SF rise threatens US investment:Sunday Independent

ionapaul

Who wants Ireland to become the Shinners 'Socialist Paradise' anyhow? If there is such a thing as 'class warfare' (I often hear Republicans, US not Irish that is, going off about it) it has to be middle and upper-class voters backing Sinn Fein!

edit * Indeed, same story was front page of yesterday's Sunday Tribune

Victor

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Of course, your response will now to drag up the old "gap between rich and poor" chestnut. But that's also bunkum, and the figures show this - the poor are now far more well off than at any time in our country's history.

Tell that to the homeless.

Originally posted by Hobbes

What success is that then?

Probably the 6% growth rate and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU which is half the the E.U rate of 9%

jmcc

Originally posted by Meh
I think you're going to have to define exactly what "neo-unionist" means, as it appears to have nothing in common with the traditional definition of the term "unionist". As far as I can see from your usage of the term, it means "someone who doesn't like Sinn Féin".

In this case it is the Sindo's slant (anti-SF/republican/nationalist etc) running in parallel with O'Dea's publicity attempt.

The neo-unionist tag essentially describes the head in the sand approach that the the Sindo and its management have had to the reality of modern Ireland for the last twenty years or so. They have tried to ignore the growth in support for SF, preferring instead the staid corruption of the big parties as if Northern Ireland did not exist as anything other than a place that was not here (here being the narrow confines of the Sindo's Dublin) and was filled with strange people. The opinion writers of the Sindo that I mentioned are well known for their unionist opinions. But how well does the Sindo sell in the Unionist heartlands?

Neo-unionism is revisionist. The Union was good for some Irish people, typically the large farmer/merchant/professional classes at the end of the 19th century. The neo-unionist slant would see the economic benefits without seeing the human suffering that went into generating these profits for the few. Neo-unionism may not particularly want to join with the UK but that does not stop it aspiring to some kind of union with the UK in the way that a dog chases a car. If the car stopped, the dog gets confused. However the UK is in the early throes of a kind of federalisation with regional assemblies. It is as if the UK is moving towards Home Rule for its regions.

The Sindo's neo-unionism is not really Unionism at all. It is essentially a kind of thought that seems to define itself by being anti-nationalist/republican while looking upon the period of the Union as being some kind of golden age for Ireland. At worst there is an element of "Croppy Lie Down" about the Sindo's continual whine about the rise SF and the damage that it will do to "modern" Ireland if it ever gets into power.

The neo-unionism of the Sindo is the last vestige of the mindset of that segment of Irish society that gained most from the Union. Weapons are easy to decommission but the mindsets take far longer. The problem is that Ireland, the UK and rest of the world has moved on while those mindsets have not.

It would be harsh to describe the Sindo's neo-unionism as just a cynical attempt to cater for a small demographic that likes to think of itself as soi-disant aristocracy. The Sindo's opinion writers seem to really believe the stuff that they write but that does not make it anything other than just an opinion.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I thought I saw the same story in the Sunday Tribune - certainly I remember seeing O'Dea's remarks and I don't get the Sindo.

And who owns the Sunday Trib?

Regards...jmcc

ishmael whale

Originally posted by jmcc
In this case it is the Sindo's slant (anti-SF/republican/nationalist etc) running in parallel with O'Dea's publicity attempt.

Fine, and the reason the Sunday Tribune had the same story on their front page is they are also anti-SF/republican/nationalist etc, or is it just that they are confused.

jmcc

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Fine, and the reason the Sunday Tribune had the same story on their front page is they are also anti-SF/republican/nationalist etc, or is it just that they are confused.

Same owner - same rabble rousing but for a different demographic.

Regards...jmcc

Meh

Originally posted by jmcc
The Sindo's neo-unionism is not really Unionism at all.

So why describe it as such? What value does this phrase "neo-unionist" bring to the discussion, beyond a cheap smear based on its associations with Northern bigotry? Why not use some other term that isn't as misleading and politically loaded?

jmcc

Originally posted by Meh
So why describe it as such? What value does this phrase "neo-unionist" bring to the discussion, beyond a cheap smear based on its associations with Northern bigotry? Why not use some other term that isn't as misleading and politically loaded?

Unionism is not Northern bigotry. However the term neo-unionism is more Unionism with a small "u". If a referendum was held in the UK (excluding NI) about Ireland rejoining the Union, I don't think that the UK electorate would support such a move. But these people would still promote the benefits of the Union without analysing the disadvantages. It is purely an emotional argument than one with any basis in reality. So what term would you use to describe the Sindo's stance?

Regards...jmcc

Hobbes

Originally posted by Earthman
Probably the 6% growth rate and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU which is half the the E.U rate of 9%

Shame it doesn't reflect reality though. Nearly everyone I know in day to day life is either unemployed or had to take pay cuts to work.

Of course maybe life is more shiney for you, but I see a lot of pissed off people day to day. Quite a few voted for the shinners out of protest, not because they agreed with SF.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by jmcc
Same owner - same rabble rousing but for a different demographic.

Good, I just wanted to be clear that any newspaper that carries stories critical of Sinn Fein is obviously suspect and neo unionist.

jmcc

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Good, I just wanted to be clear that any newspaper that carries stories critical of Sinn Fein is obviously suspect and neo unionist.

There is a hell of a difference between rabble rousing and serious journalism. Serious journalism is fact based. The O'Dea story is just the usual Sunday newspaper op-ed rubbish masquerading as journalism.

A newspaper that runs a story on SF based on facts is not necessarily neo-unionist. However when a newspaper that has a track record of being anti-republican, anti-SF, and initially anti-peace process, runs an anti-SF op-ed piece as journalism, it is difficult to claim that it is doing so out of a non-partisan nature.

The problem is that this particular story would probably not make through the editorial process of a serious newspaper where reporting and editorial standards are higher. The big mistake that most people make is in confusing the Sunday newspapers with the daily newspapers. The Sundays are typically op-ed driven whereas the Daily newspapers are typically news driven. Scare tactics work best where they cannot be questioned and this unnamed sources/events that have not yet happened is a classic scare story designed to keep O'Dea in the limelight.

Regards...jmcc

ishmael whale

Originally posted by jmcc
The O'Dea story is just the usual Sunday newspaper op-ed rubbish masquerading as journalism.

We have a case of two newspapers publishing a story with negative news about Sinn Fein. Rather than concentrating on the story, an amount of attention seems to be given simply to one of the papers concerned.

As I’ve said earlier in this thread I don’t get the Sindo. I don’t regard it as a quality paper, but it’s not the Weekly World News. On reading the story the first question is did O’Dea actually say what he’s reported as saying? Probably. Does his statement have any basis in fact? I don’t doubt he can point to some basis for the story, but I’d suspect he’s milking it.

What significance has the story? It draws attention to Sinn Fein’s weakness in the area of economic policy, which is also the current government’s strength. This seems like a valid issue for debate. I don’t see the need to put up a smokescreen complaining about the Sindo’s editorial policy or the relative merits of Sunday vs daily papers.

ionapaul

Originally posted by Hobbes
Shame it doesn't reflect reality though. Nearly everyone I know in day to day life is either unemployed or had to take pay cuts to work.

Really? Not trying to annoy/antagonise anyone here, but honestly not one of my friends is unemployed at the moment, or has been for quite a while. We are all in our late 20s, all third-level educated. Now I'm not saying that some aren't pissed off, but not one is unemployed. I was looking for a job last month and got offered two jobs in one day, and my new boss has been complaining since I started that the employment market is such that he cannot fill all the available positions. One friend has had to endure a pay freeze for two years, but is currently interviewing on the sly with companies in England to find a better paying job.
Can anyone really say things will get better if Sinn Fein were influencing the economic climate?

bug

What significance has the story? It draws attention to Sinn Fein’s weakness in the area of economic policy, which is also the current government’s strength. This seems like a valid issue for debate. I don’t see the need to put up a smokescreen complaining about the Sindo’s editorial policy or the relative merits of Sunday vs daily papers

yes..hopefully this article, based on willie O'dee's rhetoric and not much other substance, may let sinn fein examine their economic policy and improve on it.

Stabshauptmann

Originally posted by ReefBreak
And for those Sinn Féin supporters: Please explain to me how their nonsense economics would result in anything other than economic devastation? Please, I'm dying to know.

Not a Shinner but I do feel I can answer your question.


There are two ways of attracting foreign inverstment, be a cheap operations base or be a base with skilled workforce and good infrastructure.
We have tried the cheap one but can no longer compete in that market with the emergence of china and eastern europe as viable alternatives.

So SF want to try the left approach, have a good education system and produce top notch employees and improve the countries infrastructure through increased capital spending. To do this takes money, far more than we can currently afford apparently.

SF wants to bring CPT in line with other western europeen countries such as germany and france to pay for this. France has a truelly excellent health and education system IMO that was designed in the 40s and 50s when the left was in power then and even though the right has since come to power the ppl favour mantaining these systems.
Do you honestly want me to believe that the europeen economy is on the verge of collapse?

SF have also proposed lowering VAT which would stimulate consumer buying and thus produce economic growth.

SF whish to lower the ammount of tax paid by lower income housholds. First they want to remove stealth taxes and increase PAYE so that you are paying the same tax but can see clearly where your money is going. Its called transparency and is a key part to their social policy.

Next they wish to reduce the lower tax rate and increase the higher rate (possible introduce a third rate in between, nothing definate as of yet) so that the exchequer gets the same amount of money from PAYE but wealth is redistributed in an equitable fashion.

I can see why this scares many ppl in the top 10 to 20% income bracket who are paying practically nothing as it stands and why they wish to scare the middle class in to thinking that their money is at risk when in fact they are likely to be paying less tax (if the third tax rate idea is adopted)

So ReefBreak I hope this answers your questions, SF are not going to start seizing land and property, PAYE wont be going up (for most) and CPT will be brought in line with our eurpoeen neighbours.

Ps BTW it wasnt PD policies that led to the reduction of CPT in the first place and the other tax incentives and grant schemes currently in operation, it was the rainbow coallition who started the celtic tiger, a left of centre government FYI

Victor

Originally posted by Necromancer
I can see why this scares many ppl in the top 10 to 20% income bracket who are paying practically nothing as it stands and why they wish to scare the middle class in to thinking that their money is at risk when in fact they are likely to be paying less tax (if the third tax rate idea is adopted)

That 10 to 20% actually do pay a lot of tax - it is a large group of individuals that avail of tax breaks and earn untaxable money is the real problem.

Stabshauptmann

This probably has more place in that forum Flogen mods but...

The indo isnt a right/left/centre newspaper. Its not neo-unionist or anything else. Its a paper.
The political veiws of its journalists however is a different matter.
On the right we have: Harris, Edwards, O Connor and O Hanlon. Whats interesting about these three is the lack of facts, figures and refrences. Haris has taken to writing a diary of late which last week talked about his drunken exploits?? Edwards has been out of the limlight for a bit but was back this week with a theory about how the IRA planned the drumcree problem to make unionists seem stupid. But Eilis is my favourite, she always has a quote from a facticous character which i find really funny. To prove her points she created a personality which says really stupid things and her article is so rich in sarcasm you'd really wonder if there wsa a point to what she writes.
When Brendon first came to the Indo he was funny but he has become really personal and bitter over the Iraq war that its really sad to read him. I dont like that style of journalism.

In the middle we have john Drennan. Just the facts. I cant really make anything of what he believes or thinks, he is impartial and highly informative IMHO. This week he writes about his veiws on the reshuffle.

And then on the left we find Kerrigan. There are only two ppl who have a guarenteed spot. Harris and Kerrigan. Kerrigan is usually full of facts, figures and fills in the backround that led to said events sometimes painting a picture over decades. This weeks isnt his best work but lasty week (or was the week before that) he had seferal articles, all top notch stuff. He can be impartial but it is clear what he believes.

What is clear is that it wants to be a tabloid or at least a hybrid between broadsheet and tabloid. To do this it has changed its image, reminds ppl it has the largest circulation in ireland, has taken to printing "sexy" pictures, and improved its sports coverage and then there is always Eoin Harris' diary

Yes the overall feeling you get after reading it is PD good, SF bad, ireland should be more like england which should be more like america but as Kant said count not the voices, weigh them (or something to that effect)

*Please excuse poor spelling and paraphrasing, Im in a rush.

Stabshauptmann

Originally posted by Victor
That 10 to 20% actually do pay a lot of tax - it is a large group of individuals that avail of tax breaks and earn untaxable money is the real problem.

Im thinking of an article I read in either the Indo or Trib about the % of ppl who pay no tax/ top earners who pay little tax. It was a good while ago but cant remember. Does anybody know what im talking about?

Meh

Originally posted by Necromancer
There are two ways of attracting foreign inverstment, be a cheap operations base or be a base with skilled workforce and good infrastructure.

You talk as if these two approaches are mutually exclusive. It's better still to be cheap (in terms of taxation) and have a skilled workforce and good infrastructure.

Do you honestly want me to believe that the europeen economy is on the verge of collapse?

Of course not, but I don't envy France and Germany their unemployment figures. (Apparently, Sinn Féin do though).

SF whish to lower the ammount of tax paid by lower income housholds. First they want to remove stealth taxes and increase PAYE so that you are paying the same tax but can see clearly where your money is going. Its called transparency and is a key part to their social policy.

Huh? When I pay my bin charges, I know exactly where they go.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/public_utilities/waste_management/domestic_refuse.html?search=bin+charges
If you pay local authority waste charges, your money will go towards funding the collection service, the running of waste disposal facilities like landfill sites and the provision of recycling facilities in your area.

My income tax, in contrast, disappears into the giant government central fund.

CPT will be brought in line with our eurpoeen neighbours.

Hello Sinn Féin, goodbye jobs.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by ReefBreak
And for those Sinn Féin supporters: Please explain to me how their nonsense economics would result in anything other than economic devastation? Please, I'm dying to know.

Again I say to you your missing the point!
Many SF voters dont feel part of this "celtic tiger" and so feel no loyalty to ensuring its continued success.

The fact is many who vote SF feel marginalised and/or that the present government and indeed on a wider scale the present economic thinking which underpins our economy has widened the gap between rich and poor and created a far more devided society!
So why should we vote for the retention of an unfair and baised stystem which is what we would be doing by voting for FF/PD or indeed even a FG coalition?
The whole system is designed to look after the needs of the type of people who generally vote FF PD or FG!

Who looks out for the needs of the poor, the marginalised or the immigrant who comes to Ireland to try and make a better life and ends up getting screwed by employers?
At present only SF seem to be doing that and so I would say, and I say this only as my personal opinion, not on behalf of any party, that I care nothing for your "inward investemnt" or corporation tax!
The system looks after this for you!

SF will try and make changes to this system for the benefit of those who so far have been left out and to be honest, to hell with those who vote PD FF or FG you have had your chance and didnt take it....well you did, but for your own benefit and not for society as a whole!

Meh

Originally posted by AmenToThat
Again I say to you your missing the point!
Many SF voters dont feel part of this "celtic tiger" and so feel no loyalty to ensuring its continued success.

The fact is many who vote SF feel marginalised and/or that the present government and indeed on a wider scale the present economic thinking which underpins our economy has widened the gap between rich and poor and created a far more devided society!

Unemployment before the Celtic Tiger: 15%
Unemployment currently: 4.6%
Tell me again how the boom has done nothing to help the poor and marginalized?

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Necromancer
There are two ways of attracting foreign inverstment, be a cheap operations base or be a base with skilled workforce and good infrastructure.

Being a low tax environment for high skilled activities is another approach, which seems to be what we are gravitating towards anyway. Everyone is saying we need to go up the value chain, and invest in education to do it.

Originally posted by Necromancer
SF wants to bring CPT in line with other western europeen countries such as germany and france to pay for this.

Which removes an important incentive for companies to come to Ireland. Remember we have few significant indigenous private companies, so for the foreseeable we are dependant on attracting foreign companies in. Why come to Ireland’s peripheral location if you don’t get a tax incentive ?

Originally posted by Necromancer
SF have also proposed lowering VAT which would stimulate consumer buying and thus produce economic growth.

If they have proposed this then they truly do not understand the Irish economy. We’re an open economy – what we produce we export and what we consume we import. Increasing consumer demand in Ireland doesn’t boost our economy. It boosts the economies of our trading partners.

Stabshauptmann

Lower vat improves our standard of living as we have a larger disposable income. We consume a lot of products produced in ireland eg food and drink, electronics and pharmacuticals although granted the profits from the latter two are repatriated

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Necromancer
Lower vat improves our standard of living as we have a larger disposable income. We consume a lot of products produced in ireland eg food and drink, electronics and pharmacuticals although granted the profits from the latter two are repatriated

Lower VAT might have some redistributive effects (although is food zero rated here?) but it does not stimulate the economy.

This is not a controversial point. We tend to produce goods for export and to consume imported goods. Stimulating consumer demand does not boost the domestic economy.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by David
The whole point of Socialism is to stamp out poverty and provide equality, and they're both in Sinn Féin's agenda.

No. The point of socialism is for the State to control the means of production. That is the definition of Socialism. I haven't heard FF, the PD's, FG or any Independents claiming to not want to stamp out poverty. The best way out poverty is to get a job, and high corporate taxes and income taxes make getting a job much harder. Higher income taxes reduce investment in companies, and disincentivise people from moving from welfare to work. Higher corporation-taxes drive away foreign investment upon which the Irish economy utterly depends. 70% of the Republic's GDP is derived from exports, and the vast majority of those exports are by foreign-based multinationals, primarily American, which use Ireland as a springboard for exports into Euroland. Because we are a low-tax Eurozone country, there is a coalescence of factors that encourage investment into this State. SF's poisonous hatred of all things EU (they even opposed us enterring in 1972, and ALL the later EU treaties) would harm Ireland's influence at EU Council of Ministers level, were they to get into government. I expect that were they in Government in the South, they would bring a Tory-style confrontational veto-addict approach to EU Council meetings, which would result in the squandering of alliances with other EU States in the name of narrow isolationism. It is ironic that parties so otherwise on opposite sides of the political-spectrum should be so alike when it comes to attitudes to the EU.

On this claim by SF-supporters that critics of SF are "neo-Unionist", I reject that utterly. Of course many of SF's critics in NI are Unionists in the literal sense. But in the South, we are electing a sovereign government, not merely a devolved administration like that seen in NI. Okay, so Ni's economy didn't nosedive after they entered the NI Executive. But the NI Executive had virtually NO power over business-rates in NI. And SF themselves held no economic portfolios. Nor did they have any votes at the Council of Ministers in Brussels. So they remain untested and in the absence of that, assuming that they are being honest with us on their policies, we are perfectly entitled to subject their admitted policies to every bit as much scrutiny as we would the admitted policies of the other parties.

SF's attempt to smear all their southern critics as "neo-Unionist" bares a disturbingly strong resemblance to the Chinese Communist Party's criticism of all of its Chinese critics as "unpatriotic". But then, should that be so surprising given SF's apparent plans to join the Communist party in the European Parliament?

It has been alleged that the reason why SF members 'recover' items stolen from local communities who request their help in finding these items is because members of the IRA may have stolen them in the first place. Also, SF are alleged to be partially funded by the proceeds of organised crime. Regardless we know that they are the only party in the Irish Dail to have a private-army. A major scandal would unfold in the South were it to transpire that FF or FG had a private-army. Certainly they could expect a collapse in their support if that happened. Yet some choose to vote for this party. I expect that it will be a passing phase in the longterm, however.

As admitted by a previous poster, many of those voting for SF did so out of protest and not necessarily because they agreed with their policies. I see the SF vote as being part of a trend that began after Des O'Malley left FF to establish the PD's. Since then a large protest vote has manifested itself in Irish politics, though not always voting for the same party. In the 1980's the PD's benefited from this with 15% of the vote. Then in 1992, Labour took 19% of the vote in the so-called "Spring-tide". The protest vote has now gone to SF. I do not, however, expect it to last. Neither do I expect SF to become politically extinct in the South. I expect their vote to eventually fall back to PD levels.

simu

Originally posted by Necromancer
the overall feeling you get after reading it is PD good, SF bad, ireland should be more like england which should be more like america but as Kant said count not the voices, weigh them (or something to that effect)

Yup. They seem to be overly negative about the Irish language as well - Eamonn O Cuiv's policy of having signposts in Irish in Irish-speaking areas was compared unfavourably to the Nazis' policy of leaving signposts in French in occupied France in one of their articles last Sunday. wtf???:rolleyes:

AmenToThat

Originally posted by Meh
Unemployment before the Celtic Tiger: 15%
Unemployment currently: 4.6%
Tell me again how the boom has done nothing to help the poor and marginalized?

So your saying no there is not a significant section of the Irish population that are not experiencing poverty and social isolation at present?
Im sure they will all be very happy to know this!
:rolleyes:

Meh

Originally posted by AmenToThat
So your saying no there is not a significant section of the Irish population that are not experiencing poverty and social isolation at present?

Of course not. I'm simply refuting your argument that the boom has hurt the disadvantaged rather than helping them.

jmcc

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
SF's attempt to smear all their southern critics as "neo-Unionist" bares a disturbingly strong resemblance to the Chinese Communist Party's criticism of all of its Chinese critics as "unpatriotic". But then, should that be so surprising given SF's apparent plans to join the Communist party in the European Parliament?

I think you are getting me mixed up with a policitical party. Oh look - there's Michael McDowell.

Regards...jmcc