Looks like the SDLP will have to add this dame Walsh to the list of cases next time it runs one of these whingefests.

Cows are home.

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.

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.

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!

Sad.

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.

I think my 751 trumps your two!

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Small things like party’s organising taxis to go to polling booths, is another factor too.

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..