all in with the DUP when you have consistently voted for them time and again like downcow is admitting to is akin to childish finger pointing by trying to lay the blame of what you've done at someone elses feet.
As it is with any Party whose legacy and older members come from extreme fringes of ideology. No doubt at the back of meetings there are individuals whom are not spoken of, not mentioned in the minutes while everyone pretends aren't there. I don't condone that tactic, but it's fairly transparent all the same that some parties are so desperate to whitewash their sordid history.
In any case, for better or worse the end result has been very effective and at least shows a desire to evolve one's position and image. Let's not forget the DUP was briefly led by Edwin Poots only recently in all his retrograde glory. While in general the party's braintrust is a who's who of Yesterday's Men. Again, a curious inability to attract newer perspectives or blood (though possibly not that curious, when their socially conservative ideology will always chaff against younger Northern Irish coming along. Again, see Edwin Poots).
So voting for the DUP is enabling their continued existence and relevance in NI Politics. One has to own the consequence of that vote, and what it means in terms of the North's ideological trajectory.
"The same applies too for nationalism, but the extreme strands therein have been quietly and effectively whitewashed away; something the DUP have been curiously incapable of doing."
Hidden a bit, papered over. Every now & then it slips out as in Up The Ra Cullinane or supportive comments in Ardfheis speeches etc.
Much the same in DUP. You have to accept that their current tactics are logical to them and their political manoeuvring.
So, let's flesh out the analogy.
The UUP (whom downcow says he supports) is diametrically at odds with the DUP on the protocol. The UUP hold the moderate view of it.
What downcow is proposing is to take away his support for Liverpool and to give it to City. He wants the UUP to be beaten on the issue.
'Arsenal' don't come into it.
This isn't football. It's politics and the politics of a part of the world where sectarianism and factional ideologies have distinct and antagonistic flavours. Where those belligerents continue to enjoy support for this kind of logic.
Voting for one of the two more ideologically extreme strands of unionism is a de-facto rubber-stamp of their existence and ideology. It can be skirted around but ultimately, the DUP exists by dint of popular support; it won't care if some unionists held their nose for "reasons". Same was seen with Brexit and the buyer's remorse from those who just voted Leave to give the Tories a snub. To actually use your own analogy: it's the result that counts here.
The same applies too for nationalism, but the extreme strands therein have been quietly and effectively whitewashed away; something the DUP have been curiously incapable of doing.
Exactly. I could be a Liverpool supporter, but would like Arsenal to beat City because I don't want City to win the league. Doesn't make me an Arsenal supporter. It's not as complicated as some twist it to be.
You lend your 'support'.
A 'vote' = support.
Mod Note
Personal abuse and name calling aren't acceptable. Civil discussion please.
But we all make choices like that Francie when we go to vote. We weigh things up and vote accordingly. In an ideal world, we'd all decide how to vote on matters of principle only. But it's a muddy old place and sometimes you lend your vote one way or another to prevent something worse.
The moderate view expressed by the UUP and backed by the courts of YOUR country is the Protocol is not a threat to the Union.
Very very few of them. Only the protocol. I can’t think of another policy that I agree with them on.
like everything in life. I am moderate on all but those things I feel very strongly about. I suppose you are moderate on everything?
You support TUV policy and vote DUP, and you regard yourself as a moderate?
Also which TUV policies in particular do you support or is it all of them?
Maybe using the mirror above you might be able to reflect on the orgy of triumphalism and hate every year organised by your community. All the statuery and commemoration of the British Empire and army that proliferates around towns and cities, the obsession with the fleg etc.
'Pain and hurt' is not exclusive to Unionist victims. Though to listen to some you would be forgiven for thinkng there was only one protagonist in the history of what happened on this island.
That was the context of what Tiernan said about the singing of a song being 'harmless' in comparison.
Yeah. Can I say that what is most concerning for northern unionists about that little clip is that the host and the audience laugh at northern unionists. His quip about ‘what might they want’ and a patronising giggle. And then to say that ‘singing up the ra’ is ‘only a bit of fun’. It is incredible and paints a picture worse than I would ever have imagined.
our society has moved on in the north and at least most people have some sense of what is sectarian and avoid saying it in public.
we are a minority that many southerners think should join them to build a new Ireland.
Try to look at this through a different prism. If this was USA, and transfer that whole exchange and the points of laughter etc to a tv show focussing black peoples moving to their are and two white people being watched by a white audience in an exclusively white area of the States - I shouldn’t need to say anymore. The very idea that host could suggest that a song which had a kkk chant in it was just a bit of fun would be too incredible to comprehend
indeed if you wish transfer it to a bbc ni show with a Protestant interviewer, a Protestant guest and an exclusively Protestant audience in say North Down and the discussion was about how the community needs to be more welcoming to Catholics so as to remove their apprehension about moving into the area. And you can change the chant to the U U UVF
can you see that these attitudes are core to why the protocol is so concerning for northern unionists. Anything that looks like it is pushing us involuntarily towards being ruled by people with this attitudes will be resisted.
we have had decades of work around prejudice awareness and anti sectarianism up north. Maybe this is the work those who want a UI should be rolling out over the next decades among southerners in preparation.
maybe this could start by raising awareness of the pain and hurt that song causes, not just among direct victims of the terrorist organisation being adored. I see a senior member of the roi team has posted a selfie with the singers complimenting how they remember the past. If that happens up here there would be serious repercussions for the player
so maybe before you say too much about people voting dup, you might take the beam out of your own eye
(ps that is obviously not directed at the poster of the message I am replying to - the silence of others is more able)
That is a bit silly. So tell us what you think would have happened had the dup not existed?
Why do you vote for somebody? Because you support their aims at a given time.
Just because you might be ashamed of that or embarrassed doesn’t change the fact it is ‘support’.
Jeffrey won’t be taking into account downcows reservations.
I think we know what Downcow means and he's likely quite right that many northern nationalists would be more flexible than their southern counterparts. And there's nothing really contradictory in their thinking - they're not a DUP supporter but might vote for them as a political strategy.
Just as I've never given FF a vote in elections here but might be persuaded next time in order to keep others out.
Do you accept that the DUP entirely and solely caused the protocol to exist?
I support their current policy. If you guys interpret that as me being a supporter, we’ll that’s fine. I also support TUV current policy, does that make me a supporter also or is it just the one you vote for?
If you vote for them you are supporting them and their policies of troglodytic intransigent obstructionism.... you are deluded if you believe otherwise.
If you give them your vote, you are actively supporting them. trying to plead a distinction is meaningless in real terms. If you vote for a party you support its policies or principles or both. You're only fooling yourself, while enabling a force you apparently claim to disagree with.
