McMurphy wrote: » Link to them please? We're actually just a few posts short of 600 posts on this thread alone, the onus is on a poster who makes a post and wants it taken seriously to provide some proof, that's how it works on these forums.
all about the mane wrote: » Plenty examples on this thread. Just read back
McMurphy wrote: » It appears you actually could, and just did. I hear a lot of people insinuating this, but can you link me to an example of Sinn Fein, complaining that FG won't go back into govt? Just because you keep repeating something over and over and over again, doesn't make it true.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Are SF supporters still outraged FG won't form a after years of trying to get them out of government! Couldn't make it up I swear!!
McMurphy wrote: » And that's the thing Christopher, you're not compelled to go, I won't be going to any myself either - but I'm not whinging on an internet messaging board about them or any other political party holding a meeting in a hotel or public hall, I mean seriously, god forbid a party should hold a question and answer session with the plebs who voted for them. I dunno Christy I'm neither a member of Sinn Fein, either party wise and or as an activist, I've stated that they'd be wise to take her off the ticket if there's another election incoming. Not a sham internal report that no one is allowed to see, and then be forced to take her off because of local member's concerns it'll cost votes. Take her off the ticket if she's been on a scam. No ifs no buts, faffing around over the issue as happened with Bailey is bad PR, nip it in the bud straight away says McMurph!
christy c wrote: » I'd rather beat my head off a wall than attend a meeting with idiots like Pearse Doherty rambling on.
Regarding that cheat in Clare, i don't quite follow. I assume SF want to flush out cheats also, therefore having one as a TD would still be worthy of similar commentary from yourself I would have thought.
christy c wrote: » I'd rather beat my head off a wall than attend a meeting with idiots like Pearse Doherty rambling on. Regarding that cheat in Clare, i don't quite follow. I assume SF want to flush out cheats also, therefore having one as a TD would still be worthy of similar commentary from yourself I would have thought.
McMurphy wrote: » As far as I can tell - they're completely open, and free for anyone to attend, no need to assume, go along and find out. Basically put up or shut up. Had the shinners ran on a platform of wanting to flush out cheats, you'd maybe be on to something, but as it stands I never even heard of the woman before the election, and have zero problems at all with calling for her to be taken off the ticket should another election be called. Hopefully that addresses your concerns.
christy c wrote: » I say petty as I see it as SF trying to play the victim, i assume it'll be something along the lines of "big bad FFG not allowing us our turn". Maybe I'm wrong.
I know you're a bit obsessed with FG and Maria Bailey, etc. Any reason that doesn't extend to other parties? Such as that scrounger in Clare Violet Ann? I'd guess that you'd have creamed yourself had a similar thing happened in FG.
McMurphy wrote: » What's petty about providing a platform for members of the electorate, many/some of whom may have voted for you, to openly engage/discuss/query things with senior members of the party? We know other party's do it among themselves (the last big one I heard about in FG circles was the Halloween night one, where Maria Bailey was shafted) Won't be going to any of them myself, but the reasoning behind it is sound.
christy c wrote: » The rallies just seem petty to me, we've already engaged 2 weeks ago. I think we should leave it to the people we elected to make decisions on our behalf for now. As regards FG going in to government, one half of me is thinking let SF & co at it, to expose some of their policies and hope they don't do much damage. The other half of me is thinking FG should go in to government, to try to stop some of the brain dead policies such as the pension age thing.
McMurphy wrote: » https://twitter.com/EOBroin/status/1231551788823842816?s=19
blanch152 wrote: » The only tantrums I see are from one party threatening to hold rallies to undermine our democracy.
smurgen wrote: » Public rallies undermining our democracy.jesus wept I've heard it all now.
Yurt! wrote: » This is on the money. The legacy parties have a playbook they operate from, and if the answers can't be found in it or don't work they're at a loss what to do. Some of the tantrums we see since the election, particularly FG, telling everyone there is nothing to be done about health or housing. Their entire message is 'we're as good as it gets and everyone else is stupid'.
fly_agaric wrote: » It is possible...just very hard! :pac: More of an intractable problem than housing.
fly_agaric wrote: » I don't believe they are capable of it though. FF in particular IMO have shifted right + become more rigid in their economic ideology from where they used to be pre Bertie/Cowan, and solutions for the problems (I think) are not to be found in the standard (edit centre right) toolbox of de-regulation, throwing tax breaks at it, "ppp" schemes etc.
fly_agaric wrote: » It is possible...just very hard! :pac: More of an intractable problem than housing. Much more people & vested interests (IMO) that will fight tooth and nail to keep the system we have now if any government ever really tries to change it.
all about the mane wrote: » There is no fixing the health system. No party are going to take that on.
fly_agaric wrote: » FF took longer than FG to do it, but they do seem to have rejected SF now. FF/FG could go into coalition and perform wonderfully I suppose (i.e. solve the problems that appear to have led to this election result, deprive SF or other left wing alternatives of oxygen). I don't believe they are capable of it though. FF in particular IMO have shifted right + become more rigid in their economic ideology from where they used to be pre Bertie/Cowan, and solutions for the problems (I think) are not to be found in the standard (edit centre right) toolbox of de-regulation, throwing tax breaks at it, "ppp" schemes etc.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » A related factor is whether SF emerges as the dominant party on a sustained basis. In that scenario FF won't be able to fudge the question of post-election matchups as it has tried to do this time. Even if they pick a new leader who is less hostile to SF than Martin, I don't think it's really a choice for them though. They will have to establish an ongoing 'partnership' of some sort with FG or find themselves squeezed out of the picture.
fly_agaric wrote: » Yes, I had been wondering if that could be analagous to what might happen to FF/FG. Don't know enough about German politics to say though. Even if FF/FG don't swallow down the bitter pill and go into a coaliton government this time, an alliance is probably coming if their combined support contines to drop.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Like in Germany the CDU and CSU are officially separate parties but seem to be in a permanent alliance.
Bowie wrote: » It was a statement. Fond of the ditch talk, yet FG 'relish' the idea of being in it, but that's not tactical? Every vote not for the sitting party can be called a protest vote. Why didn't they all go Labour or PBP? They chose Sinn Fein in the most part. You lads really need respect the democratic will of the people. I hope some shower gets in to rebuild the society for the people living in it. That's not FG.
Bowie wrote: » I don't think they'll merge. They'd lose the die hards. They'll merge in everything but name likely becoming more and more reliant on each other to remain relevant.
