FF long term election strategy & 2016 celebrations

RATM · 11-05-2010 1:52am #1

Was just thinking tonight about FF's long term strategy in relation to the 1916 Rising celebrations. Assuming that FF will not be in power the next time out (not an unreasonable assumption to make) then that makes the possibility of an early election more attractive to FF. Why? Well FF would just love to be in power during the time of the 1916 Centenary celebrations- 'The Republican Party' would be heartbroken if they didn't get to command the biggest outpouring of patriotism and sentiment we will have witnessed in a long time. And the last thing they'd want is FG'ers in charge of 'their' ceremony. In the meantime SF'ers will be claiming kudos for themselves but thats neither here nor there as they are so small.

So if the current govt. does run its full term (not too likely) we would have an election in 2012. Assuming that govt. (most likely FG?Lab) runs for 5 years then FF will have missed the boat as the next election would be 2017.

But if we have an early election on this govt then that leaves open the possibility of FF getting dumped now but returned in time for the 2016 celebrations.

Whatya think?

Scofflaw · 11-05-2010 2:11am

I don't think Fianna Fáil ever think in terms of losing elections.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PomBear · 11-05-2010 3:31am

RATM wrote: »

Was just thinking tonight about FF's long term strategy in relation to the 1916 Rising celebrations. Assuming that FF will not be in power the next time out (not an unreasonable assumption to make) then that makes the possibility of an early election more attractive to FF. Why? Well FF would just love to be in power during the time of the 1916 Centenary celebrations- 'The Republican Party' would be heartbroken if they didn't get to command the biggest outpouring of patriotism and sentiment we will have witnessed in a long time. And the last thing they'd want is FG'ers in charge of 'their' ceremony. In the meantime SF'ers will be claiming kudos for themselves but thats neither here nor there as they are so small.

So if the current govt. does run its full term (not too likely) we would have an election in 2012. Assuming that govt. (most likely FG?Lab) runs for 5 years then FF will have missed the boat as the next election would be 2017.

But if we have an early election on this govt then that leaves open the possibility of FF getting dumped now but returned in time for the 2016 celebrations.

Whatya think?

Leaders of 1916 would be turning in their grave if they knew the way the country they died for, was being lead.
Those who died for a Free Ireland wanted unconditional self determination of it's land, not partition (which i admit FF members, before formation fought on an anti treaty side to oppose partition). Anywho, De Valera had the chance to reclaim the North of Chamberlain. FF have not persued a United Ireland in many years.
Leaders of 1916 were socialist, FF are not.
Leaders of 1916 definited this State as a People's Republic, not a State which uses it's citizen's taxes to bail out banks(effectively privatised businesses who made many bad investents) while the same citizens are going redundant, losing their homes and can't pay their bills.
This People's Republic doesn't re run referendums till their outcome is acheived.
It effectively makes the Irish People bosses of their politicians and not the other way around.
Their claim to being 'The Republican Party' is cringeworthy.
Leaders of 1916 gave their lives for this country, FF are self-interested CV boosters and pension grabbers.

FF should stay far awar from the 100th anniversary as they lost their right to be there a long time ago

Fr Tod Umptious · 11-05-2010 4:26am

PomBear wrote: »

Leaders of 1916 would be turning in their grave if they knew the way the country they died for, was being lead.
Those who died for a Free Ireland wanted unconditional self determination of it's land, not partition (which i admit FF members, before formation fought on an anti treaty side to oppose partition). Anywho, De Valera had the chance to reclaim the North of Chamberlain. FF have not persued a United Ireland in many years.
Leaders of 1916 were socialist, FF are not.
Leaders of 1916 definited this State as a People's Republic, not a State which uses it's citizen's taxes to bail out banks(effectively privatised businesses who made many bad investents) while the same citizens are going redundant, losing their homes and can't pay their bills.
This People's Republic doesn't re run referendums till their outcome is acheived.
It effectively makes the Irish People bosses of their politicians and not the other way around.
Their claim to being 'The Republican Party' is cringeworthy.
Leaders of 1916 gave their lives for this country, FF are self-interested CV boosters and pension grabbers.

FF should stay far awar from the 100th anniversary as they lost their right to be there a long time ago

You forgot to mention one more thing

Leaders of 1916 were f**Kin idiots

loldog · 11-05-2010 4:28am

Ireland, like any other EU member, is not really a sovereign country anymore, so I don't think 2016 will be such a big deal.

.

PomBear · 11-05-2010 6:19am

loldog wrote: »

Ireland, like any other EU member, is not really a sovereign country anymore, so I don't think 2016 will be such a big deal.

.

Ireland's sovereignty is not clearly stated in the Constitution but many believe Ireland to be sovereign through it's people, so therefore EU membership would be a moot point

lugha · 11-05-2010 8:16am

RATM wrote: »

Was just thinking tonight about FF's long term strategy in relation to the 1916 Rising celebrations.
Whatya think?

I think it would be seriously depressing, but possibly not surprising, if the matter figured in anyway prominently in their list of priorities, given out current crisis.

PomBear · 11-05-2010 10:04am

Its strange considering the OPs username that he's wondering about FF priorities

sceptre · 11-05-2010 1:47pm

PomBear wrote: »

Ireland's sovereignty is not clearly stated in the Constitution

It's quite clearly stated in article 5.

As for the OP, I rather doubt they're thinking anywhere near that. Basically, what Scofflaw said.

Sleepy · 11-05-2010 1:51pm

AFAIR, Michael Collins was there in the GPO during the Easter Rising so I can't see why 'the blueshirts' would be any less entitled to celebrate 1916 than the anti-treaty party...

scr123 · 11-05-2010 3:32pm

I have enjoyed a long association with FF

Have never in all that time noticed a belief within FF that the party had a monopoly on 1916 and all it means

Have never heard Michael Collins criticised. In fact have known a number of FF people who revere Collins and are experts on his life

Have never heard in FF any adverse reference to C Na G nor any adverse to Civil War politics

In power or not FF will celebrate in 2016 the memory of 1916 in an all inclusive manner

DJCR · 11-05-2010 5:00pm

Does the date 18th of April 1949 mean anything to anyone??

hotmail.com · 11-05-2010 6:24pm

FF likes to think they are the only political party with links to 1916, but FG and Labour have strong links with it too. Connolly was Labour.

LordSutch · 11-05-2010 6:39pm

DJCR wrote: »

Does the date 18th of April 1949 mean anything to anyone??

One of the final nails in the (lets try & reconcile with NI) coffin!

FlutterinBantam · 11-05-2010 7:12pm

Bit early to start flying the 2016 flag I would have thought.

Maybe I'll paint my kerbstones green white and orange, we'll see.

'Twoud be a nice touch.

Nodin · 11-05-2010 7:42pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Maybe I'll paint my kerbstones green white and orange, we'll see.

Change the record.

DJCR · 11-05-2010 8:09pm

Camelot wrote: »

One of the final nails in the (lets try & reconcile with NI) coffin!

What about the Good Friday agreement???? That surely was the worst thing to have ever happened for reunification??

Still I think this is a crap topic for discussion... dunno why I get drawn in???:o:o

PomBear · 11-05-2010 8:16pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

FF likes to think they are the only political party with links to 1916, but FG and Labour have strong links with it too. Connolly was Labour.

Labour like to think Connolly was Labour

PomBear · 11-05-2010 8:18pm

sceptre wrote: »

It's quite clearly stated in article 5.

As for the OP, I rather doubt they're thinking anywhere near that. Basically, what Scofflaw said.

Apologies it's not clearly stated how Ireland is sovereign through ithe 1937 constitution

Eliot Rosewater · 11-05-2010 9:06pm

PomBear wrote: »

Apologies it's not clearly stated how Ireland is sovereign through ithe 1937 constitution

...

Constitution of Ireland, article 5 wrote:

Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng).htm

FTA69 · 11-05-2010 9:21pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

FF likes to think they are the only political party with links to 1916, but FG and Labour have strong links with it too. Connolly was Labour.

He was also a Marxist, syndicalist trade unionist as well as a radical Republican revolutionary who believed in armed struggle against British imperialism and the boss class. His legacy is far removed from the likes of Dick Spring and Ruairi Quinn.

PomBear · 11-05-2010 11:04pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

...

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng).htm

how not if

re-read post

trapsagenius · 12-05-2010 5:35pm

PomBear wrote: »

Anywho, De Valera had the chance to reclaim the North of Chamberlain.

Ah, come on now, Dev was dead right to refuse on this.It was 1940 and it looked like Germany were going to win the war.This was obviously a more pressing concern.And Dev had no guarantee that Britain would actually keep its word.Furthermore, joining the war on the British side would have been potentially devastating for Ireland, so I think Dev was certainly correct in this instance.

PomBear wrote: »

Leaders of 1916 were socialist, FF are not.

SOME of the leaders may have been socialists (Connolly certainly was a socialist, and some would say a marxist, and AFAIK Pearse had some socialist tendencies) but I would not accept that the rising as a whole was a socialist revolution.The ICA in the rising might have been socialists, but I would argue that the vast majority of the Volunteers were motivated to break from England, rather than by any political ideology.

PomBear wrote: »

Their claim to being 'The Republican Party' is cringeworthy.

In fairness, FF were certainly a Republican party when they started out.Keeping the title has probably more to do with tradition than anything else.

PomBear wrote: »

Leaders of 1916 gave their lives for this country, FF are self-interested CV boosters and pension grabbers.

But would you not agree when I say guys like Dev, Aiken and Lemass were equally willing to give their lives for Ireland?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You forgot to mention one more thing

Leaders of 1916 were f**Kin idiots

Er...no.The 1916 leaders were heroes as far as I'm concerned.

DJCR wrote: »

Does the date 18th of April 1949 mean anything to anyone??

Yes it was the date Ireland confirmed something we had already long since attained in practice.

DJCR wrote: »

What about the Good Friday agreement???? That surely was the worst thing to have ever happened for reunification??

How do you work that out?The GFA simply means that there will not be any change in the staus of NI at least until the republicans are in a majority.How could you possibly state that it was the "worst thing to have ever happened for re-unification"??

Liam Byrne · 12-05-2010 6:29pm

trapsagenius wrote: »

Yes it was the date Ireland confirmed something we had already long since attained in practice.

Sounds like the equivalent of celebrating your birthday on your date of conception to me.....

......in all fairness, you were "attained" 9 months before the day itself.....

Coillte_Bhoy · 12-05-2010 7:08pm

PomBear wrote: »

Labour like to think Connolly was Labour

Well considering he founded the party, then ya

PomBear · 12-05-2010 7:32pm

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Well considering he founded the party, then ya

did he? link? :rolleyes:

PomBear · 12-05-2010 7:41pm

trapsagenius wrote: »

Ah, come on now, Dev was dead right to refuse on this.It was 1940 and it looked like Germany were going to win the war.This was obviously a more pressing concern.And Dev had no guarantee that Britain would actually keep its word.Furthermore, joining the war on the British side would have been potentially devastating for Ireland, so I think Dev was certainly correct in this instance.

Well it depends on your out look but you can see what succeeded it and consdering how many Irishmen fought in WWII anyways

SOME of the leaders may have been socialists (Connolly certainly was a socialist, and some would say a marxist, and AFAIK Pearse had some socialist tendencies) but I would not accept that the rising as a whole was a socialist revolution.The ICA in the rising might have been socialists, but I would argue that the vast majority of the Volunteers were motivated to break from England, rather than by any political ideology.

The rising was socialist as it was anti-imperial and seeking a people's republic

In fairness, FF were certainly a Republican party when they started out.Keeping the title has probably more to do with tradition than anything else.

It's a bit of a joke now imo

But would you not agree when I say guys like Dev, Aiken and Lemass were equally willing to give their lives for Ireland?

True but as we saw in later years they sold out

Eliot Rosewater · 12-05-2010 7:44pm

PomBear wrote: »

how not if

re-read post

I don't understand.

PomBear · 12-05-2010 7:50pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't understand.

A country can be sovereign in many different ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

I understand that Ireland is sovereign, I believe like many others that Ireland has a Internal people's sovereignty

FlutterinBantam · 12-05-2010 8:27pm

Nodin wrote: »

Change the record.

Why are we worrying about 2016 in 2010.?

No need for such divisive bulldust and triumphalism.

Certainly celebrate the occasion, but 3 and a half years in advance seems a little over the top for me.

It was a fairly mundane 'event' by most commentators opinions.

Certainly wouldn't float my boat as much as it seems to do to the dedicated 'oarsmen' in this forum;)

trapsagenius · 12-05-2010 9:06pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Sounds like the equivalent of celebrating your birthday on your date of conception to me..... ......in all fairness, you were "attained" 9 months before the day itself.....

What, doesn't everyone do that?:pac:

Seriously though, the declaration of the Republic changed practically nothing-in fact some Republicans argue that it did more harm than good because it copper-fastened NI to the UK.We may as well celebrate the return of the Treaty Ports in 1938-this was a bigger step on the road to full sovereignty than the declaration of the Republic.

PomBear wrote: »

The rising was socialist as it was anti-imperial and seeking a people's republic

I don't think anti-imperialism equates to socialism.And I don't think a people's republic technically has to be a socialist republic either.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Why are we worrying about 2016 in 2010.?

No need for such divisive bulldust and triumphalism.

Certainly celebrate the occasion, but 3 and a half years in advance seems a little over the top for me.

It was a fairly mundane 'event' by most commentators opinions.

Certainly wouldn't float my boat as much as it seems to do to the dedicated 'oarsmen' in this forum;)

Before I go any further-how is commemorating 1916, in the south anyway, "triumphalist"?It's not like we're going marching down unionist areas, like the unionists were so fond of doing to republicans.BTW, 2010 is 6 years before 2016, not three and a half.

FF long term election strategy & 2016 celebrations

Comments