The SDLP – too much fashionable pessimism
As noted in comment yesterday, Fionnuala gives the authentic account of the rise and fall of the SDLP, ending with a threnody of prevailing pessimism about its future. Like her and many others of our generation, I knew all the old gang pretty well but have met only a handful of today’s lot, Maginnes, the Attwoods, Hanna, Dallat, Ritchie, McGrady, McDonnell and yes the “hapless”- (unkind and overstated) – Durkan.
They don’t strike me as inferior to a round up of random Sinn Feiners. The difference is that the pioneering generation of the SDLP has long departed, while the old commanders of republicanism are still hanging on and playing out a role. Succession planning in a still largely Stalinist organisation is much, much better compared to the chaotic baronial principle of the old SDLP.
And yet… How are the rising Catholic bourgeoisie voting? Are they like their Protestant equivalents of yesteryear, staying out of the vulgar fray? Many nationalists recoiled viscerally from the physical force tradition in the style of Eddie McGrady for instance. Has that sentiment become entirely irrelevant and has Sinn Fein become just another nationalist party? I still believe that with a 108 member Assembly with those designations – (dubious though they be) – and STV voting which undermines monoliths, the opportunities for an SDLP revival are going a-begging.
But if you’re a rising star in any party you can forget about hob-nobbing with presidents and prime ministers. The job these days is more humdrum, thank God – but still surely worthwhile. Or do you have to be working class to find the slimmed down pay and conditions attractive?
Is that your contribution, a Sheáin?
“Don’t believe all you read”
Thanks, Pancho, I’ll dismiss your feeble ‘claptrap’:)
The poorly armed IRA of the period. It hadn’t gone away you know
You remember the border campaign finished in 1962. The astute Faulkner saw there was no IRA and no threat and let his hostages out. Yet, like all the rest of the surrounded unionists, you felt the murderous IRA was there in full strength in 1967. Get a grip.The CRA and associated student movements were, if anything, anti-IRA. I remember, in 1966, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh was jeered when he said that the IRA would rise again and yet you have them as the éminences grises (rouges) in the CRA. No No No.
Pancho, perhaps you ought to get a grip – and read some of the contemporary accounts written by armchair and militant socialists
As a Nationalist who has flitted between voting for the SDLP and Sinn Fein over the years I sometimes nearly feel sorry for the Stoops because of unfair criticism……then I wise up, get real then angry when I recall that this is the same party that allowed people like Martin Morgan AND Brian Feeney to walk away. It is the political death of a self imposed 1000 cuts and when it ALL boils down to a choice between Margaret Ritchie OR Allister McDonnell for leader you know the SDLP’s days are numbered. Hume, Mallon and Currie must be downing a stiff drink at that thought and Paddy Devlin must be spinning in his grave. No wonder the detached and power crazy Sinn Fein doesn’t have to do too much to remain Nationalist top dog when faced with this choice!
At least LURIG discusses the matter in hand.. This is one of most obsessively silly threads I’ve read for a long time – I’m sorry you highjacked it nevin. Now you’ll get cross probably and go on and on… If it’s symptomatic of the political health of the place, God help you all.
Lurig
I am assuming that you don’t know either Feeney or Morgan if you think either was a particular asset to the SDLP, particularly the latter. The phrase “prima donna” springs to mind, also the words “couldn’t”, “organise”, “piss-up”, “in” , “a”, “brewery”. They were part of the all-too-prevalent SDLP culture of refusing to put an organisation in place, particularly in Oldpark, which they represented.
It’s the SDLP culture that has to change. A lot of bad habits were learnt from Fitt and Devlin-it was all about them-two people who wanted just to have unquestioning followers.
Brian, I don’t do cross or envy. I merely filled in a few pieces of the jig-saw that Fionnula left out. If other commenters want to discuss my observations they’re perfectly entitled to do so. If folks had little to say about your eulogy for Fionnula that’s hardly my fault.
JoMax, wasn’t Hume one of the main exponents of the culture you describe? It’s my understanding that he treated Mallon very shabbily.
Back in the day I suggested to the UUP that part of the leadership problem could be put down it’s memberships largely Presbyterian ‘ethos’ ie one person’s view is as valid as any others – too democratic. Might the SDLP be troubled by a similar mainly Catholic ‘ethos’?
Seymour Major
What is an “unnatural” identity? For that matter, what is a natural one?
In terms of the Bible which contains the ultimate truth about identities such as ours, an unnatural identity is one the subsribes to the Old Testament without reference to Jesus Christ or his coming. In other words it is deluded. The unionists tend to be deluded, still trying to underpin the empire while it is the empire that Christ set out to destroy.
A natural identity is one the recognises that Jesus came, that he had a message and which tries its best to implement that message. Love, forgiveness rather than vengeance, for example.
You may ask about Sinn Fein and I would have to admit that they are a first generation Old Testament party believing in an eye for an eye, just as the unionists do, but that their constituency keeps them in line much more than the unionists’.