1918 General Election in Ireland
Nicholas Whyte
election in Ireland on the Northern Ireland Elections site at
http://explorers.whyte.com/1918.htm - included are total votes for each
party in each constituency, names of the winning candidates, and
tallies for 32-county Ireland, 9-county Ulster and 6-county future
Northern Ireland. As always comments and suggestions for improvement
are welcome.
And Happy Christmas to everyone!
Nicholas Whyte
--
Nicholas Whyte, Centre for European Policy Studies
CEPS web-site: http://www.ceps.be/
Northern Ireland elections site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Paul Linehan
Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> I have published a first go at a results page for the 1918 general
> election in Ireland on the Northern Ireland Elections site at
> http://explorers.whyte.com/1918.htm - included are total votes for each
> party in each constituency, names of the winning candidates, and
> tallies for 32-county Ireland, 9-county Ulster and 6-county future
> Northern Ireland. As always comments and suggestions for improvement
> are welcome.
Interesting enough. I do take issue with one thing though. You write
"so we will never know what the true level of popular support for the
party was", which is, to a certain extent, fair enough - I would just
like to see an addition to this phrase, something along the lines of
"though there is no doubt that SF were in the majority on the island".
But that's a minor quibble.
Another point is that there were two Arthur Griffiths on the Shinner
side - typo? two different people? stood twice?
Tyrone North West and Cavan East.
Oh oh, looked again. Seems that Eamon de Valera and Liam Mellows also
stood twice or had sons with the same name or......?
> And Happy Christmas to everyone!
And the same to you.
Paul...
> Nicholas Whyte
supe...@my-deja.com
But there are a few issues with this. The last time the island voted
was the European elections in June 1999 NOT 1994.
You mention the referenda on the "Good Friday Agreement". Firstly the
official title does not include any reference to "Good Friday".
Secondly, you fail to mention that while the people of N.I. voted on
the full Agreement, the people of the Republic voted on two issues
only; 1: Changing the terms of articles 2+3 in relation to this
country's claim to N.I.
2: Allowing the government to take part in cross-boarder authorities.
The people of the Republic DID NOT vote on ythe whole Agreement.
With 25 seats uncontested, it's fair to say that not only do we not
know the level of suppot for SF, we do not know the full level of
support for ANY party. It would help to show what level of support SF
would have needed in the 25 constituencies to get an overall majority
(my my reckoning it would be over 70%). From this (and subsequent
elections in these constituences), you can clearly show that the
majority of the people of the island did not support S.F.
However the really big ommission from your page is that there is no
mention of the Labour Party. The Labour movement was massivly important
in the second decade of the last century in BOTH parts of the island.
Even by the early 1920's when their influence was on the wane they were
still getting over 20% of the vote.
Unfortunatly in the 1918 the party same under severe intimidation by
Republicans not to field candidates in the south. You have got to
consider how Labour supporters voted when they did not have their own
party contesting seats. All the evidence (both anecdotal and evidential
based on subsequent elections) suggests that the vast majority (esp. in
the south) ended up voting for S.F.
This puts a completly different shading on the ACTUAL level of support
for S.F., and consequently on the percentage who favoured total
separation from the rest of the British Isles. One of the more accurate
projections I've seen suggests that in 1918 about 30-35% supported
separation, about 30% wanted continuation of the existing union (these
were not just in Northern Ireland as for Unionists in the south clearly
shows. The balance of 35%-40% were in favour of greater self-
detemination either on a partitioned or all-island basis.
Well done nevertheless,
Keith
In article <91q0bl$l67$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
David Boothroyd
pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:> Nicholas Whyte
In all these cases the same candidate was elected for two
constituencies. If they had wanted to take their seat they would have
had to choose which to sit for, but as all the Sinn Feiners held to the
abstentionist policy they were able to continue.
Another point to note is that all the 'Labour' candidates in Belfast at
this election were unofficial - they were candidates of the Labour
Representative Committee, which later reformed as the Belfast Labour
Party and even later became the Northern Ireland Labour Party.
Affiliation to the Labour Party in London was still several years away
in 1918.
Incidentally the details of the STV vote transfers in Dublin University
in the 1918 election does not appear to have been published anywhere
(except in some contemporary newspapers). I have a copy though.
Paul Linehan
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> With 25 seats uncontested, it's fair to say that not only do we not
> know the level of suppot for SF, we do not know the full level of
> support for ANY party. It would help to show what level of support SF
> would have needed in the 25 constituencies to get an overall majority
> (my my reckoning it would be over 70%). From this (and subsequent
> elections in these constituences), you can clearly show that the
> majority of the people of the island did not support S.F.
Are you *_REALLY_* that stupid?
SF would have only needed 30000 votes to get an overall majority.
Given that a ballpark figure for a good Shinner seat victory in
contested seats was 10000, they would have only needed votes from 3 of
the 25 uncontested seats.
You *_do_* know that the reason that they were uncontested is that
they were Shinner bastions - or do you think that it was a cunning
plot by Unionists to hand seats to the Shinners?
You are just making a laughing stock of yourself by trying to pretend
that the majority of people on the island (and the vast majority of
the Irish people on the island) didn't support SF in the 1918
election.
Paul...
Nicholas Whyte
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Sorry Nick,
> But there are a few issues with this. The last time the island voted
> was the European elections in June 1999 NOT 1994.
The last time the whole island voted *on the same day* was in 1994. In
1999 the North voted on Thursday 10 June and the South on Friday 11
June.
> You mention the referenda on the "Good Friday Agreement". Firstly the
> official title does not include any reference to "Good Friday".
> Secondly, you fail to mention that while the people of N.I. voted on
> the full Agreement, the people of the Republic voted on two issues
> only; 1: Changing the terms of articles 2+3 in relation to this
> country's claim to N.I.
> 2: Allowing the government to take part in cross-boarder authorities.
> The people of the Republic DID NOT vote on ythe whole Agreement.
Mere pedantry. It's quite clear that *politically* the effect of the
1998 referendum votes, North and South, was to ratify the agreement
popularly known as the "Good Friday Agreement"; had the people of the
Republic failed to ratify the Agreement, it would have fallen (at least
in that form). Their approval was as you point out legally necessary to
set up the institutions of governent, but I personally believe that
that the 1998 votes are the closest we are going to get to an "act of
self-determination" by the people of the whole island, certainly closer
than was the 1918 election.
> With 25 seats uncontested, it's fair to say that not only do we not
> know the level of suppot for SF, we do not know the full level of
> support for ANY party. It would help to show what level of support SF
> would have needed in the 25 constituencies to get an overall majority
> (my my reckoning it would be over 70%). From this (and subsequent
> elections in these constituences), you can clearly show that the
> majority of the people of the island did not support S.F.
It's a difficult question to answer, because we don't have figures for
the electorates, let alone the likey turnouts, in the uncontested 25.
An estimate would go as follows:
Total votes cast in 80 contested constituencies: 1015515
Theoretical total of votes that might have been cast in 25 uncontested
constituencies: 1015515/80*25 = 317348
Theoretical total of votes cast in all 105 constituencies:
1015515+317348 = 1332863
Theoretical majority of votes across whole of Ireland: 1332863/2 =
666432
SF's actual vote total in 80 contested constituencies: 476087
Extra votes needed by SF to have majority of all theoretical votes in
Ireland: 666432-476087 = 190344
Percentage of theoretical votes won in 25 uncontested constituencies
needed to be won by Sinn Fein: 190344/317348 = 59.98%
This doesn't look at all unfeasible to me; SF got more than this
percentage in 32 of the 58 contested constituencies they won.
However since the question is firmly theoretical, until someone can
come up with a rigorous academic study (and I think I do remember
seeing one once, many years ago) I don't intend to cover it on the site.
> However the really big ommission from your page is that there is no
> mention of the Labour Party. The Labour movement was massivly
important
> in the second decade of the last century in BOTH parts of the island.
> Even by the early 1920's when their influence was on the wane they
were
> still getting over 20% of the vote.
>
> Unfortunatly in the 1918 the party same under severe intimidation by
> Republicans not to field candidates in the south. You have got to
> consider how Labour supporters voted when they did not have their own
> party contesting seats. All the evidence (both anecdotal and
evidential
> based on subsequent elections) suggests that the vast majority (esp.
in
> the south) ended up voting for S.F.
Well, tough. The page as such covers the 1918 election. Labour did
dismally in the 1918 election no doubt partly for the reasons you
mention. I cover election results (including, elsewhere on the site,
the unimpressive performance of Labour in elections in the future
Northern Ireland in 1885-1910, and in Northern Ireland House of Commons
and Westminster elections since then). For what it's worth, I am not
impressed by the apologias of the Labour movement for their failure to
gain power either North or South; seems like it was everyone else's
fault but their own.
> This puts a completly different shading on the ACTUAL level of support
> for S.F., and consequently on the percentage who favoured total
> separation from the rest of the British Isles. One of the more
accurate
> projections I've seen suggests that in 1918 about 30-35% supported
> separation, about 30% wanted continuation of the existing union (these
> were not just in Northern Ireland as for Unionists in the south
clearly
> shows. The balance of 35%-40% were in favour of greater self-
> detemination either on a partitioned or all-island basis.
I think you use the word "accurate" in this paragraph as a synonym
for "agreeable"! How on earth can any projection, 82 years later, be
demonstrably "accurate" about public opinion in 1918?
Did SF have a popular majority in 1918? In terms of votes cast, no. In
terms of popular support, quite possibly. Was this a mandate for
independence for the whole island? Given the broad coalition of
interests that supported SF in 1918, probably not. If it were such a
mandate, would it be binding on the Irish people 82 years later?
Certainly not.
Public opinion changes. It's quite clear to me that whatever the nature
of Sinn Fein's support in 1918 (when I agree that there was probably
not a mandate for independence), by 1921, largely due to the actions of
the British forces, popular consent to British rule in the 26 counties
(and large chunks of the 6 counties) had completely dissolved. The 1921
Treaty was an imperfect reflection of the popular will, but as close as
one was likely to get at the time, and pretty good by the standards
being applied elsewhere in Europe at that point (look at what happened
to Hungary, for example). Times have moved on, and the 1998 Agreement
is much better than the 1921 Treaty in every respect.
> Well done nevertheless,
Well, thanks!
Nicholas
supe...@my-deja.com
pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
>
>
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > With 25 seats uncontested, it's fair to say that not only do we not
> > know the level of suppot for SF, we do not know the full level of
> > support for ANY party. It would help to show what level of support
SF
> > would have needed in the 25 constituencies to get an overall
majority
> > (my my reckoning it would be over 70%). From this (and subsequent
> > elections in these constituences), you can clearly show that the
> > majority of the people of the island did not support S.F.
>
> Are you *_REALLY_* that stupid?
>
> SF would have only needed 30000 votes to get an overall majority.
You clearly ARE that stupid. If the other econstituencies HAD been
contested, SF would have needed to get their vote share to be
CONSIDERABLY higher than 50% to pull the total figure over 50% on an
all island basis. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!
How high that figure is, is open to debate, I believe it to be about
70%, because (and Nickolas obviously forgets this) almost all the
uncontested seats were in the rural areas where the avg. electorate
(based on he 1922 election) was considerably lower than in the rest of
the island.
>
> Given that a ballpark figure for a good Shinner seat victory in
> contested seats was 10000, they would have only needed votes from 3 of
> the 25 uncontested seats.
>
READ THIS AGAIN, THEN THINK ABOUT IT, BEFORE YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK
LIKE AN EVEN BIGGER TWAT.
> You *_do_* know that the reason that they were uncontested is that
> they were Shinner bastions - or do you think that it was a cunning
> plot by Unionists to hand seats to the Shinners?
>
There is no single reason why the seats were uncontests. Some were down
to intimidation. Some were unwinnable by anyone other than SF, but in
most cases it was a case that the IPP was in turmoil after WW1, and
were unable to field candidates. Can I suggest you read about Redmond
and his party before you post again on this subject.
> You are just making a laughing stock of yourself by trying to pretend
> that the majority of people on the island (and the vast majority of
> the Irish people on the island)
I'd love a definition of the difference on this one, because it soulds
amazingly like the language that the Nazis used to take away the German
nationality of minorities a couple of decades later.
> didn't support SF in the 1918
> election.
>
It's absolutly clear the majority DID NOT support SF. If you don't
belive the polls, then tell us why,
Keith
> Paul...
westprog 2000
> the majority of people on the island (and the vast majority of
> the Irish people on the island)
NB - the difference between a majority, and a vast majority - and the
people on the island, and the Irish people on the island.
How do you tell which are the Irish people? Well, religion is one way,
but that would be bigoted. Must be politics, so. IOW, the way they
vote disqualifies them from being Irish - hence, the vast majority.
Why not just say that anyone who voted the wrong way was automatically
non-Irish? That would give 100% of Irish people voting for the right
cause.
--
J/ (Looking Backward)
SOTW: "California Girls" - The Beach Boys
supe...@my-deja.com
Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> In article <91qa1c$s4p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Sorry Nick,
> > But there are a few issues with this. The last time the island voted
> > was the European elections in June 1999 NOT 1994.
>
> The last time the whole island voted *on the same day* was in 1994. In
> 1999 the North voted on Thursday 10 June and the South on Friday 11
> June.
>
OK point taken.
> > You mention the referenda on the "Good Friday Agreement". Firstly
the
> > official title does not include any reference to "Good Friday".
> > Secondly, you fail to mention that while the people of N.I. voted on
> > the full Agreement, the people of the Republic voted on two issues
> > only; 1: Changing the terms of articles 2+3 in relation to this
> > country's claim to N.I.
> > 2: Allowing the government to take part in cross-boarder
authorities.
> > The people of the Republic DID NOT vote on the whole Agreement.
>
> Mere pedantry. It's quite clear that *politically* the effect of the
> 1998 referendum votes, North and South, was to ratify the agreement
> popularly known as the "Good Friday Agreement";
Popularly known by whom? Any legislation consequent to the Agreement
does not use the term "Good Friday".
> had the people of the
> Republic failed to ratify the Agreement, it would have fallen (at
least
> in that form).
Open to ebate. The Agreement only stated that the Republic was to have
a referendum on the isues outlined, it did not say the people had to
ratify it. I accept this is pedantry, but the pedantics of things like
decommissioning is why the agreement collapsed.
>Their approval was as you point out legally necessary to
> set up the institutions of governent, but I personally believe that
> that the 1998 votes are the closest we are going to get to an "act of
> self-determination" by the people of the whole island, certainly
closer
> than was the 1918 election.
>
No dispute there.
> > With 25 seats uncontested, it's fair to say that not only do we not
> > know the level of suppot for SF, we do not know the full level of
> > support for ANY party. It would help to show what level of support
SF
> > would have needed in the 25 constituencies to get an overall
majority
> > (my my reckoning it would be over 70%). From this (and subsequent
> > elections in these constituences), you can clearly show that the
> > majority of the people of the island did not support S.F.
>
> It's a difficult question to answer, because we don't have figures for
> the electorates, let alone the likey turnouts, in the uncontested 25.
> An estimate would go as follows:
You can do a good guesstimate of the size of the electorates based on
the later elections in the south.
>
> Total votes cast in 80 contested constituencies: 1015515
>
> Theoretical total of votes that might have been cast in 25 uncontested
> constituencies: 1015515/80*25 = 317348
>
> Theoretical total of votes cast in all 105 constituencies:
> 1015515+317348 = 1332863
>
> Theoretical majority of votes across whole of Ireland: 1332863/2 =
> 666432
>
> SF's actual vote total in 80 contested constituencies: 476087
>
> Extra votes needed by SF to have majority of all theoretical votes in
> Ireland: 666432-476087 = 190344
>
> Percentage of theoretical votes won in 25 uncontested constituencies
> needed to be won by Sinn Fein: 190344/317348 = 59.98%
>
Fatal error here, you have missed the fact that most of the
constituences where there was no Contest were rural constituencies, and
in those days thee was less effort to balance electorates. Do the sums
based on the 1922 figures and you'll see what I mean.
> This doesn't look at all unfeasible to me; SF got more than this
> percentage in 32 of the 58 contested constituencies they won.
>
The actual % is between 66% and 70%, and that is a much rarer feat.
> However since the question is firmly theoretical, until someone can
> come up with a rigorous academic study (and I think I do remember
> seeing one once, many years ago) I don't intend to cover it on the
site.
>
I think I recall the same thing. I think the number they were coming up
with was either 48.9% or 49.8%. I know that they had to do so real
strange stuff to get the number to exceed 50%.
> > However the really big ommission from your page is that there is no
> > mention of the Labour Party. The Labour movement was massivly
> important
> > in the second decade of the last century in BOTH parts of the
island.
> > Even by the early 1920's when their influence was on the wane they
> were
> > still getting over 20% of the vote.
> >
> > Unfortunatly in the 1918 the party same under severe intimidation by
> > Republicans not to field candidates in the south. You have got to
> > consider how Labour supporters voted when they did not have their
own
> > party contesting seats. All the evidence (both anecdotal and
> evidential
> > based on subsequent elections) suggests that the vast majority (esp.
> in
> > the south) ended up voting for S.F.
>
> Well, tough. The page as such covers the 1918 election. Labour did
> dismally in the 1918 election no doubt partly for the reasons you
> mention. I cover election results (including, elsewhere on the site,
> the unimpressive performance of Labour in elections in the future
> Northern Ireland in 1885-1910, and in Northern Ireland House of
Commons
> and Westminster elections since then).
Aha two things here. Labour doid not Contest the 1918 election in the
south. In the 192 election they got over 20%, if this is not worthy of
a mention, then there's a big gap on the page. As for N.I., after the
south left the U.K., Labour in N.I. became dominated by Catholics
(gradually at first). Back in 1918, Labour in N.I. was a much more
religeously balanced entity.
>
> > This puts a completly different shading on the ACTUAL level of
support
> > for S.F., and consequently on the percentage who favoured total
> > separation from the rest of the British Isles. One of the more
> accurate
> > projections I've seen suggests that in 1918 about 30-35% supported
> > separation, about 30% wanted continuation of the existing union
(these
> > were not just in Northern Ireland as for Unionists in the south
> clearly
> > shows. The balance of 35%-40% were in favour of greater self-
> > detemination either on a partitioned or all-island basis.
>
> I think you use the word "accurate" in this paragraph as a synonym
> for "agreeable"! How on earth can any projection, 82 years later, be
> demonstrably "accurate" about public opinion in 1918?
Well the pro-union figure is already up around the 30%, and that before
you consider how Unionist candidates were intimidated into withdrawing
from Unionists bastions like Clontarf (Which had return a Unionist just
a few years earlier).
>
> Did SF have a popular majority in 1918? In terms of votes cast, no.
Agreed.
> In
> terms of popular support, quite possibly.
Not when you consider the Labour vote.
> Was this a mandate for
> independence for the whole island? Given the broad coalition of
> interests that supported SF in 1918, probably not.
Agreed.
> If it were such a
> mandate, would it be binding on the Irish people 82 years later?
> Certainly not.
>
Absolutly.
> Public opinion changes. It's quite clear to me that whatever the
nature
> of Sinn Fein's support in 1918 (when I agree that there was probably
> not a mandate for independence), by 1921, largely due to the actions
of
> the British forces, popular consent to British rule in the 26 counties
> (and large chunks of the 6 counties) had completely dissolved. The
1921
> Treaty was an imperfect reflection of the popular will, but as close
as
> one was likely to get at the time, and pretty good by the standards
> being applied elsewhere in Europe at that point (look at what happened
> to Hungary, for example).
I wouldn't necessarily agreed with al of this but the one thing that
everyone can agree on is that the Treaty had the support of the
majority of the people in both countries. This cannot be disputed by
anyone.
> Times have moved on, and the 1998 Agreement
> is much better than the 1921 Treaty in every respect.
>
Except of course that it failed within two years and had to be
superceeded by the Agreement signed by Cowan and Mandelson, which may
not have had a popular mandate that the Belfast Agreement had but at
least it didn't have the same hype or deceit around it. Whether that
Agrement works or (my suspicion) fails within the next few months is
open to debate. Come back this time next year!
Keith
David Boothroyd
Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> In article <91qa1c$s4p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > With 25 seats uncontested, it's fair to say that not only do we not
> > know the level of suppot for SF, we do not know the full level of
> > support for ANY party. It would help to show what level of support
SF
> > would have needed in the 25 constituencies to get an overall
majority
> > (my my reckoning it would be over 70%). From this (and subsequent
> > elections in these constituences), you can clearly show that the
> > majority of the people of the island did not support S.F.
>
> It's a difficult question to answer, because we don't have figures for
> the electorates, let alone the likey turnouts, in the uncontested 25.
We certainly do have figures for the electorates: They were published
in several contemporary books. I'll have a look tonight.
The official reason for the Irish Labour Party not contesting the 1918
election was that it was time for Ireland to determine its future
status as a nation. That is one of those reasons that makes one think
the real reason was that most of the voters the party was hoping to
attract were intending to vote Sinn Fein. If Labour was strong they
would have insisted on voting Labour.
If there was a substantial Labour vote in Ireland in 1918, there would
have been unofficial candidates; there were none. Ireland was in any
case hard going for the Labour Party: unlike Britain there were not
many large industries and areas dominated by one industry, and most of
the working class were in agricultural areas. The Irish Labour Party
had only been formed in 1912.
Nicholas Whyte
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91qh18$1qb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> > Total votes cast in 80 contested constituencies: 1015515
> >
> > Theoretical total of votes that might have been cast in 25
uncontested
> > constituencies: 1015515/80*25 = 317348
> >
> > Theoretical total of votes cast in all 105 constituencies:
> > 1015515+317348 = 1332863
> >
> > Theoretical majority of votes across whole of Ireland: 1332863/2 =
> > 666432
> >
> > SF's actual vote total in 80 contested constituencies: 476087
> >
> > Extra votes needed by SF to have majority of all theoretical votes
in
> > Ireland: 666432-476087 = 190344
> >
> > Percentage of theoretical votes won in 25 uncontested constituencies
> > needed to be won by Sinn Fein: 190344/317348 = 59.98%
> >
>
> Fatal error here, you have missed the fact that most of the
> constituences where there was no Contest were rural constituencies,
and
> in those days thee was less effort to balance electorates. Do the sums
> based on the 1922 figures and you'll see what I mean.
I had a look at the figures available to me for the 1918 election. (for
those coming in in the middle of this, they are on the Web at
http://explorers.whyte.com/1918.htm ) I did make one mistake in the
above calculation: there were actually only 78 contested
*constituencies* since Cork City and Dublin University were two-
seaters. One should probably not include Cork city or the three
University constituencies in the calculation anyway, since they were
rather atypical in size.
The 25 uncontested constituencies were: Carlow; Cavan East; Cavan West;
Clare East; Clare West; Cork county East; Cork county Mid; Cork county
North; Cork county North-East; Cork county South; Cork county South-
East; Cork county West; Galway East; Kerry East; Kerry North; Kerry
South; Kerry West; Kilkenny North; King's County; Limerick City;
Limerick county West; Mayo South; Roscommon North; Tipperary Mid;
Tipperary North. Unquestionably all rural apart from Limerick City.
Of the 74 single-seat territorial constituencies contested in 1918, the
average number of votes cast was 13218.
There were nine where the votes cast were fewer than 10,000, as
follows: Waterford city (urban, 9346); Dublin city Clontarf (urban,
9202); Mayo North (rural, 9190); Meath South (rural, 9051); Kildare
North (rural, 8701); Kildare South (rural, 8649); Dublin city St
James's (urban, 7812); Wicklow West (rural, 7609) and Armagh South
(rural, 4424 - which looks absurdly low). So three of the nine single-
seat territorial constituencies with the lowest turnout in 1918 were
urban.
The top nine single-seat territorial constituencies in terms of turnout
in 1918 were all rural. These were Louth (21285), Leitrim (20807),
Queen's County (19932), Tyrone South (18565), Tyrone North-East
(18342), Tyrone North-West (18138), Wexford North (17351), Waterford
county (17107), and Wexford South (16940).
So on the face of it, I don't see evidence from the 1918 election at
least that rural constituencies were much smaller then urban ones; I
tried doing averages but got lost in the detail, however my suspicion
is that there's only a few hundred in it.
> > This doesn't look at all unfeasible to me; SF got more than this
> > percentage in 32 of the 58 contested constituencies they won.
> >
>
> The actual % is between 66% and 70%, and that is a much rarer feat.
Revising my projections as follows:
Average number of votes cast in the 74 single-seat territorial
constituencies contested in 1918 was 13218.07.
Likely total of votes cast in 25 uncontested constituencies had they
been contested: 13218.07*25 = 330452 to nearest whole number.
Theoretical total of votes cast in all 103 constituencies for 105 MPs:
1015515+330452 = 1345967
Theoretical majority of votes across whole of Ireland: 1345967/2 =
672983 rounding up.
SF's actual vote total in 78 contested constituencies electing 80 MPs:
476087
Extra votes needed by SF to have majority of all theoretical votes in
Ireland: 672983-476087 = 196896
Percentage of theoretical votes won in 25 uncontested constituencies
needed to be won by Sinn Fein: 196896/330452 = 59.58%, not very
different from my first calculation.
Number of constituencies where SF vote exceeded that percentage: 35
(including Cork City and National University).
Median SF vote in the 45 contested single-seat territorial
constituencies which they won: 67.5%, rather higher than 59.58% and
right in the middle of the 66%-70% range that you describe as "a much
rarer feat".
Actually if you want to bump up the required SF percentage to 66% of
the vote (still less than their median vote in the contested
constituencies they won), you have to reduce the average theoretical
turnout in each of the 25 uncontested constituencies to 7917, ie less
than all but three of the 74 actually contested single-seat
constituencies. Now it's possible that the 25 uncontested
constituencies happened to have unusually low electorates, but I remain
to be convinced. No doubt David Boothroyd will settle this one.
> > However since the question is firmly theoretical, until someone can
> > come up with a rigorous academic study (and I think I do remember
> > seeing one once, many years ago) I don't intend to cover it on the
> site.
> >
>
> I think I recall the same thing. I think the number they were coming
up
> with was either 48.9% or 49.8%. I know that they had to do so real
> strange stuff to get the number to exceed 50%.
Show me the reference.
> Aha two things here. Labour doid not Contest the 1918 election in the
> south. In the 192 election they got over 20%, if this is not worthy of
> a mention, then there's a big gap on the page. As for N.I., after the
> south left the U.K., Labour in N.I. became dominated by Catholics
> (gradually at first). Back in 1918, Labour in N.I. was a much more
> religeously balanced entity.
I guess the "192" election is the 1923 election (where there were also
a number of uncontested rural seats which would certainly have
depressed the overall Labour percentage). When, if ever, I write
something about the later Dail elections I will of course cover the
Labour party's performance in those elections. It is not a priority for
me right now; keeping relatively current with Northern Ireland
elections, with occasional forays afield in time and space, is enough
for me. If you want a web-site that covers the 1923 election, why not
write one yourself?
I am rather surprised by your comment that Labour in N.I. became
dominated by Catholics, because the leading personalities I associate
with the NILP - David Bleakley, Harry Midgeley, Vivian Simpson - were
or are Protestants. In any case it has nothing to do with the 1918
election.
supe...@my-deja.com
> in several contemporary books. I'll have a look tonight.
>
Excellent, can we have them for ALL constituncies as turn-out also
needs to be considered.
Who would have insisted on voting Labour? The voters wern't given a
choice in the south because the party withdrew due (mainly) to
intimidation. Where the intimidation didn't work and Labour did put
candidates forward (in what became N.I.), it did quite well getting
between 17% and 26%. Given that the Labour movement was stronger in the
south than in the north, I'm being quite conservative saying that the
party would have attracted 20% on an all island basis.
>
> If there was a substantial Labour vote in Ireland in 1918, there would
> have been unofficial candidates; there were none.
In normal circumstances maybe, but remember the era, and what was going
on here, intimidation of ALL non-republican candidates was rife.
Ireland was in any
> case hard going for the Labour Party: unlike Britain there were not
> many large industries and areas dominated by one industry, and most of
> the working class were in agricultural areas. The Irish Labour Party
> had only been formed in 1912.
>
The Labour Party I'm refferring to is the Irish Labour Party, which
achieved >20% at the next election in this country only 4 years later,
Keith
Nicholas Whyte
Nicholas Whyte <nwh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> So on the face of it, I don't see evidence from the 1918 election at
> least that rural constituencies were much smaller then urban ones; I
> tried doing averages but got lost in the detail, however my suspicion
> is that there's only a few hundred in it.
Sorted - if the urban constituencies are Dublin, Belfast, Waterford, and
Londonderry (Cork excluded as a two-seater, Limerick uncontested) then
the average turnout for those 18 seats is 12496, compared to an average
for the 56 rural seats of 13450.
David Boothroyd
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91qmj3$76t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The official reason for the Irish Labour Party not contesting the
1918
> > election was that it was time for Ireland to determine its future
> > status as a nation. That is one of those reasons that makes one
think
> > the real reason was that most of the voters the party was hoping to
> > attract were intending to vote Sinn Fein. If Labour was strong they
> > would have insisted on voting Labour.
>
> Who would have insisted on voting Labour? The voters wern't given a
> choice in the south because the party withdrew due (mainly) to
> intimidation.
The party didn't so much 'withdraw' as decide not to fight the election.
To withdraw it would have had to have been intending to fight.
> Where the intimidation didn't work and Labour did put
> candidates forward (in what became N.I.), it did quite well getting
> between 17% and 26%.
That was a completely different movement. The Labour Representative
Committee had no connection to the Irish Labour Party.
> Given that the Labour movement was stronger in the
> south than in the north, I'm being quite conservative saying that the
> party would have attracted 20% on an all island basis.
Saying that the Irish Labour Party would have polled 20% if Sinn Fein
had not stood is a bit like saying that if you had four legs, you would
be a dog. The fact is that Sinn Fein was so massively popular among
the sort of voters who might have voted Labour that it was in no
position to stand.
> > Ireland was in any
> > case hard going for the Labour Party: unlike Britain there were not
> > many large industries and areas dominated by one industry, and most
of
> > the working class were in agricultural areas. The Irish Labour Party
> > had only been formed in 1912.
> >
>
> The Labour Party I'm refferring to is the Irish Labour Party, which
> achieved >20% at the next election in this country only 4 years later,
But this was a Republican party!
Nicholas Whyte
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3a40985a...@news.esat.net>,
> pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:> Nicholas Whyte
> <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have published a first go at a results page for the 1918 general
> > > election in Ireland on the Northern Ireland Elections site at
> > > http://explorers.whyte.com/1918.htm
> >
> > side - typo? two different people? stood twice?
> > Tyrone North West and Cavan East.
> >
> > Oh oh, looked again. Seems that Eamon de Valera and Liam Mellows
also
> > stood twice or had sons with the same name or......?
>
> In all these cases the same candidate was elected for two
> constituencies. If they had wanted to take their seat they would have
> had to choose which to sit for, but as all the Sinn Feiners held to
the
> abstentionist policy they were able to continue.
Perhaps, David, you can tell us the last time someone was elected for
more than one seat in a UK general election? I know that there was one
independent Unionist returned for both West and South Belfast for the NI
House of Commons in 1925...
> Incidentally the details of the STV vote transfers in Dublin
University
> in the 1918 election does not appear to have been published anywhere
> (except in some contemporary newspapers). I have a copy though.
Will you publish them?
Nicholas
--
Nicholas Whyte, Centre for European Policy Studies
CEPS web-site: http://www.ceps.be/
Northern Ireland elections site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
mmcdon
For the most part I've been sitting back and laughing at the thread as
Keith, with his usual mixture of pedantry, inaccuracy, bias and fallacy,
attempts to squabble with some big-league election nerds (sorry Nicholas
and David) about election trivia.
Most of his assertions have been thoroughly dealt with already, but nobody
seems to have picked up on this little gem:
supe...@my-deja.com wrote in article <91qign$3a1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > You *_do_* know that the reason that they were uncontested is that
> > they were Shinner bastions - or do you think that it was a cunning
> > plot by Unionists to hand seats to the Shinners?
> >
>
> There is no single reason why the seats were uncontests. Some were down
> to intimidation. Some were unwinnable by anyone other than SF, but in
> most cases it was a case that the IPP was in turmoil after WW1, and
> were unable to field candidates. Can I suggest you read about Redmond
> and his party before you post again on this subject.
The uncontested seats included the seven rural Cork constituencies, two in
Tipperary, four in Kerry, two in Limerick and two in Clare, along with one
each in Galway and Mayo. Are you seriously suggesting that these areas
would not have returned big Sinn Fein majorities?
As for intimidation, that particular line amuses me somewhat. Sinn Fein was
fighting the election with 1,300 of its activists in prison, along with
most of its leaders, its director of elections and many of its candidates.
SF had its meetings banned, its manifesto censored and its election
literature suppressed. The national press was almost unanimously deeply
hostile to the party. Meanwhile the election was being run by appointees of
the British government. Yet we have the spectacle of Keith ranting about
Sinn Fein intimidating its opponents. What would you call the above?
Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill
supe...@my-deja.com
I would say ALL would have returned SF MPs, BUT to say that they would
have been big SF majorities is pure speculation. Let's not forget there
are still parts of Cork where FG still outpoll FF, suggesting that a
IPP vs SF battle could have been a very close Contest. It's also worth
remembering that Cork was the county with the 4th highest Protestant
population at that time. Not exactly prime SF pickings!
>
> As for intimidation, that particular line amuses me somewhat. Sinn
Fein was
> fighting the election with 1,300 of its activists in prison, along
with
> most of its leaders, its director of elections and many of its
candidates.
There are three key factors which had so far not ben mentioned in this
thread. This is the first, the second is the introduction of
conscription in Ireland less than 12 months before the election, and
the third is the execution of the leaders of the 1916 rebellion. ALL
were key events leading up to the vote. ALL were unique to the 1918
election, and ALL favored S.F.
The poiint you mention regarding inprisoned candidates being
disadvantaged is nonsense. Do you forget Bobby Sands? Or the 1981
election in this country?
Keith
> Is mise le meas,
> Brian Cahill
>
supe...@my-deja.com
Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> In article <91qoaj$8qq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nicholas Whyte <nwh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > So on the face of it, I don't see evidence from the 1918 election at
> > least that rural constituencies were much smaller then urban ones; I
> > tried doing averages but got lost in the detail, however my
suspicion
> > is that there's only a few hundred in it.
>
> Sorted - if the urban constituencies are Dublin, Belfast, Waterford,
and
> Londonderry (Cork excluded as a two-seater, Limerick uncontested) then
> the average turnout for those 18 seats is 12496, compared to an
average
> for the 56 rural seats of 13450.
>
Is this average of electorate of average vote cast? If it's average of
electorate, I withsraw my point regarding the urban/rural difference,
Keith
supe...@my-deja.com
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <91qoeg$8sq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <91qmj3$76t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > The official reason for the Irish Labour Party not contesting the
> 1918
> > > election was that it was time for Ireland to determine its future
> > > status as a nation. That is one of those reasons that makes one
> think
> > > the real reason was that most of the voters the party was hoping
to
> > > attract were intending to vote Sinn Fein. If Labour was strong
they
> > > would have insisted on voting Labour.
> >
> > Who would have insisted on voting Labour? The voters wern't given a
> > choice in the south because the party withdrew due (mainly) to
> > intimidation.
>
> The party didn't so much 'withdraw' as decide not to fight the
election.
> To withdraw it would have had to have been intending to fight.
They HAD intended to Contest the election, read the party's own
history. IIRC, "withdrew" is the word THEY use.
>
> > Where the intimidation didn't work and Labour did put
> > candidates forward (in what became N.I.), it did quite well getting
> > between 17% and 26%.
>
> That was a completely different movement. The Labour Representative
> Committee had no connection to the Irish Labour Party.
They were part of the Labour/Trade Union movement which became a
political force in these islands in the first quarter of the last
century. I fully appreciate they were not the same party, but by and
large they would have appealing to the same "working class"
constituency.
>
> > Given that the Labour movement was stronger in the
> > south than in the north, I'm being quite conservative saying that
the
> > party would have attracted 20% on an all island basis.
>
> Saying that the Irish Labour Party would have polled 20% if Sinn Fein
> had not stood is a bit like saying that if you had four legs, you
would
> be a dog.
Not at all. Look at ther vote in the next election. The party was
ALREADY a force in the 1910's in Ireland. Read about Larkin, the Dublin
lock-outs etc.
> The fact is that Sinn Fein was so massively popular among
> the sort of voters who might have voted Labour that it was in no
> position to stand.
>
Yes when in 1923 voters were given the same choice between both
factions of SF and Labour, Labour STILL gets over 20%. You don't even
have to go that far to see aq more realistic level of the support for
SF, Just check out the local election results in 1919.
> > > Ireland was in any
> > > case hard going for the Labour Party: unlike Britain there were
not
> > > many large industries and areas dominated by one industry, and
most
> of
> > > the working class were in agricultural areas. The Irish Labour
Party
> > > had only been formed in 1912.
> > >
> >
> > The Labour Party I'm refferring to is the Irish Labour Party, which
> > achieved >20% at the next election in this country only 4 years
later,
>
> But this was a Republican party!
>
Republican as in anti-Monarchist (but that also describes me!). It was
a party which supported the Treaty. Trying to say that all the Labour
supporters would have ignored the party had it stood in 1918, and still
voted SF, defies reason given events before and after.
Keith
JAT
"Da/l gCais" <Da_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> Or that Sinn Fein were *the* primary political force in Ireland and that
the
> Unionists needed to burn women alive and murder babies to gerrymander
their
> sectarian state. The legacy of that was that 'hands on' child killing
butchers
> and sex perverts got elected to parliament.
> Da/l gCais
What a load of shite. The only group in N. Ireland who burned people alive
were PIRA. Perhaps you have forgotten La Mon, or would prefer it if the rest
of the world did. As for sex perverts you seem to be getting Unionists mixed
up with Catholic priests, you republican twat!
JAT
Rebel Countess
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> There are three key factors which had so far not ben mentioned in this
> thread. This is the first, the second is the introduction of
> conscription in Ireland less than 12 months before the election, and
> the third is the execution of the leaders of the 1916 rebellion.
Except the Countess...
Ciaran Quinn
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
..snip
>
> Fatal error here, you have missed the fact that most of the
> constituences where there was no Contest were rural constituencies, and
> in those days thee was less effort to balance electorates. Do the sums
> based on the 1922 figures and you'll see what I mean.
With regarding to calculating SF overall % in 1918:-
If you look at the constituencies which were unopposed in 1918 and match
them against the corresponding Dail constituencies in 1923-1933 (see
http://www.took.net/elections/boundaries/revisions.html) then it appears
as if about 1/3 of the seats in what became the Free State were
unopposed (49.5/153).
If you then assume that the population of the 26 counties was double
that of the 6 (approx 3 million to 1.5 million), then SF would need an
average of 61% in the unopposed constituencies to bring their vote to
over 50%.
County U/Opposed OutOf 1921 1923 U/O by 1923 seats
seats seats
-------------- --------- ----- ----- ----- ----------------
CarlowKilkenny 2 3 4 5 3.333333333
Cavan 2 2 3 4 4
Clare 2 2 4 5 5
CorkCounty 7 7 11 13 13
Galway 1 4 7 9 2.25
Kerry 4 4 * 7 7
LaoisOffaly 1 2 4 5 2.5
Limerick 2 3 * 7 4.66666667
Mayo 1 4 8 9 2.25
Roscommon 1 2 * 4 2
Tipperary 2 4 4 7 3.5
--- -----
75 49.5 (from 153)
(* means no corresponding constituency)
I used 1923 constituencies because the boundaries were easier to map
than 1921's. The 1923 constituencies were used for 5 elections. The no.
of seats increased from 128 to 153 between 1921 and 1923.
Obviously, there is a bit of rounding taking place in the calculations
above. It does appear as if the unopposed constituencies had a similar
population on average to those that were contested and as if SF could
have won just over 50%, but no-one will ever know ...
..snip
Ciaran
--
Irish Election Database http://election.polarbears.com
Paddy Matthews
>
>In article <91qh18$1qb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
>>
>> had the people of the
>> Republic failed to ratify the Agreement, it would have fallen (at
>least
>> in that form).
>
>Open to ebate. The Agreement only stated that the Republic was to have
>a referendum on the isues outlined, it did not say the people had to
>ratify it. I accept this is pedantry, but the pedantics of things like
>decommissioning is why the agreement collapsed.
OK, let's have an "ebate":
"If majorities of those voting in each of the referendums support this
agreement, the Governments will then introduce and support, in their respective
Parliaments, such legislation as may be necessary to give effect to all aspects
of this agreement..."
(Section on validation of the Agreement, available at
http://www.irlgov.ie/iveagh/angloirish/goodfriday/validati.htm)
Quick question: What does the word "each" mean in the sentence above?
Supplementary: Why does the sentence above refer to _each_ of the referendums
supporting the agreement, if the referendum in the Republic wasn't about the
agreement?
You were pulled up on this point at the time of the referendums. It must require
a fair old degree of stupidity on your part to keep falling into the same
elephant trap, especially when you've dug it yourself.
p.
supe...@my-deja.com
It's plain and simple. It means that each government was required to
enact the legislation once the referendums passed in each country. In
the case of the UK this was a considerable amount of lefislation, and
that doesn't include the legislation ensuing from the Patton proposals
on policiy (which as a matter of intereest the UK government WERE NOT
required to enact as part of the original Agreement).
The position in thi country ONLY required us to change articles 2+3 toi
remove the claim to N.I. and allow government minister to take part in
cross-border authorities.
HAVE A LOOK AT THE QUESTION THAT WAS ON THE BALLOT PAPER IN THE
REPUBLIC. IF SPECIFICALLY STATES WHAT ELEMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION NEED
TO BE CHANGED RESULTING FROM HE B.A. IF WE WERE VOTING ON THE WHOLE
AGREEMENT, THEN THE REFERENDUM QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE BEN THE SAME AS IN
N.I.
It's also worth remembering that while SF camaignede for a "Yes" vote
in N.I., they DID NOT campaign for a "Yes" vote in this country. In
fact some members of the party (esp. in Cork) suggested a boycott or
even a "No" vote. They wanyed their cake AND to eat it.
In case casual observers of this n.g., think that all of this is being
pedantic, it's worth remembering that it was the details of the
Agrement that brought aboutit's collapse,
Keith
> p.
gregory....@ntlworld.com
Nicholas Whyte wrote:
>
> Median SF vote in the 45 contested single-seat territorial
> constituencies which they won: 67.5%, rather higher than 59.58% and
> right in the middle of the 66%-70% range that you describe as "a much
> rarer feat".
The NP had a pact with SF. SF was to take their seats unopposed.
Therefore it is only estimated unionist votes that count for the
southern cobstituencies as the rest were supporting a SF strategy. Who
else was there to vote for?
gregory....@ntlworld.com
Nicholas Whyte wrote:
>
> In article <91qa1c$s4p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Sorry Nick,
> > But there are a few issues with this. The last time the island voted
> > was the European elections in June 1999 NOT 1994.
>
> The last time the whole island voted *on the same day* was in 1994. In
> 1999 the North voted on Thursday 10 June and the South on Friday 11
> June.
They voted for different things though. Both polls were different.
There was not a unitary poll. Nor were the voters equally empowered. The
majority Catholics were not allowed to vote as a block. The Protestants
were allowed a weighed veto in effect.
>
> Mere pedantry. It's quite clear that *politically* the effect of the
> 1998 referendum votes, North and South, was to ratify the agreement
> popularly known as the "Good Friday Agreement"; had the people of the
> Republic failed to ratify the Agreement, it would have fallen (at least
> in that form). Their approval was as you point out legally necessary to
> set up the institutions of governent, but I personally believe that
> that the 1998 votes are the closest we are going to get to an "act of
> self-determination" by the people of the whole island, certainly closer
> than was the 1918 election.
You are full of it. I know and you know that self-determination was
actually asked for by Albert Reynmolds in a meeting with John Major. The
latter made it clear that self-determination for the Irish people as a
whole was utterly out of the question and was not negotiable. You have
an agenda Nicholas which is not based on fact but on prejudice.
Nicholas Whyte
However, most of the Cork Protestants surely lived in the city (where
there were in fact more than 7000 Unionist voters) rather than in the
seven uncontested constituencies.
Anyway, having done the calculations, I am quite satisfied that the
average SF vote share in contested constituencies which they won was
much greater than the proportion they would have needed in uncontested
constituencies to have a majority of votes in the 32 counties, had all
constituencies been contested.
I don't see the relevance of today's FG vs FF division to the IPP vs SF
split in 1918. The two constituencies won by the IPP in the 26 counties
in 1918 were Waterford City and Donegal East, neither of which is an FG
stronghold today. While of course it is true that FG eventually
absorbed the remnants of IPP support there was very little of it left
by then!
> > As for intimidation, that particular line amuses me somewhat. Sinn
> Fein was
> > fighting the election with 1,300 of its activists in prison, along
> with
> > most of its leaders, its director of elections and many of its
> candidates.
>
> There are three key factors which had so far not ben mentioned in this
> thread. This is the first, the second is the introduction of
> conscription in Ireland less than 12 months before the election, and
> the third is the execution of the leaders of the 1916 rebellion. ALL
> were key events leading up to the vote. ALL were unique to the 1918
> election, and ALL favored S.F.
Indeed - so you agree that in fact it *is* likely that a majority of
voters in Ireland in 1918 would have supported SF given the chance?
> The poiint you mention regarding inprisoned candidates being
> disadvantaged is nonsense. Do you forget Bobby Sands? Or the 1981
> election in this country?
There I agree.
Nicholas
--
Nicholas Whyte, Centre for European Policy Studies
CEPS web-site: http://www.ceps.be/
Northern Ireland elections site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
Nicholas Whyte
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91qp3e$9fg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> > In article <91qoaj$8qq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Nicholas Whyte <nwh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > So on the face of it, I don't see evidence from the 1918 election
at
> > > least that rural constituencies were much smaller then urban
ones; I
> > > tried doing averages but got lost in the detail, however my
> suspicion
> > > is that there's only a few hundred in it.
> >
> > Sorted - if the urban constituencies are Dublin, Belfast, Waterford,
> and
> > Londonderry (Cork excluded as a two-seater, Limerick uncontested)
then
> > the average turnout for those 18 seats is 12496, compared to an
> average
> > for the 56 rural seats of 13450.
> >
>
> Is this average of electorate of average vote cast? If it's average of
> electorate, I withsraw my point regarding the urban/rural difference,
When I say "turnout" I mean "votes cast" rather than electorate.
But I think your point falls anyway, unless you can demonstrate that
the average likely turnout in the 25 uncontested constituencies would
have been less than 60% of the average turnout elsewhere.
Nicholas Whyte
election-at-polarbears.com wrote:
> http://www.took.net/elections/boundaries/revisions.html) then it
An interesting site, starting with http://www.took.net/elections/ and
with pleanty of room for development.
> Obviously, there is a bit of rounding taking place in the calculations
> above. It does appear as if the unopposed constituencies had a similar
> population on average to those that were contested and as if SF could
> have won just over 50%, but no-one will ever know ...
Indeed.
supe...@my-deja.com
"gregory....@ntlworld.com" <gregory....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Nicholas Whyte wrote:
> >
> > In article <91qa1c$s4p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Sorry Nick,
> > > But there are a few issues with this. The last time the island
voted
> > > was the European elections in June 1999 NOT 1994.
> >
> > The last time the whole island voted *on the same day* was in 1994.
In
> > 1999 the North voted on Thursday 10 June and the South on Friday 11
> > June.
>
> They voted for different things though. Both polls were different.
Actualy Nicolas is right here. In 1994, both countries were voting to
elect members to the same representative assembly. They voted on the
same day, and (unlike 1918) everybody could vote because every seat was
contested. They were both using the same voting method of PR (before we
get into pedantics, I am aware of the minor differences that apply
beetween STV in N.I. and in this country).
> There was not a unitary poll.
There has never been a unitary poll on the island on any issue. The
closest you get is the referenda on EU (then EEC) membership.
By their nature, elections are done on a regional/constituency basis.
>Nor were the voters equally empowered. The
> majority Catholics were not allowed to vote as a block.
Why should they? We don't vote by religeon (as much as nationalists
would like to link church and civil affairs) we vote by
area/constituency.
> The Protestants
> were allowed a weighed veto in effect.
>
Actually in 1994 the Protestants were disadvantaged as the seat to
voter ratio in N.I. is lower than here.
> >
> > Mere pedantry. It's quite clear that *politically* the effect of the
> > 1998 referendum votes, North and South, was to ratify the agreement
> > popularly known as the "Good Friday Agreement"; had the people of
the
> > Republic failed to ratify the Agreement, it would have fallen (at
least
> > in that form). Their approval was as you point out legally
necessary to
> > set up the institutions of governent, but I personally believe that
> > that the 1998 votes are the closest we are going to get to an "act
of
> > self-determination" by the people of the whole island, certainly
closer
> > than was the 1918 election.
>
> You are full of it. I know and you know that self-determination was
> actually asked for by Albert Reynmolds in a meeting with John Major.
This is Albert, the famous "last of the Gomeenmen". There's no such
thing politically as "Irish people". The people of Ireland straddle two
nations. Actually if you use the current constitutional definition, the
Irish people straddle all 5 continents.
> The
> latter made it clear that self-determination for the Irish people as a
> whole was utterly out of the question and was not negotiable.
Quite right. You might as well give the people of the N.C.R. determine
their political status, in fact whjy not just let every house decide
what country it wants to belong to.
> You have
> an agenda Nicholas which is not based on fact but on prejudice.
>
And you haven't??????
At the end of the day, the present arrangement has the support of the
majority of people i both countries De facto it has the support of the
majority of the people of the island. We don't consult the vast
majority of "Irish people" living abroad on elections, referenda etc.,
so in that sense their opinion is irrelevant.
Keith
Nicholas Whyte
"gregory....@ntlworld.com" <gregory....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>
> >
> > In article <91qa1c$s4p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Sorry Nick,
> > > But there are a few issues with this. The last time the island
voted
> > > was the European elections in June 1999 NOT 1994.
> >
> > The last time the whole island voted *on the same day* was in 1994.
In
> > 1999 the North voted on Thursday 10 June and the South on Friday 11
> > June.
>
> They voted for different things though. Both polls were different.
> There was not a unitary poll. Nor were the voters equally empowered.
The
> majority Catholics were not allowed to vote as a block. The
Protestants
> were allowed a weighed veto in effect.
There were certainly differences between the 1994 and 1918 polls.
Everyone over 18 got to vote in 1994. Only men over 21 and women over
35 got to vote in 1918. The whole of Ireland had an election in 1994.
There were 25 constituencies out of 103 where no vote took place in
1918. Sinn Fein got 46.9% of the votes cast in 1918 (not 69% as
erroneously stated on, for instance,
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7111/freedom.htm). In 1994
the SF share of the vote was rather lower.
Of course the similarity is that both elections were for
representatives to external bodies, 1918 for Westminster and 1994 for
the European Parliament.
Or perhaps you mean the 1998 referendum?
> > Mere pedantry. It's quite clear that *politically* the effect of the
> > 1998 referendum votes, North and South, was to ratify the agreement
> > popularly known as the "Good Friday Agreement"; had the people of
the
> > Republic failed to ratify the Agreement, it would have fallen (at
least
> > in that form). Their approval was as you point out legally
necessary to
> > set up the institutions of governent, but I personally believe that
> > that the 1998 votes are the closest we are going to get to an "act
of
> > self-determination" by the people of the whole island, certainly
closer
> > than was the 1918 election.
>
> You are full of it. I know and you know that self-determination was
> actually asked for by Albert Reynmolds in a meeting with John Major.
The
> latter made it clear that self-determination for the Irish people as a
> whole was utterly out of the question and was not negotiable. You have
> an agenda Nicholas which is not based on fact but on prejudice.
Quite unlike yours then?
Anyway I know that you have frequently posted your story about Reynolds
asking Major for "self-determination" (by which I guess you mean a
single island-wide referendum). I have never seen any other source
refer to this request, and I was reasonably close to the political
negotiations at the time. I'm not saying it didn't happen, as Reynolds
asked for many things and Major denied many of them, but I would like
to see some other evidence of it.
The question did come up of course from time to time in the 1994-96
period when I was most closely involved. I remember hearing of one
discussion on the issue where it was the Irish government's lawyers who
pointed out to SF that this might be unconstitutional under Irish law,
given that the 1937 constitution can only be amended by vote of the
electors resident in the 26 counties. I confess that this is only my
memory and I don't have a written source either. But I suppose the
Irish government finding reasons to avoid "self-determination" is not
such an interesting story from your point of view.
supe...@my-deja.com
No, not true, there was (and remains) a large Protestant population
outside the city. Don't forget that Cork was the main area for the
targetting of Protestants, in what we would now call "ethnic cleansing"
in the 1918-1922 period.
>
> Anyway, having done the calculations, I am quite satisfied that the
> average SF vote share in contested constituencies which they won was
> much greater than the proportion they would have needed in uncontested
> constituencies to have a majority of votes in the 32 counties, had all
> constituencies been contested.
>
> I don't see the relevance of today's FG vs FF division to the IPP vs
SF
> split in 1918. The two constituencies won by the IPP in the 26
counties
> in 1918 were Waterford City and Donegal East, neither of which is an
FG
> stronghold today.
Actually if tou overlay the support of SF and the IPP in 1918 over a
political map of the Republic today there is a strong correlation. The
IPP voters in 1918 tended to CnG and IPP after the south left the UK.
Regarding Waterford and Donegal there are both local issues at play.
Waterford was the base of Redmond the leader of the party until his
death just before the election. In Donegal East there was a swing from
people who might have voted SF, because their candidate had no hope.
Given a choice between the IPP and a unionist it's not difficult to
decide who'd win.
> While of course it is true that FG eventually
> absorbed the remnants of IPP support there was very little of it left
> by then!
>
The collapse had started well before 1918. As I said earlier the
executions in of the 1916 rebels and the introduction of conscription
took care of that. Let's not forget that Redmond was the main
cheerleader in the south for Irishmen to join the war effort in 1914-
1917 period.
> > > As for intimidation, that particular line amuses me somewhat. Sinn
> > Fein was
> > > fighting the election with 1,300 of its activists in prison, along
> > with
> > > most of its leaders, its director of elections and many of its
> > candidates.
> >
> > There are three key factors which had so far not ben mentioned in
this
> > thread. This is the first, the second is the introduction of
> > conscription in Ireland less than 12 months before the election, and
> > the third is the execution of the leaders of the 1916 rebellion. ALL
> > were key events leading up to the vote. ALL were unique to the 1918
> > election, and ALL favored S.F.
>
> Indeed - so you agree that in fact it *is* likely that a majority of
> voters in Ireland in 1918 would have supported SF given the chance?
>
Not at all, As I said the real level of support for SF is certainly
less than 40%. Then one thing that allcomers on this thread can agree
on is that you cannot use the 1918 election result to determine the
actual level of support for SF (or consequently other parties). I'm
atisfied to leave it at that, because that's what all the experts also
say.
The rest is down to "what ifs". What if all seats had been contested,
what if the Labour party had not withdrawn, what if there was no
intimidation (on all sides), what if many of the SF candides were not
in prision, what if the most high profile candidates had only been
allowed to stand in one seat, the list is almost endless.
For an election page, you can only state the ACTUAL result, but I
believe you owe it o your audience to at least mention what hapened
with the Labour Party i he south. You can't just dismiss the
preferences of 20% of the electorate.
Keith
Paul Linehan
Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> There were certainly differences between the 1994 and 1918 polls.
> Everyone over 18 got to vote in 1994. Only men over 21 and women over
> 35 got to vote in 1918. The whole of Ireland had an election in 1994.
> There were 25 constituencies out of 103 where no vote took place in
> 1918. Sinn Fein got 46.9% of the votes cast in 1918 (not 69% as
> erroneously stated on, for instance,
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7111/freedom.htm). In 1994
> the SF share of the vote was rather lower.
But, you would accept that there was a VERY CLEAR majority in favour
of the type of regime which we got in 1922?
This would be for the whole country BTW, not the 26 unoccupied
counties - here it would have been a clear majority in favour of a
Republic from day one.
Paul...
David Boothroyd
This one.
The last time it happened in a British constituency was 1885 IIRC -
William
Gladstone was elected for Midlothian and Leith Burghs.
> I know that there was one
> independent Unionist returned for both West and South Belfast for the
NI
> House of Commons in 1925...
This was P.J. Woods.
Dennis Canavan gets an hon. mensh. as he won his constituency seat in
Falkirk West at the 1999 Scottish Parliament elections, and also polled
enough to have won at the regional level.
> > Incidentally the details of the STV vote transfers in Dublin
> University
> > in the 1918 election does not appear to have been published anywhere
> > (except in some contemporary newspapers). I have a copy though.
>
> Will you publish them?
I meant to get them last night when I brought the electorates over but
didn't have the time. It's nothing much to write home about, but useful
for completeness' sake.
David Boothroyd
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <91qh18$1qb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > We certainly do have figures for the electorates: They were
published
> > in several contemporary books. I'll have a look tonight.
>
> needs to be considered.
Constituency Population Electorate
BOROUGHS
BELFAST
Cromac 48,537 21,673
Duncairn 44,080 19,085
Falls 37,749 15,756
Ormeau 35,257 16,343
Pottinger 39,173 17,084
St. Anne's 40,430 18,693
Shankill 50,467 22,971
Victoria 47,260 19,494
Woodvale 43,994 19,802
CORK CITY (2) 102,435 45,017
DUBLIN CITY
Clontarf 32,051 14,588
College Green 50,665 21,414
Dublin Harbour 47,461 19,520
St. James's 35,423 13,121
St. Michan's 45,500 17,642
St. Patrick's 47,691 18,785
St. Stephen's Green 46,011 19,759
LIMERICK CITY 47,246 17,121
LONDONDERRY CITY 40,780 16,736
WATERFORD CITY 28,881 12,063
COUNTIES
ANTRIM
East Antrim 53,700 24,798
Mid Antrim 44,405 18,032
North Antrim 43,487 19,110
South Antrim 52,272 23,235
ARMAGH
Mid Armagh 39,495 17,339
North Armagh 46,048 19,529
South Armagh 34,748 15,905
CARLOW 35,253 16,133
CAVAN
East Cavan 44,215 21,148
West Cavan 46,958 22,270
CLARE
East Clare 52,225 23,511
West Clare 52,007 21,674
CORK COUNTY
East Cork 43,264 19,022
Mid Cork 41,226 16,638
North Cork 42,744 17,949
North-East Cork 44,272 18,239
South Cork 38,941 17,593
South-East Cork 39,634 17,419
West Cork 39,588 16,659
DONEGAL
East Donegal 39,643 16,015
North Donegal 41,065 17,538
South Donegal 41,490 16,894
West Donegal 46,339 19,296
DOWN
East Down 39,196 17,846
Mid Down 34,942 17,195
North Down 38,713 18,399
South Down 46,521 18,708
West Down 44,931 17,997
DUBLIN COUNTY
North County Dublin 49,345 19,799
Pembroke 38,224 17,698
Rathmines 43,277 18,841
South County Dublin 41,548 17,829
FERMANAGH
North Fermanagh 31,104 14,496
South Fermanagh 30,732 13,962
GALWAY
Connemara 56,054 24,956
East Galway 41,235 17,777
North Galway 44,390 21,036
South Galway 40,545 18,507
KERRY
East Kerry 39,601 17,222
North Kerry 37,777 17,600
South Kerry 38,740 16,835
West Kerry 43,573 18,853
KILDARE
North Kildare 30,630 13,274
South Kildare 35,997 13,925
KILKENNY
North Kilkenny 38,024 16,113
South Kilkenny 36,938 16,410
KING'S COUNTY 56,832 25,702
LEITRIM 63,582 30,079
LIMERICK COUNTY
East Limerick 47,514 21,095
West Limerick 48,309 22,562
LONDONDERRY COUNTY
North Londonderry 52,957 21,306
South Londonderry 46,888 21,199
LONGFORD 43,820 20,449
LOUTH 63,665 29,176
MAYO
East Mayo 46,729 21,635
North Mayo 47,854 21,212
South Mayo 48,963 21,567
West Mayo 51,118 21,667
MEATH
North Meath 33,034 14,716
South Meath 32,057 14,716
MONAGHAN
North Monaghan 36,512 16,175
South Monaghan 34,943 16,164
QUEEN'S COUNTY 55,628 26,063
ROSCOMMON
North Roscommon 44,546 21,258
South Roscommon 47,302 22,093
SLIGO
North Sligo 42,595 18,448
South Sligo 39,731 18,003
TIPPERARY
East Tipperary 41,414 16,232
Mid Tipperary 38,294 17,458
North Tipperary 36,608 16,455
South Tipperary 36,117 14,716
TYRONE
North-East Tyrone 47,358 23,023
North-West Tyrone 47,240 22,182
South Tyrone 48,067 22,465
WATERFORD COUNTY 57,432 24,439
WESTMEATH 56,326 24,014
WEXFORD
North Wexford 50,690 23,022
South Wexford 51,583 23,168
WICKLOW
East Wicklow 34,570 15,241
West Wicklow 26,141 11,673
UNIVERSITIES
DUBLIN UNIVERSITY (2) 4,541
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND 3,819
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY OF BELFAST 2,039
Source: Return showing for each parliamentary constituency in the
United Kingdom, the number of parliamentary and local government
electors on the register compiled under the Representation of the
People Act, 1918 (HC 1918 xix (138)) 944-7
The same figures are given in 'Parliamentary Election Results in
Ireland 1801-1922' by B.M. Walker, the Liberal Year Book for 1925,
and several other contemporary publications.
Incidentally I came across a strange book in the library yesterday.
It appears to be the Irish government's response to the boundary in 1923
which argues strongly in favour of the anti-partitionist line. It was
apparently the product of a committee chaired by Kevin Roantree O'Shiel
who was an unsuccessful Sinn Fein candidate in two northern
constituencies
in 1918 and for one seat at the Northern Ireland House of Commons
election
of 1921.
The interesting thing is that it purports to show, at electoral division
level (ie ward level), the number of voters in the six counties of
Northern Ireland who were 'in favour of the Belfast Parliament' and
those in favour of an all-Ireland Parliament. I wonder where these
statistics came from? Possibly the 1921 census, assuming all Roman
Catholics were nationalists, and all protestants and presbyterians were
unionists?
supe...@my-deja.com
pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
>
>
> Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
>
> > There were certainly differences between the 1994 and 1918 polls.
> > Everyone over 18 got to vote in 1994. Only men over 21 and women
over
> > 35 got to vote in 1918. The whole of Ireland had an election in
1994.
> > There were 25 constituencies out of 103 where no vote took place in
> > 1918. Sinn Fein got 46.9% of the votes cast in 1918 (not 69% as
> > erroneously stated on, for instance,
> > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7111/freedom.htm). In
1994
> > the SF share of the vote was rather lower.
>
> But, you would accept that there was a VERY CLEAR majority in favour
> of the type of regime which we got in 1922?
>
I don't think that anybody disputes that by 1922 the majority of the
people in both countries had got what they wanted. Certainly in the
IFS, the majority were in favour of the Treaty by a factor of 3-1.
There were minorities in the south who wanted an independent republic,
and also those that wanted the maintenance of the U.K. Whether people
in 1918 would have supported what was agreed in 1921 is anyone's guess.
> This would be for the whole country BTW, not the 26 unoccupied
> counties - here it would have been a clear majority in favour of a
> Republic from day one.
>
The "whole country" in 1918, was the U.K. (inc. Britain) but if you are
refferring to the island of Ireland the answer is "no", in the south
there was no majority in favour of a Republic until a decade later.
Obviously the people in N.I. were not entitled to a say in this
country's affairs once we left the U.K.,
I think Nick's point regarding the referenda which ensued from the
signing of the Belfast Agreement being the best (not to mention most
recent) measure of the opinion of the people of both countries is a
valid one. However just as FF worked to overwrite the Treaty by
democratic means in the 1930's and 40's, it is fully valid for the DUP
etc. to work democratically to achieve a better arrangement for the
people of N.I.
Keith
Keith
> Paul...
Nicholas Whyte
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Constituency Population Electorate
>
> BOROUGHS
average electorate 17,982 (excluding Cork)
> COUNTIES
average electorate 19,257
average electorate in 25 uncontested single-member seats: 18,991
average electorate in 74 contested single-member seats: 19,020
So we can comprehensively lay to rest the idea that the uncontested
seats had much smaller electorates than the contested ones. The actual
difference is 29, rather less than 1 in 600.
May I use these figures on my site, with attribution?
> Incidentally I came across a strange book in the library yesterday.
> It appears to be the Irish government's response to the boundary in
1923
> which argues strongly in favour of the anti-partitionist line. It was
> apparently the product of a committee chaired by Kevin Roantree
O'Shiel
> who was an unsuccessful Sinn Fein candidate in two northern
> constituencies
> in 1918 and for one seat at the Northern Ireland House of Commons
> election
> of 1921.
>
> The interesting thing is that it purports to show, at electoral
division
> level (ie ward level), the number of voters in the six counties of
> Northern Ireland who were 'in favour of the Belfast Parliament' and
> those in favour of an all-Ireland Parliament. I wonder where these
> statistics came from? Possibly the 1921 census, assuming all Roman
> Catholics were nationalists, and all protestants and presbyterians
were
> unionists?
There was no 1921 census in Ireland! I suspect the figures used are for
the 1920 local government elections, which were carried out by STV in
all counties. The 1911 census figures were also widely used at the time.
Nicholas
--
Nicholas Whyte, Centre for European Policy Studies
CEPS web-site: http://www.ceps.be/
Northern Ireland elections site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
supe...@my-deja.com
"Rather"???? Considerably. By 1994 the party know as "Sinn Fein" in
1918 had become the Workers Party which had a disaster in the 1994
election despite IIRC fielding candidates in both N.I. and the
Republic.
Please don't ever confuse the party that used the name in 1918 (and
much later) with the faction that uses it today. The are realms of
evolution between the two groups. Don't forget that as well as the
current Sinn Féin, the 1918 party also spawned (directly) Fine Gael and
Fianna Fáil and (indirectly) Democratic Left and the P.D.s. ALL could
with equal degress of justification lay claim to be the direct
ancestors of the party that fought the 1918 election. HOWEVER, if you
want to be accurate, the only direct link still existing in an unbroken
form from that party are the Workers Party.
> Anyway I know that you have frequently posted your story about
Reynolds
> asking Major for "self-determination" (by which I guess you mean a
> single island-wide referendum). I have never seen any other source
> refer to this request, and I was reasonably close to the political
> negotiations at the time. I'm not saying it didn't happen, as Reynolds
> asked for many things and Major denied many of them, but I would like
> to see some other evidence of it.
So would I, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Reynolds lived in a
fantasyland on many issues (N.I. was certainly not the worst mistake he
made in his brief period in power). Talk to civil servants who worked
in the FF/goverment after 1992. Some have some real howlers to tell!
>
> The question did come up of course from time to time in the 1994-96
> period when I was most closely involved. I remember hearing of one
> discussion on the issue where it was the Irish government's lawyers
who
> pointed out to SF that this might be unconstitutional under Irish law,
> given that the 1937 constitution can only be amended by vote of the
> electors resident in the 26 counties. I confess that this is only my
> memory and I don't have a written source either. But I suppose the
> Irish government finding reasons to avoid "self-determination" is not
> such an interesting story from your point of view.
>
Actually for what it's worth I believe having a referendum in both
countries would not have been unconstitutional, HOWEVER the government
acting on the outcome of such a vote would almost certainly have been,
as you would have been unable to determine which votes were cast in
which country. A person in the south could justifiably claim that the
result would have bene different in a vote in this jurastiction alone.
That would mean you would HAVE to have had separate referenda with
possibly the same question. Then if a majority in N.I. went one way and
a majority in this country went the other, you'd be back to square one,
as provisions in the Anglo Irish Agreement meant that the government
here was duty bound to respect the wishes of the majority in N.I.,
Keith
Nicholas Whyte
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Actually if tou overlay the support of SF and the IPP in 1918 over a
> political map of the Republic today there is a strong correlation. The
> IPP voters in 1918 tended to CnG and IPP after the south left the UK.
> Regarding Waterford and Donegal there are both local issues at play.
> Waterford was the base of Redmond the leader of the party until his
> death just before the election. In Donegal East there was a swing from
> people who might have voted SF, because their candidate had no hope.
> Given a choice between the IPP and a unionist it's not difficult to
> decide who'd win.
Top 6 seats in 26 counties for IPP votes in 1918: Donegal East (61%),
Waterford city (53%), Louth (49%), Wexford South (48%), Wicklow East
(46%), Donegal South (45%), Wexford North (41%). For some reason you
don't want to count the first two. Louth is not a particular FG
stronghold; they currently hold one seat out of four. Wexford is one of
their better constituencies. Donegal South-West is not. Neither is
Wicklow. I'd love to see how strong this "correlation" *really* is.
> > Indeed - so you agree that in fact it *is* likely that a majority of
> > voters in Ireland in 1918 would have supported SF given the chance?
> >
>
> Not at all, As I said the real level of support for SF is certainly
> less than 40%. Then one thing that allcomers on this thread can agree
> on is that you cannot use the 1918 election result to determine the
> actual level of support for SF (or consequently other parties). I'm
> atisfied to leave it at that, because that's what all the experts also
> say.
The "real" level of support for SF is the level actually recorded in
the elections, ie 46.9% of votes cast. All else is supposition.
> The rest is down to "what ifs". What if all seats had been contested,
> what if the Labour party had not withdrawn, what if there was no
> intimidation (on all sides), what if many of the SF candides were not
> in prision, what if the most high profile candidates had only been
> allowed to stand in one seat, the list is almost endless.
>
> For an election page, you can only state the ACTUAL result, but I
> believe you owe it o your audience to at least mention what hapened
> with the Labour Party i he south. You can't just dismiss the
> preferences of 20% of the electorate.
I can record the preferences of the whole of the electorate that chose
to vote. That's all.
Nicholas Whyte
You don't ask the question very clearly.
Was there a clear majority in both North and South in 1922 prepared to
accept an Irish Free State inside the British Empire in the 26
counties, and devolution within the UK for the 6 counties, as finalised
in that year? Yes.
Was there ever a clear majority for whom this was their first choice?
Probably not.
Was there a clear majority in 1918 for the 1922 settlement? Of course
not; it wasn't on offer in 1918.
supe...@my-deja.com
Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> In article <91sqof$u6t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Actually if tou overlay the support of SF and the IPP in 1918 over a
> > political map of the Republic today there is a strong correlation.
The
> > IPP voters in 1918 tended to CnG and IPP after the south left the
UK.
>
> > Regarding Waterford and Donegal there are both local issues at play.
> > Waterford was the base of Redmond the leader of the party until his
> > death just before the election. In Donegal East there was a swing
from
> > people who might have voted SF, because their candidate had no hope.
> > Given a choice between the IPP and a unionist it's not difficult to
> > decide who'd win.
>
> Top 6 seats in 26 counties for IPP votes in 1918: Donegal East (61%),
> Waterford city (53%), Louth (49%), Wexford South (48%), Wicklow East
> (46%), Donegal South (45%), Wexford North (41%). For some reason you
> don't want to count the first two. Louth is not a particular FG
> stronghold; they currently hold one seat out of four. Wexford is one
of
> their better constituencies. Donegal South-West is not. Neither is
> Wicklow. I'd love to see how strong this "correlation" *really* is.
The best way to show this correlation is to show the dev. to average
support for both parties in all constituencies. This is not a difficult
exercise. I might even do it myself and post the results. For rural
constituencies this isn't difficult for Dublin it's next to impossible
given the changing nature of the constituencies and electorate. Maybe
dividing the city into Northside and Southside would be best, that's
when I figure out where those 1918 constituencies were exactly.
> > For an election page, you can only state the ACTUAL result, but I
> > believe you owe it o your audience to at least mention what hapened
> > with the Labour Party i he south. You can't just dismiss the
> > preferences of 20% of the electorate.
>
> I can record the preferences of the whole of the electorate that chose
> to vote. That's all.
Fine. I look forward to you posting the result of the last referendum
by the people of N.I. on it's status within the U.K.,
Keith
David Boothroyd
Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> In article <91svuk$1v8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Constituency Population Electorate
> >
> > BOROUGHS
>
> average electorate 17,982 (excluding Cork)
>
> > COUNTIES
> average electorate 19,257
>
> average electorate in 25 uncontested single-member seats: 18,991
> average electorate in 74 contested single-member seats: 19,020
>
> So we can comprehensively lay to rest the idea that the uncontested
> seats had much smaller electorates than the contested ones. The actual
> difference is 29, rather less than 1 in 600.
>
> May I use these figures on my site, with attribution?
Certainly.
> > Incidentally I came across a strange book in the library yesterday.
> > It appears to be the Irish government's response to the boundary in
> 1923
> > which argues strongly in favour of the anti-partitionist line. It
was
> > apparently the product of a committee chaired by Kevin Roantree
> O'Shiel
> > who was an unsuccessful Sinn Fein candidate in two northern
> > constituencies
> > in 1918 and for one seat at the Northern Ireland House of Commons
> > election
> > of 1921.
> >
> > The interesting thing is that it purports to show, at electoral
> division
> > level (ie ward level), the number of voters in the six counties of
> > Northern Ireland who were 'in favour of the Belfast Parliament' and
> > those in favour of an all-Ireland Parliament. I wonder where these
> > statistics came from? Possibly the 1921 census, assuming all Roman
> > Catholics were nationalists, and all protestants and presbyterians
> were
> > unionists?
>
> There was no 1921 census in Ireland!
Difficult but not impossible to take a census during a civil war. A
friend of mine was enumerator for Railton Road in Brixton during the
1981 census, and had managed to miss the news on the day of the riots
so went in the morning after and completed the census in ignorance of
why there were so many burnt out cars there.
> I suspect the figures used are for the 1920 local government
> elections, which were carried out by STV in all counties.
Surely not every seat was opposed?
> The 1911 census figures were also widely used at the time.
I'll get the book out over Christmas and have a look.
Harry Merrick
> In article <3a40b702...@news.esat.net>,
> pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
> >
> >
........."SNIP"............
ROTFL!!
It sure does me good to see the Linehan Principles taking a caning as per
usual! - What a load of hogwash!
In any case, I do think that it IS worth mentioning that the SF party of
those times was a very different one from today, with very different
objectives and a far saner following.
Harry Merrick.
expl...@whyte.com
>In article <91q0bl$l67$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Nicholas says...
>(Excerpt)
>
>"This is not true. The most recent occasion when the whole of Ireland
voted
on
>the same day was the European Parliament election of 1994 (in fact since a
>number of constituencies were not contested in 1918, 1994 is a rather
better
>barometer of the opinion of the island as a whole)."
>
>I'm laughing at you. Was conscription an issue in 1994?
No. Did I say it was?
>Get a grip on reality is
>my advice. How old are you?
33.
>Are you trying to improve your A-Level grades?
Since I have a Ph D in which I dealt with a particular aspect of the history
of this period (and if you want you can probably buy my book, "Science,
Colonialism and Ireland", in your local bookstore), I am not particularly
interested in improving my A-level grades (3 A's and a B, in 1985).
>Well
>you are not heading in the right direction. Gallipoli and Redmond's
betrayal
of
>his people were the 1918 issues. His inheritance was ruined by his
association
>with the British war effort.
It's interesting that you say that. So it was effectively a vote of confidence
on Redmond's position on WWI? And not a referendum on the establishment of an
Irish Republic?
>(Excerpt)
>
>"One side points out that Sinn Fein won 73 seats out of 105, an
overwhelming
>mandate. Opponents point out that Sinn Fein received less than half the
popular
>vote. As always the truth is in between (25 seats were won by Sinn Fein
>unopposed, so we will never know what the true level of popular support
for
the
>party was)."
>
>Utterly absurd you are comparing an Ireland as a unitary entity with the
>gerrymandered and much fought over aftermath. You can't do that. It makes
no
>sense. It really doesn't. Two different realities can't be paired.
Indeed. That's why I don't believe that the results of the 1918 election are
in any way binding on the Irish people in 2000. Two different realities, as
you say.
>Also I918
>saw the utter destruction of the biggest party in Ireland which had to do
a
deal
>with a hitherto tiny little party to even get the few seats it did get.
Of course the Nationalist Party wasn't completely destroyed, as you suggest.
It staggered on in the North until the Troubles began. But they did indeed
have a disastrous election in 1918 from which they never recovered.
>Why not
>mention the SF/NP electon pact?
Perhaps I will, when I revise the page next. However I am not 100% clear
about
whether the said pact applied beyond Ulster.
>The National Party knew that SF was going to make a clean sweep of their
>constituency. They done a deal to be afforded a few crumbs. SF were not
given
>the uncontested seats. They were obviously going to take them in the same
>landslide. Nobody was foolish enough to think they'd get any votes
standing
>against them. Why not mention that?
Well, that's actually a disputed point. Personally I don't think any democrat
can be enthusiastic about large numbers of uncontested elections.
>(Excerpt)
>
>"As for the self-determination argument, international practice both
before
and
>since preferes prebiscites to elections for the purpose of
self-determination,
>and it's quite clear that the two referenda held in Northern Ireland and
the
>Republic of Ireland to ratify the Good Friday Agreement in May 1998 are
much
>closer to best practice (not to mention more recent) than was the 1918
>election."
>
>International practice? Look Mr. Smartypants, that sort of thing is
usually
>solved by *war* and everybody knows it. Plebiscites are a rare creature
and
are
>more often rigged than genuine. The international norm is the Balkans or
>Palestine or Ireland, war is the usual solution.
Indeed. Most international borders are not determined "democratically" but are
more like tidemarks in the ebb and flow of empires. Given that situation,
from a normative point of view, what happened in Ireland in 1919-23 was not
particularly outrageous, although of course it was not particularly
democratic either.
However there is quite a lot of academic literature on the concept of
self-determination. Referenda tend to be taken as a better index of
self-determination than elections. The entire Irish electorate got to vote in
referenda called to ratify the Good Friday Agreement 1998. Nobody voted in
any referendum in 1918, and as you said yourself, SF's campaign was boosted
by many factors other than their stand on the Republic.
>John Major by the way made it perfectly clear to Albert Reynolds that
>self-deternmination for the Irish people as a whole was completely out of
the
>question. Therefore how can it be self-determination if the British
>purposefully negate the slightest possibility of it?
I should like to see a reliable source for this story.
>The Irish government asked for one man one vote across thirty two counties
and
>was told that it could never be. You are clearly spouting rubbish. If it
was
>an academic paper you'd get a fail for being idiotic. You just need to
think
in
>those terms because you want to make something more legitimate than what
it
is.
You know, the great thing about the Internet is that we can publish and say
exactly what we want. It's called freedom of speech. So you can say that I am
spouting rubbish, and I can point out that while you have suggested some
extra information I might include on my site if I feel like it, you haven't
actually disproved anything that I said.
>Da/l gCais
Nicholas Whyte
(who posts using his real name)
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
expl...@whyte.com
writes:
>Or that Sinn Fein were *the* primary political force in Ireland and that the
>Unionists needed to burn women alive and murder babies to gerrymander their
>sectarian state. The legacy of that was that 'hands on' child killing
butchers
>and sex perverts got elected to parliament.
Of course, Sinn Fein would never ever run any candidate who had been involved
with the slaughter of civilians.
>Traditional Unionism can not be separated from that. To make sure of their
>murderous little country they formed 'the Cromwell Clubs' they ere the only
>party in Ireland with a HQ connected to a police barracks. All the better
to
>work their evil. Vincent McKenna would have fitted in seamlessly.
Actually the only paramilitary group that McKenna was ever in was the IRA.
Des Higgins
<supe...@my-deja.com> waved his hands and wrote in message
news:91sqof$u6t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
SNIP
>
> No, not true, there was (and remains) a large Protestant population
> outside the city.
That is not what he said; he said most lived in the city. You just said
there were many outside the city. You did not say which had most (because
you do not know).
> Don't forget that Cork was the main area for the
> targetting of Protestants, in what we would now call "ethnic cleansing"
> in the 1918-1922 period.
>
snip
Ehhhhh no it wasn't. Just by saying it often enough does not add up to
there having been any ethnic cleanising of protestants in Cork. This is
simply something that you and Ozy used to say to each other but were
astonishingly sparse on details when challenged to provide any. From what
I recall of your hand-waving, you or Ozy were able to provide one report of
supposed intimidation.
Please note, I am not saying there was no intimidation post 1922. There was
but Keith does not know of any. Anyway, that is a gratuitous and
meaningless tangent which you slung into an already silly argument.
Des "we'll be back for ye after the pubs close" Higgins
gregory....@ntlworld.com
expl...@whyte.com wrote:
.
>
> Actually the only paramilitary group that McKenna was ever in was the IRA.
>
> Nicholas Whyte
> (who posts using his real name)
You still use Unionist bilge which might be more kindly described as
fictional. Prove McKenna was in the IRA. Who says he was in the IRA? I
will answer that for you, the very same person who said the police and
IRA were in league with each other to frame him for child molestation.
How credible is that? McKenna was a fruitcake and you are a fool to
believe him.
Are you trying to seriously suggest that McKenna is credible? You amaze
me Nicholas you really do. If he was in the IRA then Gerry Adam's was
in the DUP. It is cloud cuckoo stuff. I can only surmise that you put
very little store in having credibility my dear Nicholas. It is only
usenet I suppose. Your propaganda is incredibly tedious and pedestrian.
The Unionist Party was directly involved in organizing the murders of
Catholic civilians in Belfast to force enough of them to flee the city.
Those catholics the Unionist Party wanted murdered including babies,
children and women, it was important to induce a regime of terror and
horror amongst the Catholics of Belfast. This relates to your 1918
election post, democracy didn't come into it. The Unionists even wanted
Catholic ex-servicemen forced out of the city. The 'Cromwell Clubs" were
created in the Unionist Party HQ, this had a connecting door to the
Musgrave RIC barracks.
Many Catholics were castrated or tortured to death, some were burnt
alive, or ritually butchered or 'crushed' by the police. The Unionist
Party also ordered the murders of Catholic policemen, this suited two
purposes, it helped drive out the unwanted fenians and it afforded
opportunities for 'reprisals'. The police executed ex-servicemen openly
with sledgehammers. They executed and murdered babies and children. They
set Catholic women on fire.
The Catholic members of the RIC and RUC were seen as a threat to the
state and were often (rightly) suspected of complaining to the Southern
regime of the conditions they endured and also of supplying reports with
respect to the Unionist murder gangs that the unionist party had
organized. Nixon (MBE and OBE) for example was to be executed as soon
as he left the North, he was regarded as a sociopathic killer by the
Free State Government. Allegations of cowardliness were frequently
leveled against him even by his own people.
Nixon recorded the details of all the Unionist politicians who had
ordered the murders of Catholics or Catholic RIC members, he also
threatened to execute any traitors opposed to him, this included any
cabinet members prepared to try and undermine him. Several of the
people associated with the formation of the Northern Irish state were
thought to be criminally insane, Nixon was one of these.
Another senior cabinet minister did business in the street because of
his fear of imaginary Catholics in his government office. Why don't you
do a web page dedicated to the 'pursuits' of the Unionist Party? People
talk about Michael Collins' killings so why leave out John William Nixon
MP. MBE. OBE. and his baby killing friends?
The Northern Cabinet often had to meet in secret because the slightest
criticism of Nixon would bring forth a plethora of very real death
threats.
Paddy Matthews
<Illiterate, inaccurate, irrelevant, hand-waving flim-flam deleted>
You said:
"The Agreement only stated that the Republic was to have a referendum on the
isues outlined, it did not say the people had to ratify it."
The agreement says:
"If majorities of those voting in each of the referendums support this
^^^^
agreement, the Governments will then introduce and support... such legislation
^^^^
as may be necessary to give effect to all aspects of this agreement..."
You were talking shite again, weren't you? A simple Yes or No will do.
p.
Nicholas Whyte
"gregory....@ntlworld.com" <gregory....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>
> expl...@whyte.com wrote:
> .
> >
> > Actually the only paramilitary group that McKenna was ever in was
the IRA.
> >
> > Nicholas Whyte
> > (who posts using his real name)
>
> You still use Unionist bilge which might be more kindly described as
> fictional. Prove McKenna was in the IRA. Who says he was in the IRA?
I
> will answer that for you, the very same person who said the police and
> IRA were in league with each other to frame him for child molestation.
> How credible is that? McKenna was a fruitcake and you are a fool to
> believe him.
Having done a bit more research on this one, it seems that Greig
actually has a point here. (It is the season of goodwill after all.)
McKenna was in the Republican wing of the Crumlin Road jail; he did
have relatives who were in the IRA; he did tell many people, including
me, that he had been in the IRA; so the circumstantial evidence was
quite compelling.
However I now discover that the IRA have stated quite firmly that he
was never a member. While the IRA are not always a reliable source of
information on matters like this (one thinks of numerous killings
carried out by the IRA but "claimed" by non-existent organisations such
as Direct Action Against Drugs), I have to also concede that McKenna is
indeed a fruitcake (though that in itself is not evidence of his IRA
membership one way or the other), and I should perhaps have done a bit
more research before posting.
He is not however the only person to allege conspiracies between the
police and the IRA. Sean McPhilemy, author of "The Committee", believes
that he has evidence of security forces colluding with the IRA in the
murders of, among others, Robert Bradford, John McMichael and Billy
Wright (who last time I checked wasn't even killed by the 'RA). Brave
investigative journalist or deluded conspiracy-monger? You decide.
> Why don't you
> do a web page dedicated to the 'pursuits' of the Unionist Party?
People
> talk about Michael Collins' killings so why leave out John William
Nixon
> MP. MBE. OBE. and his baby killing friends?
Of course, if you bother to look around my site, you will find that I
am not complimentary about the Unionist regime. But I have a right to
decide for myself what I publish. And I haven't published a list of
Michael Collins' killings, or of Nixon's, and I don't really intend to
either. It's a free internet, as it were, and you can put up your own
web-site if you like.
Nicholas
--
Nicholas Whyte, Centre for European Policy Studies
CEPS web-site: http://www.ceps.be/
Northern Ireland elections site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
supe...@my-deja.com
No, YOU are the one talking shite as per usual. I asked you a VERY
simple question. WHAT WAS THE TEXT OF THE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT PAPER
IN THE REFERENDUM IN *THIS* COUNTRY????
ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!
KEITH
> p.
gregory....@ntlworld.com
Nicholas Whyte wrote:
> >
> > You still use Unionist bilge which might be more kindly described as
> > fictional. Prove McKenna was in the IRA. Who says he was in the IRA?
> I
> > will answer that for you, the very same person who said the police and
> > IRA were in league with each other to frame him for child molestation.
> > How credible is that? McKenna was a fruitcake and you are a fool to
> > believe him.
>
> Having done a bit more research on this one, it seems that Greig
> actually has a point here. (It is the season of goodwill after all.)
> McKenna was in the Republican wing of the Crumlin Road jail; he did
> have relatives who were in the IRA; he did tell many people, including
> me, that he had been in the IRA; so the circumstantial evidence was
> quite compelling.
Vincent McKenna worked for a bogus British front organization and he was
well known for being a kook from day one. Nobody was ever taken in by
him except those who wanted to be taken in by him. It was always common
knowledge that he was never in the IRA. He never had any credibility
with ordinary people. The journalists who used him also knew he was
making things up and that he was a severely disturbed individual. It was
not possible to be fooled by him. He was clearly just a kook.
He had a charmed life. Even after his allegations that the Gardai were
in league with the Irish Republican Army to frame him for child sex
crime made the front pages of some of the Belfast press. William Hague
and the usual right wing politicians and newspapers still indulged
McKenna's insane rantings, often in person and side by side with him.
Hague appeared on TV in support of McKenna. The right wing British media
is inherently racist, the British conservative party is inherently
racist.
That traditional and deeply entrenched anti-Irish racism allowed them to
ally themselves to a dangerous sex criminal because in their eyes he had
few other faults and he was very useful to their politics. If he'd been
molesting English children they'd probably not have used him. People
interested in studying the racist nature of Anglo-Irish politics could
do a lot worse than to study the Vincent Mckenna case.
>
> He is not however the only person to allege conspiracies between the
> police and the IRA. Sean McPhilemy, author of "The Committee", believes
> that he has evidence of security forces colluding with the IRA in the
> murders of, among others, Robert Bradford, John McMichael and Billy
> Wright (who last time I checked wasn't even killed by the 'RA). Brave
> investigative journalist or deluded conspiracy-monger? You decide.
That author was able to pick a large number of murders as a sample, he
was then able to write a book and make films and in effect make
impossible predictions, the chances of you or me being able to pick a
whole lot of murders at random and then predict that ten or seven years
later none would be solved is literally something with a probability
factor which runs into millions to one against.
It might even be closer to a billion to one. The British were
responsible for the majority of the civilian killing. Ordinary
Catholics were deliberated selected by their murder squads. There was
often not even the vaguest distinction beytween the UDA and UDR and the
RUC and the death squads. Large numbers of RUC might operate together
on bombing missions using official cars. Most of the civilian killing
was orchestrated by the British authorities. That is a fact.
>
> Of course, if you bother to look around my site, you will find that I
> am not complimentary about the Unionist regime. But I have a right to
> decide for myself what I publish. And I haven't published a list of
> Michael Collins' killings, or of Nixon's, and I don't really intend to
> either. It's a free internet, as it were, and you can put up your own
> web-site if you like.
Michael Collins didn't deliberately murder babies because of their
religion nor did he associate with people who like castrating people. To
the Unoinist Party that was what they *needed* rather than what they
rejected. Collins did not bomb schoolchildren or douse young women with
petrol the Unionist Party did. The Unionist Party in the North was
never that fussy about their members or friends. Killing Catholics was
their central ideology because they hated them. Ultimately they just
wanted the Catholics gone. The Southern Unionists thought their
Northern colleagues were murderous sectarian savages, which of course
they were.
Paul Linehan
Nicholas Whyte <nwh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> He is not however the only person to allege conspiracies between the
> police and the IRA. Sean McPhilemy, author of "The Committee", believes
> that he has evidence of security forces colluding with the IRA in the
> murders of, among others, Robert Bradford, John McMichael and Billy
> Wright (who last time I checked wasn't even killed by the 'RA). Brave
> investigative journalist or deluded conspiracy-monger? You decide.
I could conceiveably understand that the British security forces in
the 6 counties might wish to do away with some of the firebrands and
thugs that its secret services created, but it's a bit much to suggest
that they killed Bradford - he was a Unionist MP IIRC.
Paul...
> Nicholas
Paul Linehan
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I don't think that anybody disputes that by 1922 the majority of the
> people in both countries had got what they wanted.
They certainly did not. The people of the 26 counties had voted
overwhelmingly for a Republic, not the bastard Free State entity which
was formed, which was far closer to the IPP ideal of Home Rule.
The people of the 6 counties voted by a slight majority for Unionism -
they did *_not_* vote for their own parliament, which was only thought
up later as a means of appeasing "Ulster" Unioinists who wanted to be
the big fish in their own little pond...
> Certainly in the
> IFS, the majority were in favour of the Treaty by a factor of 3-1.
Under duress. The threat of "immediate and terrible war"...
> There were minorities in the south who wanted an independent republic,
> and also those that wanted the maintenance of the U.K. Whether people
> in 1918 would have supported what was agreed in 1921 is anyone's guess.
Not really - a reasonable judgement is that it was *_not_* what the
people actively wanted - remember Collins' phrase "the freedom to
achieve freedom" - even the pro-treaty forces knew it was a sell-out,
but out of fear of the consequences of war, went for it.
You might also like to comment on the wishes of the people of
Tyrone...
> > This would be for the whole country BTW, not the 26 unoccupied
> > counties - here it would have been a clear majority in favour of a
> > Republic from day one.
> The "whole country" in 1918, was the U.K. (inc. Britain) but if you are
> refferring to the island of Ireland the answer is "no", in the south
> there was no majority in favour of a Republic until a decade later.
What were the votes for SF about then? In the 26 unoccupied (of 32)
counties of this country, they got 65% of the vote - thats a PRETTY
CLEAR MAJORITY in favour of a REPUBLIC. What did we get? A bastard
Free State entity.
> Obviously the people in N.I. were not entitled to a say in this
> country's affairs once we left the U.K.,
What about the people of Tyrone - who had CLEARLY voted in favour of
Nationalism?
Paul...
> Keith
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The British might direct killings of just about anybody. How often have
IRA informers been interrogated by *other* IRA informers? Therefore the
specter of some poor sausage going from trial to grave without meeting
anybody other than other British agents is quite possible.
The British were utterly ruthless, they had no mercy or honor. British
agents set up other British agents for killings to penetrate further
upwards or to better gain confidences within the IRA. Three bum agents
for an important one is cheap at thrice the price.
Oddly enough with respect to the Bradford killing, the IRA people
refused to kill the police bodyguard, they merely kept him pinned to the
ground. He fired three shots at the IRA as they left, a bit ungrateful
but true all the same. Bradford thought the northern problem was a
factor of The Roman Catholic Church, International Marxism and
ecumenical confusion.
He was directly associated with the loyalist death squads (he was in
Vanguard) and needless to say they went bonkers when he was killed. He
described himself as a British Israelite, he was a big fan of killing
difficult Catholics. A lot of sick bigots thought they were on a mission
from God. He was one of them.
The Great Suprendo
:
>Vincent McKenna worked for a bogus British front organization and he was
>well known for being a kook from day one. Nobody was ever taken in by
>him except those who wanted to be taken in by him. It was always common
>knowledge that he was never in the IRA.
He *was* in there, at a low level. See Nick's post (which you ignored)
about the Crumlin Road stuff.
He was not the big-shot "IRA man" that he claimed to be, and he never
occupied any significant position in that organisation. But he was
nonetheless a member.
There is no question that he was a kook. But republicans have openly
admitted in various publications that they've always had trouble vetting
their new recruits and indeed they blame this for the numerous
"mistakes" and sectarian killings which occurred during their campaign,
particularly in the mid/late 1970s and 1980s.
--
This post was brought to you by a suppurating ring-blister named Colin.
Nicholas Whyte
pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
>
>
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I don't think that anybody disputes that by 1922 the majority of the
> > people in both countries had got what they wanted.
>
> They certainly did not. The people of the 26 counties had voted
> overwhelmingly for a Republic, not the bastard Free State entity which
> was formed, which was far closer to the IPP ideal of Home Rule.
Except that it was outside, rather than inside, the United Kingdom -
rather an important detail!
> > Certainly in the
> > IFS, the majority were in favour of the Treaty by a factor of 3-1.
>
> Under duress. The threat of "immediate and terrible war"...
So much the same as most peace treaties then....
> You might also like to comment on the wishes of the people of
> Tyrone...
Indeed. Are you saying that the Treaty settlement would have been
acceptable if only Tyrone had been included in the Irish Free State?
> > The "whole country" in 1918, was the U.K. (inc. Britain) but if you
are
> > refferring to the island of Ireland the answer is "no", in the south
> > there was no majority in favour of a Republic until a decade later.
>
> What were the votes for SF about then? In the 26 unoccupied (of 32)
> counties of this country, they got 65% of the vote - thats a PRETTY
> CLEAR MAJORITY in favour of a REPUBLIC. What did we get? A bastard
> Free State entity.
Interesting because other contributors to this thread have asserted
that the SF vote was inflated by the fact that they received support
from people who would have otherwise voted IPP or Labour, or who cared
more about conscription than the concept of the Republic, and so voted
SF faute de mieux.
It's absolutely clear that SF got a mandate of some kind from the 1918
election. 46.9% is enough to get you a single-party government in most
countries, even those with proportional representation, never mind the
question of the 25 uncontested constituencies.
But all government programmes have to survive contact with reality. And
SF's programme for government, which certainly included a 32-county
Republic, had never faced up to the reality of the existence of the
Ulster Unionists. A standard democratic reading of the 1918 election
result is that it gave SF a mandate to secure the best possible deal
for their voters. And in fairness, I think that's what the Treaty
represented.
Nicholas Whyte
--
Nicholas Whyte, Centre for European Policy Studies
CEPS web-site: http://www.ceps.be/
Northern Ireland elections site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
supe...@my-deja.com
pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
>
>
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I don't think that anybody disputes that by 1922 the majority of the
> > people in both countries had got what they wanted.
>
> They certainly did not. The people of the 26 counties had voted
> overwhelmingly for a Republic,
There was no separation between north and south in 1918, as the Home
Rule bill had been put on hold. The first time the peeople of the south
voted as units was in 1921. After the Traty was signed, the people of
the IFS, when given a clear choice between continuing to persue a
republic or to agree to the IFS with the King as head of state, partion
of the island etc. THEY VOTED 3-1 IN FAVOUR.
not the bastard Free State entity which
> was formed, which was far closer to the IPP ideal of Home Rule.
>
Actually it wasn't. What the IPP was seeking is very broadly the
arrangement that currently operates in Scotland. I keep asking you to
read about the IPP, but you obviously don't and continue to make
yourself look foolish.
> The people of the 6 counties voted by a slight majority for Unionism -
> they did *_not_* vote for their own parliament, which was only thought
> up later as a means of appeasing "Ulster" Unioinists who wanted to be
> the big fish in their own little pond...
>
Again you display your ignorance. Firstly (again remembering my point
above about the Home Rule bill) the people of N.I. voted 2-1 for the
Unionists groupings. Secondly by 1918 The Unionists had accepted that
they would have their own Parliament given that the Home Rule had been
passed. There was no great resistence to an N.I. Parliament from
Unioinists after 1914, in fact most would have favoured it, if only to
protect their own interests.
> > Certainly in the
> > IFS, the majority were in favour of the Treaty by a factor of 3-1.
>
> Under duress. The threat of "immediate and terrible war"...
>
The war had been going on for 4 years at that time. The people were
given a free choice they chose to support the treaty.
> > There were minorities in the south who wanted an independent
republic,
> > and also those that wanted the maintenance of the U.K. Whether
people
> > in 1918 would have supported what was agreed in 1921 is anyone's
guess.
>
> Not really - a reasonable judgement is that it was *_not_* what the
> people actively wanted - remember Collins' phrase "the freedom to
> achieve freedom" - even the pro-treaty forces knew it was a sell-out,
> but out of fear of the consequences of war, went for it.
>
It was a compromise. The Treaty wasn't ANYBODY'S first choice, not the
government, not the republicans and not the unionists. However
everybody got a deal that they could support.
> You might also like to comment on the wishes of the people of
> Tyrone...
>
Already discussed at length. Again no one says the border was an exact
reflection of the desires of all the people. That's why the boundary
commission was established. Let's not forget it was the IFS that chose
not to enact the B.C.'s recomendations (which would have given a huge
chunk of west Tyrone to the south)..
> > > This would be for the whole country BTW, not the 26 unoccupied
> > > counties - here it would have been a clear majority in favour of a
> > > Republic from day one.
>
> > The "whole country" in 1918, was the U.K. (inc. Britain) but if you
are
> > refferring to the island of Ireland the answer is "no", in the south
> > there was no majority in favour of a Republic until a decade later.
>
> What were the votes for SF about then? In the 26 unoccupied (of 32)
> counties of this country, they got 65% of the vote - thats a PRETTY
> CLEAR MAJORITY in favour of a REPUBLIC.
See my point above, in 1918 there was one single political entity, the
U.K.
> What did we get? A bastard
> Free State entity.
>
People got what they voted for, irt's called democracy.
> > Obviously the people in N.I. were not entitled to a say in this
> > country's affairs once we left the U.K.,
>
> What about the people of Tyrone - who had CLEARLY voted in favour of
> Nationalism?
>
The voted;
Unionists : 45%
Sinn Fein : 29%
Nationalists : 26%
That's not a clear mandate for any of the three options on offer. Had
the boundary commission's recomendation been enacted there would have
been a clear unionist majority (same as Fermanagh).
Keith
> Paul...
>
> > Keith
Paul Linehan
supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
> > They certainly did not. The people of the 26 counties had voted
> > overwhelmingly for a Republic,
> There was no separation between north and south in 1918,
But you were trying to say that the people of the two areas of the
country got what they wanted based on the 1918 vote.
This is palpable rubbish - the 1918 vote in the 26 counties was
clearly in favour of a Republic.
> as the Home
> Rule bill had been put on hold. The first time the peeople of the south
> voted as units was in 1921. After the Traty was signed, the people of
> the IFS, when given a clear choice between continuing to persue a
> republic or to agree to the IFS with the King as head of state, partion
> of the island etc. THEY VOTED 3-1 IN FAVOUR.
Do you have figures for this vote? In any case, it was a vote made
under duress and threats of war.
> > not the bastard Free State entity which
> > was formed, which was far closer to the IPP ideal of Home Rule.
> Actually it wasn't. What the IPP was seeking is very broadly the
> arrangement that currently operates in Scotland. I keep asking you to
> read about the IPP, but you obviously don't and continue to make
> yourself look foolish.
I have the impression that the powers being sought by the IPP were far
more far-reaching than what's going on in Scotland. Basically AIUI, it
would have been Germano-British robber baron as head of state, common
defence and foreign policy and precious little else.
What the Treaty got for us was very close to that.
> Again you display your ignorance. Firstly (again remembering my point
> above about the Home Rule bill) the people of N.I. voted 2-1 for the
> Unionists groupings. Secondly by 1918 The Unionists had accepted that
> they would have their own Parliament given that the Home Rule had been
> passed. There was no great resistence to an N.I. Parliament from
> Unioinists after 1914, in fact most would have favoured it, if only to
> protect their own interests.
So what they did was make up a form of Home Rule for themselves as
long as they could control their grubby little sectarian statelet.
> > Under duress. The threat of "immediate and terrible war"...
> The war had been going on for 4 years at that time. The people were
> given a free choice they chose to support the treaty.
Humph...
> > Not really - a reasonable judgement is that it was *_not_* what the
> > people actively wanted - remember Collins' phrase "the freedom to
> > achieve freedom" - even the pro-treaty forces knew it was a sell-out,
> > but out of fear of the consequences of war, went for it.
> It was a compromise.
A compromise would to have had the whole country under the Free State
regime.
But, in the 26 counties, if the people had voted for a Republic, why
didn't we get one?
British fascism quite simply.
> The Treaty wasn't ANYBODY'S first choice, not the
> government, not the republicans and not the unionists. However
> everybody got a deal that they could support.
But, FAR FAR MORE people in the 26 counties would have supported a
more Republican regime.
What *_POSSIBLE_* justification is there for forcing us to retain some
Germano-British robber baron as our head of state, when we had made it
clear that we didn't want one?
Fascism. British fascism.
> > You might also like to comment on the wishes of the people of
> > Tyrone...
> Already discussed at length. Again no one says the border was an exact
> reflection of the desires of all the people.
But, it was never even an attempt to be one. If it had been, I believe
that the island would be quite different today.
Basically, you would only have had one large Catholic area in the 2 +
1/2 - 3 counties, i.e. West Belfast. Unioniists would have had no
reason to fear the Taigs and hence mightn't have discriminated against
them and Catholics might then have had a reason to participate in the
state.
But, because the greedy Unionist swine bit off more than they could
chew, they reaped a bitter harvest - having to share govt. with
Shinners HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... when 25 years ago, they could
have got away with just a minor power share with the SDLP.
What stupid greedy morons.
> That's why the boundary
> commission was established. Let's not forget it was the IFS that chose
> not to enact the B.C.'s recomendations (which would have given a huge
> chunk of west Tyrone to the south)..
The boundary commission's recommendations were ridiculous - large
chunks of Nationalist land were still in the North.
> > What were the votes for SF about then? In the 26 unoccupied (of 32)
> > counties of this country, they got 65% of the vote - thats a PRETTY
> > CLEAR MAJORITY in favour of a REPUBLIC.
> See my point above, in 1918 there was one single political entity, the
> U.K.
You obviously have a very shaky grasp of democracy.
> > What did we get? A bastard
> > Free State entity.
> People got what they voted for, irt's called democracy.
And IN THE 26 COUNTIES THERE WAS A CLEAR MANDATE FOR A REPUBLIC.
The IFS would have been a good compromise regime for the whole
country, but not the 26 counties.
You are completely failing to acknowledge that Britain abused its
military strength to impose clauses favourable to their imperium into
any treaty.
> > What about the people of Tyrone - who had CLEARLY voted in favour of
> > Nationalism?
> The voted;
> Unionists : 45%
> Sinn Fein : 29%
> Nationalists : 26%
> That's not a clear mandate for any of the three options on offer. Had
> the boundary commission's recomendation been enacted there would have
> been a clear unionist majority (same as Fermanagh).
It puts them clearly in the IFS if one were paying any attention to
democracy, but don't worry, I don't expect Unionists (and people like
yourself) to grasp anything about democracy where the 6 counties is
concerned.
Paul...
> Keith
David Boothroyd
Nicholas Whyte <Expl...@Whyte.com> wrote:
> In article <91qag3$s9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Incidentally the details of the STV vote transfers in Dublin
> University
> > in the 1918 election does not appear to have been published anywhere
> > (except in some contemporary newspapers). I have a copy though.
>
> Will you publish them?
Here we go:
DUBLIN UNIVERSITY 1918
Electorate 4,541
Valid votes 2,954
Turnout 65.1%
Quota 985
Candidate Party 1 Samuels' 2 Gwynn's 3
surplus votes
Stephen Lucius Gwynn N 257 + 14 271 -271 -
William Morgan Jellett U 631 +179 810 + 16 826
Arthur Warren Samuels U 1,273 -288 985 985
Sir Robert Henry Woods Ind U 793 + 95 888 +206 1,094
Not transferable + 49 49
This is notable for two reasons:
1) Voters for Stephen Gwynn almost all (80%) marked a second
preference despite there being only Unionists left in the race
afterwards. This ensured that the independent Unionist secured
the second seat against his (presumably more doctrinaire) official
rival.
2) I only just discovered this when studying the Northern Ireland
House of Commons elections by STV. There was a special section in
the rules for transfer of votes dealing with transfer of a surplus
which said that surplus votes were only transferred to the 'Not
transferable' pile if the number of not transferable ballots was
greater than the surplus. Otherwise, the surplus was transferred
in proportion to the second preferences, discarding those which did
not indicate one.
quill
gregory....@ntlworld.com wrote in message
<3A434B77...@ntlworld.com>...
You really ought to go and see a doctor, you know. You are the sickest bigot
on this newsgroup.You cannot see past the end of your nose, you are so full
of hate. With people like you I see no future for any of us Catholic or
Protestant. May God forgive you.
Quill
supe...@my-deja.com
pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
>
>
> supe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
>
> > > They certainly did not. The people of the 26 counties had voted
> > > overwhelmingly for a Republic,
>
> > There was no separation between north and south in 1918,
>
> But you were trying to say that the people of the two areas of the
> country got what they wanted based on the 1918 vote.
I specifically DIDN'T say this. I said that no one can know how people
in 1918 would have felt about an option that wasn't available until 3
years later. Once the the south left the UK, it is clear (based on
election results) that the arrangement had the support of the people in
both countries.
> > as the Home
> > Rule bill had been put on hold. The first time the peeople of the
south
> > voted as units was in 1921. After the Traty was signed, the people
of
> > the IFS, when given a clear choice between continuing to persue a
> > republic or to agree to the IFS with the King as head of state,
partion
> > of the island etc. THEY VOTED 3-1 IN FAVOUR.
>
> Do you have figures for this vote? In any case, it was a vote made
> under duress and threats of war.
The results of election in this country are widely available. If you
can't be arsed looking, that's not my problem.
It was the same "duress" that applied in N.I. in the referendum on the
B.A. Long years of war with a an Agreement that promised to bring
peace. Just like the 1997 vote, the vote did not bring peace. (In fact
more Irish people died AFTER the signing of the Treaty) than died in
the war of separation.
>
> > > not the bastard Free State entity which
> > > was formed, which was far closer to the IPP ideal of Home Rule.
>
> > Actually it wasn't. What the IPP was seeking is very broadly the
> > arrangement that currently operates in Scotland. I keep asking you
to
> > read about the IPP, but you obviously don't and continue to make
> > yourself look foolish.
>
> I have the impression that the powers being sought by the IPP were far
> more far-reaching than what's going on in Scotland.
I care not what impression you have. READ THE FACTS.
> > Again you display your ignorance. Firstly (again remembering my
point
> > above about the Home Rule bill) the people of N.I. voted 2-1 for the
> > Unionists groupings. Secondly by 1918 The Unionists had accepted
that
> > they would have their own Parliament given that the Home Rule had
been
> > passed. There was no great resistence to an N.I. Parliament from
> > Unioinists after 1914, in fact most would have favoured it, if only
to
> > protect their own interests.
>
> So what they did was make up a form of Home Rule for themselves as
> long as they could control their grubby little sectarian statelet.
>
Yes, just like the south.
> > > Under duress. The threat of "immediate and terrible war"...
>
> > The war had been going on for 4 years at that time. The people were
> > given a free choice they chose to support the treaty.
>
> Humph...
>
The blinding power of a Linehan arguement!
> > > Not really - a reasonable judgement is that it was *_not_* what
the
> > > people actively wanted - remember Collins' phrase "the freedom to
> > > achieve freedom" - even the pro-treaty forces knew it was a sell-
out,
> > > but out of fear of the consequences of war, went for it.
>
> > It was a compromise.
>
> A compromise would to have had the whole country under the Free State
> regime.
>
> But, in the 26 counties, if the people had voted for a Republic, why
> didn't we get one?
>
For reasons already stated above.
> British fascism quite simply.
>
> > The Treaty wasn't ANYBODY'S first choice, not the
> > government, not the republicans and not the unionists. However
> > everybody got a deal that they could support.
>
> But, FAR FAR MORE people in the 26 counties would have supported a
> more Republican regime.
>
This is supposition at COMPLETE variance to the facts. Again see what
people chose when offered a choice.
>
> > > You might also like to comment on the wishes of the people of
> > > Tyrone...
>
> > Already discussed at length. Again no one says the border was an
exact
> > reflection of the desires of all the people.
>
> But, it was never even an attempt to be one. If it had been, I believe
> that the island would be quite different today.
Maybe, maybe not. The one thing for sure is that the Unionist majority
would be even bigger in N.I..
>
> Basically, you would only have had one large Catholic area in the 2 +
> 1/2 - 3 counties, i.e. West Belfast. Unioniists would have had no
> reason to fear the Taigs and hence mightn't have discriminated against
> them and Catholics might then have had a reason to participate in the
> state.
>
Have you ever actually sen the B.C. proposals? A SIMPLE YES OR NO
PLEASE. Enclave on the Falls Road and Rathmines are conspicuous by
their absense!
> > That's why the boundary
> > commission was established. Let's not forget it was the IFS that
chose
> > not to enact the B.C.'s recomendations (which would have given a
huge
> > chunk of west Tyrone to the south)..
>
> The boundary commission's recommendations were ridiculous - large
> chunks of Nationalist land were still in the North.
>
No they weren't. I think I've got an answer to my question.
>
> > > What about the people of Tyrone - who had CLEARLY voted in favour
of
> > > Nationalism?
>
> > The voted;
> > Unionists : 45%
> > Sinn Fein : 29%
> > Nationalists : 26%
>
> > That's not a clear mandate for any of the three options on offer.
Had
> > the boundary commission's recomendation been enacted there would
have
> > been a clear unionist majority (same as Fermanagh).
>
> It puts them clearly in the IFS if one were paying any attention to
> democracy, but don't worry, I don't expect Unionists (and people like
> yourself) to grasp anything about democracy where the 6 counties is
> concerned.
No it doesn't. Forcing thousands of Tyyrone Protestants into N.I. (as
happened in Donegal and especially Monaghan) would be in the interests
of either country.
Tony Cooper
> William Hague
> and the usual right wing politicians and newspapers
I read somewhere that Sebastian Coe, the great British runner, works for
Hague. Is that right?
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Mark Devlin
> I read somewhere that Sebastian Coe, the great British runner, works for
> Hague. Is that right?
I've no idea, but it's certainly possible. He's been involved in Tory
politics for a long time.
--
Mark Devlin kr...@REVERSEocixotSMALL.edLETTERS www.toxico.de
Ki yeled yulad lanu, ben nitan lanu; vatehi hamisrah al shikhmo;
vayikra shemo: pele’ yoetz, el gibor, aviad, sar shalom.
The Great Suprendo
>
>> I read somewhere that Sebastian Coe, the great British runner, works for
>> Hague. Is that right?
>
>I've no idea, but it's certainly possible. He's been involved in Tory
>politics for a long time.
Indeed - I think Coe is still a Conservative MP and he has been one for
at least two stints now. It is entirely probable that he's on the shadow
cabinet in a junior role.
William Black
> Indeed - I think Coe is still a Conservative MP and he has been one for
> at least two stints now. It is entirely probable that he's on the shadow
> cabinet in a junior role.
I thought he lost his seat at the last election. He is certainly a friend
of Hauge and some sort of advisor.
--
William Black
--------------------------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
The Great Suprendo
>The Great Suprendo <TheGreat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Indeed - I think Coe is still a Conservative MP and he has been one for
>> at least two stints now. It is entirely probable that he's on the shadow
>> cabinet in a junior role.
>
>I thought he lost his seat at the last election. He is certainly a friend
>of Hauge and some sort of advisor.
I stand corrected if that is the case.
The Great Suprendo
>IMO that means there's nothing unconstitutional about Northerners [or
>Irish citizens elsewhere] voting in elections or referendums. It
>requires legislative change, not constitutional amendment. Trouble is
>of course, a significant number of Northerners would balk at having to
>take up Irish citizenship.
I wouldn't complain about having a vote in the south, but I think a lot
of the citizens there would. The Irish government cannot legislate up
here; why should I be able to decide what government gets in down there
?
Technically I suppose there is nothing to stop elections actually being
organised up here, except for the jurisdictional issues (would votes be
counted on the Northern side of the border and if so, how would Irish
courts adjudicate any disputes in the results?).
It would be interesting for the election prediction types. Assuming that
all of the nationalists up here got the vote, I think it would pretty
much relegate FF into second place for a very long time behind FG and
Labour, given the SDLP's links and the way SF transfers might go.
Paddy Matthews
>> legislation as may be necessary to give effect to all aspects of this
>> agreement..."
>>
>>
>
>No, YOU are the one talking shite as per usual. I asked you a VERY
>simple question. WHAT WAS THE TEXT OF THE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT PAPER
>IN THE REFERENDUM IN *THIS* COUNTRY????
>
>ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!
I'm surprised you'd know anything about the question on the ballot paper, seeing
as you couldn't be arsed to vote in the actual referendum. As I recall it, the
wording went something like:
"BRITISH-IRISH AGREEMENT
Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution Bill, 1998
Do you approve of the amendment to the constitution in this bill? Yes/No"
The actual wording of the last question I'm unsure of, but it was the same
formula that is/was used for all constitutional amendments. The detailed text of
the amendment is _not_ put on the ballot paper.
Now, to come back to the original point:
You said:
"The Agreement only stated that the Republic was to have a referendum
on the isues outlined, it did not say the people had to ratify it."
The agreement says:
"If majorities of those voting in each of the referendums support this
^^^^
agreement, the Governments will then introduce and support... such
^^^^
legislation as may be necessary to give effect to all aspects of this
agreement..."
Were you or were you not talking through your anus again? A simple Yes or No (or
even a YES or NO) will suffice.
p.
Ergoge the Niffirg
<TheGreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A certain William Black, of soc.culture.irish "fame", writes :
>>The Great Suprendo <TheGreat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Indeed - I think Coe is still a Conservative MP and he has been one for
>>> at least two stints now. It is entirely probable that he's on the shadow
>>> cabinet in a junior role.
>>
>>I thought he lost his seat at the last election. He is certainly a friend
>>of Hauge and some sort of advisor.
>
>I stand corrected if that is the case.
Seb Coe lost his seat at the last election. He works (or possibly
worked) for Hague (possibly his Private Secretary?).
They also are sparring partners in Judo.
--
Egoreg
Never ask a Donegal man to translate for you
The Great Suprendo
>>He *was* in there, at a low level. See Nick's post (which you ignored)
>>about the Crumlin Road stuff.
>
>Rubbish he was never in the IRA he was allowed on their wing. They felt sorry
>for him. He was never in the IRA.
They "felt sorry for" a kook/child pervert ?
<irrelevant waffle snipped>
The Great Suprendo
>They also are sparring partners in Judo.
Har har! I remember hearing about that right enough...
cro...@my-deja.com
provo wings while doing time for the firebombing of a policemans house?
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> He was not the big-shot "IRA man" that he claimed to be, and he never
> occupied any significant position in that organisation. But he was
> nonetheless a member.
Vincent McKenna was not in the IRA. He was in a highly dubious outfit
called FAIT. He was never in the IRA and the IRA have always denied that
he was on their team. Nobody believes anything he said unless they have
his or a similar agenda. He was a sick child molester and was in FAIT.
He was the darling of the British Conservative Party. The only people
who liked him were anti-Irish racists and the usual kooks.
gregory....@ntlworld.com
Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> Greig wrote:
>
> > William Hague
> > and the usual right wing politicians and newspapers
>
> I read somewhere that Sebastian Coe, the great British runner, works for
> Hague. Is that right?
I've no idea and couldn't care less. I have little interest in racist
politics. We've enough problems here without being interested in William
Hague and his aboriginal rantings about race and immigrants. The British
Conservative party is essentially racist. When they are stuck for a
policy they wheel out the race card or the anti-Irish card.
The Great Suprendo
writes :
>
>Vincent McKenna was not in the IRA.
Yes he was.
> He was in a highly dubious outfit
>called FAIT.
We know that.
> He was never in the IRA and the IRA have always denied that
>he was on their team.
I trust you will be able to provide a link where the IRA has denied that
McKenna was a member ?
> Nobody believes anything he said unless they have
>his or a similar agenda. He was a sick child molester and was in FAIT.
>He was the darling of the British Conservative Party. The only people
>who liked him were anti-Irish racists and the usual kooks.
Remind me : whose wing was he in, in the Crumlin Road again ?
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> I trust you will be able to provide a link where the IRA has denied that
> McKenna was a member ?
Why don't you provide one from them saying he is an ex-member? They
issued a statement to the media, the same media that adored the famous
child molester in question. Sane Catholics always try and get on an IRA
wing to stopped being attacked by the loyalists.
That in itself meant nothing in them days. He was never in the IRA and
the IRA have said as much. The only people who say he was in the IRA are
the same racists and stooges who thought the sun shone out of his
oriface. He was never in the IRA.
The Great Suprendo
>>Yes he was.
>
>You are just making that up.
No I'm not.
>You've no proof.
What was he doing in the IRA wing ?
> You are trying to skim a bogus wee
>thing there, why? That is your invention my dear boy. Do you believe everything
>Vinncent told you? He is a lying gobshite. No IRA knew him and vice versa.
You're wrong about that - but leaving that aside, I just want to know
what he was doing in their wing in the Crum if they didn't know him.
> The
>IRA regulary denied that he was ever a member.
You can, of course, provide a link or a news article in the "West
Belfast press" I suppose ?
The Great Suprendo
>
>>
>> I trust you will be able to provide a link where the IRA has denied that
>> McKenna was a member ?
>
>Why don't you provide one from them saying he is an ex-member?
Disingenuous. The IRA never release statements about who is or is not a
member.
(While we're at it - why did the IRA never release a statement saying
that Gerry Adams was never a member ? Surely if they can distance
themselves from McKenna in this way, they can distance themselves from
innocent bystanders like Adams as well ?)
You're the one claiming that the IRA denied his membership. Let's see
the statement.
> They
>issued a statement to the media,
If you can show me it then I'll concede.
mmcdon
<iPQ7N2B3...@ntlworld.co.uk>...
> It would be interesting for the election prediction types. Assuming that
> all of the nationalists up here got the vote, I think it would pretty
> much relegate FF into second place for a very long time behind FG and
> Labour, given the SDLP's links and the way SF transfers might go.
I very much doubt it. I suspect that SDLP voters would be much more likely
to transfer to Fianna Fail than to Labour. In fact I can't see Fine Gael
getting anything much at all from northern nationalists.
Is mise le emas,
Brian Cahill
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> You're wrong about that - but leaving that aside, I just want to know
> what he was doing in their wing in the Crum if they didn't know him.
He was never convicted of a shooting or bombing was he? He was a kook
arsonist taken in to protect him from loyalists. I'm wrong about very
little. You are trolling.
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> A certain gregory....@ntlworld.com, of ni.politics "fame", writes
> :
> >
> >
> >The Great Suprendo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I trust you will be able to provide a link where the IRA has denied that
> >> McKenna was a member ?
> >
> >Why don't you provide one from them saying he is an ex-member?
>
> Disingenuous. The IRA never release statements about who is or is not a
> member.
Yes they do and very frequently as well. The OC Kesh was an IRA Officer
and he does it or at other times the AC. Other statements appear in An
Phoblacht. The IRA publicaly stated that McKenna was never a member and
it was published in An Phoblacht. Only kook racists think he was an IRA
man. Nobody else does. It is a racist thing essentially.
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> A certain buzzbox, of ni.politics "fame", writes :
>
> >>He *was* in there, at a low level. See Nick's post (which you ignored)
> >>about the Crumlin Road stuff.
> >
> >Rubbish he was never in the IRA he was allowed on their wing. They felt sorry
> >for him. He was never in the IRA.
>
> They "felt sorry for" a kook/child pervert ?
He was a youngster, they didn't know he was to become a child molester.
He was a catholic lad who turned up at the Crum and they took him in to
protect him from loyalists. Are you saying he was a child molester when
he was a youngster as well? I am not following your logic.
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> It would be interesting for the election prediction types. Assuming that
> all of the nationalists up here got the vote, I think it would pretty
> much relegate FF into second place for a very long time behind FG and
> Labour, given the SDLP's links and the way SF transfers might go.
>
> --
FG would get the bulk of the SDLP votes. SF would get the rest.
The Great Suprendo
>> It would be interesting for the election prediction types. Assuming that
>> all of the nationalists up here got the vote, I think it would pretty
>> much relegate FF into second place for a very long time behind FG and
>> Labour, given the SDLP's links and the way SF transfers might go.
>
>I very much doubt it. I suspect that SDLP voters would be much more likely
>to transfer to Fianna Fail than to Labour.
The SDLP think that they're left wing. I don't think they really like
FF.
The Great Suprendo
:
>Yes they do and very frequently as well. The OC Kesh was an IRA Officer
>and he does it or at other times the AC. Other statements appear in An
>Phoblacht. The IRA publicaly stated that McKenna was never a member and
>it was published in An Phoblacht.
Hmm... I am surprised that the Irish News did not say anything about
this ? They are not exactly McKenna supporters themselves.
> Only kook racists think he was an IRA
>man.
I'm not a kook or a racist, Greig.
The Great Suprendo
>He was a youngster, they didn't know he was to become a child molester.
Couldn't this excuse apply to FAIT and the British right wing as well ?
>He was a catholic lad who turned up at the Crum and they took him in to
>protect him from loyalists.
What was he doing in the Crum in the first place ?
The Great Suprendo
>FG would get the bulk of the SDLP votes.
Agreed.
>SF would get the rest.
What evidence is there that SDLP voters who have not already switched to
SF would switch in a Southern election ? They are much more likely to be
distributed between FF, FG and Labour.
Sue Spence
This is the most stupid thread title going. Trolls should have much better
titles than this.
Now run off home all you drooling IRA sympathizers and dribbling unionist dolts.
Jeff Drabble
>
>This is the most stupid thread title going. Trolls should have much better
>titles than this.
It's not even properly punctuated.
Jeff Drabble
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> A certain gregory....@ntlworld.com, of ni.politics "fame", writes
> :
>
> >Yes they do and very frequently as well. The OC Kesh was an IRA Officer
> >and he does it or at other times the AC. Other statements appear in An
> >Phoblacht. The IRA publicaly stated that McKenna was never a member and
> >it was published in An Phoblacht.
>
> Hmm... I am surprised that the Irish News did not say anything about
> this ? They are not exactly McKenna supporters themselves.
Are you trying to prove a negative? If he wasn't in the IRA why should
they talk about it? The only people who ever claimed he was in the IRA
was the famous child molester himself and the right wing and racist
press and a few idiots.
No sensible person *ever* accepted a word McKenna said. Mostly racists
and kooks. Nobody sensible in other words. He was never in the IRA. If
he was in the IRA he'd have had comrades he'd be able to name. He was
never able to name anybody.
He had fixated on a dead IRA guy though. He never said he had any
'comrades'. He was deep undercover or something! He was a complete
fruitcake. He boasted to FAIT when he was at the Houses of Parliament on
a kook scam of theirs, that he had once visited before to try to blow up
the Houses of Parliament.
Previously he'd *also* told them he had never been to England. The right
wing and racist press and media repeated his kook claims. No sensible
person ever believed anything he said for a moment. He sent 'bombs' to
himself. McKenna allied himself to a cart load of racists, bigots and
kooks.
He was a fruitcake and he associated with other fruitcakes, racists,
bigots and kooks. That was his constituency. Nobody should take the
word of bigots or racists or fruitcakes or child molesters for anything.
Trust me on that piece of advice.
The Conservative Party loved McKenna, so did the Daily Telegraph, even
after he had claimed the police and IRA were conspiring against him and
framing him for child molestation, he could still count on the support
of the racist British press and bigoted anti-Irish politicians for a
platform.
gregory....@ntlworld.com
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> A certain gregory....@ntlworld.com, of ni.politics "fame", writes
> :
>
> >FG would get the bulk of the SDLP votes.
>
> Agreed.
Ooops I meant FF. That was a very silly typo.
mmcdon
> A certain mmcdon, of ni.politics "fame", writes :
> >> It would be interesting for the election prediction types. Assuming
that
> >> all of the nationalists up here got the vote, I think it would pretty
> >> much relegate FF into second place for a very long time behind FG and
> >> Labour, given the SDLP's links and the way SF transfers might go.
> >
> >I very much doubt it. I suspect that SDLP voters would be much more
likely
> >to transfer to Fianna Fail than to Labour.
>
> The SDLP think that they're left wing. I don't think they really like
> FF.
SDLP activists occasionally think of themselves as being vaguely left wing.
Their supporters, largely the Catholic middle class, are under no such
illusions. Not that being left wing and voting for the Irish Labour Party
are in any way connected.
Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill
Sue Spence
The Great Suprendo
>> FF.
>
>SDLP activists occasionally think of themselves as being vaguely left wing.
They actually regard themselves as pretty radical - in the same way that
New Labour do. In fact the parallels between New Labour and the
Schoolteachers, Doctors and Lawyers Party are quite something.
>Their supporters, largely the Catholic middle class, are under no such
>illusions.
Hard to say. After all, anyone can be a socialist these days - and have
the warm tingly feeling of a mis-spent non-radical youth - just by
describing themselves as such.
The Great Suprendo
>A tiny minority of SDLP voters think they are left wing.
They regard themselves as left wing, although we both agree that in
practice they are not.
> Most people would know
>that. The odd activist might pretend to be a left leaning liberal. The SDLP
>gave up on the notion of labor politics a very long time ago. Their voters are
>not labor voters, they are rural, Catholic and middle class.
Rural ? The SDLP vote is divided very equally among urban/city and rural
constituencies. SF has more strength in the cities but that's because of
the way it choses to divide up it's resources.
The Great Suprendo
> SF were
>once ferociously anti-European
Officially speaking they still are, although they don't make too much
noise about it.
The Great Suprendo
>> this ? They are not exactly McKenna supporters themselves.
>
>Are you trying to prove a negative? If he wasn't in the IRA why should
>they talk about it?
You just told me that An Phoblacht thought it was important enough to
talk about it.
> The only people who ever claimed he was in the IRA
>was the famous child molester himself and the right wing and racist
>press and a few idiots.
And the folks who let him on the IRA wing in the Crumlin Rd jail.
>No sensible person *ever* accepted a word McKenna said. Mostly racists
>and kooks. Nobody sensible in other words. He was never in the IRA. If
>he was in the IRA he'd have had comrades he'd be able to name. He was
>never able to name anybody.
Not even McKenna would be stupid enough to go around dropping names in
public. Would you drop names just to prove your credentials ? Of course
you wouldn't.
Maybe you can explain something to stupid non-academic people like me.
How exactly is IRA membership defined ? Do they give you a wee
membership card, and then put your name on a register ? If not, then
exactly how is it determined whether or not they are a member ?
<snip> You don't need to keep repeating that McKenna was a kook. I
already know that. I'm just interested in the details of his IRA
membership.
supe...@my-deja.com
"gregory....@ntlworld.com" <gregory....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>
> The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> >
> > You're wrong about that - but leaving that aside, I just want to
know
> > what he was doing in their wing in the Crum if they didn't know him.
>
> He was never convicted of a shooting or bombing was he?
Neither to my knowledge was Gerry Adams, would you like to deny that he
was in the IRA as well?
> He was a kook
> arsonist taken in to protect him from loyalists
I find it amazing that SF/IRA supporters are falling over themselves
trying to detach themselves from McKenna, but have no problem
associating themselves with some of the most bloodthirsty terrorists
seem anywhere in the world.
Personally if you check back on my posts you'll see that I never held
much store in McKenna. The hairs on my neck started to stand on end
when I heard him being referred to him as a "human rights" activist.
Just like Finucane and Nelson, when I hear the words "human rights"
being mentioned I become extremly sceptical, and this phrase seems to
be the clarion call of all politically motivated chancers in Northern
Ireland,
Keith
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
The Great Suprendo
>Personally if you check back on my posts you'll see that I never held
>much store in McKenna. The hairs on my neck started to stand on end
>when I heard him being referred to him as a "human rights" activist.
Indeed, and Greig is rightly disgusted at the way certain people leapt
hand over foot to accomodate McKenna. At the same time though there is
the question of the company he kept in his earlier years.
The Great Suprendo
>Course the claim of IRA membership could have been made to have the
>Brits falling all over themselves,
That is certainly what the republicans would like us all to believe. As
usual the truth lies between the two extremes. It all depends who you
talk to.
> a reformed poster boy to parade
>about in front of the dirty taigs yeah? They were salivating for him
>as a front man to their duplicitous organization
What do you know about FAIT, Sheela, apart from what Greig has told you
? Do you know why it was set up, or what it's aims/objectives were ?
> The same people here that *always* tow the line in the hatred
>department.
The kind of people who were calling McKenna a hero are the same kind of
people who took the book "The Committee" as indisputable fact. Here was
a UK journalist making programmes for a British state owned broadcaster
(Channel 4) who was accusing the North's entire policing, justice,
business community and anyone else who was fashionable of getting
together to organize the assassination of Catholic civilians. The fact
that The Committee presented no evidence and almost all of it's claims
were based on a single anonymous source didn't deter it's immediate
acceptance by many nationalists and republicans simply because it was
someone who would be from the "other side" (the UK journalist elite)
repeating all of the prejudices and ill-informed beliefs they held dear,
in a way validating them through the printed page.
Jim Sands, the source for the Committee, was surprisingly similar to
McKenna, now that I think about it. He claimed that he was a senior and
very involved member of a loyalist paramilitary organization. The
loyalist paramilitaries said that he wasn't a senior member and was a
bit of a kook. He liked to fantasize about being somebody important and
he did this via his book. All of those (including your good self) who
praised The Committee's investigative journalism are now looking a bit
silly.