Bad Bev's sins are relative and supported

Jackie laughlin · 11-07-2007 12:30AM #1

I realise that any negative comment on SF is routinely dismissed as "SF bashing" but in all the threads condemning Bad Bev and her Mayo supporters, there was just one mention of the fact that she hadn't been convicted of anything while a similarly unrepentant but convicted gunrunner was quietly re-elected in Kerry.

The Kerry people who voted for this demon (I may as well use the word as I'll be accused of demonising him!) are just the worst example of voters in a number of constituencies who show themselves ready to support wrongdoing.

Mick86 · 11-07-2007 08:23AM

We are talking Kerry here.

That said, North Tipp has been returning Michael Lowry consistently.

First past the post for FF in South Tipp has been before the courts for a serious assault.

The mud just will not stick to Bertie and if it did he would get re-elected anyway.

Arthur Morgan never has a bother in Louth despite a dubious past.

It's a hangover from our rebellious past where lawlessness was patriotic.

I should point out at this stage that none of the above has been convicted of anything (as far as I am aware) and they are all as pure as driven snow.:D

gandalf · 11-07-2007 11:42AM

The answer to your question is imho none of them should have been allowed to run.

Ethics in Politics is non existant in Ireland.

silverharp · 11-07-2007 11:53AM

there should be a rule to stop TD's offspring from being allowed to run on the basis that they are only there because of their family connections. Plus the one's that come to mind seem to be only pale imitations of their parents.

stovelid · 11-07-2007 12:50PM

The same reason you see TDs unfurling a wish list of parish pump demands in return for support. Parochial interests often outweigh minor trifles like ethics.

Mick86 · 11-07-2007 12:54PM

silverharp wrote:

there should be a rule to stop TD's offspring from being allowed to run on the basis that they are only there because of their family connections. Plus the one's that come to mind seem to be only pale imitations of their parents.

That would be unconstitutional.

stipey · 11-07-2007 01:23PM

Ethics in Politics is non existant in Ireland.

I'm not sure I fully agree with this. They exist to some extent - but not enough for people to be held to account for their actions with any degree of consistency. The majority of the electorate are too apathetic and consequentially the opposition do not force the issue to the extent that they should.

In Norway (I think), an MP resigned from the her ministry, after only 10 days in office, after it emerged that she paid her child minder under the table!

In the UK David Blunket resigned because his girlfriend used pre-paid train tickets that are only reserved for wives. (In fact, I believe any British MP would resign if they forgot their wife's/husband's birthday.)

Much of the Irish electorate have very short memories and many still vote solely (and blindly) on the basis of civil war politics and family traditions. As such, the "Resign, retire, return" advice given to Parnell during the Kitty O'Shea "scandal" holds as true today as it did then.... think Haughey (gun running), Lowry, Flynn among others.

Voipjunkie · 11-07-2007 07:01PM

Of course some people believe that they know how people should vote to such an extent that they believe that they or some other "right" thinking people should be allowed to tell them who they can vote for.

Whilst we may not agree with who people vote for we have to respect the rights of people in a democracy to vote for who they wish.
The various people named in this thread have been elected and re elected by the people of this country who are fully aware of the past of those people.
And they have still chosen to be represented by them that is democracy like it or lump it.

Voipjunkie · 11-07-2007 07:03PM

silverharp wrote:

there should be a rule to stop TD's offspring from being allowed to run on the basis that they are only there because of their family connections. Plus the one's that come to mind seem to be only pale imitations of their parents.

They are elected because people vote for them if you believe that they have nothing to offer other than a family tree you should stand against them and show the people your alternative and let the people choose

Jackie laughlin · 11-07-2007 11:17PM

Voip,
That's the point. Significant numbers of voters APPROVE of wrongdoing. I don't believe any of the wriggling excuses, e.g. he/she is a good local rep. or we have an anti-authoritarian culture. That might be plausible in the case of some minor offence. It just won't wash to say, "I don't condone political violence but I'm prepared to vote for a gunrunner because he's a good local man." The offence is too big and alternative candidates too many for this to be remotely plausible. Face facts: in Kerry there is a considerable number of people who approve of their TD's murderous activities, while in Mayo a goodly number approve of helping people to cheat the rest of us. There's no need to carry on through the others.

These people standing for election create a plebiscite on their offences.

gbh · 12-07-2007 02:33PM

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Voip,
That's the point. Significant numbers of voters APPROVE of wrongdoing. I don't believe any of the wriggling excuses, e.g. he/she is a good local rep. or we have an anti-authoritarian culture. That might be plausible in the case of some minor offence. It just won't wash to say, "I don't condone political violence but I'm prepared to vote for a gunrunner because he's a good local man." The offence is too big and alternative candidates too many for this to be remotely plausible. Face facts: in Kerry there is a considerable number of people who approve of their TD's murderous activities, while in Mayo a goodly number approve of helping people to cheat the rest of us. There's no need to carry on through the others.

These people standing for election create a plebiscite on their offences.

To be fair, Sinn Fein and Martin Ferris have said that certain things about the troubles were wrong. I don't think you can compare the two really. One was largely a political struggle. Beverly Flynn has as yet not expressed any remorse or said what she did was wrong. She still doesn't think it was wrong. And she is the person we then expect to enact good laws. So one group has faced up to its past, its time Bev did as well.

Mick86 · 12-07-2007 08:53PM

gbh wrote:

To be fair, Sinn Fein and Martin Ferris have said that certain things about the troubles were wrong.

Oh yeah. Anything that was done TO republicans was wrong, anything done BY republicans was OK.

Jackie laughlin · 13-07-2007 12:52AM

I was trying to avoid getting into this. However, the one thing that Bev and Ferris share is the lack of any shred of remorse. Of course their offences are completely different. Ferris was convicted. Bev was never charged. Importing guns is far more serious than tax crime. Both of these people would be shunned by decent people. It seems that a significant portion of the electorate is of the same mind as the offenders.

stovelid · 13-07-2007 08:06AM

I agree with JL to a point. While I think a section of the electorate admire unethical behavior; I think a larger section are just willing to ignore it for selfish electoral interests - whether that is getting a new bridge or just "not breaking the economy"

gbh wrote:

To be fair, Sinn Fein and Martin Ferris have said that certain things about the troubles were wrong. I don't think you can compare the two really. One was largely a political struggle. Beverly Flynn has as yet not expressed any remorse or said what she did was wrong. She still doesn't think it was wrong. And she is the person we then expect to enact good laws. So one group has faced up to its past, its time Bev did as well.

LOL at the "largely"..

gbh · 13-07-2007 09:02AM

Yes it was largely a political struggle to defend Catholics from Protestant agression often in the form of state sponsored repression during the early 1970's.

stovelid · 13-07-2007 09:22AM

gbh wrote:

Yes it was largely a political struggle to defend Catholics from Protestant agression often in the form of state sponsored repression during the early 1970's.

Off topic but the IRA must have kept this covert 'political' struggle aimed solely against Protestant aggressors under wraps in the early 70's? I'd never heard of it.

On topic - the last election showed exactly what a large portion of the electorate will choose if picking between unethical behavior and the their (electorate) own personal interests

gbh · 13-07-2007 09:42AM

Well you know the saying, War is politics by other means. The IRA were supported by a lot of people who in other circumstances would be considered moderates. The conditions and oppression of the time drove them to do what they did. If you were living up north at the time you might have done the same. But thats the past now.

is_that_so · 13-07-2007 10:31AM

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I realise that any negative comment on SF is routinely dismissed as "SF bashing" but in all the threads condemning Bad Bev and her Mayo supporters, there was just one mention of the fact that she hadn't been convicted of anything while a similarly unrepentant but convicted gunrunner was quietly re-elected in Kerry.

The Kerry people who voted for this demon (I may as well use the word as I'll be accused of demonising him!) are just the worst example of voters in a number of constituencies who show themselves ready to support wrongdoing.

I think it is a mixture of things

1. Love of the Irish stroke.

We all do it in large or smaller ways and tend to have a sneaking admiration for people who get away with it.

2. Ethics

This is a word in the dictionary that is subsumed by the above. We tend to be loose on definitions of hard things like ethics. There are really degrees of wrong and ethics only applies to the really bad ones.

3. Whimsy

Ah sure what did I do? It did no harm.

4. The Dublin "mejia"

Much as Lowry was lauded locally in the aftermath of his disgrace and promptly voted back in, Bev is much the same. The Dublin mejia/Dublin 4 is implicated in both.

5. The Yarn

We love someone with a bit of bare-faced cheek who can tell a good story, even if they might be lying.

CJ Haughey, P Flynn , Burke etc.

6. Local politics

All politics is local.

7. We just don't care enough.

Jackie laughlin · 13-07-2007 01:57PM

This is a bit off topic but some of the IRA guff needs a reply and I'll return to the topic in a bit. Have a look at the defence offered by the failed London terrorists who were convicted a couple of days ago. They too were into the, "I'm not really to blame" routine: "I fell in with extremists"; "If it hadn't been for the way muslims are treated, I wouldn't have done it"; "In another situation, I'd be a law abiding citizen". Complete bollocks of course but familiar to anyone who has had to listen to Irish terrorist talk.

No the level of support for immorality is straightforward. It is selective. Would a paedophile who might get a bridge built be elected? Certainly not! However, worse - a gunrunner - was. This, as I said, is plebiscite material. Low types putting hemselves forward for election and asking the question, "Who agrees that I did no wrong?" Agreement is expressed in a vote.

gbh · 16-07-2007 09:00AM

Don't see how talking about the IRA is off topic because this thread is about IRA members being voted and Bev being voted in by the electorate. First thing you should note about Irish elections is that they are not moral contests. Politics is about being effective and being able to act at the right time, nothing more, nothing less. This is why countries like France and Russia got rid of their kings, because they were relatively passive, had little interest in the people and let their countries go down the tube while patronising an elite. So the people vote for other people who they believe can most effectively represent them in the national parliament and sometimes who they vote for aren't perfect people.

The other point is that elections are an expression by people of their free will. No-one really has the right to tell another how to vote, although newspapers like the Sindo do try to influence others how to vote by criticising some candidates or parties and complementing others. However, the more you tell someone how you think they should vote the more likely it is they will vote the way they originally wanted because they believe its a matter of free will to vote for whoever they want, no matter what the past is of the candidate, with some exceptions of course.

Jackie laughlin · 17-07-2007 11:08AM

GBH,
You say that politics is not about morals and then go on to show that it is! People vote for candidates who represent their views. That's my point.

How those people form their views is another question. However, receiving an order or instruction seems unlikely. Trying to sway people is to be encouraged. I can't see any sane person voting in a way simply to spite someone they imagined was trying to convince them otherwise.

gbh · 17-07-2007 12:53PM

Jackie laughlin wrote:

GBH,
You say that politics is not about morals and then go on to show that it is! People vote for candidates who represent their views. That's my point.

How those people form their views is another question. However, receiving an order or instruction seems unlikely. Trying to sway people is to be encouraged. I can't see any sane person voting in a way simply to spite someone they imagined was trying to convince them otherwise.

Well from what I can see of politics its a dirty business and nice guys finish last. This is true about getting into government as it is about getting something small improved in your locality. Charlie Haughy was the master of 'persuading' others to get things done. But power corrupts as we all know so people in the end think they can do what they please once they have some power or are related to someone with power. I agree that it would be strange to vote just to spite another person but its undeniable that it is happening...look at Lowry, Flynn, etc...local people voting to spite the national media.

Voipjunkie · 17-07-2007 07:22PM

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Voip,
That's the point. Significant numbers of voters APPROVE of wrongdoing. I don't believe any of the wriggling excuses, e.g. he/she is a good local rep. or we have an anti-authoritarian culture. That might be plausible in the case of some minor offence. It just won't wash to say, "I don't condone political violence but I'm prepared to vote for a gunrunner because he's a good local man." The offence is too big and alternative candidates too many for this to be remotely plausible. Face facts: in Kerry there is a considerable number of people who approve of their TD's murderous activities, while in Mayo a goodly number approve of helping people to cheat the rest of us. There's no need to carry on through the others.

These people standing for election create a plebiscite on their offences.

Yes but what is your point

A large number of people are not put off voting for Ferris despite the fact that they know full well his history. So what?

That is democracy.

This is not confined to Ireland it happens all over the world look at the UK Blair won an election after illegally invading and causing the deaths of thousands of people (far more than Ferris and his mates ever managed)

stovelid · 17-07-2007 10:32PM

Voipjunkie wrote:

Yes but what is your point

A large number of people are not put off voting for Ferris despite the fact that they know full well his history. So what?

That is democracy.

No offense but if I hear another lazy chorus of "this is democracy" in answer to reasonably disagreeing with/criticizing of voting behavior, I'll throw my laptop out the window.

Despairing of Ferris or BCF voter IS NOT a de facto rebuttal of their democratic rights.

It's as useful as folding your arms and saying 'Blair was elected by the people na-na-na-na" if somebody criticizes the Iraq deployment.

Voipjunkie · 18-07-2007 10:23AM

stovelid wrote:

No offense but if I hear another lazy chorus of "this is democracy" in answer to reasonably disagreeing with/criticizing of voting behavior, I'll throw my laptop out the window.

Despairing of Ferris or BCF voter IS NOT a de facto rebuttal of their democratic rights.

It's as useful as folding your arms and saying 'Blair was elected by the people na-na-na-na" if somebody criticizes the Iraq deployment.

Ok despair away but what is your point ? People should not vote for people you find unpalatable.
While you might think it is lazy to point out that we live in a democracy the constant whinging because the result was not the "right" one makes me want to throw your laptop out the window as well.:D

stovelid · 18-07-2007 11:48AM

Voipjunkie wrote:

Ok despair away but what is your point ? People should not vote for people you find unpalatable.

Throw your own laptop out

My point is that I think it's OK to disagree (even to the point of incredulity) with other voters without them (or others) resorting to the default democratic rights shtick.

If we were always so literal about dissenting (but ultimately respecting) other people's actions, this forum would be a boring place.

Jackie laughlin · 19-07-2007 10:54PM

I disagree with the political choice of the vast majority of my fellow citizens but that majority has not voted for a gunman or someone considerably less - but still - reprehensible.

FTA69 · 22-07-2007 11:54AM

The thing you have continually failed to appreciate jackie, is the fact that the Republican Movement had a lot of support all over Ireland, and the experience that these communities went through led them to choose Republicans as their representatives. You might find it anathema that Ferris was elected, but that's your opinion and obviously the majority of those in North Kerry disagree with you. At least Ferris is upfront and open about his past, it was done not for selfish reasons and in pursuit of what he believed; unlike Flynn who was up to her neck in dodgy, greasy financial deals and she tried to brush it all under the carpet. Knowing Ferris I can say he is a man of integrity.

To be honest I can't understand your preoccupation with Sinn Féin, they are fully constitutional and are a threat to nobody bar the odd dissident Republican. Your only concern with them seems to be based on a war that's over 10 years.

Jackie laughlin · 22-07-2007 04:05PM

FTA69,
As an aside from this thread, yes, I do fear SF/IRA. An amnesty for all criminals might be worth talking about but I would argue against. I don't think that anyone is going to buy into a distinction between criminals who gained and criminals who didn't. Anyway, Bev merely got the usual terms and conditions for her job at the bank along with the other 18 people similarly employed. Like Ferris, she is unapologetic.

It is worth noting that a majority in Kerry did not vote for Ferris.

However, my point is that in voting for the likes of Ferris and Bev, voters express approval for wrongdoing. A quota does not make a candidate's actions moral. Rather, it gives some idea of the level of moral sentiment on an issue in a constituency.

FTA69 · 22-07-2007 04:40PM

As an aside from this thread, yes, I do fear SF/IRA.

Why? The IRA has been completely neutered as a subversive force, Sinn Féin is aching to move toward the centrist platform and join a coalition. They are actively governing the Six Counties and have accepted a British police force. I wouldn't fear them anymore than I'd fear the Greens.

I don't think that anyone is going to buy into a distinction between criminals who gained and criminals who didn't.

But they do, by your logic Michael Collins was a criminal because he broke the law, but yet people recognise those who break the law for political reasons are somewhat different than those who do it for self gain.

It is worth noting that a majority in Kerry did not vote for Ferris.

Semantics. If you've a problem with that then you have a problem with the electoral process in general. The fact remains he has a democratic mandate and was returned by the people of North Kerry as one of their representatives.

voters express approval for wrongdoing. A quota does not make a candidate's actions moral. Rather, it gives some idea of the level of moral sentiment on an issue in a constituency.

But as I was saying it is only your opinion that Martin Ferris is or was immoral, obviously an opinion not shared by the people of North Kerry. You have no right to deem people "immoral" because of that.

Jackie laughlin · 23-07-2007 11:57AM

FTA,
I hope that I'm wrong about SF/IRA and that my closest friend is right; he believes that they will soldier on (no pun intended) for a few more years before being absorbed by FF. However, I've discussed this with you before on Boards and, as you know, I just don't buy this.

I do believe that Michael Collins was a murdering thug.

Bev's "work" in the bank brought her no particular gain. She very likely believes that she facilitated customers in doing right, i.e. avoiding tax. This is a political perspective.

My point about a minority in Kerry voting Ferris was merely to point out that the problem is not with a large number of voters. I support PRSTV.

Is all guilt a matter of opinion? I include Ferris here merely because to pillory Bev would be ridiculous while ignoring the far, far greater offence.

Bad Bev's sins are relative and supported

Comments