Saturday, December 16, 2006
SF’s Kathy Stanton not contesting next assembly election
The Irish News has confirmation from Sinn Féin MLA Kathy Stanton that she will not be standing[subs req] in the next assembly election [whenever that is - Ed] citing “personal, family, commitments”. The North Belfast MLA denied voicing concerns at meetings about the Sinn Féin strategy on policing, noted here previously, and emphasised that she would remain an active member of the party including campaigning for their candidates in the assembly election. Interestingly she is also quoted as saying, “I have always stated that I support the Sinn Féin ard chomhairle’s motions.” The ard chomhairle motion following St Andrews stated “We reject any role for MI5 in Ireland or in civic policing.”
The Irish News reports that the Sinn Féin candidates for North Belfast are to be current MLA, Gerry Kelly, and Belfast councillor Caral Ni Chuilin.
Pete Baker @ 01:54 PM
Who cares im more interested in seeing Alliance take the six seat in South Belfast from Sinn Fein! West Belfast is to predictable
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 03:53 PMThis was on irelandclick.com, I am not 100 per cent convinced that support for the PSNI was not a factor.
Sinn Féin MLA Gerry Kelly and Belfast city councillor Carál Ní Chuilín will carry the torch for the party in March’s Assembly election
It follows this week’s selection convention, which was held in the hall of the Páirc an Ghleanna Inn in the Oldpark area.
One of the party’s two sitting MLAs, Kathy Stanton, indicated that she was not standing for another term of office prior to the convention.
The Sinn Féin poverty spokeswoman cited personal commitments for her decision but said she would continue to carry out her work until the Assembly winds down.
“I will continue to carry out all my duties at the Assembly until it closes in the run-up to the elections,” said Kathy Stanton, “and of course I will still be doing my work in the constituency.
“This is a very important election for us and I will remain an active member of the party on the ground to ensure that we get Gerry and Carál elected and that we increase the Sinn Féin vote again.”
Sinn Féin Ard Chomhairle member Sean Oliver made a presentation to the outgoing MLA and thanked her for all the work she has put in since she was elected in 2003.
Gerry Kelly, who is one of the party’s negotiating team with the British and Irish governments and its leading spokesperson on policing and justice is seeking a third term in the Assembly.
He won his first election in North Belfast in 1996 in the Forum elections, which predated the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which set up the Assembly.
Next year’s election will be city councillor Carál Ní Chuilín’s first attempt at taking an Assembly seat.
The New Lodge woman has been a Belfast City Councillor since October 2003 when she was first co-opted on to the council in place of Gerard Brophy.
She went on to hold the seat in the Oldpark ward for Sinn Féin in the 2005 council election and had been widely tipped to become Belfast Mayor earlier this year.
Due to new legislation if she wins an Assembly seat she will have to resign from the council.
The former Republican prisoner was upbeat about the party’s chances in the next election.
“We are looking to build on what is already a very strong base in North Belfast,” said Carál Ní Chuilín.
“Our activists have been at the doors over the last year carrying out a political canvas and the response we have been getting has been very heartening.
“We believe that more people than ever will vote for Sinn Féin in next year’s elections endorsing our strategy as the only political party on this island north and south who are out to change the status quo and who are actively working to achieve a United Ireland.
“This convention marks only the beginning of what will be a very vigorous election campaign on our part as we take our message for change to the people of North Belfast.”Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 04:06 PMMore trouble in Paradise…
Did we fight for more than 30 years to achieve nothing?
Irish News Letters
By Republicans’ Republican, Belfast 7I would like to reply to a number of letters in The Irish News of late attacking me for criticising Sinn Fein - some directly, some indirectly.
While I have no objection to criticism (unlike Sinn Fein) I wish people would stick to the facts and not make false assumptions.
It appears no-one can criticise Sinn Fein without being accused of being a war-monger or opponent of peace. Nowhere in my letters did I say the things of which I am accused.
It seems that Sinn Fein have all the answers and we sheep should follow meekly behind. One reader accuses me of hating God, Christianity and peace in Ireland. Unlike some, I don’t know if God exists so how can I hate him?
I don’t believe in organised religions either but have no problem with those who do.
As for hating peace in Ireland I won’t even dignify that with a response.
One writer asks me what was the alternative to ending the violence other than more deaths, injuries, imprisonment and hopelessness for all.
I never said the violence as he calls it shouldn’t end.
He also talks of the romantic republicanism I seem so nostalgic for.
Does he mean nostalgia for the years I spent in a British prison or when I was shot by a pro-British death squad or the fact that those nostalgic experiences have left me being treated by a psychiatrist after all these years suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder as a direct result of the struggle I’m informed?
I’m serious when I say I consider myself one of lucky ones.
No, I do not yearn for those days but I do yearn for some answers.
Did we fight for more than 30 years to become the SDLP, to cede articles 2 and 3 and thus to recognise partition?
Did we fight to recognise and legitimise the PSNI while vilifying and ostracising comrades who dared to disagree with the leadership?
Did we fight so that these men could be replaced by yes men and ceasefire soldiers loyal to the leadership who contributed nothing to the struggle and who only got involved when it became trendy to be a republican and with no risk involved?
Did we fight for a socialist republic so that socialism could be abandoned for fear of offending Bush and Blair?
To be honest it would be hard for the leadership to claim to be socialist with the amount of money and property that is flying about in leadership circles not to mention the money to bribe people to stay loyal (and you wonder why the IRA carried out the Northern Bank robbery at a time when it seemed like political suicide).
Did anybody even think that there would be a time when the IRA would send four volunteers on a sanctioned operation and when it all went wrong Martin McGuinness would without embarrassment tell those volunteers to hand themselves over to British justice?
Maybe some of what I have said here will show that myself and others have every right to be angry and to condemn Sinn Fein.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 04:31 PM“Did we fight for more than 30 years to become the SDLP, to cede articles 2 and 3 and thus to recognise partition?”
Talk about slow learners.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 05:26 PMcheer up disaffected, things could always be worse .. old irish proverb :)
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 05:49 PMOnce again the Shinners are the authors of their own misfortune. They demanded the disbandment of Special Branch which was, after all, part of the police service and therefore accountable to local politicians through the police board and then the ministry. They were told it was a bad idea by the SDLP. Shinners decide that indicated SDLP were cyrpto-Brits and therefore attacked SDLP as such. SDLP position now proved to be 100% correct. Expect SF to shortly demand “bring back Special Branch”.
Idiots, The Brits would have to invent these tubes if they didn’t exist. Come to think of it ...
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 06:08 PMBy the way doesn’t the “republican’s republican” understand any history - the rot started when they entered the Dail - *that* is when they recognised partition. Not a bullet, not an ounce, not a clue.
Slow learners doesn’t come close.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 06:18 PMSlight digression from the intra-provo shenanigans that previous posts have alluded to, but what is this “due to new legislation if she wins an Assembly seat she will have to resign from the council” thing that is mentioned in the irelandclick.com excerpt? Does this mean that if councillors are elected to Stormont, they will have to quit their council seats?
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 06:38 PMEl Matador
The simple answer is yes!
About time to.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 06:54 PMThere is an end to double mandate in the new legislation; I think this applies to the new councils under RPA so its not strictly true for the Assembly and the old councils.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 06:54 PMwoman if you must go, then go.
Dissidents must try to avoid the darkened room; and not turn the challenges into tragedies.
The only place that leads is the final act of Richard III, where the King ponders woefully:
” I have wasted time, and now doth time waste me ”
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 07:42 PMIn spite of the best efforts of some here to suggest otherwise, this is simply a case of one political representative calling time on a career- nothing else. Her stance on the policing issue mirrors precisely that of the party leadership, consistent with motions passed at a previous Ard Fheis.
Kathy has been an effective political representative for the party and, as she has indicated, she will continue to remain an active party member and supporter.
I confidently predict that Carol and Gerry Kelly will not only be re-elected in north Belfast but with an increased vote and share of the vote, eating further into the dwindling SDLP numbers and towards the DUP tally.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 08:13 PMparcifal, I thought that guy Richard III needed to catch a bus and couldn’t get one. Often as I stand in the rain, soaked and freezing, I always think of your mate richard when he shouted. ‘My horse my horse, my kingdom for a horse’.
But alas- Idigress. Poor Kathy me thinks the poor woman does protest too much. It makes no difference anyway, I predict so many nationalists/republicans are so demoralised that there will be big heads to roll. Adams still has a huge fall in the number of votes registered in his constituency, despite the andytown news push for registration. Ah changes in north and south with a reduced mandate in west belfast-all very probable would make me satisfied. Diane Dodds hopefully will be standing again this year.Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 08:19 PMChris
It may be that, as you say, “Her stance on the policing issue mirrors precisely that of the party leadership, consistent with motions passed at a previous Ard Fheis.”
But, if that includes “reject[ing] any role for MI5 in Ireland” - the part from the motion that seems to missing from most of Gerry Adams’ statements recently - that then leads us to a question previously asked here.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 08:31 PMhmmm
I want SF to support the police because its the right thing to do, and after a while, when the tension subsides; there can be a proper debate about the merits of a united ireland within the context of power-sharing.
If republicans are to win that arguement it will be through the front door ( trust and persuasion )and not via the back door ( threats and intimidation )Do you think it’ll be a doddle then for Diana Dodds?
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 08:50 PMAny one BETTING on McGuigan being dropped from the Sinn Fein North Antrim ticket ?
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 09:19 PM‘but what is this “due to new legislation if she wins an Assembly seat she will have to resign from the council” thing that is mentioned in the irelandclick.com excerpt? Does this mean that if councillors are elected to Stormont, they will have to quit their council seats?’
When Caral is elected she will resign her council seat. Another candidate will in all likelihood be co-opted as SF are the dominant party in the Oldpark ward it would be pointless for the also rans to challenge SF at the polls in this ward.
BTW it is laughable for the Stoops and their hangers on to try and create a story out of nothing. While Cathy will remain in the party and be working on behalf of the two candidates, the likes of Patricia Lwesley head off into quango land taking heed of thier own survey that described them as a mixture of worthless and meangingless.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 09:23 PM“Cathy will remain in the party and be working on behalf of the two candidates”
Cathy seems like such an admirably selfless person.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 09:31 PMAnyone heard that the UUP are trying to get Hermon to run for Assembly in North Down, if so what would the possible outcome be????
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 10:10 PMmclarnon
- you have a cheek calling anyone ‘the stoops’ after all the u-turns you chucks have performed and the grand theft of sdlp ideas and policies - you’re the new ‘stoops’ - at least the sdlp came out into the open and didn’t hide anonymously in computers operated from sf’s assembly offices like youPosted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 10:27 PMSad to see Kathy go, glad to hear her commitment to SF and enthusiasm remains undiminished despite personal circumstance.
Of all the resignations from elected reps of late, only Kathy has committed to supporting her party and it’s positions - none of the SDLP or UUP absolute resignations received these unsubstantiated annonymous slurs of political difference. In those cases the members withdrew from politics completely and didn’t say they would still be working for their parties or supportive of them.
Kathy supports SF and will continue to but will not be running as an MLA for family reasons. The SDLP and UUP have senior members leaving politics entirely with no excuse other than the pay is better elsewhere, some spinning going on to make this an issue story for SF rather than the unfortunate clashing of the personal with political.
(also: amazing to see a poster going under ‘JD’ complain about ‘hiding anonymously behind computers’ to a named contributor. All on a thread were DUP and SDLP activists use anonymity to make unsubstantiated nonsense claims - I assume they’re too embarassed to take ownership of their contributions and who could blame them)
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 11:00 PMI could have added a senior member of APNI withdrawing from politics completely with no offer to support his party in future but to be honest I only just remembered about him.
So that’s SDLP, UUP and APNI MLAs withdrawing completely from politics and Kathy withdrawing from her MLA role but remaining engaged with politics and supportive of her party.
Spin away anonymous dudes, it’s not like you’ll ever put your names to the nonsense.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 11:16 PMYou can always tell when the Shinners are rattled. Because they come on here and tell everyone “move along, nothing to see here”.
Someone should inform them that Alec Guinness was a stage name and that it’s not a magic ability of “true” Irish people to make heathens, stoopers and assorted jackeens to look the other way.
The truth is, the Shinners are a political party like the rest. They have disagreements, people lose arguments and quit.
Back in the day the leadership would threaten to plug those who made an issue of it, so they (as you do) kept stum. Suddenly, now they are stooper-lite (all the policies, none of the thinking), it isn’t so easy any more.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 11:24 PMIf you’ve taken on the mantle of spokesman for the party, Mark, perhaps you could respond to the question I posed to Chris earlier in-thread
It may be that, as you say, “Her stance on the policing issue mirrors precisely that of the party leadership, consistent with motions passed at a previous Ard Fheis.”
But, if that includes “reject[ing] any role for MI5 in Ireland” - the part from the motion that seems to missing from most of Gerry Adams’ statements recently - that then leads us to a question previously asked here.
Personally I think the issue of MI5 will be crucial.. and that’s why I’m fascinated by SF’s appproach to the issue.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 11:26 PMPete,
I speak for myself. If you want a SF blogging committee, go speak to Ingram that’s his fantasy.
The nuances you allude to will be dealt with by any special Ard Fheis just as soon as the context for that debate is created – the sooner the better IMO. You are doing what you accuse others of over your Peter Hain fixation - deflecting from the main issue, I believe it is called sending people down rabbit trails?
At present, I don’t only see any moves to create the context for a special Ard Fheis. That indicates, to me, a reluctance from some to ever have policing dealt with in an Irish setting. Or this issue being used as a convenient parking mechanism by a DUP that can’t bring enough of it’s grassroots to a power sharing commitment.
Posted by on Dec 16, 2006 @ 11:46 PM
