Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

K-9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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?

Well after 15 years of Bertie and FF doing it what could possibly go wrong?

Seriously, as long as you don't expect SF to stick to their manifesto, that's fine. I treat them as wishlists and objectives because in a country that has coalition government, it's unwise and ignoring reality to do otherwise.

When SF do get in Government they'll have to face the same accusations of not doing what they promised, contributing to more cynicism. That coalition partners don't deliver on their manifestos doesn't really come as a shock to me, it seems to continuously amaze a good chunk of voters though!

oscarBravo

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. 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...

To be fair, some of us are consistent in our condemnation of both 1916 and all its successor undemocratic violence. I, for one, would rather we weren't celebrating 1916.

old hippy

I wouldn't say they are "bad", as such. There's a lot of baggage surrounding certain members of SF and that's not easy to shed. That said, I remain in the position of giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's not an easy position to maintain...

Bannasidhe

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?

I have no issue with a wealth tax even though I would be hit by it. I can afford it. I would rather pay extra and have SNA's in schools, people with chronic illness' with medical health cards, a decent infrastructure and a fairer society for my grandchildren than our current situation.

I am not buying the argument that it is regressive and anti-wealth creating - Germany was able to 'create wealth' when they had such a tax -and lets face it, if you have an income of over 100k an extra 1% is not going to bankrupt you or indeed impact that much on your lifestyle as opposed to current stealth tax policies which are creating a two-tier society of have and have-not and are, percentage wise, hitting the less well off to a far greater extent.

While the current government may have had some impact on it's debt levels - at what cost to future generations? Our health service is collapsing as is our education system. We are educating our youth to emigrate. We are no country for young people and without them we have no future.

We have put most of our eggs in the multi-nationals basket and as soon as conditions change for them (taxation/incentives etc) they will up sticks and go where the tax grass is greener.

As far as I can determine there is no 'Communist' grouping the the EU parliament and hasn't been since 1989 - what is there is the European United Left–Nordic Green Left - your use of the word 'communist' strikes me as a bit Reds under the Bed tbh.

Communism did not get us into our current mess - that was all the work of Right of Centre political grouping.

GaelMise

comongethappy wrote: »

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.

I would accept your point about 'wealthy' but they are certainly well off, and in a far more comfortable position than many in our society.
Yes they pay tax, but not particularly high in a European context.
Given a choice between expecting them to pay a higher rate of tax, and cutting services etc made available to people that are much more vulnerable, I would prefer to see those in our society, whose income allows them a much more comfortable standard of living, to pay more.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ah here we go.:rolleyes: They say that subjugation will continue down through several generations. And in those two posts we see it clearly.

Yes, our boats rose on rising prosperity in Europe, but they only rose for some.
State and church conspired to keep the people in place, while they raped and plundered the country.
Anybody who is happy with how we have been governed since independence is one of the class that are still suffering from subjugation, having replaced one master with another.
There was huge amounts of money pumped into this country when we joined Europe, was it all spent on bettering things for all the people?
Was it hell, all it did was make the greedy top percent even more greedy and corruptible and there was nobody there to shout STOP.
Now we have effective TD's like Mary Lou and Padraig McLoughlin asking the questions in the PAC's and the establishment don't like it. Somebody wants to stop the gravy train and those citizens (happy with the morsels thrown from the top tables) are afraid they might go hungry.
They ignore the boom and bust (where the same top tier always manage to hold on to their wealth), they are happy and feel 'privileged' with education that they should always had access to, they ignore cyclical mass emigrations of those we do manage to educate, and continue to doff their hats and disparage those who are at least trying to change things.

I find it hard to even pity that mindset.

Ah c'mon - moving the goalposts yet again with an added soupcon of personal invective thrown in.

So now that you accept that we have all that prosperity you previously denied you move onto something else - some sort of subjugation of the mind thing ?

If that is the type of target that SF are aiming at to fix this countries problems ( and they are myriad) I have news for you, you are not even aiming at the right target.


And by the way to have open robust debate is not to 'disparage' anyone and is the stuff of democracy , and to suggest otherwise is to hint at the preciousness and self-righteous that infuses SF.

maccored

I was replying to your incorrect statement of "But what about SF? Burn the bondholders!"

twowheelsgood wrote: »

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?

Bannasidhe

twowheelsgood wrote: »

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.

No.

The difference is 'that was then/this is now'

FF and FG were founded by people deemed to be terrorists who engaged in an armed struggle against a legitimately mandated government- and no, they did not have the support of the majority of the population prior to the 1916 executions - but they have managed a neat trick of extolling their founders while 'forgetting' that those same founders murdered people in the name of Irish nationalism.

We must also not forget the former leader of FF - one Mr Haughey - who while a member of the Cabinet in the late 1960s was up to his oxters in nefarious gun running activities...

Where did I say the PIRA should not be criticised? I simply pointed out that is is somewhat hypocritical to vote for either FF/FG while criticising SF for links to paramilitaries.

comongethappy

GaelMise wrote: »

I would accept your point about 'wealthy' but they are certainly well off, and in a far more comfortable position than many in our society.
Yes they pay tax, but not particularly high in a European context.
Given a choice between expecting them to pay a higher rate of tax, and cutting services etc made available to people that are much more vulnerable, I would prefer to see those in our society, whose income allows them a much more comfortable standard of living, to pay more.

At some point, someone, somewhere will eventually have to think about closing the 15-ish billion primary deficit.

By their own admission, their plan to take 1% of all wealth per annum & higher taxes on families grossing 100k wouldn't close the deficit gap 1 iota.

So in that hypothetical scenario its back to square one.
A ballooning deficit with SF insisting on increasing the deficit.

GaelMise

comongethappy wrote: »

At some point, someone, somewhere will eventually have to think about closing the 15-ish billion primary deficit.

By their own admission, their plan to take 1% of all wealth per annum & higher taxes on families grossing 100k wouldn't close the deficit gap 1 iota.

So in that hypothetical scenario its back to square one.
A ballooning deficit with SF insisting on increasing the deficit.

By the governments own admission the Properity Tax wont close the deficit gap.
Is that an argument against it?

AZTEC818

It's very sad to see people have got such a bee in their bonnet about Gerry Adams & Martin McGuiness in the same week when the REAL gangsters from the former Anglo Irish Bank have walked off scott free from bringing the country to its knees.

Well done Ireland.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Does the heart good, that does.

golfball37

I think the real legacy of the last two administrations here will be they contributed to the rise of their bete noir SF, by their own actions.

Reading the charge sheet here against SF on this thread [most of it quite valid btw] only shows up how pathetic the 3 main parties have served this state.

Whilst I don't believe SF are the answer to our ills I would certainly welcome anyone who would vote for them ahead of the other 3 quisling outfits.

AZTEC818

deandean wrote: »

a few years back, Sinn Fein decided a woman running for election was a threat to their candidate. they had a campaign against her. they defaced and tore down her posters. they smashed her car.
I don't see how SF could.possibly be seen as fit to take office.

oh thats dreadfull.
I'm so glad FF or FG supporters have never torn down other parties posters.

Bannasidhe

golfball37 wrote: »

I think the real legacy of the last two administrations here will be they contributed to the rise of their bete noir SF, by their own actions.

Reading the charge sheet here against SF on this thread [most of it quite valid btw] only shows up how pathetic the 3 main parties have served this state.

Whilst I don't believe SF are the answer to our ills I would certainly welcome anyone who would vote for them ahead of the other 3 quisling outfits.

and that I think is the crux of it.

The Big Three have time and time again been disasters and only SF are providing some form of alternative.

We can continue as we have always done - boom + bust + quangos + same ol same ol or we can take a chance on the alternative. It may go belly up or it may not but given the track record of the Big Three we are guaranteed a belly up bust it we follow the usual path while still paying off the current bust.

Banjo String

AZTEC818 wrote: »

oh thats dreadfull.
I'm so glad FF or FG supporters have never torn down other parties posters.

Or get their aides to destroy almost every copy of the Lucan Gazette.

http://www.gazettegroup.com/news/garda-inquiry-launched-after-removal-of-newspapers/

K-9

golfball37 wrote: »

I think the real legacy of the last two administrations here will be they contributed to the rise of their bete noir SF, by their own actions.

Reading the charge sheet here against SF on this thread [most of it quite valid btw] only shows up how pathetic the 3 main parties have served this state.

Whilst I don't believe SF are the answer to our ills I would certainly welcome anyone who would vote for them ahead of the other 3 quisling outfits.

Well, if they get in next time, we'll at least be able to add SF to the other 3 dead losses. I've yet to see how they are different to any party as regards lies, spin and being economical with the truth.

As for 1916, SF got a democratic mandate in 1918, they never really had that during the Troubles. As time goes on their involvement in the IRA, or how Communist/Socialist they were in the past, bit like Gilmore, will become less and less relevant.

Radiosonde

K-9 wrote: »

As for 1916, SF got a democratic mandate in 1918.

What, two years later? Well, that clears that 1916 thing up.

K-9

Radiosonde wrote: »

What, two years later? Well, that clears that 1916 thing up.

That's great. Might as well sort that whole question out what with the anniversary coming up and everything.

twowheelsgood

Bannasidhe wrote: »

FF and FG were founded by people deemed to be terrorists who engaged in an armed struggle against a legitimately mandated government- and no, they did not have the support of the majority of the population prior to the 1916 executions - but they have managed a neat trick of extolling their founders while 'forgetting' that those same founders murdered people in the name of Irish nationalism.

The logical extension of your argument would be that if say a new party were to maintain a militia to shall we say “assist in the progression of their policies” that nobody in FF or FG (or SF) would have any authority to criticise them!

Dismiss the simple truth it if you want but the demonstrable reality is that modern physical force republicans were rejected by the Irish people. The picture 100 years ago is much hazier. Republicans routinely point out that mandates for armed actions cannot in practice be obtained in most circumstances, which is true. Modern republicans failed to get such a mandate, not because of logistics but because it was not forthcoming.

Happyman42

comongethappy wrote: »

No .... Its not!

Ireland is not "endemically corrupt".
Ireland is deemed to be one of the lesser corrupt countries in the world.
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

I say Ireland is corrupt and you counter that by comparing us to other more corrupt countries? :rolleyes:
We are corrupt, no is ever reponsible or made to face the penalty for it either. Have you had your head in the sand for 20 or 30 years or does the FF/FG blinkers come down whenever tribunials and inquiries are mentioned.

When you can demonstrate how SF are as clean as they come, you may have a point.
Sadly its more empty rhetoric.

I never said they where.

But most of all, when you can show how SF have anything approaching a viable plan to make things better...... we are all ears.

Sinn Feinn pray they never actually have to make these decisions.

Again, I never said they had, but then can you point to a government who has run the country in a viable way?

marienbad wrote: »

Ah c'mon - moving the goalposts yet again with an added soupcon of personal invective thrown in.

So now that you accept that we have all that prosperity you previously denied you move onto something else - some sort of subjugation of the mind thing ?

If that is the type of target that SF are aiming at to fix this countries problems ( and they are myriad) I have news for you, you are not even aiming at the right target.


And by the way to have open robust debate is not to 'disparage' anyone and is the stuff of democracy , and to suggest otherwise is to hint at the preciousness and self-righteous that infuses SF.

The OP asked 'why are SF hated', this isn't a thread about SF policy, it is about why people cling onto and defer to a system that has failed the people again and again and again, and why they don't want to change that.
I have merely given the reasons why I think that is. We are a people (in the main, but it is slowly changing) who where subjugated again rather than freed from enslavement to keeping the wealthy...wealthy.
Monarchy achieves the same thing, if you take a cold hard look at it and how it keeps people in their place.
The same 'subjugated' people here are the ones who simper and fawn every time Mrs Winsdor farts in this direction and think it's perfume.

Happyman42

Nodin wrote: »

Does the heart good, that does.

+1!

That is what is going to happen and the thing is, all SF have to keep doing is convincing people like me and Bannisihde to vote for them for the first time.
It won't be difficult to vote for them again after that Rubicon has been passed.
And boy do FF and FG know that.
Enda has even invited the pope to try and get the maximum voters onto his side.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

It won't be difficult to vote for them again after that Rubicon has been passed.

History aside, one of the biggest challenge that SF will face in the next 10 years will follow from their first stint in government, especially if they form part of the next government, which is a real possibility.

They will do little (or will be able to do little to be more precise) to improve the lot of average citizens as they will be as constrained as any other party will be. And many of those who thought they were voting for a socialist party will do what they are likely to do to Labour soon.

I can only presume the brighter lights in the party will appreciate this and steer well clear of government for a good while yet.

odd1

It seems to be a heart over head or vise versa

If there was an election at closing time SF would have an overall majority....... but in the cold light of day....

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where did I say the PIRA should not be criticised? I simply pointed out that is is somewhat hypocritical to vote for either FF/FG while criticising SF for links to paramilitaries.

We shouldn't forget the current Labour party leaderships links to "Sinn Féin the Workers Party" either, though the Stickies(Official IRA) sheer ineffectiveness probably helps the reason why they are largely forgotten about

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no issue with a wealth tax even though I would be hit by it. I can afford it. I would rather pay extra and have SNA's in schools, people with chronic illness' with medical health cards, a decent infrastructure and a fairer society for my grandchildren than our current situation.

I am not buying the argument that it is regressive and anti-wealth creating - Germany was able to 'create wealth' when they had such a tax -and lets face it, if you have an income of over 100k an extra 1% is not going to bankrupt you or indeed impact that much on your lifestyle as opposed to current stealth tax policies which are creating a two-tier society of have and have-not and are, percentage wise, hitting the less well off to a far greater extent.

While the current government may have had some impact on it's debt levels - at what cost to future generations? Our health service is collapsing as is our education system. We are educating our youth to emigrate. We are no country for young people and without them we have no future.

We have put most of our eggs in the multi-nationals basket and as soon as conditions change for them (taxation/incentives etc) they will up sticks and go where the tax grass is greener.

As far as I can determine there is no 'Communist' grouping the the EU parliament and hasn't been since 1989 - what is there is the European United Left–Nordic Green Left - your use of the word 'communist' strikes me as a bit Reds under the Bed tbh.

Communism did not get us into our current mess - that was all the work of Right of Centre political grouping.

A wealth tax has nothing to do with a tax on income over 100k.

A wealth tax is a tax on things that are owned such as houses, businesses, savings, pensions, land, shares, etc.

I wish people would stop confusing the two.

Dan_Solo

comongethappy wrote: »

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.

Every tax is a confiscation. Using one word instead of the other is a bit of a feeble play with emotional language TBH.

Dan_Solo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

We shouldn't forget the current Labour party leaderships links to "Sinn Féin the Workers Party" either, though the Stickies(Official IRA) sheer ineffectiveness probably helps the reason why they are largely forgotten about

And we shouldn't forget Labour (St. Michael D included) were only delirah to throw in with all the subsequently disgraced Fianna Failers when they got the offer.

carpejugulum

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm not saying their policies wouldn't cripple the economy (though I find it hard to believe the could do worse than the last two governments) but can you show me where exactly they proclaim the want to reduce the wealth of Ireland?
And what makes you think "redistribute" is an insult?

They don't proclaim it, but that would be the result of their policies.
Redistribution is only OK when you are also creating wealth and when you do it on a small scale and the right way.

carpejugulum

road_high wrote: »

Local candidate for them here is an unemployed painter...nothing wrong with being unemployed per se (have been for myself short term through redundancy) but this guy appears to be unemployed since the crash. How is this somebody we are supposed to emulate to public office and understand the concerns of taxpayers?
For me they just cultivate the welfare classes and the anti-everything's. SF's motto is let the rest of us pay for it all and of of course "tax the rich" ie grab it off those that likely have worked very hard for what they have and taken risks/opportunities that come their way...rather than sitting on the dole for 5 years whinging about terrible the govt are.

Tax the rich is of course nonsense. In practice, ordinary tax payers would have to pay more while the super rich would get richer thanks to even more wealth transferred to them through welfare and government spending.