Why are the Shinners good enough for DUP but not us?

There are many differences between SF North and South of the border and many reasons why something acceptable up there might not be so down here.

A terrorist who shoots a policeman north of the border walks out of jail for his politically motivated act.

A terrorist who shoots a policeman south of the border faces life imprisonment for murder.

Context is everything.

Zaphod

Far from any high-minded principles, the reason the main parties say they won't go into coalition with SF is that they're afraid of giving their opponents a stick to beat them with and ultimately of losing votes. It also serves to give the impression that a vote for SF is a 'wasted vote' as they won't be in government.

However, once election day is over, all bets are off. It's not as if there isn't any precedent. It wasn't that long ago that single-party government was a "core value" (remember those?) of FF. And then they turned around and went into bed with their bestest friend ever, Dessie O'Malley.

FG are no different. Back in 1992 they baulked at the idea of going into power with Democratic Left. But when the FF/Lab coalition fell apart, they lost no time in cozying up to the ex-Stickies.

Meanwhile SF are performing pirouettes and quickly shedding any policies that could possibly be an obstacle to coalition.

Just remember the old adage when you hear politicians speaking : Why are these lying b@stards lying to me

The Rooster

Why are the Shinners good enough for DUP but not us?

Because of their Marxist economic beliefs

tHE vAGGABOND

Meanwhile SF are performing pirouettes and quickly shedding any policies that could possibly be an obstacle to coalition.

Yea, Mary Lou WhatsHerBin was on Prime Time last night and I thought she did quite well. The interviewer was beating her up about some of the 'wacky' policies SF have/had and she dodged a few bulliets and did pretty well..

It is a sign of a mature party, if they are 'grown up' enough to realise if policy x or y just does not wash and hence they change them.

Now the question is how the shinners on the ground will feel about those changes - but not knowing any shinners in real life [that I know of] and not trusting media coverage of the subject I will have to wait and see I suppose

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor Meldrew

Jon wrote:

firstly what is SF/IRA? There is no such party.

Secondly what is the Tiocfaidh ar la brigade?

At the last EU election Mary Lou Macdonald polled over 60,000 votes. Hell of a lot of disadvantaged people in Dublin hey? :rolleyes:

Sinn Fein = IRA. Tiochfaidh ar lá = our day will come, the die hard republicans


And, as for mary Lou, 60,000 votes out of all of dublin (pop~ 1million - not sure what the total vote is) is not a huge number. take it as a sign that there are a lot of people who feel that the mainstream (democratic) parties do not represent them.

marco murphy

The Rooster wrote:

Because of their Marxist economic beliefs

And you base this on what?


SF are in government in the North because they were democratically elected as such. I firmly believe the IRA is totally over now. The corp tax increased has been scrapped thankfully.

FTA69

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Yep. Pretty much.

Because of their Marxist economic beliefs

Please explain how Sinn Féin favouring low income and Corp tax has any corralation with Marxism.

yomchi

Sinn Fein = IRA. Tiochfaidh ar lá = our day will come, the die hard republicans

O i see! very intelligent that. Are you saying I'm a member of the IRA then?

Idiot

Victor Meldrew

Jon wrote:

O i see! very intelligent that. Are you saying I'm a member of the IRA then?

Idiot

:eek: Not at all, It's just, historically there has been a bit of a, ahem, overlap in membership especially amongst some of the deputies in the dail and candidates standing in the election, so it's a bit relevent to the current discussion. I'll play nice and just call them SF I'm sure you diddn't really tmean the idiot comment....

yomchi

Victor Meldrew wrote:

:eek: Not at all, It's just, historically there has been a bit of a, ahem, overlap in membership especially amongst some of the deputies in the dail and candidates standing in the election, so it's a bit relevent to the current discussion. I'll play nice and just call them SF I'm sure you diddn't really tmean the idiot comment....

I just think its pathetic to generalise, especially in this day and age. Things have moved on substantially in the last ten years. You are using language of the past tbh and it doesn't help the friendly debate

brianthebard

Poblachtach wrote:

And you base this on what?

Why do SF and their supporters have such a hard time defining what they stand for? its been said countless times that they are a socialist party, yet when I start a thread in politics no one can tell me why they are socialist, they apparently just are. When someone says SF are marxist (pretty synonymous with socialism, even if its not *quite* their specific brand) there are two users who jump on this suggestion aggressively. SF are either socialist or their not, last time I heard they thought they were and if that's the case then their economic policies don't make sense in government with FG and they would have a hard time with FF. If they aren't marxist, then what are they, trotskyist? In the end the distinction makes little difference to the majority of Irish voters.

Dyr

brianthebard wrote:

When someone says SF are marxist (pretty synonymous with socialism, even if its not *quite* their specific brand)

So the current Taoiseach is a marxist now? :rolleyes:

yomchi

brianthebard wrote:

Why do SF and their supporters have such a hard time defining what they stand for? its been said countless times that they are a socialist party, yet when I start a thread in politics no one can tell me why they are socialist, they apparently just are. When someone says SF are marxist (pretty synonymous with socialism, even if its not *quite* their specific brand) there are two users who jump on this suggestion aggressively. SF are either socialist or their not, last time I heard they thought they were and if that's the case then their economic policies don't make sense in government with FG and they would have a hard time with FF. If they aren't marxist, then what are they, trotskyist? In the end the distinction makes little difference to the majority of Irish voters.

TBH even within the party there has been debate as to what exactly the position on Socialism is. Over the past few years we have seen the demise of the word soclialism from the mouths of parties leaders, including that of statements and speeches. However whether you are socialist or not is defined by your fiscal policies and not your speeches!
My own opinion is that the party will lean towards the centre when it comes to fiscal policy so as not to alienate itself and come under criticism for having such policies. A large clump of activists have recently left the party due to the watering down of the parties former socialist policies. SF first and foremost priority is the re-unification of the island. Once that is complete I think there would be more emphasis on socialism, but for now I know Adams wants SF to be a party that everyone can join and support in the push for re-unification, therefore discouraging people from joining due to socialism/marxism is a bad thing.

my opinion!

brianthebard

Jon wrote:

TBH even within the party there has been debate as to what exactly the position on Socialism is. Over the past few years we have seen the demise of the word soclialism from the mouths of parties leaders, including that of statements and speeches. However whether you are socialist or not is defined by your fiscal policies and not your speeches!
My own opinion is that the party will lean towards the centre when it comes to fiscal policy so as not to alienate itself and come under criticism for having such policies. A large clump of activists have recently left the party due to the watering down of the parties former socialist policies. SF first and foremost priority is the re-unification of the island. Once that is complete I think there would be more emphasis on socialism, but for now I know Adams wants SF to be a party that everyone can join and support in the push for re-unification, therefore discouraging people from joining due to socialism/marxism is a bad thing.

my opinion!

Thank you for a straight answer! Sometimes conversation on SF just go round in circles. Does the mean that SF want to move closer to where Labour are now, staying a little more left of centre of them? The one thing that would worry me is that SF might start to look (even more) like a single issue party-that's how I've usually thought of them. Assuming they got the seats to make up a government what would their role be apart from the primary aim of re-unification?

yomchi

brianthebard wrote:

Thank you for a straight answer! Sometimes conversation on SF just go round in circles. Does the mean that SF want to move closer to where Labour are now, staying a little more left of centre of them? The one thing that would worry me is that SF might start to look (even more) like a single issue party-that's how I've usually thought of them. Assuming they got the seats to make up a government what would their role be apart from the primary aim of re-unification?

There are trains of thought within the party that would rather a very radical approach and stay well left of centre. There are others who see the underlying problems with this, especially in the rural areas. For example the rural areas around south Derry and East Tyrone would be traditionally not in favour of socialist or marxist policies due the ownership of land etc and then you have a strong catholic base in these areas also. Areas like this have been the back bone of the struggle for decades so the leadership obviousy doesn't fancy pushing communism down their throats! :eek:

In 1999 SF made a concerted effort to become a non 'one issue' party. After the initial break through on the 99 locals the term 'building political strength' became to mantra, and SF reps set about providing local services through the council. I think since then SF have shed the one issue party status, having said that everything they do plays into their national strategic objectives of acheiving their main goals.

Zambia

Personally I would say the rise of the shinners is that they tend to actively seek out areas that the main Irish parties ignore.

They talk to people the main parties lost interest in a long time ago.

brianthebard

Jon wrote:

There are trains of thought within the party that would rather a very radical approach and stay well left of centre. There are others who see the underlying problems with this, especially in the rural areas. For example the rural areas around south Derry and East Tyrone would be traditionally not in favour of socialist or marxist policies due the ownership of land etc and then you have a strong catholic base in these areas also. Areas like this have been the back bone of the struggle for decades so the leadership obviousy doesn't fancy pushing communism down their throats! :eek:

Yeah those two aspects of the party always seemed at odds to me, which is why I've questioned the socialist aspect of the party before. I guess they have some balancing act ahead of them if they are to continue to grow without losing older members.

In 1999 SF made a concerted effort to become a non 'one issue' party. After the initial break through on the 99 locals the term 'building political strength' became to mantra, and SF reps set about providing local services through the council. I think since then SF have shed the one issue party status, having said that everything they do plays into their national strategic objectives of achieving their main goals.

Just curious now, but do you think they are suited to government here, and what is it they bring to the table that the other parties don't have?

Victor Meldrew

Zambia232 wrote:

Personally I would say the rise of the shinners is that they tend to actively seek out areas that the main Irish parties ignore.

They talk to people the main parties lost interest in a long time ago.

Exactly,

and the poorer the area the more active the party members, I've seen SF leaflet all cars in pubs where there were other parties meetings taking place, no other party (even FF) can do that. as i've said before, SF went out and got what was ignored and convinced non-voters to vote SF. So the blame for the rise in SF's base is down to the mainstream parties.

That said I see it topping out at ~ 10 - 15% max as one should never underestimate the reluctance and opposition to a united ireland in the south (tax bill to rebuild the north, not to mention annoying loyalist nutters). NI will need to have unemployment and tax returns equal to the south before it will happen. ( this is an observation, not a rant, so no need to flame me for saying it...)

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Theres no need to go back 50 years.Thats not a valid comparison as society is different now,a lot different.

.

You could ignore any precedent on the basis of society is different now

The truth is that a Hardline Republican party whose leader had been the Chief of Staff of the IRA and the IRA hadn't gone away went into coalition with FG who just a decade earlier were in bitter conflict with republicans as Dev used the IRA to smash the blueshirts. The divisions between republicans and FG were just as bitter if not more so then yet FG went into Coalition and even chose a Taoiseach other than the party leader because Mulcahy was unacceptable to CnP.

The difference is possibly that FF had been in power for 16 years and the opposition was more desperate for a change than they currently are but fear of republicans amongst FG was if anything stronger given the cold war fear of communism that was prevalent at the time.

yomchi

Just curious now, but do you think they are suited to government here, and what is it they bring to the table that the other parties don't have?

Good question! If I was canvassing I'd have my answer ready to rhyme off

I think they can bring what everyone else promises to bring, except my money would be on SF to deliver. I remember talking to Adams when he returned from Cuba. He was blown away by their health system he envisaged Ireland someday being in the same league. How that comes about I'll never know!

brianthebard

Jon wrote:

Good question! If I was canvassing I'd have my answer ready to rhyme off

I think they can bring what everyone else promises to bring, except my money would be on SF to deliver. I remember talking to Adams when he returned from Cuba. He was blown away by their health system he envisaged Ireland someday being in the same league. How that comes about I'll never know!

Yeah Cuba's health system is world class, and their education system is brilliant too, literacy is virtually 100%. These are definitely worthy aims, but I have to say I'm more cautious about believing SF will deliver, I'll have to wait and see.

Voipjunkie

Victor Meldrew wrote:

Exactly,

and the poorer the area the more active the party members, I've seen SF leaflet all cars in pubs where there were other parties meetings taking place, no other party (even FF) can do that. as i've said before, SF went out and got what was ignored and convinced non-voters to vote SF. So the blame for the rise in SF's base is down to the mainstream parties.

That said I see it topping out at ~ 10 - 15% max as one should never underestimate the reluctance and opposition to a united ireland in the south (tax bill to rebuild the north, not to mention annoying loyalist nutters). NI will need to have unemployment and tax returns equal to the south before it will happen. ( this is an observation, not a rant, so no need to flame me for saying it...)

TBH I think the main parties are doing them a favour as they are making them the party of protest the history of this country is littered with the remains of small parties who disappeared after a spell in Government.
IF FG were smart the way to kill of SF is too bring them in show the people that there is no difference between SF and the rest just as there was no difference between DL and the labour party when DL got into power nothing radically changed it was the same as before.

Voipjunkie

Jon wrote:

Good question! If I was canvassing I'd have my answer ready to rhyme off

I think they can bring what everyone else promises to bring, except my money would be on SF to deliver. I remember talking to Adams when he returned from Cuba. He was blown away by their health system he envisaged Ireland someday being in the same league. How that comes about I'll never know!

Unfortunately when you mention Cuba people think that maybe SF could deliver a cuban class health system but would the price be a cuban class justice system where people who disagree with the regime end up in prison.

I'm not saying that SF would or could but thats what people(especially middle class) are afraid of

csk

Well considering they have dropped some of their economic policies that raised so much ire and the fact that IRA have gone away, there is no reason now they should not be in Government, except of course the obvious one of getting enough seats.:)

Dyr

Voipjunkie wrote:

Unfortunately when you mention Cuba people think that maybe SF could deliver a cuban class health system but would the price be a cuban class justice system where people who disagree with the regime end up in prison.

I'm not saying that SF would or could but thats what people(especially middle class) are afraid of

Thats true, The Middle class, that bastion of our civil liberties, must live in fear that Sinn Fein might try to introduce internment without trial, execution, no jury courts, abolish the right to silence, imprisonment on the word of a police officer etc etc

hmm hang on....

mackerski

We've seen half the answer here so far: the DUP will play with the Shinners because it's the (pretty unpalatable) cost of extracting NI from the mess it's been in. For reasons many people can't fathom, a lot of voters in NI voted for SF, and democracy (of a contrived sort) is obliging responsible politicians to put up with things they normally would not. The DUP recognising the Shinners' mandate brings much greater stability.

It is likewise democracy in action that sees SF marginalised and shunned by parties in the Republic. Because SF doesn't have a mandate here that would make it a reasonable risk for one of the parties with an established track record of democratic methods. The reason established parties won't touch the Shinners is that it would be a sure-fire way of Haemorrhaging votes next time out. SF is that kind of party - you're either preferred to vote for them yourself or you really don't want them holding any power. Most voters belong to the latter group.

Real political parties know this and recognise what side their bread is buttered on. Why else would they rule out coalition with SF? It isn't to stop the pestering phone calls from Gerry. It's so that the voters will feel safe voting for the mainstream party of their choice. A great victory for democracy - though SF are kind of new to the concept, so I can understand why they're taking their time to come to grips with it.

oscarBravo

Jon wrote:

O i see! very intelligent that. Are you saying I'm a member of the IRA then?

Idiot

Call someone an idiot again and you'll be taking two weeks off.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Voipjunkie

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Those North Korean parades are impressive though at least the North Korean Army can march in step;)