NI elections-looks like Trimble wipeout and South Belfast goes nationalist

Maoltuile

ishmael whale wrote:

About the best summing up of the result comes from Newton Emerson’s Portadown News last week.

http://www.portadownnews.com/02May05.htm
“One of Northern Ireland’s best-known institutions is set to disappear, it has emerged. ‘Sure It’s Only a Few Eejits Ruining it for the Rest of Us.’ has been a part of everyday life here for over 35 years, however from next week this much-loved staple will no longer be available.

Emerson should stick to the more visual gags, which he's *very* good at indeed. His more verbose stuff tends to flop (his Irish Times column gets very tired, very fast).

hawkmoon269

irish1 wrote:

These stats can't be ignored, Sinn Fein represent the majority of Nationalists and have been consistently growing their vote. So while posters come on here and bash Sinn Fein at every opportunity the majority of Nationalists who actually live in Northern Ireland support Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein can and will deliver peace, it is now time that the DUP respected the wishes of the people of this Island and embraced the Good Friday Agreement.

This is a great day for Sinn Fein and a great day for Nationalists, it is time Bertie Ahern and Michael McDowell listened to the people of Northern Ireland and respected the Mandate they have given Sinn Fein.

DUP will never, ever, ever accept the GFA. Fact. Anyone who thinks they will, is sadly deluded.

This is most emphatically NOT a great day for Nationalists.

I am a Nationalist, and you do not speak for me.

Today is a bad day for legitimate, consitutional nationalism.

SF/IRA people are traitors and scumbags. {mod edit to remove unfounded accusation} - it's as simple and plain as that to anyone who has eyes to see.

AmenToThat

oscarBravo wrote:

I'll repeat a point I made in the other thread: I see no reason to respect a point of view just because a majority of a particular group of people express it.

Well under those circumstances you cant expect those who voted for SF to give a damn about your views on certain issues and take your point of view on board and weigh up the pluses and nagatives of your opinion if you dont respect them and their mandate.
Its a two way street, seems to me you only want the traffic driving one way on it though.

AmenToThat

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I am a Nationalist, and you do not speak for me.

No but he does speak for the majority of Northern nationalists who bothered to turn up at polling booths yesterday and lets not forget the majority would have been even bigger if it hadnt been for those nice DUP/UUP types who like to go for casual 'walks' during the summer months ticking the box beside the name of SDLP leader today.
He said he felt there was nothing wrong with members of the unionist community voting for him (which of course there isnt and on one level it is good to see) but lets not forget some of those who would have voted for him will be of the above mentioned 'walking variety' and who knows maybe even worse!
Yet Durkan sees no problem with them voting for him but objects to SF types.
Hypocrisy pure and simple
Mind you theres plenty of that to go round on this little island.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

And this a good thing?

Not imo, I was just pointing out how things stand. I do believe it shows that Trimble has suffered because after he had received his huge mandate he failed to deliver the deal with Sinn Fein that would have seen an end to the IRA

mycroft wrote:

SF's increase was marginal to say the least I recal you saying the a similar dip in support during a recent opinion poll was within the margin of error. One could argue that SF failed to capitilise better on the SDLP's lack of real leadership coming into this, and it's gains are disappointing in this respect.

That was in an opinion poll mycroft not a general election, and imo given the huge negative media coverage of SF they have done very well by continuing to increase their share of the vote.

mycroft wrote:

And the DUP have noticed a more significant rise........

Certainly and now this must help bring peace to the people who have voted for them.

mycroft wrote:

So let me get this straight, we can't critise SF because they're more popular than the SDLP? By that rational, FF are above reproach, as are labour and george bush....

Where did I say you can't critise them??? What I believe is that people should respect the beliefs of the people who actually live in the North on both sides.

mycroft wrote:

Um, how? You can proclaim this as a victory for SF, I look at this as a defeat for moderate unionism. But now the largest party in the north refuses to enter power sharing with SF, and their superior success means they're unlikely to change their pov because they'll see their success as a mandate to continue their policy.

On the ground this looks like a great day, but for the actual reality it means the peace process is worse off than ever before. Please explain how it is different.

IMO The DUP will enter powersharing with SF in time, the majority of people voted for the GFA and these people want peace, imo the IRA will cease all activities then the DUP will have to move or they will face the same results that have met Mr Trimble this weekend. Do remember how close we were to a deal before xmas imo the DUP will move but the IRA will have to move first

Sinn Fein continue to represent the majority of nationalists and they have grown their vote if thats not a victory I don't know what it is.

boidey

Sinn Fein have increased their vote despite the large media coverage of the McCartney murder and the Northern Bank Robbery along with the bashing from McDowell etc. The SDLP have lost out to Sinn Fein but still have 3 seats.

These stats can't be ignored, Sinn Fein represent the majority of Nationalists and have been consistently growing their vote. So while posters come on here and bash Sinn Fein at every opportunity the majority of Nationalists who actually live in Northern Ireland support Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein can and will deliver peace, it is now time that the DUP respected the wishes of the people of this Island and embraced the Good Friday Agreement.

This is a great day for Sinn Fein and a great day for Nationalists, it is time Bertie Ahern and Michael McDowell listened to the people of Northern Ireland and respected the Mandate they have given Sinn Fein.

WTF?? SF deliver peace? The political party with the military wing that passing the time with widespread gangsterism. It may have been a good day for SF but I'm more inclined to celebrate the fact that my MP is not someone who saw nothing wrong with the shooting a mother of 10 children in the back of the head.
Do ya remember a previous electoral slogan of SF that went
"one people, one voice" ? Shades of a certain italian facist. SF has about the same respect for democracy.
Maybe I'll come round to your way of thinking but right now
I'll decline

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Well, it is up to each individual. If you think it is OK to describe the voters who elect an MP as somewhat contemptible or deservering of pity, that is entirely your choice. I see that attitude as someone who does not believe in the democratic will of the people.

I don't see why. I haven't suggested that the elected candidates be prevented in any way from taking office or representing their electorate.

There's nothing in the definition of democracy that says I have to restrain from criticising what I see as a stupid choice. If someone does something I see as stupid, I call it. Jim McDaid driving the wrong way down a motorway while blotto was stupid and contemptible, but I don't see anyone being criticised for saying so.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

There is a difference between the action of a political opposite who might not like the way the vote went and someone who does not believe that certain people deserve to exercise their rights without them being subjected to a slagging for having the audacity to vote for someone that the slagger does not agree with.

I would cheerfully slag off anyone who voted for Dana. I don't see that this is undemocratic of me. If something strikes me as a severe error of judgement, I don't see why I should hold back from saying so just because a large number of people make the same error.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What about West Belfast with 70.5% of voters who some here view with contempt or pity? Do those people deserve this slagging?

I don't see why I should be forced to respect the choice of someone who chooses something I find repugnant.

I notice no-one addressed my BNP analogy.

oscarBravo

AmenToThat wrote:

Well under those circumstances you cant expect those who voted for SF to give a damn about your views on certain issues and take your point of view on board and weigh up the pluses and nagatives of your opinion if you dont respect them and their mandate.

What, the SF supporters on this board are suddenly going to stop accepting and respecting my opinions? I'm not sure how I'll cope with the drastic effect that will have on my lifestyle.

AmenToThat wrote:

Its a two way street, seems to me you only want the traffic driving one way on it though.

Where have I suggested that anyone should be required to care about my opinions? I don't express views here for the purpose of influencing SF voters.

Let me be clear: I don't expect anyone to show any more respect for my opinion than I do for anyone else's. If you think my opinion is stupid and contemptible, fine. It's not like you thinking that is likely to change my mind.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't see why. I haven't suggested that the elected candidates be prevented in any way from taking office or representing their electorate.

There's nothing in the definition of democracy that says I have to restrain from criticising what I see as a stupid choice. If someone does something I see as stupid, I call it. Jim McDaid driving the wrong way down a motorway while blotto was stupid and contemptible, but I don't see anyone being criticised for saying so. I would cheerfully slag off anyone who voted for Dana. I don't see that this is undemocratic of me. If something strikes me as a severe error of judgement, I don't see why I should hold back from saying so just because a large number of people make the same error. I don't see why I should be forced to respect the choice of someone who chooses something I find repugnant.

As I have said, that is your choice and nobody is denying that you have the right to make that choice. If it makes you feel better about yourself then go ahead, slag and generalise the people you disagree with. To me, that reveals a lot about you.

I notice no-one addressed my BNP analogy.

What exactly is the analogy?

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If it makes you feel better about yourself then go ahead, slag and generalise the people you disagree with.

You should read more carefully. I criticised the choice they made, not the people who made it. I'm not making generalisations about them; I'm criticising what I see as a stupid thing they've done.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

To me, that reveals a lot about you.

And you accuse me of generalising? You creatively misread my posts, and now you think you know me?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What exactly is the analogy?

There are none so blind as them that will not see.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

You should read more carefully. I criticised the choice they made, not the people who made it. I'm not making generalisations about them; I'm criticising what I see as a stupid thing they've done.

You jump into the thread when I ask Sand about his slagging of the voters. You claim there is nothing wrong with it then you come out with

'I would cheerfully slag off anyone who voted for Dana. I don't see that this is undemocratic of me.'

I'm not making generalisations about them; I'm criticising what I see as a stupid thing they've done. And you accuse me of generalising? You creatively misread my posts, and now you think you know me?

Englighten me again. You jump into the thread to challenge me when I point out to Sand that his slagging of the people who vote for a party that he does not like. You defended the right for someone to do this and go on to state

'I would cheerfully slag off anyone who voted for Dana. I don't see that this is undemocratic of me.'

I haven't got the faintest idea of who you are but I can only go on your public posting on matters and in this matter, you are quite happy to slag off anyone who voted for someone you do not agree with.

There are none so blind as them that will not see.

Not interested in the topic at hand then?

hawkmoon269

hawkmoon269 wrote:

DUP will never, ever, ever accept the GFA. Fact. Anyone who thinks they will, is sadly deluded.

This is most emphatically NOT a great day for Nationalists.

I am a Nationalist, and you do not speak for me.

Today is a bad day for legitimate, consitutional nationalism.

SF/IRA people are traitors and scumbags. {mod edit to remove unfounded accusation} - it's as simple and plain as that to anyone who has eyes to see.

hawkmoon,I've removed your specefic allegations in your post as you would have to prove them ie that Adams and McGuinness have personally murdered people.you would have been correct if you stated they supported the murder of people or that they supported people who had murdered others. But specefic accuasions relating to they them selves carrying out murder are to my knowledge unfounded and if you have any evidence of that, you'd best either present the conviction here or if there is none and you still have evidence, then I'd suggest you go with it to the appropriate authorities.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You jump into the thread when I ask Sand about his slagging of the voters. You claim there is nothing wrong with it then you come out with

'I would cheerfully slag off anyone who voted for Dana. I don't see that this is undemocratic of me.'

sigh. Allow me to rephrase that one sentence that you manage to pounce on as opposed to the view I expressed in every other post in this thread: "I would cheerfully slag off a decision by anyone to vote for Dana."

Now that the diversionary tactics are out of the way, remind me why I should be forced to respect what I see as a stupid, shortsighted, retrograde action just because a lot of people do it?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Englighten me again. You jump into the thread to challenge me when I point out to Sand that his slagging of the people who vote for a party that he does not like. You defended the right for someone to do this and go on to state

'I would cheerfully slag off anyone who voted for Dana. I don't see that this is undemocratic of me.'

Couldn't find another example of what you decided to think I mean, so you quote one minor misphrase twice? That's what I mean by creative.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I haven't got the faintest idea of who you are but I can only go on your public posting on matters and in this matter, you are quite happy to slag off anyone who voted for someone you do not agree with.

And you're quite happy to ignore a point I actually made because it's easier to jump up and down about a point you think I made. Now that I've clarified, want to try again?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not interested in the topic at hand then?

Whatever. When you feel like answering the points I've raised instead of dancing on the head of a pin, come back to me.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

remind me why I should be forced to respect what I see as a stupid, shortsighted, retrograde action just because a lot of people do it?

Well you should respect their right to come to that decision, whilst not respecting the decision or rather disagreeing with the decision itself.
Thats what you are doing isnt it?

MT

I find the attempts by SF apologists on this thread to portray this election result as a great victory for the party of violence as risible. In the months prior to this election Republican 'activists' up here were bragging about the 7 or 8 seats they'd easily take. The 'traitors' in the SDLP would be cleansed from the electoral map with what would be yet another stunning increase in the SF share of the vote. Indeed, Mitchel McLoughlin informed us all not long before the election that SF would emerge as the largest party in the north.

The result - SF's huge leap amounted to only one extra seat. Rather than collapse, the SDLP retained three seats seeing off in particular a much humbled McLoughlin in Foyle. Mark Durkan didn't so much role over and die as SF and their intimidating activists in the constituency had seemed to predict but rather thrashed the Republican hopeful by a good 5000 votes or so.

And as for SF emerging as the largest party - that honour went to the equally vile DUP. They garnered 33% of the vote in contrast to SF’s 24% - so another case of McLoughlin inserting his foot in his mouth. And then let’s look at momentum, SF had an increase in their vote of a measly 2.6%. Not a patch on the whopping boast for Protestant Jihad… sorry, the DUP which garnered an increase of 11%. So, it’s clear that the extremists in SF have not become the largest party, haven’t taken 7/8 seats and haven’t increased their share of the vote by anywhere near as much as the other pack of extremists in the DUP. I’d say a rather disappointing election, all in all, for SF given their arrogant predictions earlier this year.

Finally, considering that the three SDLP seats are now held by severe critics of Republican violence and criminality it’s likely that SF will struggle to make any future inroads into the North’s Nationalist vote.

cdebru

IMO

it is far more likely that this result will lead to an overall agreement

the DUP want power sharing and they know that they have to share power with SF
SF want power sharing and know that the IRA has to go away before the DUP will share power
Any deal struck between SF and the DUP is far more likely to stick than a deal between any other combination of parties
the DUP will not have a more hardline unionist party sniping at them and how they sold out the union likewise SF will not have a more nationalist/republican party sniping at them
I reckon a new deal will be done followed by fresh elections to the assembly which will allow the DUP to say the unionist people have endorsed the deal done by them and increase their assembly representation
this would also suit SF who probably feel they could increase their assembly seats as well

A Dub in Glasgo

I’d say a rather disappointing election, all in all, for SF given their arrogant predictions earlier this year.

Finally, considering that the three SDLP seats are now held by severe critics of Republican violence and criminality it’s likely that SF will struggle to make any future inroads into the North’s Nationalist vote.

It is very unlikely the South Belfast will be retained by the SDLP in the future. The DUP will sweep up the remaining Unionist votes to get the seat next time.

SF increased their seat tally by 25%

SF increased their share of the vote by 2.6%

SDLP seat tally has stayed the same

SDLP share of the vote went down by 3.5%

Looking at the SDLP seats
South Belfast: A 3.9% majority with the SDLP up 1.4%. DUP (2nd) up 28.4%. Unionists unlikely to let the SDLP in again. SF (4th) vote up 1.4%
Foyle: A 13.1% majority with the SDLP vote down 3.9%. SF up 6.6%
South Down: A 19% majority with the SDLP vote down 1.6%. SF up 6.1%

As can be seen, SF are the main challengers for 2 of those seats and their vote is rising whilest the SDLP vote is decreasing. The other seat will probably go to the DUP next time.

Looking at the SF seats
West Belfast: A 55.9% majority. SF share up 4.4%. SDLP share down 4.3%
Mid Ulster: A 24.2% majority. SF share down 3.5%. DUP (2nd) share down 7.6%. SDLP (3rd) share up 0.6%
West Tyrone: A 11.5% majority. SF share down 1.9%. Ind. (2nd) share up 27.4%. SDLP (4th) share down 19.6%
Fermanagh & South Tyrone: A 9.4% majority. SF share up 4.1%. DUP (2nd) share up 28.8%. SDLP (4th) share down 3.9%
Newry & Armagh: A 16.2% majority. SF share up 10.2%. SDLP (2nd) share down 12.2%

There is only 1 seat were the SDLP are main challengers and their vote went down substantially with a substantial increase in the SF vote. The only anomoly is the Independent in West Tyrone and if he joins the SDLP, they may have a challenge there.

To imply that this election has been disappointing for SF is madness. With the almost constant SF bashing in the media during the last 6 months, I am surprised at how well SF have done. Nationalist voters obviously see SF as the best bet to take them forward to settlement.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Not imo, I was just pointing out how things stand. I do believe it shows that Trimble has suffered because after he had received his huge mandate he failed to deliver the deal with Sinn Fein that would have seen an end to the IRA

Trimble made promises to his electorate about IRA disarming pre implimentation of the full GFA. Trimble failed because of SF/IRA stalling and shifting of goalposts.

That was in an opinion poll mycroft not a general election, and imo given the huge negative media coverage of SF they have done very well by continuing to increase their share of the vote.

And as pointed out by MT the rise is moderately insignificant. While I'll admit theres a rise, you snorted, and said the fall was within the margin of error, such a small rise, is pretty medicore.

Certainly and now this must help bring peace to the people who have voted for them.

I'm sorry do you listen to the other side? The DUP have harden their stance are a much less flexible negotiators than the UUP. They've made statements about not entering into power sharing with SF.

Where did I say you can't critise them??? What I believe is that people should respect the beliefs of the people who actually live in the North on both sides.

Irish1 wrote:

Sinn Fein represent the majority of Nationalists and have been consistently growing their vote. So while posters come on here and bash Sinn Fein at every opportunity

The implication of above is that we should not critise SF.

IMO The DUP will enter powersharing with SF in time, the majority of people voted for the GFA and these people want peace, imo the IRA will cease all activities then the DUP will have to move or they will face the same results that have met Mr Trimble this weekend. Do remember how close we were to a deal before xmas imo the DUP will move but the IRA will have to move first

And this flies in the face of everything thats happened in the past few months. Combined with the extra scalps the DUP garnered this election and IRA extra curicular activity these past few months, theres no reason to think the DUP are going to be more reasonable and open to talks, furthermore the IRA's continued criminality demostrates they're no where near voluntarily winding down.

Sinn Fein continue to represent the majority of nationalists and they have grown their vote if thats not a victory I don't know what it is.

You went into the election the embattled underdogs fighting "british government smears" your prefered position; you've come away from this without significant gains, despite the fact that your natural rivals had no leadership coming into this election and struggling to find a voice. You've walked away, now facing a rejuvinated DUP and you lack on their side one of the unionist architects of the peace process. And this is a good day?

MT

The move in the wake of this election by party apologists to claim it as a huge boost for Sinn Fein is as much an illusory con trick as their posturing after the Meath by-election. Just as was the case then, Sinn Fein’s share of the vote went up due to an over all fall in voting. The small increase of 2.6% in their vote was not due to winning over converts from other parties but the result of getting out their core vote when many moderate voters failed to turn up. Exactly the same thing occurred in Meath where the number of votes cast for SF didn’t increase but the percentage did due to a considerable drop in turn-out elsewhere.

So the bragging we’ll now endure from many supporters is based upon nothing more than the illusory increase the party experienced earlier this year during the Dail by-election. As for winning people over to their view point and strengthening the support for their arguments that will never happen as long as the appeal solely to their own voters and ignore everyone else.

It’s interesting that the subdued reaction of some of the Republicans up here yesterday is possibly an indication that they realise the party will experience little further growth while tailoring their approach to suit - and only canvassing in - the Movement’s diehard fiefdoms. I reckon the trail off in the increase in the SF vote in recent years has now found its ceiling of about 25% of the total share. And this 1 in 4 status of the party is hardly a sweeping endorsement of Gerry and the gang.

irish1 wrote:

These stats can't be ignored, Sinn Fein represent the majority of Nationalists and have been consistently growing their vote. So while posters come on here and bash Sinn Fein at every opportunity the majority of Nationalists who actually live in Northern Ireland support Sinn Fein.

You have no way of knowing who the majority of Nationalists that live in Northern Ireland support. Given the low turn out of about 60% they could just as easily support the SDLP more than Sinn Fein. Indeed, given that moderates have stayed away from the poles in increasing numbers up here in recent years it’s much more likely that on a full turn-out it’d be the SDLP that would romp home as winners on the Nationalist side of the divide. You’d be much closer to the reality if you rephrased your claim by stating that it is a majority of extreme sectarian Nationalists in NI that support SF.

irish1 wrote:

Sinn Fein can and will deliver peace, it is now time that the DUP respected the wishes of the people of this Island and embraced the Good Friday Agreement.

Sinn Fein have had more than a decade to deliver an end to IRA violence so on what basis do claim they will deliver peace? Based on the party’s record I’d say they either can’t or won’t. And when will SF respect the wishes of the people of this island and embrace the Good Friday Agreement and bring an end to the IRA, its violence and its criminality? You see, both the extremes in NI are as bad as each other when it comes to picking and choosing what popular wishes they will and will not respect.

irish1 wrote:

… it is time Bertie Ahern and Michael McDowell listened to the people of Northern Ireland and respected the Mandate they have given Sinn Fein.

You could say exactly the same thing for the much larger mandate of the DUP. So which side do we respect? Is it to be the party of IRA violence or the party of Protestant Jihad? If I were either of Bert or Mike I’d choose to ignore the ravings of both of them.

Cork

[/QUOTE]
it is time Bertie Ahern and Michael McDowell listened to the people of Northern Ireland and respected the Mandate they have given Sinn Fein..[/QUOTE]

And SF also need to listen and abandon their links to criminal organisations like the IRA.

What date did SF 100% become a constitional republican party?

MT

This piece on the election result from Professor Paul Bew analyses the gloomy prospects emanating from DUP/Sinn Fein dominence. The reference to Yeat's poem seems to encapsulate this troubling moment in the North's history.

Political future of North lies at the mercy of SF and DUP

AT last it is over. The Fat Lady has sung - or more accurately as it is Ulster, the Fat Gospel Singer has sung.

The political centre in Northern Ireland has taken the anticipated hit - in the official unionist camp, a huge hit with the loss of David Trimble's seat. The SDLP's blow was lessened with leader Mark Durkan holding his seat in Derry.

However, the political future of the North now lies, even more than before, at the tender mercy of Sinn Fein and the DUP.

The celebrated WB Yeats poem 'The Second Coming' captured just such a moment: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; . . .The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Yeats asked the terrifying question: "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

There is now a question which transcends in significance the about the Union - what does it mean for the future of democracy in this island? But does a mood of gloomy Yeatsean apocalypticism engulf the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Northern Ireland Office or the State Department?

There are a few uneasy souls, it is true, within these portals. The dominant mood is more upbeat - 'no problem, buddy'. Some important figures, like News of the World reporters of old, are in the process of making their excuses and leaving, but otherwise the cry is 'business as usual'.

What happened yesterday is the function of two associated developments. Firstly, the communal polarisation which first displayed itself in Sinn Fein's 2001 general election victory over the SDLP and the substantial inroads made then by the DUP into the UUP vote.

But it is also the function of an official cast of mind which has been operative since at least 2001, that it was not worth expending chips to protect the SDLP and UUP, and that the real deal to be done in Northern Ireland was the deal between the two extremes.

Tony Blair was, in fact, the last to be convinced of the viability of such a strategy. In summer 2003 he postponed the Assembly election because he could not convince himself that a Sinn Fein/DUP government was a realistic prospect.

In the autumn, worn down by contrary advice in London, Dublin and Washington, Blair gave way.

He called the election "to nothing" in the face of a massive unionist belief (60pc in the polls) that such an election was unnecessary. The very act of calling it demonstrated that Sinn Fein now drove the agenda. David Trimble lost the leadership of unionist politics.

Far more profoundly, the polling evidence from the unionist community began to show a growing reluctance to share power with Sinn Fein. A reluctance that was, of course, fuelled by headlines about Stormont-gate spying scandals, bank robberies and murder.

The Good Friday Agreement institutions remain down; we're approaching the third anniversary of their collapse.

But, it will be said, with some justice, that the DUP and Sinn Fein came close to a deal last December - the so-called Comprehensive Agreement published by the two governments. This is seen by many as clear evidence that the two parties will put together a deal over the next two years.

Perhaps. But last year the governments managed to grind the DUP down during the negotiations. They succeeded in creating within the DUP a Trimble-like focus on the issue of decommissioning. The issue of IRA disbandment was not even raised.

Senior Irish sources have now repeatedly opined that Britain did not have a serious anti-criminality agenda.

Despite all this the DUP gave way on their demand for a lengthy decontamination period. The parties agreed to fudge the crucial issue of devolution of policing and justice. This means that Sinn Fein controls one of these two ministries.

Will it be possible to pull the same trick again? Will the DUP, having eliminated the opposition within unionism, be even more pliant? That, as Martin Mansergh made clear last week, is the hope in Irish government circles.

But if the DUP clings to its precondition of "full disbandment" of the IRA, as stated in the Belfast Newsletter, May 1, 2005, and Martin McGuinness sticks to his position of the same day in The Irish Times, that there will be no IRA disbandment, it is difficult to see a deal.

The Sinn Fein leadership appears in various moods to be offering a divorce - pseudo-divorce, some say - with the IRA. They appear to offer also a substantial but not total decommissioning and a 'new mode'.

But, at this point, this new mode in which the IRA reiterates its respect for the peaceful values of the Good Friday Agreement - offered, after all, to David Trimble in 2003 - appears to leave the command structure, mission statement and recruitment activities of a possibly slimmed-down organisation in place.

Tellingly, the British government appears to be comfortable with continued recruitment, though Justice Minister Michael McDowell has set his face against it.

Then there is the key question of the human quality of any such deal. How much stability will it bring?

Seamus Mallon has pointed out that the Comprehensive Agreement has already vandalised the Good Friday Agreement by ripping out the consensual cross-community procedures by which he and David Trimble were elected in 1998 to the co-premiership of Northern Ireland.

This was a move of huge symbolic significance. Would a DUP/Sinn Fein executive really reduce the source of conflict in the North? Like it or not, this is the terrain we are now on.

The Good Friday Agreement project, as it existed in 1998, no longer exists. This was clear even before Tony Blair was weakened by the judgment of the British electorate in a way which will encourage all the local politicians to hold back.

Professor Paul Bew is Professor of Politics at Queen's University Belfast.

Irish Independent (7/5/05)

cdebru

MT wrote:

The move in the wake of this election by party apologists to claim it as a huge boost for Sinn Fein is as much an illusory con trick as their posturing after the Meath by-election. Just as was the case then, Sinn Fein’s share of the vote went up due to an over all fall in voting. The small increase of 2.6% in their vote was not due to winning over converts from other parties but the result of getting out their core vote when many moderate voters failed to turn up. Exactly the same thing occurred in Meath where the number of votes cast for SF didn’t increase but the percentage did due to a considerable drop in turn-out elsewhere.

So the bragging we’ll now endure from many supporters is based upon nothing more than the illusory increase the party experienced earlier this year during the Dail by-election. As for winning people over to their view point and strengthening the support for their arguments that will never happen as long as the appeal solely to their own voters and ignore everyone else.

It’s interesting that the subdued reaction of some of the Republicans up here yesterday is possibly an indication that they realise the party will experience little further growth while tailoring their approach to suit - and only canvassing in - the Movement’s diehard fiefdoms. I reckon the trail off in the increase in the SF vote in recent years has now found its ceiling of about 25% of the total share. And this 1 in 4 status of the party is hardly a sweeping endorsement of Gerry and the gang.




You have no way of knowing who the majority of Nationalists that live in Northern Ireland support. Given the low turn out of about 60% they could just as easily support the SDLP more than Sinn Fein. Indeed, given that moderates have stayed away from the poles in increasing numbers up here in recent years it’s much more likely that on a full turn-out it’d be the SDLP that would romp home as winners on the Nationalist side of the divide. You’d be much closer to the reality if you rephrased your claim by stating that it is a majority of extreme sectarian Nationalists in NI that support SF.



Sinn Fein have had more than a decade to deliver an end to IRA violence so on what basis do claim they will deliver peace? Based on the party’s record I’d say they either can’t or won’t. And when will SF respect the wishes of the people of this island and embrace the Good Friday Agreement and bring an end to the IRA, its violence and its criminality? You see, both the extremes in NI are as bad as each other when it comes to picking and choosing what popular wishes they will and will not respect.



You could say exactly the same thing for the much larger mandate of the DUP. So which side do we respect? Is it to be the party of IRA violence or the party of Protestant Jihad? If I were either of Bert or Mike I’d choose to ignore the ravings of both of them.

of course what you are choosing to ignore is that the reason SFs number of votes has remained static is that in areas where their seats are viewed as safe ie mid ulster west belfast west tyrone there was an overall drop in turnout each of these 3 canidates each recieved about 3000 votes less than in 2001 even though their share of the vote remained the same or increased

in constituencies where they were vying for seats or were not that safe
ie fermanagh south tyrone foyle south down newry armagh their number of votes actually increased substantially


in unionist majority constituencies their vote numbers remained static in some rose in some and fell in some

the figures dispute your contention that SF did not win over any converts


http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/

Victor

Earthman wrote:

By the way steering through the meleé that is Northern Ireland politics and looking at the votes cast this time, theres no question but the "green" vote is growing.I've no doubt although others here will disagree with me, that within a decade or two, both camps there will be close to neck and neck.

But it will take a decade or two at least for any real shift in percentages (seats will come and go), demographics are against nationalism at the moment.

I suspect the only gain available to nationalism is possibly North Belfast, depending on boundary changes.

cdebru

MT wrote:

This piece on the election result from Professor Paul Bew analyses the gloomy prospects emanating from DUP/Sinn Fein dominence. The reference to Yeat's poem seems to encapsulate this troubling moment in the North's history.

that would be paul bew advisor to David trimble hardly shocking that he has a gloomy analysis considering the beating the UUP received from the DUP

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

Well you should respect their right to come to that decision, whilst not respecting the decision or rather disagreeing with the decision itself.
Thats what you are doing isnt it?

Yes. I see no inconsistency between vehemently defending someone's right to vote for whomever they wish, and vehemently castigating them for voting for candidates I find repugnant.

That's democracy.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

in constituencies where they were vying for seats or were not that safe
ie fermanagh south tyrone foyle south down newry armagh their number of votes actually increased substantially

In South Belfast according to Bríd Rodgers on the BBC yesterday, the SF vote was down nearly 1200 votes when compared to the 2003 Assembly elections.
Their share of the vote there falling from 13% to 9%, the figures are here .

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

In South Belfast according to Bríd Rodgers on the BBC yesterday, the SF vote was down nearly 1200 votes when compared to the 2003 Assembly elections.
Their share of the vote there falling from 13% to 9%, the figures are here .

in unionist majority constituencies their vote numbers remained static in some rose in some and fell in some

what is your point earthman
sinn fein where never in contention for south belfast and read that quote from my post how does your post contradict anything i said

actually it is 1051 votes from 2003
and 8 from 2001

of course Alasdair McDonnell lost 1270 votes since 2001 but still got elected

MT

cdebru wrote:

of course what you are choosing to ignore is that the reason SFs number of votes has remained static is that in areas where their seats are viewed as safe ie mid ulster west belfast west tyrone there was an overall drop in turnout each of these 3 canidates each recieved about 3000 votes less than in 2001 even though their share of the vote remained the same or increased

What you are choosing not to recognise is that the Sinn Fein vote may very well have fallen due to voters making a concious decision not to give them an X as opposed to not turning up because their desired SF candidate would make it home safely anyway. There is every possibility - and I'd say the most likely explanation in light of recent events - that the 3000 lost votes were due to a switch of support or apathy inspired by the party's recent behaviour - each way it's a real loss of support. Again, both scenarios are very different from noting voting for your candidate because s/he's safe.

Furthermore, there was a clear shift of votes from SF to the SDLP in south Belfast despite extensive canvassing by Alex Maskey and an appeal by Gerry Adams to nationalists urging them not to waste their votes on Alasdair McDonnell.

cdebru wrote:

in unionist majority constituencies their vote numbers remained static in some rose in some and fell in some

Interestingly, DUP supporters have given the same reasoning as yourself for this occurence. They claim that in the constituencies where the DUP was victorious the result was so much of a foregone conclusion that turnout was much lower than might have been expected in a competitive contest. Remarkable, to see how the same spin is employed by both extremes.

cdebru wrote:

the figures dispute your contention that SF did not win over any converts

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you once again. The most likely cause of the slight increase in the SF vote was the lower turnout resulting from greater apathy amongst SDLP voters. The effect was to accentuate the apparent gains of SF much as took place in Meath.

If anyone can gloat about a swing from one party to another it's probably the DUP with their much greater 11% gain. However, even here this was mostly due to apathy in UUP areas.

The aim of the extremes throughout this campaign was to foster apathy in the middle while bringing out their core votes at each end of the political spectrum. Hence, the low key campaign by both to suppress the vote. The air of inevitability surrounding what was seen by many as merely a consolidation election for the DUP and Sinn Fein also turned moderate voters off. As is now clear the strategy worked much more effectively for the DUP than SF.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

what is your point earthman
sinn fein where never in contention for south belfast and read that quote from my post how does your post contradict anything i said

Was I meant to contradict anything you said?
But seeing as we are looking for something,I'll ask why the SDLP vote isnt being taken by SF in that constituency? It would seem in fact to be the other way round.

of course Alasdair McDonnell lost 1270 votes since 2001 but still got elected

which would be understandable given that the turnout was 7000 higher in 2001

Whereas the turn out between the 2003 and 2005 elections was actually about the same meaning that Maskeys loss of a 1000 votes in 2005 was of more significance than comparing the loss of 1200 votes by mcdonnell in 2005 with 2001 when the 2001 election had 7000 more voters.
What would you think have contributed to the loss between 03 and 05 in maskeys case,it wasnt turnout as both were the same.
The sdlp vote went up in that constituency by 3000 plus votes between 2003 and 2005 on the same approximate turnout.

cdebru

MT wrote:

What you are choosing not to recognise is that the Sinn Fein vote may very well have fallen due to voters making a concious decision not to give them an X as opposed to not turning up because their desired SF candidate would make it home safely anyway. There is every possibility - and I'd say the most likely explanation in light of recent events - that the 3000 lost votes were due to a switch of support or apathy inspired by the party's recent behaviour - each way it's a real loss of support. Again, both scenarios are very different from noting voting for your candidate because s/he's safe.




Furthermore, there was a clear shift of votes from SF to the SDLP in south Belfast despite extensive canvassing by Alex Maskey and an appeal by Gerry Adams to nationalists urging them not to waste their votes on Alasdair McDonnell.



Interestingly, DUP supporters have given the same reasoning as yourself for this occurence. They claim that in the constituencies where the DUP was victorious the result was so much of a foregone conclusion that turnout was much lower than might have been expected in a competitive contest. Remarkable, to see how the same spin is employed by both extremes.



I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you once again. The most likely cause of the slight increase in the SF vote was the lower turnout resulting from greater apathy amongst SDLP voters. The effect was to accentuate the apparent gains of SF much as took place in Meath.

If anyone can gloat about a swing from one party to another it's probably the DUP with their much greater 11% gain. However, even here this was mostly due to apathy in UUP areas.

The aim of the extremes throughout this campaign was to foster apathy in the middle while bringing out their core votes at each end of the political spectrum. Hence, the low key campaign by both to suppress the vote. The air of inevitability surrounding what was seen by many as merely a consolidation election for the DUP and Sinn Fein also turned moderate voters off. As is now clear the strategy worked much more effectively for the DUP than SF.

of course the evidence shows that the sinn fein share of the vote stayed static in the 3 constituencies in which they were viewed as being safe

in the constituency were they were vunerable fermanagh south tyrone the SF vote was up on 2001 and 2003

in constituencies that they were in contention the SF vote was up

now your suggestion that the loss of votes but static share in the 3 safe constituencies is due to recent events is illogical the only logical conclusion is that some people did not bother to vote because the result was a foregone conclusion the fact that the share of the vote is fairly static shows that not just SF voters realised this
how else do you explain the rise in the SF vote where they were in contention
were the people in these constituencies unaware of recent events had news of the3 northern bank robbery not spread to foyle or south down or newry armagh

the same explanation from the DUP is not surprising it is commonsense


alex maskeys vote drop could be a consequence of the mccartney murder but we will find out for sure when the local election results are out