FG/FF Supporters

mickd

Not really I can acknowledge that being a broad church like FF you can attract as many dishonest as honest people. The reason I have adapted my stance is that I have never seen a proper examination of the failures of FG/lab in this forum only the usual FF bashing done by people who have at best a tenuous grasp on political facts in this country and if you look at my previous posts they are purely based on facts where I have set down that despite their shortcomings FF have some crowning achievements over the last 20 years and I am pretty sure the alternative wouldn't have achieved half as much. I think it sticks in the throat for a lot of people to give them any form of credit. If people were as concerned about the other evils in society as they are about Haughey's wealth we all would be better off.

oscarBravo

mickd wrote:

...I have never seen a proper examination of the failures of FG/lab in this forum only the usual FF bashing done by people who have at best a tenuous grasp on political facts in this country...

So, criticism of FG and Labour is a "proper examination of their failures", whereas criticism of FF is "bashing"? I suppose it makes a change for someone other than a SF supporter to be talking about "bashing".

I suggest you read the forum from a more objective perspective. I've seen pretty much every mainstream party receive plaudits (earned and unearned) as well as both valid and uninformed criticism.

Elmo

despite their shortcomings FF have some crowning achievements over the last 20 years

I cann't argue with that, I think overall FF have done a good job.

They could have done it without taking back handers, afterall we do pay them long after they have left office, its not like they need backhanders.

E.G. the was no need for Bertie Ahern to take anyones money in the early 1990's, he had a good salary and could afford to keep his Wife and Children happy during the break up of their marriage.

is_that_so

mickd wrote:

The last time we had elected FG/Lab or honesty, we had 40,000 leaving the country to get a job, moving statues and rock concerts for the unemployed. A level of hopelessness not seen since the 1950's where one was ashamed to come form a country that couldn't provide for its own all this facilitated by incompetence from the leaders of FG/Lab. In a ideal world on should strive for probity in public life but if your not providing for your people its not worth jack!

Unless you want Hugo Chavez or Castro for Taoiseach, enough of this silly Alice in Wonderland musings about honesty in politics

If you are actually old enough to remember those times you would also be capable of remembering what put us in that situation. And if you are not old enough then why not find out. In the meantime less of the Dickensian bathos.

Elections are based on choices, some liked FF this time out quit a lot didn't. Using a "sins of the father" lecture on ancient history is as anachronistic as the "bashing" that SF "gets".

mickd wrote:

Unless you want Hugo Chavez or Castro for Taoiseach, enough of this silly Alice in Wonderland musings about honesty in politics

Do elaborate.

K-9

jjbrien wrote:

Cough** What? FG/Labour goverment introduced the low corporation tax and will be the very ones defending it. FG has the most aount of MEP's in Ireland who are the very ones this very minuet defending our corportation taxes. They are members of the European Peoples party which controls the european parliement and are the real deal breakers of the EPP. So FG will be defending us tooth and nail.

Grasping at straws here. Of course we accept you's have
the only valid opinion on the subject. "Dream on baby" as Enda would say.


Nothing to do with Cowen and McCreevy. FG writing their own history and future now, "Dream on baby".

elmo wrote:

Fine Gael didn't want to go into government with Democratic Left in 1992, due to their links to Sinn Fein/Worker's Party etc.
It was as much the elected government as the FF/Lab government they made up the numbers.

Ah yeah, the major shift in Rabbittes/Gilmores/McManus/De Rossa's position on the North that enabled a shift in FF/Lab to FG/Lab/DL Govt. FG principled Govt. or was it Lab or DL?

What exactly and how much did DL's links change with SF/WP's in those 2/3 years? I'd love to know as well as FG/Lab/DL voters then would?
Nothing to do with the bye-elections as previously mentioned?

Principled Govt. and of course anti SF/WP as you proved. Now we know the real reason for Labours change, nothing to do with Fr. Brendan Smyth as you would like us to believe.
Good to see the age of spin only started with FF, forgot about the Govt. advisors, oh yeah, that was a Labour idea.

elmo wrote:

Fine Gael didn't want to go into government with Democratic Left in 1992, due to their links to Sinn Fein/Worker's Party etc.
It was as much the elected government as the FF/Lab government they made up the numbers.

Again Bye-elections rather than any anti SF/WP policies changed their minds. Nothing too much wrong with that, just don't say its anti-something other or other.

So it wasn't Fr. Bendan Smyth or personality clashed ! Sounds very FF.
Spare us the crap as Albert would have said!

elmo wrote:

What about other forms of Criminality what about the UDA and UVF?
McDowell didn't even support the Good Friday Agreement.
McDowell is a Unionist.

Well UDA and UVF are still a problem, not just because of McDowell.
McDowell is a Unionist, If you want to go down that line, actually I won't even bother. Bruton? anyone?

McDowell brought up IRA Criminality,
IRA " we're not criminals" Within a few months Northern Bank Robbery and Robert McCartney Murder.

I'm no McDowell or Paisley/Trimble supporters but they all played there respective parts same as Bruton/Spring!

elmo wrote:

Again, the PD/FF governments of the last 10 years could have changed the Means test had they so wished. Noel Dempsey was the only MoE do actually think about doing something but was shot down by everyone including his own government.
How come Bertie Ahern wasn't able to do it just before he left that governmen

I mentioned this as well as Dempsey! but though it may be right, and of course, why it was wrong under Labour,

Can't wait to see Labour shooting it down as well. How dare you change our policy that we keep on crowing about 12 years later. More Govt. privatising there, oh wait a minute, we introduced that!

Doesn't make it right though God forbid anybody change it.

elmo wrote:

Did FG/Lab inherite a bad economy back in 1982?

exactly, they didn't as Lynch and Haughey did in 77 and 82.

Fitzgerald campaigned on Fiscal rescitude but didn't deliver.McSharry/Haughey/Reynolds/Ahern did.

The point being the rainbow inherited a govt. where a surplus and tax cuts was a possibility. They chose the surplus and only a 1% reduction in tax rates.

If FG/Lab/DL where in Govt. in 87 they wouldn't have had a hope of a surplus. They followed FF/PD's and they had, though of course at the cost of tax cuts, the surplus would have happened anyway.

K-9

Quote:
The last time we had elected FG/Lab or honesty, we had 40,000 leaving the country to get a job, moving statues and rock concerts for the unemployed. A level of hopelessness not seen since the 1950's where one was ashamed to come form a country that couldn't provide for its own all this facilitated by incompetence from the leaders of FG/Lab.

So Dishonesty good for the economy, honesty bad. (Oh Lowry wouldn't be an Honest Politican now would he?)
Moving Statues and Rock Concerts in 1997?

elmo wrote:

Incompetent leaders like
Martin Cullen
Dick Roche
Micheal Martin?

Did Lawor and Burke build this country? Should we praise them for what they did in power?

Eh!!! Barry Desmond.

nurze_baz wrote:

although I can see your overall point here, I think your being pretty selective and one sided at the same time. Remember CJ's "tighten our belts" mantra.......all the while he was lording it up with backhanders?

as much as I hate to admit it though, some of the FF, rough diamond type of politics is needed. In many situations politicians need to have a bit of brass neck and an eye for nearly a Del Boy Trotter kind of deal, look to Europe for examples, but this certainly doesn't equate to being on the take, or having clouds over your finances.

When I think of honesty in politics its the corporate donations and such that I want to see the back of along with the FF tent at the races along with a bit more straight-forwardness, and less of the new Labour spin machines that have unfortunately crossed over.

As FF are constantly reminded of, but unfortunately as Labour seem to forget, Govt. advisors.

oscar bravo wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickd
...I have never seen a proper examination of the failures of FG/lab in this forum only the usual FF bashing done by people who have at best a tenuous grasp on political facts in this country...

So, criticism of FG and Labour is a "proper examination of their failures", whereas criticism of FF is "bashing"?

Well failure of FG/Lab as opposition and bashing of FF as Govt.

is_that_so wrote:

If you are actually old enough to remember those times you would also be capable of remembering what put us in that situation. And if you are not old enough then why not find out. In the meantime less of the Dickensian bathos.

Elections are based on choices, some liked FF this time out quit a lot didn't. Using a "sins of the father" lecture on ancient history is as anachronistic as the "bashing" that SF "gets".

Agreed.

In fairness, I think I brought this up to. If, as in the election it was fair to bring up Rainbow surpluses and the Celtic Tiger of the last 12/13 years as if it just started under the Rainbow, well it was fair to bring how we came from the Banana Republic and us being a third world country to being able to have a surplus. If no McSharry/Reynolds/Ahern Ministers of Finance then no surplus as Bruton/Rabitte kept on saying. It mighn't suit the rainbow for this but that was the situation they inherited just as FF/PD's inherited the Celtic Tiger as they would like us to believe!

mickd

Seanies32 wrote:

Quote:Moving Statues and Rock Concerts in 1997?

1986 during the last time FG/Lab were chosen by the electorate and severed a full term in office

mickd

is_that_so wrote:

If you are actually old enough to remember those times you would also be capable of remembering what put us in that situation. And if you are not old enough then why not find out. In the meantime less of the Dickensian bathos.

Yes I do Martin O'Donoghue & Des O'Malley who wrote the FF manifesto of 1977. Yet it was incumbent of the succeeding government to sort this out rather than double the mess and "carry the pain on much longer than was needed" as Alan Dukes said about this time in government

is_that_so wrote:

Using a "sins of the father" lecture on ancient history is as anachronistic as the "bashing" that SF "gets".

There are facts now if people have a problem accepting them, that is another matter.

K-9

mickd wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seanies32
Quote:Moving Statues and Rock Concerts in 1997?

1986 during the last time FG/Lab were chosen by the electorate and severed a full term in office

Sorry mickd, wasn't originally posted by me but by your good self!

But other than that agreed! Labour do have a history of being flaky in Govt., resigning over personality and self-righteousness rather than policies.

mickd wrote:

Yes I do Martin O'Donoghue & Des O'Malley who wrote the FF manifesto of 1977. Yet it was incumbent of the succeeding government to sort this out rather than double the mess and "carry the pain on much longer than was needed" as Alan Dukes said about this time in government

Granted again on O'Donoghue & O'Malley but as Govts. do they inherit situations. FF/Lab Govt. between 73
& 77 Introduced borrowing to Ireland.

Look we could keep going back on history but unlike what the Rainbow claim was the start of the Celtic Tiger with their Govt., I would say it started with McSharry/Haughey who decided to stop the "Pain carrying on much longer" rather than preach about it like FG did before that.

mickd

Seanies32 wrote:

FF/Lab Govt. between 73 & 77

FG/Lab I think it was Richie Ryan the minister for finance or Richie Ruin the Minister for hardship as he was known in Ballymagash

Seanies32 wrote:

Look we could keep going back on history but unlike what the Rainbow claim was the start of the Celtic Tiger with their Govt., I would say it started with McSharry/Haughey who decided to stop the "Pain carrying on much longer" rather than preach about it like FG did before that.

Agree completely but credit to Alan Dukes and Tallaght strategy to which Brian Hayes referred to tonight on Q&A. True leadership and what reward did he get only booted out by FG and we have had cardboard cut-outs ever since.

K-9

mickd wrote:

FG/Lab I think it was Richie Ryan the minister for finance or Richie Ruin the Minister for hardship as he was known in Ballymagash

Wasn't Fr. Jack part of that Frank Hall show?

mickd wrote:

Agree completely but credit to Alan Dukes and Tallaght strategy to which Brian Hayes referred to tonight on Q&A. True leadership and what reward did he get only booted out by FG and we have had cardboard cut-outs ever since.

Granted again! But FF took the hard decisions which of course, it could be argued, Dukes couldn't disagree with.

As you say Dukes showed leadership, he didn't get much party or electoral support, compare that to Fitzgerald!

Elmo

Well UDA and UVF are still a problem, not just because of McDowell.
McDowell is a Unionist, If you want to go down that line, actually I won't even bother. Bruton? anyone?

MMcD even met with members of the Love Ulster parade, a parade which remember only the Unionist Deaths during the Trouble and which totally igored the Deaths of Nationalist during the troubles. I have no problem with parades in Dublin as along has they represent both sides, we don't need to antagonise either side in terms of Northern Ireland in the republic.

Again Bye-elections rather than any anti SF/WP policies changed their minds. Nothing too much wrong with that, just don't say its anti-something other or other.

I don't know what bye-election you are talking about.
As far as I see it at the moment.

Back in 1992 Lab with 33 seats went into Government with FF, they had an argument or two and joined forces with FG and DL to stay in Government, rather then going for another general election. One in 1987, 1989 and 1992 and you expect again in 1994. As FF would put it STABILITY.

So they head into government with FG (which I think was a bad thing to do, they had 33 seats, in a well liked government and they turn around and go into government with FG, Labour should always use the phrase "When in doubt leave them out" in relation to FG, Labour and FG are polls apart.) This lead IMO to the down fall of Labour in the 1997 election as their main supports didn't want FG in power, it wasn't as so many think because they went into government with FF in 1992.

Now it's 2007 and FF are at the same thing. STABILITY. Let put it this way if FF forms a government with The Greens (84 seats total) and things don't go according to plan BIFFO and Sargent Green have a falling out, FF turns to Mary "Quite Contrary but will keep quite just for power" Harney + INDOS to go into Government (84 Seats total).

BTW I am far more an FFer then an FGer.

K-9

elmo wrote:

Fine Gael didn't want to go into government with Democratic Left in 1992, due to their links to Sinn Fein/Worker's Party etc.

But 2 years later they did. Just made me wonder how DL changed so much in those 2 years. What I was getting at was in 92, the rainbow didn't have enough seats. There was a couple of bye-elections in the interim, which enabled the rainbow to have the seats. Very little to do with DL's links to SF.

On labour, There does seem to a lot of Labour supporters who believe they where punished for going in with FF. As you, say I don't believe that myself