Mid-Ulster byelection

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 12:21:51 GMT @ianrobo said:

If voters are clear that SF wont take their seat then of course they vote for them on that basis. How many issues in NI need raising to Westminister anyway ?

I, living in a labour seat, accept I dont agree with the plurality of the vote. However, my MP can still represent me if I have a non-party issue that I need raising. I have no problem with being represnted by her.

That isn't the same as not having anyone to take up your issues. Just because you are in the minority shouldn't relieve you of having a member you can contact. Jeremy Corbyn is very kind if he does do the job, but he isn't actually paid to do this. (Though if I were labour he would have been sacked long ago for his matey relationship with Sinn Fein)

[Pimpernal]

I do love certain tory concepts of democracy on show here... the voters - yes those people who Tories tend to ignore anyway - clearly vote for candidates who they know will not take their seats. They have done so for 30 years now. To blatantly ignore those votes and either impose the second candidate or call a fresh election - which another Sinner will win anyway - just shows contempt for the voters.

[irish observer]

Feb 20, 2013 20:04:54 GMT joe said:

I dont see why we should deal with these nutters in any way.

Well if you didn't currently rule the North you wouldn't have to deal with them. In addition the UK would cease paying the subvention.

[timrollpickering]

Feb 21, 2013 15:32:16 GMT john07 said:

Agreed. SF contest elections at Local Authority, Legislative Assembly, and Parliamentary level. They take up seats in the first two but not the last. This is totally inconsistent as the Assembly and Local Authorities were all set up by Westminister and operate under the rules laid down by Westminster.

OK if they do not wish to take up the seat then don't stand. This would leave the way for independents of a similar mindset (rather like Frank McGuire) to contest the seats in question.

They could also operate a Canadian-style system as used by PQ with another party being set up purely to fight Federal Elections (BQ).

Or maybe they could just grow up and stop fighting the war of 1920?

Sinn Fein's rationale and ideology is based on very different circumstances from the Quebec nationalists. It also originated in different circumstance. Quebec nationalists largely ignored the federal parliament until the 1990s, having always had the provincial National Assembly to focus on, believing it to have the power to declare whatever word was used. In general the PQ discouraged participation in federal elections and their voters either abstained, picked one of the federal parties or voted Rhinocerous. The BQ emerged in 1990 from splits within federal parties and a shift in strategic approach by the PQ. By this time the concept of separate federal and provincial parties was long established and there wasn't much point in having a joint operation.

Sinn Fein considers itself to have been founded at a time when there was no Irish Parliament actually sitting, and adopted the strategy of using elections to illegitimate as a way to restock what they believed had never legally been dissolved, whether that was the 1782 Parliament or the 1918-1922 Dail - they're not just boycotting. They also refused to sit at any Stormont body until 1998 - yes the NI Assembly is constituted under British law but it was also the result of negotiated agreement involving the southern Irish government and the NI parties, and endorsed by an all Ireland vote.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

SOPN out: www.eoni.org.uk/statement_of_persons_nominated-notice_of_poll_-_mid_ulster_-_7_march_2013.pdf

Four candidates.

Eric BULLICK (Alliance Party)
Nigel LUTTON (Independent)
Patsy McGLONE (SDLP (Social Democratic & Labour Party)
Francie MOLLOY (Sinn Féin)

[The Bishop]

Just four! That is the smallest field in a Westminster by-election since when......??

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Feb 21, 2013 19:17:29 GMT The Bishop said:

Just four! That is the smallest field in a Westminster by-election since when......??

Since Ryedale in May 1986, which had only three.

(Five candidates has happened on numerous occasions since 1986)

[timrollpickering]

And no sign of the Basil McAllister party. It's easier to talk against Unionist Unity than to proffer an alternative.

[The Bishop]

Ryedale presumably also being the last time that only the "main" parties stood?

[Arthur Figgis]

Feb 21, 2013 19:39:21 GMT timrollpickering said:

And no sign of the Basil McAllister party. It's easier to talk against Unionist Unity than to proffer an alternative.

This is Mid-Ulster, not Mid-Cherryvalley!

[john07]

Feb 21, 2013 18:41:03 GMT timrollpickering said:

Sinn Fein considers itself to have been founded at a time when there was no Irish Parliament actually sitting, and adopted the strategy of using elections to illegitimate as a way to restock what they believed had never legally been dissolved, whether that was the 1782 Parliament or the 1918-1922 Dail - they're not just boycotting.

They may delude themselves into thinking that they were founded in 1905. It is difficult to date the start of the current Sinn Fein earlier than 1970. Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, and the Workers Party of Ireland have a stronger claim to the heritage of the original Sinn Fein.

[timrollpickering]

Since the issue is Republican political theory then 1905/1970 is a moot point IMHO. That said in 1970 they didn't consider there to be an Irish parliament either - they refused to take any seats in the Dail until 1986.

[Dan]

Feb 21, 2013 19:39:21 GMT timrollpickering said:

And no sign of the Basil McAllister party. It's easier to talk against Unionist Unity than to proffer an alternative.

I'm not sure that there was ever an expectation that Basil/McCallister would be up and running in time for this by-election!

As for the 'all talk and no action' charge, I think there's much to be said for the view that a Unionist Unity candidate in this election does nothing but entrench sectarian divisions, for little public benefit. I tend to agree with John McCallister that the UUP should have looked to branch out into a wider, cross-religion, centre-right, 'small-u' unionist party, rather than dive head first into the DUP. At least this would give the population of the province some choice at elections, and would be making a statement that politics in the province would be better served if every election were not treated like some sort of quasi-border poll.

The UUP could have done this by, for example, merging with the NI Conservatives, enabling the 'unionist' tag to be dropped (without anybody doubting where they stood on this issue), and reaching out to aspirational Catholics and those who didn't identify with a religion, or necessarily with the sovereignty issue.

The recent increase in support for the APNI seems, in part at least, based on something broadly similar.

[timrollpickering]

The timing was tricky to get a name registered but an independent might have made it. But there is a bit of a gap when you make the candidacy in a particular by-election your reason for bailing out and then don't actually have a clear alternate horse in said by-election, regardless of where it takes place.

[Deleted]

The problem with the UUP being a centre-right party alone is to ignore the significant number of left-wing members the party has always had, including Michael McGimpsey, the former Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the Northern Ireland Cabinet. The recent loss of Fred Cobain to the DUP shows that the UUP has lost the sense of being a party of the working-class.
Harold McCusker will be turning in his grave.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 17:28:42 GMT irish observer said:

Feb 20, 2013 20:04:54 GMT joe said:

I dont see why we should deal with these nutters in any way.

Well if you didn't currently rule the North you wouldn't have to deal with them. In addition the UK would cease paying the subvention.

Im quite happy with the North deciding its own constitutional future either way. I wouldn't dream of attempting to stop them leaving, but nor would I push them the other way. My issue with SF isn't one with Irish unity, just the violence, petty behaviour and general loutish behaviour. I wouldn't say the same about the SDLP for example.

I wouldn't pay a subvention though.

[irish observer]

Feb 22, 2013 0:08:04 GMT joe said:

Feb 21, 2013 17:28:42 GMT irish observer said:

Well if you didn't currently rule the North you wouldn't have to deal with them. In addition the UK would cease paying the subvention.

Im quite happy with the North deciding its own constitutional future either way. I wouldn't dream of attempting to stop them leaving, but nor would I push them the other way. My issue with SF isn't one with Irish unity, just the violence, petty behaviour and general loutish behaviour. I wouldn't say the same about the SDLP for example.

I wouldn't pay a subvention though.

I am glad to hear that regarding the constitutional issue. Throughout your party's life some of its members have not felt the same way in ignoring democratic mandates and supporting gunrunning, the likes of Bonar Law and Birkenhead for example. I would add that violence, petty and loutish behaviour is/was not confined to just one side of the community indeed it encompasses the role of loyalists, the UDR, B Specials, the old RUC and many elements of the British Army.

Regarding my second point. As a UK taxpayer you do pay part of a subvention to the North on an annual basis; £5,000m. Hence my point about ceasing to pay it if you did not occupy the North.

[stepney]

Might we do away with polemic, appeals to supposed wrongs in the long-buried past, and mawkish mistruths about Northern Ireland? It is an integral part of the United Kingdom where the majority of its inhabitants wish to remain part of the UK; as such the term "occupation" is irrelevant and offensive.

[irish observer]

Feb 22, 2013 8:53:11 GMT @boogieeck said:

Feb 21, 2013 17:28:42 GMT irish observer said:

Well if you didn't currently rule the North you wouldn't have to deal with them. In addition the UK would cease paying the subvention.

Oh, successive governments have wished they would go away, but they don't, and a majority of them wish to be British

"They" as you put it were maintained under British rule by a partitionist settlement, a significant proportion of them against their will instead of forming part of all-Ireland parliament which had been voted for democratically on several occasions, either for home rule or full independence from Britain. It was chiefly the burghers of your own party that denied these democratic mandates and then drew new lines on the map of Ireland much in the same way as they drew lines on the maps of areas of Africa and Asia where partitioned states developed with the resulting ethno-religious strife.


In the recent census 40% subscribed to British identity, 25% to Irish identity and 21% to Northern Irish identity. The Catholic population now amounts to 45% while the combined Protestant population amounts to 48% with the rest ascribing to other. There is a Catholic majority in 4 out of 6 counties of the North and, from the Census, apparently a Catholic majority in Belfast which will have implications for the next local and Westminster elections. Younger Protestants continue to study in places like Scotland and then remain there and not return while Catholics make up a majority of the student population on all campuses.

A border poll would likely be lost but Unionists are frankly scared shitless at even having a conversation on the subject as they would have to let the jack out of the box.

[Pimpernal]

Feb 22, 2013 14:33:09 GMT stepney said:

Might we do away with polemic, appeals to supposed wrongs in the long-buried past, and mawkish mistruths about Northern Ireland?

Well that would be a welcome change given recent Tory bed-wetting about Farrell's comments and various other Tory comments with deep memories that crop up regularly on here whenever Ireland or the Sinners are mentioned...