Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Did You ever vote Fianna Fail?

245

Comments

  • #52
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    Never voted for them, but I could understand why some people might have.
    FF were excellent at hype, spin, populist policies and cult of local personalities. It was quite easy to get sucked in!

    The spin wore off and reality has dawned and I think for a lot of people it's a bit like waking up in bed with some awful character you thought was great while drunk and badly lit by night club lights!!


  • #53
    yosser hughes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,905 ✭✭✭yosser hughes


    tfitzgerald wrote: »
    Yes of course I have . But I really can't see the difference in the crowd we have today, maybe not as crooked but I don't think they are pure saints either

    So you knowingly and willingly vote for a 'crooked' party. Well done you.
    There is simply NO comparison in how corruption is dealt with in other parties. In FF it was a badge of honour almost and the likes of Pee Flynn and Ray Burke were appointed repeatedly even when their corruption was known by the leadership.
    Somehow you, and people like you are able to rationalise your decisions and don't see the correlation between voting for these people and the state this country is in.
    Sophisticated electorate my arse!:rolleyes:


  • #54
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    It must be said that FG/Labour gave concrete assurances on debt write off.

    No they didn't.


  • #55
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    Einhard wrote: »
    No they didn't.

    Labours way or Frankfurts way!
    Assurance given in FG manifesto that junior bond holders would be burned.
    Yes they did!


  • #56
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Yes, I voted for Micheál Martin in 97.
    It only started to become apparent that they were destroying the country in 2005 tho.

    In hindsight, I should not have been allowed to vote back then and right up until 2009, I had zero political education/understanding up until then - like the vast majority of the population currently do.


  • #57
    Revolution9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭Revolution9


    FF has been a party of sleaze and corruption long before the mid 00s.


  • #58
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Labours way or Frankfurts way!
    Assurance given in FG manifesto that junior bond holders would be burned.
    Yes they did!

    Neither FG nor Labour stated in their manifestos that they would burn bondholders. Some individual candidates made off the cuff remarks along those lines that they shouldn't have, but neithe party claimed that theyt would seek anything other than to renogitiate the deal FF signed with the troika. It's your perogative to exercise your mandate based on the remarks of a tiny minority of candidates rather than a considered assessment of the party position, but you shouldn't then claimt o be surprised when your expercations aren't delivered upon.


  • #59
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    lugha wrote: »
    I would have thought it rather obvious. That was before the economic crash, or more importantly, the impact of it.

    Why on earth would the party of government be punished if the economy was sound (or perceived to be!). When does that ever happen?

    Because the policies of that party were promising everything to everybody: a cursory glance at them would see that they were illogical.

    And on top of this, the rampant corruption that constantly afflicts this particular party (more so than the others).


  • #60
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    Because the policies of that party were promising everything to everybody: a cursory glance at them would see that they were illogical.
    They were largely delivering to everyone. At the height of the boom there was enough money swilling around to enable them to do so.

    And in any case, when were the Irish electorate, or any other one, wise enough to realize that pre-election political promises are not necessarily honoured?
    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    And on top of this, the rampant corruption that constantly afflicts this particular party (more so than the others).
    There was some corruption and certainly is was tolerated more in FF than other parties. But its contribution to our current crisis is grossly overstated.

    Had FF been a squeaky clean, ethical party I think we would be largely in the same place now as we currently are.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Knight who says Meh wrote: »
    Oh look. the usual high horsed catch all telling off from Audrey which she will start backing down from with the highest level of denial and indignance. Fianna Fail rarely got an over all majority so its safe to say that a huge percentage on boards have not voted for them. I have not so please reign in your wagging finger and dont question my memory or accuse me of lying or do so to others on here.

    If I were trying to act high and mighty I'd have tried to deny that I voted FF but there's no point in lying. I have no intention of backing down from anything.

    They were voted in by the majority whether you like it or not. Perhaps you didn't vote them, but many of those claiming they didn't have to have done so or FF would not have been in government for 17 years.

    It's not high and mighty finger wagging.....it's the truth, it's logic.


  • #62
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,770 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    No never, right back to the early 70's. In latter years hubby was voting FF so I would just have to go and vote to cancel his!


  • #63
    patwicklow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,937 ✭✭✭patwicklow


    No Always knew they were corrupt to the core and really pleasing now to see the FF party were it belongs in the sewer, and hope its banished of the face of the earth like the PD,S now the would be icing on the cake.


  • #64
    Foghladh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    I voted Fianna Fail in 2002 and 2007. I didn't in the last election though because I figured a change was due. FG got my vote on that occasion.
    If I felt that they had some policies that appealed to me in the future I don't see that I'd rule them out just for the sake of it. I'll reserve judgement on my next vote until the time comes.


  • #65
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    lugha wrote: »
    They were largely delivering to everyone.

    No they weren't. They weren't delivering sound governance, sustainable administarion, or prudent management of the economy, which is what I was looking for.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    They were voted in by the majority whether you like it or not.

    Actually you're wrong here. Fianna Fail haven't gained an overall majority in a general election since 1977, and even then only 46% of the population voted for them. That figure has diminished in the past two decades, so that in 1997, 2002, and 2007, the party received the support of 39%, 41%, and 41% of the electorate respectively. The party has consistently received a plurality of the vote, but never a majority of the vote.

    65% of the respondents to this thread's poll claim never to have voted for Fianna Fail. Considering that historically, Fianna Fail have never received more than 43% of the vote, meaning that 60% do not vote for the party in each election, the number here who claim never to have voted for the party is not that outlandinsh, especially as the denizens of the boards political forum might be considered to be somewhat more discerning than their counterparts in the rest of society.


  • #66
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    lugha wrote: »
    They were largely delivering to everyone. At the height of the boom there was enough money swilling around to enable them to do so.

    Not really enough money, if you're (by you, I mean FF) basing your projections on a property bubble. The money isn't going to last forever.
    lugha wrote: »
    And in any case, when were the Irish electorate, or any other one, wise enough to realize that pre-election political promises are not necessarily honoured?

    It happens all the time. I presume it's a fairly well-known tactic from any party hoping to go into government.
    lugha wrote: »
    There was some corruption and certainly is was tolerated more in FF than other parties. But its contribution to our current crisis is grossly overstated.

    Had FF been a squeaky clean, ethical party I think we would be largely in the same place now as we currently are.

    Definitely: in that the larger economic crisis would have affected us, and that the major parties all largely follow the same economic understanding. I do, however, think the 'brown envelope' culture which was so endemic in FF helped to inflate the property bubble, and so was made worse by the party being in government being more open to that way of doing things.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #68
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    Einhard wrote: »
    Neither FG nor Labour stated in their manifestos that they would burn bondholders. Some individual candidates made off the cuff remarks along those lines that they shouldn't have, but neithe party claimed that theyt would seek anything other than to renogitiate the deal FF signed with the troika. It's your perogative to exercise your mandate based on the remarks of a tiny minority of candidates rather than a considered assessment of the party position, but you shouldn't then claimt o be surprised when your expercations aren't delivered upon.

    http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf

    Unilateral burning of junior bondholders stated on this link - search bondholders.

    Lies, damned lies and Fine Gael/Labour.


  • #69
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    I've never voted. I'll strategically vote for Sinn Fein when the time is right (And I know a lot of people who are similar). However despite being North of the border, I can say despite hating FF I would also have seriously considered strategically supporting them if they were serious when they once gestured a move up here. I believe in an end to partition obviously as a priority.


  • #70
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    FG/Labour
    Lies, lack of ethics and corruption.

    Who is corrupt in the current Government parties please?


  • #71
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    MOD NOTE:

    Just a friendly reminder that this thread has been moved from AH to Politics. Please take note. If you are unsure of the posting norms in Politics, there is a quick and dirty version of the charter available here.

    As a reminder, personal abuse is not acceptable anywhere on this website.

    If you have any questions, or are unsure about anything, please PM a moderator.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    I've never voted before.


  • #73
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Einhard wrote: »
    No they weren't. They weren't delivering sound governance, sustainable administarion, or prudent management of the economy, which is what I was looking for.

    Perhaps you were. And indeed, there were some isolated voices, usually academic or professional ones who wanted this. But the great unwashed did not. They had high wages, low taxes and exploding property prices which was going to make them very rich. Happy out.

    Of course there are a substantial number of people who now realise that they should have wanted prudent management of the economy during the boom years, which is not altogether the same thing.

    No doubt the denial that the people had any role in our economic demise will continue. Unfortunately, election results are a matter of record so the self delusion (presumably!) must at some point stop.
    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    Not really enough money, if you're (by you, I mean FF) basing your projections on a property bubble. The money isn't going to last forever.

    Of course not. And for me, this was the single greatest failure of the FF years. But there was enough money to do almost anything in the short term. And like bread eaten, bread yet to be baked has negligible value as a political currency.
    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    I do, however, think the 'brown envelope' culture which was so endemic in FF helped to inflate the property bubble, and so was made worse by the party being in government being more open to that way of doing things.

    I don’t agree, had the CIF followed Bertie around constantly poking him with a stick and calling him a fat fool I doubt the latter would be any less supportive of the construction industry. After all FF were the greater political winners (as well as losers ultimately!) during the boom years.


  • #74
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    johngalway wrote: »
    Who is corrupt in the current Government parties please?
    Are you familiar with the Mahon report?

    Enda Kenny has refused to say whether his councillors named as corrupt and/ or criticised in the Mahon report will be expelled from the Fine Gael party. Unlike Micheal Martin who advocated expulsion for corrupt FFers, Kenny refused to express an opinion when drawn.

    It was quite unfortunate for him to pose for a photograph with Denis O'Brien earlier in the week too, while we're on the subject.


  • #75
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    later12 wrote: »
    Are you familiar with the Mahon report?

    Enda Kenny has refused to say whether his councillors named as corrupt and/ or criticised in the Mahon report will be expelled from the Fine Gael party. Unlike Micheal Martin who advocated expulsion for corrupt FFers, Kenny refused to express an opinion when drawn.

    It was quite unfortunate for him to pose for a photograph with Denis O'Brien earlier in the week too, while we're on the subject.

    Hardly an indication of corruption in the current Government. Martin has done nothing yet, Ahern saved him having to wield the axe.


  • #76
    plasmaguy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Voted once in 1997 for anyone but FF.

    Never voted since, waste of time.


  • #77
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Hardly an indication of corruption in the current Government. Martin has done nothing yet, Ahern saved him having to wield the axe.
    I didn't say it was an indication of current corruption. The poster asked who in the government parties are corrupt. The answer is in the Mahon report, if the poster accepts its findings.


  • #78
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Never voted for them and I never will, and as for the notion that we all went along with it in the good times- this is just not true. A large minority were sick to the core with the goings on in this country but other than campaigning and voting responsibly there is'nt much one can do- that is the nature of democracy.

    As for the oft-stated idea that the other crowd would have behaved no differently, there is no evidence for this .As a matter of fact there is some indicators to the contrary - the Fitzgerald and Bruton governments did'nt follow the CJH model so why would later versions follow the Bertie model ?

    To say that the endemic corruption did'nt contribute to the boom and bust of our economy is just unbelievable- of course it did. More people need to read that report .


  • #79
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    later12 wrote: »
    Are you familiar with the Mahon report?

    I'm familiar with it in that I know it exists.


  • #80
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    marienbad wrote: »
    and as for the notion that we all went along with it in the good times- this is just not true.
    It certainly is not true that everybody got swept along by the allure of the tiger years. But neither is it true that a sizable majority were unduly concerned about the minutia of managing the economy when things were going well for them. It is on this latter point that there is complete denial.
    marienbad wrote: »
    To say that the endemic corruption did'nt contribute to the boom and bust of our economy is just unbelievable- of course it did. More people need to read that report .
    Well the phenomena of boom and bust will be observed whether there is corruption or not. But how specifically did corruption facility our housing boom? Once we had the ingredients of cheap credit and lax regulation, all we had to do was stand back and let it happen.

    For example, how specifically did the alleged corrupt activities of Flynn in pocketing Gilmartin’s political donation contribute to the boom?


  • #81
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lugha wrote: »
    It certainly is not true that everybody got swept along by the allure of the tiger years. But neither is it true that a sizable majority were unduly concerned about the minutia of managing the economy when things were going well for them. It is on this latter point that there is complete denial.


    Well the phenomena of boom and bust will be observed whether there is corruption or not. But how specifically did corruption facility our housing boom? Once we had the ingredients of cheap credit and lax regulation, all we had to do was stand back and let it happen.

    For example, how specifically did the alleged corrupt activities of Flynn in pocketing Gilmartin’s political donation contribute to the boom?

    For one thing inflating house prices through the process of artificially created landbanks that in turn were created by currupt rezoning. And to take your specific example - it showed at a relatively early stage that favours could be bought.

    Further more the ''lax regulation'' it could be argued was a result of the nod and wink culture that had been created by the Galway Tent mentality.

    Remember back to the astonishing appearance of the former head of the Revenue before a Dail commitee and when asked why did CJH more or less get a free pass on his tax affairs and the reply along the llines of we all have to swim in the same waters.

    I said a sizable of minority were concered and getting more so after 2004.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If I were trying to act high and mighty I'd have tried to deny that I voted FF but there's no point in lying. I have no intention of backing down from anything.

    They were voted in by the majority whether you like it or not. Perhaps you didn't vote them, but many of those claiming they didn't have to have done so or FF would not have been in government for 17 years.

    It's not high and mighty finger wagging.....it's the truth, it's logic.

    You originally claimed that 'most if not all voted for them". Now you say 'many'. Thats backing down that is!!!;)


  • #83
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    No Pat Carey always ran for them in my area,didn't like him so i didn't vote for him.


  • #84
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    lugha wrote: »
    Perhaps you were. And indeed, there were some isolated voices, usually academic or professional ones who wanted this. But the great unwashed did not. They had high wages, low taxes and exploding property prices which was going to make them very rich. Happy out.

    I don't think the voices were as isolated as you make out. As I mentioned earlier, the proportion of the population who didn't vote for Fiann Fail in the last 15 years is as high as 60%, so I don't think it's fair to claim that those of us who were concerned at their gorss maladministration were miniscule in number.
    Of course there are a substantial number of people who now realise that they should have wanted prudent management of the economy during the boom years, which is not altogether the same thing.

    I'd change that to a substantial number of Fianna Fail voters who now realise this.
    No doubt the denial that the people had any role in our economic demise will continue.

    Yes, it will. But the denial must needs come from those who actually voted for Fianna Fail and ensured they stayed in power. I'm not sure how those who actively voted against FF can share too much of the political responsibility for our current woes.
    Unfortunately, election results are a matter of record so the self delusion (presumably!) must at some point stop.

    They are a matter of record. And, as the record shows, only about 40% of those who voted between 1997 and 2007 voted for Fianna Fail.


  • #85
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Einhard wrote: »
    I don't think the voices were as isolated as you make out. As I mentioned earlier, the proportion of the population who didn't vote for Fiann Fail in the last 15 years is as high as 60%
    They are a matter of record. And, as the record shows, only about 40% of those who voted between 1997 and 2007 voted for Fianna Fail
    This misuse of statistics seems to me to be quite prevalent in politics. 40% support for a party in a many party political system is very impressive. It can be made to appear much less so by pointing out that 60% did not! And of course, you cannot by any stretch, argue that a sizable portion of those 60% were concerned about, or even aware of, the impending danger.

    It will be challenged by some, but it seems quite likely to me that FG or Labour would have exploited the property bubble had they the chance. A lot of good could have been done with the waves of cash flowing around. And it should not be forgotten that there was an element of bad luck in the bursting of our bubble. It might have ended different and had it done so, there would be little talk now about the reckless management of FF.

    And of course, it wasn’t just people’s political decision. Anyone who availed of cheap credit to flip a property, indeed anyone who availed of cheap credit, period, can hardly claim now to be guilt free.
    Einhard wrote: »
    I'd change that to a substantial number of Fianna Fail voters who now realise this.
    Again, I would question whether a sizable number of FG and Labour supporters should not be included in that number.


  • #86
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    i have done and may well do again depending on the individual candidates. realistically f.f was the biggest party and f.g the next biggest and a vote for lab was a vote for f.g and vice versa. f.f and f.g were pretty much the same bar their views on n.ireland. with f.f you had some aspiration of a united ireland or at least the nationalist people of the six counties had some voice. with f.g there was no pretence that they give a fu.k about nationalists. while the peace process was under way john bruton was a short while in power, but long enough to derail the process. this was down to the old f.g policy of apoligising to unionist and taking their side. when the unionist had enough people on their side, it was the duty of the irish goverment to fight for the interests of the irish people. they didnt do that when faced with the british goverment in the seventies, eighties and nineties. they are now doing the same against the germans and french. long story short f.f got elected because of poor opposition


  • #87
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,669 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Yeah i voted FF. And despite all the talk from FG and Lab in the last election do you know how many of them showed up at my door, or my neighbours doors? That would be none. Obviously they felt they didnt need our votes.The local FF guy showed up, nice man and he got my vote. Im amazed lots of people seem to be turning to SF. Their policies are looney to say the least and Adams has been very secretive about his past.


  • #88
    Wider Road
    Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭Wider Road


    LOL, I love the title of this thread.
    The party that has won most seats & elections in the history of the state. Maybe it should be moved back to After Hours!

    Yes, I have voted FF.


  • #89
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    marienbad wrote: »
    For one thing inflating house prices through the process of artificially created landbanks that in turn were created by currupt rezoning. And to take your specific example - it showed at a relatively early stage that favours could be bought.

    There certainly was that problem in the early years of the boom, surprising to recall, but there was a chronic housing shortage in the early years. But as more and more land was rezoned for residential use the appetite for acquiring houses and their prices only went one way. That would suggest to me that while the way the land banks were held back was done to try and drive up the price, it turned out to be unnecessary. I think the boom would have happened without the corruption.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Further more the ''lax regulation'' it could be argued was a result of the nod and wink culture that had been created by the Galway Tent mentality.

    The regulation surely had more to do with the financial sector rather than the construction one? In any case, I would say this was in the interests of the government (as well as the financial sector) and should probably be filed more under poor, or even reckless management, rather than corruption.


  • #90
    ambid
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭ambid


    Never have voted FF and never will.

    FF destroyed the economy of this country and handed away our sovreignty.

    Tribunals have found their leaders since Haughey to have, at best, been dishonest and untrustworthy.

    I hope they collapse like the PDs before them and never again darken this country.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    No, never voted for FF, despite what many of you thought/think.


  • #92
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lugha wrote: »
    There certainly was that problem in the early years of the boom, surprising to recall, but there was a chronic housing shortage in the early years. But as more and more land was rezoned for residential use the appetite for acquiring houses and their prices only went one way. That would suggest to me that while the way the land banks were held back was done to try and drive up the price, it turned out to be unnecessary. I think the boom would have happened without the corruption.



    The regulation surely had more to do with the financial sector rather than the construction one? In any case, I would say this was in the interests of the government (as well as the financial sector) and should probably be filed more under poor, or even reckless management, rather than corruption.

    That chronic housing shortage was a relatively temporary thing as '' the youngest population in Europe'' aged a bit and could have been easily managed. A great part of the house price rise was do to corrupt zoning and planning and artificially distorting the market through those landbanks drip feeding into the sysyem to suit developers.

    A country of 4 million odd the size of England having at one time the highest prices per sq ft in the world ! An artificial bubble if ever there was one .

    The regulation had everything to do with construction sector, In no time at all there was no difference between the construction sector and the financial sector. For gods sake even the lawyers and auctioneers were becoming developers and financial advisors terrified that they would miss the out on the goose laying the golden eggs.

    And the climate for all this was set at the very top- fish rots from the head.


  • #93
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    later12 wrote: »
    councillors named as corrupt

    Same question.


  • #94
    yosser hughes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,905 ✭✭✭yosser hughes


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    No short memory here. I was simply pointing out exactly what you have in your post.Some people need to be confronted with the reality of their position.
    Also as had been stated many times on this thread. Fianna Faíl never got more than around 41% of the vote so the majority of people have never voted for them,even during the bubble. Those people knew the reality of the corruption. The 40% are happy to vote for corrupt people.


  • #95
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Good loser


    I voted FF in the last election and in the previous few elections as far as I can remember.

    Knew there was going to be a landslide against them but considered balance and prudence were appropriate in the circumstances. Would never vote SF/ULA types.

    Aware of the crook-ish aspects in FF but that is to be expected in from all parties/individuals in power for a long time.

    Could well vote FG next time (if alive).


  • #96
    marozz
    Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭marozz


    I have to admit I did from the early 80's. It was a family thing. My grandfather, my father and myself all voted FF and we all worked for the Irish Press. So no surprise there. I emigrated in 87 , was away 10 years and came back with a different outlook on things. I can't stand any of them.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    lividduck wrote: »
    In 2002 I voted for them because of the Peace Process and also because FG the main opposition party was promising lunatic things like:
    Compensating Taxi drivers for the loss of a monopoly they had abused for decades.
    Promising to compensate gamblers for their losses on Eircom shares.
    You see in 2002 there was no real other choice.


    Yep, I've voted FF for various reasons, the main reason, no strong Labour where I am and FG ditching Garret's reforming social agenda.

    Ray McSharry would have been a Minister for Finance I admired economically, so between liking Labour socially and him economically, not much realistic choice in Donegal, I suppose no PD's.

    By 2007 I thought the lowering tax agenda had become just as much a bubble as property and the only party proposing a tax rise was FF, a rise in PRSI and totally about time, until Bertie threw all Cowen''s promises aside and promised tax cuts.

    Voted Green last time!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #98
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    yosser hughes wrote: »
    Also as had been stated many times on this thread. Fianna Faíl never got more than around 41% of the vote so the majority of people have never voted for them,even during the bubble. Those people knew the reality of the corruption. The 40% are happy to vote for corrupt people.

    Doesn't really compute as only about 15% of our TDs are elected on the first count.
    So someone who gave FF say a Number 2 or a Number 10 may well have led to that TD being elected. For example I know people who hated FF but hated Sinn Fein more, and if seat 5 in a constituency was going to come down to a fight between the SFer and the FFer would happily give the FF candidate a low preference and the SFer none.

    FF understood the PRSTV system and fought tooth and nail for lower preferences. I'd say the percentage of voters who truly 'never voted FF' is closer to 30% than the 60% being quoted in the thread.


  • #99
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    lugha wrote: »
    This misuse of statistics seems to me to be quite prevalent in politics. 40% support for a party in a many party political system is very impressive. It can be made to appear much less so by pointing out that 60% did not! And of course, you cannot by any stretch, argue that a sizable portion of those 60% were concerned about, or even aware of, the impending danger.

    There is an element of down playing how successful FF were and have been in Irish society and in particular recent Irish history. FF have been in power for about 62 of the last 80 years, it isn't that long ago that not getting an overall majority was seen as failure, then was seen as an impossibility and Bertie was damn close, twice in a row. Orher European parties would die for that level of success, particularly under PR. The most successful party in Western democracies for a reason.

    Why was Bertie so close? Transfers, simple.

    So people who saw FF as transfer toxic under DeV and Civl War politics and then under Haughey and his corruption, suddenly started giving No.2's to FF.

    It isn't just the 40%. It's the 1,000's of upon 1'000's of voters who gave a FF'er a No.2, leaving them only a few seats to get Government, turning the 3rd seat out of 5 to FF in the country, or that 2nd seat out of 4 in Dublin.

    People had their chance in 2007 to turn up their noses at FF, they didn't, and it sums up a lot!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #100
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    I would have given them preferences in the 90's but as we moved out of the 90's and I became more politically aware I didn't like what I was seeing. I really couldn't stand the corruption and the way a lot of people were almost cheering it on as long as it didn't affect them directly. In 2002 I didn't give them a preference at all. By 2007 I was actively campaigning against them and was so pee'd off when they got in again. They stand for everything that is wrong with Irish politics, though the whole system needs to be sorted.


  • #101
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement