Member's statement: Sinn Féin: Westminster Abstentionism

Member's statement by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .

MLA
Mr Daniel McCrossan
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
28 May 2024
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Sinn Féin: Westminster Abstentionism
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4492060

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I, too, share the comments of my colleagues in the House in welcoming you back to the Chair, Mr Speaker. A very drenched Tory Prime Minister called an election in recent days. It was a solemn reminder of the chaos that has lingered at the fingertips of this Government for well over a decade. I can happily say that we will be happy to see the back of the Tory Administration at Number 10 and will welcome the new, incoming Government. At this time, we have major challenges in Northern Ireland and major hurdles to overcome, particularly with the health service, education and the state of our roads etc, as well as with how the Assembly is funded. We have heard from the First Minister and deputy First Minister since the return of the Assembly and from other colleagues, particularly those from Sinn Féin, about how underfunded this place is and how much the Tories are to blame. I do not dispute that the Tories are to blame for quite a lot of the financial issues that we face. It is, however, more important than ever, now that we will, hopefully, see a new Administration — although there could be a hung Parliament — that we have MPs from across the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland who actually show up. We talked about the importance of showing up to this House to get the work done and deliver for people on the ground, but what about showing up to Westminster? In the absence of this institution for the past number of years, my constituents in West Tyrone were left completely voiceless, because we were not able to speak up for them in this House and no one was speaking up for them in London. If Sinn Féin is serious about wanting to see this place being better resourced and better funded, it is surely better to be there rather than being outside shouting in. That really does not benefit anybody — certainly not my constituents in West Tyrone or those in any other constituencies where that policy is in place. Over the past few days, we have heard the First Minister and, indeed, the MP for my constituency saying that now is the time for change. What will change? Is Sinn Féin going to change its abstentionist policy? Will it review its approach? The truth is that abstentionism does not serve our constituents well. It only serves the selfish, narrow political interests of Sinn Féin. SDLP MPs have shown for decades that they can deliver at Westminster, their votes count and people's voices can be heard in that Chamber. That is why we have two outstanding MPs, Colum Eastwood and Claire Hanna. It is a great pity that my constituents have been deprived of that for the past 23 years, and I hope that, if Sinn Féin really cares about the state of our finances in Northern Ireland, its MPs will take up their seats, go to Westminster and demand better for people, instead of standing outside huffing about it.

510 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.18 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.11No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.07No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.29No
Controversy escalation0.08No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.57No
Overall judgement0.18At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.98
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.59
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.32
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.05
Another identity-related subject0.04
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:28 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification