The Fine Gael thread

[Canalman]

Most 26 Co Political parties up to the 1960s were all ran by Senior IRA figures ( although Dev like Gerry seemed to miss out on all the fighting).
However until the bright articulate types like Pearse Doherty become the leadership in SF they will struggle to get more than the dedicated SFs or protest vote.
By then they will simply have morphed into Labour circa mid 20th Century.

To be fair to him deValera fought in the Easter Rising. Iirc his command inflicted more casualties on the British than any other that week. Unfounded rumours about his command  that week were afaik never proven to be true but politically motivated.
Correct to say he was in America for WoI but he certainly was around in the Civil War when he was target no 1 for the Free State forces . Don't think he would have been taken alive either............... probably would have been "shot while trying to escape" or killed in "mine clearing operations"

[trueblue1234]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

[Donnellys Hollow]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

[trueblue1234]

I personally find that hard to believe DH. I don't think it's just a time frame thing. Dev didn't get the same stigma attached to him as what your attaching to Adams and ferris. So there has to be more to it than that.

[Nally Stand]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber particularly bitter lemon to be in the government here.

[Syferus]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber particularly bitter lemon to be in the government here.

That would make SF arsenic, Nally.

[Farrandeelin]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

To be honest that 'detail' doesn't bother me one bit. Yes, I knew well which one you alluded to. A nice few people have murky pasts, but that, like the troubles is in the past, and I do believe that they are, (granted there will always be dissidents). However the media like to fall back on the old SF/IRA argument  "how could we let them in" mantra from time to time. Especially when the Shinners are doing well at the polls...

[Lar Naparka]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

[Lar Naparka]

Most 26 Co Political parties up to the 1960s were all ran by Senior IRA figures ( although Dev like Gerry seemed to miss out on all the fighting).
However until the bright articulate types like Pearse Doherty become the leadership in SF they will struggle to get more than the dedicated SFs or protest vote.
By then they will simply have morphed into Labour circa mid 20th Century.

To be fair to him deValera fought in the Easter Rising. Iirc his command inflicted more casualties on the British than any other that week. Unfounded rumours about his command  that week were afaik never proven to be true but politically motivated.
Correct to say he was in America for WoI but he certainly was around in the Civil War when he was target no 1 for the Free State forces . Don't think he would have been taken alive either............... probably would have been "shot while trying to escape" or killed in "mine clearing operations"

I never heard of such rumours. Could you elaborate?
I had a few chats with a lovely old lady whose mother had been nanny to the Gifford sisters and she (the mother) had great respect for Dev and the part he played in the Rising. I was told that he was held in great respect by his troops and that "he led by example."

[Donnellys Hollow]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

Indeed. 1922 and 1923 were shrouded in silence until the last 25 years or so such was the deep rooted lasting bitterness of that period. The Civil War did not appear in the school curriculum and events like Ballyseedy were airbrushed from history.

[Maguire01]

Given those points (and taking this a bit off the FG thread topic), what's the opinion of those in the south to suggestions of a 'truth commission' for NI?

Ignoring my opinion that it would never work - one side would never believe the other had told the whole truth etc. (and probably with good reason) - does the theory of the idea even work? Would it have made any difference to the animosity in the south post-Civil War if such a process had taken place? Would it be any more likely to prevent such divisions in NI in 90 years time?

[Nally Stand]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

[Lar Naparka]

Given those points (and taking this a bit off the FG thread topic), what's the opinion of those in the south to suggestions of a 'truth commission' for NI?

Ignoring my opinion that it would never work - one side would never believe the other had told the whole truth etc. (and probably with good reason) - does the theory of the idea even work? Would it have made any difference to the animosity in the south post-Civil War if such a process had taken place? Would it be any more likely to prevent such divisions in NI in 90 years time?

I couldn't see it working either.
There were too many parties involved in the conflict and the time frame is too long. On the nationalist side, I suppose most of the incidents involved the Provos in some way but on the Loyalist side there were acts carried out by the UDF, UDR, Red Hand Commandos amongst others, not to mention the many shadowy organisations whose identity was unknown but who were suspected of having links with the security forces.
The security forces would also have many questions to answer and it's hard to know what Stormont, Westminster and Dublin got up to during this period.
I regret having to say that many thousands of people in the north won't find closure before they go to their graves but will pass their sense of grief and bitterness on to the next generation and to many others to come.
People in the south haven't settled their differences yet but there were only two distinct parties involved- those for and those against the Treaty.

[Lar Naparka]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

"Really" what?

There are still families that won't speak to or have any dealings with other families because of what happened 90 years ago.
About 20 years ago, I was seeking office in my teaching organisation. Two Mayo county councillors were members of the Mayo delegation to the convention where the voting took place.
One was Fine Gael and the other was Fianna Fail- if you follow me.
Both approached me the night before the voting and offered to give me a dig out.
Together we worked every restaurant and watering hole around Salthill and its surrounds and, believe me, there are lots of restaurants and watering holes around Salthill and its surrounds.
The two lads were far more used to the "press the flesh" stuff that I was and they had far more contacts amongst the delegates than I had.
(They were damn good canvassers too because I won the next day on a show of hands- no need for a count to be taken.)
We finished off in the bar o the hotel where all of us were staying. After (quite) a few drinks, we decided to stagger off to our beds. As we attempted to stand out, one turned to the other and said ,"Jaysus, do you know realise we can't be seen together in public again until this time next year?"
That was 70 years on from the Civil War and old wounds in Mayo hadn't healed by then. I  can tell you much of the old bitterness is still there and will be for a long time yet.
I don't know what criteria you use to measure degrees of bitterness but, down here, it wasn't a case of "ussuns" against "themmuns"
It was very often father v son and brother v brother  and you think we had an easier time that your lot??

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

I've just been through it with Lar (And to be fair his last post clarifies something I had picked us differently orginally). SF have given up the bullet and work solely on a political only basis now. Yet some posters would have them black balled for eternity due to their history with the IRA. But the same posters tend to overlook the orgins of other parties and actions of members within those parties because it was 90 odd years ago. Why?

They'll be blacklisted as long as they're ran by senior IRA figures. Give people the choice between politicians without terrorist links and those who do and take a wild guess as to which of the two the majority will prefer.

SF is marmite and you need to be a nice bland piece of cucumber to be in the government here.

But the IRA is no more. Some members have an IRA history, but they've moved on to a democratic process. Same as the southern parties. So is it just time frame that's the issue here? Or is there a belief that the civil war in the south was more "acceptable" than the northern troubles. And if that is the case why?

The Civil War ended ninety years ago. All active participants are dead and no one has a first hand memory of it. That is not the case with the Troubles which are still very much fresh in the memory. Sinn Féin can point out that the gun has finally been removed from Irish politics but there will always be an easy retort for their political opponents in the 26 counties as long as the likes of Adams and Ferris are prominent in the Dáil.

It did DH, but the fallout from it is still evident right up to this day.
Political opinion was deeply polarised after the fighting ended, and, to an extent, it still is.
The Civil War led to a divide between those who had fought together against their common enemy.
Four to five generations later, some people won't let go of old grudges handed on to them and who don't really know why the act this way. The parents did it, the grandparents did it and it comes naturally to them.
"Monkey see, monkey do."
Lots of northern nationalist feel sore that we in the south "didn't do something" to help them and I suppose that's natural. But our community was just as sharply divided as theirs.
If FF tried to do anything about anything while in power, FG would try to block it and when FG were in government the same applied in reverse. FF filled all types of state jobs with their supporters when they held the upper hand and FG did the same.
Even when WT Cosgrove, De Valera and all the major characters in the civil war died, the divide remained for many years after.
I'd say it was only around the time the GFA was signed that old barriers started to come down.
That's what the Civil War did to us and I'm afraid the shinner lads here may find it will take a long time more before SF is fully accepted as a constitutional party.

The south was as divided as the north during the troubles? Really???

"Really" what?

There are still families that won't speak to or have any dealings with other families because of what happened 90 years ago.
About 20 years ago, I was seeking office in my teaching organisation. Two Mayo county councillors were members of the Mayo delegation to the convention where the voting took place.
One was Fine Gael and the other was Fianna Fail- if you follow me.
Both approached me the night before the voting and offered to give me a dig out.
Together we worked every restaurant and watering hole around Salthill and its surrounds and, believe me, there are lots of restaurants and watering holes around Salthill and its surrounds.
The two lads were far more used to the "press the flesh" stuff that I was and they had far more contacts amongst the delegates than I had.
(They were damn good canvassers too because I won the next day on a show of hands- no need for a count to be taken.)
We finished off in the bar o the hotel where all of us were staying. After (quite) a few drinks, we decided to stagger off to our beds. As we attempted to stand out, one turned to the other and said ,"Jaysus, do you know realise we can't be seen together in public again until this time next year?"
That was 70 years on from the Civil War and old wounds in Mayo hadn't healed by then. I  can tell you much of the old bitterness is still there and will be for a long time yet.
I don't know what criteria you use to measure degrees of bitterness but, down here, it wasn't a case of "ussuns" against "themmuns"
It was very often father v son and brother v brother  and you think we had an easier time that your lot??

I've a mate from Kerry, who after a few pints always tells stories about 2 of his great uncles, one a Free Stater the other a Die Hard and how they both sold each other out to the other side. If his stories are true, one was shot the other bate within an inch of his life. His family have been split since the Civil War (the lad is former FF fanatic, anti them now since he ended out of work for almost 2 years after their mismanagement of the economy, he is not pro-FG but begrudgingly says they are not as bad but still will never vote for them [or SF for that matter]).