Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

Dan_Solo

Amazing how any party offering the public what they want is now damned as being "populist".
I'm still waiting for anybody to come up with a definition for populist other than "popular but I oppose it".

nagirrac

alastair wrote: »

I'm not seeing any named individuals accused of shooting anyone.

You are dodging the question I asked. The identity of the soldiers involved were protected during the Saville inquiry, but obviously their names are known to their commanding officers.

You have been quite active on the Gerry Adams thread justifying his arrest based on the testimony to a journalist of sworn enemies of his who opposed the GFA. In contrast soldier L testified at the sworn judicial Saville inquiry that his commanding officer, Derek Wilford, ordered him to shoot at civilians. He admitted to shooting civilians, and also testified he saw other paratroopers shooting civilians, one of whom was literally cut in half from the number of shots fired.

It's a simple question. Should the PSNI seek to arrest and prosecute those responsible for the murder of 14 unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday? Yes or no will suffice.

alastair wrote: »

Derek Wilford is outside the jurisdiction of the state - so maybe if he was extradited, he might be able to tell them something, but why do you think he's bound to know who shot whom?

Tell them something? A paratrooper who was there testified that Derek Wilford ordered him to shoot civilians. Why have the PSNI not sought Derek Wilford's extradition?

marienbad

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Amazing how any party offering the public what they want is now damned as being "populist".
I'm still waiting for anybody to come up with a definition for populist other than "popular but I oppose it".

I think populist is indeed offering the public what they want but either having no intention of delivering on it or knowing they will not be called on to deliver it. Basically appealing to the lowest common denominator .

Popular is just whoever tops the poll.

maccored

a few decades back SF were all talk about a peace process that they wanted to help bring forward and they delivered. In fact in the 30 years since i first voted for them, they've never (as far as I can remember anyway) promised anything they couldnt deliver. I'll keep voting for them until they dont deliver - but they are a long, long way from being populist - considering they usually do what they say.

marienbad wrote: »

I think populist is indeed offering the public what they want but either having no intention of delivering on it or knowing they will not be called on to deliver it. Basically appealing to the lowest common denominator .

Popular is just whoever tops the poll.

Dan_Solo

marienbad wrote: »

I think populist is indeed offering the public what they want but either having no intention of delivering on it or knowing they will not be called on to deliver it. Basically appealing to the lowest common denominator .

Popular is just whoever tops the poll.

By that definition Ireland have never had anything other than populist governments.
Policies can be popular, even if the party with the policy isn't.
So really, no, you haven't differentiated between popular and populist at all.

marienbad

Dan_Solo wrote: »

By that definition Ireland have never had anything other than populist governments.
Policies can be popular, even if the party with the policy isn't.
So really, no, you haven't differentiated between popular and populist at all.

This current government isn't populist, Liam Cosgrave's government wasn't populist , the Ray McSharry of 1987 - Mack the Knife wasn't populist. And there are lots of other examples .

On the other side Jack Lynch's 1977 campaign, victory and subsequent government were the poster boys for populist government and sowed some of the seeds for todays disasters .

Populist used to mean for the people against the elites but it seems to have has morphed into a pejorative term .

Dan_Solo

marienbad wrote: »

This current government isn't populist, Liam Cosgrave's government wasn't populist , the Ray McSharry of 1987 - Mack the Knife wasn't populist. And there are lots of other examples .

On the other side Jack Lynch's 1977 campaign, victory and subsequent government were the poster boys for populist government and sowed some of the seeds for todays disasters

You say this is populist and that isn't populist with absolutely no attempt to say why.

marienbad

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You say this is populist and that isn't populist with absolutely no attempt to say why.

Well I already gave you my definition of what populism is in the pejorative sense so I didn't think you needed more than that. So for example Jack Lynch was highly popular and populist by promising to abolish domestic rates, road tax etc and we have floundering about ever since to find a method to fund local government. And you can draw a straight line from those days to water charges refuse charges etc.

Just sticking with FF the 1987 Ray McSharry was anything but populist when as Minister of Finance he did what was necessary to pull us back from the worst of the Haughey excesses . The fact that he wanted out of politics may have helped him make those decisions .

That is just my opinion and in the narrow context of the insult usage of the word in this thread

If you want the original meaning of populist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm not seeing any named individuals accused of shooting anyone - Derek Wilford is outside the jurisdiction of the state - so maybe if he was extradited, he might be able to tell them something, but why do you think he's bound to know who shot whom?

Simple.
Just arrest the guys that were wearing hats or the ones their colleagues point at?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Simple.
Just arrest the guys that were wearing hats or the ones their colleagues point at?

For a man who can't accept that Jean McConville was murdered, you're remarkably open to bringing charges on such shaky foundations with regard to Bloody Sunday. It's as if there was some manner of hypocrisy at play.

Zubeneschamali

marienbad wrote: »

I think populist is indeed offering the public what they want but either having no intention of delivering on it or knowing they will not be called on to deliver it.

No, that's just lying.

Populist is promising the public what they want, and then delivering it even though it is mad. Like cutting taxes and increasing spending across the board. Everybody wins!

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

For a man who can't accept that Jean McConville was murdered, you're remarkably open to bringing charges on such shaky foundations with regard to Bloody Sunday. It's as if there was some manner of hypocrisy at play.

We know who fired the shots on Bloody Sunday and we know why they were killed.

We don't know either in Jean McConville's case.

turnikett1

Happyman42 wrote: »

We know who fired the shots on Bloody Sunday and we know why they were killed.

We don't know either in Jean McConville's case.

I'm pretty sure we do. I'm going to go with "PIRA" being the who and "alleged informer" being the why.

Happyman42

turnikett1 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure we do. I'm going to go with "PIRA" being the who and "alleged informer" being the why.

To bring a charge we need a name and you are correct she was an 'alleged informer' but we don't know that either as files pertinent to the case have been submerged by the British who we have seen in Widgery are not averse to covering up and whitewashing what they did.
Baroness O'Loan couldn't find evidence that she was an informer, which means that 'she couldn't find any evidence, not that she was or wasn't.
The PSNI, up to this point, can't find any evidence to suggest that Adams either ordered or was involved in the killing.

We know who the soldiers where on Bloody Sunday, we know who was giving them orders, we know the dead where innocent civil rights protestors and all the evidence relating to what happened is there and on record.
We have no charges against anyone. Similar story in Ballymurphy.

Dan_Solo

marienbad wrote: »

Well I already gave you my definition of what populism is in the pejorative sense so I didn't think you needed more than that. So for example Jack Lynch was highly popular and populist by promising to abolish domestic rates, road tax etc and we have floundering about ever since to find a method to fund local government. And you can draw a straight line from those days to water charges refuse charges etc.

If Jack Lynch was both popular and populist that doesn't differentiate.
So you're back to "his policies were popular but I don't like them."

marienbad wrote: »

That is just my opinion and in the narrow context of the insult usage of the word in this thread

If you want the original meaning of populist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Yes, and that says there's hardly any consensus on what the word means, and is only ever used as a perjorative (as you seem to).
If a word can only ever be used as an insult, how can it ever be properly descriptive?

Dan_Solo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, that's just lying.

Populist is promising the public what they want, and then delivering it even though it is mad. Like cutting taxes and increasing spending across the board. Everybody wins!

Thanks. So again, the only real definition of "populist" is "popular but I don't like it."

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Thanks. So again, the only real definition of "populist" is "popular but I don't like it."

There are two meanings to the word populist, a benign and a malign version.

The benign version (which supporters of SF would like) see populism as "a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners."

The malign version would reference the fact that Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Peron were all populists or jumped on the populist bandwagons of their time. Populism in these cases is seen as giving in to the will of the people despite the consequences beyond the individual decision or appealing to the baser needs and views of the people e.g. Brits Out.

A clear example of this in Ireland is the "burn the bondholders" populism favoured on the left. Despite the fact that nobody knows who the bondholders are/were, we still have fringe left groups arguing for the burning of bondholders. They call for this with no heed to the consequences for the Irish economy of burning the bondholders such as a deeper more prolonged recession with increased emigration and a further reduction in general living standards. Of course, such a result would be blamed on the mystical bondholders who took out vengance on the innocent Irish people.

I don't think there is disagreement on the fact that SF are populist. The question merely is, are they the benign form of populism or the more malign version? My view is the latter.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

There are two meanings to the word populist, a benign and a malign version.

The benign version (which supporters of SF would like) see populism as "a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners."

Well I haven't seen a single thing about "sticking it to the man" in any of their promotional material. You will no doubt say any policy of theirs is the equivalent or they imply or something, but it simply isn't there.
http://www.diarmaidcondon.com/who-are-the-bondholders-ireland-wont-burn/
I don't think there's any mystery who the bondholders are. They are banks and hedge funds.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well I haven't seen a single thing about "sticking it to the man" in any of their promotional material. You will no doubt say any policy of theirs is the equivalent or they imply or something, but it simply isn't there.
http://www.diarmaidcondon.com/who-are-the-bondholders-ireland-wont-burn/
I don't think there's any mystery who the bondholders are. They are banks and hedge funds.

They are actually mostly pension funds. The named bondholders hold the bonds on behalf of investors, and those investors are very often pension funds.

marienbad

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If Jack Lynch was both popular and populist that doesn't differentiate.
So you're back to "his policies were popular but I don't like them."

Yes, and that says there's hardly any consensus on what the word means, and is only ever used as a perjorative (as you seem to).
If a word can only ever be used as an insult, how can it ever be properly descriptive?

You can be both popular and populist , in fact individuals and or parties usually are, at least for a time .

And no I don't just use it as a pejorative term .in fact I don't think I ever use it at all. You asked for a definition and in the context of the usage in this thread I gave one, no more or less.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

maccored

If the pension funds were part of the unguaranteed bonds, then I'd much rather the pension funds got slashed than us - the general punters - having to pick up the tab.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

If the pension funds were part of the unguaranteed bonds, then I'd much rather the pension funds got slashed than us - the general punters - having to pick up the tab.

But if the pension funds were slashed the general punters probably would have to pick up the tab anyway.

maccored

this way we are definitely picking up the tab

marienbad wrote: »

But if the pension funds were slashed the general punters probably would have to pick up the tab anyway.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

this way we are definitely picking up the tab

True , but the point about the simplistic nature of 'burn the bondholders' slogan still stands though .

maccored

which is something sf never said. they wanted to burn the unguaranteed bondholders. that was a much better option. It was interesting the other night on telly where Eoin ó Broin cut strips of his opponents in Tonight with Vincent Browne:

"you come on this show and start talk about 'fantasy economics' - read the stuff before you decide to dismiss it."

That reminds me of posters on boards to be honest

marienbad wrote: »

True , but the point about the simplistic nature of 'burn the bondholders' slogan still stands though .

Zubeneschamali

maccored wrote: »

which is something sf never said. they wanted to burn the unguaranteed bondholders.

It depends on when you asked them, and what was trending. They were for the bank bailout before they were against it.

maccored

I love the dis-information

They voted initially for it but had no info... when the supporting legislation came out later they made an informed decision - and voted against it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It depends on when you asked them, and what was trending. They were for the bank bailout before they were against it.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

I love the dis-information

They voted initially for it but had no info... when the supporting legislation came out later they made an informed decision - and voted against it.

How is that dis-information ? Is it not just a statement of fact ?

maccored

doesnt hurt to educate oneself on these things rather than repeating bull**** ones hears on the telly - http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/election-2011/sinn-fein-defends-bank-guarantee-vote-144934.html