Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Fine Gael Demographic

167891012»

Comments

  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,976 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    I don't think that Statement/Quote says quite what you think it does though.

    That's not him saying that he/they were opposed to Abortion but that he was of the "unalterable" opinion that the only way to change the rules was via a constitutional amendment and not simply by legislation in the Dail.

    He then goes to say that said Referendum should be introduced without delay.

    No moral opposition there whatsoever from what you've quoted.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The government were opposed to legalising it…unequivocal in that statement and if you remember the times, in their words and deeds.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,976 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    They were opposed to legislating for it as they felt (correctly I believe) that if they had simply "legalised" it, that it would have been challenged and over-turned in court on Constitutional grounds.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Fitzgerald was never for legalising it. Both Haughey and he promised to introduce a ban on it in election campaigns. The fact is, despite Fitzgerald's crusade, his failure was in convincing a Fine Gael party and membership and the rest of Ireland that was still deeply conservative.

    Essentially FG pretend to be liberal socially, but in my view still have a core of conservatives at it's heart, who know the value of playing pretend.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,540 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    Fine Gael heavily campaigned in favour of both, and you well know that. FG has always been more socially liberal than FF, those are things where the party leadership was aligned with its voters. Yes there is a more socially conservative element, especially amongst older voters, but to think that these policies were not popular with the majority of their members or voters is absolute nonsense.

    Peoples' views on these, and other, matters, can and do evolve over time.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,169 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It is astonishing that a historical revisionist argument is being put forward that somehow Fine Gael are more socially conservative than either of the other two big parties. If flies in the face of all known evidence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So present some evidence of Garrett campaign or lobbying for women's rights.

    I have said he gave into the conservatives in his party and it didn't happen, as well as other reforms. Our Tánaiste is famous for vehemently being against SS adoption rights up to very recently.

    All FG. On par with FF IMO.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,169 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Now present me with some evidence that either of the other two big parties - FF or SF - campaigned in favour of that 1986 referendum. Otherwise, you will have to concede that I am correct in saying that FG are the most socially liberal of that three, and have traditionally been so.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So that is one instance. Any more?

    I didn't make a comparison with any other party, the thread is about the FG demographic which has always been deeply conservative in the main...especially rurally.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,169 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    You're funny, one of the two biggest referenda of the 1980s where Garrett was fighting for women's rights, and you want more evidence. My thesis was that FG was the most socially liberal of the three big parties. I have produced evidence from 1986 to back that up. Where is your evidence to show I am wrong about those parties?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    And failed to bring the electorate with him...I think I mentioned that back the ways.

    We have one example of him leading a failed reform of women's rights...any more?

    Fact is blanch, you might talk a good socially liberal game for them but FG as a party were never ready for it, rejected a lot of it and bandwagoned on to the the most recent ones, when the tide of public opinion changed...i.e. Leo and SS adoption.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,169 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Thanks for that. The reason he failed to bring the electorate with him is because the other parties weren't as socially liberal as FG, thus proving my point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The reason he failed was because of how badly he assessed the support within his own party and the Irish poplace.

    Again, FG like other parties through the decades had socially liberal members but that is not for a minute the same as saying that political party was socially liberal.

    Evidenced by how slowly and tortourously change came and how some of those parties of power remained conservative on social issues (SSM, SS Adoption etc) until the public showed clearly what way they wanted to go. (i.e bandwagoning)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Good loser


    But your views are biased Francie. Aren't you an out-and-out SF apologist and supporter?



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The facts outlined don't lie.

    FG definitely had leaders and members who paid lip service to reform and socially liberal ideas. When it came to actually implementing them, they largely failed to convince either their core support or the rest of the populace.

    Change came when the larger more conservative TD's and rank and file recognised that society had moved on and wanted that reform. The cynic would say that is classic bandwagon jumping.

    *I voted FG or FF or Labour (when they stood locally) up until the 2016 General Elections.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,501 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    They should have gone for another election back in May-June last year when they had a proper chance and we could have had a radically different Government to the one we have now.


    Seriously? The country was literally locked down to the highest level last May. The over '70s were cocooning until mid June. Add to that there had been a general election a mere 3 months beforehand.

    The only reason to try and force a general election at that time would have been purely as a cynical move to take advantage of the initial Covid bump that the acting government had (same as pretty much every other government in the world was getting). There's a pretty good chance that the very act of trying to force an election would have killed that stone dead and if it didn't a month of being attacked for doing so by all of the other parties surely would have.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    @9214

    Who are the demographic that voted for SF for the first time in the 2020 election after previously voting FF/FG?

    Any studies on this?

    ------

    @FrancieBrady

    I'm part of that demographic.


    I really find it difficult to believe that someone who has made literally tens of thousands of posts echoing the SF party line on any given issue over a number of years experienced a dramatic change-of-heart at the last election.

    I'm sure most people are posting in earnest, but some of these "oh I think I might give SF a whirl for the first time" affirmations in this thread are bit suss...



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Well unless you can back that up you are going to have to take it for fact - I have only ever voted for SF once in a GE = the previous one. I fully intend at this stage to vote for them in the next one again - that may or may not change.

    I can only be honest. And I have said this consistently since joining this forum. Why I would lie about it I have no idea. I guess FG and FF voters have not yet faced up to how much disgust they caused here. Enda and his lies/promises really was the final straw for me after the leaderships of Ahern- Cowen finished any support I could give FF.

    And by the way, you really need to read postings properly, I do NOT echo the SF line, I have said repeatedly there are parts of their policy were I would have issue and I have criticised some of their actions on here, unequivocally.

    In short - nobody owns my vote and I could never be a member of ANY political party.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,501 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    I mentioned the latest poll showing SF with the massive lead in one of my whatsapp groups and two of my friends surprised me by saying that they'd probably vote for them in the next election out of sheer frustration with the status quo. The surprise was that neither of them had shown that potential previously. Both would be single, professionals with high incomes living in rented accommodation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I call this the Eurovision effect. We selected Dustin the Turkey and the red-head twins to represent us in the Eurovision. Neither was because of their singing abilities.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The Eurovision has not been about 'singing ability' for a long time now. It has more to do with spectacle and selective politically motivated voting than anything else.

    Our selection was akin to a 'we are not going to win it no matter what we do' capitulation and frustration than anything else.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    That's exactly my point. The polls reflect the voter's frustration. Who really believes the opposition is going to magically fix housing and health in government...



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,169 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It is also a real midterm opinion poll type. People are annoyed at the housing, they are annoyed at the restrictions, and that gives SF a boost. Closer to the election, they may have a more realistic view of things.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,820 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Polls usually reflect how voters are thinking. Just because they are thinking things you'd rather they didn't doesn't mean you can demean them.

    I would imagine voters are considering the thought that even if they just do better, then that is a better outcome. Whatever they are thinking could you stop demeaning them in a familiar, 'we know what is best for you' way?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,584 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Fine Gael promised us "New Politics" in 2011 with a glossy brochure to go with it.

    They've delivered "Worse Politics" and somehow rehabilitated those shysters in FF.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement