Tuesday, March 13, 2007
And then there were nine….
It’s not a party, and probably not yet a decent opposition, but today the Alliance, Green, and Independent MLAs all designated ‘United Community’ as opposed to ‘Nationalist’ or ‘Unionist’ or indeed plain old ‘Other’…
Mick Fealty @ 05:41 PM
Good for them, whilst disagreeing politically on many issues I genuinely wish them well.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 06:42 PMAs an Irish republican I would have deep opposition to the policies and ideologies of this grouping, far from socialist and basically right wing bourgeois in many many ways.
That said, I recognise their right to put forward the ideas that they believe in.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 06:45 PMI didn’t realise it was even possible. I wonder how this affects the “parallel majority” required for controversial decisions - would a majority of these 9 also now be necessary or is it only the big 2?
Would it still be majorities of unionist and nationalist if the “United Community” became the 2nd largest designation?
Very hypothetical I know, but curious…
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 06:51 PMSo, dublinsfsupporter, you disagree with the nationalist grouping as well? Or it’s just this one that is antisocialist? The Green party isn’t exactly well-known for its right wing stances, is it?
The only “idea” I see being put forward is a rejection of the typical sectarian carve-up and an effort to look pragmatically at a way to avoid splitting down sectarian lines. The sooner we think about politics on issues, and not merely on sectarian lines, the better chance we have of good governance.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 07:22 PMAnimus - “The only “idea” I see being put forward is a rejection of the typical sectarian carve-up...The sooner we think about politics on issues, and not merely on sectarian lines, the better chance we have of good governance.”
Surely if they are jumping into bed together simply as a rejection of sectarian carve-up and not because they have united poicy objectives they won’t be able to conduct issue based politics and better than any other group - what with not agreeing with each other and all.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 07:44 PMdublinsfsupporter
The Green member is further to the left than Sinn Fein. Don’t forget Sinn Fein is a Private Finance Initiative supporter in Northern Ireland!
beano
Parallel consent is one of those sectarian carve-ups that ignores non-unionist, non-nationalist groupings.
Brian Wilson is a former Alliance member (think his wife still is), and Deeny was part of the movement led by Alliance to support John Gilliland in Europe last time round, so the ‘coalition’ is one of people who are all known to each other and on good terms.
They are the only opposition in the Assembly, representing a growing section of the community and the only non-sectarian bloc - yet their votes count for less in key votes.
I think this is a bloody disgrace.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 07:56 PM“They are the only opposition in the Assembly, representing a growing section of the community and the only non-sectarian bloc - yet their votes count for less in key votes.
I think this is a bloody disgrace. “
Ditto.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 08:38 PMGeertz - grown up politics is about working together and compromise. All the parties supported a number of social and economic initiatives during the campaign, so let’s see how that pans out. Will it lead to partnership or a sectarian shouting match?
The 9 people in the United campe can decide when it would suit them to work together and when it would not. European politics divides into broad alliances; these are based on a general understanding, not a slavish adherence to any particular policy stance. It works in Europe, I hope it works in the Assembly.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 09:05 PM“"They are the only opposition in the Assembly, representing a growing section of the community and the only non-sectarian bloc - yet their votes count for less in key votes.
I think this is a bloody disgrace. “
As do I.
And I thought so in 1998 when I was campaigning for a “No” vote. How odd then, that the shrillest “Yes” campaigners then came from the APNI- the very group moaning about it now.
Didn’t they read the “Agreement” they advocated?
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 09:16 PMBonar
I remember asking an Alliance guy about that and he said that they could campaign to chnage it later.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 09:23 PMThat said, I recognise their right to put forward the ideas that they believe in.
Thanks, dublinsfsupporter. That’s very kind of you.
I’ll remember that comment the next time someone calls the Alliance Party ‘patronising’.
How odd then, that the shrillest “Yes” campaigners then came from the APNI- the very group moaning about it now.
Bonar Law - least worst option. And as years of DUP and Sinn Féin side-deals show, Good Friday is hardly set in stone.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 09:30 PM‘They are the only opposition in the Assembly’
Very good point, and how obvious can it be that this is what the SDLP and the UUP should do. Can you imagine how it would look for the DUP to be in government alone with SF?
Of course such isolation would make it even less likely SF and the DUP would get on, so maybe that’s why the UUP are staying in government… I doubt it, but I still can’t think of a single strategic reason why the UUP would go into government.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 09:38 PM“I remember asking an Alliance guy about that and he said that they could campaign to chnage it later.”
The turkey who was planning to start campaigning against Christmas on Boxing Day?
Sammy Morse
Strange, I don’t remember the “Vote ‘Yes’- it’s the least worst option” campaign from 1998.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 09:38 PM“I don’t remember the “Vote ‘Yes’- it’s the least worst option” campaign from 1998.”
Neither can I recall the “Vote ‘No’ (until the DUP becomes the largest Unionist party)” campaign from that year either…
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 09:47 PMI doubt it, but I still can’t think of a single strategic reason why the UUP would go into government.
UUP? Strategy?
Strange, I don’t remember the “Vote ‘Yes’- it’s the least worst option” campaign from 1998.
Valenciano has said it all for me.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 10:01 PMValenciano
LOL!
Although as Sammy has said what we have today is not exactly what we had in 1998. I trust that that process of change will quicken to a point where who can command greatest support on the greatest number of issues in the Assembly rather than who wins the head count is the test of political success here.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 10:03 PM“I trust that that process of change will quicken to a point where who can command greatest support on the greatest number of issues in the Assembly rather than who wins the head count is the test of political success here.”
That isn’t going to happen. Why would SF, who hold a veto over the entire process, go for a majority system that would almost certainly exclude them from government? It isn’t even on the radar.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 10:22 PMkensei
about as likely as the DUP introducing an Irish Language Bill?
Anyway who’s talking about a majority system? Consensus building and coalition are the way forward. If an executive required 2/3 support for its’ agreed programme of government any grouping able to muster 72 (out of 108) MLAs would govern.
Take our current Assembly. The DUP have 36 and everyone else comes to… 72. Just imagine the horse trading over the jobs in the Anti DUP rainbow coalition. Importantly, in that horse trading every MLA would count equally.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 10:38 PM...The sooner we think about politics on issues, and not merely on sectarian lines, the better chance we have of good governance...”
Every so often here on Slug, there is a real gem of a post. Concise and succint, this is one such post.
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 11:24 PMIt’s not a party, and probably not yet a decent opposition...
Better to have the chance of being a decent opposition, than being in an indecent government!
Posted by on Mar 13, 2007 @ 11:29 PMdublinsfsupporter:
As an Irish republican I would have deep opposition to the policies and ideologies of this grouping, far from socialist and basically right wing bourgeois in many many ways.
Bourgeois ? Is that like “holiday home in Donegal” bourgeois, or like your Armani-suit wearing party leader ? I liked you better when you were blathering misinformed rubbish about Mary-Lou McDonald being the next leader of Sinn Fein. At least is it plainly obvious how juvenile your perspective really is.
That said, I recognise their right to put forward the ideas that they believe in.
You say this as if it is supposed to be a big deal. Maybe tolerating other people’s political ideas is some kind of big deal to you. What do you want, a feckin’ medal ? Get the hell out of here with this patriarchal crap, go and bang a bin lid or something.
bonerlaw:
And I thought so in 1998 when I was campaigning for a “No” vote. How odd then, that the shrillest “Yes” campaigners then came from the APNI- the very group moaning about it now.
Didn’t they read the “Agreement” they advocated?
There was no alternative to the Agreement and this remains the case, even now. My recollection at the time was that Alliance recorded that they were supporting the deal despite the difficulties, specifically the formalizing of the sectarian divide in the voting system in the assembly. The Agreement includes a review mechanism which allows people to try to fix what is wrong. That mechanism has been invoked several times (St Andrews being the latest iteration) and I expect it will be invoked again in the future. Personally I voted yes, and I’m still 100% happy it was the right thing to do.
As a general point, constructive people work to reform the political system they find themselves in; they do not sit outside and try to wreck it. The people who voted “no” were largely at that time represented by politicians who did not attend the talks process and essentially refused the opportunity to shape British-Irish government policy for the next decade. Had those politicians been in the talks, the document we were all voting on, together with the history of the past ten years, might have been very different.
Strange, I don’t remember the “Vote ‘Yes’- it’s the least worst option” campaign from 1998.
Actually, that is pretty much what Alliance told their supporters at the time. There was no hesitation about voting yes, but it was plainly obvious that voting No simply wasn’t an option.
kensei:
That isn’t going to happen. Why would SF, who hold a veto over the entire process, go for a majority system that would almost certainly exclude them from government? It isn’t even on the radar.
SF hold a veto over the process ? Where’s that written down ?
Forgive me if I’m putting words in your mouth here, but extrapolatingon this, do you mean to say that if SF are total shit at running the government ministries, the electorate have no right to put them out ? What sort of democracy is that ?
Posted by on Mar 14, 2007 @ 12:12 AMComrade Stalin
was St Andrews a review within the 1998 terms?
Bob and the DUP did indeed attend the Talks throughout 1996 and into 1997.
The Alliance stuck at it to the bitter end, how exactly did they influence government policy in 1998?
Posted by on Mar 14, 2007 @ 12:20 AM“As an Irish republican I would have deep opposition to the policies and ideologies of this grouping, far from socialist and basically right wing bourgeois in many many ways.
That said, I recognise their right to put forward the ideas that they believe in.”
So you and your friends would only accept a SOCIALIST united ireland, and reject a capitalist but culturally comfortable one?
So glad you recognise our right to put forward our own ideas.
We don’t allow you to deny us that right.
And you can post again if you wish.
Posted by on Mar 14, 2007 @ 12:58 AMPresumably, any review of the Assembly will have to be agreed by the Assembly under the current dispensation. So the question arises, how is Alliance going to convince the nationalist parties to support a changed dispensation?
Posted by on Mar 14, 2007 @ 02:17 AMComrade
“Get the hell out of here with this patriarchal crap, go and bang a bin lid or something.”A considered and definitely non juvenile view;)
“Forgive me if I’m putting words in your mouth here, but extrapolatingon this, do you mean to say that if SF are total shit at running the government ministries, the electorate have no right to put them out ? What sort of democracy is that ?”
I think if they didn’t receive any votes they wouldn’t be running any ministries. Same as anywhere else, really.
Posted by on Mar 14, 2007 @ 07:49 AM
