Can SF transform into a leading party in next 5-10 years?

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can you imagine any of them strapping a member of their own community, a cook, into a van with a with 1000lb bomb, and then forcing him to drive to a checkpoint, and then blowing him up?

Can you imagine an environment that brings a man to do something like that? Do you understand or appreciate what has to be done to ensure it never happens again?

golfball37

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can you imagine any of them strapping a member of their own community, a cook, into a van with a with 1000lb bomb, and then forcing him to drive to a checkpoint, and then blowing him up?

No -but then again they would have had to have the backbone for step 1 before they could have the option of 2 so its a non runner.

I can't imagiane any memeber of the current SF front bench partook in any of those activities, sounds like IRA to me. Defending it is indefensible however.

Zubeneschamali

golfball37 wrote: »

I can't imagiane any memeber of the current SF front bench partook in any of those activities, sounds like IRA to me.

The dogs in the street know McGuinness authorised those attacks.

golfball37

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The dogs in the street know McGuinness authorised those attacks.

He should have been locked away for life if he had anything to do with that.
Pity the dogs couldn't talk.

Zubeneschamali

golfball37 wrote: »

He should have been locked away for life if he had anything to do with that.

What did you imagine he did while in charge of the Northern Command of the IRA?

midlands paranormal researcher

im seening a fianna fail and sein fein goverment next time around see how it goes, fine geal and labour have let down the people and i know cuts are needed, but shame on them to hit the not well off in our country. so i say give sein fein a go

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The dogs in the street know McGuinness authorised those attacks.

This is just the usual moot whataboutery. The 'dogs in the street' knew what happened on Bloody Sunday and knew who was responsible for the years of discrimination too.
Violence begets violence and the lid came off normal society, that is the sad and regretable truth of the matter.
Look at what they stand for now and tell me that SF have not being instrumental in putting the lid back on. There are no solutions or gain to be had by going down the road of whataboutery and the GFA recognises that fact.
SF have reaped the electoral rewards in the North because they have shown that their brand of politics is progressive and seeks to make a fair and just society for all. It was born out of an unfair and unjust society,that in the main, doesn't exist anymore.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

Look at what they stand for now and tell me that SF have not being instrumental in putting the lid back on.

I'm delighted that the IRA stopped their campaign, and that SF no longer support the armed struggle.

That doesn't mean I have to like them, forgive them, vote for them, or vote for anyone who looks slightly as if they might accept them in a coalition government.

And I think enough people feel the same way that it'll be 30 years before SF can become a leading party in the Republic.

Happyman42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm delighted that the IRA stopped their campaign, and that SF no longer support the armed struggle.

That doesn't mean I have to like them, forgive them, vote for them, or vote for anyone who looks slightly as if they might accept them in a coalition government.

And I think enough people feel the same way that it'll be 30 years before SF can become a leading party in the Republic.

30yrs is ridiculously hopeful on your part. They are the only credible socialist party left, things are going to get worse in this society economically and their boat will rise, make no mistake about it. I think they can realistically expect to be in a government in the next 5 - 10 years.

Little_Korean

Stheno wrote: »

If they got rid of the likes of Ellis, McGuinness and everyone else associated with terrorism, and formulated some economic policies that actually made sense, then yes.

After which they wouldn't really be SF anymore.

Without the whiff of sulphur, what are they but another lefty party with Mickey Mouse economics?

maccored

and i believe you. Its no surprise to see people like to ask pointless questions.

proves the point. we live in a country that votes in twits and then whinge about them afterwards, yet poke the parties that go out and do the work with stupid questions no-one can answer. and we wonder why this country is so politically inept?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No-one expects Adams to answer these questions.

We just intend to keep asking until he dies.

maccored

I'd take their economics over the economics the other three have been pedaling, any day.

Little_Korean wrote: »

After which they wouldn't really be SF anymore.

Without the whiff of sulphur, what are they but another lefty party with Mickey Mouse economics?

Little_Korean

RandomName2 wrote: »

What genuinely surprised me was how weak Adams has proven in the Dail; both as speaker and party leader. It surprised me because I expected Stormont to have provided him with more than ample parliamentary experience - but that does not seem to have been the case.

It's not as if Adams or any of the other SF MPs ever did or do anything other than fill in the expense forms.

Little_Korean

enda1 wrote: »

This thread has swung wildly off topic. We almost got somewhere when we were discussing Sinn Féin's possibility to become a major political party, but have become bogged-down in their Nationalist Republican past. Unfortunately the one trick pony that is SF rears its ugly head again.

An answer in itself, perhaps?

Whatever they say or do now, plenty of voters will be judging them - negatively or otherwise - on the events where the party 'made its bones.'

Fooker

It's interesting that FF/FG/Labour so often snipe at Sinn Féin for the activities of the PIRA, yet they still have Connolly, Pearse et all on pedestals.

hyperborean

Fooker wrote: »

It's interesting that FF/FG/Labour so often snipe at Sinn Féin for the activities of the PIRA, yet they still have Connolly, Pearse et all on pedestals.

No it not, those men are dead, members of the PIRA still infest SF!

dienbienphu

the only way sinn fein will become a dominant party is when they start getting back handers and mingling with the elite. that's how its done in the south and it will never change.

pablomakaveli

dienbienphu wrote: »

the only way sinn fein will become a dominant party is when they start getting back handers and mingling with the elite. that's how its done in the south and it will never change.

And the tribal sectarian politics of the north are much better then?

Nervous Nigel

Sinn Fein/IRA will never be a leading party in this jurisdiction.

Look at the evidence. Fine Gael and Labour are naturally suffering because of the austerity measures. But who's benefitting in the polls? Sinn Fein/IRA? No. Fianna Fail - The guys who wrecked the country no more than a wet week ago. Proof that even with no apparent alternatives, normal folk will not vote for Sinn Fein/IRA.

COYW

dienbienphu wrote: »

the only way sinn fein will become a dominant party is when they start getting back handers and mingling with the elite. that's how its done in the south and it will never change.

Well judging by the thread a few weeks ago when a voter was praising Dessie Ellis for sorting out his passport woes, the printer toner cartridges incident and their hefty Dail expense claims, as examples, they are migrating into that stream pretty well.

As someone said, let's not forget about the "democracy" that they partake in up in N.I.

Nervous Nigel

COYW wrote: »

As someone said, let's not forget about the "democracy" that they partake in up in N.I.

That's effectively a national government so it doesn't really count.

I would be genuinely shocked to see Sinn Fein/IRA in power in the Republic within the next 50 years.

maccored

Nervous Nigel wrote: »

Sinn Fein/IRA

and here was me thinking the provos didnt exist anymore.

hyperborean

maccored wrote: »

and here was me thinking the provos didnt exist anymore.

LOL, pretending someone is actually stupid enough to think the provos dont exist anymore, you should be on stage

maccored

and you know they still exist? Interesting ... prey tell

hyperborean wrote: »

LOL, pretending someone is actually stupid enough to think the provos dont exist anymore, you should be on stage

brokenarms

Nervous Nigel wrote: »

Sinn Fein/IRA will never be a leading party in this jurisdiction.

Look at the evidence. Fine Gael and Labour are naturally suffering because of the austerity measures. But who's benefitting in the polls? Sinn Fein/IRA? No. Fianna Fail - The guys who wrecked the country no more than a wet week ago. Proof that even with no apparent alternatives, normal folk will not vote for Sinn Fein/IRA.

Why do you feel the need to add IRA at the end. It makes you sound like a Bigot/Hater/blah blah blah. Even the feckin unionist stopped doing that. And they really hate them.:rolleyes:

Nervous Nigel

A "bigot"?

Are you having a laugh.

These clowns shouldn't get anywhere near government in this jurisdiction.

"Peacemakers". What about the criminality? Freedom fighters my backside.

deirdremf

enda1 wrote: »

Sinn Féin are a non starter as a major political in the same way as the greens are as they are a single interest party. They will always appeal to the radical few and win some reactionary votes, but will not appeal to the masses until they become interested in the issues of this country.

Sorry, I'm late coming to this discussion, but this post caught my eye.

You say SF appeal to the radical and the reactionary at the same time?

That sounds like the formula that kept FF in first place for 80 years.

If you are right, SF are onto a winner, and we can expect them to dominate Irish politics until 2092!!!

However, joking aside, it was and is FG who have always attracted the reactionary vote: O'Duffy and his blueshirts, the landed and moneyed classes etc.
Garret Fitzgerald temporarily drove some of them out with his talk of a Just Society, and they ended up in the PDs for 20 years. Now that they have come home again, it is FG's job to convince their less reactionary voters to remain. Given the fragmented nature of Irish party politics, I suspect that they will have their work cut out.

Roger_007

Sinn Fein have reinvented their old dual strategy of Armalite & Ballot box with their new dual strategy of in NI blame the British for everything and when in ROI blame the Germans for everything. I suppose it's progress of a sort.

Happyman42

Roger_007 wrote: »

Sinn Fein have reinvented their old dual strategy of Armalite & Ballot box with their new dual strategy of in NI blame the British for everything and when in ROI blame the Germans for everything. I suppose it's progress of a sort.

How wonderfully trite and typical of a FG Dail response. When you can't take the heat...drag up the past and fling it around, the taxpayer will never notice.:rolleyes:

Icepick

Stheno wrote: »

If they got rid of the likes of Ellis, McGuinness and everyone else associated with terrorism, and formulated some economic policies that actually made sense, then yes.

Otherwise. No.

So basically they would be good if they stopped being SF.

Icepick

Ghandee wrote: »

Thanks for rushing to his aid.


Few discrepancies in that story though.

SF are a junior coalition partner for starters, and direct taxation comes from westminster (despite what that report says)

The independent has been one of the main stream media sources for constant criticism against the HHC, ofttimes giving a comprehensive list of services that the homeowner gets for the 'ten times the amount of the hhc'

Free health care
Prescriptions capped at €8
Free education, free transport to the school, meals provided, no book fees
Refuse collection
Emergency services
Much lower motor tax
No tolled roads

On top of parks, council services, etc etc

And the claim that homeowners have to pay water charges on top of their rates is a downright lie, not stretching the truth, a lie. I'm from county Derry, we don't have water charges (possibly businesses do, I'm not 100% on that one.

It pisses me off at times the amount of folk who claim to know what SF do/did/attempt too do up north, yet not fully understanding, or educating themselves about it.

To top it off, the same folk are very quick to tell SF supporters that the north is a 'different country' than Ireland, so why you think SF should have the same policies, in 'two different countries' with different economies (even different currencies) always baffles me

Yes, thanks to England, they still are able to run huge deficits up there too.

Roger_007

Happyman42 wrote: »

How wonderfully trite and typical of a FG Dail response. When you can't take the heat...drag up the past and fling it around, the taxpayer will never notice.:rolleyes:

FG!! Who said anything about FG. I am a universal skeptic.

Happyman42

Roger_007 wrote: »

FG!! Who said anything about FG. I am a universal skeptic.

Ok. Typical trite response of the universally uninformed.

pablomakaveli

Happyman42 wrote: »

How wonderfully trite and typical of a FG Dail response. When you can't take the heat...drag up the past and fling it around, the taxpayer will never notice.:rolleyes:

And Sinn Fein never drag up the past?

Zubeneschamali

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And Sinn Fein never drag up the past?

No, they hardly ever refer to the past, usually just to Republican makey-uppey stuff.

blahfckingblah

mature zubeneschamali

yore

golfball37 wrote: »

People in Eire hate SF/IRA because they are teh personification of everything they glorify from history. Collins/Connolly/De Valera etc.

Like them or not their members put their lives on teh line for something they believed in. The current politcal and media establishment which is made up of cowards cannot live with this so they become demons.

Its a classical approach to self hate or as I would put it post colononial self loathing.

I hate what the IRA did in our name but I'd take someone like Martin McGuinness [warts and all] over anyone in Dail Eireann. Can you imagine 1 member of FG/Lab/FF defending a community with arms?

On one hand, he left the IRA in 1974. Almost 40 years ago. But you still want him to be credited for it I'm sure there are plenty of kids in Limerick/Dublin gangs who get dragged into guns and violence just because it's there in front of them. I'm not comparing them to him, but I don't think he was particularly unique or gifted. It was just a product of his time and place. What TD would have had the opportunity or reason to defend his community with arms? It's a silly inference to try to make. I'd doubt Enda Kenny would have ever had any more cause to dig out the rifle to protect his friends in Mayo than Mary Lou McDonald would have done to protect those downtrodden denizens of South Co. Dublin. That fact on it's own doesn't automatically make either of them any less capable than McGuinness.

That said, I'd be shocked if there wasn't one member of the current Dail who was in the FCA for a few months 40 years ago. Their supporters just don't go on and on about it as a badge of honour.

Yeah, I'm being facetious but it's this double standards, talking out of both sides of the mouth, SF sh1te I can't stand. Well among the many many other reasons that I can't stand them.

Either he bailed out and left the IRA in 1974, at the height of the Troubles, in order to pursue political and peaceful avenues or he heroically stayed involved and fought the just cause, in the trenches, on the front line, beside his fellow comrades. You can't claim both at once. I'm not attacking McGuinness; just the attitude of his supporters who claim both versions at once.

golfball37

Actually I never commented on timelines or how long he had to be in there to qualify for my praise.

I just said he defended his besieged community and you never refuted it.

If Castlebar was under siege from an aparteid regime in 1969 do you think Enda Kenny would have taken up arms? I personally don't think he would have, based on his attiuted to defending our intersts abroad. I may well be wrong though.

yore

golfball37 wrote: »

Actually I never commented on timelines or how long he had to be in there to qualify for my praise.

You didn't, but his own position, and official mantra is that he left the IRA in 1974.

golfball37 wrote: »

I just said he defended his besieged community and you never refuted it.

I wasn't there. He was in the IRA. I'd imagine it was difficult to find a young man of his age there who wasn't!

golfball37 wrote: »

If Castlebar was under siege from an aparteid regime in 1969 do you think Enda Kenny would have taken up arms? I personally don't think he would have, based on his attiuted to defending our intersts abroad. I may well be wrong though.

Jesus, that's an awful hypothetical question. Sure neither you nor I can know that. Do you know Kenny well? The equivalent of that would be like me saying sh1te like "if McGuinness grew up in Limerick, do you think he'd have gotten involved in gangs who go around shoot up each other". It's pure hypothetical bull. (I'm only playing devil's advocate with my scenario). Do you think Kenny should bring a gun to his EU meetings or something? You know that there are a lot of hardcore republicans up North who think SF sold out, right?


Finally, if taking up arms is such a prerequisite for leadership, firstly, there are surely thousands of people in the North who were involved in taking up guns for far far longer than McGuinness did.
Secondly, as mentioned above, the leaders of the parties in the Republic never had the occasion to take up arms. However the leader of SF, for the past 30 years, never took up a gun! Despite being in the middle of it. So while we can claim that it's a mark of disrespect or weakness for Enda Kenny (or whatever other politician) that he wouldn't (or whether he would....it's a stupid question) have taken up arms, we know for definite that the leader of SF wouldn't have. Because he was in the situation and didn't!

And yet he's the leader and McGuinness isn't. Explain that one!

Iwasfrozen

golfball37 wrote: »

Actually I never commented on timelines or how long he had to be in there to qualify for my praise.

I just said he defended his besieged community and you never refuted it.

If Castlebar was under siege from an aparteid regime in 1969 do you think Enda Kenny would have taken up arms? I personally don't think he would have, based on his attiuted to defending our intersts abroad. I may well be wrong though.

See this is why we can't have a proper discussion on Northern Ireland. People throw around over the top words with no qualifying evidence. Northern Ireland was never under siege or apartheid. Saying it was is stupid.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

See this is why we can't have a proper discussion on Northern Ireland. People throw around over the top words with no qualifying evidence. Northern Ireland was never under siege or apartheid. Saying it was is stupid.

Parts of it certainly were and while apartheid may not have been as bad as it was in, say, South Africa, it most certainly existed.

golfball37

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

See this is why we can't have a proper discussion on Northern Ireland. People throw around over the top words with no qualifying evidence. Northern Ireland was never under siege or apartheid. Saying it was is stupid.

You obviously never heard of the battle of the bogside so? The siege that prompted McGuinness to join the PIRA. Streets were closed off for weeks, nothing went in or out.

I'm sorry if the language offends your tastebuds but how would you describe it?

The whole 6 county statelet was an Apartheid regime for decades. Any regime that discrimates against its citizens because of race/releigion/gender is an Aparteid regime imo. Again I'm sorry I couldn't find a more eloquent word to assuage your sensitivities. But don't take my word for it try Mary McAleese, Seamus mallon or Austin Currie. All of these would have no truck with IRA or violence yet will tell of numerous instances growing up in the province where they were discriminated against by the State.

OCorcrainn

The reality was in regards to the GFA, I don't think the Loyalists would have went along with it Gusty Spence and David Ervine. Like Gerry Adams and McGuinness, despite being a republican, a constitutional republican I have respect for them. They all helped take the gun out of Irish politics.

Also it is rather hypocritical for certain people to ignore the fact that Unionist parties do have members of what they would call terrorist organizations within them who have prominent roles.

It is funny to see the same people who feel the need to berate and criticize only Sinn Féin despite the fact that they support the peace process. Why? Because they feel the need to demonize them because they were indirectly or directly involved in paramilitary activity? Every party in northern Ireland had members who were involved, so it is ridiculous to single out Sinn Féin and republicans. Seriously, get a grip on yourselves.

Anyway the reality is politicians like McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Gusty Spence and David Ervine took the gun out Irish politics, despite their history of being involved in the conflict.

COYW

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Anyway the reality is politicians like McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Gusty Spence and David Ervine took the gun out Irish politics, despite their history of being involved in the conflict.

Nice piece of history editing there! You are forgetting the two most important people in the whole process i.e. John Hume (a man who did all his "talking" through peaceful democracy) and David Trimble (the man who brought unionism to the negotiation table).

OCorcrainn

COYW wrote: »

Nice piece of history editing there! You are forgetting the two most important people in the whole process i.e. John Hume (a man who did all his "talking" through peaceful democracy) and David Trimble (the man who brought unionism to the negotiation table).

Enough with the theatrics, there was no history editing. Just because I did not mention them in my post does not equate to me deliberately exluding them, disregarding or minimzing their role.

I shouldn't have to spell that out for you.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Parts of it certainly were and while apartheid may not have been as bad as it was in, say, South Africa, it most certainly existed.

It was never under siege and it was never under apartheid. Throwing around these words as if they mean nothing devalues them.

golfball37 wrote:

You obviously never heard of the battle of the bogside so? The siege that prompted McGuinness to join the PIRA. Streets were closed off for weeks, nothing went in or out.

I have and you've just proven my point by equating one small part of Derry being closed off by nationalists as the whole of Northern Ireland under seige.

golfball37 wrote:

I'm sorry if the language offends your tastebuds but how would you describe it?

Irredentism.

golfball37 wrote:

The whole 6 county statelet was an Apartheid regime for decades. Any regime that discrimates against its citizens because of race/releigion/gender is an Aparteid regime imo. Again I'm sorry I couldn't find a more eloquent word to assuage your sensitivities. But don't take my word for it try Mary McAleese, Seamus mallon or Austin Currie. All of these would have no truck with IRA or violence yet will tell of numerous instances growing up in the province where they were discriminated against by the State.

Hopefully those people would have more respect for South Africa and it's fight against racism then to describe Northern Ireland as apartheid. Also Northern Ireland is not a statelet, it's a home country of the United Kingdom. Language is very important if you want to remain unbiasd.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was never under siege and it was never under apartheid. Throwing around these words as if they mean nothing devalues them.

Dismissing them as not comparable also devalues the problem, Nationalists had to deal with gerrymandering, something the UK and RoI did not have to deal with for decades, a sectarian police force, employment discrimination, housing discrimination. While it might be unfair to directly compare it to South Africa, Northern Ireland showed horrendous levels of discrimination in a first world country, one that prided itself as leaders in democracy, fairness and justice.

So I don't think SA or Martin Luther King are direct comparisons, but given the context, that the UK let this stuff happen under its watch is pretty shocking stuff. Noble men like Hume and Currie pointed this out peacefully and civilly.

Anyway, mod note, I can't help but feel we are going over the same old territory with the same old posters. Would be interesting to have a discussion about more recent events, not repeat the same tired positions that we've all gone over, and over before.

yore

OCorcrainn wrote: »

It is funny to see the same people who feel the need to berate and criticize only Sinn Féin despite the fact that they support the peace process. Why? Because they feel the need to demonize them because they were indirectly or directly involved in paramilitary activity? Every party in northern Ireland had members who were involved, so it is ridiculous to single out Sinn Féin and republicans. Seriously, get a grip on yourselves.

No, but you can't live off past glories forever. I respect what they did (Although I also see the argument that the "conflict" was prolonged by the mentality of some of their hierarchy). I respect that McGuinness et al are products of his circumstances and whatever he did back then should not be judged against the standards and background of today.

However it doesn't mean that I see a place for their mantras in a modern, progressive Ireland. There's still too much of this "Free Stater sellout" sh1te from their Northern supporters. Their policies are opportunistic and populist. They may have changed some superficial aspects but they need to change a lot more.

"By trade I was a cooper, lost out to redundancy
Like my house that fell to progress, my trade's a memory"

GRMA

COYW wrote: »

Nice piece of history editing there! You are forgetting the two most important people in the whole process i.e. John Hume (a man who did all his "talking" through peaceful democracy) and David Trimble (the man who brought unionism to the negotiation table).

John Hume did little in reality and is not as significant as he was portrayed at the time.

The people who should be praised are Charles Haughey and particularly Fr Alec Reid(would never have happened without this great man). While Garret the Good was pandering and posturing with Thatcher Haughey was secretly engaged in talks with Adams, through Alec Reid. I have a lot of respect for Haughey doing this because if he was caught it would have destroyed his career utterly. It would have been just as damaging for Adams if it came out, he too was doing it secretly.

These talks in the mid/late eighties laid the foundations for the peace process.

The Hume Adams talks were mainly for show and to bring SF into talks - you couldn't leap into talks with unionists. Conclusions and such had been reached with Haughey in those talks. And lets face it - Hume was never going to sort anything the real talks were between SF and the IRA, the unionists and the brits. All Hume ever was was an acceptable face of nationalism (a role he reveled in) hence why he got the praise.

Its certainly not the popular narrative, but the truth often isn't.