People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

Trizo wrote: »

Pretty sure I know who I’m going to vote for but still undecided on some transfer potential but I’m open to being convinced.

Would just like someone to explain to me why I should vote for SF genuine question, not trying to trick anyone etc..

Given they haven’t been in government the manifesto is all we can use to understand their aims so if it’s all tosh i have nothing to go on.

Everyone wants a fairer society and everyone loves mom and apple pie but policies need to be costed and the economy has to be protected too.

Well my opinion on the costing thing is that you certainly aren't going to get that from waht are essentially puff pieces - the manifestos.
It's a shame that that is what they have evolved into here. But there you go. I genuinely ignore them. I judge by 'what they do'.

I judge SF based on how they have treated the function of an opposition party and IMO they have held successive governments to account fairly well over the last few governments. I think the work of Pearse Doherty, MLM herself, Eoin O'Broin and a number of others in Committee's has been fearless and forensic in unraveling the cosy consensus and willful blindness of the power swap parties.
I also judge them on what they do locally. There are simply no harder, committed local reps than the SF reps in my county to be perfectly honest. There are hardworking FG and FF and other reps too, but SF's activism for the community has always impressed me and I could freely vote for my local rep as a result.

That's just some of my considerations in voting for them for the first time in a GE.

facehugger99 wrote: »

But , but , but, I though SF were a fresh start from all of that?

I thought that was the whole raison d'etre for voting for them?

You better not tell Matt Barrett that all you have to look forward to under a Shinner Govt is more of the same because that lad wants the full 'rainbows and unicorns'.

Again with the misrepresentation. Why do you do this?

I have never ever represented SF as a party that will bring some nirvana into existence. They are a political party, subject to all the faults and foibles of other political parties.
They are as likely to **** up as the next party.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well my opinion on the costing thing is that you certainly aren't going to get that from waht are essentially puff pieces - the manifestos.
It's a shame that that is what they have evolved into here. But there you go. I genuinely ignore them. I judge by 'what they do'.

I judge SF based on how they have treated the function of an opposition party and IMO they have held successive governments to account fairly well over the last few governments. I think the work of Pearse Doherty, MLM herself, Eoin O'Broin and a number of others in Committee's has been fearless and forensic in unraveling the cosy consensus and willful blindness of the power swap parties.
I also judge them on what they do locally. There are simply no harder, committed local reps than the SF reps in my county to be perfectly honest. There are hardworking FG and FF and other reps too, but SF's activism for the community has always impressed me and I could freely vote for my local rep as a result.

That's just some of my considerations in voting for them for the first time in a GE.

And that's good reasoning Francie, no bother with a considered post like that.
If it wasn't for your other 99% of posts I'd accept the sincerity of that.

Trizo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well my opinion on the costing thing is that you certainly aren't going to get that from waht are essentially puff pieces - the manifestos.
It's a shame that that is what they have evolved into here. But there you go. I genuinely ignore them. I judge by 'what they do'.

I judge SF based on how they have treated the function of an opposition party and IMO they have held successive governments to account fairly well over the last few governments. I think the work of Pearse Doherty, MLM herself, Eoin O'Broin and a number of others in Committee's has been fearless and forensic in unraveling the cosy consensus and willful blindness of the power swap parties.
I also judge them on what they do locally. There are simply no harder, committed local reps than the SF reps in my county to be perfectly honest. There are hardworking FG and FF and other reps too, but SF's activism for the community has always impressed me and I could freely vote for my local rep as a result.

That's just some of my considerations in voting for them for the first time in a GE.

Fair enough and thank you for your considerations.

I obviously see things differently being in opposition is easy being in government is hard and I want to know what they'll do if elected.

Change can be good or bad and voting for some party or candidate just because they ain't the other guy isn't the smart way to do things.

They do have some prominent members though I wouldn't agree that they are particularly good though wouldn't doubt that they have done some good.

The only way to judge them to my mind is look to what they have done when in power both up North and in Local Councils and they took a beating in both last year because they didn't do a good job. People spoke with their votes.

People should vote based on what's best for the country and for themselves , several of SF's policies I believe would damage both my livelihood and the countries.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

And that's good reasoning Francie, no bother with a considered post like that.
If it wasn't for your other 99% of posts I'd accept the sincerity of that.

I make no apology for defending SF on some stuff (mainly the anti-republican, partitionist onslaught they get here)
I have never defended their economic policy or some of their other social policy.

You can believe it or not, this will be my first time voting for them in a GE, based on the reasoning above. I'd like to see them as a part of government.

Trizo wrote: »

Fair enough and thank you for your considerations.

I obviously see things differently being in opposition is easy being in government is hard and I want to know what they'll do if elected.

Change can be good or bad and voting for some party or candidate just because they ain't the other guy isn't the smart way to do things.

They do have some prominent members though I wouldn't agree that they are particularly good though wouldn't doubt that they have done some good.

The only way to judge them to my mind is look to what they have done when in power both up North and in Local Councils and they took a beating in both last year because they didn't do a good job. People spoke with their votes.

People should vote based on what's best for the country and for themselves , several of SF's policies I believe would damage both my livelihood and the countries.

I think this 'opposition is easy' stuff is a misnomer. Proper opposition is hard and thankless work.
Leave SF out of it for a minute and look at how the likes of Catherine Murphy and Catherine Connolly, Claire Daly and even Mick Wallace are vilified and attacked for the work they did.
Proper opposition and the calling to account that has to be done is a difficult job.
And comparing the North to here is also a totally wrong thing to do.

The North's system of governance is totally unique, you simply cannot compare.
That is not to say that they cannot be criticised, they can. Before the usual accusations about me are made.

As to the 'damage' they are likely to do. I guess if you think that your life and the lives of those around you hasn't been damaged then you should give your vote to FG or FF.

Trizo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think this 'opposition is easy' stuff is a misnomer. Proper opposition is hard and thankless work.
Leave SF out of it for a minute and look at how the likes of Catherine Murphy and Catherine Connolly, Claire Daly and even Mick Wallace are vilified and attacked for the work they did.
Proper opposition and the calling to account that has to be done is a difficult job.
And comparing the North to here is also a totally wrong thing to do.

The North's system of governance is totally unique, you simply cannot compare.
That is not to say that they cannot be criticised, they can. Before the usual accusations about me are made.

As to the 'damage' they are likely to do. I guess if you think that your life and the lives of those around you hasn't been damaged then you should give your vote to FG or FF.

Compared to governing it really is much easier, I am speaking from experience having had to turn around a failing company.

I would have major issues with some of those names actually, take Mick Wallace who committed deliberate and systematic fraud on the revenue and then decides he doesn't want to pay his mortgage for his house in Clontarf.. hardly a paragon of virtue ! This is not the type of person we want running our country.

I don't think you can leave out the North, they claim to be an All Ireland Party so they should be judged on the whole of Ireland. The local election results last year speak for themselves also. Again in the absence of a genuine manifesto regarding what they would do I can only judge on their actions.

I'm not saying that my life and the lives around me haven't been damaged by other governments, FF saw to that. However I also know the difficulties of turning around something from a terrible financial position … it takes time and enormous effort, few people seem to comprehend this.

Trizo wrote: »

Compared to governing it really is much easier, I am speaking from experience having had to turn around a failing company.

Please note Trizo and don't do what so many others do and misquote or misrepresent what i said.

I didn't say it 'was easier'. I said that the idea that 'opposition was easy' is wrong.

I would have major issues with some of those names actually, take Mick Wallace who committed deliberate and systematic fraud on the revenue and then decides he doesn't want to pay his mortgage for his house in Clontarf.. hardly a paragon of virtue ! This is not the type of person we want running our country.

I also would have issues with his past behaviour but you can't say he didn't do his job as an opposition TD. And he got vilified for that.

I don't think you can leave out the North, they claim to be an All Ireland Party so they should be judged on the whole of Ireland. The local election results last year speak for themselves also. Again in the absence of a genuine manifesto regarding what they would do I can only judge on their actions.

I'm not saying that my life and the lives around me haven't been damaged by other governments, FF saw to that. However I also know the difficulties of turning around something from a terrible financial position … it takes time and enormous effort, few people seem to comprehend this.

Again, I didn't say you can 'leave out' the north. i said you can't compare the two systems and what can be achieved in the two systems.
They simply are not the same set-ups.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Please note Trizo and don't do what so many others do and misquote or misrepresent what i said.

I didn't say it 'was easier'. I said that the idea that 'opposition was easy' is wrong.

I also would have issues with his past behaviour but you can't say he didn't do his job as an opposition TD. And he got vilified for that.

Again, I didn't say you can 'leave out' the north. i said you can't compare the two systems and what can be achieved in the two systems.
They simply are not the same set-ups.

Opposition as practiced by Fianna Fail over the last four years was difficult.

The shameless populist nonsense from Sinn Fein, Wallace, PBP and the likes is easy.

Trizo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Please note Trizo and don't do what so many others do and misquote or misrepresent what i said.

I didn't say it 'was easier'. I said that the idea that 'opposition was easy' is wrong.

Again, I didn't say you can 'leave out' the north. i said you can't compare the two systems and what can be achieved in the two systems.
They simply are not the same set-ups.

Fair enough wasn't my intention to misrepresent or misquote you, you brought up the notion that 'opposition is easy' so I took it from there on that basis.

A lot of the time people come to opposition with issues, they just have to raise them i.e. penalty points scandal etc.. this stuff falls in their laps its taken very little effort from them.

You can say that you cant compare the systems , but I would also say that when a government is in coalition here its all about compromise no party gets to do all that it wants because it cant. Unfortunately with the system we will be governed by coalitions for some time, would like to see what one party could do given the chance to implement their ideas.

Trizo wrote: »

Fair enough wasn't my intention to misrepresent or misquote you, you brought up the notion that 'opposition is easy' so I took it from there on that basis.

A lot of the time people come to opposition with issues, they just have to raise them i.e. penalty points scandal etc.. this stuff falls in their laps its taken very little effort from them.

You can say that you cant compare the systems , but I would also say that when a government is in coalition here its all about compromise no party gets to do all that it wants because it cant. Unfortunately with the system we will be governed by coalitions for some time, would like to see what one party could do given the chance to implement their ideas.

SF compromised two years ago on the Irish language provision...why didn't the Executive return?

You can answer that one yourself.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF compromised two years ago on the Irish language provision...why didn't the Executive return?

You can answer that one yourself.

There is no evidence that Sinn Fein compromised two years ago, the agreed deal is significantly different to the one agreed then with SF having ceded ground on that issue among others.

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no evidence that Sinn Fein compromised two years ago, the agreed deal is significantly different to the one agreed then with SF having ceded ground on that issue among others.

Leo and May being summoned to Belfast and having to abort because 'somebody' backed out at the last moment is all you need to know tbh. Not to mention the detail revealed by Eamonn Mallie etc.

Whatever blanch, not getting into yet another of your 'SF are the only wrong un's' incessant drivel and bias.

*Cue the: 'I am also equally critical of....' waste of pixels dissembling.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no evidence that Sinn Fein compromised two years ago, the agreed deal is significantly different to the one agreed then with SF having ceded ground on that issue among others.

Fairplay Blanch, if you're not in here whinging about the shinners being intransigent/needing to compromise, you're here gloating when they do that they surrendered/ceded ground.

Imagine your reaction if they ever reversed their abstention policy, you'd probably wet the y-fronts.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF compromised two years ago on the Irish language provision...why didn't the Executive return?

You can answer that one yourself.

I would have, and I think I remember both govts alluded to it, thought that the DUP definitely scuttled that with their attempt to show their superiority and importance with their stance on brexit and all things British.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I would have, and I think I remember both govts alluded to it, thought that the DUP definitely scuttled that with their attempt to show their superiority and importance with their stance on brexit and all things British.

Totally agree. I don't think anyone seriously believes that there wasn't a compromise/deal done.

The Executive would have been up and running much sooner had May not done her nasty little deal to hold onto power.

But the need for some to 'equally blame' both sides trumps accepting certain truths in NI and always has.
There has always been one side that is dragging it's feet if not digging it's heels in altogether.
blanch is almost unique...he is strident in calling out one side and one side only. Until somebody calls him out on it and then he reverts to pretending he blames both sides equally.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Totally agree. I don't think anyone seriously believes that there wasn't a compromise/deal done.

The Executive would have been up and running much sooner had May not done her nasty little deal to hold onto power.

But the need for some to 'equally blame' both sides trumps accepting certain truths in NI and always has.
There has always been one side that is dragging it's feet if not digging it's heels in altogether.
blanch is almost unique...he is strident in calling out one side and one side only. Until somebody calls him out on it and then he reverts to pretending he blames both sides equally.

There is nobody on here defending the DUP night and day, so there is no need to be reminding posters of their inability to govern. Neither are they putting candidates up for election down here. I am thankful of that, because, if the DUP ever did put a candidate up for election in my constituency, I would be left in a horrific dilemma as to who to put last on the ballot paper.

blanch152 wrote: »

There is nobody on here defending the DUP night and day, so there is no need to be reminding posters of their inability to govern. Neither are they putting candidates up for election down here. I am thankful of that, because, if the DUP ever did put a candidate up for election in my constituency, I would be left in a horrific dilemma as to who to put last on the ballot paper.

blanch, leave down here out of it. Your finger pointing at SF and republicans in the north as the sole side to blame is legendary here. You have just engaged in it again.

It is in opposition to that kind of finger pointing that I come across as a 'shinner bot', 'shinner supporter' and all the other things I have been called on here, including a defender of the IRA and as someone who condones murder.

blanch152 wrote: »

There is nobody on here defending the DUP night and day, so there is no need to be reminding posters of their inability to govern. Neither are they putting candidates up for election down here. I am thankful of that, because, if the DUP ever did put a candidate up for election in my constituency, I would be left in a horrific dilemma as to who to put last on the ballot paper.

plenty on this forum use Stormont as an excuse to blame SF for not governing properly. Glad to see you are pointing out the actual issue when it comes to Stormont - the DUP.

ohnonotgmail

maccored wrote: »

plenty on this forum use Stormont as an excuse to blame SF for not governing properly. Glad to see you are pointing out the actual issue when it comes to Stormont - the DUP.

the issue is with both sides. both are as bad as each other and aren't fit to run a parent-teacher association never mind a country.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the issue is with both sides. both are as bad as each other and aren't fit to run a parent-teacher association never mind a country.

That simply doesn't stack up with the facts.

SF signed the GFA
the DUP didn't.

The DUP have again and again and again resisted the commitments made in the GFA and ancillary agreements from flags to the ILA to LGBT and women's rights.

there is no comparison tbh. If there is, please point them out.

markodaly

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a fascinating insight into SF economic thinking; the numbers don't matter!

MLMD demonstrated a similar blasé attitude the other day on the pensions timebomb when she said that 'the demographics will look after themselves'.

Yeap, MLMD is quoted as saying, in regards to the pension timebomb coming down the track over the next few decades as "the demographics will sort themselves out" while she wants to reverse the pension age.

Comedy gold from here once again.

maccored wrote: »

plenty on this forum use Stormont as an excuse to blame SF for not governing properly. Glad to see you are pointing out the actual issue when it comes to Stormont - the DUP.

Sinn Fein really can't cope with sharing blame, can they?

Neither the DUP nor Sinn Fein are normal political parties able to operate in a normal democratic society. They can only govern within a tightly constrained environment in Stormont, and even then, one or other is always likely to down tools in a hissy fit every so often.

The last time Sinn Fein downed tools over Arlene Foster, who is now back as First Minister with their support. Nothing changes.

road_high

blanch152 wrote: »

Opposition as practiced by Fianna Fail over the last four years was difficult.

The shameless populist nonsense from Sinn Fein, Wallace, PBP and the likes is easy.

Yes that's one thing i'd have to admire FF on- we need a functioning government regardless (now more than ever) and to hear the likes of SF and every uselsss two bit non entity use this against them is outrageous. Our media are woefully failing in the carte blanche they afford these jokers on this and so many other issues.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the issue is with both sides. both are as bad as each other and aren't fit to run a parent-teacher association never mind a country.

Try having the DUP in the Dail - then come back to me and say its both sides

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein really can't cope with sharing blame, can they?

Neither the DUP nor Sinn Fein are normal political parties able to operate in a normal democratic society. They can only govern within a tightly constrained environment in Stormont, and even then, one or other is always likely to down tools in a hissy fit every so often.

The last time Sinn Fein downed tools over Arlene Foster, who is now back as First Minister with their support. Nothing changes.

nothing changes because A) the electorate were (quite rightly) fed up with no stormont and

neither the irish nor british government wished to annoy the DUP.

SF are operating quite well in the dail. they'd be doing the same in the north if it wasnt for the DUP. Obviously wouldnt expect you to agree blanch, as you portray all the hall marks of a unionist yourself.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That simply doesn't stack up with the facts.

SF signed the GFA
the DUP didn't.

The DUP have again and again and again resisted the commitments made in the GFA and ancillary agreements from flags to the ILA to LGBT and women's rights.

there is no comparison tbh. If there is, please point them out.

its simple - Sinn Fein bad, DUP good. just repeat the mantra and after a while you'll believe it too.

maccored wrote: »

nothing changes because A) the electorate were (quite rightly) fed up with no stormont and neither the irish nor british government wished to annoy the DUP.

SF are operating quite well in the dail. they'd be doing the same in the north if it wasnt for the DUP. Obviously wouldnt expect you to agree blanch, as you portray all the hall marks of a unionist yourself.

Thankfully things are changing as in the recent Westminister elections where both parties took a hammering in their vote.

Made them realise they needed a deal.

Sinn Fein's contribution to the Dail has been to disrupt and block and complain, pretty much how the DUP have operated in Westminister. Once again, two opposite sides of the same disgusting block.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Thankfully things are changing as in the recent Westminister elections where both parties took a hammering in their vote.

Made them realise they needed a deal.

Sinn Fein's contribution to the Dail has been to disrupt and block and complain, pretty much how the DUP have operated in Westminister. Once again, two opposite sides of the same disgusting block.

Your hyperbole is nauseating.if you see questioning of the parties in power as a complete inconvenience perhaps I suggest a stint in North Korea for you?