why do you vote FF/FG

bmaxi

T runner wrote: »

I accept that, I think thats true. These are some reasons perhaps.

Lack of Choice: Because people in other non political profession families are following family professions themselves people are not getting as much of a choice especially within Political Parties.

Blind party loyalty:
I come from a FF voting family. I like to think I have my own mind politically now, but when there was a debate my immediate reaction was previously a powerful urge to defend the FF side.

This party support was ingrained in me I guess. Ive even defended the less than admirable track records myself. What happens is the person always has the premise that their PP is right and thus will always try and support/defend that position. By necessity the less than admirable traits are usually rationalised away in order to maintain the integrity of the initial premise (FF TDs good). Only when faced with overwhelming evidence will these bad traits be accepted, but then only in the individual rarely in the party. Sometimes the rationalising even turns to: the good the person does is greater than the
bad. You have to take the bad with the good sometimes, etc..

Anyway the point is these loyalties are very powerful. Viewed from the outside: voting for or even defending someone who is obviously dodgy may look irrational (because it is). However, the person themselves are blinded to these rational reasons by their loyalties.

I think this loyalty may be stronger in FF than FG.
I would find it very difficult to vote FG now because of this ingraining.

You see, this is the part that really saddens and irritates me. Blind loyalty, to what? Before the last General Election, a colleague of mine, a member of F.F. referred to the local FG candidate as a "blueshirt". WTF! is this 2008 or not? Both he and the F.G. candidate are in their 30's for God's sake.
The same man had no difficulty in supporting, in the local elections, a candidate who had been expelled from the F.F. party for fraud and who was also discovered to have "manipulated the planning process" with respect to land which he owned, he was subsequently readmitted to FF and is currently a serving FF councillor.
This whole attitude to wrongdoing is the main reason I will never give a No.1 vote to FF, I know the other political parties are not blameless but FF seem to treat it as, to paraphrase Albert Reynolds, a temporary little aberration, punishable by a slap on the wrist and withdrawal of the whip for a couple of weeks
The sooner people in Ireland cop on to themselves and start selecting their political representatives for their potential to serve the country and not the party, the better.
Consign the concept of the, " safe FF or FG or whatever", seat to the dusbin of history and make your TD sweat for his seat rather than inherit it.

Frankie Lee

Many people will not vote FG because of the policies of their early years, mainly protecting the land owners and then the fascism of the thirties.

Common sense would entail that the party has moved on but why would anybody join a party that had this in their history.

T runner

bmaxi wrote: »

You see, this is the part that really saddens and irritates me. Blind loyalty, to what? Before the last General Election, a colleague of mine, a member of F.F. referred to the local FG candidate as a "blueshirt". WTF! is this 2008 or not? Both he and the F.G. candidate are in their 30's for God's sake.
The same man had no difficulty in supporting, in the local elections, a candidate who had been expelled from the F.F. party for fraud and who was also discovered to have "manipulated the planning process" with respect to land which he owned, he was subsequently readmitted to FF and is currently a serving FF councillor.
This whole attitude to wrongdoing is the main reason I will never give a No.1 vote to FF, I know the other political parties are not blameless but FF seem to treat it as, to paraphrase Albert Reynolds, a temporary little aberration, punishable by a slap on the wrist and withdrawal of the whip for a couple of weeks
The sooner people in Ireland cop on to themselves and start selecting their political representatives for their potential to serve the country and not the party, the better.
Consign the concept of the, " safe FF or FG or whatever", seat to the dusbin of history and make your TD sweat for his seat rather than inherit it.

I agree 100%.

I would hope for a situation where the choices in an election booth would consist of people who are genuinely interested and moved and good enough to making a difference through politics.

Also that all people who meet the criteria above would actually try to get involved.

The dearth of talent points to the fact that only a minority of this type of person is getting involved in the present political culture.

The following is an excellent example of current favourable criteria (across both parties) in nominating candidates.

From Donegalfella:

When I saw Joe McHugh (FG) breaking through in Donegal with an impressive poll-topping win, I thought he was a genuine fresh face, someone who didn't hail from a long-standing political dynasty. Then somebody pointed out to me that in 2005, McHugh had married Olwyn Enright, the daughter of Tom Enright, who was first elected to the Dáil in 1969.... You see where this is going.

The nearest suitable male "relative" of Joe McHugh was nominated and elected.

Family Loyalties to parties and political families are still a powerful force in Ireland. Its sad and irritating but not easily rectified.

Breezer

Frankie Lee wrote: »

why would anybody join a party that had this in their history.

Because, as you said,

Common sense would entail that the party has moved on

Somehow I can't see Enda and the farmers exchanging straight arm salutes if/when he becomes Taoiseach.

KnifeWRENCH

ninty9er wrote: »

A Fianna Fáil/ Labour Coalition was what middle Ireland told me it wanted on the doorsteps, it is what I wanted and it is what the majority of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party wanted, but the DL element of Labour wouldn't have any of it. The talks did take place.

I would certainly be very happy with a FF/Labour coalition. In the next election, I will most likely give my first preference vote for one of those parties.

FG describe themselves as "Christian Democracy" - that alone is enough to put me off voting for them. Religion should be kept out of politics as far as I'm concerned. I also think FG are too far right of centre for my liking, I'd prefer a centrist party like FF or moderate left-wing party like Labour in power.
Also, I just don't see Enda Kenny, Richard Bruton or any of the prominent FG TD's as Taoiseach material. They can bitch and moan about FF all they like, but would they really bring anything different?

People will say things like "Sure Enda Kenny might be the best leader the country has ever had, you won't know until you give him a chance." That may be true, but when my instinct is telling me he won't, why should I give him a chance? Just because he's not FF?

So unless FG do something drastic to win me over, my voting preference remains:
FF, Labour, Sinn Fein, Greens, FG.

The only thing that would put me off voting FF is that one of our local FF TDs is a bit....unpredictable. (He's the rebel backbencher who gave out about Babe having bad effects on the pig industry!)

bigstar

FF and FG are both centrist parties, maybe FG are a bit more right economically, but with the FF/PD coalition they are very similar ideologically. you list your prefs FF 1st FG last when they are very similar parties. i dont understand that, i dont see a reason for one over the other. to me you just hate FG and love FF. that has nothing to do with politics, just everything to do with irish politics. and by the way garret fitzgerald former leader of the christian democratic party tried to introduce divorce in the eighties, im sure the church thought that was very christian, so lets not reduce this to mud slinging

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

VERY simplistic, ninty9er; Lawlor, Burke, Cooper-Flynn & Ahern weren't "tarred" by Haughey; they dug their own holes all by themselves....

There have been over 150 more people through the Dáil under an FF whip since the 70s.....should they all be tarred the same?

Very simplistic my arse.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

There have been over 150 more people through the Dáil under an FF whip since the 70s.....should they all be tarred the same?

Very simplistic my arse.

Your statement was that FF's members were all tarred by Haughey.

To answer your question, no, not everyone should be tarred by Haughey, HOWEVER.....

1) My statement was that none of the names I mentioned were tarred by THEIR OWN ACTIONS, not Haughey.

2) The fact that FF has tolerated, defended, re-admitted and promoted these scum instead of weeding them out DOES reflect on the whole party.

So I'll stand over what I said; you were being very simplistic. The names I mentioned were not tarred by Haughey's actions, and the whole party wasn't tarred by him - if they'd weeded out the scum and proven that it was a once-off, they'd have been fine. But the party has REPEATEDLY tolerated and defended this sort of thing, and THAT'S what has tarred the party.

So that's why blaming it all on Haughey was inaccurate and simplistic.

The day that FF starts turfing out idiots, incompetents and criminals - without being forced to - is the day they start to regain respectability.

MG

square_igloo wrote: »

FG describe themselves as "Christian Democracy" - that alone is enough to put me off voting for them. Religion should be kept out of politics as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think the term "Christan Democracy" should be taken as a religious issue. Modern Christian Democracy is rather about the ethos and traditions of the western (& mostly Christian) world - democracy, free enterprise, social conscience etc and is effectively another term for a centre or right of centre party.

In fact, in Irish terms FG have recently been much less in the pockets of the Church than FF. Garrett Fitzgerald's attempted liberalisation of contraception and divorce were against Catholic teaching and in contrast to Dev's vision of Ireland. Perhaps the last gasp of religion as a major factor in Irish party political life was FF's deal on abuse compensation which largely protected the Church from it's true obligations. Religion is no longer a significant factor in any major political party (though it may have had a large influence on the Lisbon treaty and may be something to watch if Libertas runs in elections)

KnifeWRENCH

bigstar wrote: »

FF and FG are both centrist parties, maybe FG are a bit more right economically, but with the FF/PD coalition they are very similar ideologically. you list your prefs FF 1st FG last when they are very similar parties. i dont understand that, i dont see a reason for one over the other. to me you just hate FG and love FF. that has nothing to do with politics, just everything to do with irish politics.

I neither love FF nor hate FG, I just do not have any confidence in FG as they are now. If in 10 or 20 years time FG are led by someone who's dynamic, has good ideas and who I think might be a good leader, I would certainly consider voting for them.
At local level I have no particular opinion of our current FG TD. I would rather give my vote to either Labour or one of the FF TD's because I am more familiar with them and the work that they do.

As for FF, I like some and dislike others. I'm relatively happy with Brian Cowen as Taoiseach, but I do not want Mary Coughlan as Tanaiste.

bigstar wrote:

and by the way garret fitzgerald former leader of the christian democratic party tried to introduce divorce in the eighties, im sure the church thought that was very christian, so lets not reduce this to mud slinging

Mud slinging? I have no intention of mud slinging. All I said was that I'd rather a political party didn't have a specific religious ideology.

eoinbn

ninty9er wrote: »

Finally, public service reform is needed but there is NO PARTY willing to take it on now, when there is most opportunity.

The time for reform was over the last 10 years, not now. This is similar to where General motors find themselves today, where their reforms were rejected by unions 10 years ago, costing the company $2b in strikes, and now they find themselves only a few weeks from going under. Good reform takes place before it's needed, just like Aer Lingus are doing atm. But FF will always be FF, avoid conflict at all costs and hope it all works out in the end.

irish_bob

eoinbn wrote: »

The time for reform was over the last 10 years, not now. This is similar to where General motors find themselves today, where their reforms were rejected by unions 10 years ago, costing the company $2b in strikes, and now they find themselves only a few weeks from going under. Good reform takes place before it's needed, just like Aer Lingus are doing atm. But FF will always be FF, avoid conflict at all costs and hope it all works out in the end.

spoken like a true public servant , now is not the time for public service reform ( quote)

eoinbn

irish_bob wrote: »

spoken like a true public servant , now is not the time for public service reform ( quote)

We still need the reform, but it's should of been done over the last 10 years when we had the money as incentives.

irish_bob

eoinbn wrote: »

We still need the reform, but it's should of been done over the last 10 years when we had the money as incentives.

and i should have started going to the gymn 10 years ago , the past is the past , nice to see that you agree we do need reform though , 2 posts ago you said now was not the time for it , thats progress

eoinbn

irish_bob wrote: »

and i should have started going to the gymn 10 years ago , the past is the past , nice to see that you agree we do need reform though , 2 posts ago you said now was not the time for it , thats progress

You are taking it out of context. Ninty9er was suggesting that this is a most opportunist time for reform, i disagreed. Good management/governments push for reform before it's needed.

Húrin

nesf wrote: »

When FG have been in power for as long as FF have, you can say that. Otherwise it's just hurling from the ditch tbh.

Sounds like a good argument to elect them into power to me!

bigstar wrote: »

you see thats the problem most of us dont seem to vote for a party we like just one we dont hate more than the other

That's why parties based on issues, such as Labour, the Greens etc exist. So that people get to vote for something rather than just against.

link8r wrote: »

I just can't stand Captain Boring (Enda Kenny). I'd vote FF every time until there was no-one left to stand. FG has been made up of the most boring, unimaginative whingers.

Does this mean you think FF are imaginative, charismatic or competent?

MG

square_igloo wrote: »

All I said was that I'd rather a political party didn't have a specific religious ideology.

I suggest you take up the matter with Alan Shatter