Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

twowheelsgood

RDM_83 again wrote: »

My question is not simply why SF were unpopular in the ROI, its why SF have such a deep seated antagonism by a certain segment of the population 20 years since the wind down of major hostilities whereas in NI where the vast majority of the violence has occurred they are not generally viewed the same way even though pre-ceasefire they were pretty electorally unpopular.
Why is it that the people who actually suffered through the Troubles can recognize that times have changed but many of those in the ROI don't?

You could similarly ask why the remembrance of, and undiminished distain for, the aggressive acts committed by the British going back not just a couple of decades, but close to a millennium! People seem to be willing to forget and forgive gross misdeeds (see FF) but have long memories when it comes to the use of unauthorised violence. (Do you think the distaste for George W. Bush will dissipate in another decade or so?)

As to why there is a difference attitude North and South of the border? Short answer, different countries, different experiences. In particular, Northerners were always going to be more likely to forgive the wrongs of the IRA because wrongs were also perpetrated by the other side with them on the receiving end.

And in addition, as I have said, while Adams, Ferris, McGuinness etc. remain front and centre, forgetting is made a little bit harder.

pO1Neil wrote: »

Most people on here will be too afraid to say it but the IRA helped restore Ireland's credibility & they helped wave in the period of the Celtic tiger.

:eek:
End of the road would appear to have some competition! :pac:

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Possibly because although the times have changed, there's still lots to hold SF to account for? NI nationalists had the option of rewarding SF for their decision to abandon their campaign of violence - and did so. It helped that they (SF) ditched most of their crazy policy at the same time and effectively became SDLP MkII, while the real SDLP slowly unravelled and lost their best assets. NI Nationalists only really had two and a half options for who to support - SF, SDLP, or Alliance. Southern voters obviously had a range of alternatives to SF, so, while they might have been grateful that they (SF) had finally copped on to themselves, there was less reason to reward them electorally, so they stayed out in the cold that much longer.

I've stated my reasons for disliking them, but really - it's not too hard to identify the historic, recent, and current reasons why so many other people do.

The SDLP where held to account for their many failures to bring an end to the conflict and their fundamental misunderstanding of it. That is the historical fact you are attempting to obscure.
It is not the SDLP's self implosion (which was bound to happen as they where a party with many shades of opinion from the get go) that is the reason SF are now power sharing. People REWARD those who advance them and those they see as the real power brokers. Simple fact of life.
Intimating that the electorate has been hoodwinked or are ignorant in some way is jut a sign of arrogance and sour grapes.
The SDLP where involved, hindered and helped just like everyone else did, but their place in the finding of a solution was ultimately, and could only be, peripheral. John Hume's solo run, which they where happy to attach themselves to when it began to be successful, is what elevates them from being a footnote.

old hippy

pO1Neil wrote: »

Most people on here will be too afraid to say it but the IRA helped restore Ireland's credibility & they helped wave in the period of the Celtic tiger.

And in which parallel universe did this happen?

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

While I have little time for Nationalism, I certainly do not consider socialism as nearly as destructive to cohesive society than the Rynd school of I'm all right Jack, every man for himself Libertarianism you frequently act as cheerleader for here on Boards.

What you call 'economic freedom' I call lack of protection for employees and consumers and I am stunned to hear that the Economic War with the UK and the Fall Out from the Great Depression in the 1930s had no part to play in the economic woes of the time - apparently it was all due to isolationism - at least you didn't try and claim that Dev's FF government was socialist...

Nice how you linked European Integration and Liberal Capitalism together as if they were part and parcel of the same package - would that be the same Europe that has strengthened regulations, moved to increase employee rights and declared that certain products (Champagne/Cornish pasties etc) are protected and cannot be made anywhere at all according to the whims of the liberal capitalist market?

As for the Irish language - indeed - we should all be collectivist in our approach to what languages we should know as knowledge of our native tongue is so parochial that one can study it in the Universities of Essen and Lueven. The Belgians should stop teaching Irish, ditch Flemish and all speak English - or Cantonese - as the market would prefer that.

How anyone can consider being bilingual (regardless of the two languages) as a bad thing is beyond me.

The picture you paint of a homogeneous - possibly monoglot - Europe with no oversight of any market including financial, not protections for employees or consumers where we are all at the mercy of the economy and those who control it only makes me want to vote SF.

Perhaps they should adopt the slogan 'Vote SF - Libertarians hate us' - it would be a winner once the majority of Irish people realise what the Libertarians actually like and how that would impact on the society they live in.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

The SDLP where held to account for their many failures to bring an end to the conflict and their fundamental misunderstanding of it. That is the historical fact you are attempting to obscure.
It is not the SDLP's self implosion (which was bound to happen as they where a party with many shades of opinion from the get go) that is the reason SF are now power sharing. People REWARD those who advance them and those they see as the real power brokers. Simple fact of life.
Intimating that the electorate has been hoodwinked or are ignorant in some way is jut a sign of arrogance and sour grapes.
The SDLP where involved, hindered and helped just like everyone else did, but their place in the finding of a solution was ultimately, and could only be, peripheral. John Hume's solo run, which they where happy to attach themselves to when it began to be successful, is what elevates them from being a footnote.

The difficulty with the narrative that the political virtuous were rewarded (when did that ever happen?) in the aftermath of the peace process is that you have to explain how the DUP came to be top dogs on the unionist side. Perhaps you think they were?

As always, you are averse to the simpler explanation, and the one that was fully anticipated. When there are moves to resolve conflicts, requiring both sides to give ground, the natural instinct of most is to move from the moderates to the extremists when looking for political representation.

Hence SF and the DUP rose, the SDLP and the OUP declined.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

aftermath of the peace process

that is where your self serving argument falls apart, the 'aftermath' is a long way off and the process continues. The electorate chose the party that had achieved something for them and the party that they thought had the best chance and ability to continue achieving for them as the 'process' continued.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

that is where your self serving argument falls apart, the 'aftermath' is a long way off and the process continues.

Irrelevant

Happyman42 wrote: »

The electorate chose the party that had achieved something for them and the party that they thought had the best chance and ability to continue achieving for them as the 'process' continued.

So unionist flocked to the DUP because they thought they would achieve more for them from a process, a process the DUP pointedly refuse to engage in?

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Irrelevant



So unionist flocked to the DUP because they thought they would achieve more for them from a process, a process the DUP pointedly refuse to engage in?

Yes, haven't you noticed that a lot of Unionists are in a very entrenched mindset? Quite natural that they would vote for belligerents if they see the 'peace process' as selling them out. It isn't and I would expect the UUP to begin to rise again.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, haven't you noticed that a lot of Unionists are in a very entrenched mindset? Quite natural that they would vote for belligerents if they see the 'peace process' as selling them out. It isn't and I would expect the UUP to begin to rise again.

So let me understand this , the nationalists voted for SF because they were successful and the unionists voted for DUP because they were unsuccessful ?

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

So let me understand this , the nationalists voted for SF because they were successful and the unionists voted for DUP because they were unsuccessful ?

Essentially yes.

The nationalists voted for SF as they seemed the best candidates to achieve a measure of power sharing which would curb the historical excesses of a deeply Sectarian society - something the SDLP are perceived as utterly failing to do.

Those who want to preserve the privileges enjoyed by the dominant side in the Sectarian divide voted DUP as they were perceived as the more hard-line an therefore more likely to fight harder against the loss of those privileges.

Both sides went for the parties that would be considered hardline and put them in a situation where they had to work out some form of compromise but would essentially 'fight' to protect their respective communities.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Isolated incidents that go against the overall trend.


It's too late for that, alas.

I am afraid they were not isolated incidents at all Nodin , robberies kidnappings up to and including the killing of the legitimate forces of law and order were a common enough feature .

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

I am afraid they were not isolated incidents at all Nodin , robberies kidnappings up to and including the killing of the legitimate forces of law and order were a common enough feature .

I am not sure I would describe them as 'a common enough feature' but I certainly acknowledge they were a feature but would also argue that the presence of armed soldiers outside banks etc may have given the impression that it was more widespread than it actually was...am open to correction on this. Perhaps some one not reliant on a dongle in a rural backwater to access the net could provide some figures?

Yes- they did not recognise the legitimacy of the State. Of course they didn't. It wasn't what the War of Independence was fought for. It was not the 32 county republic but the b*stard offspring of a compromise that earned exactly nothing as the Treaty Collins signed gaining nothing that was not already part of the previous Home Rule Bill put on the table before WWI and due to be implemented after the war. Essentially, in the eyes of republicans, they had been sold down the swanny as post 1920 we ended up back where we started in 1914 with a partitioned island and Westminster still overseeing the major stuff. That was not what they fought for...

An ambiguous attitude towards the State was not uncommon among those who lived through the War of Independence - my own grandmother always referred to it as the Free State until the day she died in 1999. She paid her taxes, she bought government bonds, she voted but she never considered that the Irish republic her and her family had literally fought for existed - and never would until it was the united 32 county republic as declared by Pearse. It was a compromise that brought peace so she could raise her children but not the ultimate goal.

If viewed in a certain light it can be argued that the War of Independence not only continued unabated in NI but escalated as those in power there entrenched and let the Nationalist community in no doubt that they were on the losing side with 'lesser' rights as a result. All with the collusion of many in Westminster...
Meanwhile, in the South a 'we are all right Jack' attitude prevailed in the corridors of power and members of government trumpeted their 'republican' credentials but turned a blind eye to events in NI, despite the territorial claim our Constitution made upon it...or quietly sowed the seeds of discontent in a surreptitious and underhand way..

I am not saying I agree with this stance - I am saying I can see how and why some people adopted it and if we are to have a peaceful and stable society we have to be able to acknowledge how the other side feels or we risk becoming as entrenched as the hardliners. We do not have to agree but we do need to develop the ability to see things from other people's prospectives.

SF now recognise the legitimacy of the State - so can we not move on?

If harking back to events in NI is not relevant than how is a stance SF no longer espouse relevant?

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

SF now recognise the legitimacy of the State - so can we not move on?

What you seem to be saying is that long term, SF are moving away from the reasons people hate/dislike/distrust them, so people should stop.

That isn't how hate, dislike and distrust work. If I hate someone for doing something, they can't just stop doing it and then say "please love me now".

They are still the same person, the one capable of doing whatever it was.

So Sinn Fein can't say "Hey, look, we recognize the legitimacy of your state now, please trust us to run it!" and get me to swallow it - they are still the same folks who didn't recognize it, and the #1 goal in their manifesto is to change that state completely by bringing their DUP buddies with them into the Dail.

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am not sure I would describe them as 'a common enough feature' but I certainly acknowledge they were a feature but would also argue that the presence of armed soldiers outside banks etc may have given the impression that it was more widespread than it actually was...am open to correction on this. Perhaps some one not reliant on a dongle in a rural backwater to access the net could provide some figures?

Yes- they did not recognise the legitimacy of the State. Of course they didn't. It wasn't what the War of Independence was fought for. It was not the 32 county republic but the b*stard offspring of a compromise that earned exactly nothing as the Treaty Collins signed gaining nothing that was not already part of the previous Home Rule Bill put on the table before WWI and due to be implemented after the war. Essentially, in the eyes of republicans, they had been sold down the swanny as post 1920 we ended up back where we started in 1914 with a partitioned island and Westminster still overseeing the major stuff. That was not what they fought for...

An ambiguous attitude towards the State was not uncommon among those who lived through the War of Independence - my own grandmother always referred to it as the Free State until the day she died in 1999. She paid her taxes, she bought government bonds, she voted but she never considered that the Irish republic her and her family had literally fought for existed - and never would until it was the united 32 county republic as declared by Pearse. It was a compromise that brought peace so she could raise her children but not the ultimate goal.

If viewed in a certain light it can be argued that the War of Independence not only continued unabated in NI but escalated as those in power there entrenched and let the Nationalist community in no doubt that they were on the losing side with 'lesser' rights as a result. All with the collusion of many in Westminster...
Meanwhile, in the South a 'we are all right Jack' attitude prevailed in the corridors of power and members of government trumpeted their 'republican' credentials but turned a blind eye to events in NI, despite the territorial claim our Constitution made upon it...or quietly sowed the seeds of discontent in a surreptitious and underhand way..

I am not saying I agree with this stance - I am saying I can see how and why some people adopted it and if we are to have a peaceful and stable society we have to be able to acknowledge how the other side feels or we risk becoming as entrenched as the hardliners. We do not have to agree but we do need to develop the ability to see things from other people's prospectives.

SF now recognise the legitimacy of the State - so can we not move on?

If harking back to events in NI is not relevant than how is a stance SF no longer espouse relevant?

No it was very widespread and the Garda presence at banks were proof of that . Then you had the kidnappings and attempted kidnappings Don Tidey Tide Herrema Tony Ryan . And that is before we even get to incompetent nut jobs like Dessie O'Hare kidnapping and mutilating his victim and the wrong victim at that.

Correct me if I am wrong but if memory serves the first time a Garda lost his life to a criminal since 1925 was around 2012 , every other death in the line of duty excluding some high profile manslaughter/insanity cases was at the hands of armed nationalists .Lets just forget all the other post office/payroll jobs as the list would be endless.

But lets also in the interest of fairness acknowledge the good they brought about - they singlehandedly eliminating the factory practice of getting paid in cash and belatedly forced us into bank account,check book era and thus forever put the kibosh on the Friday night overtime piss up.

And all this to a chorus of you are an illegitimate state and every vote cast since 1918 was invalid.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

maccored

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They do? Any examples of SF's modern day practice of marxism?

golfball37

The way this State has behaved since its inception culminating in its nadir of the arrival of the IMF, I'm beginning to agree with their historical logic.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My 'attack' ( softest 'attack' ever..) on Rynd and Libertarianism simply mirrored the anti- socialist rhetoric you posted so you can't really complain when some one uses your own tactics in a rebuttal.

The fact is that the Irish electorate shows zero interest in adopting a Libertarian ideology so criticising SF by using that particular philosophy as a yardstick of the desirable is rather pointless imho. It simply isn't desirable to the vast majority of Irish voters.

They are appealing to the middle and working class Left and reaching out to a majority of our disillusioned youth ( in a way that no other party is coming close to achieving) - the absolute opposite of the usual Libertarian voters - the people who want the State to regulate, to oversee, to educate, to watch out and protect them and their rights, to build as a collective society not a lose amalgamation of individuals doing business.

The question is how close to the centre can their appeal reach - not how they compare to a minor political ideology unattractive to the electorate.

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What you seem to be saying is that long term, SF are moving away from the reasons people hate/dislike/distrust them, so people should stop.

That isn't how hate, dislike and distrust work. If I hate someone for doing something, they can't just stop doing it and then say "please love me now".

They are still the same person, the one capable of doing whatever it was.

So Sinn Fein can't say "Hey, look, we recognize the legitimacy of your state now, please trust us to run it!" and get me to swallow it - they are still the same folks who didn't recognize it, and the #1 goal in their manifesto is to change that state completely by bringing their DUP buddies with them into the Dail.

They are making it work in NI. No one says we have to like each other or even agree. If Paisley could work with McGuinness where do we get off holding a grudge?

Surely that kind of ever forgive/never forget attitude played a large part in the creation of the lifelong FF or FG vote that has stifled democracy in this country and lead to the rise of the gombeen men - two parties btw who philosophically and politically are so close that in most States they would be one party - and all of this was determined by whether your family 'recognised' the State in 1922 or didn't...

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are making it work in NI. No one says we have to like each other or even agree. If Paisley could work with McGuinness where do we get off holding a grudge?

Surely that kind of ever forgive/never forget attitude played a large part in the creation of the lifelong FF or FG vote that has stifled democracy in this country and lead to the rise of the gombeen men - two parties btw who philosophically and politically are so close that in most States they would be one party - and all of this was determined by whether your family 'recognised' the State in 1922 or didn't...

How do you define 'making it work' ? In contrast to what went before in N.I yeah sure . But in contrast to any other democracy in the European Community including this one , not at all . They may well do in time but what is done in N.I is no measure of what is needed down here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

How do you define 'making it work' ? In contrast to what went before in N.I yeah sure . But in contrast to any other democracy in the European Community including this one , not at all . They may well do in time but what is done in N.I is no measure of what is needed down here.

The only other EU State than comes close to a fair comparison with NI is the Republic of Cyprus...should I include the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in that or not...

Two different ethnic groups both claim ownership of the same small landmass. One group is internationally recognised as being the 'owners' but the minority group disagree, sometimes so violently that a UN Peace keeping force was sent in - something that did not happen in NI where the conflict was allowed to escalate.

In 2004 a UN/US/EU backed plan to unify the island of Cyprus was accepted by the Turks but rejected by the Greeks.

In NI the DUP and SF - traditionally representing the hardliners on both sides - sit together in a power sharing Assembly and, albeit grudgingly, recognise the right to existence of the other and the need to work together - Cyprus isn't there yet.

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The only other EU State than comes close to a fair comparison with NI is the Republic of Cyprus...should I include the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in that or not...

Two different ethnic groups both claim ownership of the same small landmass. One group is internationally recognised as being the 'owners' but the minority group disagree, sometimes so violently that a UN Peace keeping force was sent in - something that did not happen in NI where the conflict was allowed to escalate.

In 2004 a UN/US/EU backed plan to unify the island of Cyprus was accepted by the Turks but rejected by the Greeks.

In NI the DUP and SF - traditionally representing the hardliners on both sides - sit together in a power sharing Assembly and, albeit grudgingly, recognise the right to existence of the other and the need to work together - Cyprus isn't there yet.

yeah I know all that thanks , what relevance has it got to do with governing or participating in governing this republic ?

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You weren't using a Libertarian philosophy as a yardstick?
Looked like a duck, quacked like a duck.... I didn't realise it was actually a swan. Apologies.

Most people care about knowing they and their family can access healthcare regardless of how wealthy they are or how extensive their private health care.
They care that should they become unemployed the State (the 'S' is a literary device called capitalisation used to emphasise a singular and specific entity rather than a possibly plural 's' statesssss ) will come to their aid.
They care that they will be paid redundancy.
They care that they will get a pension even if they couldn't afford a private plan.
They care that they have employment rights and consumer rights.
They care about roads, schools, fire brigades, ambulances, phone networks, water, refuse collection etc etc.

They want the services they pay for the State to provide.

People are complaining that these services are being privatised and the State via Local Authorities is no longer undertaking them but is continuing to charge via various taxes. No one bar a few are saying Stop the State providing any or fewer services - people are saying give us the services we are paying for!

No - I don't think most people see the State itself as having failed - I think most people believe those who were charged with steering and guiding that State as having failed.

The Political Class betrayed the State and sought to subvert it for their own personal gain. That is not the same as saying The State failed the people.

Like it or not - SF cannot be tainted with that particular brush. They played no part in the Boom/Bust cycles of the last 80 odd years. Their exile in the political wilderness in the R.O.I isolated them from that and that scares the Big Three...

Again with the running up the old 'Marxist Socialist Collective' red under the beds rubbish up the flagpole.

Care to show us some proof that SF in it's current incarnation is 'Marxist'?

Of course, the thing is that we both know Hell would have to freeze over before you would even consider giving SF a vote and they won't bother even trying. It's people like me and Happyman42, they want. People who believe that society equals a community not an economy. Calling us 'ideologues' in such a dismissive way plays right into their hands.

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

yeah I know all that thanks , what relevance has it got to do with governing or participating in governing this republic ?

This:

marienbad wrote: »

How do you define 'making it work' ? In contrast to what went before in N.I yeah sure . But in contrast to any other democracy in the European Community including this one , not at all . They may well do in time but what is done in N.I is no measure of what is needed down here.

You were the one who mentioned comparisons with 'any other democracy in the European Union' and I pointed out that with the exception of Cyprus no other democracy comes close to being similar to the situation in NI so it is not possible to compare like-for-like and now you are complaining that comparing with other European democracies isn't relevant either because it had nothing to do with governing this island

Then why did you mention it in the first place????

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This:


You were the one who mentioned comparisons with 'any other democracy in the European Union' and I pointed out that with the exception of Cyprus no other democracy comes close to being similar to the situation in NI so it is not possible to compare like-for-like and now you are complaining that comparing with other European democracies isn't relevant either because it had nothing to do with governing this island

Then why did you mention it in the first place????

With the greatest respect it is you who used the phrase 'making it work ' and I am asking what you mean by that and what relevance does SF making it work in such an unique entity as N.I have to do this republic.

To be honest I find it difficult to follow your arguments .

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My 'attack' ( softest 'attack' ever..) on Rynd and Libertarianism simply mirrored the anti- socialist rhetoric you posted so you can't really complain when some one uses your own tactics in a rebuttal.

The fact is that the Irish electorate shows zero interest in adopting a Libertarian ideology so criticising SF by using that particular philosophy as a yardstick of the desirable is rather pointless imho. It simply isn't desirable to the vast majority of Irish voters.

They are appealing to the middle and working class Left and reaching out to a majority of our disillusioned youth ( in a way that no other party is coming close to achieving) - the absolute opposite of the usual Libertarian voters - the people who want the State to regulate, to oversee, to educate, to watch out and protect them and their rights, to build as a collective society not a lose amalgamation of individuals doing business.

The question is how close to the centre can their appeal reach - not how they compare to a minor political ideology unattractive to the electorate.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are making it work in NI. No one says we have to like each other or even agree. If Paisley could work with McGuinness where do we get off holding a grudge?

Surely that kind of ever forgive/never forget attitude played a large part in the creation of the lifelong FF or FG vote that has stifled democracy in this country and lead to the rise of the gombeen men - two parties btw who philosophically and politically are so close that in most States they would be one party - and all of this was determined by whether your family 'recognised' the State in 1922 or didn't...

The sinister view of Sinn Fein's appeal to the youth and disillusioned is to compare that appeal to the appeal of the European fascist parties to the disillusioned of their time.

Just because Sinn Fein appeal to the middle and working class Left does not make their politicians Saints nor their policies sane.

Godge

If you want a simple answer as to why Sinn Fein are bad, consider the following quote from Mr. McGuinness today:

"Mr McGuinness said Sinn Féin would "reflect" and "review" its support for policing in the region if Mr Adams is charged."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0502/614764-adams-mcconville/

Intimidating a police investigation no less.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you've no evidence, have ignored the split between officials and provisional and where the Marxists went, and just refer to a vague "past" to justify an erroneous statement.