The FF Mafia

oppenheimer1 · 13-07-2010 1:24am

paddyland wrote: »

I was watching a program on TV one night about the rise and fall of the Mafia, and the similarities to our Fianna Fáil party struck me. Here you had an organisation with a very distinct hierarchy, a number of prominent 'families' who promoted their own, an organisation that infiltrated every level of society, from the lowest right up to the top, that had it's people everywhere, controlling, and reporting back to the 'family.' Practically nothing could be done in business, either legally or illegally, without a kickback to the 'family.'

Much of their activity was perfectly legal, albeit a front for the shadier practices going on behind the scenes. The Mafia was controlled by a series of dons, who ranged from the discreet to the flamboyant, but who even in all their power, knew just how far they could safely go. Alas, it was when the most flamboyant of them all, John Gotti, came to power, a man who from an early age made it his business to rise ruthlessly to the top, that things began to go wrong. Here was a man with a huge sense of his own invincibility, who took the 'family' into business interests that heretofore had been frowned upon, who pushed the envelope too far, and when he fell, took the 'family' with him.

The parallels are interesting. Fianna Fáil as an organisation rose and survived as a kind of 'family' which circled the wagons and looked after it's own. Much of their existence was owed to working the system, not for the betterment of everyone, but purely for the betterment of their own. While not strictly illegal, they managed to fiddle the rules, to create a system that favoured the single party in power, not withstanding the existence of small, relatively inconsequential coalition partners. It was only when a new, more ruthless generation climbed their way to the top, and pushed the organisation into new depths of roguery that they finally fell. Indeed, there was a false period where it seemed that nothing could go wrong, that they were unstoppable, but from the very arrival of these ruthless new dons, the writing was on the wall, no matter how many riches befell them.

.....

Can you give examples of this that show it was systemic, and existed at all levels of the party throughout its history, and not limited to a number of individuals. There are 60+ TDs for FF in the Dáil currently. For your analogy to stand you must show that the overwhelming majority or indeed all members have been involved in rougueish behaviour. Can you show this?

No you can't, therefore the fundamentals of your argument are unsound. Therefore its your archetypical bull**** anti FF groundless rant.

freewheeler · 13-07-2010 2:11am

Wide Road wrote: »

Lazy reply. Read again before you post please. I know it might take a while but read again and answer SVP.

Yeah i've already read it..didnt take long at all actually..quite simple stuff really..the usual deflection from the topic which is 'THE FF MAFIA' I know it probably makes for uncomfortable reading for such as yourself, but there is actually quite a lot to be learned from the original thread..if you don't understand the points being made, maybe you could get someone to explain them to you?

freewheeler · 13-07-2010 2:23am

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Can you give examples of this that show it was systemic, and existed at all levels of the party throughout its history, and not limited to a number of individuals. There are 60+ TDs for FF in the Dáil currently. For your analogy to stand you must show that the overwhelming majority or indeed all members have been involved in rougueish behaviour. Can you show this?

No you can't, therefore the fundamentals of your argument are unsound. Therefore its your archetypical bull**** anti FF groundless rant.

Any 'rant' as you call it against FF is more than justified..they are a disgrace and have almost single-handedly wrecked our economy. In any case it doesn't matter how many of them are crooked (and lets be honest its quite a few) Their corruption and cronyism (not to mention ineptitude) are reason enough for them and their brand of politics to be consigned to the dust-bin of history where they belong.

Shea O'Meara · 13-07-2010 9:03am

snyper wrote: »

Really? Show me where the entire FF party or "administration" has been subject of investigation since the foundation of the state

Nobody claimed 'justice' for the people was a trait of our successive governments.

Honestly, if I was a member of FFail and really cared for my party and my fellow members I'd root these people out with great anger for what they did/are doing to my party........but members don't. FFail come across as cheap crooks, at our, (Irish people) great expense.
As long as the votes come in you can do what you like. That's a fact. It's a shame and more so for Irish people not in the clique.

Now you, (anyone on here) can 'Rant' about FG/Lab/SF etc. all you want, but show some backbone, if you support FFail toss out the tossers making you and yours anti-Irish and criminal by either apathy or association with a criminal element, and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Liam Byrne · 13-07-2010 10:18am

Wide Road wrote: »

Is it because you and others think that their own parties are so squekly clean.

Why do some people always assume that people have to be a member of ANY party, or that criticism of FF is scoring party-political points, rather than simply being what it is - criticism based on FF actions ?

For the record, I was never a member of a politicial party, but would have considered joining the PDs, back in O'Malley's time.

Then they completely lost their way, both socio-economically and ethically, so I stopped voting for them.

That's what you're supposed to do when a party goes against what's good for the country.

AckwelFoley · 13-07-2010 4:26pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No-one's saying that the entire FF party has been directly corrupt.

What is common knowledge is that significant high-level members have been, and that those in the party supported those corrupt members.

Significant high level? Please elabourate on that by what you mean significant. Do you have any idea the number of elected members of the FF party there have been, as opposed to the few that have been seen to do wrong?

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Nobody claimed 'justice' for the people was a trait of our successive governments.

Honestly, if I was a member of FFail and really cared for my party and my fellow members I'd root these people out with great anger for what they did/are doing to my party........but members don't. FFail come across as cheap crooks, at our, (Irish people) great expense.
As long as the votes come in you can do what you like. That's a fact. It's a shame and more so for Irish people not in the clique.

Now you, (anyone on here) can 'Rant' about FG/Lab/SF etc. all you want, but show some backbone, if you support FFail toss out the tossers making you and yours anti-Irish and criminal by either apathy or association with a criminal element, and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Very Martin Lutherish speech, but you didnt answer the question i asked, just more of the same "crooks" "tossers" and "criminal" jargon.

Seriously, im not a member of FF, i might sound like it, but im not. Id simply love to receive a little more substance to why FF are a mafia and perhaps why Labour or FG would provide us with a better government.

If you can do that i will gladly vote for Lab / FG in the Next election

Liam Byrne · 13-07-2010 4:36pm

snyper wrote: »

Significant high level? Please elabourate on that by what you mean significant. Do you have any idea the number of elected members of the FF party there have been, as opposed to the few that have been seen to do wrong?

Well there's Haughey, Ahern, Flynn, Callely, O'Dea, O'Donoghue, Lawlor and Burke to name the obvious suspects who have DIRECTLY engaged in corruption.

However, the key point is that all of the members who were in FF at the same time as the above were leaders and top-level members, and who chose to vote in favour of, or confidence in, the above have "been seen to do wrong", because they condoned and facilitated corruption.

7 high-level members is one thing, and **** happens in the best of organisations.

But when the other members say "yup, great, carry on" then the whole organisation is tainted, and rightly so.

AckwelFoley · 13-07-2010 6:41pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well there's Haughey, Ahern, Flynn, Callely, O'Dea, O'Donoghue, Lawlor and Burke to name the obvious suspects who have DIRECTLY engaged in corruption.

However, the key point is that all of the members who were in FF at the same time as the above were leaders and top-level members, and who chose to vote in favour of, or confidence in, the above have "been seen to do wrong", because they condoned and facilitated corruption.

7 high-level members is one thing, and **** happens in the best of organisations.

But when the other members say "yup, great, carry on" then the whole organisation is tainted, and rightly so.

There were 77 FF TD's elected in 2007, if you take into account those that were also elected representatives in Haughey and burkes time that are no longer in politics you can increase that to probably 120, so in effect you dont even have 5% "corrupt" members there.

To say then that all by association are guilty because they "supported them" is also being naive at least.

The primary purpose of an elected representative is that firstly to the people that voted for them and secondly to the party, which if in government would be to the running of the country.

A political party is like any other team, be it sporting, social or otherwise, unity is paramount, if you have a situation where members are pulling in idfferent directions it wont operate.. Do i think that FF members condone these wayward members? No, not in the slighest, but when in recent years governments are balanced on a knife edge of votes losing a TD will also mean losing government..

So the next rebuttle i hear comming is that they should show some spine or moral leadership and get out of government.. well if moral leadership is what you are looking for move to Tibet and vote for the dalai lama, If you want spine, i think the one thing you can credit FF fail for is their conviction to steer this country out of recession.

Its somewhat irrelevant to me whos in power, i couldnt care less - My centerist political agenda is well catered for. Im not looking for moral leadership im looking for a government that makes good economic and social decisions.

Im not particularly thrilled by the currnet leadership, but any political alternative have not yet impressed me with alternative solutions

Liam Byrne · 13-07-2010 6:52pm

snyper wrote: »

Do i think that FF members condone these wayward members? No, not in the slighest

Incorrect. They condone them because it suits them and keeps them in power, regardless of the example that it sets or the damage that it does....because "the party" comes first.

Until that attitude changes, this country is sunk.

It's the equivalent of saying nothing about a family member or a relation who's a drug-dealer.....and even the "family member" is more understandable, because there's an actual link between you; not saying I'd condone it either way, but the fact is that a bunch of people within an organisation are not linked by blood or emotion.

If I was a member of an organisation that tolerated such crap, I'd threaten to leave.

And your stance about majorities being on a knife-edge works both ways, because my threatening to leave would mean that they would be risking being down a TD if they insisted on condoning corruption. All it takes is two or three TDs with ethics and that same knife-edge swings actually becomes a trump card to those objecting to corruption.

Unfortunately, given the "votes of confidence" by those 77, there are none of them who wish to challenge the corruption in their party.

snyper wrote: »

The primary purpose of an elected representative is that firstly to the people that voted for them and secondly to the party, which if in government would be to the running of the country.

So what do you suggest that that elected representative should do if they find a member writing blank cheques or appointing his buddies or claiming expenses, all of which waste the money of the people that voted for them ?

Stop the waste and openly and honestly criticise the dodgy actions (primary purpose)
Support the party to keep it in power (secondary purpose)

Which have FF members done ?

BTW, I'm completely ignoring the fact that politicians aren't only meant to represent those who vote for them (which is the line taken by a certain FF TD in Cork).....if that were the case, and the people who voted for FF were corrupt bankers and developers and "businessmen", then they would act in their interests and ignore the best interests of the country.

snyper wrote: »

So the next rebuttle i hear comming is that they should show some spine or moral leadership and get out of government.. well if moral leadership is what you are looking for move to Tibet and vote for the dalai lama, If you want spine, i think the one thing you can credit FF fail for is their conviction to steer this country out of recession.

While personally I would love to see FF get out of Government, your presumption of that rebuttal is also incorrect, because there are 2 options :

1) Leave FF (as you said)
2) Kick out the corrupt scumbags, cleaning up the party

They've made their choice to do neither, so it is perfectly appropriate to judge them on that choice; they are condoning and supporting corruption, and therefore are guilty by association.

As for "crediting FF" for their "conviction".....well, you can forget that, because - AT BEST - all it does is negate their equal conviction of steering us INTO the recession, full steam ahead.

Their incompetence and nod/wink politics and condoning corruption has cost us dearly, so no - even assuming that their stance isn't deluded, anyone who judges them objectively will not accept your argument.

AckwelFoley · 13-07-2010 7:08pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect. They condone them because it suits them and keeps them in power, regardless of the example that it sets or the damage that it does....because "the party" comes first.

Until that attitude changes, this country is sunk.

.

Examples that it sets ?? What are we school children?

What damage? Ivor doesnt technically break the rules, he is called up on the expenses and is stopped and is been held up for it.. where is the damage? What effect has it had to the running of the country on a practical level, ok so the 60k could probably have been used to heep 1 "asylum seeker" in mosney for a year.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.

It's the equivalent of saying nothing about a family member or a relation who's a drug-dealer.....and even the "family member" is more understandable, because there's an actual link between you; not saying I'd condone it either way, but the fact is that a bunch of people within an organisation are not linked by blood or emotion.
.

They're not link by bloodor emotion but they are linked by their goals. If my son was a drug dealer, yes, i would break both his legs and leave him within an inch of his life but i wouldnt kick him out of my family - he just wouldnt sell drugs anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.

As for "crediting FF" for their "conviction".....well, you can forget that, because - AT BEST - all it does is negate their equal conviction of steering us INTO the recession, full steam ahead.

Their incompetence and nod/wink politics and condoning corruption has cost us dearly, so no - even assuming that their stance isn't deluded, anyone who judges them objectively will not accept your argument.

Its a tired rebuttal i have to give you, but a valid one -there is a global recession, we were never going to avoid it, i credit the government for the degree of the fall due the over reliance on the construction industry, but to say that they are the sole responsibility is either being naive or failing to see the wood from the trees

Liam Byrne · 13-07-2010 7:23pm

snyper wrote: »

What damage? Ivor doesnt technically break the rules,

Interesting additional word added so that you're "technically" correct.

I called it morally and ethically wrong; stop rewording it in order to make it more acceptable.

snyper wrote: »

he is called up on the expenses and is stopped and is been held up for it.. where is the damage?

Does anyone in FF reckon he should repay it ?

snyper wrote: »

What effect has it had to the running of the country on a practical level, ok so the 60k could probably have been used to heep 1 "asylum seeker" in mosney for a year.

Since when is it €60K ? Are you deliberately lowering the amount in order to make it seem more acceptable ?

Also, why use the asylum seeker in the patronising quote marks ?

Why not - for example - point out that the €81,000 would almost cover the cost of a second-hand MRI scanner, or pay the wages of 2 or more Special Needs Teachers ?

snyper wrote: »

They're not link by bloodor emotion but they are linked by their goals. If my son was a drug dealer, yes, i would break both his legs and leave him within an inch of his life but i wouldnt kick him out of my family - he just wouldnt sell drugs anymore

OK - but that's a massive difference to just asking him to "stop", as you suggested should apply to Callely.

What's the "leg-breaking" equivalent in FF ?

Plus it completely ignores anyone whose life he has made **** of before you got him to stop.

Personally, I'd just disown him. But that's my ethics.

snyper wrote: »

Its a tired rebuttal i have to give you, but a valid one -there is a global recession, we were never going to avoid it, i credit the government for the degree of the fall due the over reliance on the construction industry, but to say that they are the sole responsibility is either being naive or failing to see the wood from the trees

Why is it a "valid" rebuttal, considering you're rebutting something that no-one is suggesting ?

Why - again - did you drop in extra words such as "sole responsibility" that no-one suggests ? Was it so that your reply could seem reasonable ? Because it's typical FF spin and it's bull......I'm surprised you didn't actually mention Lehman Bros altogether.

No-one suggests that FF have "sole responsibility", but they made a bad situation 1,000 times worse through the "over reliance and encouragement of the construction industry" that you mentioned, fuelling the fire, and then even managed to compound that error by dealing with it in a way that wouldn't involve nationalisation, and then nationalising anyway, giving us the worst of both solutions.

Of course, don't take my word for it......there's a few well-respected authors of banking reports that you're completely ignoring via your attempted misdirection, relying on the introduction of the word "sole".

Between that and "technically", you're coming across as someone happy to obfuscate and excuse the inexcusable.

Wide Road · 13-07-2010 8:03pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why do some people always assume that people have to be a member of ANY party, or that criticism of FF is scoring party-political points, rather than simply being what it is - criticism based on FF actions ?

For the record, I was never a member of a politicial party, but would have considered joining the PDs, back in O'Malley's time.

Then they completely lost their way, both socio-economically and ethically, so I stopped voting for them.

That's what you're supposed to do when a party goes against what's good for the country.

What I find amusing is some posters bashing a party and then claiming they have no party affiliations. It reminds me of a person that bashed a certain party and claimed to have no political motivations. Yet the same man appeared on posters for local elections claiming they pressured him to do so. Thankfully the electorate saw through him.

Liam Byrne · 13-07-2010 8:05pm

Wide Road wrote: »

What I find amusing is some posters bashing a party and then claiming they have no party affiliations. It reminds me of a person that bashed a certain party and claimed to have no political motivations. Yet the same man appeared on posters for local elections claiming they pressured him to do so. Thankfully the electorate saw through him.

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to get at here ?

I could guess, based on the fact that you quoted me, but then I might be off the mark, so I'll ask straight out : are you trying to suggest that I might have an affiliation to a particular party ?

Then again, I might be being over-sensitive, considering I don't "bash" any particular party; I merely point out and question the available facts.

Shea O'Meara · 13-07-2010 9:27pm

snyper wrote: »

Significant high level? Please elabourate on that by what you mean significant. Do you have any idea the number of elected members of the FF party there have been, as opposed to the few that have been seen to do wrong?

When your defence is based on the ratio of good to bad apples per barrel you're on a loser.

snyper wrote: »

Very Martin Lutherish speech, but you didnt answer the question i asked, just more of the same "crooks" "tossers" and "criminal" jargon.

Firstly, the man gave a good speech;) Thank you.
Secondly those in question have been mentioned numerous times.

snyper wrote: »

Seriously, im not a member of FF, i might sound like it, but im not. Id simply love to receive a little more substance to why FF are a mafia and perhaps why Labour or FG would provide us with a better government.

Again, why do those supporting FFail, (members or not) change topic when FFail is the thread? Start a Lab/FG/SF thread if you want to discuss other parties.

snyper wrote: »

If you can do that i will gladly vote for Lab / FG in the Next election

To simplify, FFail condone and support any actions by any minister as long as they bring in votes. I am not working for Lab/FG, vote for who ever your conscience tells you to.

snyper wrote: »

To say then that all by association are guilty because they "supported them" is also being naive at least.

Aiding and abetting. I believe you are very naive on this issue.

snyper wrote: »

losing a TD will also mean losing government..

And that my friend is FFail in a nutshell. Hang on to power at any cost.

snyper wrote: »

So the next rebuttle i hear comming is that they should show some spine or moral leadership and get out of government.. well if moral leadership is what you are looking for move to Tibet and vote for the dalai lama, If you want spine, i think the one thing you can credit FF fail for is their conviction to steer this country out of recession.

How very Pol Pot of you;) Don't misquote, I was speaking on cleaning up the party, (although this would obviously lead to a loss of seats). So you agree FFail are a party of no morals. As regards "their conviction to steer this country out of recession."

snyper wrote: »

Im not looking for moral leadership im looking for a government that makes good economic and social decisions.

You cannot and would have no interest in making decisions for the good of others if you have no morals or a sense of public over self.

snyper wrote: »

Im not particularly thrilled by the currnet leadership, but any political alternative have not yet impressed me with alternative solutions

This is the FFail/Mafia thread, go to the defenders, but not followers of the parties devoid of morals thread.

Shea O'Meara · 13-07-2010 9:29pm

Wide Road wrote: »

What I find amusing is some posters bashing a party and then claiming they have no party affiliations. It reminds me of a person that bashed a certain party and claimed to have no political motivations. Yet the same man appeared on posters for local elections claiming they pressured him to do so. Thankfully the electorate saw through him.

Snyper, you posted a thanks. I think he means you;)

Wide Road · 13-07-2010 10:24pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to get at here ?

I could guess, based on the fact that you quoted me, but then I might be off the mark, so I'll ask straight out : are you trying to suggest that I might have an affiliation to a particular party ?

Then again, I might be being over-sensitive, considering I don't "bash" any particular party; I merely point out and question the available facts.

Maybe you're George Lee in disguise. He probably has no affiliations to FG anymore. Seriously though, I don't know or even care if you have any party affiliations. However, one could never accuse you of being a FF supporter. I find it amusing your claim that you don't "bash" any party.

Liam Byrne · 13-07-2010 10:30pm

Wide Road wrote: »

Maybe you're George Lee in disguise. He probably has no affiliations to FG anymore.

Couldn't tell ya. And despite my observations 3 or 4 years ago in relation to the economy having all (unfortunately) come true, I'm no expert commentator. So no - I'm not George Lee. In fact, I post under my own name and stand over everything I say.

Wide Road wrote: »

Seriously though, I don't know or even care if you have any party affiliations.

Good, because I don't. And I'd hate you to land yourself in it by being so blatantly wrong.

Wide Road wrote: »

However, one could never accuse you of being a FF supporter.

Thankfully; I'd take it as an insult. Or maybe laugh my head off. Depends on the mood.

Wide Road wrote: »

I find it amusing your claim that you don't "bash" any party.

Why ? The word "bash" is subjective. It implies an element of unfairness, or "just for the sake of it".

Any opinion I have of FF is based on their corruption and incompetence and arrogance.

So no - I'm not "bashing" them. I'm objecting to their many unacceptable actions.

Even if you'd been objective and said "always critical / sceptical", you might (indeed, would) have had a point.

But "bashing" ? No - you're wrong.

Wide Road · 13-07-2010 10:39pm

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Snyper, you posted a thanks. I think he means you;)

No Shea, wrong again. On the law of averages you will get one right soon.

Wide Road · 13-07-2010 11:12pm

Liam, I know you choose to disect each post that you selectively answer, and you do it very well I must add. However something keeps coming to the surface. If you are so exact on your beliefs, I don't think there is a party for you. The one thing is that you are very interested in politics but What Do You Believe In?

Gravy Fanatic · 13-07-2010 11:13pm

Fianna Fail have done a good job, theres too much blueshirt and communist propoganda out there now against the boys since the recession came in. Sure would the others have done any better at all? I wouldnt think so now.

A bit of a hit this recession this is, but the boys are working hard to get back and track and will be rewarded like they deseve to be by getting elected. If anything FG and Labour are more akin to the mafia.

Liam Byrne · 13-07-2010 11:26pm

Wide Road wrote: »

Liam, I know you choose to disect each post that you selectively answer, and you do it very well I must add. However something keeps coming to the surface. If you are so exact on your beliefs, I don't think there is a party for you. The one thing is that you are very interested in politics but What Do You Believe In?

Good question. And I'll respect it by giving an answer (although mods, feel free to move this elsewhere if it's going too far off topic).

I believe in ethics, fairness, consistency, honesty, accountability and giving everyone the means to have a life (both financially and socially), working hard and being rewarded for same (up to a point - I have no interest in millionaires or profiteering). I also believe in encouraging entrepreneurship (the current approach in Ireland being that if you take a chance on working for yourself and it doesn't work out then you get no dole or benefits whatsoever).

I believe that there should be price controls to avoid profiteering on things that everyone NEEDS (basic food requirements, transport, insurance, heating, accomodation, education).....these should be provided on a non-profit basis, with people earning their living by providing them at a "make a living" charge.

Anything else is a luxury, and can be charged at market rates.

I believe in voting with your conscience and conviction, and abandoning the party whip crap; by all means negotiate or make a judgement call, but vote on the topic, not because you're handcuffed.

I strongly disagree with corruption, stroke-pulling, rip-off, gambling that affects others who didn't sign up, lying, waste, anti-social behaviour (which includes the non-standard working 20 hours a day while ignoring your family) and paying people for doing nothing whatsoever. I also disagree with subsidising lifestyle choices like having children that you can't afford (either financially or time-wise) so I wouldn't have the state subsidise that to the extent that it does.

I believe in sustainable green issues, but not the current government's approach of taxing the bollox out of everything before providing an alternative.

And I disagree with quangos and stroke-pulling and "jobs for the boys".....everyone should get opportunities based on their ability and track record and nothing else.

So you're right; there is no party that suits me. Unfortunately. But having said that, I don't think I'd survive a party whip anyway.

Wide Road · 13-07-2010 11:40pm

Liam, judging on the last few weeks, you're more of a Tommy Broughan than a George Lee. I believe you are too honest for politics.

Liam Byrne · 13-07-2010 11:51pm

Wide Road wrote: »

Liam, judging on the last few weeks, you're more of a Tommy Broughan than a George Lee. I believe you are too honest for politics.

Not sure what the Tommy Broughan reference is about, but thanks (I think).

I've been told to consider it, but the above has been mentioned (I will admit that I'm no saint, although "too honest for politics" does leave a LOT of scope for being less-than-perfect) and the other issue is that I probably WOULD end up like George Lee through frustration at the status quo and unwillingness to rock the boat.....I'd get no support from many of the self-interested and would probably be ostracised and voted against for suggesting less holidays, less pay and expenses and no pensions-while-working.

As I said, Shane Ross is the only politician I'd actually admire, followed (with a few reservations) by Pat Rabbitte.

Shea O'Meara · 13-07-2010 11:51pm

Wide Road wrote: »

No Shea, wrong again. On the law of averages you will get one right soon.

That was a joke, which goes for yourself, no affiliations but quick to defend. I am discussing the party currently in power based on the thread topic.
Show me one incorrect post I have made? Based on the ethics of FFail I believe them corrupt. You can disagree, but in my view I'm not wrong.

paddyland · 14-07-2010 12:13am

Wide Road wrote: »

Liam, judging on the last few weeks, you're more of a Tommy Broughan than a George Lee. I believe you are too honest for politics.

I am presently reading 'Bertie Ahern and the Drumcondra Mafia' by Michael Clifford and Shane Coleman.

I always knew Bertie Ahern was his own man, before he was Fianna Fáil, and that he shafted his own as well as everyone else. What I didn't realise, is just how many of his own Fianna Fáil party he shafted ruthlessly in his grasp for power. He systematically tore asunder Fianna Fáil in Dublin, to establish himself as grandmaster. His own party. His own colleagues.

When you are faced with a machine as ruthless and unprincipled as Bertie Ahern's, how can you possibly maintain standards of decency and fairness and honesty? Tony Gregory could have attested to that, or even George Colley, who was Tánaiste in the Fianna Fáil government when Ahern deliberately and systematically demolished him.

It is impossible to stand before the electorate on a platform of honesty and integrity, because the various mafia, in particular the FF mafia, will use every dirty trick in the book to undermine you. In such a case, it is the political system itself which is inadequate, but it remains in the power of those same mafia to protect that.

There is very much an appetite in this country for honesty and integrity. Fianna Fáil do not offer that, and stand in the way of any change to the political system that might deliver it. All that remains is to use the media, the tribunals, Dáil committees, whatever there is, to relentlessly expose the realities of Fianna Fáil, and hope to undermine the lies that wins them power time and time again. They seem to have a stranglehold on this country, a kind of self-ordained grandfather rights, and until that is broken and exposed, we cannot change the political system to prevent as much as possible it's subversion by mafia-styled outfits, who would sell the country and it's people down the river for their own short term political survival.

Liam Byrne · 14-07-2010 12:16am

paddyland wrote: »

There is very much an appetite in this country for honesty and integrity. Fianna Fáil do not offer that, and stand in the way of any change to the political system that might deliver it.

To be fair, I don't think FF have a monopoly on this aspect. Witness the supposed "objections" to the long holidays amid the laughing and joking. Witness the general unwillingness to implement a proper expenses system or pay cuts.

Plus the fact that the Greens and the Independents all voted with the Government, putting on record their "confidence" in O'Donoghue, O'Dea and Cowen. They're not FF, so they're far from blameless when it comes to retaining the status quo.

Yes, FF are by far the most corrupt, but in terms of the true honesty and integrity that this country needs, there are a lot more who talk the talk and yet refuse to back it up.

Wide Road · 14-07-2010 12:24am

Paddy, what has my quote on Liam Byrne got to do with your last post?

paddyland · 14-07-2010 12:28am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think FF have a monopoly on this aspect. Witness the supposed "objections" to the long holidays amid the laughing and joking. Witness the general unwillingness to implement a proper expenses system or pay cuts.

Plus the fact that the Greens and the Independents all voted with the Government, putting on record their "confidence" in O'Donoghue, O'Dea and Cowen.

Yes, FF are by far the most corrupt, but in terms of the true honesty and integrity that this country needs, there are a lot more who talk the talk and yet refuse to back it up.

Everyone in the Dáil is playing the same game, on the same board. It is the Fianna Fáil game. If there were a general election tomorrow, and a FG/Lab coalition came to power, there would be minimal change. Because there would be new players, but the game would be the same. Fianna Fáil created the game, wrote the rules, and everyone is afraid to substitute a new game.

Unless politics, as established by a succession of predominantly FF governments is turned on it's head by an incoming party, and a whole new game, a whole new understanding of what politics means is introduced, that does not have a single fingerprint of FF on it, then we go nowhere. As I mentioned in the OP, the deck is loaded, and throwing out the jokers makes no difference. We need to throw out the whole loaded deck, and that means the whole political game as established and upheld by FF since the time of de Valera.

Politics is for the people, not for an elite group of people who enroll themselves to the profession of politics, whatever party they belong to. Would Fine Gael or Labour throw out the deck, and start afresh? Or are they too tied to the Fianna Fáil way of doing things, too afraid of politics for people? Too many people have a vested interest in the status quo. The question is, do a majority have an interest in maintaining the staus quo? Are there enough people in the country to stand behind a complete overhaul of the political system? Because that is the risk a new government faces in bringing in the necessary changes.

Wide Road · 14-07-2010 12:29am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think FF have a monopoly on this aspect. Witness the supposed "objections" to the long holidays amid the laughing and joking. Witness the general unwillingness to implement a proper expenses system or pay cuts.

Plus the fact that the Greens and the Independents all voted with the Government, putting on record their "confidence" in O'Donoghue, O'Dea and Cowen. They're not FF, so they're far from blameless when it comes to retaining the status quo.

Yes, FF are by far the most corrupt, but in terms of the true honesty and integrity that this country needs, there are a lot more who talk the talk and yet refuse to back it up.

To whom do you refer to Liam?

paddyland · 14-07-2010 12:30am

Wide Road wrote: »

Paddy, what has my quote on Liam Byrne got to do with your last post?

Read it and see.

Liam Byrne · 14-07-2010 12:36am

Wide Road wrote: »

To whom do you refer to Liam?

I would have thought that was relatively obvious ?

All the Greens who voted for bailouts and NAMA and voted confidence in Cowen
All the Independents who did likewise

PLUS

Anyone in FG or Labour or whoever that gave the soundbite of objection safe in the knowledge that nothing would change, but hypocritically wanted the opposite to their objection, maintaining the status quo.

I don't know individually how many or who the above applies to, but I've no problem being consistent in criticising / objecting to it.

paddyland wrote: »

Everyone in the Dáil is playing the same game, on the same board. It is the Fianna Fáil game. If there were a general election tomorrow, and a FG/Lab coalition came to power, there would be minimal change. Because there would be new players, but the game would be the same. Fianna Fáil created the game, wrote the rules, and everyone is afraid to substitute a new game.

Sorry, paddyland, but that's a cop-out.

I'll be consistent and say that anyone who "plays FF's game" from within FF and supports and condones the corruption is the most to blame.

But you cannot have that stance and then completely absolve anyone from outside FF who "plays FF's game".

Yes, those in FF are more culpable, because they have the power to change. They can directly vote against their corrupt leaders and change from within if they wish.

Those outside FF can't do that, so they're not as bad. But in terms of maintaining the indirect "status quo", those outside FF who choose to play along are almost as bad.

You either have ethics or you don't. And if you don't, you should be judged accordingly.

Wide Road · 14-07-2010 12:39am

paddyland wrote: »

Read it and see.

Paddy, I did read it. I said A poster on this site was more like Tommy Broughan than George Lee. You then talk about Bertie. Please explain.

Liam Byrne · 14-07-2010 12:40am

Wide Road wrote: »

I said A poster on this site was more like Tommy Broughan than George Lee.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of what that comparison means!

paddyland · 14-07-2010 12:56am

In this thread, I am pointedly not referring to corruption of individuals in politics, but rather the general corruption of the political process, where votes are a kind of reward for political favouritism, leading to elections becoming auctions, based around unreasonable and unsustainable promises, and at worst, outright lies.

All the parties practice this, but I see it as a process orchestrated and dominated by FF, and played by the other parties too simply to keep up as much as possible with the FF 'machine.' It would be interesting to see, if FF were gone tomorrow, would FG, Labour and the others, continue to play the game in the same manner, or would there be an appetite for a more accountable and honest form of politics.

Fianna Fáil have a monopoly on protecting corrupt individuals within their party ranks, but all parties play their part in maintaining a political system which has proven itself inadequate for the people of Ireland. Who among them will stand up and make the necessary shift that makes politics more people centred and less party centred?

paddyland · 14-07-2010 1:03am

Wide Road wrote: »

Paddy, I did read it. I said A poster on this site was more like Tommy Broughan than George Lee. You then talk about Bertie. Please explain.

Sigh.

You suggested Liam Byrne was 'too honest for politics.'

I gave an example of why honesty cannot survive under the current political system. How could you maintain a platform of honesty, when faced, for example, with the political machine of Bertie Ahern?

My whole purpose in this thread is to try to highlight, in my own awkward and meandering way, how I see the whole political system as corrupted, and how I see one party in particular as responsible for maintaining that, while all parties are tied into it, whether willingly or unwillingly.

You also suggested that there is no party for Liam Byrne to support. I too, have no party to support. Failing that, I would vote for whichever party would move towards political reform, the reform which might help to prevent mafia parties like FF from subverting this country.

Wide Road · 14-07-2010 1:34am

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Show me one incorrect post I have made? I'm not wrong.

I was not quoting Snyper as you claim. Now leave it at that. There is more important issues I want to post on. I can't be any nicer to you.

Shea O'Meara · 14-07-2010 2:54am

Wide Road wrote: »

I was not quoting Snyper as you claim. Now leave it at that. There is more important issues I want to post on. I can't be any nicer to you.

Misread and misquoted. I say again:

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

That was a joke, which goes for yourself, no affiliations but quick to defend. I am discussing the party currently in power based on the thread topic.
Show me one incorrect post I have made? Based on the ethics of FFail I believe them corrupt. You can disagree, but in my view I'm not wrong.

Senator Ivor Callely has insisted that his principle residence is in West Cork, even though he is registered to vote - and receives his postal correspondence to his family home in Dublin.

And the beat goes on....

Wide Road · 14-07-2010 3:14am

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Misread and misquoted. I say again:

Senator Ivor Callely has insisted that his principle residence is in West Cork, even though he is registered to vote - and receives his postal correspondence to his family home in Dublin.

And the beat goes on....

Now Ivor is on the scene. Look if it makes you happy fine post away whatever pleases you. Just leave me out of it.

Wide Road · 14-07-2010 12:47pm

freewheeler wrote: »

Yeah i've already read it..didnt take long at all actually..quite simple stuff really..the usual deflection from the topic which is 'THE FF MAFIA' I know it probably makes for uncomfortable reading for such as yourself, but there is actually quite a lot to be learned from the original thread..if you don't understand the points being made, maybe you could get someone to explain them to you?

I asked but no answers from you or others. Have you explained Sean Barrett, Ml Noonan, FG debts being repaid, Enda changing party donations etc. No. Now please take as much time as you need, but next time try and give some answers please.

Wide Road · 14-07-2010 12:52pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of what that comparison means!

I meant that you don't like being influenced by a party whip system hense the Tommy Broughan comparison. George didn't want to be in politics at all.

johnnyskeleton · 14-07-2010 8:41pm

I think that if FF were kept out of power for 20 years they would lose all of their support, or at least the kind of support they get in its current form.

They are the party of power. If you believe in something you join the other parties. If you want to get ahead in your career, get the potholes fixed or have a pint with your local TD etc you join FF. Of course, the other parties ape FF and when they do get into power briefly they appoint their own men, but they are never in power for very long so FF come back again.

They also have much tighter control over their parliamentary party than the other parties. Do you think that if there was a Bruton style heave in FF demanding that Lenny become Taoiseach that Cowen would have fought him in public? Hell no. They would have gone off into a conclave and then both would come out saying that they support Cowen's continued leadership/a fresh new leadership under the experienced minister of finance as appropriate.

However, on a point about the other parties not having any policies, the big problem here is that people will not vote for a party which has policies. Supposing everyone in Ireland realised that what was needed is a 10bn cuts package, dramatically reducing welfare, state services and public sector pay. If everyone knew this, they still wouldn't vote for anyone who said that they'd actually do it. Furthermore, if the opposition parties do come up with good ideas, the minute they say them out loud FF will steal them and call them their own. So people are happy to accept the lie that FF trot out which is that the minimal cuts they have already made are "tough decisions" and that the other parties would implement harsher/softer cuts, depending on what audience they are addressing.

Shea O'Meara · 14-07-2010 10:41pm

So Callely is officially a fraudster. Will the mob cut ties?:rolleyes:

The FF Mafia

Comments