Gerry Adams to announce retirement from President of Sinn Fein

tomwaterford

MadYaker wrote: »

Why do you think nobody ever challenged his leadership?

There was no reason to for reasons outlined?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Martin McGuinness I a person whom I would respect but GA to me seems to be fake.

35 years is a long time to get away with being a fake.

tomwaterford

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I guess it depends how you look at it.

Is it the pull of the politician on society or the push of society on the politician.

Do they spend a long time winning people over to their way of thinking (remember people may not want to go) or do they move the party policy to something more attractive to voters even though some members may scream betrayal.


I bet there are lots of hungry young SF TDs and hopeful TDs looking at the independent alliance with ministerial offices and thinking "that could be us".

I'd be more hopeful of politians attracting/convincing people of their policies that populist policies on easy vote winning?


But I do value principle and beliefs above flakiness

MadYaker

tomwaterford wrote: »

There was no reason to for reasons outlined?

You honestly believe that? Despite the fact the Gerry is the number 1 reason SF have never been in gov in the south.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

If it was only going to impact the UK (or rather just GB), then fair enough, he'd have been more then justified just letting them get on with making the bed they were going to have to lie in. But this very directly and very significantly impacts both jurisdictions on this island, and it was well within SF's power to stymie it or extract the best possible (or least worst) outcome for the island.
E
They chose not to because of they're wedded to abstentionism - they chose dogma over people, imo.

Bring down the Tories/DUP to usher in the even more Brexit confused Labour party?

SF will not be taking seats, it is a standing principle of the party since foundation.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

35 years is a long time to get away with being a fake.

Not at all, his view that he was never in the IRA is an example of how most people look at him and roll their eyes. I know to some that he is a cult hero, but to most people he is not liked.

Berserker

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There isn't much point in discussing it with you tbh in light of that.

Nobody there to fill the void, as I expected.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is not indicative of anything other than their awareness of the world in general.

Someone not knowing the name of an ex-politician from another country?

maccored

MadYaker wrote: »

Why is it that in the 34 years he has been leader of SF nobody else challenged him for the position??

hang on - a position where you were constantly on the run and even recently, likely to get arrested on trumped up charges? Who would want that?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bring down the Tories/DUP to usher in the even more Brexit confused Labour party?

SF will not be taking seats, it is a standing principle of the party since foundation.

Well, there you go then - lack of imagination in action when it comes to SF.

Personally, I'd have seen it as a huge opportunity foregone for both SF and GA. If he really is the colossus of the Irish political stage his acolytes claim him to be then there's no need for hiding behind dogma......as the old Vulcan saying goes...."only Nixon could go to China" - if GA is such a totemic individual then setting aside a cherished notion for the greater good should not have been beyond his wit to have arranged. That he didn't even try suggests a leader lacking in something.

Berserker

FrancieBrady wrote: »

35 years is a long time to get away with being a fake.

Charlie Haughey did it for an awful lot longer. Another fine republican.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Not at all, his view that he was never in the IRA is an example of how most people look at him and roll their eyes. I know to some that he is a cult hero, but to most people he is not liked.

I don't think that mattered as much as you think it did.
I remember a poll on it suggesting most people didn't care whether he was or not.

FrancieBrady

Berserker wrote: »

Charlie Haughey did it for an awful lot longer. Another fine republican.

Haughey didn't get away with it though.
Here is Adams, stepping down on his own terms.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, there you go then - lack of imagination in action when it comes to SF.

Personally, I'd have seen it as a huge opportunity foregone for both SF and GA. If he really is the colossus of the Irish political stage his acolytes claim him to be then there's no need for hiding behind dogma......as the old Vulcan saying goes...."only Nixon could go to China" - if GA is such a totemic individual then setting aside a cherished notion for the greater good should not have been beyond his wit to have arranged. That he didn't even try suggests a leader lacking in something.

How would swapping one bunch of confused brexiteers for another one be for the 'greater good'?

Why would you ignore your principles for that?

You are not making much sense there.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think that mattered as much as you think it did.
I remember a poll on it suggesting most people didn't care whether he was or not.

While the last poll showed he was the most unpopular leader. Swings and roundabouts, I thought he was a bit fake. That is all.

tomwaterford

MadYaker wrote: »

You honestly believe that? Despite the fact the Gerry is the number 1 reason SF have never been in gov in the south.

How is there performance in recent elections...have they been improving???


yous are arguing for change...just for the sake it like...without any rational reason other than someone is there a long time (and doing a good job?)

flazio

Anyone else thinking he's setting himself up to go for the next President of Ireland?

johnnyskeleton

Berserker wrote: »

Charlie Haughey did it for an awful lot longer. Another fine republican.

Mod note:

Reviewing your last few posts, please up the standard!

MadYaker

tomwaterford wrote: »

How is there performance in recent elections...have they been improving???


yous are arguing for change...just for the sake it like...without any rational reason other than someone is there a long time (and doing a good job?)

I just think that it's odd in 34 years there wasn't a single person, not one, who thought they might be able to do a better job than Gerry. It's highly unusual for a political party in this country.

maccored

MadYaker wrote: »

I just think that it's odd in 34 years there wasn't a single person, not one, who thought they might be able to do a better job than Gerry. It's highly unusual for a political party in this country.

what are you suggesting? that no-one was allowed? silly, silly talk

FrancieBrady

flazio wrote: »

Anyone else thinking he's setting himself up to go for the next President of Ireland?

He said no to that on the radio.
He would certainly rattle a few cages in that job.

holyhead

MadYaker wrote: »

I just think that it's odd in 34 years there wasn't a single person, not one, who thought they might be able to do a better job than Gerry. It's highly unusual for a political party in this country.

I think he was such a dominant personality and worked so well in tandem with the late Martin McGuinness that possible candidates saw no point in breaking up what was a brilliant double act in terms of leading the party and achieving peace.

tomwaterford

holyhead wrote: »

I think he was such a dominant personality and worked so well in tandem with the late Martin McGuinness that possible candidates saw no point in breaking up what was a brilliant double act in terms of leading the party and achieving peace.

And that the endless upon endless meetings around the country and progress in policy moved at snails pace,ensured all issues/contentious issues were sorted and concensus was achived with everyone happy


The fact so few people left the ranks to join with dissidents is a testament to this policy

Junkyard Tom

Jawgap wrote: »

SF opted to be bound by history and remain wedded to the anachronistic policy of abstentionism.

The nationalist electorate voted for SF in their greatest ever numbers in the last Westminster elections - they turned their back on Westminster. SF hoovered up SDLP seats because they abstain.

Why you, or anyone, thinks SF should swear allegiance to Mrs Windsor and take their seats in Westminster displays your own lack of understanding of the politics of the north.

Jawgap

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The nationalist electorate voted for SF in their greatest ever numbers in the last Westminster elections - they turned their back on Westminster. SF hoovered up SDLP seats because they abstain.

Why you, or anyone, thinks SF should swear allegiance to Mrs Windsor and take their seats in Westminster displays your own lack of understanding of the politics of the north.

That's the whole point......like Nixon going to China, it would been a confounding event that, paradoxically, because of the personalities involved would've been legacy defining.

GA and SF were just like the scorpion in the fairy tale.......they behaved exactly as expected, thus proving they are less likely to evolve and even more likely then ever to remain rooted in their past.

maccored

Jawgap wrote: »

That's the whole point......like Nixon going to China, it would been a confounding event that, paradoxically, because of the personalities involved would've been legacy defining.

GA and SF were just like the scorpion in the fairy tale.......they behaved exactly as expected, thus proving they are less likely to evolve and even more likely then ever to remain rooted in their past.

hmm ...OK, so doing what your electorate want is bad in your book. small wonder we end up with the lying governments that we get if thats a common view

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

That's the whole point......like Nixon going to China, it would been a confounding event that, paradoxically, because of the personalities involved would've been legacy defining.

GA and SF were just like the scorpion in the fairy tale.......they behaved exactly as expected, thus proving they are less likely to evolve and even more likely then ever to remain rooted in their past.

You still haven't outlined what this 'confounding' gesture would achieve bar bringing to power a different set of confoundingly confused brexiteers.

Jawgap

maccored wrote: »

hmm ...OK, so doing what your electorate want is bad in your book. small wonder we end up with the lying governments that we get if thats a common view

No, doing only what the electorate want is populism, doing what's objectively right for your constituents is leadership.

It's probably quite telling that SF only see themselves as being defined only by populism. Probably explains why they'll never be fit for constitutional office - in government you can't just do what's popular, sometimes you have to do what's right, even if it's unpopular.

McMurphy

Jawgap wrote: »

That's the whole point......like Nixon going to China, it would been a confounding event that, paradoxically, because of the personalities involved would've been legacy defining.

GA and SF were just like the scorpion in the fairy tale.......they behaved exactly as expected, thus proving they are less likely to evolve and even more likely then ever to remain rooted in their past.

The post you're replying to explained that SF hoovered up the nationalist vote in the North because they abstain from taking their Westminster seats, yet you think they should take them anyway

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You still haven't outlined what this 'confounding' gesture would achieve bar bringing to power a different set of confoundingly confused brexiteers.

Well, actually, I did. Hence my reference to legacy defining.

The whole point of the Nixon analogy is that it demonstrates what can be achieved when leaders, such as GA, park ideology in favour of leadership. "Tricky Dicky" is properly reviled for leaving "a trainload of **** behind him that could fertilise the Sinai" but him, of all people, going to China is recognised for the seismic geopolitical event it was (and it still resonates today).

GA and SF, imo, had such a moment handed to him after the last GE in the UK, and bottled it. Electorally, it did them no harm......it was the safe play and guaranteed that the base support would be protected, but it just confirmed what everyone else thought about them. If they really wanted to grab that middle ground, and move beyond their slackening showing in the polls, he and they needed to be a bit braver and a bit more imaginative.

Junkyard Tom

Jawgap wrote: »

That's the whole point......like Nixon going to China, it would been a confounding event that, paradoxically, because of the personalities involved would've been legacy defining.

Sweet naivety. SF swearing allegiance to Mrs Windsor and sitting in the parliament of 'the enemy' against their core principles and betraying their electorate? I don't think you understand how bizarrely your political 'advice' reads.

thus proving they are less likely to evolve

SF used to be the political wing of a ruthless paramilitary organisation with no TD/MPs/MLAs not so long ago. The story of SF is one of evolution.

and even more likely then ever to remain rooted in their past

See above.

Jawgap

Rick Shaw wrote: »

The post you're replying to explained that SF hoovered up the nationalist vote in the North because they abstain from taking their Westminster seats, yet you think they should take them anyway

Somehow, I don't think people vote for SF and GA only because of abstentionism?

And I wasn't suggesting permanently abandoning it - I was just pointing out that these are extraordinary times, surely they call for extraordinary measures?

And who's to say that whatever support they lost wouldn't have been more than balanced by more moderates being drawn to the party and GA?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, actually, I did. Hence my reference to legacy defining.

The whole point of the Nixon analogy is that it demonstrates what can be achieved when leaders, such as GA, park ideology in favour of leadership. "Tricky Dicky" is properly reviled for leaving "a trainload of **** behind him that could fertilise the Sinai" but him, of all people, going to China is recognised for the seismic geopolitical event it was (and it still resonates today).

GA and SF, imo, had such a moment handed to him after the last GE in the UK, and bottled it. Electorally, it did them no harm......it was the safe play and guaranteed that the base support would be protected, but it just confirmed what everyone else thought about them. If they really wanted to grab that middle ground, and move beyond their slackening showing in the polls, he and they needed to be a bit braver and a bit more imaginative.

Surely the trend is that the middle ground us coming to them without losing their principle?
Abstentionism isn't just a two fingered gesture to the British. It is a reasoned position.

Edward M

Rick Shaw wrote: »

The post you're replying to explained that SF hoovered up the nationalist vote in the North because they abstain from taking their Westminster seats, yet you think they should take them anyway

We here in the south find it hard to understand the basis of the political nuances north of the border, its just not the democratic process we have here.
Back to Gerry, I was listening to his speech on repealing the eighth at the add fheis, I found that a bit hypocritical given how SF have handled some incidents involving women recently!

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is a reasoned position.

And a strategy.. to move the political centre-of-gravity away from London not toward it. I don't think some people have given this much thought.

maccored

Jawgap wrote: »

No, doing only what the electorate want is populism, doing what's objectively right for your constituents is leadership.

It's probably quite telling that SF only see themselves as being defined only by populism. Probably explains why they'll never be fit for constitutional office - in government you can't just do what's popular, sometimes you have to do what's right, even if it's unpopular.

oh right - doing what you've been asked to do by those who voted for you is populism. I gets ye. Doing what the hell you feel like AFTER youve been voted in is leadership. Rrriiight. This is definitely how we have the government we have

Maybe you need a dictionary for christmas?

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

considering he's jsut told a packed crowd he wasnt, I'd be very surprised. How many U turns have you seen adams doing? zero as far as I can see

U turns?

According to those who eulogise him, he is king of the u-turns, leaving support for violence behind and becoming a man of peace.

If he doesn't do u-turns, is it all a facade and Adams still a man of violence?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

U turns?

According to those who eulogise him, he is king of the u-turns, leaving support for violence behind and becoming a man of peace.

If he doesn't do u-turns, is it all a facade and Adams still a man of violence?

Many many political leaders have supported violence (gone to war) and resumed normal politics after.
Why he is Adams any different?

Roger_007

maccored wrote: »

oh right - doing what you've been asked to do by those who voted for you is populism. I gets ye. Doing what the hell you feel like AFTER youve been voted in is leadership. Rrriiight. This is definitely how we have the government we have

Maybe you need a dictionary for christmas?

Donald Trump is trying to do exactly what he said he would do before he got elected. So why is he getting so much flak?

Adolf Hitler also did what he said he would do before he got elected. So why is he one of the most hated men ever.

Maybe doing what you promised is not always the right thing to do?

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

U turns?

According to those who eulogise him, he is king of the u-turns, leaving support for violence behind and becoming a man of peace.

If he doesn't do u-turns, is it all a facade and Adams still a man of violence?

thats the cheapest, weakest snipe Ive heard yet. The aim always was to move away from violence. Noone wants it. Unfortunately in the north, violence had to come first as the unionists and british government werent interested in talking to catholics

maccored

Roger_007 wrote: »

Donald Trump is trying to do exactly what he said he would do before he got elected. So why is he getting so much flak?

Adolf Hitler also did what he said he would do before he got elected. So why is he one of the most hated men ever.

Maybe doing what you promised is not always the right thing to do?

yeah, and SF have put those kind of proposals in front of their voters ... have they ****. Maybe making totally unsuitable comparisons is not always the right thing to do?

tomwaterford

Jawgap wrote: »

Somehow, I don't think people vote for SF and GA only because of abstentionism?

And I wasn't suggesting permanently abandoning it - I was just pointing out that these are extraordinary times, surely they call for extraordinary measures?

And who's to say that whatever support they lost wouldn't have been more than balanced by more moderates being drawn to the party and GA?

They have no moderates really left to draw in....Unless yous are thinking ulster unionists supporters are going to enmass begin voting for a republican party

A rudimentary understanding of the demographics of the six counties and it's constituencys would confirm this?



I'm somewhat struggling to see your point tbh....do yous think sf have the right to block an English referendum result for brexit.....while all the while calling for brexit from the 6 counties???


A child could see how this position is untenable

Roger_007

maccored wrote: »

yeah, and SF have put those kind of proposals in front of their voters ... have they ****. Maybe making totally unsuitable comparisons is not always the right thing to do?

SF supported the campaign of indiscriminate murder by the IRA. Was that the right thing to do.

blanch152

kingbhome wrote: »

I know people who lived through it all and i tell you what, they went through some terrible ordeals! Alot here in the southern counties just dont understand this and would side with the brits because the west brit governments/media here have brain washed them into thinking rebelling against whats wrong is actually wrong. I take my hat of to those men who fought and died for a UI and for fighting against all the wrongs that went on up north. It wasnt nice but it was honorable! The fight continues through political means and who knows, it might just turn for the worse again with all this brexit and the men with the guns and bombs might just have to appear again untill we get control of whats rightly ours!

You might know people who lived through it, but some of us actually lived through it. The romantic vision of people fighting and dying for a UI is a hopelessly false one.

Most of those who joined the IRA were hardened criminals or became them. Kneecappings, punishment beatings, rape, child abuse, were all part of the tools used by the IRA to keep communities down. West Belfast is the most deprived area of the UK, thanks in part to the stellar work by its long-time representative Gerry Adams. Even today, hardened IRA men, "good republicans" are still engaged in criminal activity. The IRA looked after their own - people like Liam Adams - who were child abusers. These are some of the realities of the horrors that the IRA inflicted on their own communities.

That is before you look at the bombings in the UK. Manchester, Guildford, Canary Wharf or more home-grown atrocities like Kingsmill, Enniskillen and Omagh. These atrocities were committed in our name, claimed for us, by men that I have zero respect for and never will.

I am sure that many will not like what I have to say, will prefer their romantic picture of heroes fighting and dying for their country, but those men were as far from honorable as it is possible to be. Mine is an unpopular opinion around here but it is one widely shared among those like me who grew up in Ireland in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

That is before you look at the bombings in the UK. Manchester, Guildford, Canary Wharf or more home-grown atrocities like Kingsmill, Enniskillen and Omagh. These atrocities were committed in our name, claimed for us, by men that I have zero respect for and never will..

Unless yous identify as an Irish Republican. ...where has the ira ever claimed to do anything in your name?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Obviously the history and resolution of the troubles is not entirely unrelated to Gerry Adams' career, but it seems to me that this thread is getting off the topic of Gerry Adams resigning. So bring it back on topic please!

nuac

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

If your sick and you need to go US. The only flight left is business class. You'll get it whether your broke or not. I'm not saying his was life threatening I couldn't care but if your's was you'd find a way.

Stop taking dirt.

When did dental problems become "life threatening"?

FrancieBrady

Gerry was quite withering on the sham that is the current Dail set up on the Week In Politics.
Might be helpful if he expands on that when he leaves.
Upsetting the cozy echo chamber and prompting some change would do everyone a favour.

McMurphy

nuac wrote: »

When dental problems "life threatening"?

You might need to re-read the post.

I'm not saying his was life threatening

nuac

Rick Shaw wrote: »

You might need to re-read the post.

Thanks. Amended

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

You might know people who lived through it, but some of us actually lived through it. The romantic vision of people fighting and dying for a UI is a hopelessly false one.

Most of those who joined the IRA were hardened criminals or became them. Kneecappings, punishment beatings, rape, child abuse, were all part of the tools used by the IRA to keep communities down. West Belfast is the most deprived area of the UK, thanks in part to the stellar work by its long-time representative Gerry Adams. Even today, hardened IRA men, "good republicans" are still engaged in criminal activity. The IRA looked after their own - people like Liam Adams - who were child abusers. These are some of the realities of the horrors that the IRA inflicted on their own communities.

That is before you look at the bombings in the UK. Manchester, Guildford, Canary Wharf or more home-grown atrocities like Kingsmill, Enniskillen and Omagh. These atrocities were committed in our name, claimed for us, by men that I have zero respect for and never will.

I am sure that many will not like what I have to say, will prefer their romantic picture of heroes fighting and dying for their country, but those men were as far from honorable as it is possible to be. Mine is an unpopular opinion around here but it is one widely shared among those like me who grew up in Ireland in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

All the more reason to thank men like Gerry and Martin, men who had the sense to see beyond the horrors and atrocities committed and actively put their heads above the parapet to seek out peace.
John Hume had the wisdom to see beyond hate and engage.
How would peace ever have been achieved if all attitudes were as the one you put forward?