Gilmore should shut up, and be happy with the result

steelcityblues

He just said in a faux righteous voice on RTE Radio 1 that SF campaigned for a 'no' based on political opportunism.

I guess that opportunism never happened under his watch in opposition.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpr2zaXvb4M

Just be happy with the result, Eamon!

meglome

steelcityblues wrote: »

He just said in a faux righteous voice on RTE Radio 1 that SF campaigned for a 'no' based on political opportunism.

Well in this instance he's right.

steelcityblues

meglome wrote: »

Well in this instance he's right.

We can't call it opportunism by SF, unless they do something else in government (if that happens in the near future). Unlike Labour, under their current leader.

Gilmore should have been smart enough to avoid attacking SF, given the labour party's drop in support. Maybe he is not smart enough?

C14N

steelcityblues wrote: »

We can't call it opportunism by SF, unless they do something else in government (if that happens in the near future). Unlike Labour, under their current leader.

Gilmore should have been smart enough to avoid attacking SF, given the labour party's drop in support. Maybe he is not smart enough?

So would it have been smarter to roll over and say "but SF ran a very noble and honest campaign, devoid of attempts at political gain, they really are a great bunch and I would totally keep supporting them"?

Criticising the opposition would gain him some more support, or at least damage them I would have said.

steelcityblues

C14N wrote: »

So would it have been smarter to roll over and say "but SF ran a very noble and honest campaign, devoid of attempts at political gain, they really are a great bunch and I would totally keep supporting them"?

Criticising the opposition would gain him some more support, or at least damage them I would have said.

Who do you think ran a 'noble and honest' campaign for the yes side? I got tired of hearing 'stability' and 'certainty' all the time on the radio/TV, just like I did when Higgins or Boyd Barrett would keep on repeating 'austerity'.

Most of the people involved in the media campaigns were clowns to me, regardless of them being 'yes' or 'no'.

Important to note that O'Broin of SF did not actually have a go at Labour, before Gilmore spoke. it was a really stupid thing by Gilmore, IMO.

Bullseye1

He was guilty of opportunism himself before the election. These politicians have no scruples and we seem to forget that every time there is an election.

later12

meglome wrote: »

Well in this instance he's right.

How?
As much as I disagree with Sinn Fein on most issues, I think it's pretty cheap to tell any side who dedicated a lot of time and effort to the campaign that they were only being opportunistic in their overall stance.

Sure, both sides were guilty of displays of opportunism during the campaign. That's politics. But suggesting that Sinn Fein, an economically left party with strong social democratic principles was only opposing the overall Treaty out of opportunism? I think that's a little incredible. Anyone would have expected a party of their political colours to oppose this treaty.

I wouldn't be as forthright as the OP necessarily, but yes I think he should perhaps do what is generally becoming of both victors and losers, which is to commence graceful mode and put down the mud now.

It would be nice to say this was an honest and honourable campaign, but lets be honest, it was the exact opposite. The least that could happen now is for there to be some level of dignity attached to the outcome.

C14N

steelcityblues wrote: »

Who do you think ran a 'noble and honest' campaign for the yes side? I got tired of hearing 'stability' and 'certainty' all the time on the radio/TV, just like I did when Higgins or Boyd Barrett would keep on repeating 'austerity'.

Never said anyone did, not sure why you think I said that.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Important to note that O'Broin of SF did not actually have a go at Labour, before Gilmore spoke. it was a really stupid thing by Gilmore, IMO.

Yeah but it's not like SF have never had a go at Labour is it?

Dirk Gently

C14N wrote: »

So would it have been smarter to roll over.

Probably yeah. He could be looking to SF for a merger to take in whats left of labour after the next election.

RobbingBandit

Political Opportunism would be Labour signing a deal with students last year promising not to introduce fees or raise the registration fee then doing the complete opposite.

My name is URL

Gilmore realises that his party have lost a lot of support in recent months. The gulf between the working and middle classes is very apparent from the results of the referendum, and Labour know that many of the people that would have supported them in the past decided not to side with them on this issue at all. Of course he's going to fling manure at SF over it.. he knows full well that his party are losing votes to them. It's not opportunistic on SF's part though.. Labour are the ones diminishing their own support base.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

How?
As much as I disagree with Sinn Fein on most issues, I think it's pretty cheap to tell any side who dedicated a lot of time and effort to the campaign that they were only being opportunistic in their overall stance.

Sure, both sides were guilty of displays of opportunism during the campaign. That's politics. But suggesting that Sinn Fein, an economically left party with strong social democratic principles was only opposing the overall Treaty out of opportunism? I think that's a little incredible. Anyone would have expected a party of their political colours to oppose this treaty.

I wouldn't be as forthright as the OP necessarily, but yes I think he should perhaps do what is generally becoming of both victors and losers, which is to commence graceful mode and put down the mud now.

It would be nice to say this was an honest and honourable campaign, but lets be honest, it was the exact opposite. The least that could happen now is for there to be some level of dignity attached to the outcome.

This is specifically about what Gilmore said about Sinn Fein being opportunists and he is right about that. There are a number of posts here from the last general election were I said basically the same about Labour.

The main issue I'd have is Sinn Fein use all these referenda as opportunities to grow their own support, much more so than anyone else. They go out of their way to misdirect and lie, the outcome of the referendum is almost irrelevant. Once the government is looking for a Yes they will default to a no. It's not that any party has clean hands but some are worse than others.

later12

meglome wrote: »

The main issue I'd have is Sinn Fein us all these referenda as opportunities to grow their own support, much more so than anyone else. They go out of their way to misdirect and lie, the outcome of the referendum is almost irrelevant. Once the government is looking for a Yes they will default to a no.

Right... despite the fact that Sinn Fein supported the last two Government-proposed amendments to the Constitution

I know that Sinn Fein misdirect and lie. Of course they do. But that's rather different to saying that their overall stance - opposition to the TSCG - was opportunistic and not based on their strongly economically left, social democratic position on the political spectrum.

Eamon Gilmore is playing politics here. It would have been pretty bizarre for a party of SF's economic philosophy to support the TSCG.

Laminations

meglome wrote: »

This is specifically about what Gilmore said about Sinn Fein being opportunists and he is right about that. There are a number of posts here from the last general election were I said basically the same about Labour.

The main issue I'd have is Sinn Fein use all these referenda as opportunities to grow their own support, much more so than anyone else. They go out of their way to misdirect and lie, the outcome of the referendum is almost irrelevant. Once the government is looking for a Yes they will default to a no. It's not that any party has clean hands but some are worse than others.

They also use referenda to campaign and promote the party and increase the profile of members - I could be wrong but did any other party put their own politicians faces on their posters?

That said, Gilmore was over stretching in his comments

later12

Laminations wrote: »

They also use referenda to campaign and promote the party and increase the profile of members - I could be wrong but did any other party put their own politicians faces on their posters?

Did Sinn Fein do that?

K-9

later12 wrote: »

Right... despite the fact that Sinn Fein supported the last two Government-proposed amendments to the Constitution

I know that Sinn Fein misdirect and lie. Of course they do. But that's rather different to saying that their overall stance - opposition to the TSCG - was opportunistic and not based on their strongly economically left, social democratic position on the political spectrum.

Eamon Gilmore is playing politics here. It would have been pretty bizarre for a party of SF's economic philosophy to support the TSCG.

Tbh I think their Republican element means they'll always oppose EU Referenda.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh I think their Republican element means they'll always oppose EU Referenda.

Sorry for the shameless pedantry, but Nationalism as opposed to Republicanism. Lots of us would describe ourselves as Republican and in favour of European integration.

And yes, that does mean that SF will probably always oppose European political integration. But as much as one might disagree with their stance, that's their political philosophy - it's not opportunism.

Opportunism is Eamon Gilmore using an election victory to sling mud at the party which appears to be stealing his working class thunder.

Godge

meglome wrote: »

This is specifically about what Gilmore said about Sinn Fein being opportunists and he is right about that. There are a number of posts here from the last general election were I said basically the same about Labour.

The main issue I'd have is Sinn Fein use all these referenda as opportunities to grow their own support, much more so than anyone else. They go out of their way to misdirect and lie, the outcome of the referendum is almost irrelevant. Once the government is looking for a Yes they will default to a no. It's not that any party has clean hands but some are worse than others.

I agree, and while I can only speak for posters in Dublin, it was only the opportunistic "no" side that had politicians photographs on the posters - Socialists with Paul Murphy and SF with various would-be councillors and TDs. Both parties were campaigning with more than half an eye on the next local and European elections. If that wasn't opportunistic, I don't know what is.

At least if they had put the face of the leader on the poster, they could have claimed it was part of the national campaign, putting the faces of future local and European candidates was opportunistic.

washman3

Tiocfaidh Eamon's La'
Have no doubt about it. It it may be a lot closer than he thinks.!!

Sand

C14N wrote: »

So would it have been smarter to roll over and say "but SF ran a very noble and honest campaign, devoid of attempts at political gain, they really are a great bunch and I would totally keep supporting them"?

Criticising the opposition would gain him some more support, or at least damage them I would have said.

Not Gilmore - he is the least respected major political leader in the country. An opportunist of the highest order, and badly caught out as a liar in the wikileaks debacle.

Gilmore attacking anyone as an opportunist is an occasion for a bit of a chuckle. Nothing more. He'll probably do more harm to Labor than anyone else as his desperation is becoming more apparent.

Sinn Fein can be opportunistic, but in a lot of cases they are entirely genuine in their crazed, stupid and deranged views.

gerryo777

later12 wrote: »

How?
As much as I disagree with Sinn Fein on most issues, I think it's pretty cheap to tell any side who dedicated a lot of time and effort to the campaign that they were only being opportunistic in their overall stance.

Sure, both sides were guilty of displays of opportunism during the campaign. That's politics. But suggesting that Sinn Fein, an economically left party with strong social democratic principles was only opposing the overall Treaty out of opportunism? I think that's a little incredible. Anyone would have expected a party of their political colours to oppose this treaty.

I wouldn't be as forthright as the OP necessarily, but yes I think he should perhaps do what is generally becoming of both victors and losers, which is to commence graceful mode and put down the mud now.

It would be nice to say this was an honest and honourable campaign, but lets be honest, it was the exact opposite. The least that could happen now is for there to be some level of dignity attached to the outcome.

In order to have an honest and honourable campaign we would have to honest and honourable participants, we sadly, have neither!

Gilmore will do/say anything to peg SF back in the polls, talk about being opportunistic! Kettle/pot/black comes to mind.

Dermighty

I didn't even vote.

I couldn't give a ****.

gerryo777

Dermighty wrote: »

I didn't even vote.

I couldn't give a ****.

Well said!:rolleyes:

washman3

Dermighty wrote: »

I didn't even vote.

I couldn't give a ****.

Good man you are.!!
Guarantee you that very soon you will care a big ****
Enjoy that barstool tonight.

Good loser

later12 wrote: »

Sorry for the shameless pedantry, but Nationalism as opposed to Republicanism. Lots of us would describe ourselves as Republican and in favour of European integration.

And yes, that does mean that SF will probably always oppose European political integration. But as much as one might disagree with their stance, that's their political philosophy - it's not opportunism.

Opportunism is Eamon Gilmore using an election victory to sling mud at the party which appears to be stealing his working class thunder.

I have no doubt that if SF were in power they wouldn't have the slightest problem supporting every single article of this Treaty.

They opposed every single EU referendum yet I am not aware of them proposing to change any of them in their various campaigns.

later12

Good loser wrote: »

I have no doubt that if SF were in power they wouldn't have the slightest problem supporting every single article of this Treaty.

Things do change when parties go into power, and their positions do have to become more pragmatic, sometimes at the expense of their principles. Just look at Labour reps defending conservative, supply side German economic theory. However, what you are suggesting is nevertheless hypothetical and unknowable to an extent that any debate on it is going to be a little ridiculous.

Moreover, it's hardly relevant. Gilmore accused SF's stance of being down to political opportunism. That's totally off the wall. Sinn Fein's position during the campaign is totally in line with what one would expect from a group who can be classified as within the social democratic economic model of socialism.

swampgas

later12 wrote: »

Sinn Fein's position during the campaign is totally in line with what one would expect from a group who can be classified as within the social democratic economic model of socialism.

Out of curiosity, did you accept SF's proposition that we could still have access to the ESM even if we voted to reject the treaty?

As far as I can see, nobody else believed that this was a reasonable position to take. Regardless of whether a No vote was in line with their political principles, arguing that ESM access would still be possible was, I think, an extraordinarily dangerous myth to peddle.

later12

swampgas wrote: »

Out of curiosity, did you accept SF's proposition that we could still have access to the ESM even if we voted to reject the treaty?

It appears to me that we could agree a plan to access an ESM bailout between July up until midnight on February 28th, 2013, yes. We would then be able to continue to draw down bailout funding in 2014 and beyond. This is written into the TSCG and ESM treaties.

After the 1st of March 2013, however, it's quite clear that Ireland would not be able to access ESM funding.

Having said that, there would remain the possibility of securing a second bailout under the same article which was used to grant our first bailout, an article which would be totally unaffected by the ratification (rejection) of the Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination & Governance. It wouldn't be possible to secure an ESM bailout, but I don't think one could rule out a different type of bailout with any degree of confidence.

However, on balance, I think the first thing that would have happened is that the Minister for Finance would be inviting the EU Commission to Dublin to explore the possibility of an early bailout Mou under the ESM before it becomes unavailable.

Oasis_Dublin

later12 wrote: »

Sorry for the shameless pedantry, but Nationalism as opposed to Republicanism. Lots of us would describe ourselves as Republican and in favour of European integration.

Sinn Féin are more than a nationalist party in all fairness.


And I mean that in terms of political ideology, and nothing else!

later12

I know.

But it is nationalism (or nationalist sentimentalism) that appears to drive their opposition to EU political & economic integration.

Oasis_Dublin

later12 wrote: »

I know.

But it is nationalism (or nationalist sentimentalism) that appears to drive their opposition to EU political & economic integration.

But in the same way that you said there are pro-European Republicans, there are also pro-European Irish nationalists.