SF Abstention

ReefBreak

irish1 wrote:

Well IMO there entitled to the money because they have been elected, I can certianly understand why people have a problem with that but I personally don't.

Well, I think you're opinion is wrong. Can you imagine if you got selected for a job after an interview, but then decided not to bother taking the job, yet still demanded a salary? If I were an employer, I'd say "fúck you, you ignorant cretin". I'm not saying that the Northern Ireland secretary will say the same thing, but you never know....

A Dub in Glasgo

ReefBreak wrote:

Well, I think you're opinion is wrong. Can you imagine if you got selected for a job after an interview, but then decided not to bother taking the job, yet still demanded a salary?

You have it totally wrong. What if you told your interviewer that you had no intention of going to the office but will do all your work locally yet you would still like a salary

NIf I were an employer, I'd say "fúck you, you ignorant cretin".

Luckily you are not and luckily the vast majority of employers are not as rude as you.

I'm not saying that the Northern Ireland secretary will say the same thing, but you never know....

NI Secretary does not decide who gets the job, the people do and they have chosen.

ReefBreak

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You have it totally wrong. What if you told your interviewer that you had no intention of going to the office but will do all your work locally yet you would still like a salary

Guess what? The election was for a seat in the UK Parliament. Nothing more, nothing less. Do not kid yourself by pretending that Gerry Adams and his band of murderers, thieves, liars and terrorists were getting elected for anything else.

A Dub in Glasgo

ReefBreak wrote:

Guess what? The election was for a seat in the UK Parliament. Nothing more, nothing less. Do not kid yourself by pretending that Gerry Adams and his band of murderers, thieves, liars and terrorists were getting elected for anything else.

Yep and the people chose to elect people who are absentionist

The people were the interviewer and the people were the employer. It is not difficult.

Laredo

ReefBreak wrote:

Well, I think you're opinion is wrong. Can you imagine if you got selected for a job after an interview, but then decided not to bother taking the job, yet still demanded a salary? If I were an employer, I'd say "fúck you, you ignorant cretin". I'm not saying that the Northern Ireland secretary will say the same thing, but you never know....

The problem with your rather thick analogy is that SF's "employers" are the electorate who chose them KNOWING that the were not going to take up their seats. So they chose to employ the people who were not going to turn up.




Another point worth making is that sitting in the commons is only one part of an elected MP's job, and in the case of a tiny party sitting against a government with a large majority not a very fruitful part of the job either.

Like them and their actions or not, I don't think anyone could seriously say that SF representatives do not do a great deal of work in the areas they represent. This is a big part (or at least should be) of the job of elected representatives and one of the main reasons given by voters in the south that gave them a preference.

billy the squid

The UK voting system is seriously flawed. It only allows one representative per constituency.

The job of that representative is to speak for everyone in that constituency, not just the people who voted for them. I doubt very much that each of the sinn fein people who were elected received 100 percent of their constituency's vote. This means that the people who voted for other parties do not have any representation either.

They voted for other parties to represent them, but because sinn fein got elected to these seats, now they have no one to represent them in parlement.

Sinn fein MPs should take all their constituents into account, not just the ones that voted for them.

Laredo

Laredo wrote:

The problem with your rather thick analogy is that SF's "employers" are the electorate who chose them KNOWING that the were not going to take up their seats. So they chose to employ the people who were not going to turn up.

How can an anology be thick? only the person providing the analogy can be thick.
Two week ban for that.

Flukey

A lot of people elected don't sit very often in their seats. You very rarely see those chambers actually full. Often there is just a handful of people there. But there is a lot more than physically sitting in the seat, to being an elected representative. Most of the work done and things achieved for constituents by any elected person, is done outside of the particular chamber they are elected to. So the fact that SF don't physically sit in the House of Commons doesn't mean they don't actually do anything for their constituents.

Villain

ReefBreak wrote:

Well, I think you're opinion is wrong. Can you imagine if you got selected for a job after an interview, but then decided not to bother taking the job, yet still demanded a salary? If I were an employer, I'd say "fúck you, you ignorant cretin". I'm not saying that the Northern Ireland secretary will say the same thing, but you never know....

Well I think your opinion is just ignorant, these 5 Sinn Fein MP's have been elected by the people to represent the people. The people who voted for them knew they wouldn't be taking their seats in the chambers. Now Reefbreak if you think that the only thing elected MP's do is sit in the chamber you are seriously ignorant to the situation.

God knows if our TD's were only payed for the time they sit in the Dail they'd be on the breadlne.

Sinn Fein's MP's have been elected and will work hard for all the people of their constituency, imo they are entitled to their salary and expenses as much as an other MP.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

Well I think your opinion is just ignorant.

If anyone else posted this about one of your threads you would be the first to report it. As I see this as a personal insult you can take a two week break from Politics for abuse.

Hydroquinone

I have a question
Do our TDs take a similar oath of allegiance to the flag/whatever symbol is equvalent (to the crown) before they sit in the Dail?

hawkmoon269

I personally wouldn't vote for Sinn Fein under almost any circumstances, but it is hardly "scandalous" that they refuse to take up their Westminister seats. Their policy of abstention is well known, their voters vote for them in the full knowledge that they will not take up their seats, and the policy is entirely consistent with their All Ireland objective.

And, in simple practical terms, where is the logic in going to attend a parliament hundreds of miles away and flying over and back on a weekly (or daily basis)?

It's about the only thing I agree with SF on now that I come to think of it!

monument

[in general] > sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - we don’t want SF in government…

[in this thread] > sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - SF won’t take their seats

[edited for clarification]

mycroft

monument wrote:

> sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - we don’t want SF in government…

> sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - SF won’t take their seats

Wow, as always thank you for the searing input, and insightful reasonings.

If you'd have read the thread you'd see a major issue isn't SF taking the seats, its them not taking the seats on a moral principle but happily taking the Queen's crown.

Reefbreak's analogy is flawed. If I refused to do a central part of the job I was hired to do, on moral principle, and made sure my future employers knew I wouldn't do all of my job because of same principle, but nevertheless I demanded full wages including expenses directly related to the carrying out of the duties I decline to do, then the analogy would work better.

monument

mycroft wrote:

Wow, as always thank you for the searing input, and insightful reasonings.

My insightful reasonings to SF bashers?

Sam Hain

Let's take a little ban holiday for insulting another poster - sceptre

mycroft

monument wrote:

My insightful reasonings to SF bashers?

And once again a vague insult aganist anyone who has an opinion that differs from your own. You do tend to avoid the thrust of a debate, and try to reduce things to their most basic level. Care to answer anything raised here, or just dismiss anything here that disagrees with your POV. You do seem to come from an Ann Coulter esque worldview, or at least argumentive style.

And Sam, I hope you've enjoyed your brief few moments on the politics forum.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Wow, as always thank you for the searing input, and insightful reasonings.

If you'd have read the thread you'd see a major issue isn't SF taking the seats, its them not taking the seats on a moral principle but happily taking the Queen's crown.

Surely that is your major issue. The thread starter is quite clear in that he thinks it is scandalous that SF should get elected and not go to London. He is worried about the 'disenfranchised' of the areas where SF have MPs.

monument

mycroft wrote:

And once again a vague insult aganist anyone who has an opinion that differs from your own.

I don’t think the act of SF bashing is vague at all…

mycroft wrote:

You do tend to avoid the thrust of a debate, and try to reduce things to their most basic level.

Oh, sorry, is it possible I have in anyway lowered anyone's ‘debating’ to bashing at any available chance they think they can get away with?

mycroft wrote:

Care to answer anything raised here,

Sure... even if I already have...

mycroft wrote:

If you'd have read the thread you'd see a major issue isn't SF taking the seats, its them not taking the seats on a moral principle but happily taking the Queen's crown.

That would be nice and all, but the people posing the 'major issue', are the same people who have a major issue with SF being in government. And it looks as if the only people who have a problem with SF taking the ‘Queen's’ money are same people who have a major issue with SF being in government.

I'm sure, or - at least - I hope, one or two people got that point from my first post.

In fairness mycroft, they are being paid to do a job and Westminister is only part of it, they go there, they use their offices but do not go into the chamber due to not taking the oath, but they do do a lot of work.
I dont see the issue with them being paid for what they do by someone they dont like.
Lots of people work for people they dont like

The Muppet

mycroft wrote:

Reefbreak's analogy is flawed. If I refused to do a central part of the job I was hired to do, on moral principle, and made sure my future employers knew I wouldn't do all of my job because of same principle, but nevertheless I demanded full wages including expenses directly related to the carrying out of the duties I decline to do, then the analogy would work better.

If at interview for said job you told your employer that you were not prepared to do a part of the job and they still employed you they could have no complaint about paying full wages.

mycroft

monument wrote:

I don’t think the act of SF bashing is vague at all…

SF bashing = well reasoned debate about the party. SF cheerleading, the ability to blindingly support and believe everything Adams et all say.

Oh, sorry, is it possible I have in anyway lowered anyone's ‘debating’ to bashing at any available chance they think they can get away with?

Again a nice broad sweeping allegation, dismissing anyone who has an issue as "bashing".

Sure... even if I already have...

Nope, not in my opinion.

That would be nice and all, but the people posing the 'major issue', are the same people who have a major issue with SF being in government. And it looks as if the only people who have a problem with SF taking the ‘Queen's’ money are same people who have a major issue with SF being in government.

It's again another example of SF moral hypocracy, condemning the government, while taking it's coin.

I'm sure, or - at least - I hope, one or two people got that point from my first post.

I think they got the thrust and gist of your attitude yes.

monument

mycroft wrote:

SF bashing = well reasoned debate about the party.

If you think so, what's your problem with the use of the phrase?

mycroft wrote:

Nope, not in my opinion.

What an answer! And I could say the same thing, we could all just go around posting 'I don't agree', it'd be fun.

mycroft wrote:

It's again another example of SF moral hypocracy, condemning the government, while taking it's coin.

As RTE says – it’s “the taxpayer’s money”. Should anybody who condemns any government never take "it's coin" (sic)?

mycroft wrote:

I think they got the thrust and gist of your attitude yes.

Which is?

Is it an “attitude” rather then a different point of view now?

mycroft

monument wrote:

If you think so, what's your problem with the use of the phrase?

Ah the sarcasm didn't translate. Or rather IMO it did and you decided to ignore it.

What an answer! And I could say the same thing, we could all just go around posting 'I don't agree', it'd be fun.

I was glibbly posting in your pov and style. Again. You posted

> sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - we don’t want SF in government…
> sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - SF won’t take their seats

When no one here said "we don't want SF in government", then when challenged you said this;

My insightful reasonings to SF bashers?

and then this

Sure... even if I already have..

Seriously what coherant point are you trying to make here?That, Everyone who disagrees with your POV is a SF basher? and then when challenged on this, you come out with some vague statement, and then you deride me for using the exact disingenious debating tactics I used, when I paraphrase your POV and throw it back at you, as an example of the shoddy level of debate you're bringing to this thread?

As RTE says – it’s “the taxpayer’s money”. Should anybody who condemns any government never take "it's coin" (sic)?

You see this is an actual argument with points and rational (of a sort) behind it, thank you for entering the debate.

So I'll take your point and raise it. If you dislike RTEs' programming don't own a TV, or campaign for an the removal of the licence fee. Don't get a TV (while aware of the rules) and then when accused, refuse to pay the fee cause you think RTE is sh*t.

Which is?

Is it an “attitude” rather then a different point of view now?

It's an attitude, because your original post lacked anything of substance, just some posturing and slagging at the gist of the thread. thats why its an attitude rather than an opinion backed up with logic, and facts.

monument

mycroft wrote:

When no one here said "we don't want SF in government", then when challenged you said this;

Oh, so now you like the idea of SF in government? Next thing you'll be voting for them.

mycroft wrote:

It's an attitude, because your original post lacked anything of substance, just some posturing and slagging at the gist of the thread. thats why its an attitude rather than an opinion backed up with logic, and facts.

I disagree, it was clear and to the point, I'll spell it out for you...

You and others who think SF is not fit to take seats in the first place are giving out about them not taking their seats. Then you talk about hypocrisy.

mycroft wrote:

So I'll take your point and raise it. If you dislike RTEs' programming don't own a TV, or campaign for an the removal of the licence fee. Don't get a TV (while aware of the rules) and then when accused, refuse to pay the fee cause you think RTE is sh*t.

The thing is SF registers their interest, but don't like the terms and conditions, so they don’t subscribe.

As the The Muppet – “If at interview for said job you told your employer that you were not prepared to do a part of the job and they still employed you they could have no complaint about paying full wages.”



[anyway I’m off for two weeks, so you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t get to reply]

bonkey

monument wrote:

You and others who think SF is not fit to take seats in the first place are giving out about them not taking their seats. Then you talk about hypocrisy.

Well, in fairness, I haven't seen anyone - no matter how opposed to SF they may be - suggest that it is in any way wrong for SF to take their seats once elected.

Ppl have expressed the opinion that SF should be entirely removed from the democratic process, and/or that they should have no place in politics, yes, but thats not quite the same as saying that given that they are not excluded from the system, they still shouldn't be allowed into government.

SF are standing in elections, and then refusing to take their seats in the government. Personally, I accept this. I see it as an effective tactic of obstructionism. What I do not accept is the belief of any elected candidate that they should be paid for refusing to carry out the position they were elected to. Note - there is a distinction between what they were elected to, and on what premise they were elected.

The thing is SF registers their interest, but don't like the terms and conditions, so they don’t subscribe.

Y'huh.

And then they insist on being given the part of the service they want (i.e. the salary in our non-analagous world), despite not having subscribed.

Not too unlike insisting that you could reasonably watch only one television channel without a license, I guess.

As the The Muppet – “If at interview for said job you told your employer that you were not prepared to do a part of the job and they still employed you they could have no complaint about paying full wages.”

So what you're suggesting is that until the law is changed, then the government (and the people) should accept that what SF is doing is legally right. I don't disagree - they're not breaking any laws. I think , however, that what people are suggesting is that they are morally wrong, and/or that the law should be changed to make such practices illegal.

jc

mycroft

monument wrote:

Oh, so now you like the idea of SF in government? Next thing you'll be voting for them.

Don't misquote or mis represent me.

You and others who think SF is not fit to take seats in the first place are giving out about them not taking their seats. Then you talk about hypocrisy.

And again, where I have said SF are not fit to take their seats?

[anyway I’m off for two weeks, so you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t get to reply]

Your insight and wit, will I assure you, be missed.

mycroft

mycroft wrote:

Your insight and wit, will I assure you, be missed.

mycroft, you are threading on very very thin ice with comments like that...
Don't let me see it again thanks.

Thread closed