devlinio wrote: » I wouldn't they're all talk, and oppose everything. Fine Gael may have problems, but they're still a solid party to lead the next government.
blanch152 wrote: » Yes, they were very transparent about only getting the industrial wage in the South, forgetting to tell us that there were a large number of exceptions and that they took the amount as a net figure when it is only a gross figure.
BluePlanet wrote: » My understanding is that no, they do not collect ministerial full salaries from Westminister nor expenses and are very transparent about what they receive:https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/16460
Wtf ? wrote: » They were voted into Stormont, They pulled out ?, They have seats in House of Commons, They don't attend (But collect expenses) They could be in London now downing the DUP and helping the no border brexit thing but they aint. They talk the talk etc. Why bother with them really. Flushing your ballot paper down the toilet would be better methinks. They are a wasted vote
daveob007 wrote: » By taking seats in Westminster they would be accepting the six counties as part of the UK. They are part of Ireland occupied by the UK. Big difference.
Laois_Man wrote: » But Stormont really collapsed because the timing really suited SF's agenda to push for a border poll within the environment created by Brexit - an agenda also made easier with the absence of a devolved parliament.
blanch152 wrote: » To be fair, both are opinions based on certain facts and assumptions and are not facts in and of themselves. (1) In the case of bringing down Stormont, you are correct that the actions of the DUP were cited by SF as the reason why they were bringing down Stormont. However, that does not lead to a fact that the DUP brought down Stormont. The facts allow you to have the opinion that SF brought down Stormont or that the DUP brought down Stormont. Both opinions are valid, which is more valid is a matter for debate. (2) In the second case, again you are correct that Sinn Fein have a policy of not taking up their seats at Westminister. However, it is not necessarily true that they got elected on that basis. People have myriad reasons for voting for political parties. Maybe Sinn Fein did get elected by those who voted for them to abstain from Westminister, maybe not. It is valid to hold an opinion that if you only include the votes for Sinn Fein that were on the basis of boycotting Westminister, then Sinn Fein would not have been elected to any of the seats. Therefore, you can have the opinion that they were not elected on that basis. Again, how much weight you give that opinion is up to you, but it is a valid opinion.
maccored wrote: » The DUP were caught with their hand in the till - thats why theres no stormont They get elected on the simple fact they wont go to Westminister. No idea how you think an handful of SF mps will equal the couple of hundred votes the british government are short when it comes to 'downing the dup and helping with the no border brexit thing'. Then again, surely you'd be aware of these things before starting a thread about it ... no?
Wtf ? wrote: » Still a wasted vote tho, Nobody down here would go into Government with them and I see why. Their history does them no favors either. Their current mouthpiece does not help either, They just oppose everything and do nothing. Waste of space of a hopefully gone era.
laoch na mona wrote: » what ever your opinion of their politics that's factually false Sinn fein introduce bills to the dail contribute to debates, publish a fully costed alternative budget each year and help get important legislation like the banded hours bill passed You might politically disagree with them but their record as elected reps shows they definitely don't do nothing
laoch na mona wrote: » Stormont collapsed due to a scandal the DUP created and a refusal to deliver on aspects of the GFA such as the Irish language act, Theres has been negotiations to get the assembly back running it's not Sinn Fein who are preventing this
laoch na mona wrote: » publish a fully costed alternative budget each year
VinLieger wrote: » Ohh look a SF supporter misrepresenting the facts to suit their own agenda, yeah Shane Ross who was responsible for that is an independent so nothing to do with FG and it was roundly proven there was no favoritism or special representations made by him regarding it. In fact it was exactly the opposite with Mary Lou herself making special representations regarding a boxing club in her constituency.
jm08 wrote: » Mary Lou hasn't been on the PAC for at least a year now.
For Forks Sake wrote: » The current PAC is an absolute disgrace, nothing but soundbites with various TDs jockeying to get their mug on the evening news headlines, and Mary Lou has been the very worst of the lot.
satguy wrote: » giving Wesley College another hockey pitch.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » they've never had to implement real world decisions that might be unpopular.
jm08 wrote: » You need an opposition as well to question the Government. Mary Lou was pretty good on the Public Accounts Committee.
blanch152 wrote: » I didn't put them forward as my opinions, I put them forward as valid alternative opinions. (1) You say they are the reasons that "SF used to walk out". That implies that you accept that Stormont was brought down by the action of SF walking out. You justify their walking out by citing facts that the scandal exists, but whether the facts justified a walkout is undoubtedly an opinion. Again, people are entitled to a different opinion, including the one that it was SF's fault the Assembly collapsed as the scandal didn't merit a walk-out. Again, no point disputing with me whether the opinion is correct, but it could be a valid opinion, based on the known facts. (2) I never said that there was anyone "voting for SF who wanted them to take their seats". What I disagreed with was your statement that "SF get elected on not going to Westminster." Sinn Fein get elected because they are a nationalist party, because they favour marriage equality and abortion, because they want a united Ireland, because they want to increase social welfare etc. etc. and not solely or even majorly because they are not going to Westminister. However, I would agree that many (possibly most) of those who voted for SF in the 1980s voted for them because they didn't take up their seats. However, they only held one seat for a part of the time in the 1980s, and didn't win any in the early 1990s, before getting two in the late 1990s. That suggests that merely having a policy of abstention doesn't appear to be sufficient to get one elected. Again, as there is no hard evidence or facts to support either side, all you can have is an opinion which could be yours or could be the alternative.
satguy wrote: » I vote SF because I'm tired of seeing FG looking after rich people like Dinny or giving Wesley College another hockey pitch. Plus as it stands now if I vote FF they just sit on their hands and give FG another confidence and supply agreement, so that's just a waste of a vote. So SF it is ..
maccored wrote: » if the DUP let the facts be known, then maybe we might get somewhere. You cant deny the scandal exists, and you cant deny these are the reasons SF used to walk out - therefore my point remains As someone from the north who voted for SF in the 80s and 90s, it was one of the reasons I voted for them - plus everyone else I grew up with who voted for them. In fact Ive never heard of anyone - in my experience - voting for SF who wanted them to take their seats. Unless you can find me something to suggest otherwise, my point on this still stands too. In this case its YOUR opinion being stated. Mine is based on reality plus what SF say themselves
blanch152 wrote: » To be fair, both are opinions based on certain facts and assumptions and are not facts in and of themselves. (1) In the case of bringing down Stormont, you are correct that the actions of the DUP were cited by SF as the reason why they were bringing down Stormont. However, that does not lead to a fact that the DUP brought down Stormont. The facts allow you to have the opinion that SF brought down Stormont or that the DUP brought down Stormont. Both opinions are valid, which is more valid is a matter for debate.
blanch152 wrote: » (2) In the second case, again you are correct that Sinn Fein have a policy of not taking up their seats at Westminister. However, it is not necessarily true that they got elected on that basis. People have myriad reasons for voting for political parties. Maybe Sinn Fein did get elected by those who voted for them to abstain from Westminister, maybe not. It is valid to hold an opinion that if you only include the votes for Sinn Fein that were on the basis of boycotting Westminister, then Sinn Fein would not have been elected to any of the seats. Therefore, you can have the opinion that they were not elected on that basis. Again, how much weight you give that opinion is up to you, but it is a valid opinion.
maccored wrote: » which is my opinion? Did the DUP bring down stormont due to dodgy actions? Yes Do SF get elected on not going to Westminster? Yes Both facts (kinda see how you ended up starting this thread)
Wtf ? wrote: » But you are assuming that your opinion is fact....No ?
