Did Margaret Ritchie make right choice in giving ministerial post to Alex Atwood over Patsy Mc Glone? The arguments.

Rarely have I seen a grown man so shell shocked, apart from where there is a death in the family than what I saw in the Great Hall yesterday morning. The deputy leader of the SdlP Patsy Mc Glone emerged from the side of the stairway to signal to me he had not been appointed a minister. He was ashen faced and clearly crestfallen. The SDLP had just come through a very unremarkable election having dropped another two seats with just under 500 votes separating them and Sinn Fein in Derry and no Assembly representation remaining in Fermanagh South Tyrone where Tommy Gallagher surrendered his seat to Sinn Fein. Party leader Margaret Ritchie was told by pro Mc Glone figures that he was ‘ the only hope’ of reviving the party’s fortunes West of the Bann in rural Northern Ireland and they advocated he should be afforded an opportunity to do this from a position of strength in being appointed a minister. Miss Ritchie listened and took her own counsel and decided that Alex Atwood was superior cabinet material and ignored advice tendered. There is universal acceptance that the West Belfast Assembly member has emerged as a successful tough and tenacious performer at the Executive table well capable of defending himself and his party’s interest. He has been given the nod to continue this time in Environment. Was Margaret Ritchie’s decision purely based on her friendship with Mr Atwood or was there some other motive ? Only Miss Ritchie really knows this. There are those who know how she thinks. One such source prosecutes a thesis that Patsy Mc Glone’s approach to environment is not compatible with the party’s position. It is argued he is ‘ pro fishing and shooting.’ The same source added ” he wants to kill anything that moves in the country.” It is further claimed that Mr Mc Glone “is out of line with the party’s position on planning. He wants a bungalow in every field.” protested the insider. ” Limited and regulated development in the countryside is what the party favours. Patsy voted for issues in the House which conflicted with party policy.” added a source. All that is fine and may well be a sustainable argument on a narrow canvas. Does what has happened revitalise the party’s fortunes? Pro Ritchie forces take the view that the strategy for a renaissance in the party is ‘differentiation.’ This concept historically embraced non violence but the end of the IRA’s use of force has diluted that difference. The SDLP are falling back on two other key differences from the approach of Sinn Fein. Firstly on the economy that party argues it has proven itself streets ahead of Sinn Fein on coming up with revenue streams and job creating programmes while sustaining people in employment . The party is accusing the DUP and Sinn Fein of burgling many of their ideas on the economy from their bank. The SDLP also contends their approach is for one community working and living and growing together alleging that the approach of the DUP and Sinn Fein is to ameliorate the quality of life in each community. The SDLP claims there is a genuine basis to its aspiration of ‘Unity.’ The party claims ‘persuasion’ of those who do not believe in this idea is the only way forward. So to what does all this add up? A spokesperson argues ” we must work harder at selling ourselves. We have failed to sell the good product we have to sell. ” I wonder is it that simple?
I can only presume Miss Ritchie if she is honest with herself will deploy focus groups to test her own ratings in the community. That would be a fair way to inform her as to whether she is adjudged to be the best person to afford relevance to the future of the SDLP.