2017 NI Assembly Election

[BonnieShels]

On a more sombre note. Marty really isn't well.

I'm sure Arlene will lead the tributes in a careful and considerate manner when the time comes...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/06/martin-mcguinness-sinn-fein-seriously-ill-hospital-reports

[Gather round]

That poll quoted by RTE

@Danny and Bonnie- you're reading too much into that poll and coming over a bit defensively ;)

What it shows shouldn't be too surprising. Basically that

a) while people have always voted for a future UI in opinion polls, knowing there was no short or even mid-term likelihood of it happening, that will be different if an actual all-Ireland referendum follows a Nationalist 'win' in a NI election

b) the actual costs, or their method of calculation are less important than that voters will need to consider them at all, for the first time

I don't know what would happen in such a Referendum, but the lack of a big majority for yes is plausible. Put another way, can you be certain of massive support for taking on an extra 40% population from a sporadically violent, economically weak and politically turbulent other country, while quite possibly in a recession yourselves?

On the other hand, I do know what Southern governments have and haven't done for the last near-century ;)


That never-changing border through Puckoon

Every time I mention this, people gurn that the Free State/ later Republic was powerless to negotiate any Northern Nationalists back into the State, while conveniently ignoring that for 60 years they claimed in the Constitution that it had already happened. That this was clearly absurd doesn't make it any less dishonest. There is a widespread denial about long-established partitionism in the South. And once you accept that it existed, why would it be guaranteed to change in future?


unionism has lost its long-standing and psychologically-significant parliamentary majority. That's beyond dispute

One party rule was barred after 1972, effectively long-term coalition involving the two biggest blocs became the only viable option after 1998. The POC may still exist enabling 30 MLAs to block something that 50 or 60 support. So while Unionism has clearly taken a bad hit I think you overstate the significance, psychological or otherwise. My own forecast of the Election scoreboard, while wrong, did suggest only 44 Unionist seats, no-one responded in the terms you use above.

And yes Bonnie, I am familiar with the Troubles, having lived in Belfast through the 70s and 80s. Many of my family and neighbors were forced out homes, schools and jobs as a result. Spare us the exaggerated outrage/ rank-pulling.


The statelet is a gerrymandered entity in itself. Formed on the basis of a crude sectarian headcount, it's continued existence has essentially been the effect and sustenance of a gerrymander

Outdated 70s rhetoric. NI continues to exist because the Unionist population was and remains large enough and localised. The specific abuses ended nearly 50 years ago. GM generally is used by all governments (including in Dublin and London) to improve their own electoral chances. I don't see any three seat constituencies electing to Stormont...you are just using gerrymandering as a bogeyman and shorthand for anything the Brits or Unionists do that you don't like.


I perceive attitudes to abortion and reproductive rights to be more hardline generally within political unionism

Generally yes. I'm not sure that it will be a crucial issue for much longer though. As I said, if there's a free vote or even referendum changes will pass. After which, there'll be pro-abortion Unionists and anti-gay marriage Nationalists and a more relaxed electorate generally.


I meant that accessing political nationalism's upper ceilings evidently appears to be easier for women

You said, “nationalism is a much more accessible philosophy for women”, which was pretty (deliberately?) vague. There was at least a possible implication that you thought nationalism was inherently more attractive to women voters in NI. I merely pointed that the election result suggests otherwise ;)


violence in Southern Sweden

My direct experience is limited to a couple of holidays (including Euro 92), but have some people been forming their opinions based on Scandi Noir films and novels?

[Wolfman]

More circular guff.

Eventually the North won't have a choice about its status...whilst the stuff about the border and Irish governments is a complete red herring. No-one on either side has discussed it as they're not interested in modern day gerry mandering whilst Dublin hasn't had the military will in the best part of a 100 years so what do you expect to happen?

Financially as pointed out from other sources the AI economy is forecast to grow, at least in the short-term, though 'sporadically violent, economically weak and politically turbulent other country' is a bit hard on the auld Gerry Fitts(Brits).

[DannyInvincible]

@Danny and Bonnie- you're reading too much into that poll and coming over a bit defensively ;)

I was doing the exact opposite actually; reading very little into it (for the reasons outlined). ;)


a) while people have always voted for a future UI in opinion polls, knowing there was no short or even mid-term likelihood of it happening, that will be different if an actual all-Ireland referendum follows a Nationalist 'win' in a NI election

As already mentioned, two-thirds of those polled last July in a Paddy Power/Red C survey (http://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-referendum-recovery-2901609-Jul2016/) said they'd back unity tomorrow. That's in the immediate short-term; not some nebulous future.


Every time I mention this, people gurn that the Free State/ later Republic was powerless to negotiate any Northern Nationalists back into the State, while conveniently ignoring that for 60 years they claimed in the Constitution that it had already happened. That this was clearly absurd doesn't make it any less dishonest. There is a widespread denial about long-established partitionism in the South. And once you accept that it existed, why would it be guaranteed to change in future?

The dichotomy of or apparent theoretical/practical contradiction between de facto status or de jure status of particular entities is a very common feature of international politics, statecraft, diplomacy and discord. It's indicative of the natural or existential difficulty with differing subjective perspectives, the task of evaluating consensus(es) and deriving legitimacy from there.


One party rule was barred after 1972, effectively long-term coalition involving the two biggest blocs became the only viable option after 1998.... So while Unionism has clearly taken a bad hit I think you overstate the significance, psychological or otherwise. My own forecast of the Election scoreboard, while wrong, did suggest only 44 Unionist seats, no-one responded in the terms you use above.

Well, I'm not saying that the post-GFA unionist majority in Stormont equated to one-party-rule. Clearly, it didn't as systematic checks and balances were put in place once cross-community governance was ensured/protected by mutual agreement.

Have the media been overstating the significance too? It's been the headline story of the election - unionism losing it's "perpetual" or assumed parliamentary majority for the first time in history and nationalism making enough proportionate gains so as to even out the parliamentary playing field - no? Adams' description of the election as a "watershed" moment was given widespread headline media coverage; probably as there's a large dollop of truth in it.

That notion was also the primary focus of (the amusingly ignorant/misinformed) Andrew Neil and his (unseasoned) English guests on 'Sunday Politics' (from 3m59s) yesterday morning:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-BkAYeRLk#t=3m59s

Isabel Oakeshott described the loss of the unionist majority as "serious", "significant" and (laughably/insultingly) a "very dangerous moment", but clearly grasped that it was an important moment.

FWIW, some of the other comments by Neil and his panel are very revealing and indicate just how far removed people on that side of the Irish Sea are from what actually goes on in the north of Ireland; somewhere those in the British establishment supposedly regard as being an integral part of their country.

To be honest, I hadn't even appreciated the significance of you predicting that designated unionists would win less than 45 seats. I simply wasn't paying close attention for that. Perhaps the same applies to others. I simply didn't envisage that the historic majority would have been lost, so it hadn't really been on my mind or crossed my mind that 44 seats would in fact represent a minority, even though it's self-evident and seems pretty obvious now in hindsight. If it had been specifically pointed out to me, I'm sure its significance would have struck me then and I would most likely have commented on it. As it happened, unionism lost its majority - unexpected, as far as I was concerned - and the import of that then struck me, after the fact.

Issues like the Union flag solely flying over Belfast City Hall and the resulting protests over that being limited to designated days were predicated upon a unionist or loyalist assumption that they, with their British identity, are top dogs, but it's much harder to make such complaints or appeals for preservation of the 'status quo' when you no longer have the superior strength in numbers. The north of Ireland is not a homogenous British or unionist monolith and the loss of a unionist parliamentary majority should hopefully drive that point home for those who still like to believe that it is.


Outdated 70s rhetoric. NI continues to exist because the Unionist population was and remains large enough and localised. The specific abuses ended nearly 50 years ago. GM generally is used by all governments (including in Dublin and London) to improve their own electoral chances. I don't see any three seat constituencies electing to Stormont...you are just using gerrymandering as a bogeyman and shorthand for anything the Brits or Unionists do that you don't like.

The unionist population has remained large enough and localised for the very reason that the statelet itself is a gerrymandered entity. If the border had been drawn differently or elsewhere, the unionist population would not have been or remained large enough to concoct the semblance of democracy. The original gerrymander has maintained partition, which continues to impoverish and divide the island's people; I'm not saying it continues to be a source of specific human or civil rights abuses any longer.

Irrespective of the "rhetoric" one uses, NI was still a cynical construction that denied the expressed democratic will of the Irish people as a whole. Whilst most former colonies, by and large, were granted independence as whole entities in accordance with the wishes of majorities therein (and with the colonial settler population and any territory they inhabited also ceded by Britain), the partition of Ireland was rather unique, no doubt due to the proximity of the north-east of Ireland to Britain, which thereby enabled that latter to militarily enforce its will over the Irish and our affairs a lot easier if necessary.

If a nationalist or republican gave the following description for what they were doing, I would still refer to it as a cynical gerrymander:


I come now to the third and the most distressing of the problems we had to face, and I refer to that of the area. As hon. Members know, the area over which the North of Ireland Parliament is to have jurisdiction is the six counties of Antrim, Down, Armagh, Londonderry, Tyrone and Fermanagh. The three Ulster counties of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal are to be handed over to the South of Ireland Parliament. How the position of affairs in a Parliament of nine counties and in a Parliament of six counties would be is shortly this. If we had a nine counties’ Parliament, with 64 Members, the Unionist majority would be about three or four, but in a six counties’ Parliament, with 52 Members, the Unionist majority would be about 10. The three excluded counties contain some 70,000 Unionists and 260,000 Sinn Feiners and Nationalists, and the addition of that large block of Sinn Feiners and Nationalists would reduce our majority to such a level that no sane man would undertake to carry on a Parliament with it. That is the position with which we were faced when we had to take the decision a few days ago as to whether we should call upon the Government to include the nine counties in the Bill or be satisfied with the six. It will be seen that the majority of Unionists in the nine counties’ Parliament is very small indeed.

A couple of Members sick, or two or three Members absent for some accidental reason, might in one evening hand over the entire Ulster Parliament and the entire Ulster position, for which we have fought so hard and so long, to the hon. Member and his friends, and that, of course, is a dreadful thing to contemplate. Nothing—and I say this with all sincerity, and I am sure everybody will believe me—nothing was more heartbreaking to us than to take the decision which we felt we had to take a few days ago in Belfast when we decreed more or less that our Unionist fellow countrymen in the three counties of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal should remain outside the Ulster Parliament; but in judging our action we must ask hon. Members to try and place themselves in our position. They must remember that we are charged with the defence of the Ulster position, and surely that carries with it the duty of undertaking the government and the defence of as much of Ulster as we can hold. We quite frankly admit that we cannot hold the nine counties. I have given the respective figures of the Unionist and the Sinn Fein and Nationalist inhabitants in those three counties, and from them it is quite clear that as soon as the Ulster Parliament was set up, the first task which the Sinn Feiners would set themselves, in those three counties at any rate, would be to make government there absolutely impossible for us. They have made it impossible for the English Government in practically the whole of the South and West of Ireland, and we recognise facts sufficiently clearly to know that they could make it impossible for us to govern those three counties. Therefore, we have decided that, in the interests of the greater part of Ulster, it is better that we should give up those three counties rather than take on a bigger task than we are able to carry out.

[DannyInvincible]

You said, “nationalism is a much more accessible philosophy for women”, which was pretty (deliberately?) vague. There was at least a possible implication that you thought nationalism was inherently more attractive to women voters in NI. I merely pointed that the election result suggests otherwise ;)

I think northern nationalism is a philosophy that is inherently more in tune and at ease with the concept of equality (rather than the concept of traditional privilege, with which "big house" unionism particularly might be more accustomed), and for obvious socio-historic reasons. When people have had to struggle for equality, rights, justice and so forth, it enables (or one would hope or expect it to enable) them to empathise better with those in similar struggles.

Evidently, there is greater room for (what one might call) upward mobility within political nationalism for women (perhaps because of the aforementioned historical and ideological distinction) considering women have twice the representation within political nationalism at Stormont (nearly 40 per cent of 'Nationalist' MLAs are women) as they do within political unionism at Stormont (just 20 per cent of 'Unionist' MLAs are women).

[osarusan]

As already mentioned, two-thirds of those polled last July in a Paddy Power/Red C survey (http://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-referendum-recovery-2901609-Jul2016/) said they'd back unity tomorrow. That's in the immediate short-term; not some nebulous future.


I think the point was that it's easy to say that you'd support unification tomorrow when you know there is no chance of it actually happening any time soon.

[DannyInvincible]

I think the point was that it's easy to say that you'd support unification tomorrow when you know there is no chance of it actually happening any time soon.

Maybe so, but we just have the poll question posed and the resulting answers/figures to go on. Otherwise, we're just speculating as to the motives, interests, knowledge and foresight of those surveyed.

On the significance of unionism losing its parliamentary majority, which GR seems to be downplaying, George Galloway described events as "groundbreaking" here and his interviewee, Kevin Meagher, shared the view:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ94BMDiyBU

I think it has been broadly accepted by most commentators and observers as a big deal.

Also, an interesting graph, this (https://twitter.com/ornayoung/status/837956116797587456), which further emphasises the historical significance of last Thursday:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6EEo2nWUAAKtm8.jpg:large

[Gather round]

Morning all. Will reply in detail this evening (my laptop just crashed with Gorgeous Galloway in full flow ;) ).

[BonnieShels]

Morning all. Will reply in detail this evening (my laptop just crashed with Gorgeous Galloway in full flow ;) ).

I'm even still digesting Danny's treatise. No panic. :)

[DannyInvincible]

Great. Join a UI, get even less progressive politics ;)

Just came across this interesting graphic (published here (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170307-1) today by Eurostat) in respect of the gender pay-gap throughout European states in 2015:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6Tar4cXQAALECJ.jpg


In 2015, the gender pay gap in the European Union (EU) stood at 16.3%. This means that women earned on average 84 cents for every euro earned by a man. Across Member States, the narrowest gender pay gaps were registered in Luxembourg and Italy (both at 5.5%), and the widest in Estonia (26.9%), followed by the Czech Republic (22.5%), Germany (22%), Austria (21.7%) and the United Kingdom (20.8%).

They do state that they've used 2014 data for Ireland (and some other states) but that the pay-gap has remained stable overall, so perhaps it is somewhat relevant to our gender-related side-discussion and national comparisons...

[Wolfman]

Will reply in detail this evening (my laptop just crashed with Gorgeous Galloway in full flow).

Please don't!
There's only so much repetitive whataboutery and 'ironic' (?) smilies we can take...

[Wolfman]

I think the point was that it's easy to say that you'd support unification tomorrow when you know there is no chance of it actually happening any time soon.

Except no-one thinks that's the case. That's just daft. Any transition would take at least 5 years. And that's based on some settlement at least 5-10 years from now.

Anyway back in the, er, real world. This has been Foster's response.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-assembly-election/i-want-one-party-for-unionism-says-dups-arlene-foster-35507746.html

The replies on social media are quite amusing to put mildly. And that's mainly 'her 'fellow unionists...

[DannyInvincible]

Rather than see this election result as emphasising the need for self-reflection and a more reasonable, reconciliatory, empathetic approach to business, Arlene's desire appears to be to "no surrender!", "batten down the hatches!" and inevitably recede further towards an eventual wilderness: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-assembly-election/arlene-foster-my-wish-is-for-the-prounion-parties-to-now-come-together-35507626.html


There is a responsibility on all unionists moving forward. As a party the DUP must reflect on what we can do to remove barriers from people voting for us.

The 225,413 votes for the DUP last week was an impressive number, but it will not be enough to win the next election.

We must not only hold the vote that we already have, we also need to expand to the next generation of voters. That is both in terms of first preference votes and also in terms of our capacity to win transfers.

Ideally, I would like to see a renewed attempt to create unionist unity where the parties would come together.

Failing that, we need to agree transfer pacts where unionists transfer down the ballot paper to each other.

Mike Nesbitt's transfer policy did enormous damage to the UUP, but it also hurt unionism more widely. This must be addressed if unionism is to remain as the dominant voice in Northern Ireland.

As Brian Walker (a liberal unionist, I believe) writes (http://sluggerotoole.com/2017/03/07/no-surrender-from-arlene-as-she-calls-for-a-united-unionist-party-on-the-eve-of-negotiations/) on Slugger:


Arlene is going first for consolidation, the narrow defence of the unionist cause rather than trying first to extend its appeal. While this is only a first move, her idea of consolidation repudiates Mike Nesbitt’s cross community gesture and reinforces the sectarian character of politics. The implications for Sinn Fein and the SDLP are obvious.

There is no hint here of broader views. While there is some logic to it, consolidation does not necessarily amortise unionist appeal and she betrays no sign of acknowledging that united unionism can no longer guarantee the numbers. Although a pact or a united party might make sense in the likes of FST, narrower appeal may mean a smaller overall vote, as the election showed some unionist drift to Alliance and the Greens.

The familiar distrust of all Sinn Fein’s works is still here for all to see.


"Given how Sinn Fein reacted to almost winning the election with their renewed calls for a border poll and for concessions from the Government, can you imagine how they would have reacted to having won the election?"

There is no admission here that she bore a lot of responsibility for that near- victory nor any acknowledgement of the obvious fact that a “ radical republican agenda” cannot be forced through a power sharing government.

She doesn’t seem to realise that Sinn Fein’s hand is immeasurably stronger now outside the Executive, full of bargaining chips for returning, thanks largely to her. She seems obsessed by that border poll.

...

Most of what Sinn Fein want dare I say it, is innately reasonable give or take a detail. None of it undermines the Union one jot. The main problem is that it’s Sinn Fein doing the wanting. Nothing divides them except division itself. The DUP should engage and quickly say: ” why don’t we continue this properly in the Executive?” This would require new protocols for good behaviour, much stronger than Fresh Start (https://www.northernireland.gov.uk/publications/fresh-start-stormont-agreement-and-implementation-plan-0).

A merging of the DUP, UUP and possibly even the TUV would be long-term strategic suicide. Whilst any new combined unionist party would undoubtedly receive greater support than each of the three parties designated as 'Unionist' would in isolation, as an overall bloc, unionism would, without a doubt, lose a significant number of votes from liberal, progressive and "default" unionists to more moderate parties like Alliance and the Greens. This would inevitably only further strengthen nationalism's relative clout.

Given Arlene's prior form, it may be little surprise to see this happen. She has done extraordinary damage to unionism as it is. Maybe it'd be a good thing for her to stick around... She's been a blessing in disguise!

[SkStu]

They do state that they've used 2014 data for Ireland (and some other states) but that the pay-gap has remained stable overall, so perhaps it is somewhat relevant to our gender-related side-discussion and national comparisons...

Not to take this further off topic, but from my readings, Ireland has always been one of the more progressive countries when it comes to the role of the woman in society. As a State that was unduly influenced by the Catholic Church for too long in our recent history, we are not without some blemishes and there is still a lot of work to do - but dating back to the times of Brehon law the treatment of women by a patriarchal society was deemed very progressive as compared to other cultures - equality, land ownership, divorce and succession rights and judicial participation the most significant.

This status carried on (informally) through centuries of occupation with the role of women being prominent in a number of rebellions with the most obvious and most celebrated being the participation of women in the 1916 Rising which was the first instance of men voluntarily including and arming women in such a struggle. Ironically enough, it was after 1922 when women gained voting equality that their rights really started declining as the influence of the Catholic Church grew and DeValera's constitution reflects this. I think that the 70's and 90's saw the first real and most significant waves of feminism in Ireland and, again, it was welcomed by our society (as it was at the time still under influence of the Church) more so than others.

Anyway, still a long way to go for women to really, truly stand on equal footing but the history of womens rights in Ireland and the role of the woman is a very interesting study.

[Wolfman]

Don't let a certain Orange groper hear you say that!

[SkStu]

Don't let a certain Orange groper hear you say that!

I haven't seen Ealing Green around here in ages.

[DannyInvincible]

Not to take this further off topic...

Ah, I'll indulge you. It is fascinating stuff, as you say. And sure you've been suspended for a week (http://foot.ie/threads/219506-Trump?p=1910270&viewfull=1#post1910270) already anyway, I see, so what's the harm?! :p


This status carried on (informally) through centuries of occupation with the role of women being prominent in a number of rebellions with the most obvious and most celebrated being the participation of women in the 1916 Rising which was the first instance of men voluntarily including and arming women in such a struggle.

Indeed, the Proclamation of 1916 declared universal suffrage for all Irish men and women. In the UK, only women who were householders and over the age of 30 gained the right to vote in 1918, whilst women over the age of 21 didn't get the vote until 1928.


Ironically enough, it was after 1922 when women gained voting equality that their rights really started declining as the influence of the Catholic Church grew and DeValera's constitution reflects this.


Síghle Bhreathnach-Lynch's writing on the post-1922 Marian construction of an Irish (female) identity grounded in the rural, Gaelic and Catholic is fascinating: http://cws.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cws/article/viewFile/8831/8008


This paper explores how issues centring on landscape, space, and gender intersected with the construction of a new Irish post-colonial identity. In the decades following political independence in 1922 the image of Ireland and the Irish projected by successive governments was that of a bleak but beautiful countryside, peopled exclusively by a sturdy Gaelic-speaking, Catholic people. This construct provided an instantly recognizable and different identity from its former ruler Britain, which was perceived as urban, English-speaking, and Protestant. The determination to be different in every way was further reinforced by projecting the Irish female as chaste, unsophisticated, even unworldly, whose sole role within the new state was that of mother and homemaker. Structures to support this stereotype were instigated in legislation, in the formation of a new constitution, and in Roman Catholic church law. By fixing the position and role of women, as well as defining the very nature of womanhood, the new state could maintain a patriarchy already firmly in place during centuries of British rule.

In the visual arts, this image of Ireland and the Irish was sustained by numerous paintings of the west of Ireland, now promoted as the "real" Ireland. Many of them included women, set against a backdrop of the landscape of the West, dressed in peasant costume (Figure 1). This kind of representation helped to anchor Irish women to a rural identity while at the same time reinforce the supposed links between the female, nature, and nurturing. Intersecting with that model was the Virgin Mary as signifier of moral purity and sexual innocence. This article examines one important aspect of these ideological discourses surrounding Irish female identity: the concerted effort by more zealous nationalists to assert masculinity as the essential characteristic of the "Gael" (the new Irishman) and how this impacted on the construct of the ideal Irish woman (see Nash).

With the coming into being of the Irish Free State in 1922, the idea of creating an Irish identity, separate and different from that of its erstwhile rule became an imperative (see Brown 77-101). So-called "true" Irishness now became exclusively linked to the idea of an ancient and noble pre-conquest past, with a single Gaelic tradition, culture, and language. At the same time there was a move towards a more masculine national identity. The conquered, now free, needed to assert their strength and prowess; thus the Celt (characterized in the science of ethnography in the nineteenth century as a feminine people) metamorphosed into the manly Gael and the land chosen as worthy of the Gael was the western seaboard, a corner of Ireland perceived by writers, artists, and nationalists as the cradle of Irish civilization.

What was so special about this part of the countryside and why did it exercise such a hold on people's political and cultural aspirations? Geographically it is a place of extraordinary wild beauty, a landscape of rugged mountains below which, stretching to the edge of the Atlantic, lies flat bog-land and coastal fields. Those who lived there in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries spoke Irish, dressed in distinctive costume, and pursued a lifestyle which appeared to be untouched bywars, political upheavals, or the less attractive aspects of urban industrialization. These factors gave the location a sense of timelessness and an ongoing continuity with the Celtic past.

...


I think that the 70's and 90's saw the first real and most significant waves of feminism in Ireland and, again, it was welcomed by our society (as it was at the time still under influence of the Church) more so than others.

Having two female heads of state in succession (from 1990 through to 2011) was indeed a very progressive development. In fact, it was the first time in international history that a female president of any country directly succeeded another female president.

[CraftyToePoke]

Given Arlene's prior form, it may be little surprise to see this happen. She has done extraordinary damage to unionism as it is. Maybe it'd be a good thing for her to stick around... She's been a blessing in disguise!

This is its, she is the gift that keeps on giving, she's like a Thatcher who cannot hurt you back but brings you floods of votes, a no down side Thatcher figure. Real treasure.

SFs trickiest job now is to find a way back to the institutions while keeping her at the helm of the DUP .... irony.

[DannyInvincible]

An interesting counterfactual piece on Slugger that draws comparison between the make-up of the 90-seat 2017 asssembly and a notional 90-seat 2016 assembly: http://sluggerotoole.com/2017/03/07/notional-90-seat-2016-assembly-compared-with-2017-results/


https://i0.wp.com/sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017assembly.png?resize=630%2C394
*Whyte, Nicholas (22 December 2016). “If the 2016 Assembly election had had five seats per constituency…”.

As Northern Ireland’s turbulent history takes another turn there is a widespread feeling that AE17 has changed the local political situation profoundly. It was a good result for Sinn Féin, there is no doubt about that, and for Alliance too, but what about the others? The DUP admitted to a bad day at the office and Mike Nesbitt has fallen on his sword. That much is clear, but most analysis of the election is fogged by the fact that comparison with the last election is difficult due to the reduction in the Assembly from 108 to 90 seats, meaning that most parties, even if they held their vote, were going to lose seats. The question therefore is not how many seats did the parties gain or lose but rather how did the result stack up against a ‘notional’ 2016 result

The above table, which includes data assimilated by fellow Slugger contributor, Nicholas White, shows what the last assembly would have looked like had it had 90 members. Obviously the parties may have approached the election differently in five seat constituencies, but by crunching the numbers and looking and looking at transfers, Nicholas came up with a notional 90-seat 2016 assembly highlighted in yellow.

As can be seen, the UUP and DUP were both poised to lose five seats in 2017 on a similar share of the vote. The UUP with a small increase in percentage vote lost the expected five seats plus one while the DUP with a modest 1.1% drop in vote share lost not only the five they could have expected to but another five again, double the expected loss. So last Thursday was a particularly bad day for the DUP despite any spin about increasing the overall vote. Foster boosted her vote by the usual ‘keep them out’ tactics but her difficulty was that for every additional DUP voter she got out, she inspired two for Sinn Féin. To add to her woes, the DUP is perhaps now the least transfer-friendly major party which makes picking up the fifth seat in a constituency increasingly difficult.

The UUP decline seems to have bottomed out, for the time being at least, but with the fair wind of the RHI scandal it should have done better and while it slowly increases its vote, the SDLP is losing its support in a similar, glacial manner, though thanks in part to UUP transfers it managed to avoid losing seats.

The centre held, as it was expected to. Neither Alliance nor the Greens were expected to lose seats and neither did. PBP was expected to lose one and it did, ending Eamon McCann’s brief career as an MLA.

The big surprise was of course Sinn Féin. It was expected to lose five seats but ended the day only one down, a gain of four over the 2016 notional result. In a way, the DUP, with crocodile jibes and removing a modest amount of Irish language funding – not enough to save worthwhile money, but enough to provoke – did most of Sinn Féin’s electioneering for it. The DUP, however, is unlikely to be so generous next time round.

[backstothewall]

To be honest, I hadn't even appreciated the significance of you predicting that designated unionists would win less than 45 seats. I simply wasn't paying close attention for that. Perhaps the same applies to others. I simply didn't envisage that the historic majority would have been lost, so it hadn't really been on my mind or crossed my mind that 44 seats would in fact represent a minority, even though it's self-evident and seems pretty obvious now in hindsight. If it had been specifically pointed out to me, I'm sure its significance would have struck me then and I would most likely have commented on it. As it happened, unionism lost its majority - unexpected, as far as I was concerned - and the import of that then struck me, after the fact.

It wasn't just the loss of the overall majority though. That has been coming for years. It was the big bang way that it happened. Unionism didn't just lose it's majority. It came within a couple of hundred votes in Strangford of losing both the majority and plurality on the same afternoon. Nobody dreamed of that happening but it was avoided by a whisker.

Even my "insane" prediction only has 37 Nats v 42 Unionists. Overall majority gone but still a comfortable lead for unionism.

BonnieShels will have to forgive me for bringing the "insane" thing up again. It's going to be my own personal "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for a while

Interestingly, the Boundary commission proposes to move Crossgar (pop 1800 - 75% Catholic) and half of Carryduff (pop 7000 - 50% Catholic) into Strangford in 2018. All other things being equal there will be an easy Nationalist seat there next time. And on these figures with the new boundaries I'd be looking at the next Westminster election coming out with

SF: 7
SDLP: 2
Alliance: 1
DUP: 4
UUP: 1
Ind U: 1

UB&B will be tight between DUP & SF, though there is every chance that SF could take both those SDLP seats

[BonnieShels]

Not at all. I'm always too optimistic when it comes to elections so despite being hopeful on Friday I still thought there would be too many fifth-seaters that would fall to the dupers. Plus I decided to sit on the fence with results for a change.

To be wrong so spectacularly is something I'm happy about. I've waited on this sort of result since the ceasefire in 94. To say that I drank a bevvie or two to it on Friday night would be an understatement.

I'm delighted you have that moment because it means perpetual majority is gone. I'll take it.


The DUP, however, is unlikely to be so generous next time round.

This is predicated on unionists and the DUP learning a lesson. They never will.

To see them castigate Nesbitt just shows they really don't understand what actually happened on Friday. Long may they remain in denial.

[backstothewall]

Nationalism got lucky with almost every 5th seat they were in position to take. There might be a few seats that goback to Unionism next time but them getting back to 45 (or 40 as it should be next time) is a fantasy.

[Gather round]

@Danny, variously:

1 I don't understate the significance of the election. A 4% swing to Nationalism with barely any floating voters is impressive. Unionism is on the defensive and Foster will almost inevitably follow Nesbitt in resigning. Allister might retire too

2 The crucial watershed (as Adams calls it) was in 1972. Ever since then, guaranteed majority one party rule has been replaced by two big and squabbling minoriteis, and latterly a small but growing er, third force. A future and genuine watershed needs there to be 46 Nationalist MLAs. Gerry will probably be retired before that happens

3 NI media talk up the significance because they have to- otherwise the local news would be all about three-legged calves being born in Augher- Clogher, or similar. As you mentioned, London Media didn't think it important enough to read their briefing notes. BTW I'm pretty sure Isabel Oakeshott describing things as “dangerous” was just a figure of speech

4 Partition left more people on their preferred side of the/ any border than a 32-county Free State would have done. This is self-evident, yet you ignore it to re-fight great-granny's battles. The gerrymanders of 1920 or 1970 are about as relevant as local government 1690. I daresay it would have suited your simplistic one people on one island model if the Unionists had either bought a one-way ticket to Liverpool or Stranraer, or voted Fine Gael like their cousins in Cavan or Monaghan. But they didn't so why keep obsessing about it?

5 The island's population is divided because that's what the localised minority prefer. It's false to suggest there is a single expressed national will. Long-term, partition is not the cause of impoverisment: NI was economically stronger than the South for most of the 20th century even while a relatively poor, remote region of Britain. Because a UI might be rational, even popular in the future doesn't necessarily mean that it was in the past

6 NI nationalism isn't per se a philosophy of anything other than dissolving NI. It's more at ease with commemorating paramilitarism than allowing abortion (the latter as you mentioned)

7 A merger or formal deal within the Unionist parties (four, or six if you include Tory and UKIP) wouldn't make that much difference. It would still have factions which would continue not to co-operate with each other. And would still be transfer-unfriendly from non-aligned parties as others have said. Many previous Unionist voters might just stay at home

8 There's no realistic likelihood of either UUP or SDLP leading a coalition so less incentive to transfer to each other. That might help SF, DUP and AP. The election shows Alliance as the real third party now

[Wolfman]

Disagree totally about the point re. partition.

It held back the rest of the island getting greater economies of scale and was/is an irrational division on a small island. That and the fact that like it or not, 20% of Ireland's population are related to people who were transplanted in illegally, so as long as there's even one of their descendants on the island that will have passing relevance to their general status.
Don't have anything against those people personally and think they should make a lot more effort to assimilate(some have) but if the religious manics and the other pro-Brit loyalists/zealots are so fixated on London, the Queen etc, you'd think these morons would leave from somewhere they're not wanted, at the first opportunity?

Though the irony is the Brits/'mainland' don't want them either. Given the majority of Brits see the majority of Unionists as, er, Irish.

[DannyInvincible]

4 Partition left more people on their preferred side of the/ any border than a 32-county Free State would have done. This is self-evident, yet you ignore it to re-fight great-granny's battles. The gerrymanders of 1920 or 1970 are about as relevant as local government 1690. I daresay it would have suited your simplistic one people on one island model if the Unionists had either bought a one-way ticket to Liverpool or Stranraer, or voted Fine Gael like their cousins in Cavan or Monaghan. But they didn't so why keep obsessing about it?

You can't dismiss something that is evidently still having profound economic, social and political implications in the immediate present as a "great-granny's battle". I support the GFA as a means of allowing people to move forward towards realising their legitimate aims and aspirations in a functional manner - in mutual acknowledgement of contrasting narratives - from a period of conflict and a position of political (or even military) stalemate. It's a practical compromise, but it still doesn't mean I think partition was right or just in the first instance. I still wish to see partition's demise for a whole multitude of reasons, from the political to the economic to the cultural, as I've already outlined.

If there's a hint that I might have advocated or be sympathetic to a regressive "go back to where your ancestors came from" stance, that's not the case at all. As you should well know, I believe in peacefully and constitutionally convincing unionists of the merits of Irish unity - I want them to voluntarily participate and contribute to Irish diversity - so that we can have a stable and more prosperous all-island society for the betterment and benefit of all.


5 The island's population is divided because that's what the localised minority prefer. It's false to suggest there is a single expressed national will. Long-term, partition is not the cause of impoverisment: NI was economically stronger than the South for most of the 20th century even while a relatively poor, remote region of Britain. Because a UI might be rational, even popular in the future doesn't necessarily mean that it was in the past

There was a democratically-expressed national will pre-partition (when the island was treated as a political unit), and it sought national indepedence. Partition was a means of quashing that will, whilst it has also undeniably harmed and held back the entire island economy.


6 NI nationalism isn't per se a philosophy of anything other than dissolving NI. It's more at ease with commemorating paramilitarism than allowing abortion (the latter as you mentioned)

Nationalism is the people who make up its numbers and their historical experiences. It's not just an abstraction.

All sides - including mainstream unionists and haughty British politicians - commemorate combatants involved in the conflict, in spite of wrongs committed on all sides. In saying that, the SDLP don't tend to commemorate republican volunteers and many members/supporters wouldn't feel comfortable doing so. Meanwhile, I see SF's position on abortion being relaxed in the near future, as already explained above.

[CraftyToePoke]

Even Thatcher acknowledged they got it wrong in the papers released recently. - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/archive/thatchers-shock-admission-that-uk-got-it-wrong-on-irish-border-in-1921-35328461.html

[backstothewall]

NI nationalism isn't per se a philosophy of anything other than dissolving NI. It's more at ease with commemorating paramilitarism than allowing abortion (the latter as you mentioned)

Irish nationalism is badly named. It isn't a nationalist movement at all. For me nationalism is about the impression of superiority of a nation over others. I Don't think I've ever met a genuine Irish nationalist if one defines it as an Irish equivilant of Serbian nationalism for example. On the other hand in the USA almost everyone is a nationalist. Nobody would ever campaign for political office in Ireland talking about us being a "shining house on the hill" or "beacon of freedom".

There is nothing exceptional or special about Ireland. It's a wee island nation off Europe that does it's best.

Separatism might be a better descriptor. The philosophy would be that Ireland is neither superior nor inferior to our neighbours in Britain or the mainland. That we should be free to look after our own affairs, co-operating with other nations if and when we see fit.

[Wolfman]

Good point bttw, but that's typical of GR's pompous whataboutery on occasion sadly.

[DannyInvincible]

"Nationalism" is a traduced term as it is often or perhaps more commonly associated with far-right ethnic supremacists in other contexts, such as in Britain or Germany.

Scottish, Catalan and Basque nationalism, however, like Irish nationalism, generally aren't imperial or supremacist in nature. There are many different types of nationalism; both right-wing and left-wing or both ethnic and civic, for example. Scottish nationalism is civic and progressive. It's about celebrating Scottishness and the diversity within that rather than putting others down. I'd like to think of Irish nationalism as similar.

[backstothewall]

Scottish, Catalan and Basque nationalism, however, like Irish nationalism, generally aren't imperial or supremacist in nature. There are many different types of nationalism; both right-wing and left-wing or both ethnic and civic, for example. Scottish nationalism is civic and progressive. It's about celebrating Scottishness and the diversity within that rather than putting others down. I'd like to think of Irish nationalism as similar.

That is true. Though the Catalan and Basque independence movements tend to be described as "Seperatists" in the media and common parlance. I'm sure there are historical reasons for the difference in terminology, but I've no idea what they are.

[BonnieShels]

That is true. Though the Catalan and Basque independence movements tend to be described as "Seperatists" in the media and common parlance. I'm sure there are historical reasons for the difference in terminology, but I've no idea what they are.

Perhaps it's rooted in our desire for home-rule primarily rather than separatism?

[DannyInvincible]

That is true. Though the Catalan and Basque independence movements tend to be described as "Seperatists" in the media and common parlance. I'm sure there are historical reasons for the difference in terminology, but I've no idea what they are.

I'm not certain either, but can "separatist" be a term employed to sort of discredit or belittle nationalist independence movements by those hostile or unsympathetic to them? It can be used fairly neutrally or without such connotations or intent too, I'm sure, but my impression - and I could well be mistaken - is that it can or may primarily be used by the "established nation" (or majority/dominant body politic, along with its ideological allies), from whom another particular body of nationalists (most often a minority within a particular commonly-recognised or established state) wish to attain autonomy, as it implies that the "separatists" aren't actually a distinct nation but are really just fellow compatriots who have a desire to be separate from the "rightful/legitimate authority" of their "true nation" perhaps due to some "misguided" notion of themselves.

Maybe I'm way off, but let me use an example that might kind of flesh out what I'm thinking/saying... This page (http://www.cfr.org/separatist-terrorism/ira-splinter-groups-uk-separatists/p9239), for example, hosted by the right-wing, US-based and UK government-sympathetic Council on Foreign Relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations), refers to the IRA as having been "(UK) separatists", but the IRA, or the various organisations operating under that name (indeed, numerous still do), would never have referred to themselves as "separatists" as doing so would have implied a recognition that they were operating under the legitimate authority or jurisdiction of the UK but sought to separate themselves from that and break free. As far as the IRA were concerned, however, Britain's claim over any part of Ireland has always been illegitimate and thus said claim was denied or not recognised. In essence then, the IRA regarded themselves as acting to enforce an already-declared all-island republic (declared as of 1916), which they asserted to be a de jure and existing entity. In accordance with the republican legitimatist line of thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_republican_legitimism), they weren't trying to break free from the UK because they asserted that they weren't legitimately under British control; rather, Britain was deemed to be illegally occupying Ireland, or part of it, and, hence, was getting in the way of the running of the already-declared and legitimate all-island republic. They posited that they were the official and legitimate army of this republic. To say they were attempting to separate from the UK (or engaging in separatism, in other words) would have been to deny the legitimacy and existence of the 1916-declared republic. To describe themselves as "separatists" might have implied a constitutional acceptance or recognition of the UK's asserted jurisdiction over them.

Does that provide any clarity on the/a possible distinction between "nationalist" and "separatist"? I'm just sort of reflecting aloud, but it's not something I'm totally sure of. Would, say, ETA have self-described as "Basque separatists" or would that have been a term favoured more so by the Spanish government and mainstream media?

[backstothewall]

I'm disturbed by how polite and agreeable this thread is. Please insert some vile sectarianism immediately.

11 pages later...

I hope we've all proved we can be proper grown ups and resist the urge to throw **** at each other. I mean there has been a bit of that I'm sure but it's well within the boundaries of politics in any country, and I would dare to suggest it's a good bit better here than the average FF v FG internet ****fest.

The election being over now can this be renamed so we can keep it going as a thread for nordie politics. As well as perpetual negotiations have hospitals and a education and all that up here as much as anywhere else and a good mature group of people talking about it in a respectful manner.

[Gather round]

a good mature group of people talking about it in a respectful manner

Whatabou...only joking. Amen to all that, Brother ;)


I want [Unionists] to voluntarily participate and contribute to Irish diversity

That's what they are doing ;) In reality, you want them to join an Irish conformity...


Partition...has also undeniably harmed and held back the entire island economy

You don't know what might have happened without partition. The 30 year conflict from the 70s might have happened in the 20s, on a wider scale. Which could have encouraged even more stagnant economic policies from Eddie Coll and co (what he actually got up to had little or nothing to do with partition). And so on.

We've just had the 2017 Election, but some of you are still complaining about 1918 one. It's as irrelevant as Captain Cook or Davy Crockett are to an Austrlian or American poll. The expressed will of the entire Irish People as Danny keeps calling it hasn't existed since that earlier election.


Meanwhile, I see SF's position on abortion being relaxed in the near future, as already explained above

Good. Similarly, I see gay marriage being enacted following a free vote or even referendum in the near future. Neither should then be a major election issue?

As for abstracts, you use them far more than I do. I just analyse what SF does, ie respond to its electorate. For every group of voters that supports their social policies, there's a larger lobby that tolerates/ expects Michelle P to hang out with the Balaclava Boys in a graveyard.


Basque Nationalism [isn't] supremacist in nature

Over a long period of recent history, it has systematically murdered people and blown up their livelihoods. Similarly to Irish Nationalism, indeed. Aren't we moving away from discussing abstracts?

As Danny says, the IRA in NI aren't separatists from Britain. They're applicants to join the South of Ireland which- whatever you think of the current fashion for 'inevitable' Irish Unity- has clearly been playing hard to get for some time now...

[Gather round]

PS I've just bought the book by Kevin Meagher that DI referred above, on an inevitable UI. Available for about EU5-6 from Amazon.

A quick initial skim read has him comparing that to Liverpool winning the EPL. Over to you, Juergen...

[DannyInvincible]

That's what they are doing ;) In reality, you want them to join an Irish conformity...

Ah, I think it's a bit unfair to crudely simplify my position as such. I'll assume you're being somewhat mischievous. ;)


You don't know what might have happened without partition. The 30 year conflict from the 70s might have happened in the 20s, on a wider scale. Which could have encouraged even more stagnant economic policies from Eddie Coll and co (what he actually got up to had little or nothing to do with partition). And so on.

As far as De Valera was concerned, I think partition gave him the platform to instigate his carnival as reaction (as James Connolly predicted).


We've just had the 2017 Election, but some of you are still complaining about 1918 one. It's as irrelevant as Captain Cook or Davy Crockett are to an Austrlian or American poll. The expressed will of the entire Irish People as Danny keeps calling it hasn't existed since that earlier election.

Because the border was imposed so as to suppress that.


Good. Similarly, I see gay marriage being enacted following a free vote or even referendum in the near future. Neither should then be a major election issue?

For me or for Sinn Féin? They're big issues for women and the LGBT community; if those sections of society wish to make issues that affect them as directly as stringent abortion legislation or non-recognition of same-sex marriage do major election issues, they're more than entitled to do so. I fully support them in their campaigns and endeavours.

Free votes in Stormont (if it gets up and running again)? One can only hope they'll succeed. The DUP, TUV and one other MLA designated as 'Unionist' could still successfully veto such a vote via the petition of concern mechanism.

How likely would referenda be? They'd be very unusual for northern politics.


Over a long period of recent history, it has systematically murdered people and blown up their livelihoods. Similarly to Irish Nationalism, indeed. Aren't we moving away from discussing abstracts?

Not out of a sense of supremacism though. It's important to properly understand the context and rationale, however troubling or regrettable certain acts may have been.

[Wolfman]

That's what they are doing. In reality, you want them to join an Irish conformity...
Except a good number of them don't even admit their 'Irishness'...


You don't know what might have happened without partition. The 30 year conflict from the 70s might have happened in the 20s, on a wider scale. Which could have encouraged even more stagnant economic policies from Eddie Coll and co (what he actually got up to had little or nothing to do with partition). And so on.
So not exactly vastly different from what happened...


We've just had the 2017 Election, but some of you are still complaining about 1918 one. It's as irrelevant as Captain Cook or Davy Crockett are to an Austrlian or American poll. The expressed will of the entire Irish People as Danny keeps calling it hasn't existed since that earlier election. Except they've had no chance to do so in a 100 years...
As for the relevance of history, the entire premise of the North was/is based on a battle a mere 327 years ago, on which a good number of these supposedly 'Irish' people are fixated on!! Annually FFS.



I just analyse what SF does, ie respond to its electorate. For every group of voters that supports their social policies, there's a larger lobby that tolerates/ expects Michelle P to hang out with the Balaclava Boys in a graveyard.
You mean Michelle O'Neill.
And clearly you were looking out for a 'whataboutery' response given the number of unionist politicians who've hung out with loyalist paramilitaries.
It's a bit daft to sound so pompous about when both sides have been as bad.


Over a long period of recent history, it has systematically murdered people and blown up their livelihoods. Similarly to Irish Nationalism, indeed.
Whereas exponents of British nationalism would never dream of such a thing.
:rolleyes:


As Danny says, the IRA in NI aren't separatists from Britain. They're applicants to join the South of Ireland which- whatever you think of the current fashion for 'inevitable' Irish Unity- has clearly been playing hard to get for some time now...
Except they're not the problem, generally, it's other Irish people, supposedly...

[DannyInvincible]

Gerry Adams was on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show this morn. For those who can access it, it's on iPlayer (from 15m15s) here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08jm54p/the-andrew-marr-show-12032017

I thought he gave a very fair and comprehensive outline of the present situation in the north within the very limited time made available to him.

Jude Collins looked at it (http://www.judecollins.com/2017/03/gerry-adams-andrew-marr-show-morning-oh-another-thing/) from the perspective of how the interview was indicative of the English media's casual, brief and passive treatment of or approach to affairs in the north of Ireland and I think he's spot on in what he observes:


I was watching the Andrew Marr show on BBC ONE about half an hour ago – or part of it. They had Gerry Adams on. It was a good example of how the north is dealt with by the English media.

I knew Adams was going to be on, which was why I made a point of catching the programme. (I rarely watching morning television – it always strikes me as a bit like drinking whiskey before lunch.) For some reason, I’d assumed he would be appearing in the London studio alongside Marr. Uh-uh. He was coming in a link with Belfast, which always has a distancing effect. In addition, while Marr’s questions were sensible they were few, and Adams’s answers covered ground we here in our NE nest have known for some time – RHI was the key cause of the recent election, Sinn Féin are happy to go into an Executive with the DUP again when matters that have been agreed to but not fulfilled have been addressed, Brexit demands a special status for NE Ireland.

Marr was far from hostile in his questions but it was still mildly depressing. The exchange can’t have lasted ten minutes, and there was no follow-up in the studio with other guests. In short, it was like the traditional British attitude to here: pay attention if there’s a full-blown crisis, otherwise say a few civilized words and leave it at that. Maybe as the months go by, they’ll see that Brexit has all the ingredients for a full-blown Irish crisis.

Adams also stated that he'd met with Arlene Foster himself within the past week; I can't even begin to imagine what the atmosphere might be like in a meeting like that.

[CraftyToePoke]

Adams also stated that he'd met with Arlene Foster himself within the past week; I can't even begin to imagine what the atmosphere might be like in a meeting like that.

Unconfirmed reports saying Gerry walked in eating a bag of Tayto pickled onion flavoured Snaps, and encouraged her to have one, saying 'plenty more where these came from'.

[DannyInvincible]

Foster herself was on Sky News on Saturday stating that she has no plans to step down even if it means the institutions won't get up and running again: http://news.sky.com/story/foster-sinn-fein-rise-is-a-wake-up-call-for-unionism-10797716


Democratic Unionist leader Arlene Foster has told Sky News the rise in support for Sinn Fein in last week's election was a "wake-up call for Unionism".

In her first broadcast interview since the vote, the former First Minister claimed an increase in Nationalist turnout had been a surprise.

"A lot of people have been talking to me… there's a great sense of shock, and 'how could this happen?' It has been a bit of a wake-up call in terms of Unionism in Northern Ireland," she said.

But Mrs Foster claimed she had not once considered resigning as party leader, despite Unionists losing their overall majority for the first time.

"No I haven't because there's a job of work to be done. I said back in December that the mark of a politician is not what they do during good times but how they tackle the challenges…

"From my perspective, I have a big job of work to do, the party has a big job of work to do and indeed Unionism in general has to step up to the plate now and that's where I'm focused on," she added.

The Democratic Unionists saw their 10-seat advantage over Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland Assembly drop to one in the snap poll, following the collapse of devolved government.

Asked if she would allow someone else from her party to be nominated as First Minister if it facilitated the restoration of power-sharing, Mrs Foster said she would not provide "a running commentary" during negotiations.

"Gerry Adams in particular and Sinn Fein in general have talked about who they want to see, or rather who they don't want to see, as First Minister in terms of the DUP, but of course it is up our party to decide who our nominee would be," she added.

She also said the following, which can be heard in the short video found within the link above:


If we get into the territory where we're each telling each other who to select, well, we will want to, of course, say to Sinn Féin, "We think you should select X, Y and Z instead of A, B and C", so, you know, they can't tell us who to select as our nominees and, likewise, we can't tell them.

That final quote and the bit I've highlighted in the other quoted section above amount to an incredibly disingenuous framing of the present situation and of Sinn Féin's position. Sinn Féin aren't dictating to the DUP who the DUP's leader should be; the Sinn Féin position is simply that they won't work with the DUP with Foster as leader until an inquiry clears her of what she has been accused. Sinn Féin are perfectly entitled to take such a stance and to manage their own positions, policies, principles and conduct. Taking such a stance is their own business and relates only to their own conduct. The DUP can keep Foster as leader if they wish or they can replace her if they wish, as far as Sinn Féin are concerned. Nobody is denying the DUP their right or choice to do this, nor are they being forced to do something against their will. Sinn Féin are simply saying that they will refuse to work with the DUP if Foster remains as leader but they will work with them if the leader is someone other than Foster; the choice of who the DUP wish to have lead them still ultimately rests with the DUP.

If Sinn Féin wished to be as equally disingenuous and nonsensical, they could frame the situation as the DUP trying to dictate to Sinn Féin who they must work with in government.

[BonnieShels]

But SF won't. they have been nothing but positive in their approach. I still haven't seen a single Unionist ;politician not frame this as a crisis in unionism instead of what it is, a shift to the middle ground and nationalists being sick of the DUP's "shoite".

If Unionism doesn't get a handle on what is going on they will be left behind.

[DannyInvincible]

But SF won't. they have been nothing but positive in their approach.

This is true. I wasn't suggesting Sinn Féin would behave in a similar manner. I was merely showing what Sinn Féin applying the same twisted logic would look like in order to demonstrate or emphasise the illogic and insincerity of the DUP's framing of the situation.

[BonnieShels]

Don't worry Danny I know.

[Gather round]

Ah, I think it's a bit unfair to crudely simplify my position as such. I'll assume you're being somewhat mischievous

It is pretty straightforward though. You want diversity in Ireland? You already have effectively two Irish nations both living in Ireland ;)


[Abortion and gay marriage are] big issues for women and the LGBT community

Agreed, and I didn't mean to sound trite there. Marriage equality might not be that long delayed- there's a decent chance of either a) Direct Rule and the Tories waving it through, or b) DUP unable/ unwilling to use a PoC if Stormont resumes, then a free vote.

Abortion's trickier when Nationalist parties in NI, just like the DUP, remain clearly opposed to it in most situations.


Not out of a sense of supremacism though. It's important to properly understand the context and rationale, however troubling or regrettable certain acts may have been

I generally see it the other way round. If the operatives are shooting people, blowing things up and intimidating me out of home, school etc. I'm not that interested in the theorists gurning about a bent election a century ago to demonstrate how un-supremacist they are.


SF...have been nothing but positive in their approach. I still haven't seen a single Unionist ;politician not frame this as a crisis in unionism instead of what it is, a shift to the middle ground

You're joking surely? You can't see a veto on Foster as JFM (regardless of her past antics) as anything other than negative. That's what vetoes mean.

Broadly agree with yr second point. Now that the UUP clearly can't lead Unionism, there's much less incentive for voters either to give them first preferences, or for those that do to transfer anywhere bar DUP. So Unionists will inevitably be more co-operative with each other, while as a result less transfer-friendly to the non-aligned parties. Result: Nationalism could win 45%+ of the seats next time with 40% of the vote.

[DannyInvincible]

It is pretty straightforward though. You want diversity in Ireland? You already have effectively two Irish nations both living in Ireland ;)

Diversity isn't my only interest. I also seek political and economic unity because I feel it will strengthen the country. Life compels prioritisation and balancing of interests.


I generally see it the other way round. If the operatives are shooting people, blowing things up and intimidating me out of home, school etc. I'm not that interested in the theorists gurning about a bent election a century ago to demonstrate how un-supremacist they are.

I can appreciate where you're coming from and I sympathise, but I still think such a view distorts the context.


You're joking surely? You can't see a veto on Foster as JFM (regardless of her past antics) as anything other than negative. That's what vetoes mean.

In any other political territory or professional sphere, she either would have stood down voluntarily or would have been suspended impending an investigation into the allegations of her wrongdoing. That's fairly standard and all main parties (bar the DUP) called for her to stand down. The reason she hasn't yet stood down is because identity - and fears or insecurities relating to that - apparently remains more important a matter to many people in the north of Ireland than corruption does or "bread and butter" issues do.

[Gather round]

I too suggested Foster should resign and still think she will within the next three months or so. You may to weigh loss of face if/ when she does against already lost reputation for safe hands. As well as the human element, stick on social media etc. Not just as she's a woman, male politicians are sensitive too.

That said, she might not. SF then have to either

a) collapse the Assembly

b) find some fudge to restart any form of discussion with Unionists (remember they still work together on the district councils and the rest), or

c) cave in and look silly.

In the meantime, they have to answer the local media stepping up the whataboutery- eg that Messrs Murphy, O'Mulleoir and Adams didn't step aside when accused variously of malpractice or serious criminality.

SF can't have it both ways, pretending that they're about energy policy and cost controls while milking sectarian politics at every chance.

[BonnieShels]

But none of them were first minister. And as has been pointed out ad nausea, the previous FM had no issue stepping aside when there were questions hanging over him. It should never have needed her to have a think when the precedent was there already!
SF are hardly being unreasonable in the request. What is unreasonable is that the DUP think their request is unreasonable.
Anyway, I trust SF’s ability to navigate the waters here. They’re the best at this.

[Gather round]

But none of them were first minister

Come on. Adams was and is a national party leader. More important than Foster. And if MO'M and CM were relatively junior, then few outside Stormont would have noticed/ cared when they walked.

Foster made a judgement that Unionist voters wouldn't think her handling of RHI- however hapless and possibly fraudulent- was as bad as Robbo stealing from the biscuit tin while Iris shagged her toyboy. Much as it wrongfoots you or I she could be right.


SF are hardly being unreasonable in the request. What is unreasonable is that the DUP think their request is unreasonable

It's politics. Not unreasonable to ask, but obsessive to keep asking ad nauseam to the exclusion of all else.


Anyway, I trust SF’s ability to navigate the waters here. They’re the best at this

Look out for that iceberg.

[BonnieShels]

SF leader is more important NIFM? That is an interesting statement.

[Wolfman]

It is pretty straightforward though. You want diversity in Ireland? You already have effectively two Irish nations both living in Ireland.
Except one small part is a forgotten backwater of another country, currently hanging on to it's current makeup, apart from when it suits them.


I generally see it the other way round. If the operatives are shooting people, blowing things up and intimidating me out of home, school etc. I'm not that interested in the theorists gurning about a bent election a century ago to demonstrate how un-supremacist they are.
Except that ended the best part of 20 years ago FFS.


You can't see a veto on Foster as JFM (regardless of her past antics) as anything other than negative. That's what vetoes mean.
Why would anyone rational person want that thing as FM?


Now that the UUP clearly can't lead Unionism, there's much less incentive for voters either to give them first preferences, or for those that do to transfer anywhere bar DUP. So Unionists will inevitably be more co-operative with each other, while as a result less transfer-friendly to the non-aligned parties. Result: Nationalism could win 45%+ of the seats next time with 40% of the vote.
Who cares...
Unionists have quite happily done this/would do again if the maths was in their favour. So never mind the collective hypocrisy.



I too suggested Foster should resign and still think she will within the next three months or so. You may to weigh loss of face if/ when she does against already lost reputation for safe hands. As well as the human element, stick on social media etc. Not just as she's a woman, male politicians are sensitive too.

That said, she might not. SF then have to either

a) collapse the Assembly

b) find some fudge to restart any form of discussion with Unionists (remember they still work together on the district councils and the rest), or

c) cave in and look silly.

In the meantime, they have to answer the local media stepping up the whataboutery- eg that Messrs Murphy, O'Mulleoir and Adams didn't step aside when accused variously of malpractice or serious criminality.

SF can't have it both ways, pretending that they're about energy policy and cost controls while milking sectarian politics at every chance.
More drivel. The unionists can put up another candiadte, talk about straw clutching.
And you don't think the DUP et al don't 'milk sectarian politics at every chance'...


Come on. Adams was and is a national party leader. More important than Foster. And if MO'M and CM were relatively junior, then few outside Stormont would have noticed/ cared when they walked.

Foster made a judgement that Unionist voters wouldn't think her handling of RHI- however hapless and possibly fraudulent- was as bad as Robbo stealing from the biscuit tin while Iris shagged her toyboy. Much as it wrongfoots you or I she could be right.
It's politics. Not unreasonable to ask, but obsessive to keep asking ad nauseam to the exclusion of all else.

This again really doesn't make much sense, besides pointing out the obvious and the continued hypocrisy of the final sentence, again something unionists would never dream of.

It must have been a slow day in the West Midlands!!