SDLP to vote against New Budget - BBC

[Keith-M]

A very tenuous argument violating the spirit of the GFA and --given that the SDLP were the ones calling for includive government and criticised other parties for a half-in half-out approach -- hypocritical in the extreme.

An inclusive government doesn't mean that all parties have to act in unison, at the moment the DUP and SF seem to think that their way is the only way and every other party be dammed, hardly an "inclusive" government

If that's the SDLP position, then they should resign from the executive and offer an alternative to the people. At the moment, their NI's version of headless chickens.

[Darren Mac an Phríora]

It gets even more bizarre. Apparently Ritchie has voted FOR the budget. The SDLP are simply clueless timewasters, why would FF want anything to do with them?

Keith, why didn't you read the page on the BBC thats linked to?

"Sources say because of changes to the ministerial code its sole minister Margaret Ritchie has no choice but to vote with her Executive colleagues."

[El Matador]

[quote=Keith-M]

A very tenuous argument violating the spirit of the GFA and --given that the SDLP were the ones calling for includive government and criticised other parties for a half-in half-out approach -- hypocritical in the extreme.

An inclusive government doesn't mean that all parties have to act in unison, at the moment the DUP and SF seem to think that their way is the only way and every other party be dammed, hardly an "inclusive" government

If that's the SDLP position, then they should resign from the executive and offer an alternative to the people. At the moment, their NI's version of headless chickens.[/quote:liyk7gy2]

Do you even read other people's posts? Margaret Ritchie was bound to vote for the budget- her SDLP colleagues were not. And as I said, no, they should not leave the Executive. They have a seat on it as of right- what they choose to do with it is entirely up to them. If you're suggesting that they should roll over and agree to everything the DUP/ SF axis wants, then clearly you don't understand democracy. If you think that they have to quit the Executive and form an 'opposition' (the concept of which is non-existant under the GFA given the right of parties within the Executive to oppose their colleagues) then you clearly don't understand the concept of consociationalism.

[padraig]

The SDLP surely cannot remain inside the executive and vote against its budget. Who gets their seat?

The SDLP Minster in the executive is voting for the Budget, but the SDLP plan to vote against, seem more a media stunt then anything else.

[Keith-M]

[quote=El Matador][quote="Keith-M":2bozvuez]

A very tenuous argument violating the spirit of the GFA and --given that the SDLP were the ones calling for includive government and criticised other parties for a half-in half-out approach -- hypocritical in the extreme.

An inclusive government doesn't mean that all parties have to act in unison, at the moment the DUP and SF seem to think that their way is the only way and every other party be dammed, hardly an "inclusive" government

If that's the SDLP position, then they should resign from the executive and offer an alternative to the people. At the moment, their NI's version of headless chickens.[/quote:2bozvuez]

Do you even read other people's posts? Margaret Ritchie was bound to vote for the budget- her SDLP colleagues were not. [/quote:2bozvuez]

She wasn't bound to vote for anything. If the budget is such a problem for the sdlp, then their only Executive member should have had the cajones to vote against and leave the Executive.

And as I said, no, they should not leave the Executive. They have a seat on it as of right- what they choose to do with it is entirely up to them. If you're suggesting that they should roll over and agree to everything the DUP/ SF axis wants, then clearly you don't understand democracy.

The SDLP cannot have it both ways. They're a small (and getting smaller) party with one seat out of 12 in the Executive. They can choose to hold onto that seat or stand up for their beliefs. They cannot continue to try and have it both ways without looking increasingly ridiculous and irrelevant.

If you think that they have to quit the Executive and form an 'opposition' (the concept of which is non-existant under the GFA given the right of parties within the Executive to oppose their colleagues) then you clearly don't understand the concept of consociationalism.

The Belfast Agreement was superseded by the Saint Andrews Agreement. The SDLP can go into opposition at any time, there is NO obligation on them to take their Executive seat.

It would be better for politics in NI if both the SDLP and the UUP went into opposition. Failing to offer an alternative, is an afront to democracy.

[beardyboy]

Fair play to them!!! SF are voting for a budget that is going to end the Irish Language Broadcasing Fund therby ensuring that no Irish language programmes will ever be able to be made again for the BBC and UTV in Northern Ireland.

Edwin Poots has also said that he is not going to bring in an Irish Language Act either.

Darren stop it - I was going to say that

[infamous-el-guapo]

Margaret Ritchie has voted for the PfG because she had to under the St Andrews Agreement. Of course the SDLP is going to stay in the Executive, Margaret has been on of the strongest and most effective ministers since this Executive's inception.

However, the SDLP had very real concerns with the PfG and Budget with regards to education reform, health and a children's fund. As Mark Durkan said, our response was not going to be limited to the Department of Social Development.

The SDLP does not bend to threats from Simon Hamilton and the Assembly was never meant to be a rubber stamp for the actions of the Executive, it is a democratic, parliamentary body and when we feel that we should vote against a right-wing PfG and Budget, we're going to do it.

Does factual have no concerns with the Budget?
What about the amount of money the Finance Minister wants to raise from selling off public lands? These are lands which haven't even been sold yet so he has no idea how much money he'll get from them.

[PatMcL]

Play acting and very transparently so. Unable to argue her point succesfully at the original round of discussions over the budget she ran to the media crying it was all the fault of the DUP and primarily SF. Given extra money by the DUP and SF to keep her from crying and to cushion the fact that she is learning her job then that also is not good enough as the SDLP seek to have their cake and eat it. Ritchie gets the money to do her job yet the SDLP want to vote against her getting extra money to do her job. Terminal decline doesn't do justice to that incompetent shower.

[infamous-el-guapo]

Play acting and very transparently so. Unable to argue her point succesfully at the original round of discussions over the budget she ran to the media crying it was all the fault of the DUP and primarily SF. Given extra money by the DUP and SF to keep her from crying and to cushion the fact that she is learning her job then that also is not good enough as the SDLP seek to have their cake and eat it. Ritchie gets the money to do her job yet the SDLP want to vote against her getting extra money to do her job. Terminal decline doesn't do justice to that incompetent shower.

I really wouldn't try and portray Margaret Ritchie as a hysterical woman. Aside from the fact that it makes you look like a misogynist fool, it backfired completely when Robinson and McGuinness tried it.

Try and stick to the point, it was a bad budget by any progressive standards. PSF would have realised this if they were in any way left as they espouse to be and if they weren't in the back pockets of the DUP

[PatMcL]

Who said Ritchie was behaving as a hysterical woman? I didn't, is that what you really think of your colleague? Or is that just you inventing an argument (once again) in order to use words like misogynist and have a pop at Mc Guinness over some imagined altercation between Ritchie and him?

So Ritchie and people like yourself didn't cry and whinge at the original budget allocation? .

Ritchie has been given the money in this budget to do her job, she is accepting that. No doubt she will be happy to accept any plaudits should she be even mildly successful. All the while her Stoop colleagues want the right to decry the fact she got extra money to do her job. A ridiculous example of the Stoops once again trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions.