|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2009 14:41:54 GMT
Griffith was a member of Sinn Fein, and lets be honest here, quite a different party compared to todays, Sinn Fein at one point was the only, or main republican outlet along with a couple of other organisations that had other goals alongside republicanism with them. Quite different to today where every major party in the south are republican, as in they uphold the republic state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jun 26, 2009 0:04:31 GMT
Cough, cough, cough, Sean Russell, cough, cough, cough... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ah do you remember the history Ireland article I posted cough cough that was dismissed as some kind of loyalist propaganda from some loyalist website cough cough until I posted the email from history Ireland cough cough. ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Jun 26, 2009 0:21:22 GMT
I think the mixed and dual messages and ambiguous policies add to 'the baggage of northern politics' that Sinn Fein send out.
For example; Sinn Fein campaigns at election time for an 'All-Ireland energy market', but in border areas it campaigns against the building of energy infrastructure. How can electricity and other energy become an 'All-Ireland market' if they can not build infrastructure, the two are not compatible policies. Which makes your politics unfeasible and simply populous to obtain votes in the hope of clouding the conflicting policy issues.
Sinn Fein and other parties object to the building of nuclear power stations, but both north & south are increasingly dependent of inter-connectors to Britain, where a 5th of electricity is supplied by nuclear power. If nuclear power is wrong why do we import it and exploit another nation.
So we have across Ireland Sinn Fein involved in numerous campaigns objecting to incinerators, wind-farms, gas and oil projects. And individually there is merit in objecting to these campaigns. But taken together they form an opinion that Sinn Fein is a protest party with no eye on a wider perspective except in rhetoric.
The Green Party in the south were exposed as power hungry first and 'green' second. A better energy policy that is not conflicting could have made a niche.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Jun 28, 2009 9:46:06 GMT
I think Setanta you are either missing the point I was making or avoiding it.
I agree with all your points, but taken individually they are legitimate. But taken collectively there are conflicting messages on an 'All-Ireland energy policy'.
While I can understand objections to overhead pylons and would not want to live near one. The existing plan for the Tyrone to Cavan interconnector would construct buildings at least 60m from existing and planned residential housing, The Tyrone to Cavan interconnector will run at 400kV - which is quite normal in the souths existing system. Why is there no Sinn Fein 'All-Ireland' campaign to get all such cables underground in the south? Because everyone realizes that the cost of such a program would make it seem unfeasible. So surely cost must be a factor in the north/south proposal and the cost of underground would add £300m to £500m to the project.
For everyone underground would be desirable but in the end it comes down to economics. If underground is not governed by economics then all over head must be objected to. To be selective and to campaign selectively is not policy but popular voting trawling politics.
Yes at the moment the 26 counties is not connected to Britain or France. But even SF recognize that for various reasons such interconnectors are coming and they are not pie in the sky. I won't go into the Greens suggestion of exporting power. But as part of the EU it is inevitable that there will be a EU energy market that is connected to all members. But once these are interconnectors are running we will be connected to Nuclear power. So how can we want an 'All-Ireland energy policy' when the north is connected to Scotland (and therefore Nuclear power) and thus connecting the south to nuclear power. It then raises the question do we want to use nuclear power but not have a power station? If we object to nuclear power we have to object to interconnection, if we object to interconnection we are objecting to an 'All-Ireland energy policy'.
For myself this is the sort of politics FF engage in. And we are trying to out do them, because they are a potent force in the south. In the north the political situation forced SF to develop in a different way. Where instead of little campaigns that work their way up and are disconnected from the overall objective, all campaigns flow down from and are part of the big objective. It means that support for somethings is not given because they are counter to over all policy.
As someone who takes an active interest in politics across Ireland, if I am unclear and see conflicting issues then what picture is the average joe getting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 28, 2009 14:05:59 GMT
I've been thinking the same AFD, I noticed it and it had a part to play in me not voting for SF. Although realistically speaking SF have recognised that Ireland is not one country as of yet and the border may call for different policies depending on whats happening, all-Ireland strategies such as energy have no need to give conflicting views. Its appealing for voters depending on region and constituency and its not going to be a long term success if it comes to clearer light that they are doing that; a lot of SF voters probably dont look at their policies for a Dublin constituency when voting in West Belfast or a border town.
I do feel that with the growth of the EU its becoming less important anyway and on a EU front the policies should remain the exact same. An EU energy market is already growing in theory and it will most likely be Nuclear power; SF are opposed to Britains use of Nuclear power because they are pumping waste into the Irish sea (as are most Irish parties), but would they rather pump it into the North sea? In the end its still being pumped into "EU waters" so I feel they are ignoring the issue of Nuclear power on a bigger scale and only focusing on Ireland. If SF want future success in Europe they'll need to revise that, it IS something people look at, especially down south where people dont vote for a party because they feel its their only option as they do in the north.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Jun 30, 2009 19:04:09 GMT
So if peace of mind is priceless for Tyrone/Cavan people how come Sinn Fein are not equally concerned about people's peace of mind in the rest of Ireland who live near existing electric cable that is using 400kV?
What makes one greater than the other?
I see two choices here:
1. Tell the Tyrone/Cavan campaign that while there are issues and safe guards that need to be put in place if these are addressed then there is a greate need for an All-Ireland energy policy that these interconnectors will bring.
2. Ask the ESB to provide maps of all overhead lines that use 400kV cable. Then relate that to habitate and building like schools. And maybe build a national campaign that ensures future cable of such size is underground and a program of development with a time frame that addresses such old lines and upgrades them to new underground cables.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Jul 13, 2009 11:08:28 GMT
While I have not read the article in full (only snippets here and there) I think I have enough to see that Toiréasa Ferris's criticism is the same as I was trying to put across here, only I tried to focus in on one policy aspect to better highlight the point.
The fact that she has voiced the same opinion gives hope for the future. But as someone who found myself systematically isolated and pushed to the sideline of irrelevance for pushing the same notion in 1977, I know she she is on a hiding to nothing. Some 'debate' is tolerated but it is never seriously allowed to flourish, especially with the current leadership. Maybe instead of Mary Lou, Toiréasa should be Vice-President.
There are two choices:
1. Copy FF and pretend that SF will be a party to decide government policy in the south.
2. Engage in local politics, and be a party of protest building towards a large base.
By having these contradictory 'National Policies' that mean nothing to average voter only clouds the issues. Look at the Green Party in government (SF at present can only hope to be similar in size in government coalition) they are now administering policies that are anti-green, and will be like the PD's dismissed by the next election.
The only long term and strategy can be choice two, to continue on the same course is madness.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Jul 13, 2009 23:02:52 GMT
No you have not been pushed yet, but with no disrespect I have seen no ground shift in basic strategy since 1977. In 1977 we were already building towards the primacy of party politics over militarism. And council elections and taking seats in council was under 'debate', but I knew enough to work out a decision had already been taken on this route.
At that time Belfast Council was a different prospect, but we could have set up 'alternative' councils in West Belfast and other nationalists areas and achieved autonomy and eventually state recognition. This was easily obtainable, Castlereagh is in Belfast but has its own council, but the 'leadership' felt this was a step too 'left'.
I maybe outside but I still know enough of the insides to know little has changed, so there is no surprise. A surprise would be a new leadership, I think the time has come, they have achieved all they can achieve. Time to pat them on the back and pension them off.
|
|
