Because they are a comparable of whatâs actually possible outside a populist utopia.
Cullinane, Carty, Doherty, OâSnodaigh from the front bench anyhow.
1 Like
Theyâre not comparable in the slightest. Every country is uniqueâŚ
They engaged in indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, racketeering and murdered more of their own community than the other side.
The British state or the loyalist mobs?
1 Like
For a bit of perspective
You were on here comparing Ireland to Spain a few weeks back âŚâŚ
Now youâre saying theyâre not comparable.
Werenât they one and the same.
Thereâs a bit more to it too but those are the two biggest issues and I think SF policies (broadly left) would be far preferable to FGâs (broadly right) on both those areas. Those two areas are the most glaring places the gaps between haves and have nots in Ireland are shown up.
Jesus thats almost as shit as a blueshirt central attempt at social media
3 Likes
In fairness, arenât you one of the gullible ones?
@Thomas_Brady has a track record of that too.
Thereâs no need for SF to exist. It is a âbrandâ name that was used in 1918 after the British falsely claimed that 1916 was the âSF Risingâ. Sure SF were the dual monarchist Party.
After that, it was a brand name continued again to try to claim legitimacy for a continued campaign. The long term claim that the 1918 election was the only election that ever mattered.
Over time, this brand name was ditched by people serious about politics and doing something. To be clear, I would have called Dev and FF scumbags as well back in the day. They were the ones who rejected democracy during the Civil War. But they did actually practice what they preached. They got rid of the oath, got the Treaty Ports back and delivered an Irish Constitution.
Over time, many others got rid of the SF name. It isnât a practical name if you want to actually do something about advancing Irish unity and delivering something close to the Irish Proclamation. We could go through the various politicians and parties who eventually grew up. Provisional SF werenât the first and wonât be the last do embrace democracy out of the Republican movement and to admit the 1918 stuff was a load of nonsense.
But if they were serious in 1998 about advancing a UI they would have at least changed the name. The SF brand is not Irish Republicanism. It was a brand of convenience, and one completely tarnished by 1998 amongst a large proportion of the population that needed convincing. Why didnât they form a new party to try and truly advance Irish unity? The reason is as I said.
Itâs not a party serious about Irish unity, itâs about their own specific campaign. In 1998 Gerry didnât really need to do much convincing of the other Provos in deciding to administer British rule. Studies have shown that the Provos were ageing, new recruits had dropped off a cliff. They were riddled with informants. Give the lads a âjobâ as community officers and a pension along with a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of Irish people.
Only complete simpletons think a vote for SF is advancing a UI.
1 Like
That was Tim.
You wasted a lot of time on that lame effort.
1 Like
If you want to deal with any of the points, go ahead.
Sure @anon98850436 admits it himself, they donât stand for any real policies. The ârealâ policies of the PSF have been gradually eroded over time, including on Europe.
Thatâs fine, itâs a populist party. FF Nua.
Where we disagree is what the end goal is for SF. Sure theyâd love a UI, but nobody serious thinks that carrying around the badge of SF and trying to normalise the campaign does that. âSFâ is not Irish Republicanism. It was a brand of convenience latched once upon a time by Republicans of the era who saw it as a practical vehicle. Thatâs all really.
I mean itâs true, I believe we had this conversation previously and you agreed that the name isnât helpful. Your response was that it was their right to continue with it.
I donât mean to be Kev but you just donât get it fella. Your no 1 reason above about wiping out the past enshrines that
Sinn Fein are as populist as any party. Itâs hardly news, thatâs what politics is. I think MLMCD is a bandwagon hopper tho⌠but theyre hardly doing anything out of the ordinary as an opposition party.
Sinn Fein on the ground are completely different. They have some brilliant activists, light years ahead of the other parties and thatâs why they appeal to many young people in particular rather than populism.
The cult of the dead is something that doesnât and never did sit easy with me ⌠Thats a square theyâll have to circle if they truly wanna become thee popular party going forward.
I vote for them but i also see through them, the good and bad.
But the constant IRA jibes and reminders of events in the 70s and 80s really grinds my gears. We all wanted the ballot over the bullet and since weâve gotten it official Ireland has done nothing but kick SF about the past that they asked them to move on from. Itâs a form of populism in itself but it no longer holds ad much ground as it once did as the younger generation know next to nothing about the north. But weâll see Leo or Mick Martin play political games with the GFA when it suits their agenda to attack SF for points⌠By all means tear SF policies apart, but pointing to events from 40 years ago in response to a political problem today is lazy, conceited and cheap. It serves no one.
3 Likes
FF when formed and then took the Oath, though their maintenance of relationships with some in the IRA made some of their actions up until DeValera properly cut the link as dubious.
The FF of that era has a right to say they advanced the Republican ideal for the reasons I stated above.
The âBlueshirtsâ was an embarrassing short period of time for those who had been in CnP. But it really didnât amount to much. Members booted the influence out quick smart.
Clann na Poblachta was not a break from the SF movement of the time, the SF movement of the time was pretty much dead. Though it did attract people of that harder Republican and social democrat mindset. Sean MacBride as leader had ditched SF years before for another non democratic brand name, but learned by the time CnP was formed. I would characterise them as a movement of Republicans who embraced democracy for practical reasons.
You had other splits and brands before and after. The Officials was a big one, which then became the Workers Party and the Irish Republican Socialist Party. The likes of the Workers Party and the ones who ended up in Democratic Left would argue they helped move Ireland more to the left socially and economically, part and parcel of the Proclamation.
I donât have an issue with SF running for office. They finally embraced constitutional institutions in 1998 and have had similar runs ins with âdemocracyâ and âlaw and orderâ since, not least the Northern Bank Robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney. I think itâs funny that we have lads saying that the front people werenât involved in the last. To be clear to the likes of @Spidey, I completely get that the young largely donât care about pre 1998. But I would hope they would care about the likes of Deirdre Hargey who claimed to see absolutely nothing during the murder of McCartney. Herself and dozens of other SF members who had just arrived off a bus from a party meeting Derry and claimed to be in the toilet.
Itâs up to individuals to vote for those kinds of people as they will run our institutions down here, as they have happily done with British institutions in the north. I get that with the narrative that SF managed to construct, that many donât care. And SF are next up on the block as people are sick of the incumbents. I very much do get it @Spidey, but it also wouldnât matter if you just argued on policy alone. As I said, this was inevitable since 2011, thatâs the swing of political life. FF were dead in 2011. Labour were dead in 2016. FG have been in power for 11 years. Change is inevitable.
But that wasnât the point I made. The Shinners on here even agree with me that SF donât really stand for anything policy wise, they probably wonât destroy the economy but they probably wonât help it either. Our disagreement is on why SF want power. They will play up to a UI stuff but even they know deep down that trying to normalise the campaign is just damaging to a UI. The brand these days is only convenient for trying to rewrite the history books. Anyone telling me a white paper on a UI is some massive achievement 24 years after the GFA whilst at the same time telling Unionists that your campaign they hated was grand is having an absolute laugh.
Thatâs just incorrect in fairness.