Beecher Networks - Web Development, Hosting & Domains
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 118

Thread: NI Westminster Election 2017

  1. #61
    Seasoned Pro backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,692
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    248
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    751
    Thanked in
    485 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke View Post
    Go on, expand on that. Please. You are usually very accurately and entertainingly ahead of the curve on here on these developments.

    As an aside, as one who lives in England, it has been nothing short of repeatedly f**king hilarious these last two days watching the horror dawn on people of what DUP actually means. (& not the letters either)
    That was noting more than a Simpsons quote added for a bit of entertainment.

    My take the whole situation is that it simply won't work. I'd imagine there will be another election called immediately after the party conferences in September. Votes probably cast on 26th October or 2nd November. The tories will change their leader at their conference. Corbyn will change the Labour party position on Trident, as well as the rules for leadership elections, and give local parties the power to deselect a sitting MP.

    Then they will do it all over again. The tories are in trouble, and have been for years. The last time they won an election with a majority in double figures was in 1992. A very long time given that the UK has an electoral system designed to provide "strong and stable" governments. The Cameron governments papered over the cracks but this election has exposed their problems for the world to see.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  2. #62
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MrA
    There are times you look at Northern Ireland and feel they deserve every misfortune that befalls them
    There are times when I read Mr or Ms Anonymous sneering on the internet and think “Away and sh*te...”

    Quote Originally Posted by DI
    More seriously though, I hope they're finding the extra scrutiny and exposure to a more widespread audience uncomfortable. It's certainly demonstrating the scale of the chasm between the British values of most Britons and the regressive values of northern unionism
    They can probably handle ill- or semi-informed criticism from people (below) who can't vote against them. Are you being entirely serious about the other? This country (England) has millions of people who share their prejdices against gays and abortion and probably aren't too hot on the Theory of Evolution. Remember, this is an election where they don't trust people to mark 1,2.3 on a ballot paper...

    OK, Kay Burley (Sky News). How can TM as a woman deal with an anti-abortion party? Ask Leo Varadkar if you can't get the Saudis on speed-dial.

    Ruth Davidson (Tory leader in Scotland). No-one will stop you getting married to your female partner, or insist on bowler-hatted marchpasts before every Celtic home game. Self-obsessed hypocrisy, I'm afraid.

    Shaun Lord Snooty Woodward (ex Labour NI secretary, previously a Tory MP). There isn't and can't reasonably be a 'rule' forbidding two British political parties dealing with each other. If that contradicts the GFA then tough, the latter will need to be replaced.

    Gerry Adams TD: thanks for clarifying this weekend that your party isn't interested in goings-on in the Brit Parliament. And well done on your election results. As most Nat voters in Belfast, Derry and South Down clearly share your attitude, you can't expect a movement with no MPs to have a veto in Parliament.

    Imagine Sammy Wilson as Climate Change Secretary? No need for hysterical flights of fancy- not least as Michael Gove has previous on the same issue. Do you think the 10 DUP MPs will get 11 Cabinet jobs or what?

    Of course, you're right it probably won't last. Good article by 'Salmon of Data' on Slugger

    Quote Originally Posted by BttW
    I'd imagine there will be another election called immediately after the party conferences in September
    I was at my local count on Friday morning (finishing, farcically at 715am with Dudley North settled by 22 votes). Local UKIP big cheese Bill Etheridge lost 80% of his vote and barely saved the deposit, but still claimed to look forward to doing it again in October

    Two cautions for Labour. Despite the membership they are still short of cash and big donors- and a very large proportion of their MPs are cool on Corbyn, many likely agree with Mandelson quoted above.

  3. #63
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    BBC anchor Simon McCoy pretty much laughs in the face of Tory MP Alan Mak who's still repeating the "strong and stable leadership" mantra in spite of his party's election disaster:


  4. #64
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    Are you being entirely serious about the other? This country (England) has millions of people who share their prejdices against gays and abortion and probably aren't too hot on the Theory of Evolution. Remember, this is an election where they don't trust people to mark 1,2.3 on a ballot paper...
    The DUP's anachronistic views, whilst apparently popular in the north-east of Ireland, are way out of step with mainstream thinking in Britain, which, as you suggest, can be quite reactionary as it is. The British media, both on the right and left, have been lampooning the DUP all week because they regard them as so exotic, alien and retrograde.

    The following comment by a commenter called Neil on Slugger O'Toole humoured me:

    "I hope the DUP enjoy their moment in the sun, it's certainly not coming without a cost. The dawning realisation that a sizable chunk of your fellow British people view the DUP with contempt. We'll see how well they stand up to scrutiny now that they're attracting the attention of the kind of journalists that hack phones, as opposed to the normal NI type who circulate party press releases.

    We'll see how this one pans out, but this 'deal' isn't a deal yet. As I said, imagine after all these years the vote actually fell within that magic, tiny margin where the DUP become relevant and they find that they're too toxic for the Tory party."

    Ruth Davidson (Tory leader in Scotland). No-one will stop you getting married to your female partner, or insist on bowler-hatted marchpasts before every Celtic home game. Self-obsessed hypocrisy, I'm afraid.
    Heh, her "expression of concern" did seem a bit like grandstanding alright.

    Shaun Lord Snooty Woodward (ex Labour NI secretary, previously a Tory MP). There isn't and can't reasonably be a 'rule' forbidding two British political parties dealing with each other. If that contradicts the GFA then tough, the latter will need to be replaced.
    The Good Friday Agreement states that "the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction [over the north] shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality":



    In theory, if the DUP won enough seats to form a government by themselves, there's little that could be done about that, but surely any responsible non-Ireland-based British party with designs on forming a government should not be inviting coalitions or "confidence and supply" arrangements with unionist (or, indeed, nationalist) parties from the north of Ireland if they're obliged to remain rigorously impartial in their dealings with the region. The possibility of neutrality is necessarily compromised by such a blatant conflict of interest.

    With what are you going to replace the GFA?

    Gerry Adams TD: thanks for clarifying this weekend that your party isn't interested in goings-on in the Brit Parliament. And well done on your election results. As most Nat voters in Belfast, Derry and South Down clearly share your attitude, you can't expect a movement with no MPs to have a veto in Parliament.
    What are you referring to? Did Adams say he expected some sort of veto in Westminster?

    It's interesting to hear the demands in the media for Sinn Féin to take their seats, especially from southern parties like Fianna Fáil and the Irish Labour Party. Considering these parties - supposedly national - refuse to contest elections north of the border, they can hardly lecture others on such matters.

    Also of interest, I note that a Tory actually suggested reform of the parliamentary oath of allegiance back in 2006 in order to facilitate Sinn Féin, although nothing ever became of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...says-Tory.html

    I'm not convinced that would make a difference anyway, especially judging by the unequivocal statements of Adams and other Sinn Féin members since the election. The rationale, which has remained unchanged for a century, was outlined pretty clearly again by Danny Morrison on Eamonn Mallie's site the other day and it doesn't merely relate to the oath: http://eamonnmallie.com/2017/06/form...anny-morrison/

    Sinn Féin would surely have to have a vote involving party members at an Ard Fheis to change a policy like that. Taking their seats might seem like a no-brainer to the many urging Sinn Féin to take their seats, but I don't see it happening for a few obvious reasons:

    • Sinn Féin's seven MPs were elected in the knowledge and on the promise that they would abstain from Westminster. That's what the largest number of voters in the seven constituencies where Sinn Féin won their seats voted for. For Sinn Féin to go back on that would essentially be to renege on an election promise.
    • Abstentionism has been a core party policy of Sinn Féin's for a century, the purpose of which has effectively been to allow Irish electorates to use their vote to reject British rule in Ireland.
    • Expressing an oath of allegiance to a monarch, whether foreign or not, would be an obvious contravention of republican principles. (In saying that, republican socialist Bernadette Devlin took a pragmatic approach and managed to get round it without damaging her republican credentials when she was elected to Westminster in 1969 as a Unity candidate.)
    • Sinn Féin rejects Britain's asserted right to legislate over part of Ireland. If Sinn Féin were to start legislating in Westminster - or over Britain, in other words - they'd leave themselves open to accusations of gross hypocrisy. Arguably, their entire raison d'être would be seen to lack coherency and they'd perhaps lose credibility too. I'm sure unionists and "dissidents" would have a field day.

    Whether one agrees with the rationale or not, the logic behind Sinn Féin's abstentionism is at least pretty solid.

  5. #65
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    Morning DI. Variously

    1 Yes, the DUP are popular locally- and they've got a lot more popular since March (vote share up from 28% to 36%). Let's not pretend that jump has anything to do with gay marriage or creationism, eh?

    2 The English media have ridiculed NI for decades. Because of the violence, not old-fashioned social attitudes. Since 1970, it's been easier to caricature Paisley and Adams than analyse their own parties' role in the situation. Non-role, when it comes to anything as inconvenient as challenging Unionists and Nationalists in elections

    3 I'd treat this supposed contempt from English opinion with a big pinch- it may pass quite quickly. For Tories, they'll tolerate bribes to the DUP if the alternative's a Labour government. While Labour voters clearly weren't bothered being led by a guy who has been as close to paramilitarism as it's possible to get without actually backing a shooting war. It hasn't directly affected England for a long time, so voters aren't bothered by it. Or do you think anyone in Derby or Coventry is outraged by the lack Irish language laws? Nobody in Dublin or Cork is

    4 Neil on Slugger may have a short memory. NI politicians likely to be shocked by phone-tapping? Unsurprisingly, I go more with editor Mick Fealty on that site (see his 6 reasons article)

    5 Essentially, you are saying that NI parties can't join A Brit government, or even wave it through from the Oppo benches where the DUP are today. Like some of the has-been Brit politicians I mentioned, and most starkly NI's own Paddy Ashdown. Although I notice that Naomi Long agreed with Jim Allister and Robin Swann that this is pretty insulting (and may be unrealistic, if there isn't another quick election, or if there is but the result is still a hung Parliament)

    6 NI is now two mutually antagonistic blocs both with 40%+ support, with the others stopping either of them getting 50% domination. While there's still volatility, a deal set in stone for a forced coalition for 3% of the country isn't necessarily what's needed (even before you consider the other 97% needing a government)

    7 OK, I'm avoiding the question. I don't know what replaces GFA- GAA, GTA? Nationalist voters in NI don't want representation in London or seemingly to revive Stormont. Ask again after the 29 June deadline

    8 I mentioned Gerry Adams, but he's only one of many effectively calling for an Irish Nationalist veto over who forms the British Government. It's a risk- great for SF if the May Govt collapses and there's another election, not so much if she limps on for 5 years

    9 Southern Parties (FF and Labour) are taking the p*ss calling for SF to join Westminster. English political journalists are just displaying their ignorance. You're right, SF's POV is consistent and it isn't going to change

  6. #66
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    A very good article by Jonathan Cook on "the media's wretched failings over the past two years in maligning Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn" with reference to George Monbiot's admission that the liberal-leaning Guardian was part of the problem and Noam Chomsky's "propaganda model": http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/20...-core-problem/

  7. Thanks From:


  8. #67
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    Since 1970, it's been easier to caricature Paisley and Adams than analyse their own parties' role in the situation.
    True; a variant of the infamous oul' "two warring religious tribes" myth, that.

    4 Neil on Slugger may have a short memory. NI politicians likely to be shocked by phone-tapping? Unsurprisingly, I go more with editor Mick Fealty on that site (see his 6 reasons article)
    I think Mick is deluding himself if he genuinely thinks "White Protestant British Irish folk in Northern Ireland are routinely abused and demonised in a way no other group on these islands are". Such a hyperbolic claim is either for rhetorical effect or he's not been paying attention to the nasty treatment of Muslims in England over recent years.

    His other points are a bit stronger, although I still take issue with the DUP-Tory deal because I feel it compromises the Tory government's duty of impartiality.

    5 Essentially, you are saying that NI parties can't join A Brit government, or even wave it through from the Oppo benches where the DUP are today. Like some of the has-been Brit politicians I mentioned, and most starkly NI's own Paddy Ashdown. Although I notice that Naomi Long agreed with Jim Allister and Robin Swann that this is pretty insulting (and may be unrealistic, if there isn't another quick election, or if there is but the result is still a hung Parliament)
    I'm saying that's what the GFA is saying. If the British government is to remain rigorously impartial in its dealings in respect of the north of Ireland, then the Tories, who wish to become that government, shouldn't be entertaining the notion of a "confidence and supply" arrangement with unionists in order to secure power as it creates a rather obvious and undeniable conflict of interest. You must at least acknowledge that it creates a conflict of interest, no? How could the Tory government hope to remain impartial when, as Colum Eastwood put it, the DUP tail will be wagging the Tory dog?

    For what it's worth, I believe the same restrictive principle would apply to Labour if they were trying to do similar with a nationalist party in order to form a government.

    Have you a link to Naomi's comments?

    Nationalist voters in NI don't want representation in London or seemingly to revive Stormont.
    Maybe more and more are seeing the light of Irish unity as the solution to the present and worsening political and economic crisis they're facing.

    8 I mentioned Gerry Adams, but he's only one of many effectively calling for an Irish Nationalist veto over who forms the British Government. It's a risk- great for SF if the May Govt collapses and there's another election, not so much if she limps on for 5 years
    In what sense is he calling or a nationalist veto over who forms the British government? He and others are simply reiterating the terms (or, at least, their understanding of the terms) of the GFA.

  9. #68
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    1 Yes, I probably should have side-stepped that bit in MF's article about prejudice faced by Unionists. Grade A Mopery

    2 The basic problem is that your “duty of impartiality” (to 1% of the state's population, don't forget) contradicts the duty to form a working Government for the other 99%...

    3 The British Government- ANY British Government- can't be “rigorously impartial” for that reason. As long as you have a UK it will have localised and separatist parties with electoral support. Even in a FPTP electoral system they may hold the balance- there are still 57 after last week (down from 77)

    4 Anyway the point is hardly lost on SF,who've been gurning about how impartial or not the Brits are since 1998 (just like they did for decades beforehand)

    5 Yes, I acknowledge a conflict of interest. There are relatively simple ways to get round that- by bringing in a 'neutral' chairman for talks, say- but my (2) above applies. The GFA may be unworkable in its present form, but that's not necessarily a disaster- nor does it have to risk the Peace Process, or whatever other euphemism Nationalists use. Put crudely, do they think if Foster manages to negotiate a few new hospitals or schools in Ulster Country, that the dissos & UDA/ UVFwill step up the 'War' in response, and get support for it?

    6 I'm not sure you're right about the mirror-image of the current row, ie if Labour were four or five short and did a deal with PC on confidence and supply. Now that English voters seem prepared to ignore the smears the media throw both at Labour and Nationalists (a huge change in itself), why not Leanne Wood insisting on that new bypass or upgraded rail line? Obviously there are differences- no Welsh Republican Army or Cymric Volunteer Force , but the basic principle is the same as per my (3) above

    7 Naomi, Squeaky Jim and the UUP (actually Steve Aiken not Robin Swann) were interviewed on BBC (either Talkback or Nolan) on Monday or Tuesday. I'll check back

    8 Aye, Nationalist voters are keener on a UI than they were a year ago. They're still only on 41% support though (ie SF + SDLP)

    9 The Veto Adams is asking for looks pretty obvious to me. In the sense that if it has feathers and goes quack it's probably a duck. BTW I accept that GA and you both understand the GFA perfectly well, but if the bigger picture contradicts it then something just has to give...
    Last edited by Gather round; 16/06/2017 at 12:39 PM.

  10. #69
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Sky News Australia thought Gerry Adams was a man called "Sinn Féin" and that he was a member of the DUP who opposed the prospective DUP-Tory deal:


  11. #70
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    2 The basic problem is that your “duty of impartiality” (to 1% of the state's population, don't forget) contradicts the duty to form a working Government for the other 99%...
    Whilst the British government most definitely has legal obligations by virtue of having entered into an inter-governmental agreement - the GFA - that has status in international law, the Tories, on the other hand, aren't legally obliged to form that working government of which you speak with the DUP. In fact, they're not even legally obliged to form a government at all. Maybe you could argue they have some vague moral obligation to attempt to form a working government for the people of the UK or in the UK's national interest or whatever, but they could also just as easily pass up the opportunity and let Labour and other progressives have a stab at it instead.

    (Excuse my pedantry, but isn't the duty of impartiality relevant to approximately three per cent of the state's population?)

    3 The British Government- ANY British Government- can't be “rigorously impartial” for that reason.
    Why did the British government agree to undertake such a duty then? Perhaps pure or perfect impartiality isn't practically possible, but that doesn't mean the British government can just decide not to bother about even making an attempt at being impartial. There remains a duty to at least try and be as rigorously impartial as it can be in its dealings relating to the north of Ireland. Hopping into bed with the DUP is as far from trying to be impartial as could be possible.

    4 Anyway the point is hardly lost on SF,who've been gurning about how impartial or not the Brits are since 1998 (just like they did for decades beforehand)
    I think there's a considerable degree of validity in such "gurning". British intelligence was running Denis Donaldson as an agent as late as December of 2005. Why so, if Britain was supposedly impartial?

    The British government is still in breach of its ECHR article 2 (right to life) duty to provide effective, independent and transparent investigations into cases in the north where agents of the state killed people due to the use of lethal force, where the actions of the state or negligence on the part of the state resulted in deaths and where the state has been accused of colluding in killings.

    In fact, the British government has actively obstructed the process of resolving legacy issues - or truth and justice matters - despite agreeing during the Haass talks that resolutions were needed and would be pursued. It has disingenuously passed the buck of dealing with these issues to Stormont, as if the British government had been a neutral observer refereeing "two warring religious tribes" and had no role to play in the conflict itself or as if the deaths requiring effective investigation weren't consequences of its overall security policy and practices. Disclosure of the truth has been deliberately withheld under the dubious and unverified cloak of "national security", whilst the DUP has also been allowed to impede progress by holding back promised funding for legacy inquests.

    Britain has further failed to provide information on the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings and has reneged on its Weston Park commitment to hold an inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane. Why the British reluctance to disclose the truth and provide justice if Britain is supposedly impartial?

    The British government has also failed to honour its obligations in compliance with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, has failed to fulfil its promise to deliver an Irish language act, despite formal criticism from the Council of Europe, and, likewise, has again allowed the DUP to obstruct progress on this front.

    Other commitments that the British government has failed to honour include the establishment of a civic forum in the north, the establishment of an all-Ireland civic forum, the formation of a bill of rights for the north, the establishment of a joint north/south committee of the two human rights commissions and the production of an all-Ireland charter of rights.

    To pinpoint just a few examples of partisanship in its governing role prior to the peace process, there was collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, there was the long-term refusal until 1992 to proscribe the UDA and there was the lopsided application of the policy of internment without trial; for every Protestant interned, there were 19 Catholics subjected to the same. No unionist community ever experienced anything like Bloody Sunday or the Ballymurphy massacre at the hands of the state's forces. Onward to the modern day, Britain is still looking out for Britain's interests when it comes to its dealings with the north of Ireland and is reneging on its promises, plenty of which I've outlined above. That's not impartiality, as far as I'm concerned.

    In spite of all that, the British government is at least obliged to try to be impartial. If a deal is struck with the DUP, however, the British government can't even credibly pretend to be so any longer.

    5 Yes, I acknowledge a conflict of interest. There are relatively simple ways to get round that- by bringing in a 'neutral' chairman for talks, say- but my (2) above applies. The GFA may be unworkable in its present form, but that's not necessarily a disaster- nor does it have to risk the Peace Process, or whatever other euphemism Nationalists use. Put crudely, do they think if Foster manages to negotiate a few new hospitals or schools in Ulster Country, that the dissos & UDA/ UVFwill step up the 'War' in response, and get support for it?
    The concern is that unionists and DUP constituencies will benefit disproportionately from this arrangement at the expense of nationalists and non-DUP constituencies, considering the DUP look out for unionist interests first and foremost. How might an independent talks chairperson safeguard against that in order to protect supposedly-equal nationalist rights and interests? What talks would he or she be chairing anyway? This deal with the Tories surely negates or at least diminishes any incentive for the DUP to enter into talks with other opposing parties in order to get power-sharing up and running again, no? If the party can get what it wants direct from London by dragging desired concessions out of the Tories in return for the offering of support in Westminster, why trouble itself with the frequent disagreements and potential rigmarole of power-sharing?

    Whilst I think talk of peace being under threat is somewhat overblown, the deal will clearly undermine the notion of parity of esteem, which is a core concept underpinning the Good Friday Agreement. In that sense, it undermines the northern political process.

  12. #71
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    6 I'm not sure you're right about the mirror-image of the current row, ie if Labour were four or five short and did a deal with PC on confidence and supply. Now that English voters seem prepared to ignore the smears the media throw both at Labour and Nationalists (a huge change in itself), why not Leanne Wood insisting on that new bypass or upgraded rail line? Obviously there are differences- no Welsh Republican Army or Cymric Volunteer Force , but the basic principle is the same as per my (3) above
    What's the relevance of Plaid Cymru? As far as I know, the British government is under no internationally-agreed obligation to remain rigorously impartial in its dealings with Wales and the Welsh assembly. As you acknowledge, Wales doesn't have two institutionally-defined and historically-conflicting communities with and between whom the principle of parity of esteem has been agreed as a method by which to help them overcome conflict, resolve their differences and move forward together in peace.

    When I referred to Labour hypothetically striking a similar deal with a nationalist party, I meant a nationalist party in the context of the north of Ireland; either Sinn Féin or the SDLP, in other words.

    7 Naomi, Squeaky Jim and the UUP (actually Steve Aiken not Robin Swann) were interviewed on BBC (either Talkback or Nolan) on Monday or Tuesday. I'll check back
    In the news report at very beginning of Tuesday's Talkback show, Naomi Long is reported to be concerned about the potential impact the DUP-Tory deal may have upon the restoration of power-sharing. She's then quoted saying the following:

    "In every previous talks process, we have seen the government, at some point, having to use so leverage over the parties locally and to force them to make a decision around talks and to force them to move forward. I don't see honestly how James Brokenshire can be in a position to do that given that his position is entirely dependent upon the support of the DUP."

    From that, she sounds like she'd have an issue with a potential undermining of impartiality resulting from any deal in theory. Did she change her tune in the space of a few hours to saying that opposing the concept of formal "confidence and supply" deals between northern parties and the British government would amount to an insult to the people and parties of the north of Ireland? Or is it just that she has an issue with the DUP deal in practice whilst not necessarily having an issue with deals generally in theory? Can those positions be reconciled?

    8 Aye, Nationalist voters are keener on a UI than they were a year ago. They're still only on 41% support though (ie SF + SDLP)
    As has been apparent from other polls also, a NILT survey conducted in 2016 after the Brexit referendum has indicated a slight rise in support for unity: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/16...ortion-reform/

    If the Brexit decision has caused that, I envisage support for unity rising even further once the Brexit process becomes more real or concrete and its effects begin to be felt materially.

    9 The Veto Adams is asking for looks pretty obvious to me. In the sense that if it has feathers and goes quack it's probably a duck. BTW I accept that GA and you both understand the GFA perfectly well, but if the bigger picture contradicts it then something just has to give...
    I don't concur with such a reading. It's rather misleading to portray this as nationalists attempting to assert a veto. This isn't a case of nationalists making a unilateral demand of the British government. This is a case of holding the British government to a legal obligation it has previously bilaterally agreed to honour. To remind someone of their agreed obligations is entirely legitimate, fair and reasonable.

    And I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "the bigger picture". Ireland and Irish affairs are my "bigger picture" or primary concern; not Britain or British affairs, which are secondary and mainly relevant to me insofar as I lived in Britain for a few years and have friends there or insofar as British affairs might have some bearing upon Irish affairs. I understand you may well feel differently, at least until you finally come round to seeing the light anyway!

  13. #72
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    Morning all. Thoughtful stuff as ever Di: I hope to reply on Monday or Tuesday

  14. #73
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    Morning all. Thoughtful stuff as ever Di: I hope to reply on Monday or Tuesday
    Ha, no bother. Enjoy your weekend!

  15. #74
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Theresa May's robotic appearance on Newsnight with Emily Maitlis the other evening was embarrassing as she was interrogated on governmental responsibility for the Grenfell Tower fire disaster:



    Things aren't looking good for her and supporters of a hard Brexit are now threatening a leadership challenge within ten days if she is seen to be going soft on the matter in the queen's speech.

    Just on the Grenfell Tower disaster, I thought George Monbiot's article on "what 'ripping up red tape' really looks like" was excellent: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-deregulation

    Quote Originally Posted by George Monbiot
    For years successive governments have built what they call a bonfire of regulations. They have argued that “red tape” impedes our freedom and damages productivity. Britain, they have assured us, would be a better place with fewer forms to fill in, fewer inspections and less enforcement. But what they call red tape often consists of essential public protections that defend our lives, our futures and the rest of the living world. The freedom they celebrate is highly selective: in many cases it means the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor, of corporations to exploit their workers, landlords to exploit their tenants and industry of all kinds to use the planet as its dustbin. As RH Tawney remarked, “Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.”

    ...

    Crucial public protections have long been derided in the billionaire press as “elf ’n’ safety gone mad”. It’s not hard to see how ruthless businesses can cut costs by cutting corners, and how this gives them an advantage over their more scrupulous competitors. The “pollution paradox” (those corporations whose practices are most offensive to voters have to spend the most money on politics, with the result that their demands come to dominate political life) ensures that our protections are progressively dismantled by governments courting big donors.

  16. #75
    International Prospect CraftyToePoke's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,322
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,278
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,313
    Thanked in
    847 Posts
    Not sure which thread best hosts this, (here or the Unity one) but an interesting read, worth hitting the link for the detail included also, which is such that it reasonable to think this is at an advanced stage. So I suppose my questions are, how independent is the body who will decide if this goes ahead ? & how much May might be cornered into discussions / delays / changes, on it by the DUP at present if that body is open to influence ?

    And, even if the subject is merely broached, the maintaining a neutral stance in the ensuing political process London is committed to in return for the end of the IRA campaign is surely dead.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belfast Telegraph View Post
    Sinn Fein is set to become the largest Northern Ireland party at Westminster under proposed boundary changes, according to the UK's leading election prediction website.

    The political landscape would be dramatically altered from last week's outcome, with the DUP losing three seats and Sinn Fein gaining two.

    The redrawing of the electoral map would leave republicans with nine MPs to the DUP's seven, Electoral Calculus has predicted. Any boundary changes must be approved by a vote in Parliament.

    Given the drastic consequences for her party, Arlene Foster may prioritise the issue in her discussions with Prime Minister Theresa May over support for the minority Tory government.

    The predictions are based on the results from last week's Westminster poll, the 2014 local government election results, and the most recent census data. That information is applied to the new constituencies proposed in the Boundary Commission's blueprint.
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-35831665.html

  17. #76
    Seasoned Pro backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,692
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    248
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    751
    Thanked in
    485 Posts
    It will be extremely difficult to come up with any boundaries that won't make SF the biggest party at Westminster.

    There is still a clear unionist plurality among the population but the tendency among unionists to move to the greater Belfast area has created a half a dozen constituencies with negligible nationalist populations.

    East Belfast
    East Antrim
    North Down
    Lagan Valley
    Strangford
    South Antrim

    Nationalist constituencies on the other hand tend to be more 60:40. Unionism has effectively Gerrymandered itself through migration.
    Last edited by backstothewall; 20/06/2017 at 12:39 AM.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  18. Thanks From:


  19. #77
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by backstothewall View Post
    It will be extremely difficult to come up with any boundaries that won't make 21ST the biggest party at Westminster.
    I assume you're referring to Sinn Féin, but what is "21ST"?

  20. #78
    Seasoned Pro backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,692
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    248
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    751
    Thanked in
    485 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    I assume you're referring to Sinn Féin, but what is "21ST"?
    Just another example of the difficulties foot.ie has with mobile browsers.

    I typed SF, but somewhere between chrome mobile and here it was auto-corrected to 21ST
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  21. #79
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    @ Danny

    1 Sure, we have legal obligations to pay parking fines and the TV licences. And not to have a working government? Do you think the latter's less important?

    2 A Tory Government nodded throughby the DUP will be unstable.A Rainbow Coalition wouldn't get the chance to be unstable- Labour and the SNP would struggle to work together, and even if they did you'd be over-reliant on Caroline Lucas or Sylvia Hermon always turning up

    3 Your pedantry betrays your bias- you think everyone in NI agrees that the Tories need to be impartial. In reality, most Unionists aren't bothered as they almost all prefer May to Corbyn. Those Unionists are 49% of local voters, who overall are only 2.5% of the national total. So about 1.3% are with you. Don't pretend that many in England are bothered. They're too concerned about real violence around them than notional dissidence in NI

    4 The Brits agreed to supposed impartiality because they a) wanted a deal, b) hoped that they wouldn't need Unionist backing in Parliament and c) thought they could bluff through even if b) didn't work. As I've repeated a few times, I don't think they were ever impartial. By listing all that evidence of how biased they are, presumably you agree?

    5 They've tried to go throughthe motions. They'll continue to do so. Of course I realise that their relationship with the DUP makes that much more difficult, but since you clearly think they (Brits) have never had that impartiality, it does rather beg the question why you put so much trust in them for so long?

    6 Do you have any specific worries about the Tory/ DUP deal? Foster has said there'll be nothing about abortion, sexuality or other devolved issues in the negotiations. It'll be tax changes locally (on businesses, air travel etc.). The Tories will likely row back on benefits payable nationally because of pressure from Labour. As for pork-barrel projects, don't forget that both the DUP leadership are from Nationalist areas. Fermanagh people should be pleased

    7 DUP say they want Stormont back. They might not really mean it, but they didn't pull the plug to bring it down. Them's the breaks...

    8 Compared with threats of return to violence (which however unlikely is at least easily understood), parity of esteem is just a vague soundbite, certainly outside Ireland

    9 I mentioned Plaid Cymru not least because there's a real if small chance of them holding the balance in Westminster. There's no chance of Sinn Fein or the SDLP doing that, as we're agreed. If PC did briefly hold thtat clout, they'd get the goodies and English voters would whinge for a while. Life would go on

    10 Naomi Long is worried about Stormont not returning, understandably enough. Without it, she has very little platform and Alliance's vote may fall back. Her slight chippiness at being sneered at by has-beens like Paddy Ashdown doesn't contadict that

    11 Agreed, support for nationalism is rising. But we know the total Nat vote doesn't fully reflect it. That may change as Brexit bites

    12 We're talking about formation of a British government. That's why what English voters variously want or are indifferent about dominates the bigger picture

    13 I reserve the right to see the light at the appropriate moment...


    @ Crafty

    14 The Boundary Commission is theoretically independent, but like most British Government funded bodies it generally does what the British Government of the day wants (in this case, referring the previous Cameron regime, by cutting the number of seats overall and redrawing them to have roughly the same number of registered voters). Which is basically a gerrymander, because in Britain's electoral geography Labour seats tend to be in cities and towns with smaller electorates, while the Tories' are suburban and rural with fewer young and transient people who are less likely to register. In other words, electorate sizes differ often quite starkly, overall populations less so. The plan was to cut the number of Labour seats, with mny/ most of those remaining in inner cities having enormous Labour majorities, while surrounded by Tory areas with smaller yet comfortable margins, which funnily enough isn't too different from...

    15...Northern Ireland. As above, SF could win seats in places like Limavady (if it's merged with Magherafelt) or Lurgan (if it loses Banbridge), while the DUP waste a surplus getting 80% in Carrick and Larne, or wherever. Broadly the point BttW makes above. Even given the quirks of FPTP it would clearly be absurd for the current 49:41:10 breakdown to return more Nationalist than Unionist MPs. Of course there's a way round that, effectively mutually agreed gerrymander which gives 9:8:1 for Alliance, as an example

    16 May could well drop this anyway, more hassle thanit's worth. I mean, she's set to abandon the Government's entire economic strategy: carving up a few Sperrin villages looks small beer

    17 For the little that it's worth, Electoral Calculus's final prediction on 7 June was as follows

    Tory 361 (wrong by +43)
    Labour 216 (wrong by -46)
    SNP & PC 51 (wrong by +12)
    LibDem 3 (wrong by -9)
    Green 1 (correct)

    Even I was closer than that...


    @ BttW

    18 As per (15) above, the Boundary Commission just needs to replace existing gerrymanders with others to resolve the problem. Don't worry too much about county, district or ward borders, or if some constituencies look a bit odd. Birmingham City Centre, for example, would become a semi-erect penis Belfast should only be three seats- as it's just voted 40:42:19, one each for the three blocs?

    19 Three of the seven Nat-held constituencies (Foyle, Souh Down and West Belfast) have a bloc vote of more than 70%

    20 For a moment there I thought you were predicting a comeback by NI21...

  22. #80
    Seasoned Pro backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,692
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    248
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    751
    Thanked in
    485 Posts
    18. I largely agree. There is wisdom in viewing these proposals as a starting point for negotiations. If one seat ends up with 60,000 people and another ends up with 80,000 It hardly matters for Westminster as long as everyone is content with the final arrangements.

    What would you think about multi-member constituencies as a solution?

    19. You are quite correct on those the specifics but it was a generalisation which I think still stands. As you said unionists problem comes down to towns like Carrick & Larne.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2017 NI Assembly Election
    By backstothewall in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 284
    Last Post: 19/12/2017, 7:40 PM
  2. Republic of Ireland v Iceland - Tuesday, 28th March 2017 - Friendly 2017
    By Closed Account in forum Archived Match Threads
    Replies: 180
    Last Post: 29/05/2017, 12:30 PM
  3. Replies: 179
    Last Post: 29/05/2017, 12:29 PM
  4. 2017 NI Assembly Election
    By Wolfman in forum Rubbish
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22/01/2017, 4:50 PM
  5. Election 2011 - First Pre-Election Poll
    By dahamsta in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 19/11/2010, 6:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •