Is it just me or have SF vanished?

ThunbergsAreGo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ahem.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/politicians-should-lead-by-example-says-varadkar-39334789.html

Yes he commented on ONeill coming to the convention centre

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Mandela = Bobby Storey.

This thread has well and truly jumped the shark.

Mandela's life, certainly equals Storey's life. Very similar paths from conflict to building peace.

joeguevara

Truthvader wrote: »

Well ask yourself, what kind of person looks at Gerry Adams and thinks that is the leader for me? What kind of person do you think Dessie Ellis is? Jonathan Dowdall? Martin Ferris? Who cheers for the killers of Garda McCabe? Look at their supporters here. Even now they will justify and glorify their thug history. Look at the low level of candidate they are invariably stuck with. Do you think these people will manage an economy or provide housing. Look at their performance in Northern Ireland which effectively survives on UK government handouts to bribe the two sides into not killing each other. Still they cant even show up to run the 6 county government they are supposed to

Gerry Adams is not in Sf. I agree with their hypocrisy around stormont. I think they need to remove themselves from any of their violent past and focus on people like Pearse if they want to move on. But mainstream political parties should ignore them at their peril. Change is needed on both sides but my god I have never seen so many disaffected people on all sides and giving out about funerals doesn’t help.

Can we agree on that.

And you can see by my posting history my thoughts on all political parties.

FrancieBrady

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Yes he commented on ONeill coming to the convention centre

He used the funeral controversy to have a politcal pop at O'Neill, which is what the poster said.
FG guy with Mat Carty last night doing the same.

Not sure if he is 'pals' with Leo.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mandela's life, certainly equals Storey's life. Very similar paths from conflict to building peace.

Francie, start small. Instead of saying equals, say has similarities. But mr storey wasn’t in a US terrorist list in 2008.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

It would take a very long post to explain the difference, but it encompasses political, economic, social and cultural differences for a start.

The Ireland of 1968 was a very different place to the Ireland of 1916, if you do not know that, you don't know your history. By 1973, the last few changes that were needed were achieved with the acknowledgement by the UK government in the Sunningdale agreement that the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland was what counted.

Whatever discussion people can have about the justification for the IRA in the period 1968-1973, (and I can have that discussion and am open to some change in my view) there was no reason to pursue anything other than peaceful change post-1973. I am old enough to remember the 1970s well - the IRA were a scourge on this country.

I don't agree for one simple reason, the institutions of Northern Ireland were still stacked against Catholics and that included the police, who routinely engaged in everything from biased policing based on sectarianism to out-right terrorism of the local population. A paramilitary force was absolutely necessary in that context, because without it, anyone trying to go about their lives as a Catholic in the flashpoint areas was a sitting duck.

I keep bringing this up, but the day the Troubles began is universally regarded as the civil rights march in 1968, in which peaceful protesters got the absolute sh!t kicked out of them by the state backed police force for having the temerity to demand equal treatment under the law. The IRA was formed to even the scales between the oppressive institutions of the state which were giving the other side an entirely unfair and totally insurmountable advantage in maintaining their oppression of the Catholic/nationalist population.

I condemn the road the IRA travelled down which involved intentionally targeting innocent civilians. But the RUC were not a police force, they were themselves a paramilitary loyalist organisation in all but name. Nationalists had every right both to defend themselves and strike back against that institution and that in my view is why the IRA's formation and early activity was justified. The Troubles were essentially a civil war started by the police, that's the part that so many people seem to forget. Any police force which brutalists peaceful protesters, at any time, for any reason, deserves whatever blowback they get from the people they're oppressing.

It's not dissimilar to what's going on in the US right now. The reason so many people are supporting the rioters and those attacking the cops is because the cops have had this coming to them for decades and deserve to be targeted as an organisation of scumbags. They started it, they fired first, there wouldn't be any conflict to fight in if the cops in the US weren't such trigger happy assholes. The same goes for the IRA - the RUC and the loyalists started the conflict and engaged in violence against peaceful protesters. They deserved to be met with violent opposition as a result.

Again, I would never justify the killing of civilians and I've always lamented the fact that this came to define the IRA through their own incredibly immoral decision making. But the conditions which created the IRA are 100%, unequivocally and unadulteratedly the fault of the loyalist side, who decided to oppose demands for basic human rights with wanton violence and sadism.

For that reason, I make no distinction between the War of Independence and the Troubles as far as justification. In both cases, Ireland (or a part of Ireland) was faced with completely unjustified state-sponsored terrorism from a brutal, corrupt, unaccountable and politically partisan police force. I will always support armed and violent opposition to such state oppression no matter where it happens or what the context is. And the IRA initially existed to provide that. When it went off the rails and began targeting civilians is where it loses me entirely as an organisation, but to act as if the backdrop to its existence is so fundamentally different to the backdrop of the War of Independence is in my view incredibly ignorant. Both wars were started by a state which stood over demographic warfare and fought on the side of one demographic against another.

Any time a state behaves this way, the other demographic is justified in reacting with violence. In my opinion anyway.

hatrickpatrick

Truthvader wrote: »

Well ask yourself, what kind of person looks at Gerry Adams and thinks that is the leader for me?

People whose lives are being destroyed by the neoliberal approach to housing and the spiralling cost of living, and see no viable alternative party which is at least ostensibly committed to turning over the table rather than, at best, engaging in minor rearrangements of what's sitting on it?

GarIT

My arent Mary Lou McDonald and Pierce Doherty being called to resign? They didn't socially distance, there's pictures of them both breaking the rules too.


And the nonsense of Doherty daying "but he was our friend" does he think that nobody else exists while he isn't looking at them? Lots of other people were made to skip friends or even family members funerals.

SpielCheck

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It has been condemned across the political spectrum by all parties on the island apart from SF themselves. You see, this is classic example of how the moral compass of those sympathetic to SF differs from almost everyone else. To them, this is yet another attempt to smear the good name of the brave men and women of SF.



To others it's as clear as the nose on their face that this was a complete balls of a situation they created for themselves, and they now have absolutely no credibility in passing judgment or criticism on actions taken as a result of the biggest crisis to hit the world since WW2.



No other party in Ireland (indeed in Europe) would have sent their entire leadership team up to the funeral of a thug, terrorist, and bank robber.



Not a normal party.

What else are you outraged about

joeguevara

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

People whose lives are being destroyed by the neoliberal approach to housing and the spiralling cost of living, and see no viable alternative party which is at least ostensibly committed to turning over the table rather than, at best, engaging in minor rearrangements of what's sitting on it?

But at least start with Gerry Adams is not or will not be sitting at the table.

Truthvader

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What do you say to people who don't see much of a difference between Ireland's situation in 1916-21 and Northern Ireland's situation in 1968-98? If you regard them as foolish as well, what do you regard as being the difference?

OK whats the difference to the real IRA, the continuity IRA, any "dissident" who decides to murder a ploiceman in the morning? Whats the difference to the Kevin Lunney torture gang. NONE. All people happy to hurt other people to get whatever they want

PixieValentine

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He used the funeral controversy to have a politcal pop at O'Neill, which is what the poster said.
FG guy with Mat Carty last night doing the same.

Not sure if he is 'pals' with Leo.

I follow a few of the reporters who were there this morning on twitter, there's more than one video of what he said up online. I can link you if you'd like. Leo was asked specifically about the row going on over on the funeral, and refused, saying out of respect he wasn't going to say anything about a funeral. So he didn't use a funeral to have a pop, even when he was asked to comment on the controversy specifically he didn't.

Won't offer any commentary on anyone else in FG, mind. I didn't watch whatever show you did, have no idea who you're talking about or what was said. But just out of a sense of fairness- this morning's comment didn't happen quite the way you seem to think.

joeguevara

GarIT wrote: »

My arent Mary Lou McDonald and Pierce Doherty being called to resign? They didn't socially distance, there's pictures of them both breaking the rules too.


And the nonsense of Doherty daying "but he was our friend" does he think that nobody else exists while he isn't looking at them? Lots of other people were made to skip friends or even family members funerals.

How would that help. Honestly, tell me. Why is it so reactionary that everything is immediately, sack sack sack.

hatrickpatrick

Truthvader wrote: »

OK whats the difference to the real IRA, the continuity IRA, any "dissident" who decides to murder a ploiceman in the morning? Whats the difference to the Kevin Lunney torture gang. NONE. All people happy to hurt other people to get whatever they want

Obviously the difference is that The Troubles are over and have been since 1998. Prior to that, Northern Ireland was in a state of civil war for the better part of three decades, something which is utterly trivialised by everything up to and including the ludicrously understating name given to that period.

GarIT

joeguevara wrote: »

How would that help. Honestly, tell me. Why is it so reactionary that everything is immediately, sack sack sack.

They should at least be making public apologies. It's sickening how they try to sell themselves as one of the people and sticking up for the less fortunate but actually think they are better than everyone else.

joeguevara

Truthvader wrote: »

OK whats the difference to the real IRA, the continuity IRA, any "dissident" who decides to murder a ploiceman in the morning? Whats the difference to the Kevin Lunney torture gang. NONE. All people happy to hurt other people to get whatever they want

Any one you mention above there is no difference. But none of those linked to any SF.

Actually I should stop posting lest people think I’m pro SF. I’m just anti circles

McMurphy

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Do you think it was wrong or irresponsible?

And, as with Cummings, a one rule you another for me action?

Reread my post(s) on the matter and get back to me.

hatrickpatrick

joeguevara wrote: »

But at least start with Gerry Adams is not or will not be sitting at the table.

I think what many people are missing is that many, many of SF's newfound millennial voters honestly couldn't give a f*ck who's sitting at the table as long as they're opposed to the false-dichotomy of FFG and their neoliberal agenda. I genuinely don't think people understand just how much the cost of living for young people has pushed literally every other issue, up to and including IRA membership etc, not just to one side but off the table completely. Many people in that cohort would vote for a rabid monkey before they would vote for either of the parties who have fuelled the cost of living here to such horrifically crushing levels.

joeguevara

GarIT wrote: »

They should at least be making public apologies. It's sickening how they try to sell themselves as one of the people and sticking up for the less fortunate but actually think they are better than everyone else.

Agreed. If that helps. Similarly others should admit their actions as stupid. Or how about draw a line, agree to stick to politics and help the electorate.

Truthvader

joeguevara wrote: »

Gerry Adams is not in Sf. I agree with their hypocrisy around stormont. I think they need to remove themselves from any of their violent past and focus on people like Pearse if they want to move on. But mainstream political parties should ignore them at their peril. Change is needed on both sides but my god I have never seen so many disaffected people on all sides and giving out about funerals doesn’t help.

Can we agree on that.

And you can see by my posting history my thoughts on all political parties.

Agree 100%. The funeral virtue count is nonsense.

Problem with Pearse is , like all SinnFein candidates he brings nothing to the table. None of them ever had a real job. All "activists" of one kind or anothrer. They come not to give but to take. Over and above all else however like the rest of them he is there at Bobby Storey funeral to venerate a thug because he knows no better

FrancieBrady

PixieValentine wrote: »

I follow a few of the reporters who were there this morning on twitter, there's more than one video of what he said up online. I can link you if you'd like. Leo was asked specifically about the row going on over on the funeral, and refused, saying out of respect he wasn't going to say anything about a funeral. So he didn't use a funeral to have a pop, even when he was asked to comment on the controversy specifically he didn't.

Won't offer any commentary on anyone else in FG, mind. I didn't watch whatever show you did, have no idea who you're talking about or what was said. But just out of a sense of fairness- this morning's comment didn't happen quite the way you seem to think.

And he used the question about the funeral to have a political pop at O'Neill and SF.
He could just have declined comment.

That is what the poster said...He used the funeral to have a political swipe.


The FGer was on the Tonight Show and was red in the face trying to have a go...can't think of his name, not one normally wheeled out. (And you could tell why)

joeguevara

Does anyone find it strange that not one post has been about discussing social housing or Sparking the economy. All about fcucking funerals.

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

Repeatedly pointed out,Garda Horkans funeral was a State funeral so an entirely different case altogether

Were social distancing guidelines disregarded at the Garda funeral, yes or no?

Does the virus give two fiddler's fcuks if the person spreading it, or contracting it is at a state funeral or not yes or no?

You (and others to be fair) don't seem to be letting that sink in.


I repeat, the social distancing guidelines been broken was wrong - wrong at the Garda funeral, and wrong at the Sinn Fein members funeral.

One doesn't cancel the other one out.

joeguevara

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think what many people are missing is that many, many of SF's newfound millennial voters honestly couldn't give a f*ck who's sitting at the table as long as they're opposed to the false-dichotomy of FFG and their neoliberal agenda. I genuinely don't think people understand just how much the cost of living for young people has pushed literally every other issue, up to and including IRA membership etc, not just to one side but off the table completely. Many people in that cohort would vote for a rabid monkey before they would vote for either of the parties who have fuelled the cost of living here to such horrifically crushing levels.

Agreed. But also many of SF new members have no idea how bad SF fiscal policy will be for the in the long term. But policies are being lost and discussed because we are going through an xfactor type popularity contest.

hatrickpatrick

joeguevara wrote: »

Agreed. But also many of SF new members have no idea how bad SF fiscal policy will be for the in the long term. But policies are being lost and discussed because we are going through an xfactor type popularity contest.

Many do and many don't care. The disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and individual quality of life (the same disconnect which led to Enda Kenny's FG being so utterly gobsmacked at the hostility they faced during the 2016 election when compared with the "recovery" they believed based on macroeconomic indicators that they have gifted tothe Irish people) has led to people losing faith in and as a result becoming entirely indifferent to the former. Case in point, it was easier for people on part time incomes to afford flat rentals in 2011 than it is now for those same people on full time incomes. The Financial Times credited this with almost single-handedly delivering SF's surge in the election, stating that "Rents have increased by 40 per cent in the past five years, while average earnings have grown by just 14 per cent".

In that context, macroeconomics have been utterly meaningless to peoples's actual lived experiences, and as a knock on effect, anyone lecturing those voters about macroeconomics, either touting how good they are right now or warning about how bad they'd be if we pursued left wing policies, is seen as out of touch and insufferably irritating. Such a huge disconnect between rising incomes and the rising cost of living during a boom period has made many people question whether a boom period is actually good for individual quality of life - if all it achieves is the return of the "rip-off republic", then why should anyone be cheering for it?

This could be fixed at the policy level, but FF and FG have entirely abdicated their responsibility to do anything about the cost of living. Their neoliberal ideology does not regard individual quality of life as a responsibility of government. SF's left wing ideology does. As long as stagflation remains a problem, that's pretty much the only thing people care about while voting. From the point of view of many people I know, a bad fiscal position in five years is preferable to getting evicted this year because their rent keeps going up, and up, and up.

Can you blame people in their twenties and thirties for voting for short term relief in the face of long term pain, when the acute alternative is being evicted right now and being forced to move back home to their parents'?

joeguevara

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Many do and many don't care. The disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and individual quality of life (the same disconnect which led to Enda Kenny's FG being so utterly gobsmacked at the hostility they faced during the 2016 election when compared with the "recovery" they believed based on macroeconomic indicators that they have gifted tothe Irish people) has led to people losing faith in and as a result becoming entirely indifferent to the former. Case in point, it was easier for people on part time incomes to afford flat rentals in 2011 than it is now for those same people on full time incomes. The Financial Times credited this with almost single-handedly delivering SF's surge in the election, stating that "Rents have increased by 40 per cent in the past five years, while average earnings have grown by just 14 per cent".

In that context, macroeconomics have been utterly meaningless to peoples's actual lived experiences, and as a knock on effect, anyone lecturing those voters about macroeconomics, either touting how good they are right now or warning about how bad they'd be if we pursued left wing policies, is seen as out of touch and insufferably irritating. Such a huge disconnect between rising incomes and the rising cost of living during a boom period has made many people question whether a boom period is actually good for individual quality of life - if all it achieves is the return of the "rip-off republic", then why should anyone be cheering for it?

This could be fixed at the policy level, but FF and FG have entirely abdicated their responsibility to do anything about the cost of living. Their neoliberal ideology does not regard individual quality of life as a responsibility of government. SF's left wing ideology does. As long as stagflation remains a problem, that's pretty much the only thing people care about while voting. From the point of view of many people I know, a bad fiscal position in five years is preferable to getting evicted this year because their rent keeps going up, and up, and up.

Can you blame people in their twenties and thirties for voting for short term relief in the face of long term pain, when the acute alternative is being evicted right now and being forced to move back home to their parents'?

Isn’t that a better thing to discuss than funerals.

TheCitizen

blanch152 wrote: »

There are quite a few who don't get it.

The most astonishing are those who equate the current living memories of Dessie Ellis, Martin Ferris, Bobby Storey and the likes with historical figures from the past. They really don't get the difference between 1916, 1921, 1930 and today, and that the standards of today are what matters when you apply them to the people of today.

Once you do that, you realise that Sinn Fein are at least 30 years away from being considered suitable for government if they continue on their current path. They don't realise that a suitable apology for their past support of the IRA and an acknowledgement that the IRA were wrong (particularly post-Sunningdale) is the minimum of what is needed to allow them to be even considered as a suitable party of government for the vast majority of people in the South.

You speak for yourself. You do not speak for “the vast majority”. SF’s vote share is growing. If they get things right leading opposition and increase their vote further they will be fit for government by virtue of the democratic support of the electorate. That’s if you believe in democracy blanch? Maybe you don’t when you don’t like the results of it.

By the way if the numbers totted up differently in the recent election MM was prepared to do a deal with SF. On the day the results were coming out and the projections were that SF would be 7 seats behind FF, MM was on RTE making conciliatory gestures towards SF. He changed his tune a couple of days later when SF ended up neck and neck and with a larger vote share than FF.

In a nutshell you’re talking gibberish blanch.

joeguevara

Truthvader wrote: »

Agree 100%. The funeral virtue count is nonsense.

Problem with Pearse is , like all SinnFein candidates he brings nothing to the table. None of them ever had a real job. All "activists" of one kind or anothrer. They come not to give but to take. Over and above all else however like the rest of them he is there at Bobby Storey funeral to venerate a thug because he knows no better

I actually think Pearse is very good. For someone who doesn’t have a finance background he can understand and discuss it very well. Some of his arguments regarding insurance companies and central bank are ilconsidered and incorrect but other than that he is a leading light. One thing i do find interesting when SF supporters talk about leading politicians only getting in on the 10th count as if it is an indicator of how bad they are, but have no clue that Pearse was only voted in on the 8th count in 2016.

PixieValentine

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And he used the question about the funeral to have a political pop at O'Neill and SF.
He could just have declined comment.

That is what the poster said...He used the funeral to have a political swipe.


The FGer was on the Tonight Show and was red in the face trying to have a go...can't think of his name, not one normally wheeled out. (And you could tell why)

He didn’t bring them up himself. He was asked. And then yes, did comment, but not about the funeral, which is what someone accused him of doing, using a funeral to score political points. He did refuse to comment on the funeral. His comment about the Dublin photo op was no more or less than what Mary Lou did when she was asked about his picnic. She too commented then when she could have declined to say anything at all. They all do THAT, and I won’t defend that but nor will I castigate them for doing it. I only commented about the “using a funeral is a new low” thing out of a sense of fairness because, he didn’t do that.

As to the comment about the Dublin appearance, I’m sorry, but if you think he was the only one talking about that, you’re wrong. There was a lot of commentary on her being in Dublin and them not being there. And quite frankly, they left themselves wide open to far worse from political opponents than a comparison being drawn between MON in Dublin and the Martin family staying away with her going when she didn’t actually need to be there, and then following that up with the funeral, and then also the handling of the aftermath of the funeral when people were upset. That’s what has me a bit baffled about the situation. I credit them with being way smarter than that.

hatrickpatrick

joeguevara wrote: »

Isn’t that a better thing to discuss than funerals.

Of course it is! Unfortunately, SF scored a spectacular own goal despite surely being perfectly well aware of the backlash it would provoke, and so here we are. That's what I meant earlier when I spoke of being disappointed. From "up the ra" at the election rally to this, SF have become the masters of political gaffes since the election in much the same way as FG were before it, and it's entirely avoidable from their point of view if they'd use the 'auld noggin a bit and think about PR. They were very good at doing so in the run up to the election, I honestly can't understand how they've managed to screw up so badly since then. SF in election mode and SF in post election mode have been two entirely different entities when it comes specifically to public relations.

So in short, yes, I fully agree that we should be discussing policy and not funerals. But I do have to concede that the reason we are not is SF's fault for doing something incredibly foolish with incredibly predictable consequences.

As I say, they and the rest of the Irish left still have my support because I do care more about fixing the stagflation issue policy-wise than anything else at the moment. But they're handing fuel to their opponents in the media and in politics on silver platters, and I just wish they'd stop doing it.