SF get their Westminister pay packets back, but why do they accept them?

Freelancer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You must have been reading someone elses post, please point out where I stated the above.

I'm talking about in general. You are a SF supporter? Are you not?

You must have been reading someone elses post, please point out where I stated the above.

Again you are a SF supporter are you not. I doubt Angry Banana would claim as a defense that sure "FG are just as bad as the rest of them, go on now vote for us" Thats essentially your argument.

I was pointing out the fact that SF pay does pale into insignificance when looked at other taxpayer waste. Are you suggesting it does not? Read Sands post again, you will then see the hype which he is attaching to the waste with respect to other spending commitments.

Again the implication of such a point is that since there are worse crimes going on, wheres the harm in this?

I do not need to defend SF decision to take their entitled pay. Does whataboutery cover your first 2 points in your post?

Pretty much, justifying SF decisions to keep their pay package because (and this is essentially your argument) sure all political parties are at some kind of graft and well theres worse ways money is being wasted isn't a ringing endorsement of SF as a politcal entity.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What is rubbish about it? SF put canditates forward on the stated fact that they will not take their seats in Westminster. They get elected, which means that the other candidates have not convinced the people in the constituency that they should not vote for SF because of this reason. If anything is not democratic it is the FPTP system of election in the UK. You are assuming that Mps from NI are actually listened to in the UK parliament.

SF are entitled to get their pay and they take it.... I fail to see the indignation portrayed in this thread.

That's because you support SF, which is your right. It is not right however that a paid MP doesn't bother his or her arse representing all their constituents who do want representation. and who voted for the other guy to get it.

It should be mandatory for MPs to sit in Westminstern and in cases where an MP refuses to sit in parliament he should not be paid and an additional non-abstentionist MP (perhaps the runner up) should also represent the constituency and get paid for it.

Under the current system there are hundreds of thousands of people in NI with no representation in their parliament.

Freelancer

murphaph wrote:

That's because you support SF, which is your right. It is not right however that a paid MP doesn't bother his or her arse representing all their constituents who do want representation. and who voted for the other guy to get it.

It should be mandatory for MPs to sit in Westminstern and in cases where an MP refuses to sit in parliament he should not be paid and an additional non-abstentionist MP (perhaps the runner up) should also represent the constituency and get paid for it.

Under the current system there are hundreds of thousands of people in NI with no representation in their parliament.

Spot on, its not acceptable for SF to represent only those who voted them in, they must represent those in their constituences who did not vote for them, but none the less are left with democratic representives who won't represent them.

flogen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That game of one-upmanship has huge implication for all elections in NI including EU, NIA and local elections (and the RoI) Why would a political party let their rivals take the seats without a fight? Isn't that what democracy is all about?

I would have thought genuine political work would have had more implications for NI.
Basically beating the SDLP is more important than standing by their principles, the ones they've been riding on the back of for many years.

Why is it disgraceful to point out that SF are just like other political parties with respect to principles? I almost get the impression that people in this thread are surprised a political party would bend their principles. Is it because it is a given for FF, FG, PDs and they expected more from SF?

I'm not surprised, and it's a disgrace that you would use an argument like that; SF may be doing something against their principles, but they're not the only ones so it's ok.
There is on bending of the principles about this; they are breaking them completely. They don't recognise British rule on the Island or Ireland and so won't take their seats but they recognise it enough to run in their elections and take their money.

If there was a real drive to eradicate taxpayer waste, i would fully expect the non-noise level ones to be tackled, not all eggs in this basket. They are entitled to take the cash.

Irrelevant; I'm not asking you if you're critical of SF wasting taxpayer money, I'm asking if you're critical of them going back on one of their most important principles (the one that the they have been fighting for for years, the one that they were created to solve, the one they still aim to fix)

It is not meant to justify anything. It was a reply to Sand who is hyping up the loss to the British taxpayer, that could be spent on things like health and education. I pointed out the fact that this waste pales into total insignificance. If British taxpayer waste was the concern, this money is at the planckton level and there are blue whales worth of waste to look at.

Fair enough; I won't get into the waste of tax argument because it's not my reason for posting.

I believe SF decided to contest the Dail elections on a non abstentionist ticket because they believed that they would get further getting their message across. Totally different to Westminster elections but SF may decide, in the future, to seat in Westminster.

Not according to McGuinness and that was after someone suggested the Pledge to the Queen be made optional (bringing in a pledge of duty or something instead).

So would you say you are critical of SF for going against their principles? It's irrelevant who else does it, it doesn't matter if there are bigger wastes of money going on, because that's not what I'm asking you about.
Would you consider yourself a Sinn Fein supporter? If so do you have any justification for their ignorance of their own principles? If not are you critical of their stance? Do you wish they didn't take British money?

Freddie59

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Another tired cliche that gets spouted out here a lot



How do you know that they do not need their Westminster paypackets?



All political parties have other sources of funding

Yes - but not from their sworn enemies.;)

Zebra3

murphaph wrote:

It is not right however that a paid MP doesn't bother his or her arse representing all their constituents who do want representation. and who voted for the other guy to get it.

It's not that they don't bother, they refuse to recognise the parliament's right to rule over the constituency in question. Totally different thing.

Why not put your solution to test on all MPs and TDs who don't turn up every time their respective parliament is in session? Sure wasn't Bertie off opening a kitchen showroom not too long ago while there was a vote being taken on Gardai corruption? No how was he represting his voters that night? Do you think he should have his pay docked?

flogen

Zebra3 wrote:

Why not put your solution to test on all MPs and TDs who don't turn up every time their respective parliament is in session? Sure wasn't Bertie off opening a kitchen showroom not too long ago while there was a vote being taken on Gardai corruption? No how was he represting his voters that night? Do you think he should have his pay docked?

There's a big difference between not being in your seat one day and refusing to take it at any point.

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

It's not that they don't bother, they refuse to recognise the parliament's right to rule over the constituency in question. Totally different thing.

Why not put your solution to test on all MPs and TDs who don't turn up every time their respective parliament is in session? Sure wasn't Bertie off opening a kitchen showroom not too long ago while there was a vote being taken on Gardai corruption? No how was he represting his voters that night? Do you think he should have his pay docked?

Theres a world of difference between not turning up at all, and missing the occasional vote.

Its a pretty weak defense, to try and absolve them from not turning up at all, you try and point a finger at TDs and MPs who don't turn up occasionaly.

murphaph

Zebra3 wrote:

It's not that they don't bother, they refuse to recognise the parliament's right to rule over the constituency in question. Totally different thing.

Then don't stand for election to that parliament.

Zebra3

murphaph wrote:

Then don't stand for election to that parliament.

Well, what's the point in standing for election, being made Taoiseach and then missing votes in Dail Eireann to open a poxy kitchen showroom?

At least SF are honest in saying they won't sit in Westminster. Does Bertie tell people when he wants their votes that he finds kitchen showrooms more important than what our taxes are actually paying him to do? I wish I could pick and choose my days that I decide to turn up in work. If I done what he done, I'd be sacked.

So what about all those parties that claim their roots from the SF party that got elected to Westminster in 1918, but set up their own parliament instead of representing all their voters (inc. Unionists remember!!!) in London? Was that wrong too?

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

Well, what's the point in standing for election, being made Taoiseach and then missing votes in Dail Eireann to open a poxy kitchen showroom?

At least SF are honest in saying they won't sit in Westminster.

But is that fair to the members of their constituencies who didn't vote for them?

Does Bertie tell people when he wants their votes that he finds kitchen showrooms more important than what our taxes are actually paying him to do? I wish I could pick and choose my days that I decide to turn up in work. If I done what he done, I'd be sacked.

You mean unlikely SF who never turn up for "work" but still expect a salary?

Lots of politicians miss plenty of votes for a variety of reasons, fixating on this one is a little tedious.

Freelancer

Freelancer wrote:

But is that fair to the members of their constituencies who didn't vote for them?

I'll have to side with the greener posters in this thread on that one.
This point has been discussed often on this board,though admittedly not for a while.
It's democracy, they stand and stand on an abstentionist platform.

They are also pretty clear why: It's because of the oath they'd have to take to the Queen.
They still represent their constituents and afaik are on record as maybe being in favour of taking their seats if that oath had not to be taken.

It was negotiated out of stormonts rules and ergo they sat there.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

They are also pretty clear why: It's because of the oath they'd have to take to the Queen.
They still represent their constituents and afaik are on record as maybe being in favour of taking their seats if that oath had not to be taken.

It was negotiated out of stormonts rules and ergo they sat there.

While it's not to be taken as Gospel by any means, I think SF have stated they see no situation that would have them sitting in Westminister

from the article I linked in the first post:

Earlier on Wednesday, David Liddington, Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland, said the oath of loyalty to the Queen should be re-examined, if it would mean Sinn Fein MPs taking their seats in the House of Commons.

Mr Lidington said a general commitment to uphold the law and democratic politics could be considered as an alternative to the compulsory oath.

However, Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness said he did not envisage any circumstances ever in the future in which any Sinn Fein MP would take their seat.

Even if the oath was dropped and they did take their seats, they'd have to accept British rule in order to do so; why would they be elected to it from Northern Ireland otherwise? (not directed at you Earthman, just at SF policy )

murphaph

I saw McGuinness state categorically on Hearts and Minds that the oath has nothing to do with it. They just won't sit in Westminster.

Mucco

Regarding politicians not being present for votes; a lot of them will be paired with a member of an opposing party. This is a deal where neither turn up for minor votes, as they would just cancel each other out anyway.
Many people wonder whether politicians earn their salaries. Do Sinn Fein earn theirs?

Zebra3

Freelancer wrote:

You mean unlikely SF who never turn up for "work" but still expect a salary?

I don't think SF expect it, it's just that the British would seem to think it's in their best interests to offer it.

Freelancer wrote:

Lots of politicians miss plenty of votes for a variety of reasons, fixating on this one is a little tedious.

Why? Bertie Ahern is supposed to be running this country, but instead is opening showrooms while DE is sitting? Why not fixate on this? Shouldn't the leader of the country be, well, leading by example? I have no problem if he misses a vote because he's in Brussles attending EU business etc, but would it be acceptable if he missed DE sittings to go watch Man United at Old Trafford or sitting in Fagan's knocking back Bass?

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

I don't think SF expect it, it's just that the British would seem to think it's in their best interests to offer it.

What on earth does the above mean? That the British government stuffed envelopes of money into protesting SF hands, or that the British felt y'know that what? best not piss off the RA and give the lads their salaries?

Why? Bertie Ahern is supposed to be running this country, but instead is opening showrooms while DE is sitting? Why not fixate on this? Shouldn't the leader of the country be, well, leading by example? I have no problem if he misses a vote because he's in Brussles attending EU business etc, but would it be acceptable if he missed DE sittings to go watch Man United at Old Trafford or sitting in Fagan's knocking back Bass?

If the only thing thats got your goat about Ahern's leadership is the above you're a petty man. Theres plenty worse things he's done. If your just trying to give relief to SF never attending a vote or doing their jobs by highlighting this you're onto a loser.

Zebra3

Freelancer wrote:

What on earth does the above mean? That the British government stuffed envelopes of money into protesting SF hands, or that the British felt y'know that what? best not piss off the RA and give the lads their salaries?

What it means that I don't believe for one minute that the British are handing this money over to SF unless they (the British) think it benefits themselves somewhere along the line. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Freelancer wrote:

If the only thing thats got your goat about Ahern's leadership is the above you're a petty man. Theres plenty worse things he's done. If your just trying to give relief to SF never attending a vote or doing their jobs by highlighting this you're onto a loser.

It's not the only thing that has got my goat about Ahern's leadership, but once again you seem to have some difficulty in understanding me or else you have chosen to totally ignore what I'm saying.

In this thread people have complained about SF getting paid for not going to Westminster (or rather about them accepting the money that the British offer them for not attending). That is the platform upon which they got elected (this is called democracy). People have critisised this, but I have pointed out that other politicans who claim to represent the people in parliament are themselves basically semi-abstentionists. This is not about 'giving relief' to anyone, but merely a case of me pointing out the facts.

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

What it means that I don't believe for one minute that the British are handing this money over to SF unless they (the British) think it benefits themselves somewhere along the line. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

What evidence do you offer to support your assertion?

It's not the only thing that has got my goat about Ahern's leadership, but once again you seem to have some difficulty in understanding me or else you have chosen to totally ignore what I'm saying.

In this thread people have complained about SF getting paid for not going to Westminster (or rather about them accepting the money that the British offer them for not attending). That is the platform upon which they got elected (this is called democracy). People have critisised this, but I have pointed out that other politicans who claim to represent the people in parliament are themselves basically semi-abstentionists. This is not about 'giving relief' to anyone, but merely a case of me pointing out the facts.

Or more whataboutery. Look it doesn't wash. You can't laud SF's absenteeism, while condemning the occasional missed vote by another politician. It's rank hypocrisy

Freelancer

Freelancer wrote:

You can't laud SF's absenteeism, while condemning the occasional missed vote by another politician. It's rank hypocrisy

It isnt at all.
I dont know of any currently sitting TD that got elected saying he wont attend the Dáil.

In fact I can remember two hungerstrikers got elected to the Dáil,one in cavan Monaghan and another in Louth in 1981 and they were in prison so were definitely on a platform of being elected but not sitting.
People in the Republic democratically elected them not to take their seats.

The people gets what the people in the majority want.
Thats the way of a democracy.
The minority wont like that sometimes but.

Cork

Zebra3 wrote:

I have no problem if he misses a vote because he's in Brussles attending EU business etc, but would it be acceptable if he missed DE sittings to go watch Man United at Old Trafford or sitting in Fagan's knocking back Bass?

Yes Bertiw should not drink or go to football matchs.

Politicians work longer than a 39 hour week but no football matchs or the demon drink.

Or more whataboutery. Look it doesn't wash. You can't laud SF's absenteeism, while condemning the occasional missed vote by another politician. It's rank hypocrisy

Democratic Politicians were legitimate targets by the Provos. The provos were also involved in information gathering. But don't expect SF to take seats at westminister.

Taking money ok but seats?

They have offices there - which is ok.

The logic is inly amazing.

Freelancer

Earthman wrote:

It isnt at all.
I dont know of any currently sitting TD that got elected saying he wont attend the Dáil.

In fact I can remember two hungerstrikers got elected to the Dáil,one in cavan Monaghan and another in Louth in 1981 and they were in prison so were definitely on a platform of being elected but not sitting.
People in the Republic democratically elected them not to take their seats.

The people gets what the people in the majority want.
Thats the way of a democracy.
The minority wont like that sometimes but.

Fine but they refuse to take the position, refuse to represent all of their constituency's and then take the money none the less. It does remind me of that simpsons;

Homer
"I won't take your money or pity"

Ron Howard
"You're supposed to give me back the money"

Homer
"yokes!"

A Dub in Glasgo

Freelancer wrote:

I'm talking about in general. You are a SF supporter? Are you not?

I may have been in the past, does that mean I am now

Again you are a SF supporter are you not.

I may have been in the past, does that mean I am now

I doubt Angry Banana would claim as a defense that sure "FG are just as bad as the rest of them, go on now vote for us" Thats essentially your argument.

I do not think it is

Again the implication of such a point is that since there are worse crimes going on, wheres the harm in this?

Not really, if someone thinks their are much higher implications, they would be highlighted.

Pretty much, justifying SF decisions to keep their pay package because (and this is essentially your argument) sure all political parties are at some kind of graft and well theres worse ways money is being wasted isn't a ringing endorsement of SF as a politcal entity.

No it is not

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

That's because you support SF, which is your right.

What has this got to do with it?

It is not right however that a paid MP doesn't bother his or her arse representing all their constituents who do want representation. and who voted for the other guy to get it.

Why?

It should be mandatory for MPs to sit in Westminstern and in cases where an MP refuses to sit in parliament he should not be paid and an additional non-abstentionist MP (perhaps the runner up) should also represent the constituency and get paid for it.

The current 1st past the post discrimates against this... maybe you should learn to live?

Under the current system there are hundreds of thousands of people in NI with no representation in their parliament.

On both sides

Freelancer

Freelancer wrote:

Fine but they refuse to take the position, refuse to represent all of their constituency's and then take the money none the less. It does remind me of that simpsons;

Homer
"I won't take your money or pity"

Ron Howard
"You're supposed to give me back the money"

Homer
"yokes!"

But they are being paid to do a job and they are doing it.
Ok you might argue that theres part of that job that they are not doing and that is voting in commons votes.
Other than that, the only thing that they can do in the commons is speak on issues and they do plenty of that everywhere else whilst on paid commons wages.
They have offices there so presumably they are representing their constituents there and talking to the various ministerial depts where necessary.
I'd also imagine that they are friendly with many of the mp's that do actually sit and use them too for various contacts.

So we're left with a very small thing that they are entitled to do as an mp and thats vote on legislation, a vote that would usually have no impact at all.

I dont see what the fuss is here and I certainly dont see the connection between a SF mp who stood for and won a commons seat on an abstensionist platform and a TD who didnt yet misses a lot sittings.
The latter is fooling the electorate, the former isnt.
Both might actually be doing as much work as each other for their constituencies though.

samb

Earthman wrote:

So we're left with a very small thing that they are entitled to do as an mp and thats vote on legislation, a vote that would usually have no impact at all.
.

Making laws is hardly a very small thing. for those of that respect the law it is important.
So I take it you don't bother voting.

samb

samb wrote:

Making laws is hardly a very small thing. for those of that respect the law it is important.
So I take it you don't bother voting.

No I tell everybody that I do vote and I vote.It's not the same thing but I suppose I should have expected the cheap shot :rolleyes:
SF dont make united kingdom laws,they could only influence the making of them in a hung parliament.
Like any tiny party(tiny relative to the UK in this case) they'd have no influence what so ever in making ordinary legislation normally.

I've seen no reason given so far except for the usual anti SF shoite to argue why SF should not take their London pay.
The case being built is very weak,I'd suggest another tack if it can be found which I doubt otherwise sit back and realise that in a democracy, you have to put up with who is elected, if those that elected them in the main dont agree with you.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What has [being a SF supporter] got to do with it?

Well this is a debate concerning SF, so being a supporter of their's may colour one's views in a somewhat positive shade. It's obvious that this might happen, is it not?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why [is it wrong that a paid MP doesn't bother his or her arse representing all their constituents who do want representation. and who voted for the other guy to get it]?

Because an MP is duty bound to represent all their constituents, regardless of whether they voted for them or not.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The current 1st past the post discrimates against this... maybe you should learn to live?

As always with SFIRA-it's somebody else'd fault isn't it.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

On both sides

I expect you mean to imply that DUP or UUP MPs don't represent their constituents in parliament, but they do. Only SF fail to do so, so the smoke and mirrors are a waste of time.

You can flap about all day trying to divert attention to others, but the truth is simple. SF fail te represent thousands of their constituents by not sitting in Westminster.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

Well this is a debate concerning SF, so being a supporter of their's may colour one's views in a somewhat positive shade. It's obvious that this might happen, is it not?

Does it work both ways - You, as someone who is anti-SF, have your views coloured by this fact when discussing SF. It is obvious, is it not?

Because an MP is duty bound to represent all their constituents, regardless of whether they voted for them or not.

They represent their constituients as their constituients intended. Democracy is it not?

As always with SFIRA-it's somebody else'd fault isn't it.

I assume from the well thought out response above, that you disagree that the FPTP system does not allow full representation in a constituency?

I expect you mean to imply that DUP or UUP MPs don't represent their constituents in parliament, but they do. Only SF fail to do so, so the smoke and mirrors are a waste of time.

It is hard to see clarity with the amount of smoke and mirrors put up from the anti-SF brigade.

You can flap about all day trying to divert attention to others, but the truth is simple. SF fail te represent thousands of their constituents by not sitting in Westminster.

The only flapping I see is the mock indignation over the fact that SF stood on an absention ticket, got elected, are offered their MP salaries and they take them.

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

You can flap about all day trying to divert attention to others, but the truth is simple. SF fail te represent thousands of their constituents by not sitting in Westminster.

You forget one thing there.
The average unionist in a constituency represented by a SF mp wouldnt want that mp voting in the commons as he/she are so polar the opposite.

So again I've yet to see a reasonable argument here for the proposition that SF shouldnt take the wages if they dont sit in the seats whilst doing everything else.

Lets be having it then in stead of the usual anti SF shoite.
It's a reasonable request-one could start a thread about anything disagreeable in a parties policies or who they're connected with but this one is cut and dried for subject matter and the poposition hasnt been passed by a long shot due to a lack of cogent points in favour of it.