Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Holly Cairns - 'Sinn Fein policies aren't left wing'

245

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭thenuisance


    Everybody's view on what is 'left' or 'right' is different - it depends on where you draw the 'centre' line and what distance from the line you think a particular party is. In Ireland we have also had separate splits on social and economic policies for example the Fitzgerald led FG in the 1980s was socially liberal but economically Thatcherite. In that era FF was socially conservative and economically centrist. The social issues are thankfully largely behind us with the vast majority of the population socially liberal - abortion and transgenderism still get raised by the right but are largely ignored.

    I think it's feasible to rank parties on a left to right scale - say PBP,Socialists to the far left then Labour/SD then Sinn Fein then Greens then FF/FG then Independent Ireland then Aontu and then assorted right wing independents.

    Those on the right have had opportunities to coalesce but their transfer rates between candidates have been abysmal. Centrists (FF/FG) are more likely to transfer left than right and left will generally transfer left or centre in significant proportions.

    The ability to attract votes to the left and the willingness to transfer left could be enhanced by a collective policy platform.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭thenuisance


    It's possible that the fall in the SF vote during the election campaigns was due to many of the right wing supporters leaving because of SFs stance on immigration. I do wonder if 'headless chicken' period in SF during those campaigns was in part due to that. Left wing SF supporters that I knew were quite happy to see them gone but I would think that any decrease would have worried the leadership.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,728 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    I see them as a Left wing party, but I think they are also a Nationalist party. These 2 tendencies can be uncomfortable bedfellows when it comes to issues like immigration. They have people in the party who used to be in the Labour Party (one John Dwyer used to be their candidate in Wexford in the later years of Gerry Adams' leadership).

    According to the blog Slugger O’Toole in 2009, when John Dwyer resigned from Sinn Féin, part of his complaint was that the party leadership — specifically Gerry Adams — had told him at a meeting of about 50 activists to stop “waving the red flag in Wexford”. He resigned from the party in 2009, citing disagreements over the party’s direction and its handling of local issues in Wexford.

    Traditionally the Centre Left was wary of SF during the Troubles, and actually until fairly recently.

    One thing that divides the left is carbon taxes, with SF and PBP opposing them, and the rest supporting them.

    Post edited by Ozymandius2011 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,613 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭thenuisance


    Many of our problems can be traced back to wealth concentration and inequality. Housing is the most obvious at a local level - wealth is often 'parked' in property - when it is concentrated in a few hands and the supply is restricted the price will rise. Immigration is linked to global wealth inequality where the people of countries where wealth is created follow the wealth when it is taken out of their countries and 'invested' in other countries.

    Wealth taxes are seen by economists as a way out of this. The aim of any wealth tax is to continue to encourage the creation of wealth but to ensure it's redistribution. In the past dividends were an effective way of doing this ensuring that a proportion of that created wealth was paid (in relatively small individual amounts) to a large number of investors who in turn spent or invested that in their economies. Many corporations no longer pay dividends but frequently distribute the wealth created to a small number of employees/owners. The trillion given to Elon Musk is a prime example of this. He might re-invest it or he might just keep it in his piggy bank. A wealth tax discourages him from saving it and encourages him to invest it.

    A wealth tax does not neccessarily include the family home. I would suggest that the wealth tax is adjudged separately from the family home. We can use the property tax for that. It is currently poorly constructed but that's another argument.

    Remember most wealth taxes proposed are a very low percentage - the highest rate in France is 1.5%.

    We also need to look at financial transaction taxation - this has been proposed at an EU level but needs to be pushed to implementation.

    The most important thing about wealth taxation is that we should use to reduce taxes on labour.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,744 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Wealth taxes are seen by economists as a way out of this.

    They absolutely are not. Wealth taxes are seen by economists as stupid populist measures that depress economic activity and spectacularly fail to generate revenue.

    The only remotely workable wealth tax is a property tax and, shock horror, SF and many on the left are incredibly resistant to it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭thenuisance


    Well there's quite a few that don't :

    https://taxjustice.uk/blog/leading-economists-call-for-a-wealth-tax-in-the-uk/

    You can also add Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz to that list.

    And just in case you think they'll leave

    https://taxjustice.net/press/millionaire-exodus-did-not-occur-study-reveals/

    Wealth inequality expands in a compound manner. You might think that you are well off now but in each generation the amount of wealth you will need to accumulate to be 'well off' will increase until it is beyond your ability to accumulate that amount. The working class have already been replaced by a low wage underclass that requires government assistance payments to survive. The hollowing out of the middle class has already begun - this generations middle class kids can just afford to buy a house - but the cost of doing so will mean that they cannot accumulate wealth and their kids will be renting from those who either have enormously high wages or inherited wealth.

    Wealth inequality is a reality and we need to find a solution to it or the process above will accelerate. You may disagree with a wealth tax but perhaps you know of a better solution?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,831 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    The number of countries with wealth taxes has fallen from 12 to four.

    https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-role-and-design-of-net-wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd_9789264290303-en.html

    Net wealth taxes are far less widespread than they used to be in the OECD but there has recently been a renewed interest in wealth taxation. While 12 countries had net wealth taxes in 1990, there were only four OECD countries that still levied recurrent taxes on individuals’ net wealth in 2017. Decisions to repeal net wealth taxes have often been justified by efficiency and administrative concerns and by the observation that net wealth taxes have frequently failed to meet their redistributive goals. The revenues collected from net wealth taxes have also, with a few exceptions, been very low. More recently, however, some countries have shown a renewed interest in net wealth taxes as a way to raise revenues and address wealth inequality.

    https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/04/the-role-and-design-of-net-wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd_g1g89919/9789264290303-en.pdf

    I'm not against trying a wealth tax, but I would not expect it to be a success.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,831 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Bear in mind that the SocDems are for open borders, and are against deportations of failed asylum-seekers, so I can't understand how any sensible person would support them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭OneEightSeven
    MEGA - Make Éire Great Again


    She got a free plot of land from a her farmer parents to build a one-off McMansion on and her services like phone/broadband, postal services, delivery services and electricity will be subsidised by us urban dwellers, and here she is telling us how terrible we are no not wanting compete with immigrants for much smaller and more expensive urban homes.

    Nothing worse than one-off housing wánkers lecturing us urban dwellers about immigration when they're not competing in the property market and living nowhere near IPAS centers.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭DataDude


    If you create a wealth tax but treat the family home more favourably to all other assets, you’re going to create a further incentive (if there wasn’t enough already) for people to store increasing portions of their wealth in their home. This would be absolutely disastrous.

    The lack of downsizing in this country is a huge social issue. Imagine if older people were going to see a significant annual increase in taxes the day they sell their home? For a population already skeptical of investing, this would be a nail in the coffin.

    Situations like this where economic rationality collide with populism is where genuinely principled parties like the Social Democrats hold strong and populist parties like Sinn Fein descend into madness.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,215 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Just on the water charges, she's right. The problem is that the way they were implemented last time benefited richer people.

    We said that you pay X amount and if you go over it, the rest is free. That meant that it was a disproportionate amount for poorer people and it did nothing to restrict water usage since once you went over, everything else was free.

    It should have been the other way round. Give everyone a certain amount of credit and if you go over, then you pay for the excess. That would encourage water conservation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,878 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    Curious (but not challenging you) to know what reasons you have for ranking Labour and SD further left than SF.

    I probably would have said SF SD Labour-but I probably can’t explain why, other than that SF would traditionally have been further left than Labour - but would be interested to know why SF is now seen just left of centre. I still see them as quite a left party



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,757 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    The politics behind the water charges was handled absolutely abysmally, it also led to the left parties stupidly rallying against our only wealth tax.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 54,530 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i've seen SF described as 'continuity fianna fail' elsewhere, and there's definitely some truth in that. they'll make whatever noises they think they need to make to attract votes.

    they've picked up what they think are popular policies when it suits, and dropped them again like a hot potato when they realise that they've alienated more voters than they've picked up.

    one example i saw was ~5 years ago when the greens entered government, and a lot of the GP members bailed; SF were positioning themselves as the green saviours to them. i know a few people who were singing the praises of SF over their environmental stance. six months or a year later, there was a senior SF figure (can't remember if it was MLMcD) at the ICMSA annual conference telling them 'we've got your back'.

    SF's raison d'etre is to get into power to push the republican agenda (and that's fair enough on its own); but alignment with left or right is secondary to that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    The question is - what are the policies of the left that are palatable to the wider public.

    We already have a massively generous welfare system, which has created a massively entitled element in society.

    We already spend gazillions on health, and while the health service is not functional - nonetheless I really dont think voters want to see more spent on it.

    Ask anyone coming up to the budget - what are you hoping for - and they will answer 'more cash in my pocket'.

    So they have a view on the environment - well done Social Democrats, but I dont think there is anything socialist about wanting cleaner air.

    I would agree however that its a weak point in the extreme for Sinn Fein. This was one of the issues I voted on at the last election, and Sinn Fein stood out as the absolute weakest on environmental issues, even Fianna Fail was way ahead of them. Had absolutely nothing to say.

    The other thing about Holly Cairns - I have stopped following politics closely, but….she became party leader maybe two years ago? This is the first time I've seen her in the news for anything (apart maybe from her piggybacking on the Catherine Connolly campaign a few weeks back, which was opportunistic in the extreme). She is the lowest profile party leader I can remember in my lifetime. Compared to Mary Lou who is in the news every single day of the week.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 54,530 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    you have stopped following politics closely!

    holly cairns was on maternity leave. IIRC she gave birth on the day of the GE and has returned to the leadership of the party in the last couple of months.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,411 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    "but I dont think there is anything socialist about wanting cleaner air"

    There is a fairly clear left/right divide generally in politics with the right far more likely to be anti green policy on pro business grounds or just being outright climate deniers with the further right.

    "She is the lowest profile party leader I can remember in my lifetime"

    An absolutely mad comment. Probably one of the higher profile ones relative to the parties importance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,337 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    In fairness water is one thing this country can afford to waste. We get flooded with it for 40-45 weeks of the year.

    Fact we have poor infrastructure for water tells you how poor things are here

    EVENFLOW



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,347 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    SF's raison d'etre is to get into power to push the republican agenda (and that's fair enough on its own); but alignment with left or right is secondary to that.

    I don't think this is the case.

    Sinn Fein's vision of Ireland is a socialist and united Ireland. It's not an OR, it's a clear AND with both being as important as the other.

    As Cairns herself identified, Sinn Fein might be slightly to the right of the Social Democrats, but the difference is really so small as to barely be significant. They are both socialist parties and they will be in agreement on about 95% of issues.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    OK we can agree to disagree - I think she is low profile. Thats my opinion. Roisin Shortall would have been way more prominent. Ivana Bacik in my opinion is way more prominent.

    Thank you and pls direct your 'an absolutely mad comment' type remarks elsewhere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,215 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Yep. they're a populist republican party. They'll jump on any band wagon so long as it gets them into power. And they'll deliberately avoid taking any position that will lose them votes. Their environmental policies are nearly non existent because most environmental policies involve stopping certain practices and that wouldn't be popular with the voters they're trying to woo.

    Now to be fair to them, there are some TD's I actually respect and i think that they do actually care. But the SF org is designed in such a way to not tolerate dissent. And the policies are dictated in top down manner. So if the individuals care about a topic, they can't do anything if the party doesn't want them to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,466 ✭✭✭plodder


    Or, when they grow up the Trots will be in their 30s ..

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,878 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    “ Bacik in my opinion is way more prominent.”

    Your post just prompted a thought in my mind- true enough up to recently, Bacik was more “prominent” - and I also appreciate Cairns was on maternity leave - BUT - I think Cairns is more “impactful”- that’s what’s going to get that party more seats in the next election in my view



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,744 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Proper inheritance and capital gains taxes are much more efficient means of achieving equitable outcomes. Wealth taxes simply do not work. Of the 4 OECD countries that have them, Spain raises less than 1Bn because it has so many opt outs and Switzerland has low income and no inheritance tax.

    They simply do not work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,358 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    How are SF going to implement some of their policies ?

    I seem to remember Pearse mentioning all of the above repeatedly in Leaders Qs as future SF policy .

    I don't agree with a 43% tax rate btw because it is anti enterprise. Our taxes are high enough .

    I do agree with hiking taxes a bit more for very wealthy though and windfall tax .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,300 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    I agree the introduction water charges was an absolute clusterf**k but then again what would people expect with the likes of Phil Hogan and Alan Kelly implementing them and implementing them at the wrong time as well. The idea of centralising the water infrastructure and Services under one roof in Irish Water was and is a good idea, have 30 odd local authorities looking after it, and all their different ways of doing things does not make for good decisions. What happens when there is a problem in one LA but it is caused by a problem in another LA? It is best to have one organisation running the services similar to what we have for gas and electricity only for water it would be in public ownership/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,948 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    Some people seem to think they will stop at socialising other peoples money. They don’t think that they will be saddled with tax hikes to pay for these pie in the sky policies that drive businesses away.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,744 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    The gas and electricity grid are still in public ownership.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,300 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    When are we going to learn that going one way is not always right be it socialism or capitalism. Like everything we need a little bit of all the isms mainly the good bits of each so that we build a proper society instead of the extremes we have with those in the middle getting hammered.



Advertisement