Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Actually, and I have already said this, my 1st preference would be a PBP candidate.

I have also said I believe events in both juisdictions they are equally bad several time. What I do not see is equal treatment being handed out.

But sure - I raise what I believe are legitimate points and once again it is implied I am an SF shill and simply 'on message'.

Not a very constructive, mature or effective method of getting a person to take your points on board.

The murder of Mrs McConville is a lot more than 'equally bad' compared to Alan Shatter . How they could be linked in the same post is beyond me.

CountyHurler

Every one of their candidates, when questioned, "believe" Gerry Adams was not a member of the IRA.. So they are either idiots or bold faced liars..

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

And the deputy leader of the government in Northern Ireland publicly threatened the police force not to bring charges against his party colleague, or else. That's a deputy prime minister putting party loyalty ahead of the physical security of his state.

Where did he say this? Source?

kryogen

My main gripe with Sinn Fein is a lack of actual coherent policies or plans.

Its easy to be in opposition and point out whats wrong, its a lot different actually making things work.

maccored

http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy -theres quite a few pdfs up there. Im sure if you look through their site you'll find more.

kryogen wrote: »

My main gripe with Sinn Fein is a lack of actual coherent policies or plans.

Its easy to be in opposition and point out whats wrong, its a lot different actually making things work.

sin_city

CountyHurler wrote: »

Every one of their candidates, when questioned, "believe" Gerry Adams was not a member of the IRA.. So they are either idiots or bold faced liars..

So it makes sense that they are involved in politics then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

garhjw

maccored wrote: »

http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy -theres quite a few pdfs up there. Im sure if you look through their site you'll find more.

You call the realistic policies? Jaysus...... Joke of a party that is embarrassing this country

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where did he say this? Source?

McGuinness threatened exactly this on Friday. As you're well aware.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/debateni/blogs/liam-clarke/martin-mcguinness-must-manage-his-anger-better-or-the-hole-we-are-all-in-will-get-bigger-30239802.html

Godge

maccored wrote: »

http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy -theres quite a few pdfs up there. Im sure if you look through their site you'll find more.

Those PDFs only confirm the point that SF lack any coherent or realistic policies

alastair

maccored wrote: »

http://www.sinnfein.ie/economy -theres quite a few pdfs up there. Im sure if you look through their site you'll find more.

Coherent economic policies?

Dan_Solo

At any stage is a critic of SF's economic policy going to mention a single specific part of it?
The way people just spout "all of it" makes me think they're not able to criticize any particular part of it... funny that.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabears last paragraph above is succinct and (socialist bananas aside) pretty much wraps up the shortfalls in SF's economic strategy.

Bannasidhe

Well,

All I can say is that yesterday during a lull in a pub quiz some of my fellow team mates began to discuss SF. All left-wing, all highly educated, all professional people ranging from a senior manager in a multinational to a barrister to academics from different disciplines.

All of them raised the same points I have raised here. All of them believe it it time to stop the if it's not FF it must be FG cycle. All of them believe different standards are being applied and different sets of criteria at at play.

I knew SF are attracting the Left-Wing middle class vote but I was surprised at the extent and the anger that was displayed. The barrister, in particular, went off on a legalise rant about the arrest of Adams and admitted it was that action that finally convinced her.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

Permabears last paragraph above is succinct and (socialist bananas aside) pretty much wraps up the shortfalls in SF's economic strategy.

You know what? It doesn't.
It gives a few of their policies and says they are crap, with not a hint of reasoning.
Forgive me if I for one don't find that sort of post very convincing.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You know what? It doesn't.
It gives a few of their policies and says they are crap, with not a hint of reasoning.
Forgive me if I for one don't find that sort of post very convincing.

Ah well. I spotted a hint of reasoning. Perhaps read it again?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

At any stage is a critic of SF's economic policy going to mention a single specific part of it?
The way people just spout "all of it" makes me think they're not able to criticize any particular part of it... funny that.

Amongst our proposals are the introduction of a third rate of income tax of 48% on income over €100,000, the introduction of a 1% wealth tax on assets valued at over €1 million, the standardisation of all discretionary tax reliefs, the capping of public sector salaries at €100,000, increases of 10% in both Capital Gains and Capital Acquisitions taxes, and a cut in the salaries of government Ministers, TD's and Senators. We completely oppose the introduction of the property tax and water charges.

This paragraph sums up the incoherence of their policy. A 1% wealth tax on assets valued over 1 million. Anyone with a business, a pension fund, a house in South Dublin would be hit by that. Capping public sector salaries at 100000 means there wouldnt be a doctor or a professor left in the country after six months. Bringing in an unworkable wealth tax to replace the workable wealth tax that is the property tax makes no sense.

Introduction of a third rate of income tax, when you add USC and PRSI to this, it goes through the roof. Won't be a businessman left in the country after 48 hours.

alastair

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well,

All I can say is that yesterday during a lull in a pub quiz some of my fellow team mates began to discuss SF. All left-wing, all highly educated, all professional people ranging from a senior manager in a multinational to a barrister to academics from different disciplines.

All of them raised the same points I have raised here. All of them believe it it time to stop the if it's not FF it must be FG cycle. All of them believe different standards are being applied and different sets of criteria at at play.

I knew SF are attracting the Left-Wing middle class vote but I was surprised at the extent and the anger that was displayed. The barrister, in particular, went off on a legalise rant about the arrest of Adams and admitted it was that action that finally convinced her.

That's all well and good, but I didn't see anyone on this thread suggesting that people shouldn't be free to vote for SF, or anyone else. Clearly SF's vote is going to rise when their opposition is stymied by a bunch of unpopular policies, and whatever gaffs they bring on themselves.

All of them believe different standards are being applied and different sets of criteria at at play.

Not sure what to make of this, unless you're still equating the Wallace thing with the overall undermining of policing, and a call to remain calm until the 'right' policing outcome is met? I'd say those were quite different criteria.

Phoebas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well,

All I can say is that yesterday during a lull in a pub quiz some of my fellow team mates began to discuss SF. All left-wing, all highly educated, all professional people ranging from a senior manager in a multinational to a barrister to academics from different disciplines.

All of them raised the same points I have raised here. All of them believe it it time to stop the if it's not FF it must be FG cycle. All of them believe different standards are being applied and different sets of criteria at at play.

I knew SF are attracting the Left-Wing middle class vote but I was surprised at the extent and the anger that was displayed. The barrister, in particular, went off on a legalise rant about the arrest of Adams and admitted it was that action that finally convinced her.

Well Bannasidhe, if some of your acquaintances also support SF then who are we to disagree.

Any you say that they are professional people too - its hard to argue with that!

Bannasidhe

alastair wrote: »

That's all well and good, but I didn't see anyone on this thread suggesting that people should be free to vote for SF, or anyone else. Clearly SF's vote is going to rise when their opposition is stymied by a bunch of unpopular policies, and whatever gaffs they bring on themselves.


Not sure what to make of this, unless you're still equating the Wallace thing with the overall undermining of policing, and a call to remain calm until the 'right' policing outcome is met? I'd say those were quite different criteria.

Have you forgotten the charges that they are economically illiterate - I think FF set the gold standards on that one - FF also wrote the book on being populist - also a charge against SF. I could go on and on but I have decided to leave this thread as I am fed up of being dismissed as an SF shill and accused of being 'on message' - ironically sometimes by people who do not see that in their defence of the current government they could also be accused of being 'on message' - difference it, their 'message' is the one spouted by FG/LP/FF/Troika.

alastair

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have you forgotten the charges that they are economically illiterate - I think FF set the gold standards on that one - FF also wrote the book on being populist - also a charge against SF. I could go on and on but I have decided to leave this thread as I am fed up of being dismissed as an SF shill and accused of being 'on message' - ironically sometimes by people who do not see that in their defence of the current government they could also be accused of being 'on message' - difference it, their 'message' is the one spouted by FG/LP/FF/Troika.

Their economic policies make no sense. That's true. But then nor do PBP's. Pointing out those facts isn't in any way defending the current government - it's just highlighting a problem with one of the alternatives. Pretending that the exposure of the Wallace caution and the undermining of the entire police force by the second minister are one and the same thing, certainly paints you as someone with a pretty distorted commitment to one narrative for sure.

Dan_Solo

What makes you think doctors and professors get over 100,000? As far as I can tell only consultants do. Are you suggesting Irish consultants are appropriately paid? They are amongst the highest paid in the world despite not having that great a record.
Oh, and all taxes are "extortionate". It is empty description. You pay or go to jail, same as today.

Edit: of course many senior civil servants do too, but that never enters the narrative when it comes to a public sector pay cap. Only our precious doctors and professors ever get mentioned...

Dan_Solo

If SF's wealth tax is, in effect, an extension of he property wealth tax, then why do people have such a problem with it? Is the property tax anti-wealth then too... has to be by that logic.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What makes you think doctors and professors get over 100,000? As far as I can tell only consultants do. Are you suggesting Irish consultants are appropriately paid? They are amongst the highest paid in the world despite not having that great a record.
Oh, and all taxes are "extortionate". It is empty description. You pay or go to jail, same as today.

Edit: of course many senior civil servants do too, but that never enters the narrative when it comes to a public sector pay cap. Only our precious doctors and professors ever get mentioned...

Doctors - It's not just consultants earn over €100,000 here: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21295

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If SF's wealth tax is, in effect, an extension of he property wealth tax, then why do people have such a problem with it? Is the property tax anti-wealth then too... has to be by that logic.

Kind of harder to move your property outside the state though, whereas wealth is highly mobile.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

Doctors - It's not just consultants earn over €100,000 here: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21295

That's with overtime.
So no, only consultants on over 100,000 anyway.

Leftist

SF's economic plans during the last election where completely implausible and designed to attract approval from disenfranchised voters who can't be arsed looking beyond buzz words.

They are taking advantage of the economic situation and manipulating people with populist ideas which are completely unworkable. But it appeals to certain elements, the type who like to express their 'love of their country'. The very small minded and economically depressed.

aside from that they are the party of a terrorist organisation, their leaders are clearly from the upper echelon of the IRA. And not even 10 years ago their supporters intimidated a South Dublin City independent during a local election campaign. They are criminals with a criminal mindset.

it's totally embarrassing for the country that they are becoming popular, but throughout all of europe, angry, hate mongering political parties are gaining ground due to the recession.

Dan_Solo

I just don't get the argument: "oh no, public servants we can't afford will leave the country!"
So? We can't get a civil servant to work for 100k? Good riddance.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's with overtime.
So no, only consultants on over 100,000 anyway.

You think income based on overtime isn't subject to a wealth tax? If you're earning over €100,00, you're earning over €100,000, regardless of what your base salary is.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

You think income based on overtime isn't subject to a wealth tax? If you're earning over €100,00, you're earning over €100,000, regardless of what your base salary is.

Never said that. Nobody did.
The base salary is still under the proposed 100k public sector cap which is what we were discussing.