hatrickpatrick wrote: » What do you say to people who don't see much of a difference between Ireland's situation in 1916-21 and Northern Ireland's situation in 1968-98? If you regard them as foolish as well, what do you regard as being the difference?
FrancieBrady wrote: » He used the funeral controversy to have a politcal pop at O'Neill, which is what the poster said. FG guy with Mat Carty last night doing the same. Not sure if he is 'pals' with Leo.
GarIT wrote: » My arent Mary Lou McDonald and Pierce Doherty being called to resign? They didn't socially distance, there's pictures of them both breaking the rules too. And the nonsense of Doherty daying "but he was our friend" does he think that nobody else exists while he isn't looking at them? Lots of other people were made to skip friends or even family members funerals.
Truthvader wrote: » OK whats the difference to the real IRA, the continuity IRA, any "dissident" who decides to murder a ploiceman in the morning? Whats the difference to the Kevin Lunney torture gang. NONE. All people happy to hurt other people to get whatever they want
joeguevara wrote: » How would that help. Honestly, tell me. Why is it so reactionary that everything is immediately, sack sack sack.
ThunbergsAreGo wrote: » Do you think it was wrong or irresponsible? And, as with Cummings, a one rule you another for me action?
joeguevara wrote: » But at least start with Gerry Adams is not or will not be sitting at the table.
GarIT wrote: » They should at least be making public apologies. It's sickening how they try to sell themselves as one of the people and sticking up for the less fortunate but actually think they are better than everyone else.
joeguevara wrote: » Gerry Adams is not in Sf. I agree with their hypocrisy around stormont. I think they need to remove themselves from any of their violent past and focus on people like Pearse if they want to move on. But mainstream political parties should ignore them at their peril. Change is needed on both sides but my god I have never seen so many disaffected people on all sides and giving out about funerals doesn’t help. Can we agree on that. And you can see by my posting history my thoughts on all political parties.
PixieValentine wrote: » I follow a few of the reporters who were there this morning on twitter, there's more than one video of what he said up online. I can link you if you'd like. Leo was asked specifically about the row going on over on the funeral, and refused, saying out of respect he wasn't going to say anything about a funeral. So he didn't use a funeral to have a pop, even when he was asked to comment on the controversy specifically he didn't. Won't offer any commentary on anyone else in FG, mind. I didn't watch whatever show you did, have no idea who you're talking about or what was said. But just out of a sense of fairness- this morning's comment didn't happen quite the way you seem to think.
Mortelaro wrote: » Repeatedly pointed out,Garda Horkans funeral was a State funeral so an entirely different case altogether
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I think what many people are missing is that many, many of SF's newfound millennial voters honestly couldn't give a f*ck who's sitting at the table as long as they're opposed to the false-dichotomy of FFG and their neoliberal agenda. I genuinely don't think people understand just how much the cost of living for young people has pushed literally every other issue, up to and including IRA membership etc, not just to one side but off the table completely. Many people in that cohort would vote for a rabid monkey before they would vote for either of the parties who have fuelled the cost of living here to such horrifically crushing levels.
joeguevara wrote: » Agreed. But also many of SF new members have no idea how bad SF fiscal policy will be for the in the long term. But policies are being lost and discussed because we are going through an xfactor type popularity contest.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Many do and many don't care. The disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and individual quality of life (the same disconnect which led to Enda Kenny's FG being so utterly gobsmacked at the hostility they faced during the 2016 election when compared with the "recovery" they believed based on macroeconomic indicators that they have gifted tothe Irish people) has led to people losing faith in and as a result becoming entirely indifferent to the former. Case in point, it was easier for people on part time incomes to afford flat rentals in 2011 than it is now for those same people on full time incomes. The Financial Times credited this with almost single-handedly delivering SF's surge in the election, stating that "Rents have increased by 40 per cent in the past five years, while average earnings have grown by just 14 per cent". In that context, macroeconomics have been utterly meaningless to peoples's actual lived experiences, and as a knock on effect, anyone lecturing those voters about macroeconomics, either touting how good they are right now or warning about how bad they'd be if we pursued left wing policies, is seen as out of touch and insufferably irritating. Such a huge disconnect between rising incomes and the rising cost of living during a boom period has made many people question whether a boom period is actually good for individual quality of life - if all it achieves is the return of the "rip-off republic", then why should anyone be cheering for it? This could be fixed at the policy level, but FF and FG have entirely abdicated their responsibility to do anything about the cost of living. Their neoliberal ideology does not regard individual quality of life as a responsibility of government. SF's left wing ideology does. As long as stagflation remains a problem, that's pretty much the only thing people care about while voting. From the point of view of many people I know, a bad fiscal position in five years is preferable to getting evicted this year because their rent keeps going up, and up, and up. Can you blame people in their twenties and thirties for voting for short term relief in the face of long term pain, when the acute alternative is being evicted right now and being forced to move back home to their parents'?
blanch152 wrote: » There are quite a few who don't get it. The most astonishing are those who equate the current living memories of Dessie Ellis, Martin Ferris, Bobby Storey and the likes with historical figures from the past. They really don't get the difference between 1916, 1921, 1930 and today, and that the standards of today are what matters when you apply them to the people of today. Once you do that, you realise that Sinn Fein are at least 30 years away from being considered suitable for government if they continue on their current path. They don't realise that a suitable apology for their past support of the IRA and an acknowledgement that the IRA were wrong (particularly post-Sunningdale) is the minimum of what is needed to allow them to be even considered as a suitable party of government for the vast majority of people in the South.
Truthvader wrote: » Agree 100%. The funeral virtue count is nonsense. Problem with Pearse is , like all SinnFein candidates he brings nothing to the table. None of them ever had a real job. All "activists" of one kind or anothrer. They come not to give but to take. Over and above all else however like the rest of them he is there at Bobby Storey funeral to venerate a thug because he knows no better
FrancieBrady wrote: » And he used the question about the funeral to have a political pop at O'Neill and SF. He could just have declined comment. That is what the poster said...He used the funeral to have a political swipe. The FGer was on the Tonight Show and was red in the face trying to have a go...can't think of his name, not one normally wheeled out. (And you could tell why)
joeguevara wrote: » Isn’t that a better thing to discuss than funerals.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Of course it is! Unfortunately, SF scored a spectacular own goal despite surely being perfectly well aware of the backlash it would provoke, and so here we are. That's what I meant earlier when I spoke of being disappointed. From "up the ra" at the election rally to this, SF have become the masters of political gaffes since the election in much the same way as FG were before it, and it's entirely avoidable from their point of view if they'd use the 'auld noggin a bit and think about PR. They were very good at doing so in the run up to the election, I honestly can't understand how they've managed to screw up so badly since then. SF in election mode and SF in post election mode have been two entirely different entities when it comes specifically to public relations. So in short, yes, I fully agree that we should be discussing policy and not funerals. But I do have to concede that the reason we are not is SF's fault for doing something incredibly foolish with incredibly predictable consequences. As I say, they and the rest of the Irish left still have my support because I do care more about fixing the stagflation issue policy-wise than anything else at the moment. But they're handing fuel to their opponents in the media and in politics on silver platters, and I just wish they'd stop doing it.
Truthvader wrote: » Problem with Pearse is , like all SinnFein candidates he brings nothing to the table. None of them ever had a real job. All "activists" of one kind or anothrer.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » It's a moronic argument though. If the concern is about social distancing and the spread of COVID and not about anything else, then the same arguments apply. The virus doesn't give a f*ck who someone was or why people are gathering in a non socially distant manner, so either both sides are wrong and should be both criticised and told to stay away from Dáil business etc until they're past the incubation period for the virus, or neither. It's that simple. As far as I'm concerned, both sides should be. Ignoring social distancing in the manner it was ignored for the sake of photo ops is moronically stupid and an insult to everyone who has suffered because of the nationwide quarantine. But to act as if the identity of the deceased justifies one and not the other when the controversy is supposedly about the transmission of COVID is essentially letting the mask slip that that's not really why people are bashing SF here, they're just using COVID as an excuse to do so.
PixieValentine wrote: » He didn’t bring them up himself. He was asked. And then yes, did comment, but not about the funeral, which is what someone accused him of doing, using a funeral to score political points. He did refuse to comment on the funeral. His comment about the Dublin photo op was no more or less than what Mary Lou did when she was asked about his picnic. She too commented then when she could have declined to say anything at all. They all do THAT, and I won’t defend that but nor will I castigate them for doing it. I only commented about the “using a funeral is a new low” thing out of a sense of fairness because, he didn’t do that. As to the comment about the Dublin appearance, I’m sorry, but if you think he was the only one talking about that, you’re wrong. There was a lot of commentary on her being in Dublin and them not being there. And quite frankly, they left themselves wide open to far worse from political opponents than a comparison being drawn between MON in Dublin and the Martin family staying away with her going when she didn’t actually need to be there, and then following that up with the funeral, and then also the handling of the aftermath of the funeral when people were upset. That’s what has me a bit baffled about the situation. I credit them with being way smarter than that.
joeguevara wrote: » But everyone seems to be scoring own goals. Honestly how impressive would it be if one of our TDs stood up and told everyone to cop on. To think about our poor, young, sick, taxed, unemployed and lets do something to help them than talking about funerals. Future leader right there.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Honestly, this is one of the things I liked about Mick Wallace when he was a TD and why I miss his presence in the Dáil (before anyone attacks me over discounting his tax issues, this is what I mean when I say that the current situation has pushed such issues to the side in favour of ideology and nothing more) - he regularly spoke out against the state of Irish politics itself while the people were suffering and the Oireachtas was doing nothing about it.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/long-hair-and-raggy-jeans-mick-wallace-in-emotional-outburst-30044082.html"The people are right to be cynical about politics, they're right to be cynical about politicians. This place is a joke. We play games in here. Well you know what? Sometimes these games lead to the unfair distribution of justice - or no justice being distributed. Sometimes these games lead to people losing their lives. They lead to murders. They lead to the families not getting any justice. And what do we so often when bad things raise their head? We see our police force circle the wagons, we see our politicians circle the wagons - do what it takes to cover up what we don't want to see, do what it takes to hide the truth. Is there any appetite for doing things any different in this house?" In this case, Wallace was talking as he often did about Garda corruption and the lack of action from the Department of Justice on whistleblower allegations. But it can just as easily be applied to many areas of Irish politics. I miss having someone who was willing to say things straight in this manner without any window dressing or pseudo-intellectualism. We need more politicians who are willing to cut the crap and speak in these direct terms.
Mortelaro wrote: » The whole social distancing flouting by politicians was brought up by the shinners in the first place here and it its sister thread and debunked If its moronic now just because its come to bite back at the shinners, it was moronic then Conveniently for the shinners, if its them want it dropped, its their transgression thats both categorically proveable and blatant I'm only pointing that out Sides I'm not interested in It is what it is now
hatrickpatrick wrote: » That wasn't what I was claiming was moronic, at all. I was stating that it was moronic for Sinn Fein to behave in this manner and flout social distancing rules, particularly after they attacked their opponents for doing the same thing. All I'm saying is that ultimately, policy-wise from the point of view of many people, they remain the better choice regardless of how they behave. The stagflation issue has become so dire that people are willing to overlook pretty much every other issue when deciding which politicians and parties to support. But I do think SF were morons to do this. Handing unnecessary fuel to their opponents and creating a sh!tstorm which will surely be milked for weeks on end. They shouldn't have done it - it was wrong, it was hypocritical and it was moronic. All I'm saying is that, similar to the issue of SF's IRA connections etc, I doubt many of their newfound voters will ultimately care when it comes to deciding who to vote for. This election was decided by one thing and one thing alone, the stagflation with regard to the cost of living vs average incomes. Until that issue is sorted, I don't personally believe that any number of idiotic gaffes is going to make or break any party. It's all about neoliberalism vs leftism as long as the gulf between income and the cost of living continues to widen. That doesn't mean I excuse what they did, and I hope I've made that clear by now. It was wrong, it was hypocritical, it was stupid. And I'm hugely disappointed.
