Why have the SDLP become so unpopular?

hatrickpatrick

Can somebody give me an unbiased account of what exactly happened to the SDLP? From the party which essentially helped to spearhead the Good Friday agreement to a party which has now apparently lost all of its seats in Westminster is pretty spectacular. I don't know that much about the local politics of NI - what happened?

Jayop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can somebody give me an unbiased account of what exactly happened to the SDLP? From the party which essentially helped to spearhead the Good Friday agreement to a party which has now apparently lost all of its seats in Westminster is pretty spectacular. I don't know that much about the local politics of NI - what happened?

Awful candidates, no leadership and the rise of support for the DUP helped SF destroy them.

zoobizoo

Some commentary earlier on Radio 1 suggested that the comments from Arlene Foster over the last number of months drove middle class voters, who would never have voted SF before, into voting for SF.

Those comments were pro Brexit etc


I think if she'd had a less hard line position, that they'd have continued voting SDLP.

Avatar MIA

Jayop wrote: »

Awful candidates, no leadership and the rise of support for the DUP helped SF destroy them.

The loss of Hume was big, but the polarisation of NI politics meant one of the traditional parties from each side was going to lose out. Arguably the "demise" of the UUP is a far greater fall from Grace. They pretty much invented NI.

Basically, the UUP and the SDLP brokered the deal against the backdrop of 30 years of bitterness and bloodshed. Both communities took a 'not an inch' approach. 'What was good for them, was bad for us.' So, while the people endorsed the UUP/SDLP plan, they didn't like the concessions. So, the [then] hard line parties became popular because 'they were going to be the best to deliver for our community'. And so, both SDLP and the UUP lost out over time when people realised they would maximise their vote by backing the bigger party.

TL/DR if you want to be successful in politics give the people what they think they want.

Jayop

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The loss of Hume was big, but the polarisation of NI politics meant one of the traditional parties from each side was going to lose out. Arguably the "demise" of the UUP is a far greater fall from Grace. They pretty much invented NI.

Basically, the UUP and the SDLP brokered the deal against the backdrop of 30 years of bitterness and bloodshed. Both communities took a 'not an inch' approach. 'What was good for them, was bad for us.' So, while the people endorsed the UUP/SDLP plan, they didn't like the concessions. So, the [then] hard line parties became popular because 'they were going to be the best to deliver for our community'. And so, both SDLP and the UUP lost out over time when people realised they would maximise their vote by backing the bigger party.

TL/DR if you want to be successful in politics give the people what they think they want.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that either.

Chips Lovell

Avatar MIA wrote: »

...the polarisation of NI politics meant one of the traditional parties from each side was going to lose out...

This. I don't think they understood what the post Good Friday reality was going to be. They probably expected a gradual normalisation of politics and didn't realise there was more to be gained by maintenance of a constant state of tension and using the perpetual threat of a return to violence to keep the region relevant and the money flowing in. It rewarded anyone who tacked to the extremes, hence the rise of the DUP and SF.

FrancieBrady

So, the entire core vote (almost) of the SDLP has become polarised enough to switch to SF?

I think that is just so wrong it is funny tbh.

The fear of just admitting that people reward parties with their vote because they achieve for them and will take that vote away if they don't.

It really isn't anymore complicated than that. There is no need for the patronising 'they know not what they do' attitude. They are more politically aware as an electorate than almost anywhere I can think of.

The SDLP are no longer relevant, simple as that.

Jawgap

zoobizoo wrote: »

Some commentary earlier on Radio 1 suggested that the comments from Arlene Foster over the last number of months drove middle class voters, who would never have voted SF before, into voting for SF.

Those comments were pro Brexit etc


I think if she'd had a less hard line position, that they'd have continued voting SDLP.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but surely people recognised that by voting for an abstentionist party they were effectively ceding the right to the representation of NI in Westminster to the DUP and their Brexit vision? It seems that while voting SF is not exactly a vote for the Tories, it is a vote that makes their life a bit easier?

Jayop

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, the entire core vote (almost) of the SDLP has become polarised enough to switch to SF?

I think that is just so wrong it is funny tbh.

The fear of just admitting that people reward parties with their vote because they achieve for them and will take that vote away if they don't.

It really isn't anymore complicated than that. There is no need for the patronising 'they know not what they do' attitude. They are more politically aware as an electorate than almost anywhere I can think of.

The SDLP are no longer relevant, simple as that.

That's a bigger part of it than people like to admit too. SF are far far more active at a local level and that is transferring into votes.

judeboy101

When you need help from unionists to get elected you don't have much of a nationalist identity.

Chips Lovell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

....people reward parties with their vote because they achieve for them and will take that vote away if they don't...

Nail on the head. It's all about who can bring home the most to their electorate.

Avatar MIA

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The fear of just admitting that people reward parties with their vote because they achieve for them and will take that vote away if they don't.

Really, right - what have the 4 SF MPs achieved for their constituents over the past 2 years, so much so that 3 other constituents said, 'I'll be having some of that'?

zoobizoo

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, but surely people recognised that by voting for an abstentionist party they were effectively ceding the right to the representation of NI in Westminster to the DUP and their Brexit vision? It seems that while voting SF is not exactly a vote for the Tories, it is a vote that makes their life a bit easier?

You'd swear, listening to the SF candidates that everyone that votes for them wants them to abstain. It'd be interesting to see what those percentages are. Obviously not everyone who votes for them will agree with all of their policies.

FrancieBrady

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Really, right - what have the 4 SF MPs achieved for their constituents over the past 2 years, so much so that 3 other constituents said, 'I'll be having some of that'?

Ask them and ask those who no longer vote for the seat taking SDLP, why?

I guarantee you they will use the language I just did. This notion peddled by people, who just don't like the parties concerned, that the electorate are being hoodwinked or indoctrinated or have become polarised is just excuse making.

Jayop

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Really, right - what have the 4 SF MPs achieved for their constituents over the past 2 years, so much so that 3 other constituents said, 'I'll be having some of that'?

The SDLP are getting dinked in the Westminster elections because of their poor performance in every other hall of governance. The SDLP taking their seats have achieved nothing for a long long time so I see this vote more as a complete rejection of Westminster by nationalists.

That said, I'd not have voted SF in this election unless I was in a constituency where a Unionist was the likely winner. Greens, Alliance or SDLP would have been my first choice as I'd personally prefer a voice in westminister regardless of how small.

FPTP has a lot to answer for.

Avatar MIA

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ask them and ask those who no longer vote for the seat taking SDLP, why?

I guarantee you they will use the language I just did. This notion peddled by people, who just don't like the parties concerned, that the electorate are being hoodwinked or indoctrinated or have become polarised is just excuse making.

It doesn't stack up. Why would anybody leave the comfort of their home to not vote for someone who you say hasn't delivered for them to vote for a party that's stated they wont try to deliver for them at Westminster.

Jayop

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It doesn't stack up. Why would anybody leave the comfort of their home to not vote for someone who you say hasn't delivered for them to vote for a party that's stated they wont try to deliver for them at Westminster.

Maybe they support the abstentionist stance?

Jawgap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Nail on the head. It's all about who can bring home the most to their electorate.

I think in a 'normal' political environment this would hold true, but NI has yet to come even close to normalising.

West Belfast has some of the most deprived wards in the UK and yet they keep voting in SF candidates as MPs - to me that suggests that something in addition to self-interest (or maybe in place of it) is operating when people make decisions about where to put their 'X.'

A few SF MPs in Westminster now would be capable of doing a 'Gregory Deal' for their constituents.

FrancieBrady

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It doesn't stack up. Why would anybody leave the comfort of their home to not vote for someone who you say hasn't delivered for them to vote for a party that's stated they wont try to deliver for them at Westminster.

It's patently obvious.
They don't need to take their seats to achieve for them.
Westminister is clearly redundant.
Lets see how much things improve for the people of the north now. It surely should be evident?
It won't be much let me tell you that.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote:

So, the entire core vote (almost) of the SDLP has become polarised enough to switch to SF?

It's a bit like asking the question where did all the former labour voters go to in our own last GE.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's patently obvious.
They don't need to take their seats to achieve for them.
Westminister is clearly redundant.
Lets see how much things improve for the people of the north now. It surely should be evident?
It won't be much let me tell you that.

West Belfast is one of the most deprived areas in the UK, it has has a SF MP for a long, long time. It is very difficult to believe therefore that self-interest is the reason why they keep voting for one.

Can anyone tell us what exactly Sinn Fein have achieved in the last five years for anyone anywhere on this island? The only place they remain in any sort of power is on Dublin City Council which now has record levels of homelessness.

Esel

Do the SF MPs engage in constituency work via their offices in Westminster?

Jayop

Aaaand another SF bashing thread.

Just what we all needed.

*unfollow*

blanch152

Esel wrote: »

Do the SF MPs engage in constituency work via their offices in Westminster?

My understanding is that it is a very nuanced position. They will take the salary and expenses, have a constituency office and write to Ministers etc., but they won't take their actual seat in the Commons.

Maybe someone with better knowledge could clarify.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

West Belfast is one of the most deprived areas in the UK, it has has a SF MP for a long, long time. It is very difficult to believe therefore that self-interest is the reason why they keep voting for one.

Can anyone tell us what exactly Sinn Fein have achieved in the last five years for anyone anywhere on this island? The only place they remain in any sort of power is on Dublin City Council which now has record levels of homelessness.

Gosh, do we really want to get into listing deprived areas with sitting MP's?

Chips Lovell

Jawgap wrote: »

I think in a 'normal' political environment this would hold true, but NI has yet to come even close to normalising.

Look at the subvention figures for Northern Ireland in recent years. They most certainly have delivered.

Jawgap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Look at the subvention figures for Northern Ireland in recent years. They most certainly have delivered.

Maybe in absolute terms of money going in - but what about in terms of social and economic uplift? In other words, what are they doing with all that money?

For example, economic inactivity in NI is the highest of the twelve UK regions (and of those deemed economically inactive 78% did not want a job while 22% did).

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gosh, do we really want to get into listing deprived areas with sitting MP's?

How many of those deprived areas have repeatedly elected the same MP from the same party, decade after decade?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

How many of those deprived areas have repeatedly elected the same MP from the same party, decade after decade?

They've had a variety of MP's from different parties and it has made no difference, you mean? I sure there are plenty.

RDM_83 again

I have not had a chance to vote in the north in a long time but one of the major reasons for me years ago was the rejection of following a Scottish style system of "free" university fees.
Basically without Hume the SDLP to me can be perceived as the party of middle to upper middle class nationalists, for example the SDLP person I am most familiar with (who is a rising star in the party) comes from a family with a lot of business interests (and AFAIK has a few himself now). In a more normal political situation I haven't got a big issue with voting for parties that are pro-business but the SDLP can't enact those type of policies anyway and I'm unsure if they are actually that pro-business in a wider sense.

TLDR - The same way the UUP lost out because they were considered "Big house" Unionism, the SDLP without Hume are "Big house" Nationalism

Persephone kindness

judeboy101 wrote: »

When you need help from unionists to get elected you don't have much of a nationalist identity.

Or in the case of the UK. That identity is split by class.

blanch152

judeboy101 wrote: »

When you need help from unionists to get elected you don't have much of a nationalist identity.

This is the sort of binary thinking that has made the North the basket-case that it is today.

Until there is a common mindset, there will never be a peaceful way forward.

NIMAN

Jawgap wrote: »

I think in a 'normal' political environment this would hold true, but NI has yet to come even close to normalising.

West Belfast has some of the most deprived wards in the UK and yet they keep voting in SF candidates as MPs - to me that suggests that something in addition to self-interest (or maybe in place of it) is operating when people make decisions about where to put their 'X.'

.

Similar to Derry.

The North had a Derryman in the DFM role for a decade and yet the city itself is starved of investment, infrastructure, jobs, facilities etc, whilst Belfast and surrounding towns flourished.

If you were to look at the cold hard facts, you'd have to say that he delivered very little for the NW in his time at the helm, yet the voters are pouring to SF in droves.

NIMAN

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the sort of binary thinking that has made the North the basket-case that it is today.

Until there is a common mindset, there will never be a peaceful way forward.

Couldn't agree more.

NI is sick and backward in that they vote their politicians in based on religion/perceived nationality first, instead of the important things like what they actually do and provide in terms of education, employment, infrastructure, health etc.

FrancieBrady

NIMAN wrote: »

Similar to Derry.

The North had a Derryman in the DFM role for a decade and yet the city itself is starved of investment, infrastructure, jobs, facilities etc, whilst Belfast and surrounding towns flourished.

If you were to look at the cold hard facts, you'd have to say that he delivered very little for the NW in his time at the helm, yet the voters are pouring to SF in droves.

How long did it have an SDLP MP?

NIMAN

Quite a while.
And they brought the NWs biggest employer to the city nearly 25 years ago, and they are still there, employing 1400.

The DFM is not the same as a Westminster MP though, you'd think they would have a bit more clout when it came to getting money invested in the provinces 2nd city.

ballsymchugh

i wonder if having seen the DUP get to be power brokers, how will that sit with some SF voters who may have voted SDLP in the past. if there is another election soon, could easily see Foyle going back to SDLP given that the margin was tiny, so the tories/dup majority is down to 1 (presuming the rest of the UK would vote the exact same way, but that won't happen)

FrancieBrady

NIMAN wrote: »

Quite a while.
And they brought the NWs biggest employer to the city nearly 25 years ago, and they are still there, employing 1400.

The DFM is not the same as a Westminster MP though, you'd think they would have a bit more clout when it came to getting money invested in the provinces 2nd city.

You have to go back 25 years?

So no money has been invested in Derry since McGuinness became DFM. I am sure you can show us that on paper?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have to go back 25 years?

So no money has been invested in Derry since McGuinness became DFM. I am sure you can show us that on paper?

Well it would be much easier for you to show what McGuinness has brought to Derry, other than tumbleweed, that is.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well it would be much easier for you to show what McGuinness has brought to Derry, other than tumbleweed, that is.

I didn't accuse him of anything. I asked a question of somebody who did.

NIMAN

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have to go back 25 years?

So no money has been invested in Derry since McGuinness became DFM. I am sure you can show us that on paper?

Of course money has been invested in Derry since MMcG started off as DFM.
But only a fraction of what has been spent elsewhere.

I'm not sure where exactly you'd find the figures for monies spent and jobs created per city per year, but I have no doubt whatsoever that Derry and the NW in general is lagging behind places east of the Bann badly.

FrancieBrady

NIMAN wrote: »

Of course money has been invested in Derry since MMcG started off as DFM.
But only a fraction of what has been spent elsewhere.

I'm not sure where exactly you'd find the figures for monies spent and jobs created per city per year, but I have no doubt whatsoever that Derry and the NW in general is lagging behind places east of the Bann badly.

Ahem: You haven't seen any figures but you know this and can unburden yourself about it being the fault of one politician?

NIMAN

Not one politician, the entire party has brought little to Derry !!

I'm from Derry and work in Derry, so have a rough idea of how many big jobs announcements have been made here in the last decade (clue, not many).

Although I have seen plenty in Belfast over the same period.

I have also seen road links that took 20yrs to get funding in Derry, a major roundabout that had to stop construction in the middle due to funding drying up, and another major road link that has been trying to go from 2 lane to 4 lane for a decade now, again no funding for at least another 3 years.

You think this would wash in Belfast? Not a chance, its had hundreds and hundreds of millions thrown at it, and just in recent years.

When you have a DFM from a city, and its the 2nd city, you'd expect more funding to come its way.

PS I'll not mention the spending on sports stadiums either.

FrancieBrady

NIMAN wrote: »

Not one politician, the entire party has brought little to Derry !!

I'm from Derry and work in Derry, so have a rough idea of how many big jobs announcements have been made here in the last decade (clue, not many).

Although I have seen plenty in Belfast over the same period.

I have also seen road links that took 20yrs to get funding in Derry, a major roundabout that had to stop construction in the middle due to funding drying up, and another major road link that has been trying to go from 2 lane to 4 lane for a decade now, again no funding for at least another 3 years.

You think this would wash in Belfast? Not a chance, its had hundreds and hundreds of millions thrown at it, and just in recent years.

When you have a DFM from a city, and its the 2nd city, you'd expect more funding to come its way.

PS I'll not mention the spending on sports stadiums either.

But isn't the other DFM in ****loads of trouble for favouring her own?

I wish you could find figures that illustrate your point which seems to be that somebody who is dependent on getting elected would impoverish his own constituency.