McGrady Muddled Thinking Or Shift In SDLP Policy?

It seems Eddie McGrady has either got lost mid-sentence or has indicated an important shift in SDLP policy. Either way, the DUP – and Sinn Fein– have seized on the statement, for altogether different reasons, of course.

  • Brian Boru

    Perhaps “or indeed” is the important part of McGrady’s remarks, that the DUP has chosen to ignore or has not noticed.

  • CS Parnell

    What’s the shift? The SDLP advocated a European Commission style executive some time ago.Nothing to see here.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    The Stoops are a bit confused at the moment. One election they are post nationalists the next they are super duper republicans advocating their 32 county credentials (strange that for a partitionist party). Although the super nationalist bit hasn’t filtered through to their backwoods councillors who slink out of the council chambers when asked to stand over Durkan’s rhetoric.

  • godsdog

    Pat,
    you are being rather harsh on The SDLP the entire party is not confused, most of it yes, its leadership(hows Alisdair doing now?) yes, but those who you refer to as slinking out of the council chambers are most definatley not confused.

    CS you are equally being mischievous, the SDLP (leadership) or some of them put forward the notion of appointed ministers(no doubt with many a failed SDLP politican lining up)to run the executive. Appointed by the Brits by the way, I am not the best on Europe but this wouldnt appear to be somewhat off even their dubious democratic standards.
    P.S. I believe they immediatley dropped this idea when they discovered the electorate wouldnt be too happy with the SDLP endorsing a DUP negotiating position

    All in all a bad call by Eddie, but symptomatic of the current rudderless SDLP

  • observer

    when SF/IRA signed up to the GFA didnt they become a partitionist party?

  • Brendan, Belfast

    godsdog wrote

    ‘(hows Alisdair doing now?) yes, but those who you refer to as slinking out of the council chambers are most definatley not confused.’

    if someone out there can interpret this grammar then i might try and respond.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    As stated, more than once, SF see the GFA as an interim agreement.

  • Pat

    Seems there is changing policy in both the SDLP and the DUP/NIFP (Northern Ireland Fascist Party), what with Ian Paisley Jnr. denouncing Mary McAleese and her husband Martin for talking to the UDA and trying to get them to give up their guns and criminality.

    Maybe both Eddie McGrady and Ian og think they know their respective parties policy but somehow get left out of the loop when others change it and forget to tell them. In the case of Ian og egg was truly over his face when within 4 days of denouncing Mary and Martin his own party officers are found talking to the Unionist paramilitaries little commission and penciling in dates for talks with the UDA high command.

    Maybe someone in the press could ask the DUP/NIFP what their position is now that Hain has appointed a representative of a terrorist group who has murdered a number of Protestants in the last year to the policing board. If I recall it is no more than a few months ago that the DUP/NIFP said they would leave the policing board if Sinn Fein took their seats as the IRA, in the eyes of the DUP/NIFP, were still active. You surely can’t be more active than when you are killing people as is the case of the UVF.

    I’ll wager they won’t walk out of the policing board in protest due to the presence of the representatives of these Protestant killers, after all the DUP/NIFP don’t really mind Unionist terrorists killing protestants. I believe they said along the lines of “How can a member of an active terrorist group hold Hugh Orde and the PSNI to account, it would totally undermine the system”. Of course it doesn’t undermine the system when it’s Unionist terrorists holding the PSNI to account – does it?

  • Pete Baker

    It may, or may not, help to clarify the BBC report, the DUP’s interpretation, the SF interpretation, and answer Chris’s question in his post, if the full text of the question put to the Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland in the Commons yesterday, and Peter Hain’s answer, is added into this thread.. From Hansard

    Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): After an ill-advised deadline of 8 March has come and gone, will the Secretary of State now address the proposals of the Social Democratic and Labour party, which called for the re-establishment of a fully devolved Administration — if necessary, with a temporary Executive appointed from non-elected members or, indeed, consisting of the Northern Ireland Office Ministers themselves — until such time as an agreed Executive can be formed? Does he not agree that that would encourage the parties to participate and that their failure to do so would be a rejection of their mandate and, in a sense, an illustration of the fact that they are putting party before people?

    Mr. Hain: I understand the point that hon. Gentleman makes, but he has not persuaded, nor has his party, any other party to support that proposition. That is his problem, and there is no point in inviting me, as Secretary of State, to back that policy, when no party, apart from the SDLP, will subscribe to it.

    BTW.. probably a good idea to update the original post with the actual text.

  • missfitz

    I dont see how having the present ministers forming a new temporary executive would motivate or generate any energy for movement maong our lot?

  • godsdog

    Breandan, sorry about the grammar, the points i was trying to make are that the SDLP Leadership are clearly confused on this issue and that Alisdair is the de-facto leader of the SDLP at this moment in time.
    Too much for one snipe , I agree

  • Comrade Stalin

    One election they are post nationalists the next they are super duper republicans advocating their 32 county credentials (strange that for a partitionist party).

    I don’t really think you want to get into a credibility argument about who is or is not partitionist, Pat. The GFA is clearly a partitionist document and SF are still actively promoting it.

  • lib2016

    “The GFA is clearly a partitionist document and SF are still actively promoting it.”

    ….and sometimes one has to recognise a reality in order to change it?

  • IJP

    What’s the shift? The SDLP advocated a European Commission style executive some time ago.

    Yes, and then Durkan advocated simply restoring the Assembly and waiting six weeks…

    The whole thing is muddled.