Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

turnikett1

I am not for or against Sinn Fein to be honest. I don't have any idea where I stand politically at the moment because I'm just so disillusioned with all political parties and movements at present. I am left wing at heart but my run ins with left wing parties in Ireland have been pretty bad. After having been in Europe it's not much better to be honest.

But regardless, I am curious as to why people give Sinn Fein a lot of grief. I mainly see it on boards but I have seen it in other places and real life too. If you think FF/FG/Labour are preferrable please tell why

srsly78

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

edit: specifically -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism) Think North Korea or Cambodia in the past.

turnikett1

srsly78 wrote: »

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

edit: specifically -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism) Think North Korea or Cambodia in the past.

Sinn Fein have nothing to do with Marxism in the slightest.

comongethappy

My main beef with them is that they are the party of "No".

Despite a 10-15 billion annual deficit in the the government coffers, SF said no to every spending cut, however modest & every tax increase since 2008.

Their solution to government debt was to inflate the economy through yet more debt.

They seem to dislike wealth creators, enterprise & any household with the audacity to earn over 100k gross per year.

Lazy populism with no bandwagon not jumped upon.

Plus, their leadership being former IRA members/commanders doesn't help.

I hate Sinn Fein. I'm not that clued into politics, compared to the average poster here, but my reason for disliking them is fairly simple.

There was a voting yokey on there a while back (can't think of the word.. it's gone out of my head). Anyway, they wanted to vote no to it, fair enough.

But their posters were blatantly misleading lies, clearly trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. 'NO To the Household Charge' was their big one, that I seen everywhere. I can't remember the exact ins and outs, but i do strongly recall that a no vote would have nothing to do with the household charge and even though I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, even I realise that the country is broke and scrapping the household charge would either 1) not happen in the first place, or 2) if it did, be immediately replaced with a similar tax.

I found the attitude and manipulative nature of their posters for that to be in extremely poor taste, and since have had nothing but a strong negative view.


I'm sure other posters here have much more valid and logical reasons for not liking them, but that's my one. (as an aside, much as I may be kicked to death for saying it, I actually kinda like Enda, and think he's made the best of a bad situation in many ways. No matter who went in was gonna tax the life out of us).


EDIT: Referendum!!!

sheesh

Sinn Fein's Martin Ferris: he has spent a number of years in jail for gun running for the provisional IRA.

Bad enough for you?
That is fairly dodgey is it not?

I voted for him btw (anything is better than letting in FF's Tom Mac)

turnikett1

So they're a petty populist party with no real aims? Sounds about right, definitely validates the dislike garnered towards them. To be honest when I think about I don't recall or see any of Sinn Fein's policies and projects apart from uniting Ireland and just saying No

Sand

Odd. The OP is politically experienced enough to be disillusioned with all political parties and movements and have had several run ins with left wing parties. Yet at the same time is completely uninformed on why SF is transfer toxic. Surely OP you'd have picked up enough to have a the general gist of why SF is not taken as a serious option by the majority of voters in the same way FG/Labour or even FF are?

Stheno

turnikett1 wrote: »

So they're a petty populist party with no real aims? Sounds about right, definitely validates the dislike garnered towards them. To be honest when I think about I don't recall or see any of Sinn Fein's policies and projects apart from uniting Ireland and just saying No

I'm probably older than some of the other posters, but for me it's the fact that they seem to have no grasp of any sort of economic reality, and their links with the IRA from the times of the troubles

turnikett1

Sand wrote: »

Odd. The OP is politically experienced enough to be disillusioned with all political parties and movements and have had several run ins with left wing parties. Yet at the same time is completely uninformed on why SF is transfer toxic. Surely OP you'd have picked up enough to have a the general gist of why SF is not taken as a serious option by the majority of voters in the same way FG/Labour or even FF are?

Honestly no. I haven't followed Irish politics in quite some time until recently and when I did I never ever tuned into what SF had to say because I assumed it was just rubbish. But, I remember hearing that support for SF is growing so this sparked my curiousity. I've always just known SF as the political wing of the PIRA but never bothered to see what they had to offer the Republic.

Like I said earlier, apart from their republicanism and general "No" to everything I haven't ever heard them proposing socio-economic ideas and alternatives for the Republic.

sheesh

turnikett1 wrote: »

Honestly no. I haven't followed Irish politics in quite some time until recently and when I did I never ever tuned into what SF had to say because I assumed it was just rubbish. But, I remember hearing that support for SF is growing so this sparked my curiousity. I've always just known SF as the political wing of the PIRA but never bothered to see what they had to offer the Republic.

Like I said earlier, apart from their republicanism and general "No" to everything I haven't ever heard them proposing socio-economic ideas and alternatives for the Republic.

when did you last follow irish politics? assuming you are not a couple of hundred years old, the further you go back the dodgier Sinn Fein appear. they have only recently been given access to controling national budgets and creating positions national policy in northern Ireland.

carpejugulum

Populists with zero ideas how to create wealth. They only want to redistribute and reduce wealth and are proud of it.

Kermit.de.frog

They would drive the multinationals out of Ireland and because so much of the workforce is dependent on them factories they would have serious aversion to Sinn Féin.

For Forks Sake

sheesh wrote: »

Sinn Fein's Martin Ferris: he has spent a number of years in jail for gun running for the provisional IRA.

Bad enough for you?
That is fairly dodgey is it not?

I voted for him btw (anything is better than letting in FF's Tom Mac)

Also collected Pierce McAulay and Kevin Walsh (the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe) from Castlerea when they were released in 2009

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/sf-defends-ferris-as-freed-mccabe-killers-elude-media-98117.html

Mr Ferris’s Dáil colleague Arthur Morgan said Sinn Féin had supported the decision to greet Det McCabe’s killers.

Know me by the company I keep and all that.....

RandomName2

turnikett1 wrote: »

But regardless, I am curious as to why people give Sinn Fein a lot of grief. I mainly see it on boards but I have seen it in other places and real life too.

• They are very left wing, which I suppose will put off most right wing, and even centrist folk.
• A significant number of their policies (in opposition to those pursued by the government) seem somewhat divorced from reality. Perhaps a consequence of being in perpetual opposition.
• They disowned this country for decades and considered the Dail an illegitimate body. The most recent incarnation of SF was the result of a split among members who wanted to take their seats if elected. They still see the creation of a new country of north and south as their single most important objective.
• SF is the only United Kingdom party here. Many of its most senior members are from Northern Ireland and had an active role in some of the less salubrious events during the Troubles.
• They have ambiguous views on extremist Irish republicanism, past and present.

I think that's mostly it...

Paramite Pie

turnikett1 wrote: »

So they're a petty populist party with no real aims? Sounds about right, definitely validates the dislike garnered towards them. To be honest when I think about I don't recall or see any of Sinn Fein's policies and projects apart from uniting Ireland and just saying No

Probably something they picked up during their time in government with the DUP.:pac:

Dan_Solo

RandomName2 wrote: »

• They are very left wing, which I suppose will put off most right wing, and even centrist folk.

FF, FG and Lab are all centre/right and I don't think there's many want to vote for them next time out!

Dan_Solo

carpejugulum wrote: »

Populists with zero ideas how to create wealth. They only want to redistribute and reduce wealth and are proud of it.

I'm not saying their policies wouldn't cripple the economy (though I find it hard to believe the could do worse than the last two governments) but can you show me where exactly they proclaim the want to reduce the wealth of Ireland?
And what makes you think "redistribute" is an insult?

RandomName2

Dan_Solo wrote: »

FF, FG and Lab are all centre/right and I don't think there's many want to vote for them next time out!

Hmm... indeed. I don't see myself voting for any of those. Don't see myself voting for SF either, of course.

Probably means I just won't be voting!

deandean

a few years back, Sinn Fein decided a woman running for election was a threat to their candidate. they had a campaign against her. they defaced and tore down her posters. they smashed her car.
I don't see how SF could.possibly be seen as fit to take office.

donalh087

It's the cold eyes when he says 'death, certainly.' Thats why I hate them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch5u8YbOyIE

Dan_Solo

deandean wrote: »

a few years back, Sinn Fein decided a woman running for election was a threat to their candidate. they had a campaign against her. they defaced and tore down her posters. they smashed her car.
I don't see how SF could.possibly be seen as fit to take office.

Any party who tears down election posters is 100% getting my vote! Hate the things... :-)

Nodin

deandean wrote: »

a few years back, Sinn Fein decided a woman running for election was a threat to their candidate. they had a campaign against her. they defaced and tore down her posters. they smashed her car.
I don't see how SF could.possibly be seen as fit to take office.

You've a source for that?

Duckjob

comongethappy wrote: »

They seem to dislike wealth creators, enterprise & any household with the audacity to earn over 100k gross per year.

^^
This, for me is the main reason I would never vote for them. I despair for a society that doesn't have any concept of allowing people to reap a reward from working hard to better their position.

quadrifoglio verde

There past association being the political wing of the IRA doesn't bother me. Collins killed people, Dev killed people and connolly did as well.
What I don't like about Sinn Fein is that they take the populist line all the time. Likewise their economic policies don't make much sense. I can't understand them. Thats why I don't vote for them.
Same reason why I don't vote for any socialist parties. They're economic policies don't make sense to me. Its as if there's a great big money tree somewhere, still waiting to be found.
Fg and FF economic policies make some reasonable sense for me and as a result Id be more inclined to vote for them. Don't get me wrong, I hate FF's current populist stance (anti property tax even though they started it, anti water tax even though they started it etc) so Im left with FG.
Who I hate for the Conservative stance on issues such as Gay marriage and abortion. However from an economics point of view are most in line with right wing economic thinking.

What Id love to see is either a party with many libertarian views. Left when it comes to freedom of the individual (end the war on drugs as it doesn't work, pro gay marriage, pro abortion) and at the same time on the right when it comes to economic policy. Unfortunately in the country of parish pump politics I can't see that happening any time soon.
Also, a party like libertarian movement in the US is too radical for most of the public to accept, mainly through fear of upsetting the status quo. You usually hear the line of who'll build the roads if there is no government, Id argue who built the roads when there was no government.

robindch

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

What I don't like about Sinn Fein is that they take the populist line all the time. Likewise their economic policies don't make much sense. I can't understand them.

They don't make sense because they know they'll never have to live up to the election promises they make. Which is not to say that all their populist policies are bad - some are not - but the majority are irresponsible, naked populism.

Oh yes, and I'm old enough to remember when SF were the political wing of the kind of people who did this to their fellow human beings in the name of my country:

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

It'll be a chill winter in hell before I give any shinner my vote.

Dan_Solo

I'm sorry, you guys think FF and FG economic policies make sense? :eek:

quadrifoglio verde

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm sorry, you guys think FF and FG economic policies make sense? :eek:

They make more sense for me than the alternative.

frostyjacks

The more popular SF have become in the south, the more grief they get. It was the same in the north, they were vilified and labelled this, that & the other when they were muscling in on the popular vote. Their past is no worse than other party in the state, people just like to get up on their high horse when polling day comes round.

Red Kev

My biggest issue with SF, and the reason that I won't vote for them is that they oppose cuts in the Republic of Ireland but implement the exact same cuts in Northern Ireland where they are in power. Utter populists, something I despise in politics, be it on the left or right.

comongethappy

frostyjacks wrote: »

Their past is no worse than other party in the state

If you can back that up with stats pertaining to murders and/or acts of terror committed by the Labour party, Socialist party or Green Party I'm sure we would love to read it!

Stheno

robindch wrote: »

They don't make sense because they know they'll never have to live up to the election promises they make. Which is not to say that all their populist policies are bad - some are not - but the majority are irresponsible, naked populism.

Oh yes, and I'm old enough to remember when SF were the political wing of the kind of people who did this to their fellow human beings in the name of my country:

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

It'll be a chill winter in hell before I give any shinner my vote.

I will never forget watching the reporting of that incident on the news, it made me feel ill. The pictures of that priest giving last rights is one of the most haunting of the troubles imo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm sorry, you guys think FF and FG economic policies make sense? :eek:

At least they are consistent and follow through on what they propose, what SF do up North is the polar opposite of what they propose down here. There is no consistency in their policies, they oppose property tax and water charges here, yet legislate for similar in the North, which one could argue is more economically depressed due to dependancy on funding from the UK

Red Kev wrote: »

My biggest issue with SF, and the reason that I won't vote for them is that they oppose cuts in the Republic of Ireland but implement the exact same cuts in Northern Ireland where they are in power. Utter populists, something I despise in politics, be it on the left or right.

comongethappy wrote: »

If you can back that up with stats pertaining to murders and/or acts of terror committed by the Labour party, Socialist party or Green Party I'm sure we would love to read it!

quadrifoglio verde

robindch wrote: »

They don't make sense because they know they'll never have to live up to the election promises they make. Which is not to say that all their populist policies are bad - some are not - but the majority are irresponsible, naked populism.

Oh yes, and I'm old enough to remember when SF were the political wing of the kind of people who did this to their fellow human beings in the name of my country:

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

It'll be a chill winter in hell before I give any shinner my vote.

As was the execution by the pro treaty forces at ballyseedy, where they tied 9 anti-treaty republican soldiers and tied them to a landmine, detonated it and those who survived were then machine gunned. Only one person survived by being blown safety.

frostyjacks

comongethappy wrote: »

If you can back that up with stats pertaining to murders and/or acts of terror committed by the Labour party, Socialist party or Green Party I'm sure we would love to read it!

This is the same old rhetoric from 20 years ago, 'SF/IRA two sides of the same coin blah blah murderers blah blah bombers'. Didn't work then, and it doesn't look like it's working now either.

YueHan

Yeah, the heart is to the left but the head is to the right. I have forever voted Labour, (although I once voted for Garrett FitzGerald) but I'm finding it more and more difficult to give subsequent preferences to the Blueshirts. Having said that Enda went up in my estimation after his Dail remarks about the RC Church and his welcome back to the Dail to Jim Higgnins. I swore never to vote FF but the other day I met Mary Fitzpatrick canvassing outside the Chq building in Dublin. She's a sexy little number as well as articulate, she had a good shpeel for me, and she's prettier than her picture, so I may find a vote for her somewhere. Her point was that it's better to fight corruption from inside the tent than shouting ineffectively from outside the tent. I didn't stay to argue with her, but it seems to me that no matter how idealistic before getting elected once the Dail threshold is crossed you're part of a corrupt system which taints you. After the Garda penalty points scandal, I don't remember where I saw a poll which claimed that most of us still don't believe that the Guards as a force are corrupt. As long as the electorate have the attitude 'you'd also do it if you had the chance', we will have a two-tier justice system, one for the nominaclatura and their running dogs, and another for the 'have-nots'. We get the rulers we deserve. In my view corruption is still corruption when it's legalized corruption. Rant over. Joan Burton protected the less well off to some extent in the face of powerful lobby forces, and I'll probably continue to vote Labour with next preferences going to the Shinners. If we exptect Unionists to put up with SF, so can we, even if they're away with the fairies as far as their economic policies in the Republic are concerned.

marienbad

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

As was the execution by the pro treaty forces at ballyseedy, where they tied 9 anti-treaty republican soldiers and tied them to a landmine, detonated it and those who survived were then machine gunned. Only one person survived by being blown safety.

Aside from the fact that what might have happened nearly 100 years ago not being remotely accepted now - what is the relevance ?

Stheno

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is the same old rhetoric from 20 years ago, 'SF/IRA two sides of the same coin blah blah murderers blah blah bombers'. Didn't work then, and it doesn't look like it's working now either.

It's not with their support base which are hard line republicans from the past and the under 35s

Not groups reknowned for their going out to vote.

Go canvass the grey vote on their support for SF, and the current baby boomers, and you'll not find much support

I personally would rather slit my throat than vote SF ever in my lifetime

road_high

comongethappy wrote: »

My main beef with them is that they are the party of "No".

Despite a 10-15 billion annual deficit in the the government coffers, SF said no to every spending cut, however modest & every tax increase since 2008.

Their solution to government debt was to inflate the economy through yet more debt.

They seem to dislike wealth creators, enterprise & any household with the audacity to earn over 100k gross per year.

Lazy populism with no bandwagon not jumped upon.

Plus, their leadership being former IRA members/commanders doesn't help.

Couldn't have put it better myself. As someone who works hard for a living, pays through the nose in taxes and gets zilch back from the state, the prospect of SF with a hand on the finances is frankly terrifying, along with their 6th class grasp of economics. Never a mention of a balanced budget or fiscal prudence in their propaganda. Always the lowest common denominator and never a mention of enterprise or fostering a culture of hard work.

Stheno

Actually slightly OT but has anyone noticed the vast amount of female candidates they appear to have?

They have at least three if not four running in Dublin?

quadrifoglio verde

marienbad wrote: »

Aside from the fact that what might have happened nearly 100 years ago not being remotely accepted now - what is the relevance ?

The relevance is that both FG and FF's history stems from a bitter Civil war, in which atrocities occurring on both sides.
Just because it happened nearly 100 years ago, doesn't mean that their history is blood free as well.

Those who throw out the line of Ill never vote SF because they shot soldiers, innocent people and police officers in the past also need to remember that some of the most prominent founding members of both FF and FG did the very same.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRA for the likes of what happened to jean mcconville, but FF and FG's history isn't blood free

Stheno

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The relevance is that both FG and FF's history stems from a bitter Civil war, in which atrocities occurring on both sides.
Just because it happened nearly 100 years ago, doesn't mean that their history is blood free as well.

Those who throw out the line of Ill never vote SF because they shot soldiers, innocent people and police officers in the past also need to remember that some of the most prominent founding members of both FF and FG did the very same.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRA for the likes of what happened to jean mcconville, but FF and FG's history isn't blood free

SF/IRA did not engage in a civil war though they were terrorists pure and simple. Not happy with an agreement negotiated between two states, they staged a campaign of terror inside and outside their own country and dressed it up as war in their eyes.

marienbad

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The relevance is that both FG and FF's history stems from a bitter Civil war, in which atrocities occurring on both sides.
Just because it happened nearly 100 years ago, doesn't mean that their history is blood free as well.

Those who throw out the line of Ill never vote SF because they shot soldiers, innocent people and police officers in the past also need to remember that some of the most prominent founding members of both FF and FG did the very same.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRA for the likes of what happened to jean mcconville, but FF and FG's history isn't blood free

Times move on , what was acceptable to some in the 1920's was not acceptable in the 1980's never mind this century so you are not comparing like with like. No party with such extreme violence in their recent past would be accepted in government in any mature democracy in the western world.

road_high

Local candidate for them here is an unemployed painter...nothing wrong with being unemployed per se (have been for myself short term through redundancy) but this guy appears to be unemployed since the crash. How is this somebody we are supposed to emulate to public office and understand the concerns of taxpayers?
For me they just cultivate the welfare classes and the anti-everything's. SF's motto is let the rest of us pay for it all and of of course "tax the rich" ie grab it off those that likely have worked very hard for what they have and taken risks/opportunities that come their way...rather than sitting on the dole for 5 years whinging about terrible the govt are.

quadrifoglio verde

Stheno wrote: »

SF/IRA did not engage in a civil war though they were terrorists pure and simple. Not happy with an agreement negotiated between two states, they staged a campaign of terror inside and outside their own country and dressed it up as war in their eyes.

But you could argue that the flying column tactics was equally a campaign of terror against the establishment.
we are talking about members of SF, who later joined FF, burning the legitimate owners of property out of their homes, for no reason other than they were pro British.

I just hate the two facedness off the argument that someone can't vote for SF because of what happened during the troubles (which is nearly finished 20 years ago) but can vote for FF or FG even though they committed equally awful atrocities 80 years ago.

After all not all SF members carried a gun, especially their younger candidates. Why should they be tarred with the same brush as Gerry kelly, when Enda isn't tarred with the same brush as kevin O higgins who signed the death warrants of 77 political prisoners. At the end of the day, neither Enda, or SF's young candidates had any involvement in past events.
Just because it happened 90 years ago, doesn't mean that it should be exempted or forgotten for that matter.

Anyway before I get accused of being a shinner, Ill never vote for them, unless their economic policies are in my opinion whats best for the country.

thomur

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The relevance is that both FG and FF's history stems from a bitter Civil war, in which atrocities occurring on both sides.
Just because it happened nearly 100 years ago, doesn't mean that their history is blood free as well.

Those who throw out the line of Ill never vote SF because they shot soldiers, innocent people and police officers in the past also need to remember that some of the most prominent founding members of both FF and FG did the very same.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRA for the likes of what happened to jean mcconville, but FF and FG's history isn't blood free

I used to be completely anti Sinn Fein and was always a FG supporter. Still support them but I am now a lot more willing to give SF a listen. Would never vote FF because of GV Wright and P Flynn.In 10-20 years SF will prob be in government here.

Dan_Solo

road_high wrote: »

Local candidate for them here is an unemployed painter...nothing wrong with being unemployed per se (have been for myself short term through redundancy) but this guy appears to be unemployed since the crash. How is this somebody we are supposed to emulate to public office and understand the concerns of taxpayers?

I'd rather vote for a dolehead than a lawyer third generation career politician myself. Though maybe not an SF one.

Stheno

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

But you could argue that the flying column tactics was equally a campaign of terror against the establishment.
we are talking about members of SF, who later joined FF, burning the legitimate owners of property out of their homes, for no reason other than they were pro British.

I just hate the two facedness off the argument that someone can't vote for SF because of what happened during the troubles (which is nearly finished 20 years ago) but can vote for FF or FG even though they committed equally awful atrocities 80 years ago.

After all not all SF members carried a gun, especially their younger candidates. Why should they be tarred with the same brush as Gerry kelly, when Enda isn't tarred with the same brush as kevin O higgins who signed the death warrants of 77 political prisoners. At the end of the day, neither Enda, or SF's young candidates had any involvement in past events.
Just because it happened 90 years ago, doesn't mean that it should be exempted or forgotten for that matter.

Anyway before I get accused of being a shinner, Ill never vote for them, unless their economic policies are in my opinion whats best for the country.

Frankly, I think SF in the South are all spit and no substance, using their history in the past to appeal to a generation never affected by their actions up there, and populist claptrap to entice them in.


Absolutely full of crap they are.

And that's on top of my predujice against them for their role in the troubles, I worked with one of their bombers, and met plenty of them, and have no time whatsoever for any of them being in government.

If they got rid of Adams, Ferris, McGuinness etc and reformed as a group with no ties to subversives, and got their act together economically, then fine, but they never will.

Dan_Solo

Stheno wrote: »

Frankly, I think SF in the South are all spit and no substance, using their history in the past to appeal to a generation never affected by their actions up there, and populist claptrap to entice them in.

I find they try to cover up their past as much as possible! Never once heard them go on about the troubles.

guinnessdrinker

Stheno wrote: »

Frankly, I think SF in the South are all spit and no substance, using their history in the past to appeal to a generation never affected by their actions up there, and populist claptrap to entice them in.


Absolutely full of crap they are.

And that's on top of my predujice against them for their role in the troubles, I worked with one of their bombers, and met plenty of them, and have no time whatsoever for any of them being in government.

If they got rid of Adams, Ferris, McGuinness etc and reformed as a group with no ties to subversives, and got their act together economically, then fine, but they never will.

Why do you think they'd be fine if they simply got rid of Adams etc. when you previously said that they are "all spit and no substance" and that "they are full of crap?"

Stheno

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Why do you think they'd be fine if they simply got rid of Adams etc. when you previously said that they are "all spit and no substance" and that "they are full of crap?"

I also said that if they got their act together on the economics side?

So get ride of the paramilitaries, take a course in economics, and then I might take them seriously?

guinnessdrinker

Stheno wrote: »

I also said that if they got their act together on the economics side?

So get ride of the paramilitaries, take a course in economics, and then I might take them seriously?

Fair enough but I don't think they are the only party that need to take a course in economics (FF/FG/Labour spring to mind) to be taken seriously.