Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

twowheelsgood

GaelMise wrote: »

Fallicy argument. Whatever you think of SF, refusing to recognise that they do not have the power to raise taxes in the north and pretending that they are choosing to implement cuts instead is simply a falsehood.
They get a fixed lump sum from westminister, if it does not cover the cost of all services, they have no option but to cut.

And that differed from the state of affairs down South when the IMF were in town how?

GaelMise

twowheelsgood wrote: »

And that differed from the state of affairs down South when the IMF were in town how?

The IMF did not hand the government a fixed lump sum every year. At no time did our government loose its ability to raise/change tax rates or implement new taxes.
NI assembly is just given a fixed lump sum by westminister each year and told to do what they want with it, if it does not cover everything (and it rarely does) they have to cut something, changing/raising taxes or bringing in new taxes is not an option.

Quite a significant difference if you ask me.

SF's arguments in the south have largely been, we should raise certain taxes so that we dont have to make certain cuts. The reason they did not raise taxes instead of making cuts in the North is because they do not have to power to raise taxes in the North.

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

To put it in left wing political evolutionary terms, ULA/PFP would be old school Labour/Kemmy Socialists, Labour are Blairite and SF are in the middle, but shifting to the center as that is what appeals to the electorate..

Fair enough, but there's that "populist" notion again. I wouldn't expect SF to be any better at sticking to their manifesto than FF/FG/La, but why shouldn't they be offering the electorate what they want?

twowheelsgood

GaelMise wrote: »

The IMF did not hand the government a fixed lump sum every year. At no time did our government loose its ability to raise/change tax rates or implement new taxes.
NI assembly is just given a fixed lump sum by westminister each year and told to do what they want with it, if it does not cover everything (and it rarely does) they have to cut something, changing/raising taxes or bringing in new taxes is not an option.

Quite a significant difference if you ask me.

There isn’t a significant difference. The bottom line in both jurisdictions is/was that there was no real alternative to cuts. Taxes alone were never going to address our massive deficit.

Sinn Fein accepted the reality of cuts in the North but played the populist card against cuts in the South.

Dan_Solo

GaelMise wrote: »

The IMF did not hand the government a fixed lump sum every year. At no time did our government loose its ability to raise/change tax rates or implement new taxes.

No, they had full economic policy freedom. (so long as Angela passed those policies)

golfball37

robindch wrote: »

They don't make sense because they know they'll never have to live up to the election promises they make. Which is not to say that all their populist policies are bad - some are not - but the majority are irresponsible, naked populism.

Oh yes, and I'm old enough to remember when SF were the political wing of the kind of people who did this to their fellow human beings in the name of my country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings

It'll be a chill winter in hell before I give any shinner my vote.

Making a connection between those murders and SF is something the DUP wouldn't even attempt. Your other points are well made but you ruined it all by going the populist route yourself !

GaelMise

twowheelsgood wrote: »

There isn’t a significant difference. The bottom line in both jurisdictions is/was that there was no real alternative to cuts. Taxes alone were never going to address our massive deficit.

Sinn Fein accepted the reality of cuts in the North but played the populist card against cuts in the South.

Sorry, but this is a cop out, SF has no option other than to implement cuts in the North because they do not have to ability to raise new taxes or change existing tax rates.
The same is not true in the south, claiming that they are playing it false when they argue against cuts in the south while implementing them in the North is disengenious, conditions are different in the south. Cut are the only option open in the North, this is not so in the south. You can dislike what they have to say in relation to raising taxes to avoid making certain cuts in the South, but don't try to pretend that they could do this in the North and are choosing not to.

golfball37

The only difference between SF and the three main parties in this failed state are that they haven't had a chance to bankrupt us unlike the others. At the moment they are worth a vote ahead of the trolka that ruined this country- FF/FG/Lab.

SF are a threat to the patronage politics that you and me pay for so must be kept down at all costs.

golfball37

twowheelsgood wrote: »

And that differed from the state of affairs down South when the IMF were in town how?

Do you really believe the spin that the IMF made us introduce property tax, water tax etc? They gave the FF/GP governement suggestions but they don't care as long as they get their money back.

God help you

Dan_Solo

golfball37 wrote: »

Do you really believe the spin that the IMF made us introduce property tax, water tax etc? They gave the FF/GP governement suggestions but they don't care as long as they get their money back.

God help you

And do you believe the spin that no strings were attached to the bail out?

twowheelsgood

GaelMise wrote: »

You can dislike what they have to say in relation to raising taxes to avoid making certain cuts in the South but don't try to pretend that they could do this in the North and are choosing not to.

I don't argue that cuts were avoidable in the North, I am arguing that they were not avoidable in the South.

twowheelsgood

golfball37 wrote: »

Do you really believe the spin that the IMF made us introduce property tax, water tax etc? They gave the FF/GP governement suggestions but they don't care as long as they get their money back.

God help you

And you think we could have closed a deficit of 20 billion without cuts of any kind?

When God has sorted me out I'll send him over to you to see if he can help.

GaelMise

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I don't argue that cuts were avoidable in the North, I am arguing that they were not avoidable in the South.

Each and every one of them, exactly as they were implemented? Show me where SF said that they would never implement any cuts at all in the south.
The point is that SF argue against certain cuts, and say they would raise certain taxes instead of making those cuts. Now you can disagree with them over that, but dont pretend that there is something wrong with saying it just because they dont do that in the North, they can't do it in the north because they can't raise taxes there.

Bannasidhe

Like many people in this so-called 'republic' of ours I have a knee-jerk dislike of SF and in an effort to understand why I had a careful read of this thread and two oft repeated points struck me

1. They 'support terrorism'
They also got the PIRA to cease fire but no one seems to have mentioned that. Much has been made of the fact that in the day our 'founding fathers' were also considered 'terrorists' (Indeed the State itself is planning a great big celebration of when 'we' rose up against the legally constituted government of the day and rebelled in 1916.)

Apparently that is not relevant as it all happened 98 years ago because those were them days and these are these days and it's not like those events had any impact on the society we live an who cares anyway cos history is not relevant and something something it's not like we still have a political division of the island which still causes conflict. And it is especially Not relevant that the two main political parties in the State owe their very existence to the subsequent Civil War?

If I understand the argument correctly, between 1916-1922 when a group of Republican nationalists formed an illegal paramilitary organisation and rebelled against a legally mandated government which they perceived as an occupying force that was different as it led to us in the South (and North-West) getting our 'freedom' but it is an entirely different thing when a group of Republican Nationalists formed an illegal paramilitary organisation and rebelled against a legally mandated government which they perceived as an occupying force in the late 1960s....
I find the double think disturbing to say the least. It was ok for our grandparents to elect 'terrorists' as those were actually 'freedom fighters' and had put away the bullets in favour of ballots but it is completely different now that SF have done the same...



2. The are 'populist' - that one did make me laugh. FF wrote the book on populism. A party which has dominated the political landscape since it's inception whose very beginnings lay in Dev's sudden - dare I say populist (:P)- change of mind when it came to accepting the conditions of the Treaty so he could not only sit in the Dáil along side those who had a) caused the Civil War in the first place by refusing to accept that same Treaty and b) those on the pro-Treaty side who engaged in the very same tactics as the British 'occupiers' they were 'saving' us from but would actually lead the government...


As for our current government - how much more 'populist' could one get than to campaign by telling the electorate they would not follow FF's economic policies when in government but take a radically different path...remind me - what did they actually do???

We have, as an electorate, repeated the same FF or FG experiment over and over an over and we have had boom and bust boom and bust - (yes, I am old enough to remember queuing for petrol in the 1970s) and we all wail things must change we cannot continue like this with the boom and the bust and the softlandings and the turning the corner going forward what will we do??? Will we vote for the populist how may busts have they caused FF or the sure we will say anything to get elected and then do all the things we said were economically illiterate while campaigning but it turns out we haven't a bulls notion of what to do when in power FG/LP - yet people are saying that SF are economically illiterate when they have (yet) to cause either boom or bust...

It would be hard to out do FF when it comes to being economic illiterate and I am not convinced by FG either as apparently up until now they were simply following the FF agreed plan with the Troika and look at the current debacle over Irish Water - how many millions has that cost so far???

In 1922 the Irish people took a risk and elected a group of 'terrorists' as their government - people who had no track record at running a country or economic experience.
In 1932 the Irish people elected a 'new' populist party consisting of not only 'terrorists' but also the losing side in a divisive Civil War who had no track record of running a country and were so inexperienced in economics that one could call them illiterate

No doubt some one will say what happened 'back then' is not relevant to now. Well, as a historian I must disagree- what happened at the beginning of the formation of the State is still very much relevant as it impacted upon and created the very society we live in - those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it and all that.

I am sick of repeating it.

Unless I see a compelling argument that consists of something other than the two points I mentioned above I will be voting SF for the first time in my life.

And don't even bother mentioning the LP to me - I used to be a member of that shower but have come to accept that they will accept any conditions in order to be in power and unless they radically change I will never vote for them again.

twowheelsgood

GaelMise wrote: »

Show me where SF said that they would never implement any cuts at all in the south.

Well the obviously weren’t going to be that blatant! You would hardly expect that they would trade as the republican and populist party?
If you dispute that they were populist perhaps you could tell me what policy they favoured that would have been most unpopular amongst the wider electorate?

Even FF at one point advocated property tax (granted their populist yearnings got the better of them and normal service was quickly resumed).
But what about SF? Burn the bondholders! Tax the squillionaires! But any discomfort at all for the common man? Nothing that I can recall.

maccored

Whats in this thread instead is an incredible, and embarrassing, amount of anti Sinn Fein bull**** ranging from SF being responsible for the Omagh bombing, being marxist (and even communist) to controlling Finance in the North. Absolute claptrap by those fearing SF's rise in Southern politics.

Blowfish wrote: »

So, even if we were to assume that this was a so called fact, nobody on this thread yet has actually produced one credible reason to vote for SF over anybody else who hasn't been in power since independence or even one credible way that SF would have done anything better, where as there have been plenty of reasons given not to vote for them.

maccored

Yes, burn the unguaranteed bondholders. Even the former head of the IMF admitted paying them was a bad idea.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Well the obviously weren’t going to be that blatant! You would hardly expect that they would trade as the republican and populist party?
If you dispute that they were populist perhaps you could tell me what policy they favoured that would have been most unpopular amongst the wider electorate?

Even FF at one point advocated property tax (granted their populist yearnings got the better of them and normal service was quickly resumed).
But what about SF? Burn the bondholders! Tax the squillionaires! But any discomfort at all for the common man? Nothing that I can recall.

comongethappy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Unless I see a compelling argument that consists of something other than the two points I mentioned above I will be voting SF for the first time in my life.

Well in the context of a general election, for me the main alarm bell policies are:

- Wealth tax: 1% per annum of every asset anyone owns, savings, pensions, land, property, shares..... everything.

- income tax increases on households grossing 100k per annum.

Both of which are regressive & anti-wealth creating.

Though both are offset by their desire to eliminate other taxes & to increase rather than decrease public spending through increased government debt.

So the public debt burden increases as would the cost of servicing same.

In terms of the Euro elections, SF are in the communist grouping of the EU parliament.
I'm not sure what part of that sounds appealing?

GaelMise

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Well the obviously weren’t going to be that blatant! You would hardly expect that they would trade as the republican and populist party?
If you dispute that they were populist perhaps you could tell me what policy they favoured that would have been most unpopular amongst the wider electorate?

Even FF at one point advocated property tax (granted their populist yearnings got the better of them and normal service was quickly resumed).
But what about SF? Burn the bondholders! Tax the squillionaires! But any discomfort at all for the common man? Nothing that I can recall.

I'm not here to try to defend SF Policy, the only thing I am taking issue with is the claim that there is something wrong with them arguing against cuts and arguing for a raise in taxes instead because they dont do that in NI. As I said they can't do that in NI.
What ever other problem you have with SF policy is your issue, im not going to try to convince you otherwise.

flutered

Sand wrote: »

Odd. The OP is politically experienced enough to be disillusioned with all political parties and movements and have had several run ins with left wing parties. Yet at the same time is completely uninformed on why SF is transfer toxic. Surely OP you'd have picked up enough to have a the general gist of why SF is not taken as a serious option by the majority of voters in the same way FG/Labour or even FF are?

sinn fein not as a serious option as labour, right ted, the result of yesterdays court case have swung quite a few no1s their way as has the donegal crime taxi, not to mention the guy with form avoiding jail time after being found guilty of rape, me thinks the upcoming eu and local elections could be a tipping point in their favour, folks are no longer that interested in how many more taxes are coming their way, thery are more like the above avoiding whats coming to them.

Dan_Solo

comongethappy wrote: »

Well in the context of a general election, for me the main alarm bell policies are:

- Wealth tax: 1% per annum of every asset anyone owns, savings, pensions, land, property, shares..... everything.

- income tax increases on households grossing 100k per annum.

Both of which are regressive & anti-wealth creating.

Regressive doesn't mean much without an explanation. It's the politicspeak version of "I don't like it."
You could as easily claim every income tax is anti-wealth creating.

Blowfish

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Unless I see a compelling argument that consists of something other than the two points I mentioned above I will be voting SF for the first time in my life.

Again, where are the compelling arguments to vote for SF? If they can't put forward any decent positives other than 'we aren't terrorists' and 'we aren't one of the big 3', then given the negatives, surely one of the minor parties or independents would make far more sense?

comongethappy wrote: »

Well in the context of a general election, for me the main alarm bell policies are:

- Wealth tax: 1% per annum of every asset anyone owns, savings, pensions, land, property, shares..... everything.

- income tax increases on households grossing 100k per annum.

Both of which are regressive & anti-wealth creating.

Though both are offset by their desire to eliminate other taxes & to increase rather than decrease public spending through increased government debt.

So the public debt burden increases as would the cost of servicing same.

In terms of the Euro elections, SF are in the communist grouping of the EU parliament.
I'm not sure what part of that sounds appealing?

Don't forget their promise of a large 'stimulus package', which again would further increase the debt burden.

twowheelsgood

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If I understand the argument correctly, between 1916-1922 when a group of Republican nationalists formed an illegal paramilitary organisation and rebelled against a legally mandated government which they perceived as an occupying force that was different as it led to us in the South (and North-West) getting our 'freedom' but it is an entirely different thing when a group of Republican Nationalists formed an illegal paramilitary organisation and rebelled against a legally mandated government which they perceived as an occupying force in the late 1960s....
I find the double think disturbing to say the least.

The substantial difference between them is that the modern day crew demonstrably did not have the support of the people they claimed to represent. It is not entirely clear if their equivalent did or not 100 years ago but at least it could not be clearly demonstrated to them that they did not. They may have in good faith believed they had the support of the people. PIRA did not. It was clear they did not. They knew they did not. But carried on regardless.

If criticism of PIRA is unwarranted on the basis of your argument then neither is criticism of dissident republicans warranted, or for that matter, anyone who chooses to use force to bring about a political end on behalf of a people who clearly express that they do not authorize the use of force.

twowheelsgood

maccored wrote: »

Yes, burn the unguaranteed bondholders.

This I would say, on balance, was a rather popular policy amongst the electorate. I asked for a policy SF considered necessary but would have been unpopular? Surely there must be at least one?

GaelMise

comongethappy wrote: »

Well in the context of a general election, for me the main alarm bell policies are:

- Wealth tax: 1% per annum of every asset anyone owns, savings, pensions, land, property, shares..... everything.

- income tax increases on households grossing 100k per annum.

Both of which are regressive & anti-wealth creating.

Though both are offset by their desire to eliminate other taxes & to increase rather than decrease public spending through increased government debt.

So the public debt burden increases as would the cost of servicing same.

In terms of the Euro elections, SF are in the communist grouping of the EU parliament.
I'm not sure what part of that sounds appealing?

Ya, taxing the poor and protecting the wealthy, thats what our society needs more of.

comongethappy

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Regressive doesn't mean much without an explanation. It's the politicspeak version of "I don't like it."
You could as easily claim every income tax is anti-wealth creating.

Fair enough.

High cap-gains & high DIRT also impede wealth creation

However SF wanted the 1% confiscation of all assets on top of all other existing wealth taxes.

flutered

golfball37 wrote: »

Do you really believe the spin that the IMF made us introduce property tax, water tax etc? They gave the FF/GP governement suggestions but they don't care as long as they get their money back.

God help you

as the present goverment quite quick to block a loophole in the lawaas regards the pay back, the night of the late night drinking and lapdancing, when a judge gave them a way out by saying a common citizen could not take a particular case to the high court, only a member of the dail or seaanead could do so, who found the loophole, a donegal deputy, what party does he repesent.

comongethappy

GaelMise wrote: »

Ya, taxing the poor and protecting the wealthy, thats what our society needs more of.

I wouldn't consider a couple on 50k each wealthy.... Seeing as they already pay a pretty high level of income tax anyway.

But that's what SF want.

flutered

the_syco wrote: »

By


And when they leave college, and find the real world harsh, do they stay with SF, or do they vote for a party that has an actual plan to get them jobs?

=-=

If we are to ignore SF's recent past, why not also ignore FF's recent past?

could it be after collage that they join the stickies, become democratic left, then change into labour, then say things at election time to get into goverment, yup.

golfball37

twowheelsgood wrote: »

And you think we could have closed a deficit of 20 billion without cuts of any kind?

When God has sorted me out I'll send him over to you to see if he can help.

Thats not the issue we are discussing. The issue is the Quisling Troika of FF/FG/Lab constantly said the other Troika made us do it which patently wasn't true.

As it happens I agree with a Property tax and Water usage charge, I just don't like liars.