Sinn Fein leadership

FrancieBrady · 16-09-2016 1:10pm #1

With Gerry Adams making his intentions known and with mcGuinness being asked if he will go at the same time.
Can SF survive losing its two main leaders? Who do you see as worthy replacements?

16-09-2016 1:22pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

With Gerry Adams making his intentions known and with mcGuinness being asked if he will go at the same time.
Can SF survive losing its two main leaders? Who do you see as worthy replacements?

Mary Lou McDonald or Pearse Doherty must be next in line for the title.

Mary Lou might be a good shout if SF try to distance themselves from some of their more sharp history, and also if they do make a slight swing in-field and start to try to create some feasible policies. I could see her being a good leader, albeit very much more comfortable on the opposition side than really taking the bull by the horns in Government.

Pearse is an interesting fella. Seems to work the media well, only a few embarrassing slip-ups to hurt him.

Can't really see beyond either of those at the minute.

FrancieBrady · 16-09-2016 1:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Mary Lou McDonald or Pearse Doherty must be next in line for the title.

Mary Lou might be a good shout if SF try to distance themselves from some of their more sharp history, and also if they do make a slight swing in-field and start to try to create some feasible policies. I could see her being a good leader, albeit very much more comfortable on the opposition side than really taking the bull by the horns in Government.

Pearse is an interesting fella. Seems to work the media well, only a few embarrassing slip-ups to hurt him.

Can't really see beyond either of those at the minute.

I'd be thinking they won't go for two southern reps.

keeponhurling · 16-09-2016 1:24pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

With Gerry Adams making his intentions known and with mcGuinness being asked if he will go at the same time.

what has Adams said on the topic ?

FrancieBrady · 16-09-2016 1:27pm

keeponhurling wrote: »

what has Adams said on the topic ?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gerry-adams-we-have-a-plan-for-when-i-step-down-from-sinn-fein-presidency-754904.html

Jawgap · 16-09-2016 3:01pm

It's not so much the 'who' of the situation that will make for interesting watching as the transition itself.

It's a political party that has been monolithic in its presentation of policy, dogmatic on most matters and unswerving in its dealings with members accused of 'uncomradely behaviour.'

Will the northern based membership accept the continuation of such restrictions from a Dublin-based leadership? I think not, but who knows.

If anything my money would be on the party almost consuming itself - bit like UK Labour are doing at the moment - before a new leader emerges who will, regardless of who they are, not have the same grip on the party Adams has.

FrancieBrady · 16-09-2016 5:00pm

I wouldn't be so sure of Pearse's readiness or acceptability for a leadership role. And I think they will make an effort to have representation from both north and south.
I think you could see Mary Lou and Michelle Gildernew or Conor Murphy rise to the top.

the_syco · 16-09-2016 9:23pm

I wonder will the new leader be ex-IRA, not ex-IRA (but someone that everyone knows is IRA), actually not ex-IRA, or a blow-in from another republican party?

FrancieBrady · 17-09-2016 9:16am

I would imagine most people in SF would know somebody who is ex-IRA. Certainly those who would be candidates for the leadership.

FrancieBrady · 21-09-2016 9:15am

Seems Gerry is not going to be allowed to slip quietly into the night.
Another classic in the dark arts of defamation from the BBC's Spotlight last night followed by a bit of tenuous extrapolation by Tommy Gorman on RTE this morning.
'Somebody who was told by somebody else that the IRA were responsible for Denis Donaldson's death claims that Gerry Adams sanctioned it'?

Tommy claims the 'British had the upper hand in the intelligence war' yet neither the Irish or British or indeed American intelligence services have never been able to find any useful proof against this man.

What are they going to do when the leadership has no connections to the conflict?

'Mary Lou knew Gerry was in the IRA' exposés?

Chips Lovell · 21-09-2016 9:33am

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Adams is connected to the conflict. In which case, why is it defamatory to say he ordered someone's murder?

FrancieBrady · 21-09-2016 9:43am

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that Adams is connected to the conflict. In which case, why is it defamatory to say he ordered someone's murder?

I'm 'connected' to the conflict, in that I lived through it. Politicians, activists, and the those who lived through it are 'connected' to the conflict.

K-9 · 21-09-2016 3:03pm

There's a new thread on the Spotlight programme, best keeping the same discussion to one thread.

brickmauser · 21-09-2016 7:04pm

SF is a British intelligence/CIA controlled front. Whoever replaces Adams will be controlled 100% by Langley and Whitehall.

Thomas__ · 05-09-2017 2:01pm

I just came across this article in which a 23 year old SF councillor has resigned from SF but decided to stay on as an independent councillor. The reason for why I have started this thread is nothing to do with the usual "SF-bashing" that is rather a common place on Irish Forums. The reason for is to find out whether this story has real substance (which I don´t doubt at all that it has) and as the article tells, such practice is described as Happening rather often to those SF councillors who refuse to yield to bullying practice for supposedly various reasons of which political direction and practices might be just one of the many.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/youngest-female-sinn-fin-councillor-resigns-citing-bullyboy-politics-36101592.html

Others may make their own mind out of it but I rather tend to believe this 23 year old woman which seems to be more committed to her role as a councillor and thus for the community she works for as such and has the guts to tell the older fellow SF members when she thinks that things are going wrong. For such a stance, I pay her my respect because it certainly takes something to talk back to older and presumably more experienced fellow SF members. The story sheds a light on the internal practices of SF in dealing with her own representatives and those who fulfill official posts.

Below the linked article (on the front page of the Irish Independent to be precise) is another article about SF President Gerry Adams and his plan to stand for re-election as SF President and after being elected, prepare his schedule for stepping down from that office. Apart from the article that brought me to start this thread, I do think that Mr Adams has held this office for (maybe too) long enough and should retire from it in order to make way for younger generations than himself to take over leadership and thus bringing about a change within SF.

When one considers that the above story has substance and that SF members in higher positions within the party dealt with the complaints from the young councillor in a way as if this was all nothing she complained about, one might rather assume that there is some "old circle" who has no interest in changing anything but might have an interest in shutting down those who dare to either complain or point out where things go wrong.

To conclude this OP I just like to remind readers that, whether they like the Shinners or not, in general terms speaking it is the younger generation that one day will carry on with politics and whatever the problem is they come up with, bullying and intimidation is no way to encourage younger people to engage themselves with party politics and wake their enthusiasm for political work. It´s more likely to put them off and I question the way SF treats her elected councillor like in this case is really of following democratic values.
Everyone who has made his own experiences with work and membership in any political party of democratic stance will know that this has its up and downs and sometimes even irritations, but I am of the stance that bullying and intimidation should have no place in it.

johnnyskeleton · 05-09-2017 2:18pm

Mod note:

Merging threads

uck51js9zml2yt · 05-09-2017 5:58pm

It's Ok. GA said there was no bullying and her accusations were unfair to the membership.

In other news..he's putting his name forward for the leadership of the party and its up to the members to decide if they want him to remain.

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 7:30pm

Thomas__ wrote: »

I just came across this article in which a 23 year old SF councillor has resigned from SF but decided to stay on as an independent councillor. The reason for why I have started this thread is nothing to do with the usual "SF-bashing" that is rather a common place on Irish Forums. The reason for is to find out whether this story has real substance (which I don´t doubt at all that it has) and as the article tells, such practice is described as Happening rather often to those SF councillors who refuse to yield to bullying practice for supposedly various reasons of which political direction and practices might be just one of the many.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/youngest-female-sinn-fin-councillor-resigns-citing-bullyboy-politics-36101592.html

Others may make their own mind out of it but I rather tend to believe this 23 year old woman which seems to be more committed to her role as a councillor and thus for the community she works for as such and has the guts to tell the older fellow SF members when she thinks that things are going wrong. For such a stance, I pay her my respect because it certainly takes something to talk back to older and presumably more experienced fellow SF members. The story sheds a light on the internal practices of SF in dealing with her own representatives and those who fulfill official posts.

Below the linked article (on the front page of the Irish Independent to be precise) is another article about SF President Gerry Adams and his plan to stand for re-election as SF President and after being elected, prepare his schedule for stepping down from that office. Apart from the article that brought me to start this thread, I do think that Mr Adams has held this office for (maybe too) long enough and should retire from it in order to make way for younger generations than himself to take over leadership and thus bringing about a change within SF.

When one considers that the above story has substance and that SF members in higher positions within the party dealt with the complaints from the young councillor in a way as if this was all nothing she complained about, one might rather assume that there is some "old circle" who has no interest in changing anything but might have an interest in shutting down those who dare to either complain or point out where things go wrong.

To conclude this OP I just like to remind readers that, whether they like the Shinners or not, in general terms speaking it is the younger generation that one day will carry on with politics and whatever the problem is they come up with, bullying and intimidation is no way to encourage younger people to engage themselves with party politics and wake their enthusiasm for political work. It´s more likely to put them off and I question the way SF treats her elected councillor like in this case is really of following democratic values.
Everyone who has made his own experiences with work and membership in any political party of democratic stance will know that this has its up and downs and sometimes even irritations, but I am of the stance that bullying and intimidation should have no place in it.

All I would say is that I would be wary of stories like this. Every party has issues like these which are not newsworthy in most cases and are generally power plays, personal disputes, sore losers etc. My locality is littered with disgruntled members of any party you care to mention.
You must remember that in respect of one party there are the willing arms of certain elements of the media outstretched for stories like these.
Apparently, when asked, this person did not present any evidence to the investigation.

Not dismissing her but what are you to do when there isn't any evidence presented?

Count Marcula · 05-09-2017 7:50pm

I don't think anyone in the party has the guts to run against him. Anyway, why does it matter? A party leader that defends child abuse and rape should have resigned a long time ago. Gerry's survival depended on his relationship with Martin McGuinness. He was the true influence in the movement. Adams on the other hand was only a spokesman. Won't be long now until another scandal emerges and he'll be forced to resign.

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 8:38pm

Count Marcula wrote: »

I don't think anyone in the party has the guts to run against him. Anyway, why does it matter? A party leader that defends child abuse and rape should have resigned a long time ago. Gerry's survival depended on his relationship with Martin McGuinness. He was the true influence in the movement. Adams on the other hand was only a spokesman. Won't be long now until another scandal emerges and he'll be forced to resign.

When did he defend child abuse and rape?
You may be getting a bit carried away there.

blanch152 · 05-09-2017 9:55pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When did he defend child abuse and rape?
You may be getting a bit carried away there.

It would be more correct to say he protected child abusers.

He has also refused to deal openly and fully with allegations of child abuse by SF members. I understand that there are cases before the courts, obviously we will have to wait and see whether these can be reported on.

amcalester · 05-09-2017 9:58pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It would be more correct to say he protected child abusers.

And muderers.

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 10:15pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It would be more correct to say he protected child abusers.

He has also refused to deal openly and fully with allegations of child abuse by SF members. I understand that there are cases before the courts, obviously we will have to wait and see whether these can be reported on.

Are you gonna back this up with anything of relevance or is it just your opinion?

If he withheld information he should be charged and brought to justice. You apparently have that information, have you gone to the relevant authorities?

With respect to the family case, he has dealt with that in a transparent way and admitted he did the wrong thing. His party accepted that and an overwhelming majority of those who identify as Irish in northern Ireland did too.

blanch152 · 05-09-2017 10:17pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you gonna back this up with anything of relevance or is it just your opinion?

If he withheld information he should be charged and brought to justice. You apparently have that information, have you gone to the relevant authorities?

With respect to the family case, he has dealt with that in a transparent way and admitted he did the wrong thing. His party accepted that and an overwhelming majority of those who identify as Irish in northern Ireland did too.

As I said, there are cases before the courts, so I won't be commenting further on the details at this time.

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 10:22pm

blanch152 wrote: »

As I said, there are cases before the courts, so I won't be commenting further on the details at this time.

You can comment on yet another claim that he was not open and transparent. Is Adams before a court for withholding information?

That would be the only thing that would back up a spurious claim like that

blanch152 · 05-09-2017 10:36pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can comment on yet another claim that he was not open and transparent. Is Adams before a court for withholding information?

That would be the only thing that would back up a spurious claim like that

How do you know that is not an issue before the courts?

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 10:44pm

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you know that is not an issue before the courts?

If Adams was withholding info about an abuse crime he would and should be before a court.
Are you inferring this is the case or are you just making sinister accusations?

You made the claim back it up please?

blanch152 · 05-09-2017 10:47pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If Adams was withholding info about an abuse crime he would and should be before a court.
Are you inferring this is the case or are you just making sinister accusations?

You made the claim back it up please?

I am not going to comment on ongoing court cases no matter how much you ask me to.

amcalester · 05-09-2017 10:49pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If Adams was withholding info about an abuse crime he would and should be before a court.
Are you inferring this is the case or are you just making sinister accusations?

You made the claim back it up please?

It's funny that you're focusing on the claim that GA withheld information but ignoring my claim that he protected murderers.

Just shows the standard of his character.

Seth Brundle · 05-09-2017 10:53pm

It's very unfair of people to pick on Adams for protecting child rapists and murderers.
Ok so he did protect them but all of those child rapists and murderers are good republicans so it's alright then!

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 10:59pm

amcalester wrote: »

It's funny that you're focusing on the claim that GA withheld information but ignoring my claim that he protected murderers.

Just shows the standard of his character.

There were a lot of people 'protected' on all sides during the war/conflict.

Other than stating that rather obvious fact, you are correct, I will ignore that rabbithole. Plenty of threads where it has been discussed before.

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 11:04pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not going to comment on ongoing court cases no matter how much you ask me to.

But you are going to sinisterly infer. Well done.

Seth Brundle · 05-09-2017 11:06pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were a lot of people 'protected' on all sides during the war/conflict.

Other than stating that rather obvious fact, you are correct, I will ignore that rabbithole. Plenty of threads where it has been discussed before.

Translation: let's stop bringing up the fact that Adams protected and facilitated murderers and paedophiles?

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 11:09pm

kbannon wrote: »

Translation: let's stop bringing up the fact that Adams protected and facilitated murderers and paedophiles?

No, I think I clearly said that lots of people were 'protected' on all sides. It's the nature of war/conflict since time began.

Seth Brundle · 05-09-2017 11:13pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I think I clearly said that lots of people were 'protected' on all sides. It's the nature of war/conflict since time began.

To protect paedophiles and help find them work around children?
Name one other leader of a political party who did that, "war" or not!

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 11:27pm

kbannon wrote: »

To protect paedophiles and help find them work around children?
Name one other leader of a political party who did that, "war" or not!

Like many many other reasonable people who vote for Adams party I accept he did the wrong thing in a family situation.
I don't believe he endangered other children deliberately or with malice.
I accepted his apologies long ago.

All I can say if you don't accept his story is don't vote for him.

blanch152 · 05-09-2017 11:37pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like many many other reasonable people who vote for Adams party I accept he did the wrong thing in a family situation.
I don't believe he endangered other children deliberately or with malice.
I accepted his apologies long ago.

All I can say if you don't accept his story is don't vote for him.

That just isn't good enough, he protected Liam Adams and got him a job in Louth, he then told two different stories - one to Spotlight and another to the court - which makes him unsuitable for public office, no matter which party he represents and nothing to do with terrorist offences.

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 11:44pm

blanch152 wrote: »

That just isn't good enough, he protected Liam Adams and got him a job in Louth, he then told two different stories - one to Spotlight and another to the court - which makes him unsuitable for public office, no matter which party he represents and nothing to do with terrorist offences.

As I said, if you know he broke the law go to the authorities.
Many many perfectly decent people have accepted the story of a man in a difficult family situation. A man who has admitted he handled it badly
Nobody is compelling them or you to vote for him.
But you seem to know he has done this many times but refuse to back it with fact.
I guess it is over to you to save us all from this heinous monster.

blanch152 · 05-09-2017 11:48pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, if you know he broke the law go to the authorities.
Many many perfectly decent people have accepted the story of a man in a difficult family situation. A man who has admitted he handled it badly
Nobody is compelling them or you to vote for him.
But you seem to know he has done this many times but refuse to back it with fact.
I guess it is over to you to save us all from this heinous monster.

I can't prove he broke the law, just that he lied.

He told one story to Spotlight
He told a different story to the court.

He only committed a crime if the story to the court was untrue. I can't prove which one was true or untrue so he escapes justice but is still a liar, just don't know which was a lie.

FrancieBrady · 05-09-2017 11:56pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't prove he broke the law, just that he lied.

He told one story to Spotlight
He told a different story to the court.

He only committed a crime if the story to the court was untrue. I can't prove which one was true or untrue so he escapes justice but is still a liar, just don't know which was a lie.

You can't prove he broke the law yet you infer that he did and that there are court cases ongoing surrounding this???

OK, I think I will leave that there then. That kind of insidious carry on speaks for itself in fairness.

blanch152 · 06-09-2017 12:21am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't prove he broke the law yet you infer that he did and that there are court cases ongoing surrounding this???

OK, I think I will leave that there then. That kind of insidious carry on speaks for itself in fairness.

You asked me whether he broke the law in the context of Liam Adams - I set out the context.

As for whether he broke the law in other cases, let us wait and see, you are not going to trap me into breaking boards rules on commenting on ongoing cases.

uck51js9zml2yt · 06-09-2017 1:10am

Francie , will you be telling us next that we just don't understand him.

He protected his brother who he knew abused his niece. He did just what the RCC hierarchy did and moved him.
He's protecting murderers, saying it wouldn't be helpful to prosecute then... unhelpful to who?

Count Marcula · 06-09-2017 1:11am

''When did he defend child abuse and rape?''
What a silly question. He defended Maria Cahill's rapist and also his pedophile brother. It had nothing to do with war. Just a narcissist interested in his own power.

johnnyskeleton · 06-09-2017 1:18am

Mod note:

Just to be clear, this thread is about Sinn Fein leadership, how it affects the grass roots and who might take over if or when Gerry Adams leaves. So maybe we can move on from Gerry himself and focus on the party?

Count Marcula · 06-09-2017 2:04am

Ok, lets start talking about the party then. Johnathan Dowdall, former councilor charged with water boarding a guy and got 12 years. Sounds like a candidate for leadership once he gets out.

FrancieBrady · 06-09-2017 6:28am

Count Marcula wrote: »

Ok, lets start talking about the party then. Johnathan Dowdall, former councilor charged with water boarding a guy and got 12 years. Sounds like a candidate for leadership once he gets out.

Eh...'former' member of the party.

Can we, as the mod says, talk about the party?

Brendan Bendar · 06-09-2017 9:13am

I would suggest that it would be in SFs interest to ease out the old guard out of leadership.

Otherwise as this thread seems to 'prove' the past will always be dragged up.

They have some well informed people there now who would be more acceptable to the middle ground and I would suggest that when they put out their policies they would be more balanced in favour of those who do something for themselves.

I would think that hanging on to the past as these parties like the DUP and SF like to do will get this country nowhere.

Time the leadership moved on or were moved on?

Thomas__ · 06-09-2017 9:28am

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I would suggest that it would be in SFs interest to ease out the old guard out of leadership.

Otherwise as this thread seems to 'prove' the past will always be dragged up.

They have some well informed people there now who would be more acceptable to the middle ground and I would suggest that when they put out their policies they would be more balanced in favour of those who do something for themselves.

I would think that hanging on to the past as these parties like the DUP and SF like to do will get this country nowhere.

Time the leadership moved on or were moved on?

Absolutely agree with your post, it´s exactly what I mean. A younger generation taking over the leadership of SF would bring about a change, but the old ones like Adams can´t let go that easily, maybe for fear that without them, SF would go on a rapid decline in votes. But there´s no proof for that at all.

nlrkjos · 06-09-2017 12:01pm

The problem within SF is that many of the old guard will not accept the younger generation as they never saw conflict, or state intimidation. This older generation will have to die off or just get pushed out to allow new blood.
There is bully boy tactics going on in SF, and also a whispering campaign gets going when someone new starts to rise in the "ranks" without approval from the "lads".
There will be change in SF, Adams cannot stop it but it will take a generation, and until then I would prefer to see them out of government

johnnyskeleton · 06-09-2017 1:55pm

I wonder too how the Northern younger SF members view the Southern younger SF members - potentially the fact that the Southern party is developing a base around things like water charges and LPT will conflict with the Northern younger people for whom powersharing / ultimate reunification is far more important

Thomas__ · 06-09-2017 2:19pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wonder too how the Northern younger SF members view the Southern younger SF members - potentially the fact that the Southern party is developing a base around things like water charges and LPT will conflict with the Northern younger people for whom powersharing / ultimate reunification is far more important

Good point. In my view, they are both worlds apart cos of the different priorities SF sets in NI and in the Republic to appeal to voters and to gain members. And so are the reasons for why people vote for or join SF. Imagine someone from the Republic will take over the Presidency of SF, someone who has no connection whatsoever to NI and for whom a UI is more a matter of political agenda but who then has to face the problems in NI him- / herself when taking on leadership for the whole party. Adams knows the people in NI and he knows those in the Republic, any other person without that background would have much lessons to learn. Whether this person would be acceptable in NI is quite another matter.

Sinn Fein leadership

Comments