Anti-powersharing party pokes head above parapet…
A FUNDRAISER for a new unionist grouping is to take place on Monday, with a launch for the anti-powersharing movement expected in weeks. The faction will comprise of hardliners opposed to the DUP entering government with Sinn Fein. While the alleged involvement of IRA members in the Quinn murder might appear to have given the group some ammunition to fire at the DUP (who are now only interested in ‘corporate’ IRA involvement), Paisley’s party juggernaut will be hard to displace.
Kinda proves my point, mind, can’t even remember the guy’s name. Good thing everyone always gets my name precisely right…
Good point IJP
It always bad when people don’t remember a politicians name unlike that high profile leader of the Alliance party Harrison Ford who everybody knows.
>>The constituency he will court is precisely those who have at best, tolerated, and at worst connived with loyalist paramilitaries.<<
If you are directing this at the teflon coated middle-classes then I would agree. However my admittedly limited knowledge of Loyalists(at least in Ireland) would suggest that they are happy with just getting on with their lives, and certainly are in no mood to be used as cannon-fodder again.
Prince – 275,000 voted aginst GFA. Initial sessions of the Assembly haven’t, shall we say, been entirely impressive as an effective process of Government. Coupled with Quinn (and I must say seeming ineffectualness of PSNI or Garda on this) wouldn’t be surprised at a bit of a backlash.
P.S. Great book – nut up this week but sometime early December to return.
Although its not much of an incitement for a perspective new political party, I can easily see them out polling the Alliance party.
Comrade Stalin,
“While I agree with the concept that the system of government in the Executive is badly broken, I have a couple of points.”…
Those are good things to argue against the SDLP, though you will find St Andrew’s was negotiated by SF/DUP and London/Dublin. The SDLP did say before the last election that SF/DUP majorities would result in a carve-up. They have been consistent and correct in this instance – see the impressive output from OFMDFM on the Shared Future agenda.
Your points, unfortunately, have little or nothing to do with what I said.
To reiterate then:- our politicians are not clever enough to provide a real democracy – one that is not subverted (controlled) by London and Dublin. The reason being, the history of the North inspired ‘political’ participation based on one thing only, defending us against them, which has not attracted the best quality of representation.
I think it is a very important question for the future of the North: how to attract rational, visionary, open-minded, informed people into Stormont. Important because the price of the status quo is democracy.
I think it is a very important question for the future of the North: how to attract rational, visionary, open-minded, informed people into Stormont. Important because the price of the status quo is democracy.
Damien O’loan
You could easily start this trend by having politicians of Northern Ireland who operate from Stormont calling it Northern Ireland instead of names such as the North which is nothing more than petty point scoring.
heathcliff:
The issue that some people have within the Unionist community is not about having to share power with catholics but rather seeing our leaders sitting down so comfortably with the dreaded Sinn Fein/IRA.
Strangely, I seem to have disremembered all of those points in history when when unionism extended it’s generous hand enthusically to nationalists to share power with it. Perhaps I just had the wrong teacher at school.
Damien,
Those are good things to argue against the SDLP, though you will find St Andrew’s was negotiated by SF/DUP and London/Dublin.
True, but this is, of course, exactly how the SDLP and UUP ran the GFA talks in 97/98, doing little deals while everyone else was ignored; at that time SF were still warming to the idea of powersharing (I remember when the draft of the agreement came out – their members initially rubbished it, before the great leaders told them to shut the hell up).
This is pure Humeism – get the power brokers into a corner-huddle and get them to cut a secret deal among themselves and then present a united front. Hume was always doing this, right from the beginning of his career. Now you guys are paying the price, and to a greater extent the rest of us are. You should have ditched him a lot sooner.
That said, and apologies if I sound a bit pompous, I have been very much enjoying the SDLP’s contribution over the past few months. In the assembly they have been coming across (to me anyway) as professional parliamentarians who respect the structures and institutions – just as it should be – contrasting nicely with the DUP’s cat-calling and dodgy smoke-and-mirrors note passing with SF. I think those talents would be put to better use in opposition, but that’s a decision for you to make. I guess you are a relation of Declan ?
The reason being, the history of the North inspired ‘political’ participation based on one thing only, defending us against them, which has not attracted the best quality of representation.
This is what I have always thought, and indeed you are coming pretty close to the Alliance point of view. I am very glad that you are coming round to this way of thinking, because this was absolutely not the SDLP point of view up until the time when it lost it’s role as nationalism’s biggest party. The parts of the structures which institutionalise this tribalism – the d’Hondt system, the designation system – were all championed by the SDLP and defended by them until the last assembly collapsed. I hope that you now accept that d’Hondt fundamentally must be reviewed, and that the tribal designation system encourages this carve up, it does not help to eradicate it. The SDLP supported these measures because it knew that true cross-community structures would see the elimination of it as a political force. The DUP and SF today no doubt consider this in a similar light.
I think it is a very important question for the future of the North: how to attract rational, visionary, open-minded, informed people into Stormont. Important because the price of the status quo is democracy.
We actually have quite a few of these people among our number (as a populace I mean). The setup at Stormont means that those voices are shouted down and marginalized.
Outsider:
You could easily start this trend by having politicians of Northern Ireland who operate from Stormont calling it Northern Ireland instead of names such as the North which is nothing more than petty point scoring.
Outsider, the real problem is with people who bitch over it. Get over it, different people call it different names, what do you care ?
Outsider
“You could easily start this trend by having politicians of Northern Ireland who operate from Stormont calling it Northern Ireland instead of names such as the North which is nothing more than petty point scorin”
What wonderful irony! An unbelievably petty point scoring post from you complaining about people – indulging in petty point scoring!
With all the day to day problems that people in NI have, I’ll bet that this is really a big priority for them.
I would confidently say that 99% of people couldn’t give a toss about this.
If you have nothing better to do than worry about this, you really should get out more.
“I can easily see them out polling the Alliance party”
Now I recall who Jim Allister reminds me of. Arthur Scargill of the two hundred and sixty votes.
Anyhow.
The blackwashers of history are out in force tonight. For the record. SF had comparatively little electoral support while they killed people. Similarly with loyalist paramilitaries. Most unionists supported the security forces and resented the loyalist paramilitaries as criminal murdering thugs. Most people who voted unionist had little knowledge of the police and security force collusion with protestant paramilitaries, so cannot be held accountable for how the state defended itself against sectarian terrorists. However, many current DUP leaders dallied with paramilitarism in their early years. Lets hope Jim does not take that route if peace is not paying his political ambitions the respect he feels is due.
I would confidently say that 99% of people couldn’t give a toss about this.
Billy
I doubt this otherwise we would not have had a thing called the troubles.
Secondly if names are no big deal why is Sinn Fein/ira wasting so much of tax payers money trying to remove London from Londonderry?
they wish to remove the tagged on ‘London’ from Derry because it represents everything that was wrong with the failed british colonisation of ireland, that the british put the interests of those back home in Britain above the interests of the native irish, hence the London before the Derry. never mind that it sounds really stupid as well.
Outsider
The vast majority of people in Derry are Catholic/Nationalist. If they want to revert the city to it’s original name and go about it in the correct democratic manner – as far as I’m concerned, that’s fine. As I understand it, they have petitioned the Queen (or Privy Council) which is the correct procedure.
I’m not from Derry so I don’t consider my opinion to be of any importance. Frankly, everyone is entitled to express an opinion but the only opinions that should influence this decision are people who were born or live in Derry.
Unionists are very fond of talking about democracy especially during the 60s and 70S when the numbers favoured them. I’ve noticed that, in recent years, they don’t seem to be quite as keen on democracy when it doesn’t deliver the results that they want.
There are many streets, buildings etc in NI that are named after Royalty. Many towns/boroughs in NI have granted honours to the UDR. I’m sure most Nationalist residents weren’t too pleased about that but, as they were in a democratic minority, they just had to accept it.
The situation is the same for Unionists in Derry -at least some alternative suggestions have been put forward i.e. naming the old city Londonderry.
The Nationalists in Derry are at least trying to take the feelings of Unionists into consideration. That’s a lot more than Unionists (particularly in Stormont) ever did for Nationalists.
Considering the decades of well-documented gerrymandering by Unionists that ensured a Unionist dominated council in a city that has always had a large majority of Catholics/Nationalists, I think that’s pretty admirable.
At least Derry Council aren’t trying to use their position to deny people housing, jobs etc based on their religion. I think you’ll find that it’s a matter of public record that the old Unionist gerrymandered council did deny Catholics these things.
The bottom line is that one is either a Democrat or one isn’t (as Unionists have been saying for decades). So, as the vast majority of Derry citizens support this name change, what’s the problem?
It’s the democratic decision of the people. Or are democratic decisons only right when they favour Unionists?
“I’ve noticed that, in recent years, they don’t seem to be quite as keen on democracy when it doesn’t deliver the results that they want.”
Spot on Billy
Proddy supremacists’ allegiance to ‘democratic norms’ and npn violence was always provisional. i.e. Conditional on them getting their own way.
Now finally, post 9/11, that the UK state has appropriate anti-terror/ pro democracy legislation, maybe we can get upstart agitators for ethnic clearance arrested and jailed early and often. We only got Paisley early, and look where that has left us.
Paisleys bathetic attempt at sectarian exclusion led straight to power sharing and the border moved to the middle of the irish sea.
Under the waffle screen, Whats wee Jim’s big idea? NI as a UN administered protectorate on its way to a United Ireland?
Portray yourself as a victim once to often, and you will get pushed around.
Aquifier:
Most unionists supported the security forces and resented the loyalist paramilitaries as criminal murdering thugs.
Except for when they came out and supported the 1974 UWC loyalist coup. Outside of the Falkner party, was there a single unionist who objected to this brazen thuggery on the streets ?
Most people who voted unionist had little knowledge of the police and security force collusion with protestant paramilitaries, so cannot be held accountable for how the state defended itself against sectarian terrorists.
Then why do unionist politicians staunchly defend the RUC, the army and the need for informants ? I don’t think there is a single unionist politician who expressed any kind of concern at the O’Loan report on this matter a short while ago.
Incidentally, I find the term “protestant paramilitaries” objectionable.
Now finally, post 9/11, that the UK state has appropriate anti-terror/ pro democracy legislation,
OK, now I’m starting to think that you’ve lost the plot. Pro-democracy legislation ?? The anti-terrorism legislation has been used to put down protests (eg at Gleneagles). The IRA threat was far more serious than the Al Quaida threat ever was, so why was the rights-abusing legislation not brought in then ?
“The situation is the same for Unionists in Derry -at least some alternative suggestions have been put forward i.e. naming the old city Londonderry.
The Nationalists in Derry are at least trying to take the feelings of Unionists into consideration.”
Eh? which party has this policy?
On the new party, the biggest problem JHA will have is the large number of newly-minted garden centre prods- that is to say the formmer politically active anti-Agreement UUP voters who switched DUP with Donaldson to find the Paisleyites as rotten as the UUP. They have seen through all the rhetoric and lies and are thoroughly contemptuous of all politicians. The project will continue, and the DUP will be on board for the duration.
Still I ‘ll send him a sub for the good old days and if we achieve no more than wipe the smug grin off the underachieving self-deluding posturing blusterers in the DUP by costing them a couple of seats in an election then so be it.
The challenges facing a new party are indeed vast. They are not doubt going to be presented as has beens, bigots, flat earthers etc.
Clearly some will wish to tar the party with the bigot brush very early on and indeed blame it and any putative members for 50 yeras of “unionist misrule” if not for the plantation. Interestingly at least some of the bigot name calling may come from the DUP.
The lack of leaders is clearly a big problem. Allister’s personal non charismatic nature may be a hinderance. It may, however, perversly not be that big a problem. He would contrast well with the grerat charismatic leader who promised “Never, Never, Never”. It is also more difficult to tar a non firebrand with the ranting bigot brush. The lack of other leaders and the danger that the insane will flock to the new party like zombies do towards the living in Shaun of the Dead with similarly fatal results are clearly problems.
What will be needed is carefully thought out policies and clear intregrity. I say this because there is quite clearly a constituency out there for this party. As Dewi has observed a lot of people did actually vote no in the referendum. Some will have been bigots no doubt but some also will have decided that the proposed agreement was so flawed in so many ways it was unacceptable.
If one then looks at the number of people complaining (quite rightly) about the farce that this government has become then there is clearly more of a constituency. Clearly a new party is not going to attract anything other than a small minority of these people. However, provided it can avoid too much of the flat earth tag it may get support from a broader section of the unionist electorate than one might imagine.
Provided the party can avoid the bigot tag it may also attract not support (I am not daft enough to believe that) but some respect from some nationalists. There have recently been nationalist posters on this site complaining about the problems of the carve up. Some have complained about SF still being in cahoots with the IRA. Some people who voted SF hoping they would trully renounce violence (and using a vote for them to help this) may well be very disillusioned with the ongoing IRA criminality let alone the carve up, incompetence etc. These people will never vote prodiban (I must stop using that term!) but if they can start to take a new party seriously then those of us of all persuasions in Northern Ireland who believe that this deal was and is a disaster can begin to build a consensus that we need to sit down and negotiate a new agreement for government here. Such negotiations if by chance they were conducted without the threat of violence if some did not get their way and without the need for a UK PM to have his legacy might result in a more sensible mechanism of governement.
I take Rubicon’s comments earlier very seriously but would suggest that our “parents” might come back to facilitate further discussions if we can demonstarte an ability to discuss things rather than throw our toys at people and shout.
Would a new party have any interest in such an agenda? Well if I join I will try to tell you all if it does (sorry to take two days to give an answer joeCanuck). Darth’s suggested problem about the new garden centre Prods not voting for a new party is a fair criticism. They might listen if the new party is sensible. Also Darth I do not know about you but I feel people look down at me at garden centres; I look too scruffy and my children run about making too much noise.
Darth
Well, having worked to destroy one Unionist Party, why not try it again, eh?
Damien O’Loan: “our politicians are not clever enough to provide a real democracy”
In the context of the agreement what is a real democracy then? I take it you against the agreement
““The situation is the same for Unionists in Derry -at least some alternative suggestions have been put forward i.e. naming the old city Londonderry.
The Nationalists in Derry are at least trying to take the feelings of Unionists into consideration.â€
Eh? which party has this policy? ”
Sinn Fein have stated it publicly, and I believe the SDLP also support it.
I try to step back a wee bit and look at this whole situation through the eyes of an old time time traditional DUP member.
It’s no surprise that people of that ilk feel to miserably let down by the leadership that fed them on a constant and conisistant diet of NO NO NO moving on to maybe maybe maybe and ending up with sure what would you have done if you were in our shoes.
I have tird to put some of those who feel they were well and truely DUPed into the words of this song,
IT’S MY new PARTY
Nobody knows where traditional unionism has gone
Paisley left the same time
Why was he holding Gerry and Marty’s hands
When he’s supposed to be holding mine
I’ll start a new party, and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
Playin’ mind games, keeps me up all night
I’ve left the DUP a long while
Die hards around the wee province are joining with me
I’ve searching for a reason to smile
I’ll start a new party, and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
Ian and Marty just walked through Stormont’s door
Like a drag queen with her king
Oh what, sure it’s no big surprise
They’re kissing each others rings
I’ll start a new party, and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
Billy: If they want to revert the city to it’s original name and go about it in the correct democratic manner – as far as I’m concerned, that’s fine. As I understand it, they have petitioned the Queen (or Privy Council) which is the correct procedure.
1) ‘Derry’ wasn’t its original name.
2) If they have tried the correct procedure, it was very recent. The last I heard they had accepted a lawyer’s advice to do it the wrong way, and it cost them when they failed. Though I suppose the lawyer might not have lost out.
3) New thought: There are other cities within London – Westminster, for instance. This might be a way out.
Ho, ho Bla. You done got Darth good. Bad Darth. Bad Watchers. Bad Turgon. Bad everyone else who used to be in the UUP who used to say, ‘Trimble is leading the Party to complete disaster, stop cheering him on UUC numpties, start getting rid of him’. How wrong we all were. What a pity the Turtle isn’t still leading the UUP. Indeed, what a pity he isn’t even a member of the Party anymore. Think what he could done with another ten years in charge. He could have purified it to being just you, him and Sir Reg’s cat. Ten more years! No more seats! &c;
Dear Turgon,
Thank you for defending Mr Allister’s position.
Far from banning you from joining we would welcome your presence.
Please get in touch.
Regards,
Sammy Morrison Personal Assistant to Jim Allister QC MEP
Bla
it’s precisely because we were so good at destroying one Unionist party that you should not write us off. When we warned the Turtlistas that they were out of touch they ignored us. Who read the electorate right?
I assess the Unionist electorate as rapidly falling out of love with the DUP as it continues its courtship of the Provos. I realise there’s no head of steam for a new party, and even more vested interests seeking to preserve their newfound status. Devolution has been shown to have many shortcomings.
Paisley is losing the – I hate to say it- respect and affection he gradually acquired in many Unionists’ minds post 1998. The most likely outcome is a significant increase in Unionist abstention, and what bogeyman is going to be left to scare the voters out- Marty as joint first minister?
So if a pure/traditionalist Unionist voice permits 20000 or so voters to remain involved- maybe even holding a couple of seats at Stormont then it’s a valid project. if that means the DUP cease to be largest party, or Plug Poots loses his ministerial seat, well that’ll be too bad.
Yawn, how many times do they have to go over the same course before they realise one simple ikkle fact, the “protestant state for protestants” the “orange rule” of NI is as dead as that or Geneva’s failed “protestant rome” in the 1500s. Unionisims last decent leader was Carson and even he knew what unionisim had “won” was a failure.
Sammy Morrison
You seem to be a man in the know. Maybe you can confirm that the new party is going to be launched on 6th December, it’s going to be called Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV presumably because all the mixtures with “….UP” on the end have been used up) and that a DVD has been produced which is doing the rounds.
Outsider,
The North. Northern Ireland. Derry. Londonderry. I couldn’t care less, its shorter to type being nationalist all the same.
qubol,
One thing a real democracy requires is an independent and effective press. We have not had one for decades, if ever. Observe their reliance on AP – Dan McGinn probably has more power than Gerry Adams. Another is effective NGOs – observe how they are summarily despised in our consultation processes. Another is an informed electorate. Our education system and poverty levels, among other things, render this another quasi-failure.
The biggest flaw in the Western system is the belief that if a third or perhaps slightly more of the population turn up at a primary school once every five years we have something worth colonialising over. And we buy into that, in the North(ern Ireland), as much as anyone.
Finally, I think there are grave risks with the system we borrowed from the Dutch. Its not useless, but these risks need to be addressed, as opposed to capitalised upon by those who may. Hence the need for an active press, and where have they been on this front?
So back to the thread – this party is not the new party we need. That would be something else entirely. For a healthier democracy, for a start. And for some kind of future not dictated by Gordon ‘Iraq? not me’ Brown and Bertie ‘corruption sells’ Ahern.
Just a tentative suggestion inviting proposals – anyone?
“A NEW unionist movement opposed to Sinn Fein”
First line of article quality journalisim at its finest giving the readership what it needs , information it doesnt know.
All Unionisism has left is the fact that its anti-Sinn Fein because it stopped beining unionist (maybe i mean reformationist) many decades ago.
As someone who would like an alternative to the unprincipled cartel politics of the DUP and who has despaired of the UUP I welcome the emergence of this new party. I just hope that it will not be a UKUP Mark 2, i.e. an ego trip with a Pope at the head. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors.) It will be an interesting test for its leader, an undeniably able man who currently speaks for an unquantifiable number of unionists. But there are plenty of challenges ahead. This has got to establish itself as a serious outfit very quickly and if it ends up being a platform for the Robin Stirlings then it will go belly up very quickly.
What kind of people would this new party hope to attract as members and supporters.
I ask this question because if you look at those within unionism who are clearly not happy with their lot.
You have an eclectic mix, people such as Jim Allister, Willie’s Ross and Frazer, Mark Harbinson, Davey Tweed,Cedric Wilson, Bob Mc Cartney, Joel Patton,Kenny Mc Clintock, Clifford Peebles and pockets of others spread through out the six counties.
I realise that a few of those mentioned have stated that they have no wish to be involved in politics any more but Ihave included them just on the off chance they may reconsider.
I find it hard to believe that some may even be considered for membership of the party, as others would see them as a threat if not an embarrassment.
Could those, who would be left to form such a party be able to agree on party stratedgy, policies and a way forward for unionism, within a power sharing government or any other form of government. I seriously doubt it, but sure stranger things have happened, or have they.
Hi Comrade, sorry to have disturbed your socialist slumber.
I said: Most unionists supported the security forces and resented the loyalist paramilitaries as criminal murdering thugs.
U said: ‘Except for when they came out and supported the 1974 UWC loyalist coup. Outside of the Falkner party, was there a single unionist who objected to this brazen thuggery on the streets ?’
There were numbers of them, but brazen armed thugs on the street are by their nature hard to reason with. You must know this. It was the state’s job to suppress the thugs, and the labour minister failed, perhaps befuddled by the term ‘workers strike’.
I said: Most people who voted unionist had little knowledge of the police and security force collusion with protestant paramilitaries, so cannot be held accountable for how the state defended itself against sectarian terrorists.
‘Then why do unionist politicians staunchly defend the RUC, the army and the need for informants ?’
Beside the point.
I said: Now finally, post 9/11, that the UK state has appropriate anti-terror/ pro democracy legislation,
‘OK, now I’m starting to think that you’ve lost the plot. Pro-democracy legislation ?? The anti-terrorism legislation has been used to put down protests (eg at Gleneagles).’
Terrorism and peaceful democratic protest cannot easily co-exist. The terrorists use people they regard as ‘useful idiots’ as sandbags to hide behind while they take potshots at policemen or politicians, or as bloody post-it notes equating body count with political prescience. Terrorists must be suppressed, otherwise we invite every crackpot with a failed political religious or cultural project to start waving a pistol about.
‘The IRA threat was far more serious than the Al Quaida threat ever was, so why was the rights-abusing legislation not brought in then ?’
Because Unionists were never considered quite british enough, and pre City of London bombs were peripheral to English concerns. I mean, those accents.
Take note, Mr Allister.
(PS non-combatant civilians have rights too)
Billy
Complete garbage, whats happening in Londonderry is a clear microcosm of what would happen in a UI with an overwhelming Republican majority. So much for respect for a marginal Unionist community what your saying is ‘we’ll have what we want and we’ll have it now’.
I would also suggest you stop presenting yourself as a middle of the road Nationalist its clear you don’t understand or want to understand the Unionist position you want to harp back to the fantasies of the past and use it as an excuse to finally crush Protestantism/Unionism in the 21st century.
you want to harp back to the fantasies of the past and use it as an excuse to finally crush Protestantism/Unionism in the 21st century. – Out
sider
what fantasies would they be then?
Outsider
The “fantasies” you refer to are a matter of public record.
Are these the same “fantasies” as the OO connections with “loyalist” terrorism that you don’t like people to mention? Oddly enough, there is no shortage of TV coverage which seems to back up my view.
I don’t present myself as a “middle-of-the-road nationalist”. I am a moderate Nationalist who has never supported violence.
However, we have seen you in your true light here.
You obviously have no problem with the blatent (and proven) discrimination against Catholics in Derry by a Unionist council elected (again proven) by gerrymandering.
However, you do object to a DEMOCRATIC decision because it favours Nationalists/Catholics.
So it’s OK to support democracy when Unionists get what they want but not OK when it favours Catholics.
Well, I’ve got news for you. The days of croppie lie down and Catholics being treated like second class citizens are gone forever.
Your beloved OO will never again be permitted to march through Catholic areas at will with their “loyalist terrorist banners/bands” intimidating people.
Mind you, at the rate your membership is declining and the pathetic attempts at improving their PR, I doubt they’ll be around in 20 years.
I would like to see a peaceful future for all in the 6 counties with equal rights for all.
You clearly must yearn for the good old days when the taigs knew their place.
Well, we taigs are now 45%+ of the population, there are ever increasing links and input from the RoI and the UK govt is disengaging from NI at ever increasing speed.
The days of Unionist/OO domination are over and will NEVER be back.
If that upsets you, tough shit! because there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.
I
Watchman, darth etc
Perhaps the one area where Allister and co could inflict real damage is in the area of devolution of justice. To me, that would seem to be the key if they are to be successful. I reckon they could at least force substantial delay to the May 2008 deadline.
I guess that this new party could be successful even as a “scarecrow party” in terms of reining in the DUP, just as the Nixons, Porters and, well, the Paisleys in the Stormont era did with the UUP.
Darth Rumsfeld: “…if we achieve no more than wipe the smug grin off the underachieving self-deluding posturing blusterers in the DUP by costing them a couple of seats in an election then so be it.”
I find that quite appealing.
Its disappointing to see relatively sensible and logical people like Turgon above considering as an attractive option. the prospect of a party led by Jim Allister and consisting of politically unsatisfiable Creationist/Bible Belt b1gots. No wonder they issue a public invitation here for him to get in touch – a severe credibility problem is one of many that this movement faces.
Its quite clear to me that while there are a few – very few – Unionists who genuinely find the prospect of power sharing repugnant as a matter of principle, there are far more in this camp who are simply nasty little sectarian minds and detest Catholics, whether those Catholics voted for Gerry Fitt or vote for Gerry Adams.
[i]Its quite clear to me that while there are a few – very few – Unionists who genuinely find the prospect of power sharing repugnant as a matter of principle, there are far more in this camp who are simply nasty little sectarian minds and detest Catholics, whether those Catholics voted for Gerry Fitt or vote for Gerry Adams. [/i]
Really? How´d you work that out then? It couldn´t be that you´re just generalising to support your own preconceptions about nasty unionists being entirely bigoted could it?
Billy – most of your post above amounts to a giant straw man that you´re vigorously attacking.
DM
The “principled” objections to powersharing have been exposed elsewhere as a complete sham. I do seem to recall mass action against power sharing in 1974 and I doubt that those protesting were all flown in from some other country.
If you were in any way familiar with my postings you would see that I do not have any preconceptions about unionism as indeed I support the union as the democratically expressed wish of people who live here.
Similarly, those who vote for SF/SDLP have a right for their representatives to participate in government. I call that democracy and consequently am driven to conclude that those who don’t like it must not have the same attachment to democracy.
Then why label unionists who oppose power-sharing as bigots, who ´detest catholics´? With one stroke you paint anyone opposed to sharing power with SF as being sectarian – on what basis?
Now DM anyone with a modicum of knowledge knows right well that its not just powersharing with SF some biggoted onions are allergic to its actually the very principle of powersharing, we have historical exaples of, unionists going mental over powersharing with SDLP. So unionists refuse to work with SF(reasons exist for suspicion but alas they have the mandate from the people) and refuse to work with SDLP(why exactly).
My arsch its not sectarian, basicaly what unionionisim has been sayin is “well taigs your damned if ya do and damned if you dont so get over it, your species will be added to our own resistance is futile” (last bit is a reference to star treks Borg)
AA – if you are referring to Sunningdale – I believe there was a mass of opposition to ROI involvement in NI affairs, as well as vastly different circumstances at the time – the pronouncment by one SDLP representative that Sunningdale would ´trundle Unionists into a united Ireland´ would hardly have encouraged powersharing now would it? Incidentally the UUUC had a mandate in 1974, just like SF, but you view that differently I presume.
I hadn´t intended to get into the ins and outs of Sunningdale – I simply wanted to highlight what I thought was a grossly unfair comment by Jo, labelling anti-power sharing Unionists, a number of whom post regularly on here and seem extremely affable to say the least, as bigots.
are you the alan anderson who stood for the yogic flying natural law party in electons past?
it might explain a lot….
We are not the same Darth, dont do yoga.
Certainly the UUUC had a mandate to be sectarian, much like the Nazi party had a mandate,Apartheid had a mandate from those allowed to Vote in SA(ZA), unionisim has been sheeite at selling power sharing to its minions, and you have to understand that powersharing is not ideal for Nationalists either. So the question i ask of anti-powersharing unionists is what better can we do which provides cross community representation, justice for all not just a few, and fair governance, and im sorry but powersharing is the only show in town. But if there are reasonalble suggestions or alternatives I would be all ears. These anti agreement types have nothing new to bring to the equation, and I hope the electorate see pass the rhetoric.
I’m quite content that those opposed to power sharing (i.e., that pitiful rump who voted for anti-SAA candidates earlier this year) are (with some few exceptions) an unrepresentative bunch who have nothing but contempt for the democratic wishes of nationalists/republicans, would ban SF or have their MLAs jailed or preferably shot.
As I said, there are some very few principled objectors in their ranks, and perhaps they’re all here on Slugger! However, to deny that sectarianism was a main driver of the anti-SAA vote (such as it was) is a bit ostrich-like, in my view. Sectarianism exists.
[i]As I said, there are some very few principled objectors in their ranks, and perhaps they’re all here on Slugger! However, to deny that sectarianism was a main driver of the anti-SAA vote (such as it was) is a bit ostrich-like, in my view. Sectarianism exists. [/i]
Who said it didn’t? What you’re saying is that it exists en masse among the majority of people opposed to power-sharing with SF.
Again Jo you can’t offer any actual evidence to support you theory that the majority of people who oppose power-sharing do so for sectarian reasons. Undoubtedly some do; however to suggest that most of them do is disingenuous when you can’t back it up. It might be easier for nationalism to imagine that opposition to power-sharing = hatred of catholics, thus giving a good excuse to dismiss any such movement out of hand, but it’s not that simple, is it?
Yeah sectarianism exists and it’s revolting. But ‘sectarianism’ is a damn sight less bad a vice than murdering people. Which is why when people huff and puff and smear people they disagree with as being bigots, always watch out, as it’s nine times out of ten disengenous cr*p. Seriously – inveighing against the supposed evils of ‘sectarianism’ (pace the frequent -near-libels on this site against Allister, who has killed no one) when you’re quite content/orgasmically keen to see Marty McG rewarded for all his murders with ministerial office is too pathetically transparent even for Republican apologists.
DM
One well-known blogger opposed to power sharing was taken to pieces on his blog where it was concluded that no matter if SF were in power or not, or who nationalist/republican voters voted for, it wouldnt change opposition to power sharing.
The lies about opposition to gunmen in government is utterly disengenous when men and women who NO attachment to guns were thrown out of power in ’74. And no, it wasn’t a throwaway remark about trundling into a UI that caused that. Look at Paisley’s handshake with Bertie a few months back…if Adams announced (as he has) that we are now closer to a UI, what effect does THAT have? None.
But as anti-powersharing views are electorally insignificant (and spread across a number of electoral areas), the question is: what does it matter?
Well, for once, we have a marginalised disaffected grouping which is tiny and marginalised – and cross community support for shared government. But I think, yeah it DOES matter, in those instances where there is genuine argument and debate to be had, not dog-in-a-manger stuff, and reasonable people will listen.
Perhaps some enterprising soul might do a poll on those who did so vote and we can ascertain for sure. Oh wait, perhaps there MIGHT be an issue with that: (people are disengenuous after all!)
Hold on here…. ok some of the Unionists here object to powersharing sooooo million euro question.
What pray is the well thought out and balanced alternative unionisim has prepared to replace powersharing?