Sinn Fein leadership

johnnyskeleton

tomwaterford wrote: »

Only in on the world of boards.ie would having principles equal characterless leadership?

Mod note:

Please feel free to discuss the topic at hand rather than make sarcastic comments. If you want to have a go at boards.ie, please address your issues through the Feedback area.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leadership is about sticking to principle.

And abstenstionism was never on the table for short term gain.

Brexit was going to happen whether the Tories or Labour held the power.

Abstentionism is NOT just about the taking of an oath. SF firmly believe that they have no business dictating policy to Scots or Welsh or English people. That is why they have no problem sitting in devolved government positions.

That is an honourable position to have and one that their electors are fully behind in increasing numbers.
And in fairness, if you look at 1969 and the lot of nationalists/republicans then and now and can't see that SF have delivered, I think you are willfully blind.
The DUP are constantly whining about it.

I thought the standard response to "what is it leadership?" Is that it's doing the right thing (instead of doing things right, which is management).

And surely, a utilitarian view would suggest that the leadership is about maximising the accrued benefit to the community which the leadership serves?

In summary, SF's leadership are no different to any other political leadership......they cast their decision in a way that best reflects on them and their inherent desire to remain in and accumulate power.

Only in this case, the SF's attachment to what they regard as a core principle is objectively a harmful position in the context on Brexit and the trajectory it's currently following.

Finally, my last point before bowing out, is that some the great acts of leadership have involved the abandonment of previously cherished principles for the collective good......as they say, "only Nixon could go to China."

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I thought the standard response to "what is it leadership?" Is that it's doing the right thing (instead of doing things right, which is management).

And surely, a utilitarian view would suggest that the leadership is about maximising the accrued benefit to the community which the leadership serves?

In summary, SF's leadership are no different to any other political leadership......they cast their decision in a way that best reflects on them and their inherent desire to remain in and accumulate power.

Only in this case, the SF's attachment to what they regard as a core principle is objectively a harmful position in the context on Brexit and the trajectory it's currently following.

Finally, my last point before bowing out, is that some the great acts of leadership have involved the abandonment of previously cherished principles for the collective good......as they say, "only Nixon could go to China."

You are always bowing out and bowing back in.

The consensus (of the electorate)that has rewarded SF with poweris that they are leading well.

Brexit is just one of many challenges to face the people of the north. The nationalist/republican people have overwhelmingly chosen SF and its current leadership to lead them, including copperfastening/approving abstentionism.

Sure, they may have thwarted the Tories for one election cycle but I, SF, and those who vote for them know only to well, that Brexit is not what is holding the north of Ireland back. There are bigger fish to fry.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP are the reason the Tories are in power.
We will see what the electorate of the north of Ireland think of that after a few years of Brexit.

Only the willfully blind will not see that SF have delivered for their electorate, the GFA etc etc etc.

The SDLP have lost heavily to SF in polls and they take their seats. (comfy ones I am sure)

Congrats to SF for allowing Brexit to happen without as much as a whimper in Westminster despite what pretty much every SF voter had voted for in the referendum. You've been a marvellous help to May's incompetent Brexit campaign.
But yeah, let's see the effect in a few years and let's not do anything now while there's still time :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

Congrats to SF for allowing Brexit to happen without as much as a whimper in Westminster despite what pretty much every SF voter had voted for in the referendum. You've been a marvellous help to May's incompetent Brexit campaign.
But yeah, let's see the effect in a few years and let's not do anything now while there's still time :rolleyes:

How did those with seats at Westminster and who were sitting in them, get on with stopping Brexit?

In fact, how have they got on with securing prosperity for the north of Ireland since partition?

tomwaterford

kbannon wrote: »

Congrats to SF for allowing Brexit to happen without as much as a whimper in Westminster despite what pretty much every SF voter had voted for in the referendum. You've been a marvellous help to May's incompetent Brexit campaign.
But yeah, let's see the effect in a few years and let's not do anything now while there's still time :rolleyes:

Are suggesting the voters that voted for SF were unaware of their abstention policy for Westminster and have somehow been duped by them??

Seriously underestimateing and insulting people's intelligence If that's the casecond imo




It's takes quiet the leaps of logic for anyone to blame SF for the English voting for brexit??

FrancieBrady

tomwaterford wrote: »

Are suggesting the voters that voted for SF were unaware of their abstention policy for Westminster and have somehow been duped by them??

Seriously underestimateing and insulting people's intelligence If that's the casecond imo




It's takes quiet the leaps of logic for anyone to blame SF for the English voting for brexit??

As proposed by one of the posters here: SF should have sold out the quest for social and cultural rights and allow discrimination against people, who have those rights everywhere else on these islands, just to demonstrate statesmanlike qualities to the DUP.

Now the suggestion is that they should sell out one of their core principles in an effort to stop something which is going to be carried through by both the major parties in the UK anyway.

Amazing really and not much to be said.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The consensus (of the electorate)that has rewarded SF with poweris that they are leading well.
.

Huh?

SF are probably the most powerless political party ever. They refused to take a place in government in Ireland, they refused to take a place in devolved government in the province of Northern Ireland and they refused to take a place in Westminister.

Utterly, utterly powerless.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Huh?

SF are probably the most powerless political party ever. They refused to take a place in government in Ireland, they refused to take a place in devolved government in the province of Northern Ireland and they refused to take a place in Westminister.

Utterly, utterly powerless.

I'm not sure why somebody who just totally ignores SF's 'partnership' in a devolved government since the GFA is on a thread discussing the leadership of SF.

The electorate of the north of Ireland have again and again, and in increasing numbers, given SF that job.

Thomas__

tomwaterford wrote: »

Jawgap wrote: »

I understand the desire to stand on principle. SF and it's leadership have, like most parties, shown flexibility on many points of principle over the years - wasn't there a time when abstentionism in respect of Dáil Éireann in the Republic was a principle? Indeed, didn't Adams lead on the matter of participating in the Dáil leading to the split with RSF?

So it might seem that in respect of principles and abstentionism SF's leadership have some form when it comes to modifying matters.

Surly you can understand how anyone who us republican can't swear an oath of loyalty to a member of royal family,regardless of where in the  world it occurs


With this above fact,any discussion is pointless and at best obtuse

That sums it all up and points to the core reason for SF abstentionism which says it all.

Thomas__

Jawgap wrote: »

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly you can understand how anyone who us republican can't swear an oath of loyalty to a member of royal family,regardless of where in the  world it occurs


With this above fact,any discussion is pointless and at best obtuse

Yeah, I can......and if people vote for a party on that basis that's up to them.....but it seems faintly ridiculous that in order to avoid spouting a few meaningless words a political party is going to let the social and economic wellbeing of their constituents be fatally hazarded for a generation or more.

SF's leadership, despite the money shovelled into the North, has not brought sustained prosperity and they seemed to be determined to make sure it never does. Of course maybe that suits their own political ends.

An oath taken is not "spouting a few meaningless words", it´s an oath and those who take it are bound to and it does have legal responsibilities towards those who took it cos it bears legal consequences if one acts against it. That is the reverse of an oath, whether one regards it as meaningless or not matters not as long as one acts in accordance with the oath taken. 

If I were an Irish Republican politician, I would refuse as well to take this oath on the grounds of the above mentioned reasons because I didn´t want to bound to it. So, in consequence to avoid that conflict between allegiance and political stance, I would had to follow the abstentionism policy. The other parties in the Commons don´t have that problem, even the old Marxist Corbyn swallowed his pride and took it (for more than 30 years by now since he was elected as Labour MP the first time) and one can assume that might have the same opinion on the oath as you pointed out in your post ("meaningless words").

Feckoffcup

The Irish language act is an attempt to make stormont fail. The sooner it does, the sooner a united Ireland happens.