A House divided?
On Slugger O’Toole…Brian Walker takes a swipe at the BBC for unionist bias (I know!!! I know!!!!) in their treatment of that whole Martin McGuinness resignation story…the resignation being deemed less important than the arcane procedures whereby an ardent republican “is appointed” to a non-existant office by Mrs Windsor. Yet it is hard not to think that Walker is indirectly rebuking Sheldon and Alan for the prominence they gave to it in their own Slugger stories.
On the one hand we have Sheldon and Alan and on the other hand we have Walker. And Mick trying to steer a middle ground. Great stuff!.
But I was actually thinking that as every student knows….the monarchy does not look good when a light is shone upon it. It loses mystique. Likewise these parliamentary customs.
Those of us of a certain vintage will remember “The Chiltern Hundreds”, a 1950s drama….ironically written by William Douglas-Home….which is a farce about parliamentary procedure. Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is one of those offices that disqualifies the steward from Parliament.
We can also vaguely remember ……Viscount Stansgate….a young hereditary peer who was a socialist and wanted to resign the peerage as he preferred to be in the House of Commons. After a constitutional law case the right was established. Well done Viscount Stansgate!…….or Tony Benn as we now know and love him.
Of course Alec Doughlas-Home (brother??? of the author of The Chiltern Hundreds) and Quintin Hogg benefitted from this “right”.
When the Law……….and/or parliamentary custom and convention becomes an ass, then the Law (and custom and convention) is changed and to this extent Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are to be congratulated on making the British look like eejits. Thats an important role for republicans.
As I have stipulated, I am entirely neutral on the issue of taking seats at Westminster. The much more important issue is that nationalists/republicans have a choice at election time.
The combined voting strength of nationalism is about 42%. The object of the exercise is to increase it.
If Sinn Féin decided to take Westminster seats, its likely that they would lose some of its core voters……to the dissidents and refusniks. If SDLP decided to abstain from Westminster, it would lose some of its core voters to “letsgetalongerism”. There is no way that the two parties would have a voting strength of 42% if BOTH attended Westminster or if BOTH boycotted.
In my estimation …..there must always be a choice for nationalist voters. Firstly it is good for Democracy itself. But secondly it is a strength, not a weakness.
Keeping An Eye On the Czar of Russia 
An internal Slugger bunfight?
Oh bring it on!!! I’m buying my popcorn now
take a look at the threads.
they are posting on each others threads.
Dimblebys thread is about the BBC but comes across as the elder statesman of Slugger rebuking Baker and Alan.
Great stuff for Slugger watchers.
Personally I would favour the SDLP taking a principled stand and not attending Westminster, thereby recognising it for what it is: a foreign parliament in a foreign country.
I would have a lot more respect for the party if they formally rejected British jurisdiction in the manner of national legislatures, and campaigned jointly with Sinn Féin for the admittance of elected MPs from the north-east of the country to Dáil Éireann as non-voting members (a variation of the courtesy already extended to MEPs elected in Ireland, something therefore with existing precedent).
If citizens overseas are (maybe!) to be given limited voting rights then those campaigning for MPs from the north to be admitted to Dáil Éireann would have a firmer ground to fight on. Let the SDLP and SF unite on this issue at least and I’m sure both would gain some electoral success from it.
No matter how many soft Nationalist voters drop away to the Alliance Party or others.
I Certainly agree on the Dail issue.
Perhaps time for putting aside some party political rivalries and speaking with one voice on this issue alone? I think if it was placed in the context of the Nationalist community speaking as one through their elected representatives in this demand, and placed alongside Irish MEPs already observing Dáil sessions and extended voting rights for the Diaspora, it would find a sympathetic audience in the south. INM newspapers aside.
FG and Labour would oppose it for obvious reasons as would FF (in practice FF sunk the idea last time). What do yo mean about MEPs from the North? (Maybe they’ve been invited to the odd committee but I see no evidence they have any rights to speak there).
If the SDLP were to merge into SF resulting in a single party (SF) then the following benefits would flow:
*economies of scale in research. The new party could invest in better electoral polling analysis, focus group analysis ,etc
*SDLP and SF would no longer fight each other, to grow would require attracting voters from Alliance, Greens, Conserviatives, and Unionist parties. Thus the marginal voter is different. This allows nationalism to grow by removing internal competition between nationalist parties and moving the competitiion to the other parties.
*Better use of transfers and less splitting of the republican vote .
*Better more coherent unionist outreach.
Absolute nonsense.
The combined nationalist vote is 42%….the SDLP going out of existence or merging with SF reduces the nationalist numbers.
Arrant nonsense.
A single nationalist party would be able to reach out to the centre because the infighting between SDLP and SF would be no more.
Factual you are living in a fantasy world. The strength of nationalism is that it is two things….physical force and politics. There have been times when physical force has been…rightly in the ascendancy and other times when properly politics has been in the ascendant.
Historically it would be foolish to dismiss either strand…the enemy is the British and the unionists …not each other.
Hysterical partisans like yourself cannot see any merit in the SDLP.
You have a knee jerk reaction to everything that does you little credit and even less credit to the enlightened philosophy of republicanism.
In fairness, there are SDLP supporters who are just as vehemently dismissive of EVERYTHING that Sinn Fèin has ever done. I have little time for that attitude.
We are in a better place than in 1966. A lot of people contributed and even sacrificed in different ways.
And will continue to do so.
People…well intentioned people…have made mistakes. And will do so again.
@Factual,
Irish MEPs have been granted the courtesy several times of attending Dáil Éireann, though with no right to vote or contribute to debates. On some occasions however MEPs have been allowed to contribute directly to special Dáil debates on Europe. Likewise it was proposed that MEPs be granted permission to attend Oireachtas Committees, etc. Seanad Éireann has been addressed by MEPs a number of times under the privilege of standing orders since 2000 or 2001.
I would argue that northern MPs should be allowed to sit in Dáil Éireann as observer, non-voting, non-contributory members. As a start 🙂
I don’t see a lot of evidence of it – couldn’t see any news coverage. Could you link a story covering this?
From Seanad Éireann Standing Orders relative to Public Business 2011:
“57. With the approval of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and by leave of the Cathaoirleach, a member of the European Parliament for a constituency specified for the
time being in the European Parliament Elections Acts, may attend and be heard in the Seanad.”
Dáil Éireann, Standing Orders 2011:
“(8) The following may attend meetings of a Select or Joint Committee appointed pursuant to this Standing Order, for the purposes of the functions set out in paragraph (5) and may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions and amendments:
(a) Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland, including Northern Ireland…”
All the other cases are public record if you search them out (MEPs attending Dáil debates on Europe or special addresses, etc.).
What I suggest is simply taking existing practice and expanding it to allowing MPs to sit in An Dáil as observers (non-voting, non-contributing) and to address or sit on select Oireachtas Committees in same capacity.
FJH is right – pluralism with increase overall representation, and not the weird, normally unionist obsession with a unified party. I really hope FF come up here soon.
The fear has always been that a collapse in the SDLP will do some serious damage to nationalism. It is still a worry.
And this is why SDLP is the prime target on “letsgetalongerist” websites.
Sinn Fein were good enough to stand aside for SDLP in South Belfast, ensuring they got the seat. The SDLP however put narrow partisan interests ahead of the nationalist people by standing in FST. This will not be forgotten by nationalists north of the border.
“Good enough”…….????.sheesh.
In terms of what SDLP have to offer. What do SDLP have to offer that SF do not offer already in a stronger way?
There are two thinks about which I like to have sensible chats with sensible people. One is Football and the other is Politics. Obviously a good conversation depends on nuanced disagreement. Nothing worse that a partisan football fan joining a conversation and the only thing they ever say is “my team will beat your team 7-0 cos we are brilliant so we are”.
That is a low level of discourse.
I like this board to be open and to have particular appeal to people who take republican/socialist/nationalist politics seriously and are open to the nuances.
So Factual try and raise your game a bit. Try not o be so childishly partisan.
Hi FJH, thats fine. What about the question though? What do SDLP have to offer that SF do not offer already in a stronger way?
Raise your game!!!
SF and the SDLP are shaping up to be a good imitation of FF and FG by defining themselves almost completely in relation to what they did during the ‘war’ but having virtually no policy differences. If there is a need for 2 Nat parties then perhaps there is some space for a (non violent) party that opposes the current political arrangements.
There are FF voters who will never vote FG and vice versa. And you are right here Sammy there are SF and SDLP voters who would never change their vote. It is now in a lot of cases a question of attitude as much as policy.
As a Politics.ie scumbag (well, based on the view from the delusion from Lord Fealty’s high saddle) I think the south is crying out for a party of some principlle, one unstained by the banana republic politics of the past. SF are already stained, by printer ink of all things, and have been shown to be poor on anything other than opposition hypebole (a piece of pee that falls apart in reality, as the LDs showed in GB) but in the SDLP there is a party that has had it’s place in one of the greatest parliaments in the universe for 4 decades or so.
From what I see, the (often naive) admiration of Westminster is second only to the frustration at the Dail in many southerners and their participation could be a foothold for the SDLP to organise fully down Mexico way.
One of the reason Irish nationalists and Irish republicans don’t like SDLP is that it is a six county party, Paul.
Factual,
I’ve missed you!
Seriously, flesh out your points!
BD
Factual…..its a bit presumptious of you to think that the only people worthy of the name “Irish nationalists and Irish Republicans” are narrow ninded immature bigots like yourself.