The SDLP’s Justice for the innocent….
I’m sorry to say I did not get to the Justice for the innocent talk organised by the SDLP at their party conference yesterday. It began at 1.15 in the afternoon,in the bunker room and by the time we’d finished interviewing Mr Durkan the discussion was over and we arrived as people were coming out. I knew at once that they were coming from something extremely emotional. There were quite a few women there with tears in their eyes, including the SDLP’s own very hard working Margaret Walsh. As soon as she saw me we embraced and it was possible to physically feel the emotion that had been in that room. I remember the emotional scenes of Paddy Hill and Gerry Conlon being released – watching the screens then it was possible to feel the emotion. That emotion is still there. Yesterday was the first I’d met both men. You feel upon meeting them that a great wrong had been done to them. I’m sorry I missed Raymond McCord, and the Quinn family. Hopefully at some stage they will meet and talk to slugger. All I managed to get was this meaningful message from Gerry Conlon, still the same working class person I read about. Neither Paddy nor Gerry were dressed in suits, and here is what he had to say, especially to west Belfast.
Not just the voters – now even the SDLP have dumped her. Take a look at her ‘profile’ on the SDLP womens web page
They haven’t dumped her, she isn’t a councillor… or anything to have a profile on anymore. She answers phones in the office. Does your local rep have a profile on the person who answers the phone in his/her office?
She didn’t ‘last over 20 years’, Kathleen.
tisk horseman You’re still equating hard work with electoral success… She’s been a party member and worker for its ideals for over 20 years.. right back to Gerry Fitt. Infact Alban McGuinnes was only coming out of uni and MW was in the SDLP
Next!!
forgot that
They haven’t dumped her, she isn’t a councillor …
Ouch! So you are only valuable (or ‘profilable’) to the SDLP if you are an elected representative? What a nasty party! As soon as you fuil, you are relegated to answering the phones, and your years of service are forgotten? No wonder people have turned off the SDLP.
Are there no other jobs for someone so “hard working”? Can the SDLP not fix her up on some quango or other? The fact that they don’t do so might just hint at something … like that they also don’t rate her too highly?
Why, if she was “hard working” when Alban McGinness was only a youngster, is she not the SDLP’s candidate for Europe? He, after all, still has a real job!
There you go again with those value arguments. You can’t bring values in because you ruled them out. So
Ouch! So you are only valuable (or ‘profilable’) to the SDLP if you are an elected representative? What a nasty party! As soon as you fuil, you are relegated to answering the phones, and your years of service are forgotten? No wonder people have turned off the SDLP.
goes all the way back to that argument. How do you know she isn’t happy answering phones?
Why, if she was “hard working” when Alban McGinness was only a youngster, is she not the SDLP’s candidate for Europe? He, after all, still has a real job!
I could argue thats because of her gender, and the same opportunities that were there for educated men weren’t there for uneducated working class woman but then we’d have to widen the argument and you only want to talk about margaret and not focus on her age and?or gender…..
You ruled that out to, so we can’t talk about Alban according to you, he’s not in the post, and I’m here at your request to focus on Margaret…
I’m not changing your rules at this stage, too dictorial!!
I’d happily talk about MW’s age or gender if you like. I don’t know her age, but by the way you talk about her she sounds ancient! I know plenty of people (in and out of politics) who are over 65 and manage fine, so I think that excuse for her failure might be spurious. Her gender is in no doubt, but there also the argument is pretty spurious. In Lower Falls three of the five councillors elected in 2005 were women, so there is clearly no inbuilt bias. In fact, if anything the bias is against men (50% of the candidates, but only 40% of the seats). MW failed because of something inherent in herself or her party. Since her party scored fairly well overall in Belfast (17.1% of the vote, against 17.4% in 2001), then there was no huge swing against the SDLP … just against MW.
So if her age is not really a factor (unless you can argue that it held her back), her gender is apparently an advantage, and her party was not in melt-down, why did she manage to lose 751 votes, or 37% of her 2001 total? The overall poll in Lower Falls fell by 16.4% from 2001 to 2005 – MW’s vote fell by 37% !
The fault must lie with her, not with some lame excuse about age or gender – that’s just a cop-out. The fact that you believe her to be a “hard worker”, while her constituents clearly think that she was useless, makes your opinion questionable. If “hard work” lost her 751 votes, then maybe she should re-think her whole strategy. Or listen to her constituents (maybe this could be part of her re-think?)
Correction:
… the bias is against men (50% of the candidates, but only 40% of the seats). ..
Only 42.8% of the candidates were men (3 out of seven), but still only 40% of the seats went to men. And I guess men were close to 50% of the electorate, so there is still some inbuilt advantage to women in Lower Falls.
I’d happily talk about MW’s age or gender if you like.
No. You ruled it out, so its out.
who are over 65 and manage fine,
Absolutely. But you can’t make that judgement for her, or judge her hard work on the basis of it. Simply because neither you nor I know of any health family personal reasons that went into her decision if any. It may be she decided she’d had enough, it may be she lucked out in her last try and didn’t feel up to it again, we don’t know the reason, but no more value arguments. You have continually tried to bring them in after ruling them out. You can’t have it both ways.
So if her age is not really a factor (unless you can argue that it held her back), her gender is apparently an advantage, and her party was not in melt-down, why did she manage to lose 751 votes, or 37% of her 2001 total? The overall poll in Lower Falls fell by 16.4% from 2001 to 2005 – MW’s vote fell by 37% !
There you go again mixing up stuff. By 2001 things for women in politics had changed. It could be argued that were it not for women like margaret who paved the way it may not have been so good for the others. They may have had stronger teams behind them. But you ruled out the feminist argument. Her gender wasn’t an advantage in the seventies in the lower falls. Neither do we know if she wanted to climb higher in the party. Not without talking to her.
The fault must lie with her,
Again we’re back to the same argument. Without a survey you won’t know whether any failure of the SDLP in the lower falls is Margarets fault, or that of party policy. As I said before she may have held it together for them or they’d have been a lost cause long ago….
You simply don’t know.
(maybe this could be part of her re-think?)
What rethink is that?
Considering the SDLP is in meltdown all over its hardly a leap of judgement to say that it is more likely to be the fault of party policy that the fault of one person…
Plus she didn’t have a huge backup at her disposal. Her support group compared to that of other women candidates in the LF is also a factor outside of her control…
What rethink is that?
The one she would need to do if she still harbours any political ambition.
You may be right, she may have given up. You know her (I don’t), so why don’t you ask her? She certinly hasn’t given up on political work according to you, but if she is still pursuing it through the failed methods of her past, then I guess she will be damaging the SDLP even more!
The statistics I have given you in previous posts demonstrate quite clearly that the fault cannot lie entirely with the SDLP. They did not lose 37% of their 2001 vote in 2005. MW did. The voters decided, and she became history. Her party has now also largely dropped her. I’m sorry for the woman – she wanted office in 2005, but failed. She served the SDLP for a generation but was dropped like a stone. The story reflects sadly on her, and badly on her party.
To get back (eventually) to your initial point. If MW is “very hard working” then she should have either held up her vote, or bucked the SDLP’s trend. She did neither. She probably scored worst out of all the SDLP’s sitting councillors in 2005. What’s the reason? That voters in the Lower Falls turned against a “hard working” committed local councillor? Do you really think so badly of the people of the lower Falls? I don’t – I think that the voters reward hard work, ability, commitment, etc. If they punished MW over and above the mild punishment the SDLP received, it was because either she was not actually a “hard worker” or she was just plain useless.
What rethink is that?
The one she would need to do if she still harbours any political ambition.
Do you know if she has any?
You may be right, she may have given up. You know her (I don’t), so why don’t you ask her? She certinly hasn’t given up on political work according to you, but if she is still pursuing it through the failed methods of her past, then I guess she will be damaging the SDLP even more!
I hardly think answering phones will damage the SDLP. Nonsense argument.
The statistics I have given you in previous posts demonstrate quite clearly that the fault cannot lie entirely with the SDLP. They did not lose 37% of their 2001 vote in 2005. MW did. The voters decided, and she became history. Her party has now also largely dropped her. I’m sorry for the woman – she wanted office in 2005, but failed. She served the SDLP for a generation but was dropped like a stone. The story reflects sadly on her, and badly on her party.
Not so. For example there may have been a lack of other names to go forward, and rather than not contest the seat the party may have decided to ask her to put her name forward. Her heart may not have been in it, and along with that poor support backup would have helped in defeat. You nor I know the ins and outs of the decision back then for her name to go forward. She may have decided that its time for younger people to have their chance. In which case she wouldn’t have been dropped like a stone, but decided to remove herself for what ever reason.
The statistics I have given you in previous posts demonstrate quite clearly that the fault cannot lie entirely with the SDLP. They did not lose 37% of their 2001 vote in 2005. MW did. The voters decided, and she became history. Her party has now also largely dropped her. I’m sorry for the woman – she wanted office in 2005, but failed. She served the SDLP for a generation but was dropped like a stone. The story reflects sadly on her, and badly on her party.
They lost all over. They came out of the last general election like the UUP almost in complete meltdown. It was a bitter election, with the DUP and SF looking to see who could be biggest. Efforts to turn out were immense. Thats hardly surprising she lost out, Attwood only got in by hte skin of his teeth as I recall. Lots of factors outside of her control…. You simply cannot blame the failure of an entire party on one person. If she was useles and the party left her there thats not her fault, but theirs.
That voters in the Lower Falls turned against a “hard working” committed local councillor?
That phenomenon has happened in general elections the other way about. Blow ins put into office over local hard workers, doesn’t mean the locals didn’t work hard enough, but a brand name can sell..
There is also another problem with judgements based on statistics. You simply don’t know how many of those who failed to turn out for her last election were SDLP supporters. What percentage of the stats you quote is the percentage of turnout? How big or small was turnout when she last stood, and then there is the unknown, who were those who didn’t turn out? Were they mainly SDLP supporters?
Small things like party’s organising taxis to go to polling booths, is another factor too.
Considering the SDLP is in meltdown all over its hardly a leap of judgement to say that it is more likely to be the fault of party policy that the fault of one person…
The SDLP was not in melt-down. I showed you that.
Plus she didn’t have a huge backup at her disposal. Her support group compared to that of other women candidates in the LF is also a factor outside of her control…
“Women candidates” is an irrelevancy. They are candidates pure and simple.
If she had few supporters, that is a measure of her own failure, not the cause of it. A long-serving, “hard working” councillor who lacks supporters, and loses 751 votes! Um, wake up and smell the coffee, Kathleen.
She probably scored worst out of all the SDLP’s sitting councillors in 2005. What’s the reason?
Do you have any evidence for that? And again there may have been other councillors from other partys who polled even worse, so what does that say??
Jumping on the fact that I tried to improve her electoral chances was a blunder on your part, and blaming her for her partys fortunes that have tumbled all over, is your second blunder.
As a constituent I know that Margaret Walsh is indeed a hard worker, however when doing that work she wasn’t only thinking of personal or party advantage. She does not deserve to be a victim in a public slanging match here.
The lack of local party support/direction is not entirely Margaret’s fault but should have been the responsibility of those nominated to higher positions of influence in the constituency.
Indeed maybe she was seen as an Attwood proxy.
Plus she didn’t have a huge backup at her disposal. Her support group compared to that of other women candidates in the LF is also a factor outside of her control…
“Women candidates” is an irrelevancy. They are candidates pure and simple.
Agreed but you compared her to other women. However the other candidates of what ever gender had more backup than she had.
… Blow ins put into office over local hard workers, doesn’t mean the locals didn’t work hard enough..
She was the only SDLP candidate in LF in 2005. There were no blow ins. She hsd a clear run and failed. The voters turned against her, not the SDLP (see the other DEAs).
Small things like party’s organising taxis to go to polling booths, is another factor too.
And who, precisely gets these things organised? A “hard worker”, that’s who! If she didn’t do the work necessary to get re-elected, then all the “hard work” was in vain. The fact that she was, according to you, “working hard”, but failed to do the basic things necessary to get her vote out means that she was, as I have repeatedly said, useless.
She does not deserve to be a victim in a public slanging match here.
I absolutely agree with you. Horseman thats two constituents of hers that says she is a hard worker. You were saying she wasn’t one as not one of her constituents.
Just to step back for a second, Kathleen, culd you give some examples of her “hard work”? It may help us to understand why she failed so dismally.
… thats two constituents of hers that says she is a hard worker …
I think my 751 trumps your two!
She was the only SDLP candidate in LF in 2005. There were no blow ins. She hsd a clear run and failed. The voters turned against her, not the SDLP (see the other DEAs).
There you go again mixing stuff up. I never said there were any blow in but spoke of blowins in general elections in other circumstances.
And who, precisely gets these things organised? A “hard worker”, that’s who! If she didn’t do the work necessary to get re-elected, then all the “hard work” was in vain. The fact that she was, according to you, “working hard”, but failed to do the basic things necessary to get her vote out means that she was, as I have repeatedly said, useless.
It’s like insider says, she never worked with personal or party advantage in mind…….
Thats the difference. You don’t know what you are talking about. Some people are in there to serve others, not themselves. Selfless people, like Margaret.
You never got away from your basic flawed values. Equating hard work with electoral success and nothing else.
Sad.
I never said there were any blow in but spoke of blowins in general elections in other circumstances.
Um, so what … ? We’re talking about MW. She was only a councillor – General Elections are a complete red herring. MW had no trouble with blow-ins, she just had trouble convincing the voters of LF to elect her again.
Some people are in there to serve others, not themselves. Selfless people, like Margaret.
Spare me the adoration. If she had ‘served’ people then they would, presumably, have voted for her. But 751 people who voted for her in 2001 did not do so again in 2005. That is a colossal collapse of confidence. As I have (repeatedly) said, her “hard work” was for nothing if she failed to get re-elected. Is she a social worker? A nurse? No, she was trying to help people via politics, but thanks to her failure to get re-elected (her fault as well as her party’s) she cannot do that now!
Lots of people “work hard” but fail. In most cases (the IRSP, Eamon McCann, Willie Frazer, …) they are in no doubt whatsoever that they are unpopular, or are swimming against the flow. But relatively few achieve a position (Belfast City Councillor) and manage to lose it so badly. If the whole SDLP had been wiped out, then MW’s failure could be put in that context. But the SDLP did quite OK, and lost only one seat in Belfast … hers! They gained percentage in Pottinger, Victoria, Balmoral and Laganbank, and only lost small support in Castle. Their worst losses were in the Falls and Oldpark. Now I’m sure you think of a reason for that (?), but since MW was most active in LF (where the percentage fall was greatest) she must bear a significant part of the blame. Unless (as I have already said) you are accusing LF voters of being ungrateful bastards, then her “hard work” must have been mis-directed, i.e. politically inept!
Without a poll of the 751 voters you’re surmising. You are saying on bahalf of those people that Margaret Walsh is useless. Thats arrogance. You simply don’t know why they decided otherwise, and until you poll and ask them that argument won’t stand.
No, she was trying to help people via politics, but thanks to her failure to get re-elected (her fault as well as her party’s) she cannot do that now!
Why do you say that? I know many ex councillors who freely give out advice and work elsewhere, and still help people. I believe if someone went to her for help she’d give it, or direct them to it.
And helping people out isn’t a guarantee of electoral success. A person can be helped out via the sdlp and still decide to vote sf or vice versa. You are assuming….. again.
Conor Murphy failed in 2001 to get elected as acouncillor for Newry town, was he rejected by the people or useless?
About your assumptions.
You assumed I was trying to improve her electoral prospects by saying she was a hard worker.
Wrong.
Then you assumed without any personal knowledge of the woman that she wasn’t a hard worker and that is why 700 people didn’t vote for her. On that assumption you went on to be spokesperson for those 700 odd people and say that because they decided to vote differently it was this womans fault. Pure arrogance. I’m beginning to wonder if it is worth debating with someone who argues or tries to argue on that basis.
You’ve engaged in manplaying with Margaret Walsh, dissing her character publicly on the grounds that saying she was a hard worker was against blogging rules, or your rules….
Your position is flawed, in regards to Mrw Walsh I should really remove all this man playing, but then you’d scream censorship, and try to give bloggers here advice on hte basis of your successful blog…..
Amazing.
It’s been over an hour now horseman. Did you hear that bang. Thats the farmer closing the gate.
Cows are home.
Go and get a life, Kathleen, for God’s sake.
now chewie theres a useless cunt if ever anybody wuz useless! Kathleen u wasted ur efforts. These fuckers r a pack of shit
Thanks for this thread it’s been so funny.
Looks like the SDLP will have to add this dame Walsh to the list of cases next time it runs one of these whingefests.