SF now the largest political party in the north.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

They got into power because they work hard on behalf of their constituents, worked hard at implementing the peace process and have continued to devolve power to the north. But if it helps you sleep at night to conjure up alternatives, then by all means - go for it. I'm not the thought-police.

I have no doubt Sinn Fein work hard. But I remain convinced the majority of Sinn Fein supporters voted for them because they are a Nationalist party and the SDLP has little chance of gaining power. NI politics seems to be more about where you are from then party politics, especially if you come from a poorer class background.

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually - Sinn Féin wants to unify Ireland. It doesn't want to bring anything into anything. It also wants to integrate unionists into it. Just like Nelson Mandela wanted to integrate the white community into a new South Africa.

They want to bring the North into the Rep. that was a correct statement.

Your quote that the Shinners want to bring unionists into the Rep. was funny as if the Unionists want happily into the Rep. then they would no longer be Unionist they would be Republican.

That is the main difference between South Africa and NI, South Africa was divided on racial gorunds. NI is divided on sectarian grounds. And while one can change ones religion and ones politics one cannot change ones skin colour.

dlofnep wrote: »

Mandela engaged in what is described as terrorist activities. You stated he was great. So yes, it is convenient.

Nelson Mandela is a great man, and the Nobel Peace Prize as well as many others would agree with me on that.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nelson Mandela is a great man

Rewind 21 years and you would have been here calling him a terrorist and calling for his head

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Rewind 21 years and you would have been here calling him a terrorist and calling for his head

Rewind twenty one years and I as a border county resident would be living in constent danger due to the monumental spat between Republicans and Unionists.

Lab_Mouse

owenc wrote: »

If those people are want a united Ireland that desperately why can't they just move down south so bloody simple... I

And matbe you you could fukk off back to scotland.simples.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Rewind twenty one years and I as a border county resident would be living in constent danger due to the monumental spat between Republicans and Unionists.

LOL

Really now.

I grew up throughout the troubles and never once felt in any danger.

DoireNod

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Rewind twenty one years and I as a border county resident would be living in constent danger due to the monumental spat between Republicans and Unionists.

Aye, Peter Robinson and the like might have invaded.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Rewind twenty one years and I as a border county resident would be living in constent danger due to the monumental spat between Republicans and Unionists.

Maybe so and you would still be here calling Mandela a terrorist!

Happy Monday

DoireNod wrote: »

Ask your granny why she's voting for a nationalist party if she wants to see the maintenance of the union.

Dflonep made noise earlier about SF MPs refusing to take Westminster seats due to the Oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Surely you SF voters must have some view on the SDLP and Alliance party taking their seats and swearing the Oath?

I want to hear what your view is on this.

P. Breathnach

dlofnep wrote: »

Pardon me for extending an open dialog with you.

I was curious as to whom you see as an alternative? Given that Sinn Féin is firmly engaged in the peace process, is working very hard on behalf of their constituents and working on many cross-community campaigns to ensure stability and create a basis for mutual understanding.

Or can you not see beyond 1996? I'm genuinely curious.

Open dialogue? My eye. Your first effort included a question about who I voted for. This invitation contains an implication that my views are rooted solely in the past.

I'll give you a simple summary of where I stand, and I will not discuss it further:
- I do not buy into the Sinn Féin type of united Ireland
- In my opinion, Sinn Féin's commitment to peace and political action is not a fundamental value, but is a tactic in pursuit of its aims (as, earlier, was the "armed struggle")
- Sinn Féin economic policies are for the birds
- The exercise of Sinn Féin influence within the community in many circumstances is oppressive ("the boys will have a word with them...")
- I am sick of the creation of shibboleths as is done, for example, with the Irish language.

I could say more, but it's not worth the effort.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I have no doubt Sinn Fein work hard. But I remain convinced the majority of Sinn Fein supporters voted for them because they are a Nationalist party and the SDLP has little chance of gaining power. NI politics seems to be more about where you are from then party politics, especially if you come from a poorer class background.

So they don't vote SDLP because they have little chance of gaining power? I'm failing to see the logic. Surely, they would vote for the SDLP because they wanted them to gain power.

Sinn Féin gained their votes because they earned them.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They want to bring the North into the Rep. that was a correct statement.

Actually - it wasn't a correct statement. They want to unify Ireland. Which means - that the entire country would once again operate as a single entity. It's not a matter of absorbing the north into the south. It's a matter of them both absorbing each other.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your quote that the Shinners want to bring unionists into the Rep. was funny as if the Unionists want happily into the Rep. then they would no longer be Unionist they would be Republican.

*sigh*

So all republicans who live in the north must be unionist then, based on your logic?

They accept that unionists wish to preserve the union, but if unification occurs - there needs to be a plan in place to make sure unionists are accommodated, and not treated as second class citizens like the nationalists were in the north.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That is the main difference between South Africa and NI, South Africa was divided on racial gorunds. NI is divided on sectarian grounds. And while one can change ones religion and ones politics one cannot change ones skin colour.

Nonsense. People in the north are divided on political and cultural grounds. Religion has feck all to do with it. Just like people in SA were divided on cultural and political grounds.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nelson Mandela is a great man, and the Nobel Peace Prize as well as many others would agree with me on that.

I don't disagree that he was a great man. I just find it humerous that you claim that you are furious with "terrorists" in power with Sinn Féin - but yet, Nelson Mandela, who was at the time the leader of an armed resistance movement which engaged in public bombing campaigns - is now given the clean slate from you. It's very convenient.

DoireNod

Happy Monday wrote: »

Dflonep made noise earlier about SF MPs refusing to take Westminster seats due to the Oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Surely you SF voters must have some view on the SDLP and Alliance party taking their seats and swearing the Oath?

I want to hear what your view is on this.

Making demands and assumptions now then?
What is the issue you'd like to hear an opinion on? That other parties are not abstentionists?

lugha

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Maybe so and you would still be here calling Mandela a terrorist!

The "terrorist" label is misleading. The problem with PIRA was not their terrorism (indeed they weren't really terrorists in the strict meaning of the word, for the most part they directed their actions against Crown forces, as they liked to call them) it was the fact that the did not have authority. The presumed, without authority, to represent the people of Ireland.

Cavehill Red

dlofnep wrote: »

Just like it hurt the Boers when Nelson Mandela became the president of South Africa. They once called him a terrorist too.

Of all the self-deluding myths that permeate in the Republican movement, this hilariously inappropriate comparison is my personal favourite.
Best summary of the NI result: good night for nationalist leaders, bad night for unionist leaders, otherwise, as you were.

DoireNod

lugha wrote: »

The "terrorist" label is misleading. The problem with PIRA was not their terrorism (indeed they weren't really terrorists in the strict meaning of the word, for the most part they directed their actions against Crown forces, as they liked to call them) it was the fact that the did not have authority. The presumed, without authority, to represent the people of Ireland.

I might be wrong, but didn't the Irish constitution once lay claim to the whole island?

Grass between the tracks

What is needed is an amendment to The Representation of the People Act 1981 aka The Bobby Sands Act to stop abstentionists from standing for election in the first place. If a candidate won't accept the oath they don't stand in the first place and thus deny people their representation in Westminster.

It stopped criminals like Sands from standing, it can now stop time wasters like SF.

TommyT

This thread is typical of NI politics, most people dont know what they are talking about and no one can agree.
The title of the thread should be changed in my opinion. How about, Sinn Fein hold 5 of the 650 seats in the British Parliament.

dlofnep

P. Breathnach wrote: »

- I do not buy into the Sinn Féin type of united Ireland

And what exactly is Sinn Féin's type of United Ireland, and what makes it different than any other party who entertains the idea of such and is engaged within the peace process.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

- In my opinion, Sinn Féin's commitment to peace and political action is not a fundamental value, but is a tactic in pursuit of its aims (as, earlier, was the "armed struggle")

So they decided the pen was mightier than the sword, so what? So did Nelson Mandela.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

- Sinn Féin economic policies are for the birds

Give me 3 policies you have an issue with.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

- The exercise of Sinn Féin influence within the community in many circumstances is oppressive ("the boys will have a word with them...")

Perhaps we might discuss it in the context of 2010, rather than 1970.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

- I am sick of the creation of shibboleths as is done, for example, with the Irish language.

Perhaps you might expand on that one?

A Dub in Glasgo

Grass between the tracks wrote: »

What is needed is an amendment to The Representation of the People Act 1981 aka The Bobby Sands Act to stop abstentionists from standing for election in the first place. If a candidate won't accept the oath they don't stand in the first place and thus deny people their representation in Westminster.

It stopped criminals like Sands from standing, it can now stop time wasters like SF.

Ahhh, another 'democrat' crawls out of the woodwork

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

My assumptions are not incorrect.

You spoke as if the GFA and devolution had never occurred. You ignore the work of the NI administration and Sinn Fein representatives - who all take their seats - within that administration. You are therefore entirely incorrect.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I never said the British would refuse to meet a democratically elected party, I said the influence of that party would dramatically decrease one normality was achieved.

As they are now the second largest party in NI, that makes no sense. Since the cessastion, they've grown.

You didn't say that they'd refuse to meet them initially, you brought that implication up after the following was dealt with

To achieve anything one has to be in the seat of power and get involved.

The seat of power is Westminster and they are cheating their supporters and deluding themselves if they, and their bagmen think that by refusing to take part, they further the cause of the people who voted for them.

You have, however, failed to back it up.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

No it isn't, Shinn Féin are ex-terrorists. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the halls of power.

Do you oppose the ANC as well?

Iwasfrozen wrote:

I have a strong suspicion Catholics voted for Sinn Fein on either Sectarian or Nationalist grounds rather then an informed vote on their policies.

Strange that despite thirty years of demonisation their vote keeps growing there, then.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

So you believe there is another reason a far-left/Social Democratic party got into power ?

The pairing of those terms strikes me as odd, to put it mildly.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

They are nowhere near the same. Mandela wanted to create a "Rainbow Nation", the exact opposite of Nationalism.

Funny, because elsewhere PSF is given a hard time for refusing to drop its inclusive policies as regards gays, recent immigrants to this country and the like.

Do you actually know anything about Sinn Fein policies at all? Have you read them yourself, for instance.

Happy Monday

DoireNod wrote: »

Making demands and assumptions now then?
What is the issue you'd like to hear an opinion on? That other parties are not abstentionists?

How you feel about the SDLP taking an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen?

dlofnep

Grass between the tracks wrote: »

What is needed is an amendment to The Representation of the People Act 1981 aka The Bobby Sands Act to stop abstentionists from standing for election in the first place. If a candidate won't accept the oath they don't stand in the first place and thus deny people their representation in Westminster.

It stopped criminals like Sands from standing, it can now stop time wasters like SF.

Ah yes, just when Sinn Féin gain command as the largest party in the North - you wish to sweep it away from them by other means. What a fine democrat you are. If the electorate is content with SF not taking seats, I don't see why it should bother you.

dreamer_ire

I've read this entire thread. Some comments I agree with, some are farsical imo. The reality of NI is that a line has to be drawn in the sand for this country/provence/part of Ireland (delete as appropriate) to move out of the past and into the future.

Regardless of who's done what to who it has to be put to bed and people start taking small steps to gain trust in each other. For as long as people, north and south, continue to look backwards we will get nowhere! Everyone has a choice, either look forward or continue to drag NI back into the past.

Judge people for what they do now, not for what they have done in the past... it's the only way forward.

snow ghost

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Of all the self-deluding myths that permeate in the Republican movement, this hilariously inappropriate comparison is my personal favourite.

Not so sure about that beng as much of a myth as some would like to beleve Cavehill... I remember Nelson Mandella's speech to the Dail and when he unveiled a memorial to the hunger strikers on Robyn sland South Afrca where he was imprisoned... Mandela and the ANC alluded to many similarties with the situation in Ireland and had a considerable rapport and connections with Irish republicans.

lugha

DoireNod wrote: »

I might be wrong, but didn't the Irish constitution once lay claim to the whole island?

Yes it did. But the fact that most people in the republic did, and do, broadly share the political objectives of physical force republicanism does not confer authority on them. People approved of their ends, but not their means.

DoireNod

Happy Monday wrote: »

How you feel about the SDLP taking an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen?

That's an issue for SDLP voters to contend with. I'd imagine many if not all of them wouldn't like it. Mark Durkan himself says he doesn't like it.

Our man in Havana

DoireNod wrote: »

That's an issue for SDLP voters to contend with. I'd imagine many of them wouldn't like it. Mark Durkan himself says he doesn't like it.

But a necessary evil.

karma_

Bond-007 wrote: »

But a necessary evil.

Whats so necessary about an anachronistic oath to an even more antiquated monarch?

Our man in Havana

In order to take a seat in Westminster and represent your constituents.

owenc

dreamer_ire wrote: »

I've read this entire thread. Some comments I agree with, some are farsical imo. The reality of NI is that a line has to be drawn in the sand for this country/provence/part of Ireland (delete as appropriate) to move out of the past and into the future.

Regardless of who's done what to who it has to be put to bed and people start taking small steps to gain trust in each other. For as long as people, north and south, continue to look backwards we will get nowhere! Everyone has a choice, either look forward or continue to drag NI back into the past.

Judge people for what they do now, not for what they have done in the past... it's the only way forward.

When you look at it they are like a bunch of babies, fighting over relgion huh!:rolleyes: You laugh at it even more though, so childish tut tut tut.

PomBear

Bond-007 wrote: »

In order to take a seat in Westminster and represent your constituents.

Parties and politicians represent their consituents mostly on council level. The Parliament goes for furthering the UK and Assembly does the same with NI and the EU commission- Europe. Same goes for the Dáil and councils

Iwasfrozen

DoireNod wrote: »

Aye, Peter Robinson and the like might have invaded.

Haha, that is brilliant. I grew up in Clontibret !

P. Breathnach

dlofnep wrote: »

And what exactly is Sinn Féin's type of United Ireland, and what makes it different than any other party who entertains the idea of such and is engaged within the peace process.

So they decided the pen was mightier than the sword, so what? So did Nelson Mandela.

Give me 3 policies you have an issue with.

Perhaps we might discuss it in the context of 2010, rather than 1970.

Perhaps you might expand on that one?

As I already said, I could say more, but it's not worth the effort.

dlofnep

Fair enough - I've better things to do anyway. All the best.

K-9

DoireNod wrote: »

Sinn Féin: 171,942
DUP: 168,216
SDLP: 110,970

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/region/6.stm

To me the result of the election, barring Alliance obviously, is the SDLP hopefully are correcting the slide and will not become the joke that is the UUP. Somebody needs to keep a check on SF.

The only reason SF was stronger than the DUP, was how fractured the DUP was. Hopefully Alliance can build and point out how stupid these arguments are.

DoireNod

DoireNod wrote: »

...The DUP has the most seats, but Sinn Féin got the most votes. Hence, Sinn Féin are the largest party.

I should clarify. Sinn Féin have the strongest mandate, backed by the fact they have the most support out of all the parties.

aDeener

I know this will probably never happen, but id like to know how people, specifically our northern brothers here, would feel about a joint nationalist party if sinn fein and the sdlp were ever to come to a compromise?

likewise a joint unionist party? which seems all the more possible considering what occured in fermanagh south tyrone

DoireNod

K-9 wrote: »

To me the result of the election, barring Alliance obviously, is the SDLP hopefully are correcting the slide and will not become the joke that is the UUP. Somebody needs to keep a check on SF.

Although the SDLP have held onto their 3 seats, at a glance, I don't think they've necessarily corrected their slide. Even though Ritchie received a strong vote in South Down, I think her tenure as leader of the party could signal another downward turn. Their performance in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is telling and while Gildernew's amazing poll was most probably due to anger caused by the unionist pact, I think a lot of people would see Ritchie as being stubborn - she gives the impression that she's more anti-Sinn Féin than pro-nationalist*. I'd guess that Sinn Féin could hold on to a sizeable portion of those who would otherwise have voted SDLP in Fermanagh & South Tyrone as a consequence.

K-9 wrote: »

The only reason SF was stronger than the DUP, was how fractured the DUP was. Hopefully Alliance can build and point out how stupid these arguments are.

It's hardly the only reason. Demographics are in favour of nationalism, as is evident from Sinn Féin's growth in support, perhaps most notably with Gerry Kelly in North Belfast. Unionism itself is dramatically fractured and demoralised and the proverbial ball has been sent flying emphatically to their court. The failed 'unity pact' will raise questions in their camp but despite its failure, I think it's safe to say that there will be a lot more co-operation from the unionist 'family' in future. The question is, what will the SDLP and Sinn Féin do to counter any more such tactics?

*Of course, this may not be the case and it must be noted that Ritchie was pretty much in a no-win situation. SDLP were never going to win F&ST, but she couldn't be seen to 'be in cahoots', so to speak, with perceived 'terrorists', given that the SDLP are increasingly trying to gain would-be unionist voters.

lugha

DoireNod wrote: »

That's an issue for SDLP voters to contend with. I'd imagine many if not all of them wouldn't like it. Mark Durkan himself says he doesn't like it.

It strikes me as curious that in the spirit of GFA where anyone in NI could assert any identify, political or otherwise, that they want, that they didn't look at the option of an alternative to the oath for NI nationalist MPs. Perhaps they decided that the affairs of Westminster were sufficiently irrelevant not to warrant any tinkering?

P. Breathnach

aDeener wrote: »

I know this will probably never happen, but id like to know how people, specifically our northern brothers here, would feel about a joint nationalist party if sinn fein and the sdlp were ever to come to a compromise?

likewise a joint unionist party? which seems all the more possible considering what occured in fermanagh south tyrone

Wonderful. Perpetuate an approach to politics where the only issue is the "constitutional question".

DoireNod

lugha wrote: »

It strikes me as curious that in the spirit of GFA where anyone in NI could assert any identify, political or otherwise, that they want, that they didn't look at the option of an alternative to the oath for NI nationalist MPs. Perhaps they decided that the affairs of Westminster were sufficiently irrelevant not to warrant any tinkering?

I'm not sure. Perhaps if there was an exception, albeit a small one, it would further undermine the British system and the position of the monarch?

Or perhaps it was accepted that Sinn Féin would be abstentionist and the rest were ok with the status quo. Maybe, as you say, it wasn't even an issue.

K-9

DoireNod wrote: »

Although the SDLP have held onto their 3 seats, at a glance, I don't think they've necessarily corrected their slide. Even though Ritchie received a strong vote in South Down, I think her tenure as leader of the party could signal another downward turn. Their performance in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is telling and while Gildernew's amazing poll was most probably due to anger caused by the unionist pact, I think a lot of people would see Ritchie as being stubborn - she gives the impression that she's more anti-Sinn Féin than pro-nationalist*. I'd guess that Sinn Féin could hold on to a sizeable portion of those who would otherwise have voted SDLP in Fermanagh & South Tyrone as a consequence.

It's hardly the only reason. Demographics are in favour of nationalism, as is evident from Sinn Féin's growth in support, perhaps most notably with Gerry Kelly in North Belfast. Unionism itself is dramatically fractured and demoralised and the proverbial ball has been sent flying emphatically to their court. The failed 'unity pact' will raise questions in their camp but despite its failure, I think it's safe to say that there will be a lot more co-operation from the unionist 'family' in future. The question is, what will the SDLP and Sinn Féin do to counter any more such tactics?

*Of course, this may not be the case and it must be noted that Ritchie was pretty much in a no-win situation. SDLP were never going to win F&ST, but she couldn't be seen to 'be in cahoots', so to speak, with perceived 'terrorists'.

OK, from a non SF point of view, Durkan is a strong candidate and South Down will have a strategic Unionist vote if push comes to shove. There vote may go down but if anything Durkan is more vulnerable. Again, strategic Unionist voting could keep that one safe for another GE.

FST probably had strategic voting by SDLP voters, especially considering a unified Unionist candidate and the very real risk, LOL, of that seat going Unionist.

Demographics obviously are in favour but the split in Unionism was a factor this time. Denying that is pointless. Robinson winning East Belfast would have changed who was the biggest party alone.

I'd hardly call the unity pact failed, they lost on a third recount! A Tory Council won his seat on the drawing of a card, it was that close!

From a non SF perspective, the SDLP have to keep their own identity. Pacts may actually backfire and many would argue is the reason they have lost their vote over the last 10 years.

aDeener

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wonderful. Perpetuate an approach to politics where the only issue is the "constitutional question".

that more or less is the approach at the moment anyway, would you not say so?

DoireNod

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wonderful. Perpetuate an approach to politics where the only issue is the "constitutional question".

It's been such since the inception of the statelet, which itself wasn't exactly 'normal'. Do you really expect there to ever be 'normal politics' in the north?

P. Breathnach

aDeener wrote: »

that more or less is the approach at the moment anyway, would you not say so?

Largely. But if the different unionist and nationalist parties merged into just one of each, that division would be consolidated.

ardmacha

It strikes me as curious that in the spirit of GFA where anyone in NI could assert any identify, political or otherwise, that they want, that they didn't look at the option of an alternative to the oath for NI nationalist MPs. Perhaps they decided that the affairs of Westminster were sufficiently irrelevant not to warrant any tinkering?

The GFA is strictly an Irish affair, the London authorities pay little heed to it whether in their institutions or their policies in things like controlled from London. Since SF didn't want to go to Westminister anyway they didn't argue with this.

aDeener

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Largely. But if the different unionist and nationalist parties merged into just one of each, that division would be consolidated.

the choice would be there to vote alliance too. which would make it a 3 party choice which is basically what we have here and in england too. i would imagine other non-nationalist/unionist parties would form in the wake of such mergers.

DoireNod

K-9 wrote: »

OK, from a non SF point of view, Durkan is a strong candidate and South Down will have a strategic Unionist vote if push comes to shove. There vote may go down but if anything Durkan is more vulnerable. Again, strategic Unionist voting could keep that one safe for another GE.

In Foyle, Eamonn McCann undoubtedly took a percentage of voters off Sinn Féin and the SDLP. There was only around 4,000 difference between Durkan and Anderson and McCann took about 3,000. Depending on how McCann and his People Before Profit crew get on in future, Sinn Féin could still close the gap in Derry.

K-9 wrote: »

Demographics obviously are in favour but the split in Unionism was a factor this time. Denying that is pointless. Robinson winning East Belfast would have changed who was the biggest party alone.

I haven't denied that unionism is split, but even with their 'unity pacts' they couldn't take a seat from nationalists.

K-9 wrote: »

I'd hardly call the unity pact failed, they lost on a third recount! A Tory Council won his seat on the drawing of a card, it was that close!

It failed, simple as. It also helped galvanise the nationalist voice in F&ST (and probably across the North), which can be construed as another failure.

K-9 wrote: »

From a non SF perspective, the SDLP have to keep their own identity. Pacts may actually backfire and many would argue is the reason they have lost their vote over the last 10 years.

I understand completely where the SDLP are coming from, but as I've said, the wider nationalist family may not appreciate the fact that they are appearing more and more anti-SF than pro-nationalist and also, they may begin to feel that the threat posed by the uniting of unionist parties needs to be addressed.

K-9

DoireNod wrote: »

I haven't denied that unionism is split, but even with their 'unity pacts' they couldn't take a seat from nationalists.

It failed, simple as. It also helped galvanise the nationalist voice in F&ST (and probably across the North), which can be construed as another failure.

Ah now, what was the final difference?

Agree on McCann, hard to know where is votes would go in a tight contest or a new system. There is as much chance of Unionism uniting as Nationalism. FST goes back a long way.

Bottle_of_Smoke

DoireNod wrote: »

I understand completely where the SDLP are coming from, but as I've said, the wider nationalist family may not appreciate the fact that they are appearing more and more anti-SF than pro-nationalist and also, they may begin to feel that the threat posed by the uniting of unionist parties needs to be addressed.

The thing is, they're kind of being forced into appearing anti-Sinn Fein because Sinn Fein are being anti-SDLP.

It was Gerry Adams who first said Ritchie had failed to show leadership for not goign into a nationalist pact, that was uncalled for. Then in the tv debates he spent more time bullying Ritchie than arguing his points to the Unionists.

Regarding the nationalist pacts, SDLP knew they could win comfortably without Sinn Fein votes in South Belfast whereas Sinn Fein were worried the unionists could take F/ST, fortunately they didn't but it was very very tight.

So by going into the pact they had little to gain, by staying out they could claim they were against sectarian headcounts and avoid losing unionist votes in South Down. Sinn Fein simply weren't offering them a good deal, perhaps had they offered to stand down in Newry/Armagh the SDLP might have been tempted.

I do accept Ritchie was labouring the abstension point far too much.

Caoimhín

SF won Fermanagh/South Tyrone by 4 votes...

What implications will this have on the power-sharing agreement?

Id be a little bit hesitant voting for a political representative who refuses to go to the Parliament to represent me..