FF vs FG

B2k

I'm not really a regular poster to the political section of boards but am a regular reader. One question which came up between me and a friend recently was which irish party has had the most successful policies and achievements while in government. Apart from the obvious recent ones I had a fairly small knowledge of historical events. (I am only 20!) So I'll turn it over to the more knowledgeable members of boards.ie.....

Who has had the greater achievements and what are they..?

Liam Byrne

FG laid the groundwork for lots of FF's successes, including the Celtic Tiger & Northern Ireland.

To be fair, FF managed to build a bit on those, but they seem to have no long-term strategies in terms of what's good for the country; I guess the main difference between the two is that FF are afraid that if something happens after they're voted out that they won't get the credit for it.

Frank007

Both parties are virtually identical and have the same policies (if any). People become disillusioned with Irish politics because the 2 major parties are too similar and stand for nothing (at least consistantly)

Sand

The only thing seperating FF and FG is the leaderships fear of a merger - they dont need two party leaders. They dont need two spokesmen for every portfolio. Theyd have to double the number of junior ministers to keep everyone happy. Thats essentially all there is between them - greed. The PDs ironically enough are without doubt the most successful Irish party - they changed the Irish political scene, with liberal social and economic policies that proved so effective that even Labour became a tax cutting party last time out. They attracted a lot of hatred, but Bertie was loved by all so being hated by hippies and students isnt such a bad thing.

Delta Kilo

2 cheeks of the one a*se if u ask me but i think that FG deserve a go behind the wheel for a while. I really hate FF at the mo. They wasted a good 3 weeks with the social partners even though they knew all along that they would be pressing ahead regardless. Just make the f**king decision, cowen. That is what you are there for, making decisions. All they are worried about is their property developer friends who pump money into the party in exchange for land to be rezoned. They are a joke.

But we voted for them so we can only blame ourselves! I hate the irish mentality of "arrah sure the divil ya know is better than the devil that you dont" and people voting for a party because that is family tradition! Grow up! We need to wake up and realise that we must vote for what is best for us and when they dont do it - out ya go.

galwayrush

Major difference that emerged in recent times is FF's association with corruption and their incredible amount of Cronyism.:mad:

turgon

The two parties were for all purposes one party that split over a treaty 90 years ago. It illustrates how different they are; that is not at all.

RealityCheck

The two parties are fundamentally the exact with the exact same politicies. Our party political system is not based on actual politics. Its just based on Civil war divisions. The sooner all the parties disband and we have a party political system based on varied policies the better

yomchi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FG laid the groundwork for lots of FF's successes, including the Celtic Tiger & Northern Ireland.
To be fair, FF managed to build a bit on those, but they seem to have no long-term strategies in terms of what's good for the country; I guess the main difference between the two is that FF are afraid that if something happens after they're voted out that they won't get the credit for it.

Sorry Liam, I don't mean to be chasing you around the forum :pac:
But you are wrong again on your info here - The IRA withdrew it's ceasefire and blew the sh1te out of Canary Wharf while FG were in government and they pandered to the John Major and the Tories. Historically, FG as a pro union party have done didley squat for the north or the peace process. The ceasefire was only re-instated after FF came to power along with Labour in Britain.

yomchi

RealityCheck wrote: »

The two parties are fundamentally the exact with the exact same politicies. Our party political system is not based on actual politics. Its just based on Civil war divisions. The sooner all the parties disband and we have a party political system based on varied policies the better

Correct. Both FG and FF are centre right parties. They have very similar policies in all fields of the political spectrum. The only difference with them is their civil war identities. Unfortunately Labour, these days, aren't far behind.

Daroxtar

Jon wrote: »

Sorry Liam, I don't mean to be chasing you around the forum :pac:
But you are wrong again on your info here - The IRA withdrew it's ceasefire and blew the sh1te out of Canary Wharf while FG were in government and they pandered to the John Major and the Tories. Historically, FG as a pro union party have done didley squat for the north or the peace process. The ceasefire was only re-instated after FF came to power along with Labour in Britain.

Very true. Who do you assosciate more with the peace process- john unionist bruton or albert reynolds?

B2k

Frank007 wrote: »

Both parties are virtually identical and have the same policies (if any). People become disillusioned with Irish politics because the 2 major parties are too similar and stand for nothing (at least consistantly)

I know that there is a very thin line between them. The only difference is the people. If I was to be honest it seems that neither party has the balls to be different and go against the common grain of the other in case they'd take heat due to their policies that may be different. (Apart from FF now that they are bringing in cuts but thats out of necessity.) The differences are paper thin.

But my question was which party has brought in policies that changed the face of the government or the people of this country rather than the differences between them. I know FG were very good to farmers and FF usually stuck to those in construction.

Daroxtar

not entirely true. Ray Macsharry looked after the farmers pretty well if i remember right

B2k

as a note, a personal opinion on FG, they are so afraid of keeping their clean image that they are keeping their best politician in the backround, richard bruton because of the controversy surrounding john bruton and planning bribes. IMO, if they ditched kenny and made bruton leader they would be far more succesful. i'm not particularly mad on cowen but kenny is full of sh1te at the best of times! its kennys fault they didnt win the last electon!

Het-Field

Sand wrote: »

The only thing seperating FF and FG is the leaderships fear of a merger - they dont need two party leaders. They dont need two spokesmen for every portfolio. Theyd have to double the number of junior ministers to keep everyone happy. Thats essentially all there is between them - greed. The PDs ironically enough are without doubt the most successful Irish party - they changed the Irish political scene, with liberal social and economic policies that proved so effective that even Labour became a tax cutting party last time out. They attracted a lot of hatred, but Bertie was loved by all so being hated by hippies and students isnt such a bad thing.

Although the PDs were a much maligned force their politics of competition, low taxation, green awareness, and their subsequent successess in justice and foreign affairs have been taken on by the main parties. But one should never forget that the PDs broke civil war politics, while offering the "ideological " politic of labour, with a chane of achievement. Unfortunatly, if you can get the same politics from a big force, why vote for a 4% party like the PDs?

Het-Field

Daroxtar wrote: »

Very true. Who do you assosciate more with the peace process- john unionist bruton or albert reynolds?

Fianna Fail ran with the politics of consent after the PDs and Fine Gael established it. In 1985 FF were anxiou to jettison the Anglo Irish Agreement to ensure that FG didnt get it.

Fianna Fail did some great work on the North, and the names Lemass, Reynolds, and Ahern will be inextricably linked with it. However, consent (which ultimately yielded success) was the product of Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats.

Taxipete29

Jon wrote: »

Sorry Liam, I don't mean to be chasing you around the forum :pac:
But you are wrong again on your info here - The IRA withdrew it's ceasefire and blew the sh1te out of Canary Wharf while FG were in government and they pandered to the John Major and the Tories. Historically, FG as a pro union party have done didley squat for the north or the peace process. The ceasefire was only re-instated after FF came to power along with Labour in Britain.

FG were not responsible for the withdrawel of the ceasefire and John Bruton continued to talk to Sinn Fein after its withdrawel despite calls to walk away from them. Relations between FG and SF became very strained however after canary wharf and also the murder of Jerry Mccabe.

It was FG that signed the Anglo-irish agreement in 1985 and while it didnt acheive its objective, it was a stepping stone and improved relations between Ireland and Britain.

Liam Byrne

Jon wrote: »

But you are wrong again on your info here ......Historically, FG as a pro union party have done didley squat for the north or the peace process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BskjMCyNcBs

sceptre

Reputation as savers versus reputation as spenders. No points for guessing which is which.

yomchi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BskjMCyNcBs

LOL, Liam please stop with the comedy. The Anglo Irish 'agreement' did nothing and created no foundation for the current peace initiative today. It was the like of Hume, Adams, Reynolds and the Brit negotiator (who's name escapes me) started the ball rolling for the peace process today, especially Adams and Hume.

Remember Section 31 Liam? which party was in government and stood over this 'Peace inititative' :rolleyes:

yomchi

Taxipete29 wrote: »

FG were not responsible for the withdrawel of the ceasefire and John Bruton continued to talk to Sinn Fein after its withdrawel despite calls to walk away from them. Relations between FG and SF became very strained however after canary wharf and also the murder of Jerry Mccabe.

It was FG that signed the Anglo-irish agreement in 1985 and while it didnt acheive its objective, it was a stepping stone and improved relations between Ireland and Britain.

They were part responsible. Along with Major and the Tory party.
When the IRA declared a complete cessation of military operations, it was Bruton who declared to Major it was a tactical ploy, this is what Major ran with, he postured looking for the word 'permanent' and was bolstered by FG in Ireland. FG stood there looking on 'dopelessly' as Major antagonised the IRA, until the IRA responded. The people of Britain and Ireland told FG and the Tory's how they felt about 'their work' on the Peace process - they voted them out.

destroyer

The difference between FF and FG is the amount of corruption in FF.

This is (maybe) because power corrupts and FG just haven't had the same
oppoptunities.


With regard to the peace process FG supported FF in all their inititives while FF to their eternal shame voted against the
Anglo Irish Agreement

mountainyman

Sand wrote: »

The only thing seperating FF and FG is the leaderships fear of a merger - they dont need two party leaders. They dont need two spokesmen for every portfolio. Theyd have to double the number of junior ministers to keep everyone happy. Thats essentially all there is between them - greed. The PDs ironically enough are without doubt the most successful Irish party - they changed the Irish political scene, with liberal social and economic policies that proved so effective that even Labour became a tax cutting party last time out. They attracted a lot of hatred, but Bertie was loved by all so being hated by hippies and students isnt such a bad thing.

Hardly true that the PDs changed Ireland. Their social policies were implemented AFTER the constitutional crusade had been won by the reformers and they were whipping boys for Ahern and McCreevy both of whom favored minimal taxes on the rich (ahern because he was being given money by rich people and McCreevy because he is a strutting popinjay who likes to be around wealth).

The PDs provided an ideological framework in which golden circle ism could flourish. Ironic as they were initially believe it or not an anti corruption party.

Hard to believe when you look at the old sow in the department of health and her squealing barrow in MKC.

Frank007

of course the PD's changed Ireland (for better or worse whatever your opinion) many of their policies are now mainstays of FF & FG programmes for government.

The same could be said for the green party also.

FF & FG just kinda go with the flow, if another (usually smaller) party come up with a policy that is popular next minute FF & FG start shouting it from the rooftops and present it as their own because on the most part they are devoid of any good original ideas.

Taxipete29

Jon wrote: »

They were part responsible. Along with Major and the Tory party.
When the IRA declared a complete cessation of military operations, it was Bruton who declared to Major it was a tactical ploy, this is what Major ran with, he postured looking for the word 'permanent' and was bolstered by FG in Ireland. FG stood there looking on 'dopelessly' as Major antagonised the IRA, until the IRA responded. The people of Britain and Ireland told FG and the Tory's how they felt about 'their work' on the Peace process - they voted them out.

FG actually gained seats in the next election, its was the implosion of labour that was responsible for the coalition not returning to power.

Liam Byrne

Jon wrote: »

LOL, Liam please stop with the comedy.

Ah, a bit of comedy never killed anyone....

Jon wrote: »

Remember Section 31 Liam? which party was in government and stood over this 'Peace inititative' :rolleyes:

I'll have to admit (if only to avoid you "following me around") that the repeal of Section 31 was a blessing in disguise....while I would previously have been in favour of censoring terrorists, hearing what they say and realising how blinkered, brainwashed and two-faced they are (were?) probably speeded up the process.......every "how can you condone XXXXX" or "sort out your own house" being met with "what about what the Brits did ?" showed the true colours.....

Watching them disown murderers only to later campaign for their release is another angle that we'd never have seen if Section 31 was still in place.

So yup, FG were wrong on that one. No argument here.

MG

This whole FF are the same as FG thing is tiresome.

The fact is that 70%+ of the population vote for either FF or FG. If the two were to merge, then we might have one party receiving 70% of the vote.

Now then we really would have no alternative government!

RealityCheck

MG wrote: »

This whole FF are the same as FG thing is tiresome.

The fact is that 70%+ of the population vote for either FF or FG. If the two were to merge, then we might have one party receiving 70% of the vote.

Now then we really would have no alternative government!

But whats the difference between them being the same or not? They are both similar centre right parties. I mean if FG took over tomorrow they would just be continuing what FF are doing.

yomchi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah, a bit of comedy never killed anyone....



I'll have to admit (if only to avoid you "following me around") that the repeal of Section 31 was a blessing in disguise....while I would previously have been in favour of censoring terrorists, hearing what they say and realising how blinkered, brainwashed and two-faced they are (were?) probably speeded up the process.......every "how can you condone XXXXX" or "sort out your own house" being met with "what about what the Brits did ?" showed the true colours.....

Watching them disown murderers only to later campaign for their release is another angle that we'd never have seen if Section 31 was still in place.

So yup, FG were wrong on that one. No argument here.

Honestly.
Look I can see you haven't much knowledge on the facts surrounding anything you bring up on the subject of the republicanism and it's objectives etc - and that you seem to be acting through emotion due to your brothers college mate being killed. But hey thats free speech, men and women died for you to have that- enjoy it

B2k

RealityCheck wrote: »

But whats the difference between them being the same or not? They are both similar centre right parties. I mean if FG took over tomorrow they would just be continuing what FF are doing.

True.. But I don't think Enda Kenny has the right intelligence or attitude and if anything he'd be worse.. I mean, FF didn't win the last election, Enda Kenny lost it.. It should have been a landslide victory for FG if he had played his cards right.. He could still make Cowens Gov. look stupid if he quit the bitching and mudslinging and came up with his own ideas instead of bashing FFs..

Thanks for all the replies to my thread but what I was hoping for was someone could give me maybe four or five policies or pieces of legislation that either party brought into effect while in government that changed Irish politics..

Ye're right about one of FF's best moments being their involvement in the peace process.. But what else have they achieved..? Their introducion of corporate tax cuts to ride the recent boom would have to be one that changed the country (even if their is a recession on ATM.) What have FG done while in Gov..?

I don't know how anyone else here feels about the PD's but IMO they definatly made a contribution to Irish politics and the way the Gov was run..

But having said all that I'm not as knowledable as some of you lot...

irish_bob

the reason fianna fail and fine gael are so alike is because fine gael try to be too much like fianna fail minus the inherrent corruption which fianna fail have almost a monopoly on

fine gael cant do the all things to all men thing the way fianna fail can, they cant do the kind of populism that we irish lap up , like fianna fail can

they need to become a real conservative party and stop being so bloody sensitive , enda kenny screw up royally recently by stating that hes against public sector pay cuts , there is an opening for a real conservative party if only fine gael would take it

Taxipete29

[QUOTE=B2k;58935828Their introducion of corporate tax cuts to ride the recent boom would have to be one that changed the country (even if their is a recession on ATM.) [/QUOTE]

It was Ruairi Quinn as Minister for Finance that introduced the 12.5% corporation tax, not FF. Just to clarify.