Slugger O'Toole

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from Mason Powell (see all)

Mason Powell has commented 14 times (0 in the last month).

1. Comment on UUP’s Jo-Anne Dobson takes 64 per cent of the Lurgan vote…
   on 15 January 2010 at 5:33 am

   Paul,
   You have now twice run crying to the Moderator because you think people are being a bit rude about you. I seem to remember, among your many, many, many posts that you whinged about Sinn Fein being “big cry-babies.” Pots and kettles! If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You seem to be incapable of seeing a reference to Jim Allister QC or the TUV without launching into a rolling-eyed, mouth-foaming green-ink rant which (in spite of your appeals to the Moderator) almost invariably plays the man rather than the ball. If you have nothing constructive to say, a period of silence would be helpful. Now, finish your homework and get to bed.

   Go to comment

2. Comment on If not Armageddon, it looks like limbo
   on 11 January 2010 at 2:11 am

   Tacapall,
   It’s not what I call terrorism, it’s what the world calls terrorism. And if you are trying to compare Nelson Mandela to the likes of Adams and McGuinness, you should move to a residence where the walls are padded.

   Go to comment

3. Comment on If not Armageddon, it looks like limbo
   on 11 January 2010 at 1:27 am

   In reverse order:
   COMRADE STALIN, you labour under the delusion that I would want a nutcase like Willie McCrea in government. No, I wouldn’t. But if sharing a platform with a terrorist is unacceptable to you, how do think people like me feel about the nationalist community electing not just the ones who share the platform with the terrorists, but the actual terrorists?

   LUKE CASS: You may find it tedious to hear people who lived through the Troubles expressing a determination that individuals who directly participated in terrorism should not have a role to play in policing and justice, but others (and I’m not including myself here) who had family members murdered and maimed would not agree. There are probably young people who make jokes about the Holocaust, but they won’t get laughs from the survivors. Young people who don’t remember what the IRA did can still read about it before deciding how to vote, but the incredible degree of hurt (which exists on both sides) will probably only begin to fade when the chief protagonists had left the stage. If you think being opposed to terrorists in government makes me a dinosaur, then I’m happy to answer to the name Rex.

   ERASMUS: You ask if I would have a problem with an SDLP Minister for P&J. In principle, no. I accept that the SDLP has no terrorist baggage, and a man like Alban Maginness would be up to the task, but you will probably realise from my earlier posts that I don’t want anyone to be Minister for P&J under the present political system. We first need to see the end of the current Assembly. If another can be set up on the basis of a voluntary coalition with an agreed weighted majority, and if the governing parties freely distribute the portfolios so that the SDLP has P&J, so be it. That’s democracy.

   Go to comment

4. Comment on If not Armageddon, it looks like limbo
   on 10 January 2010 at 8:29 am

   LukeCass,
   Northern Ireland Office-sponsored opinion polls are designed to serve a purpose (although in this case events have overtaken the poll and you are probably the only person in NI who still remembers it or cares about it). I would attach far more significance to a poll if I knew how many respondents actually voted in the last election and will be voting in the forthcoming General Election. If you exclude non-voters I suspect the results would look a bit different. (See Post 25: Tacapall rather makes my point).

   How is it a “typical sensational mantra” (??) to point out that the criminals ought not to have any control over the police? For anyone with any grasp of reality that ought to be wholly self-evident. I know the lunatics are in control of the Stormont asylum, but fortunately that sorry state of affairs looks likely to end soon. Thank God and Iris!

   Go to comment

5. Comment on If not Armageddon, it looks like limbo
   on 10 January 2010 at 5:40 am

   Luke Cass:
   “Why shouldn’t the nationalist community have [P&J] powers devolved to the Executive in which they elect their representatives?”

   For as long as nationalists knowingly elect self-confessed terrorist godfathers to the Assembly to be Executive ministers, you will have to get used to Unionists saying “no” to those terrorists having a measure of control over the administration of law and order. What sort of headcases think paedophiles would make good teachers? What sort of headcases think violent criminals should be involved in policing and the courts? The idea is just ridiculous. And while I’m on the subject, why is it (and this is not a rhetorical question!) that a majority of nationalists seem perfectly happy to make the considered, informed choice to vote for people whose violent past are an open book, while Unionists almost without exception refuse to vote for people who have been involved in murder and bombing?

   Go to comment

6. Comment on The money questions redux from the Beeb…
   on 8 January 2010 at 8:29 am

   Driftwood,
   I assume you are referring to the DUP’s “inappropriate relationship” with Sinn Fein.

   Go to comment

7. Comment on Robinson on Spotlight Live Blog…
   on 8 January 2010 at 8:24 am

   Quagmire,
   The current political system in Northern Ireland entitles a minority party such as Sinn Fein, with a quarter of the votes cast, to be in government as of right. As I have pointed out elsewhere, such a system would be greatly appreciated by Nick Clegg, but the reason why the Lib Dems aren’t entitled to seats in Cabinet as of right is because they haven’t murdered, bombed and butchered their way to power by frightening law-abiding citizens into voting “yes” in a referendum for fear of the consequences of voting “no.” Ask a representative sample of middle-class Unionists what they would think about changing the Stormont system to a voluntary coalition which (depending on party strengths after another election) might not include Sinn Fein, and watch a lot of them shift uneasily while telling you that “you have to have Sinn Fein in the government” because if they aren’t in the government, they will “take us back to the bad old days.” That is not democracy, it is the politics of fear. No party should be entitled to be in government as of right, unless it achieves, as a minimum, 50% + 1 of the seats. In a divided society such as ours, there is a general concensus (which I share) that you need a weighted majority of, say, 60% or maybe 65%. If it is true that the days of “Unionist majority rule” are over and must not return (which I accept) then a fair substitute is a coalition of parties, freely arrived at, which can command the support of the agreed weighted majority. And if you want to argue that no nationalists would agree to this I might cite the recent proposal by Alistair McDonnell MP for a common approach by SDLP, UUP and Alliance. (Great oaks from little acorns grow…) And if it still doesn’t get off the ground, I’m happy to have Direct Rule. A Conservative and Unionist government would be a more pro-Unionist government than the present government.

   Go to comment

8. Comment on Robinson on Spotlight Live Blog…
   on 8 January 2010 at 6:57 am

   It is now all too obvious why Peter Robinson seemed emotional on TV on Wednesday. It wasn’t the 10-month old memory of his wife’s adultery and suicide attempt, it was the knowledge that “Spotlight” was about to flush his career, his reputation and his credibility down the toilet.

   I concede that I am no fan of Robinson or his “inappropriate relationship” with a former butcher turned IRA commander (for which Robinson has never apologised to the betrayed Unionist electorate) but even I was surprised at how easily he could waltz into the Assembly 12 hours after his wife’s devastating revelations and put on such a breezy, wise-cracking performance. The man is a complete cynical phoney, and the sooner we are rid of him, the sooner we can press on with the more important task of replacing a political system which elevates unrepentant terrorists to positions of authority as of right.

   Go to comment

9. Comment on 54% of Catholics reckon failure to agree should result in the collapse of Institutions…
   on 7 January 2010 at 7:27 am

   Lionel Hutz,
   The GFA and SAA may not actually guarantee places in government for IRA leaders, but the whole sceme was designed to have that effect, and its designers have (so far) succeeded in their amoral aims. Ask a sample of fairly average NI citizens (particularly apolitical middle-class types) whether it would be a good thing to change the electoral system so that SF might not be in government and their faces will cloud over and they will whinge: “Oh, but you have to have the republicans in government or they will take us back to the bad old days.” That is not democracy, it is the politics of fear. As I suggested in an earlier post, to be fit for government, a party must be absolutely and unreservedly willing to go into opposition if it doesn’t win enough support to negotiate its way into a coalition government. To that I will add that the same party must command confidence among those who would not naturally vote for it that it would not under any circumstances go to war if it didn’t get its way. (I cite the example of the SDLP: I disagree with their policies and philosophy, but they are fit for government because they would accept an opposition role without anyone thinking they might go to war. I acknowledge (as do the DUP, TUV and I think the UUP) that in our two-communities society, an agreed coalition should have to command the support of more than 50% + 1. It might be 60%, even 65%.

   Go to comment

10. Comment on And now the fall-out
    on 7 January 2010 at 6:51 am

    The TV flashback showing Robinson laughing and joking in top form, some 12 hours after his wife tried to commit suicide and admitted adultery suggests to me that he is either somewhat detached from reality himself; or he is an actor worthy of Oscar-nominations. The latter explanation might better fit the tearful emoting in his TV performance tonight. Probably the most shameful part of a rather bowel-emptying TV event was the craven, crawling obsequiousness of the interviewer, which reminded me of old newsreels of interviews with Prime Ministers in the 1950′s (“P.M., it’s such an honour to have you as our guest in these humble studios. Would you mind awfully if we trouble you with a few rather impertinent questions, your wondrousness?”)

    Go to comment