Great Irish Political Leaders

Sean Lemass, great leader for this country.

Him and T.K Whitaker did help to modernise the nation.

I'd take Lemass and Whittaker over Dev and McQuaid any day!!

For your consideration I'd also offer Garret Fitzgerald.

I also think Haughey merits consideration - for all his many flaws he did have a dark charisma and certain style .......and aside from that he actually brought in some decent policies and wasn't afraid to govern.

Fitzgerald had no desire to be other than an academic and was delighted to be viewed as one.

Haughey wanted to be a statesman and achieved it, although his legacy is marred by corruption.

Reynolds wanted to be a statesman but with his demeanour never could rise above being ‘one of the lads.’

Bruton was a ‘gentleman farmer’ and when in office never could make up his mind if he wanted that or to be known as a statesman. (Which is why he is a good diplomat.)

Ahern did not care as long as he was liked and re-elected. He now has to worry about his legacy/standing, hence the ‘Iar-taoiseach’ sobriquet.

Cowan could never be a statesman as he had an ego that over-rode common decency and politeness.

Kenny desperately wants to be a statesman but has neither the ability, talent nor capacity to be one.

tdv123 wrote: »

The same Bruton who had ago at Vol. Martin "Doco" Doherty, after Doco risked his own life who without doubt saved I'd say potentially the biggest massacre of the troubles? That Bruton? And be begrudge him a military funeral for his heroic actions.

Nonsense. Doherty was a convicted terrorist, by his own boast he spent time 'on active service' in the IRA's bombing campaign in England. There is no doubt he saved lives in the attempted Dublin pub bombing, but he died as he lived. He was not a soldier and had no right to a military funeral. He was buried in an IRA managed PR funeral. This discussion is about statesmen, you have added nothing to it.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nonsense. Doherty was a convicted terrorist, by his own boast he spent time 'on active service' in the IRA's bombing campaign in England. There is no doubt he saved lives in the attempted Dublin pub bombing, but he died as he lived. He was not a soldier and had no right to a military funeral. He was buried in an IRA managed PR funeral. This discussion is about statesmen, you have added nothing to it.

Clearly you are very susceptible to propaganda,read a book,honestly.Fair play to volunteer Doherty for resisting British rule in Ireland.He was a soldier of the Irish Republic and should have received a soldier's funeral.

burgermasters wrote: »

I know it two days after your post but feel I should say anyway?
Churchhill offered dev the 6 counties if Ireland declared its would fight as allied to British but the coward claimed he didn't trust the British, fact was that we couldn't have afforded to go to war any way and if so it meant the British footing the bills for us and dev didn't want that? That info comes from my grandfather whom was a volunteer back in the day, also have to say Collins was the best irish leader ever, rip

In what way was Michael Collins the greatest Irish leader ever?He accepted the Treaty which was a blatant sell-out and gave us nothing,a war where we lost so much young men and civillians and not to mention the regular,working class English soldiers whoalso died for nothing.He then turned on his former comrades and accepted partition of our country.Had he lived circumstances might have changed,he might have redeemed himself but we do not know.One things for sure,he was neither a Republican,a man of principle or a great leader.

I always find it strange seeing northern republicans idolising Collins, he played a part in partition even if it was for reasons he thought were right.

xx

Che16 wrote: »

In what way was Michael Collins the greatest Irish leader ever?He accepted the Treaty which was a blatant sell-out and gave us nothing,a war where we lost so much young men and civillians and not to mention the regular,working class English soldiers whoalso died for nothing.He then turned on his former comrades and accepted partition of our country.Had he lived circumstances might have changed,he might have redeemed himself but we do not know.One things for sure,he was neither a Republican,a man of principle or a great leader.

Well, let's start with the fact that regardless of his military credentials, he was an outstanding organiser - his role as Minister of Finance is hugely overlooked along with his role in organising the logistics of the War of Independence. All while on the run and managing a first class intelligence gathering operation.

He was also astute enough to realise that while the British were war weary, the Republican forces were spent - they were effectively out of ammunition and a lot of units were, in modern parlance, 'combat ineffective' for the want of replacements. In the circumstances he did as well as anyone could have.

OCorcrainn wrote: »

A good choice, I am a Sinn Féin supporter myself but if I was living up north the SDLP would get my vote too. I have a lot respect for the effort that party did during the Troubles, more so for the work John Hume did, no one can deny his contribution. Nationalists needed men like him just as much as Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness.

The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)

Kettleson wrote: »

Bigdeadlydave, perhaps "collaborating" is too strong a word? I can remember those days and can remember feeling totally frustrated that Sinn Fein were not allowed to enter into formal negotiations, and I can understand why you believe that the troubles were extended as a result.

But there are also many many other reasons why the troubles lasted the length that they did.

I cant remember the exact reasons why Sinn Fein were excluded, apart from the obvious alleged links with "terrorist" organisations. I for one would have disagreed with their exclusion, but I do not think that John Hume would have deliberately excluded them to protect his vote, or the SDLP's foothold in NI politics. Though others in the SDLP would for sure have had that agenda.

(Did John Hume have a vote on keeping Sinn Fein out?).

Would there also have been Loyalist "Political" organisations who were also excluded from formal discussions?

And if I may ask, would you consider Sinn Feins current status as collaborating with the British Government?

Lastly a clip of JH on the doorstep. In my opinion he had the courage of his conviction and chose to take the democratic route.

I am also reminded of Gerry Fitt, or "Fitt the Brit" as he was dubbed by his own. I think he lost count of how many times his house was attacked.

I believe that they all contributed significantly to getting us to where we are today.

http://youtu.be/j863HQ2OF5Q

Gerry Fitt:

http://youtu.be/LA4B6_REg40

I suggest reading "A secret history of the IRA", of particular interest is the period after the hungerstrikes when the SDLP, Garret Fitzgerald and the British all collaborated in order to exclude SF and to damage their increasing votes. In order to do this they promoted the SDLP. As we all know (and SF and others pointed out at the time) peace only came when everyone was included. It's basic stuff, if you want fighting to stop you have to include all the combatants in negotiations. So yes, the SDLP through their collaboration with Thatcher helped extend the troubles. And yes, this was self interest. By the time all this was played out in front of the cameras the ball was already long rolling.

At this stage (early eighties) Adams and Haughey were engaged in secret negotiations using Fr Alec Reid as an intermediary. It pains me to praise Haughey but he realized that excluding republicans would never work. (as was obvious) He took a massive risk with these negotiations as if they got out it would have been the end of him, especially considering his earlier involvement in the Arms Crisis. It is unclear if Adams actions were authorized by the IRA or not, depending on the answer to that he was also on thin ice, but it would have been far more damaging to Haughey. Out of these negotiations came the peace process, Hume gets far more credit than he should. To his credit Hume and the SDLP did eventually fall on their sword but only after over a decade of aiding the British in sidelining republicans. (As did the laughably nicknamed "Garret the Good" who incidentally showed no interest in engaging with Fr Alec Reid, the negotiations were interrupted whenever Sir Garret was in office) If you want to pick a peacemaker out of this time period that man is Fr Alec Reid.

Kettleson wrote: »

"It's basic stuff, if you want fighting to stop you have to include all the combatants in negotiations"..

This isn't a road I want to go down, but with regard to the above, what is your opinion of including the 32 Sovereignty Movement and the "Real IRA" in discussions with whoever?

And what is your opinion on Sinn Feins current status within the British Democratic process?

And as Lou Reed, said, "don't believe none of what you see and half of what you hear"... Books? Eh?

Why shift the goalposts like that? So you don't believe any of the multitude of books about the topic? Ed Moloneys book about the IRA is very good and I would say the most accurate in dealing with the period of time we are talking about. But you obviously must know better? Bit odd to see books so easily dismissed in a history forum.

As for the Real IRA and whatnot, their "war" is hardly comparable to that of the provisionals is it? They have nowhere near the same support, capability, activity, membership etc, in fact I'd say there are more British agents or touts in it than republicans. But yes, I think they should be talked with, SF have offered many times but they have refused.

As for Sinn Féin and the wider provisional movement, I think they were right to stop fighting, and should have done so sooner, but I think the GFA will only lead to more tears because it doesn't solve the root issue and even worse it institutionalizes sectarianism. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant, it seems to me you are going on a fishing expedition in order to find a red herring.

Kettleson wrote: »

I'm fishing for nothing. Was merely responding to your posts re John Hume. And I'm not even going to being to explain what I know. You stick to the books.

Why bother posting on a HISTORY forum if your only contribution is a self satisfied smug remark like that? It's obvious it's just a cover for your ignorance - however that is the very thing which discussions like this are supposed to help with - if you'll let them.

Tell us what you know then, and how you are better informed than the likes of Ed Moloney or the numerous people he talked with while writing his books.

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, let's start with the fact that regardless of his military credentials, he was an outstanding organiser - his role as Minister of Finance is hugely overlooked along with his role in organising the logistics of the War of Independence. All while on the run and managing a first class intelligence gathering operation.

He was also astute enough to realise that while the British were war weary, the Republican forces were spent - they were effectively out of ammunition and a lot of units were, in modern parlance, 'combat ineffective' for the want of replacements. In the circumstances he did as well as anyone could have.

I never claimed he didn't do any good/remarkable deeds.However,he turned on his former comrades and sold out,that is unforgivable.

Che16 wrote: »

To say the Real IRA's campaign is in anyway comparable. To the Provos is ridiculous,there's a lot of propaganda against them,they DO have large support,finance,membership and capability,the reason their campaign is so minor compared to the Provos is because the conditions for war aren't strong enough,yet.

Head in the sand stuff, there's no point fooling yourself, doesnt do anyone any good.

Oh,and regarding your final comment.

Of course it is my opinion,that goes withput saying.

And let's look at it objectively now.

Was he a Republican?No.Why?Well a Republican is someone who owes their allegiance to the Irish Republic,proclaimed in 1916,ratified by the people in 1918 and defended by force of arms in 1919-1921 and driven underground by it's former adherents in 1922.Michael Collins abandoned this proclamation,he surrendered to the occupation forces the Republic by signing the treaty,partitioned the nation and went to war with the Republic's soldiers,he was not a Republican.

As for a man of principle,he proclaimed himself a Republican,I just said how that isn't true,if he wasn't a Republican he should have said so,he was a Nationalist,nothing more.Atleast people like Arthur Griffith never said they were Republican.

And I've already pointed out the "great leader" bit.