Why is Sein Fein such a dirty word down south?

Jason Mc

All these parties arguing about not wanting to go in collation with the Sein Fein.

Why is that?

I vote for them. I don't fully agree with all their policies (they are a bit too left wing for my liking) but I see them as a party with integrity and they have been at the forefront of change in the north for years.

Obviously they have links with the (P)IRA. Is this the main reason?

I just find it irnonic that most parties in the south expect DUP and the rest of the unionists to work with them but dare not do it themselves.

IIMII

There is an element of protectionism to it. FF and Lab don't want a mainstream resurgent SF eating into their share of the electoral pie. FG is more complicated, as they still hold a civil war heritage but at the same token they also have Collins' fans that might also be tempted towards supporting a mainstream SF. The policy on the part of all parties is to keep SF on the margins.

On a more practical level, there is also the problem of proxy influence from elected representatives in the north using southern seats to influence policy in the south - I don't mean on the reunification issue, I mean on economic matters as well. It probably doesn't help that the SF leadership is northern dominated to the degree it is. To some extent that is the product of the situation where the northern leadership of the party want to maintain leadership of the party in the north as that is where their primary focus is.

It would help if SF were more nationally organised for the want of a better word, constituted equally by province or population etc. However, that may be a chicken and egg scenario. If SF are successful in the south, the southern element will push for that reform based on weight.

In the meantime, none of the other parties will do anything to encourage growth in support for SF, and that includes being in a hurry to include them in a coalition.

solice

I dont think I could ever vote for Sinn Fein in the Republic and I dont think I would vote for them in the North either.

There are many reasons for this, the influence of others, political wing of the IRA, refusal to join the North policing board, the murder of innocent people north and south, their refusal to take their seats in the UK parliment despite being elected to represent the people and then claiming expenses for accommodation in London etc

More importantly in todays world, my own political compass is not alligned with them. Their economic policies have been proved time and time again to be, well...terrible. This was the main reason the SF vote collapsed at the last general elction.

I disagree with their stance on Lisbon and I believe that the only reason they wanted a no vote was that they thought the no side would win so it was complete political opportunism.

If I was living and voting in the North, I would vote for the SDLP

techdiver

Because they surround themselves with scumbags especially in Dublin. Not to mention that since the "war" ended they have little of no political talent either at leadership level with Gery Adams or the ever present and annoying Mary Lou. As mentioned previously their economic policies are nothing short of laughable.

P. Breathnach

We down south have a closer approximation to a normal society, one that does not divide on "the constitutional question" or on the basis of strong tribal alliegances. So our politics are different from those in NI.

Most people down here abhor violence in politics, and are slow to forgive Sinn Fein for their links to PIRA.

In addition, SF economic policy is too left-wing for most of us; they also give the impression of being economically naive.

Some people are concerned about how strongly party members are controlled by the organisation: you don't often hear of SF members breaking ranks and expressing a view that differs from the party line, even to nuance it a bit. This control leads to SF candidates or representatives using a form of newspeak that is unsettling.

I really don't know how strongly people down south feel about SF's top issue: a united Ireland. I suspect that if it was offered, many would want to turn it down because it would bring with it close to a million disaffected unionists.

kmick

Looking at them I simply dont trust them. Their shifty statements on things exasperate that. They are a bit too unknown with regards to taxes for me as well. We did the high taxes thing in the 60s/70s and it doesnt work.

mike65

SF are in power in the North for the same reason the DUP are - an unfortunate necessity! They are pretty clueless with respect to many policy issues and are led by a man who has no real political attraction in the South dispite his fame. He has also managed to come across very poorly whenever interviewed on policy. This is a different country to the one hes grown up in and that lack of apprication tends to shine though when pressed on detail

Sinn Fein btw

is_that_so

Aside from the memories some people have and the suspicion of their regular use of semantic gymnastics, in Irish politics they are a fringe left-wing party. The area they occupy is covered by a range of other parties including even FF and Labour. On top of this the type of candidates they attract tend to be local activists and are mostly not up to national politics. They also lack credible economic policies and are opposed to Europe. Of all representatives in either part of the island there are a mere handful, who might impress people in wider society.

Liam Byrne

Jason Mc wrote: »

Obviously they have links with the (P)IRA. Is this the main reason?

Probably. It's also down to blinkered double-standards that seem to make SF completely ignore the fact that their "demands" for various things from the Governments are completely at odds with their responses when their "side" is "at fault". They seem to be incapable of seeing both the sectarian beating up of a Catholic AND the beating up of a Protestant as equal crimes to be condemned equally and brought to justice equally.

Jason Mc wrote: »

I just find it irnonic that most parties in the south expect DUP and the rest of the unionists to work with them but dare not do it themselves.

The rules in the North are completely different. The people of the North had a choice to vote for non-sectarian parties like the SDLP, and refused. So (probably due to their background, society and fears) they voted for the two sets of extremists.

That's their choice, and they shouldn't be castigated for it, because most of us probably couldn't imagine what it would be like to be potentially shot, blown up or beaten to a pulp just because of your supposed religion or political beliefs.

We also can't imagine other things, such as how someone who thinks it's OK to murder someone, blow up kids or be OK with shooting a police officer during a raid (and even the raid itself) could be viewed as a potential representative or legislator......

So, given the polarised vote - on both sides - that appears to be OK with the violent and criminal approach, the ONLY option was to put - force - them together into Government.

"Down here" is a completely different story; different rules apply. The above association is not acceptable. That said, "down here" has its own faults along a similar line, because I can't understand the fixation with voting for self-serving "cute auld hoors" and corrupt scumbags either, or voting for "a party" regardless of whether the candidate is any good......and LOADS of people down here seem to do just that!

A lot of the above has been discussed in loads of threads and there's no point in re-hashing it in detail here - it seems like it can't be discussed objectively. Based on recent behavioural patterns all that will probably happen is that someone will object to people being objective or questioning an SF stance based on perfectly valid concerns (ones that apply to either "side") and then accuse them of being a "west brit" or unpatriotic, leading to an apparent handbags situation, and the thread being closed.

It's a pity, because if these things could be discussed properly then we might make progress, with the public getting their "violence isn't acceptable to us" message through without the usual "but look what they do" and the above slurs.

IIMII

I don't think there is too much of a residual resistance to Sinn Féin over the troubles. However, I do think the taxation and economic policies are fairly scetchy to say the least. With that said, Sinn Féin if they entered Government would only do so as part of a coaltion and you can be sure that the two largest prospective coalition partners of FF and FG would not agree to radical departures in economic policy. Plus, if the SF vote were to grow massively, it would have to include the currently excluded southern nationalists that don't want radical changes in our taxation and economic policies.

Re the integration of the north into the south, it is likely that can only happen on a phased basis where the unionists gradually settle to a level where they do not see either the nationalists in the north or the republic in the south as a threat. That means the greening of the orange, and I think that will come overtime through various initiatives including development of the GAA to rural Protestant areas as well. The towns will always be problematic, in the north as they have always been in the south

irishgrover

IMHO there are a few reasons...

1. As stated the obvious one is the links with the "armed struggle"

2. In NI the main focus of SF is that it represents the Republican and more recently Nationalist vote - not sure that there is much difference between both now post cessation of "armed struggle", but that's another debate...
Whereas in the South the vast majority of the voting population does not identify with the whole Nationalist/Republican/Unionist/Loyalist classifications, insofar it is not a primary factor when voting in local/EU/national elections...... as such, SF's main "branding" in the North is somewhat irelevent in the south.

3. Politics in the south is more middle of the road that that in the north. SF would be viewed by many as having more extreme political leanings, with regard to No to Nice, No to Lisbon, increase of taxation on middle and higher earners etc. This could scare the bejasus of of the middle of the road, don't rock the boat, political mindset in the south. Sure even the Labor party here is quite conservative.

4. The candidates in the North have had more exposure and experience than those in the south. Compare Gerry and Martin to Toiréasa and Mary Lou and the latter two look fairly useless

IIMII

mike65 wrote: »

This is a different country to the one hes grown up in and that lack of apprication tends to shine though when pressed on detail

No, not a different country, just a different polical experience. He came through the ranks of war politics and hasn't adapted well to the cut and thrust of parliamentary politics. That is understandable - those who were active in nationalist politics in the north were never in a position to engage in effective parliamentary politics, for a variety of reasons.

Jason Mc

Do you all think they would have made as big a bollix of the economy as bertie and his band of merry men have made?

In all honesty my support for them has waned slightly but I hope to see their policies mature over the next few years. It's time we got away from the green/orange tribalism up here

super_furry

The people at the top of Sinn Fein are the same people that were there when their terrorist arm was murdering people. I, personally would never vote for them or indeed any party that would enter into government with them, and I believe the majority of voters in the South share similar sentiments. I've voted Labour all my life but if they were to enter into a pact with Sinn Fein, I'd end that support.

ionix5891

Jason Mc wrote: »

a party with integrity and they have been at the forefront of change in the north for years.
.

i nearly spat my breakfast! two words: Mary Lou

Wake me up when SF start caring about people in the south

all they care about is whats happens north of that border :rolleyes:

.

Tim Robbins

Jason Mc wrote: »

All these parties arguing about not wanting to go in collation with the Sein Fein.

Why is that?

I vote for them. I don't fully agree with all their policies (they are a bit too left wing for my liking) but I see them as a party with integrity and they have been at the forefront of change in the north for years.

Obviously they have links with the (P)IRA. Is this the main reason?

I just find it irnonic that most parties in the south expect DUP and the rest of the unionists to work with them but dare not do it themselves.

I can understand if you are from a particular community up the North, why you'd vote Sinn Fein. The tribal nature and awful treatment of one community by a so called democratic government, causes natural reactions that can overlook disgraceful things like Bank robberies and killing of an Irish Garda.

However, if you don't have these tribals biases, they just appear to be a bunch of thugs.

Mary Lou freaks me out more than Declan Ganley.

IIMII

There is also another major drawback for the party in the south, and that is the promotion of women to candidacy that have very tenious links to the party, to say the least. The experiment of gathering female candidates across the country, and standing them in elections isn't working as many of these candidates would not have considered standing if they had not been asked to, never mind actually considered joining SF. Consequently, you have a lesser grade of candidate than you might have anyway. Take SF in Trim Council in county Meath - they have had 3 female councillors in the one slot over the course of the last session. The selection of candidates in SF is overly convoluted, and seems to work along a box ticking principle (and in this order of importance): 1) Female, 2) Socialist, 3) Nationalist. As the say, a good start lightens the work. Selection policies are not helping the situation for SF in the south

Nodin

super_furry wrote: »

I've voted Labour all my life but if they were to enter into a pact with Sinn Fein, I'd end that support.

Being a bit inconsistent there, IMO.

Rebelheart

Jason Mc wrote: »

All these parties arguing about not wanting to go in collation with the Sein Fein.

Why is that?

I vote for them. I don't fully agree with all their policies (they are a bit too left wing for my liking) but I see them as a party with integrity and they have been at the forefront of change in the north for years.

Obviously they have links with the (P)IRA. Is this the main reason?

I just find it irnonic that most parties in the south expect DUP and the rest of the unionists to work with them but dare not do it themselves.

I have no time for their aspirations to be an Irish equivalent of the British eurosceptics. I'm still repelled when I think of the alliance during the last Lisbon Treaty vote between Sinn Féin and the "British Isles"-advocating anti-European rightwing in Britain. They were just one big happy family when the Lisbon Treaty was rejected.


Terrifying that Sinn Féin had/has the audacity to sell their position as being one that is to the benefit of those of us who want more integration with the EU and, accordingly, more independence for Ireland from mother England.

The events surrounding Lisbon made it clear to me that Sinn Féin has no serious vision of an Irish independence that is not anglocentric. The EU is the best thing that has happened Ireland since 1916.

IIMII

Jason Mc wrote: »

Do you all think they would have made as big a bollix of the economy as bertie and his band of merry men have made?

Impossible to answer. There is no SF parliamentary party in the south comparable to FF. And to win the support needed to be that big, SF would need to appeal to FF voters, which would mean drastic changes in SF policies. The problem with FF in particular was that in the quest to win the 2007 election, they overheated the economy on credit to make it look like they were without equal. It was the FF quest for victory in 2007 that screwed the economy, plain and simple. If SF had been trying to win a straight 3rd Dáil victory, there is every chance they might have pulled a simlar stunt, as at the end of the day, all politicians are opportunists

mickoneill30

I saw the primetime debate earlier this week. The presenter asked what would you bring that's new to Europe.

Mary Lous response and that of a couple of others was the government is bad / inept etc. etc. I agree with that statement but it wasn't answering the question. That kind of crap totally turns me off a candidate and I'm not sure why the interviewers don't stop them from avoiding questions. The whole interview kind of went like that. It's still available at
http://www.rte.ie/player/#s=latest&g=2009-06-02

P. Breathnach

Jason Mc wrote: »

Do you all think they would have made as big a bollix of the economy as bertie and his band of merry men have made?

Yes. Quite a different one, but just as bad. We would be on the way out of the EU, our multi-national sector would be shrinking fast, taxes would probably be higher, we would be getting more and more inward-looking, and be right back to 1956.

I have been in 1956, and I don't want to go back there (well, apart from the fanciful idea of getting another run at things, informed by a lifetime's knowledge).

ionix5891

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes. Quite a different one, but just as bad. We would be on the way out of the EU, our multi-national sector would be shrinking fast, taxes would probably be higher, we would be getting more and more inward-looking, and be right back to 1956.

I have been in 1956, and I don't want to go back there (well, apart from the fanciful idea of getting another run at things, informed by a lifetime's knowledge).

i have to agree with you

SF dont have an economic policy (tho they are good at selling certain t-shirts )

last i checked their site, they want to increase corpo tax to above 20%, which would remove the bottom from the economy, and is a bit hypocritical in light of last years lisbon treaty lies about increased taxation :mad:

mike65

IIMII wrote: »

There is also another major drawback for the party in the south, and that is the promotion of women to candidacy that have very tenious links to the party, to say the least. The experiment of gathering female candidates across the country, and standing them in elections isn't working as many of these candidates would not have considered standing if they had not been asked to, never mind actually considered joining SF. Consequently, you have a lesser grade of candidate than you might have anyway. Take SF in Trim Council in county Meath - they have had 3 female councillors in the one slot over the course of the last session. The selection of candidates in SF is overly convoluted, and seems to work along a box ticking principle (and in this order of importance): 1) Female, 2) Socialist, 3) Nationalist. As the say, a good start lightens the work. Selection policies are not helping the situation for SF in the south

I was going to start a thread on this but forgot - SF do seem to have gone big on the "Babe"/youth factor, it makes the parties appeal look rather superficial.

markopantelic

socially i agree with them but i wouldnt want them in power, would be interesting to see tho

ionix5891

markopantelic wrote: »

socially i agree with them but i wouldnt want them in power, would be interesting to see tho

look at Russia to see what a country run by the mob looks like (minus the huge landmass and wealth of natural resources)

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes. Quite a different one, but just as bad. We would be on the way out of the EU, our multi-national sector would be shrinking fast, taxes would probably be higher, we would be getting more and more inward-looking, and be right back to 1956.

I have been in 1956, and I don't want to go back there (well, apart from the fanciful idea of getting another run at things, informed by a lifetime's knowledge).

It (the anti-EU) stance is rather an anomaly, in whats in many ways a very progressive party. Personally I think it should have been ditched years ago.

ionix5891

Nodin wrote: »

It (the anti-EU) stance is rather an anomaly, in whats in many ways a very progressive party. Personally I think it should have been ditched years ago.

being against every eu treaty and referenda certainly does not help them

if SF were in power back in 70s we be still growing potatoes now instead of silicon chips :eek:

Dirty-Old-Man

IIMII wrote: »

The selection of candidates in SF is overly convoluted, and seems to work along a box ticking principle (and in this order of importance): 1) Female, 2) Socialist, 3) Nationalist. As the say, a good start lightens the work. Selection policies are not helping the situation for SF in the south

You left out 'Northern' - I don't think they trust candidates from the Republic, most have Norn accents and the few that don't have two big heavy northern minders on their shoulders at all times.

Tim Robbins

Dirty-Old-Man wrote: »

You left out 'Northern' - I don't think they trust candidates from the Republic, most have Norn accents and the few that don't have two big heavy northern minders on their shoulders at all times.

There's also a class element to it. They are associated with nackers and people who just want to bleed the state.

Mary Lou really freaks me out. As she come across as someone with incredible manipulative powers, with her rhetoric and her ability to pull these quasie "i'm very serious" aggressive faces but I don't think she has a clue about any complicated issue - including the north.

Dirty-Old-Man

Nodin wrote: »

It (the anti-EU) stance is rather an anomaly, in whats in many ways a very progressive party. Personally I think it should have been ditched years ago.

Not really an anomoly, the clue is in the title "Sinn Fein" - what would the leaders of 1916 say to the European Union and all these foreigners coming to Ireland?

What would Markievicz say to all these Poles coming in taking Irish women? What would DeValera say to the girls going off to Ibiza and coming back with half-spanish kids?