Unionist filibustering

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Well considering the Assembly was disbanded because of the members refused to work it, I would say it is fair and democratic to stop paying salaries for that assembly. You obviously do not?

No, not really. It should be a democratic right for an elected representative to refuse to participate in a political system that they, representing those who elected them, do not agree with. You get paid for representing the people, not for representing the people in the Assembly.

I seem to remember Sinn Fein tried a similar trick about 90 years ago.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

They have been taking taxpayers money since 2002 for an assembly but not actually working an assembly. Cut the funds.

They aren't taking tax payers money for an Assembly, they are taking tax payers money for being democratic representatives of a section of the community.

You only want to cut their funds because you want to force them to act the way you wish them to. That is undemocratic.

If it was determined that one could only get paid to represent the community if they also agreed to work in side a political framework they disagreed with or face the prospect of simply not get paid then the only people who could afford to protest this political framework would be rich people with other income. If someone wished to be an elective representative and have money to live they would be forced to agree to something they do not agree with.

Which isn't very democratic is it.

Just as it should be a democratic right to not vote without threat of reprisal from the government (such as a fine), it should also be a democratic right for an elected representative to refuse to participle in an political system they disagree with without reprisal such as having salary cut or removed.

So long as people are willing to elect them they should be paid.

stovelid

I'm confused here. Help me out.

Elected members should get paid for not representing an electorate who turned out in their thousands to elect those members as a obscure protest against the assembly they don't agree with?.

Wicknight wrote:

No, not really. It should be a democratic right for an elected representative to refuse to participate in a political system that they, representing those who elected them, do not agree with.

Zombrex

stovelid wrote:

I'm confused here. Help me out.

No problem, I will do my best.

stovelid wrote:

Elected members should get paid for not representing an electorate

Elected members should get paid for representing an electorate, full stop. Whether they sit in the Assembly is rather irrelevant to that.

They can represent those that elected them by refusing to participate in a system of government that they do not agree with, if those that elected them so wish.

The DUP are acting based on what they believe the wishes of those that voted for them are. The fact that people keep voting for them would tend suggest that they actually are the wishes of those that voted for them.

Just as it is a democratic right for a member of a democracy to refuse to vote without threat of punishment from the government or state, it is also a democratic right for an elected representative to refuse to participate in a system of government they object to, without punishment from the government or state. Punishment would include imprisonment, harassment, fines, or the removal of salary necessary to provide full time representation to the electorate.

You may recall that Sinn Fein members that were elected in the 1918 election refused to take there seats in the Houses of Parliament as they did not recognise the Parliament as the legitimate power over Ireland.

Now I don't know if the members of SF continued to be paid a salary by Parliament, but if they weren't they should have been because they were doing nothing more than exercising their democratic right to non-participation.

I find it rather bizarre that some seem all for democracy until others start doing things, in a democratic fashion, that annoy them.

Then they want "democracy" altered to force the others to act as they wish them to act.

stovelid

Wicknight, with respect to your views, I didn't question the principle of non-participation per se, just the payment of public salaries to non-participants.

In this case, it's the DUP but I would oppose it for any party.

If I voted for a representative - and wished that representative to take their seat - and they subsequently refused to take a seat, I would resent the payment of their salary from public coffers.

I would abide by the decision of representatives to not participate (especially under mandate from their voters) but not to subsequently expect a salary paid out of public coffers.

And when I say public coffers, I mean public coffers. Coffers that comprise the taxes of all voters, nationalists, unionists, whatever.

In the case that a majority of voters expect non-participation; should even a small minority of voters who expect participation have to fund non-participant salaries from their taxes?

Should UUP, SDLP and SF voters (who voted for a functioning assembly) have to fund DUP salaries in the event of ideologically motivated non-participation that they don't agree with?

I take your point about cherry picking aspects of democracy that we agree or don't agree with...especially my points about SDLP and UUP voters not funding public salaries; but I feel that NI is currently not a typical situation. Given the gross squandering of essential UK/NI exchequer funds on both sides of the community over the years; as a NI taxpayer, I would justifiably consider a publicly funded non-functioning assembly as a final straw, no matter what the ideological finer points were...

Wicknight wrote:

The DUP are acting based on what they believe the wishes of those that voted for them are. The fact that people keep voting for them would tend suggest that they actually are the wishes of those that voted for them.

I might be wrong about this but perhaps if many voters have swung from the UUP to DUP because of the decommissioning impasse , who else would they vote for. The Workers Party or SDLP? :0P

Wicknight wrote:

The fact that people keep voting for them would tend suggest that they actually are the wishes of those that voted for them.

Zombrex

stovelid wrote:

Wicknight, with respect to your views, I didn't question the principle of non-participation per se, just the payment of public salaries to non-participants.

But if you accept that they are legitimately representing those that elected them then on what grounds do you suppose stopping their salaries?

If they are elected to be full time public representatives, and are being full time representatives, what do you expect them to do for money?

stovelid wrote:

If I voted for a representative - and wished that representative to take their seat - and they subsequently refused to take a seat, I would resent the payment of their salary from public coffers.

Well then why would you vote for them in the first place if they weren't going to do what you wanted them to?

stovelid wrote:

I would abide by the decision of representatives to not participate (especially under mandate from their voters) but not to subsequently expect a salary paid out of public coffers.

Well that is generous of you, but what would you expect your elected representative to do for money? Would you fund them yourself?

stovelid wrote:

In the case that a majority of voters expect non-participation; should even a small minority of voters who expect participation have to fund non-participant salaries from their taxes?

Taxes should fund democracy, even democracy that you don't agree with.

As I said, you either support democracy or you don't.

If someone is elected as a representative of a part of the community, they should be paid for that representation, even if the person spends his whole day skiing (though quite why the community would elect them to do this, I'm not sure).

You cannot decide that you, be you the majority or simply another part of the community, will dictate what a representative of another part of the community should do as a representative by threatening to removal of vital financial funding. That is up to those that voted and elected that person, and those alone.

Imagine if the government down here told an independent TD that they had to vote with them in a particular meeting of the Dail less they find themselves without a salary. There would be out rage.

stovelid wrote:

Should UUP, SDLP and SF voters (who voted for a functioning assembly) have to fund DUP salaries in the event of ideologically motivated non-participation that they don't agree with?

Yes, of course they should!!

Again, imagine if down here FF said to Labour that they must "You either do this this or this or else we will cut off your salaries. Our supporters, who vastly out number your supporters by quite a lot, are sick of paying for you simply to oppose, embarrass and annoy the government"

Do you think that would go down well?

What you are talking about stovelid is political blackmail, demanding that one political party act the way others want them to do, less they find themselves punished with a lack of salaries.

In a democracy that is not acceptable.

I can understand that you are frustrated by the actions of the DUP. To me the DUP seem like a bunch of inbred morons.

But at the end of the day you either want a democracy or you don't. As I said cherry picking a "democracy" that suits you, while rejecting what doesn't, is not democracy.

stovelid wrote:

as a NI taxpayer, I would justifiably consider a publicly funded non-functioning assembly as a final straw, no matter what the ideological finer points were...

Well then don't vote for the DUP. And try and convince as many other people to not vote for the DUP.

stovelid

Work, frankly

Wicknight wrote:

but what would you expect your elected representative to do for money?

Point taken but a better analogy would be if Labour had entered elections, collected large salaries as a consequence but effectively stymied government for years because of an ideological difference with a single party that was seen as either irrelevant or at least workable by the all the other parties and their voters.

I have already said that I am not completely happy with 'democratic cherry picking' myself but the NI situation (in it's intractability and vast drain on resources needed elsewhere) is unique.

Wicknight wrote:

Again, imagine if down here FF said to Labour that they must "You either do this this or this or else we will cut off your salaries. Our supporters, who vastly out number your supporters by quite a lot, are sick of paying for you simply to oppose, embarrass and annoy the government"

One more question too as I'm not actually completely sure of this. This is not a challenge, just a question. Are you 100% certain that every single person that voted for the DUP completely endorses non-participation? What if even a tiny majority of DUP voters felt that the doc should enter government?

What if some of the new DUP vote arose from the fact that the UUP copped a lot of the flak for the then SF stance on policing, decommissioning, Columbia etc and these voters probably went to the DUP by default?

I would be interested to know how unanimous the endorsement of non-participation is within the DUP electorate (I'm sure its very high ) and if it is not 100%, don't these people - as well as the voters of other parties - have a right to representation?

Perhaps DUP non-participation as a means of representing your electorate should really read: pandering to the sectarianism or distrust of a significant proportion of your voters especially those you are afraid to lose in the next election.

Perhaps the coming elections will further clarify the non-participation mandate you talk about?

Zombrex

stovelid wrote:

Point taken but a better analogy would be if Labour had entered elections, collected large salaries as a consequence but effectively stymied government for years because of an ideological difference with a single party that was seen as either irrelevant or at least workable by the all the other parties and their voters.

That would still be fine, from a democratic point of view.

If Labour, who have been looking to get into government for years, had the chance in May to enter government with say FF but turned down that chance there would be no problem with that, democratically speaking, so long as that was what their voters wished them to do.

And I certainly don't think anyone in FF would be calling for Labour to lose their salaries, even if not having the backing of Labour meant FF lost out to something like a FG-Greens coalition forming a new government.

stovelid wrote:

I have already said that I am not completely happy with 'democratic cherry picking' myself but the NI situation (in it's intractability and vast drain on resources needed elsewhere) is unique.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

At the end of the day you are either for democracy or you aren't for democracy.

Northern Ireland has spend years trying to get rid of political interference in the democratic process, such as Unionists jerrymandering (re-drawing of election borders so Unionists come out on top in elections). I would think in Northern Ireland above a lot of other places it is extra important that democracy be seen to be free of interference

stovelid wrote:

Are you 100% certain that every single person that voted for the DUP completely endorses non-participation? What if even a tiny majority of DUP voters felt that the doc should enter government?

Then they shouldn't have voted for the DUP, since the DUP's position has been clear for a while now.

At the end of the day it would be very hard to find a representative who shares exactly 100% the views of all those who elected him. Representation is about leadership as well as representing the democratic wishes of community.

Considering that the DUP seem to be going from strength to strength in N.I I don't see much sign that they are annoying those that voted for them that much by resisting power sharing with SF. In fact quite the opposite, it seems they are risking alienating some of their traditional hard line support by "cosying up" to SF.

stovelid wrote:

What if some of the new DUP vote arose from the fact that the UUP copped a lot of the flak for the then SF stance on policing, decommissioning, Columbia etc and these voters probably went to the DUP by default?

I'm not sure what you mean .... ? How would that change anything?

stovelid wrote:

I would be interested to know how unanimous the endorsement of non-participation is within the DUP electorate (I'm sure its very high ) and if it is not 100%, don't these people - as well as the voters of other parties - have a right to representation?

They do have a right to representation and they chose the DUP to represent them.

If they don't wish the DUP to represent them any more they can vote for someone else at the next election.

Or they can go to their local DUP representative and tell them that they don't like how they are being represented and tell them that they will be voting for another person at the next election, and see if this registers with the party.

stovelid wrote:

Perhaps DUP non-participation as a means of representing your electorate should really read: pandering to the sectarianism or distrust of a significant proportion of your voters especially those you are afraid to lose in the next election.

It can, but again that doesn't change the nature of the democracy.

If enough people vote for them the DUP can pander to the sectarianism or distrust of a significant proportion of their voters all they like.

stovelid wrote:

Perhaps the coming elections will further clarify the non-participation mandate you talk about?

Well I expect the DUP to do quite well in the election.

But if there are DUP supporters who are unhappy with how the DUP have represented them then the March '07 elections will be a chance for them to register this dissatisfaction with the party by voting for someone else.

I see in the news that all ready a DUP member has left the DUP to join the UK Unionists party because he feels the DUP have betrayed their 2005 manifesto by agreeing to enter power sharing with Sinn Fein. I would imagine scenes like this are going to be more common that voter dissatisfaction that the DUP has taken so long to enter power sharing with SF.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6356441.stm

stovelid

Apologies.

I meant that maybe some of the new DUP voters (that swung in the last election) may have voted DUP as a protest against the UUP's long dance with SF. Given the absence of a genuine left/centre/right political culture in NI, they may have felt that they had no other option to go with the Doc?

Given SFs movement on the issues that derailed Trimble since then; maybe a minority of the DUP electorate may be more accepting of power sharing than we think?

Of course this is wishful, perhaps even conjecture. I think the elections will be interesting especially the unionist vote.

BTW, Ive never seen as many NI threads on boards. Great what a rugby game can do eh

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean .... ? How would that change anything?

Yeah I read that there is a lot of party dissent on this. Aren't the DUP also threatening to fine or expel party dissidents? :eek:

Wicknight wrote:

I see in the news that all ready a DUP member has left the DUP to join the UK Unionists party because he feels the DUP have betrayed their 2005 manifesto by agreeing to enter power sharing with Sinn Fein. I would imagine scenes like this are going to be more common that voter dissatisfaction that the DUP has taken so long to enter power sharing with SF.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6356441.stm

Zombrex

stovelid wrote:

Given SFs movement on the issues that derailed Trimble since then; maybe a minority of the DUP electorate may be more accepting of power sharing than we think?

Well the DUP in recent days seem to be moving towards power sharing with SF, which has caused at least one DUP member to leave the party. So I would say it is looking good for power sharing. But with the DUP you never know what could happen.

stovelid wrote:

Yeah I read that there is a lot of party dissent on this. Aren't the DUP also threatening to fine or expel party dissidents? :eek:

You have to sign a resignation letter and the party chairman (or someone senior) can use that letter if they view you as having gone against the party line. I'm not sure why such a round about process is necessary (probably something to do with party by-laws) but the effect is as you say, they can fine or expel party members who the party as a whole consideres dissident.

But then I have always considered the DUP to be a party of muppets, so nothing surprises me.