Talk:Fine Gael/Archive 1

European People's Party

The European People's Party page informs that there is a Cypriot party that is also in this voting bloc, so the line about FG being 'the only member-party of the Christian Democratic European People's Party (EPP) in Ireland, or indeed, from anywhere outside Continental Europe' can be edited

Discussion

The edits I've reverted were either simply wrong or POV. It is not true to say that FG is the second biggest party in Ireland. Ireland does not have parties. Only three parties have all Irish structures (Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionists and the Conservatives - yes the latter two do exist south of the border and do run candidates!). Almost all the political parties on the island exist either in the north or the south, not in both. FG is the second biggest party in the Republic, not the island, just as Fianna Fail is the biggest party in the Republic: it does not run candidates in the North.

The claim that FG is perceived as less in favour of Irish unity is garbage. FG has promoted a different concept of unity to the unitary state pushed for most of the time by FF. But while Haughey talked the talk, FG did deliver in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the first attempt to involve the south in governing the north since the early 1920s. 159.134.137.114 07:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page offers me nothing on what Fine Gael's political stances are. Look here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29

And tell me .. why can't we have such a sidebar for political parties of nations like Ireland..?

Someone doesnt like facing up to the truth about Fine Gael. It is a reformed fascist party, thats just a fact.

In Italy Post-Fascist parties are referred to as just that: "Post-Fascist". Fine Gael should be called what it is: "Post-Fascist". Fine Gael's founder of Eoin Duffy (Remember chants of "Hail Duffy!"?) was leader of the Irish fascist group The Blue Shirts, which were modeled on British Fascism; this movement later became Fine Gael, after a merger with the Pro-British-Rule Cumann na nGaedheal. The fact that this article does not mention Duffy or Irish Fascism in the foundation of Fine Gael in actual the narrative of the article shows that it is inaccurate and biased in the extreme. (In fact, it is the kind of re-writing of history associated with the Fascist movement.) Also, how in hell's name can Fine Gael be described as a centrist or merely centre-right party? Only if you agree with Ronald Reagan / Margaret Thatcher's re-drawing of the lines between Right and Centre-Right in the 1980s (with the help of Rupert Murdoch's press machine) can this bizarre claim be defended. Fine Gael were Fascists, and now share almost all of their policies with the EU Fascist and "Post-Fascist" parties. Once more, Wikipedia shows itself to be a source of revisionary and pro-fascist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.250.91 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for such a suggestion? There's been quite a lot of petty vandalism of late on this page. Also, it is untrue to say FG is a sister party of the UUP in the EPP. The UUP are part of the ED group that votes with the EPP. Indeed, the UUp are euro-sceptics while FG are pro integration.

Alessandra Mussolini (grand-daughter of the dictator) MEP for Italy's People's Freedom Party (self-described as Post-Fascist) is also Pro-Nice Treaty and Pro-Lisbon Constitutional Treaty, exactly same as Fine Gael. Fascism and "Pro-Integration"(i.e., pro-EU central control) are not on opposite sides of the political spectrum, they generally go together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.250.91 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cumann na nGheadheal were never referred to as the Commonwealth party, indeed, in Government they did more to undermine it than any other party in the Commonwealth through clever diplomacy.

"Ireland does not have parties". Beautiful. As Fine Gael aspires (or claims to aspire) to a united Ireland, it's valid to say they're the second-biggest party in Ireland. It's also valid to show which Irish MEPs are associated with FG in the European Parliament.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lapsed pacifist that's nonsense. The UUP are eurosceptic and FG are pro-integration.They don't even belong to the same European party! Their respective European parties just vote together int he parliament. No link between UUP and FG

If their parties always vote together, that's a notable link.

Lapsed Pacifist 10:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But the respective parties that they belong to have a different outlook on the future of Europe. The UUP belong to a eurosceptic block along with the British Conservative party whereas FG favour greater European integration, common defence etc. The two parties have nothing in common. One is Nationalist the other Unionist!!

While FG is a largely Christian Democratic party, I don't think it warrants the new side bar on CD. FG was founded on uniquely Irish circumstances and was never contrasted with Chrisitan Democracy until the 1970s when Ireland joined the EU. Fine Gael's outlook is not exclusively Christian democratic

johnymac - 3:14 pm, 17 Feb 2011 It is actually very useful to consider similarity in two party's politics in a universal political spectrum. "Normalisation" of politics on the island of Ireland will eventually result in right-wing/left-wing standard European groupings, and will evolve away from the 'nationalist' versus 'unionist' labels, as these cease to be meaningful. In political thought they are arch-typically parochial, and do not reflect a political alignment accurately. It is not completely illogical to see alignment between Fine Gael and Ulster Unionist Parties of the Right. As it is valid to compare-contrast Fine Gael with the British Conservative Party.

Right-wing/Reactionary

There is much about Just Society and the socially conscious aspect. Fair enough. However, the article most definitely needs a section on the Paddy Donegan/Paddy Cooney/Brendan McGahern section of the party, and the party's role in the Murder Squad and the North in general. There remains a very strong neo fascist/West Brit wing of the Fine Gael party and this should not be written out. Although Bruton was not exactly in that mode, his hatred of even moderate nationalists like Hume went far beyond reaching out to unionism, and much closer to the dubious relationship between senior Fine Gael politicians and British Intelligence during the coalition government in the 1970s. El Gringo 17:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is that?? Tell us more about this "murder squad"? Is it the National Army your on about or the Republicans who went round murdering Government ministers in the 1920s?

Bruton didn't "hate" any Nationalist, he was one himself. Just because he didn't like the idea of killing for Ireland soesn't make him ant nationalist. He was even handed, temperate and ultimately vindicated on the North for keeping talks going through dificult phases. Get your facts straight before talking such utter tripe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Strange how if Bruton "hated" Hume they were such close friends. But then Hume is also a close friend of Paisley. (DUP figures were astonished some years ago when they dropped around to Paisley's home and found the door opened by John Hume. Ian and Eileen had had John and Pat around for tea!) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}

Bruton didn't hate moderate nationalists but he was not a nationalist himself.When he was leader of Fine Gael he didn't join in the pan-nationalist strategy and when he was toaiseach threre was a time he refused to speak to john hume because hume was having discussions with sinn fein Dermo69

Can I suggest that if it is your intention to put political slant, be that overtly positive or negitive, on this page, especially if you have a negitive attitude to this party, refrain from posting on the page. You do not have the right without references, to make comments like associating this party firstly with fascism, and secondly with the UUP. There is no connection in the current party to either. If there is, provide acedemic sources to prove your point of view.

I would most certainly argue that a party partly founded by the fascist blueshirts of the ACA could fail to have at least a mention of said fascism on its page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.31.114 (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

johnymac - 17 Feb 2011 I must disagree. The title of this page is 'discussion'. Any person should have the right to comment, not just those who agree with any given political party. If someone violates the Wiki rules their comments can be removed. It is appropriate to quote sources where they exist, but as is often the case with governments that are uncomfortable with the actions of their predecessors, records are often difficult to find as they can be suppressed. If we followed your thought rules, the page on the Soviet Union would be simply glorious eyewash.

Category:Catholic political parties

would anyone object if I classified this article in the Category:Catholic political parties? -- C mon 07:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes.Sorry but i dont see them as a 'catholic' party.Why do you think they are? Dermo69

Because they are christian-democratic party in a homogenous catholic country. That makes it a logical candidate for the category. --C mon 14:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• What is Category:Catholic political parties intended for? Is it for parties whose policies agree with Catholic teachings? Is it for parties which self-identify as "Catholic parties"? Is it for parties which are supported in particular by Catholic voters? Is it for parties which restrict membership to Catholics? Fine Gael don't qualify under any of these criteria. The Christian Solidarity Party, on the other hand, would. Demiurge 15:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be categorised as a Christian Democratic Party but not as a Catholic Party. They are not the same (they once were). Fine Gael regularly takes stances different to political viewpoint of Roman Catholicism. It championed the introduction of divorce since the 1970s, supported liberalised laws on contraception, and has consistently opposed the Roman Catholic view on abortion, homosexuality, etc. So to call it a Catholic Party is incorrect. The Christian Solidarity Party would qualify for such a designation, though. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)}

Basically the category is meant for christian democratic parties with catholic electorates and which base themselves on catholic social teaching. It is meant to distinguish from protestant CD parties. So I thought that they would fit. I have one question though, why would you classify it as a christian-democratic party if it is so ethically liberal. I realize that the Irish party system is confusing for outsiders but how a CD party in a catholic country cannot be a catholic party confuses me to no end, I have reverted the categorization. --C mon 18:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

C mon, I think that the confusion may stem from your assumption that Ireland is "a Catholic country": at best that's far too simplistic a label, and it's arguably completely wrong these days. This isn't the place to argue the details, but a label like that is a poor starting point. Anyway, well done removing the category :) --BrownHairedGirl 19:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given up. But out of interest Ireland is a dominantly catholic country isn't it? Like the Republic of Ireland page reads The Republic of Ireland is 92% nominally Roman Catholic. I mean how could a read that wrong? --C mon 21:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Without trying to summarise the last few decades of change in Irish society, the clue is in the word nominal.  :)

The fact that a lot of people were baptised in a religion or attend church to some degree does not mean that a political party appealing for their votes will necessarily offer the full programme of adherence to that church's values as a political programme. --BrownHairedGirl 23:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ireland was once a heavily Catholic, heavily Catholicised country. But it no longer is. It has a president who was a founder of a campaign for gay rights, a prime minister who is separated from his wife and for most of his premiership was living with a woman who acted as his hostess on state occasions. Most of the cabinet are separated, divorced or married to divorcees. Mass attendance is around 45% and in freefall, with in some parts of Dublin it nearer to 5%. The electors rejected proposals on abortion endorsed by the Catholic bishops. The electors voted to introduce divorce and against a restriction of the X and C cases on abortion rights.

As to Christian Democracy — few Christian Democratic parties are in step with Roman Catholicism. Most support liberal laws on divorce, marriage, gay rights, abortion. By international standards under Enda Kenny Fine Gael is more conservative and many CD parties. At stage the only political parties that champion Roman Catholic views in law are far right parties in Poland or the likes of the electorally irrelevant Christian Solidarity Party. Yet the Catholic bishops are to the left of it. The highly regarded Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, who is widely tipped to return to a high post at cardinal level in the Vatican (and is openly speculated about in Rome as a future pope) has come out in favour of civil partnerships for gay people. Fine Gael has been defined as Christian Democrat since it joined the European People's Party in the European Parliament in I think 1978. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}

I see the problem: catholicism has a different meaning for you than for me. For me its just a religion, which is often more relaxed than protestantism, for you it is something the Irish have been emancipating from quite a while. You associated catholicism with a conservative past. The category would be too POV-charged for you, while for me its just a sub-category of Christian democracy. (P.S. I will no longer clog the talk-space of this article with my ignorance of Irish society)--C mon 08:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very delicate and difficult subject. I am member of the Dutch Christian Democratic Appeal (and a Catholic too) and will try to formulate my vision on whether Fine Gael is a Catholic party or not. Whether a party is Catholic depends, in my humble opinion, on the fact whether it desires to (solely) represent the Catholics and specifically calls upon Catholic voters to vote for them. I think that Fine Gael, as most Christian Democrats nowadays, doesn't specifically target Catholics but the Irish population in general. It's of course natural for Christian Democratic parties to attract religious voters, but I guess an active member of the Church of Ireland or a left-of-centre non-religious Irishman, can feel comfortable with Fine Gael policies. The only extant Christian Democratic party that could nowadays be classified as Catholic in my eyes is the Christian Social Union of Bavaria, which is heavily supported by the staunchly Catholic population of the state and sometimes pursues a policy that's independent from its sister party in the rest of Germany, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (which is multi-confessional). User:84.26.116.26|84.26.116.26]] 22:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Poll

With all due respect, this is an outdated poll. I intend replacing it with more recent poll(s) by TNS/MRBI or IMS which indicate a limited recovery for FF and a preference for Bertie Ahern (Fianna Fail) as Taoiseach (PM) rather than Enda Kenny (FG). The poll I have placed is from September and therefore far more recent and more relevant. 19:07 16/09/2006 - Ronan

In the news

This recent story from the Irish Independent records the apparently accidential use of "the United Ireland Party"[1]. Registration required to view story. Djegan 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Social democratic minority faction?

How prominent is this faction? Given that the party are even labelled as more business-friendly than Fianna Fail, it can't be very strong. E.J. 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such talk of factions in Fine Gael. It is a christian democratic party by virtue of the fact that the party is affiliated with the EPP. Its core domestic philosiphy is in sync with this concept of politics aswell. Social Democracy is something that was ever only mentioned with regard to Garrett Fitzgerald leadership, with ended with the advent of the 1990s, and growth of the Irish economy, and ultimatly with the formation of the Bruton government.

Though there is considerable debate in the party itself, these do not surround the issue of ideology, but rather the more practical implementation of policy. Most party members however may associate with christian democracy in the first instance owing to historic associations with its predecessor parties, its figure heads, and a largely conservative view on a great deal of issues. Finally, please note that the party is not a member of the socialist international, but rather the Christian Democratic international grouping.

Owing to these aforementioned factions, I would support the simple classification of Christian Democratic/Centrist/Centre Right in the place of ideology. (SMJB)

Agree with you, the ideology has been changed already. E.J. 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Further form the previous comments and discussions had here, I must insist that the ideology section of this thread is watched closely. Social Democracy and Social Liberalism are being inserted without basis or fact. FG is a christian democratic and/or centrist party. That is as simple a classification as you can get and is justified by both FG's centrist principles and the fact that it mentions such on its website and literature, and the fact that it is associated with the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) European Democrats, who have as its ideology, Christian Democracy, Conservatism and Centrism.

If in future, somebody believes that there is a basis for changing the ideology, let them state their case here prior to any changes being made and let it be debated with all due caution. --104066481 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In the article it is clearly stated and referenced how there is a social-democratic faction within Fine Gael. I don't think it is controversial to say that FG is a christian-democratic party with a minor social-democratic faction. --Checco (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, it states that there was a social democratic faction. The national executive and members of Fine Gael have, since the resignation of Alan Dukes, rejected social democracy. It did not figure as a part of the political ideology of the party in the past since the advent of the Celtic tiger. I would suggest to you that if you wish to address social democracy, that you do it in the form of a footnote, as in reality that would be as much as social democracy would warrent amongst members of the party today. Finally, let me state that I consider it a severe misrepresentation to change the ideology of the party as you are, if it was you who changed the party ideology. I would suggest that you state how and where you see social democracy today in the party, amonst the party membership and respresentation, be that in the media or else where. For my part, I would point out that Irish newspapers have touted new TDs such as Lucinda Creighton and Leo Varadkar as being centre-right orators. FG policies such as those supporting insurance for under fives during the past election have more in common with the other EPP parties rather than social democratic parties who advocate free health care. Enda Kenny's assertion to the celtic and christian nature of Ireland and FG's dedication to this finally touts a fundemental note in relation to this debate. To address social democracy, you must go back three leaders in the party to Dukes. Today, he is more likely to associate with the current ideology of the party himself, although his main thrust of work has been in the area of the pro-European campaign. I think that I have addressed what I feel a fundemental flaw in your evaluation of the party's position thus. Please respond here before changing the ideology again. Further more, I point you to the bottom of the page where an un-alterable fact sheet states the party ideology as it was before any alterations with regard to social democracy of any other such farcical assertion. I don't know whether you are a member, but as a member, I feel I must address these issues and avoid misrepresentation of the party on this, an encyclopedic article, it being factual and honest. Please see the above arguments for previous debate on this issue--104066481 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a minority social-democratic faction in Fine Gael, as sources clearly state, and some of the party's policies are social-democratic, but I give up with you: factual accuracy is sometimes an utopia in Wikipedia. Bye. --Checco (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article seems to turn entirely around Fine Gael's history, while there's almost no mention of the party's ideology, plans for the future or it's voter base. I'm afraid too much is missing from the article, so i have to fail it. If you disagree with my review feel free to seek a reassessment. Yamanbaiia 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But, you see, Fine Gael is an Irish political party. Irish political parties don't have ideologies or plans. ;) EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole Economic Policies section reads as if it were lifted from the party's PR firm. That is, it is composed of feel-good language and no substance. The first sentence should tell you straight away in unambiguous language what they are about.24.6.207.95 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

johnymac 17 Feb 2011I agree. This article seems to have been written as a party political advertisement. There is little to no disagreement, there are many places where source material is missing, and history for good or ill is glossed over. Let me be clear, I am NOT anti-this party, I do however, believe the article is patently biased.

Logo

The previous logo was poor and very pixilated. I replaced it and peged it at 275 pixils. It suits the size of the page and is similar to the size seen on other similar websites. 104066481 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC) The logo has been replaced with a gif image. It seems fine.--104066481 (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of logos, the party now has a new logo that is displayed on the website and was displayed at the Ard-Fheis. If anyone can find a copy of this logo, legally, please upload it. 78.16.93.188 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

On the logo issue, I have put a picture of the party leader up on the wiki page in place of the logo. It has the new logo in the background. It should do for the moment, until a logo can be located that fits the specs of what we are looking for in this page. I hope that that meets with expectations. --104066481 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Health Policy

Given that there is a policy section and that it was a bit fluffy, I added what I consider a very defining policy associated with the party. I have added it under the subtitle of Health.--104066481 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you added some stuff using the Fine Gael website as your source. So on an article about Fine Gael, you're using ... Fine Gael as the source. Hmmm, not exactly unbiased, balanced or neutral, see WP:RS - Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. You've want to keep an eye on that. Snappy (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Snappy, I must correct you. In so far as was practical, the Irish Times Website was used as a sweeping resource which covered everything said in that article. The Irish Times is a reputable source. Furthermore, the Health Power House website is a source used as well. In so far as a website associated with Fine Gael was used (Not the FG website itself, but one managed by FG), it was used to provide the text of the FG policy. Where fact and not opinion are in question, taking the reference straight from the horses mouth is essentially about making use of a primary source for verification of what has been said in the article.Finally, you or somebody changed the figures in the passage relating to the ranking of the Irish health service. What you have changed to in the article is in fact incorrect. Ireland is fifteenth in terms of value for money, but otherwise ranks 26th in over all health provision standards - I point you to article 7.2 in the Health Power House pdf linked as a source on the main page under health. --104066481 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to facism

All attempts i make to add even a little bit of information about O'Duffys involvement in facism in reverted? theres nt even a mention of it on the fine gael page even though he founded the party? i have cited reliable sources etc. but it keeps being reverted due to 'bias' or 'a lie'. some one help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.185.12 (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

certianly the article should mention the party's first president and his activities with the blueshirts. Along with the reason he removed after a year. Fascism was fairly popular during that time period so unsupriseing that there would be an irish version.©Geni 02:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Your additions of such phrases as "incompetence and drunkedness" clearly constitutues Wp:POV pushing. If you can find a neutral/well sourced way to say this then fine. Triplestop x3 02:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well can you suggest a way of includeing it?©Geni 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it really is needed. The fascism thing is discussed on the page for the blueshirts which is linked, and I don't really know if it is significant enough to understanding Fine Geal to included on this page. Triplestop x3 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

well give that the guy was their first president and that they felt there was reason enough to get rid of him after a year it would appear to be a fairly singificant part of their early history. particulary if you consider the wider context of world politics at that point.©Geni 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have an opinion on FG or Eoin O'Duffy, you are probably better off not editing the article. For reasons of complete concrete fact, an article can not be an expression of opinion or even forced facts. As said above, if you wish to link Fascism to the Blueshirts, I think you'll find its already done relatively well in the articles relating to the Blueshirts and Eoin O'Duffy. Please keep bias and opinion from the page. --104066481 (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the party are still regularly, if somewhat ironically, referred to as "the Blueshirts" in newspapers, including the largely pro-Fine Gael "Irish Independent". Fine Gael came about due to the imalgamation of the Blueshirt movement by Cumann na nGaedhal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.62.83 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

johnymac 17 Feb 2011. Triplestop. "I am not really sure if it is needed..." How then can you conclude that it is NOT needed? The origin of a political party is consistent with entries for other major world political parties. To treat this party differently suggests bias. Their fascist origin is historical FACT, not opinion. An opinion can be drawn from the inclusion of this material, but simple factual retelling of the historically accurate record is not the same as holding a particular opinion concerning the subject matter. Surely it is up to the reader to build their own opinion on the facts presented. Omission of such a significant component of this article constitutes presenting an opinion itself. (It is your opinion that the information is not relevant.) The early history of this party is very illuminating and yields considerable insight into the evolution of the party. Therefore I ask that you allow it to be included. Please allow me to assure you, I have absolutely no interest in this party, (other than academic) rather I am concerned that this omission is important enough to present an inaccurate picture of the subject matter, and render the article itself (perhaps unintentionally) biased.

Is FG an 'centrist' party?

An anon editor deleted the association of FG with 'Centrism', which was supported by a citation from http://www.parties-and-elections.de/ireland.html. The same citation says that FF is conservative. Well, apart from cronyism I don't know what you would say that FF is, but surely FG is more convervative? --Red King (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Enda Kenny - Front Bench Section...

Why is there a link to the article Northern Ireland beside Enda Kenny in that list? ~ R.T.G 16:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He is party spokesperson on Northern Ireland. Snappy (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I thought he created Northern Ireland or something. Only kidding but obviously should say that. ~ R.T.G 01:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is titled Front Bench, the column in the table is titled Portfolio, is that not enough? I've added an and to make it clearer. Snappy (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Party of fiscal rectitude

A reference to the paragraph on "Law and Order Party" section has been provided by the user 104066481 (talk · contribs). Personally i think for a reference it's too biased as it comes from the UCC branch of the youth wing of Fine Gael in UCC. What do other people think? Phil Nolte (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it's not a neutral source. Though the statement is probably accurate, it needs a non-FG source. Snappy (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. First point, remove the reference in question if you think that would be best. To stress however, the values of Fiscal Rectitude, Law and Order and Enterprise and reqard, are central to understanding of the topic in question. It isn't a reflective article then. Not to speak of values per say, but perhaps more of historical action, the group in question, has been defined by preference for an open, free market economy, and has always been viewed as a law and order party. Not to loose the point of an encyclopedia, online or otherwise, but I think use of a website addressing a self image isn't beguiling to readers. I will point out that as-per the Young Fine Gael entry, that the youth organisation is an autonomous body, and is in my mind an adequate commentator to the impressions we might have of FG proper. Just my two cents. To be honest, I don't imagine it is too hard to verify that FG what it says above. To delete the reference would by doing it a disservice. --104066481 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Claims on abortion?

I'm confused as to what is meant by this:

"The party has not taken an explicit position on abortion, however former party leader Michael Noonan established the party's line in 2001 when he instituted a party whip in the Dáil against a vote on a proposed abortion referendum. He found some opposition from within his own party, from Cork South West TD, P. J. Sheehan, and then Dublin South East TD, Frances Fitzgerald showing that opposition to it was not homogeneous within Fine Gael.[20] The end result saw the party unite after internal debate against the idea of introducing abortion into Ireland.[21]"

On the face of it, it makes is seem like they are against abortion outright. However, the link for [21] (http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0123/abortion.html) shows that they were campaigning against the 2002 referendum (as did all non-governmental parties), which would have restricted suicide as a grounds for abortion (i.e. repealing the X case verdict). If you combine the RTÉ story with this (http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2002/0123/ireland/fine-gael-to-campaign-against-abortion-referendum-37431.html) I think it could be taken to mean that the party support abortion in certain circumstances (like the threat of suicide), at least.

This section should either be entirely rewritten or removed. Anyway, the information is from 2001/2, so it could be different to party policy now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.106.71 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New Sections - Economic Policies & Constitutional Reform

I added new sections on both FG's economic policies and their political proposals. It seems that these are rather important items which are not currently dealt with. I chose to include them. They are referenced and I would content that they are reliable. They deal generally with New ERA, Hope for a Lost Generation, and New Politics, which are all leading FG platforms. --104066481 (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of Corruption

This heading covered tax evasion by the party and conviction of a specific politician of the party. Heading them as Tribunals was as misleading as it was bland. Also the Fianna Fail page uses the same heading. Consistency and fairness requires a more accurate heading ie Allegations of Corruption. Dublinborn (talk)dublinbornDublinborn (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublinborn (talk • contribs) 17:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the editor who re-changed this heading back to Tribunals might care to explain the choice. A separate Tribunals and Allegations of Corruption can be started but Tax Evasion and Criminal Conviction are not covered by the heading Tribunals Dublinborn (talk)dublinbornDublinborn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC).

The heading Allegations of Corruption is utterly inappropriate. I would firstly point out that you have a factual inaccuracy in your heading. Presuming that we are talking about Michael Lowry, it is not right to state that Fine Gael has had a "specific politician" "convicted" of something. Linking the format of the page to that of FF is utterly ridiculous. FF's page for instance contains no policy. It is entirely history. Another point worth noting, is the fact that a sitting TD of FF was convicted of a crime from allegations of curruptions made in a Tribunal. That is not the case with Fine Gael. Be very very very careful with the use of the term "Curruption". It makes Wikipedia very liable. I would strongly suggest avoiding that one word in particular. I say so, because there has never been a conviction of corruption for any actual sitting FG representative. Note Liam Cosgrave had membership rescinded prior to conviction. I have changed the title to a rather less controversial title, Planning and Payment Tribunals. I think that should cover any manner of items covered in the article. --104066481 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A political party not paying its taxes is an act of corruption, which has nothing to do with Tribunals. A Grandson and son of FG Taoisigh, being convicted for accepting bribes, is not related to a Tribunals (the fact that he resigned before conviction is hardly relevant but is stated).

Therefore I have set up a separate heading of Allegations of Corruption since that appears to be your wish. It is a neutral terma and if there was a legal difficulty, the FF page would also remove the heading. It is an appropriate heading amd if anything is meek.

Michael Lowry was a FG TD when he granted the licence for the 3rd mobile company, referring to him as a former FG TD in that way is misleading and duplicitious given that someone else has added that he is now an independent and supports FF/Greens (he as in the FG cabinet at the time. This may appear as history to some, but many people appreciate our history. Dublinborn (talk)dublinbornDublinborn (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dublinborn, I appreciate that as a presumed Green party member, you are of an opinion that curuption is an aspect to FG's history. I am simply saying that while you may recount the history factually, you may not brand and use sweeping terms to describe actions of an individual or indeed or a political party. Note, Michael Lowry, while undoubtedly responsible for the decision to grand the licence to Esat and Denis O'Brien, is not convicted or anything, and until such time as he is, it is incorrect to use the term corrupt. Please take not. I stress this for the objectivity of the article. Can we agree on the name of the article at least now?--109.76.81.75 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Oh dear. Someone has deleted an entire section on the party's tax evasion, the conviction of a former senator and the listing of a sitting councillor on the tax defaulter list. Needless to say, i will continue to ensure the truth is not hidden by misguided party hacks. The FF section has an Allegations of Corruption section. So too will FG - though it is obviously shorter, since they spend far less time in power. Dublinborn (talk)dublinbornDublinborn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

johnymac 17 Feb 2011 It is not necessary for a conviction of a person for a crime to be complete before they can have 'Allegations of Corruption" against them. You are focusing too strongly on the word. It is a perfectly acceptable word to use and is both in context and appropriate.

Once again this section has been deleted. One must presume this was done in error, as the points are factual, relevant and supported by impeccable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublinborn (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

O'Duffy not leader

Eoin O'Duffy was never actually Fine Gael leader, contrary to myth. Only Dáil members are eligible for the leadership. He was party president. The plan had been for him to get elected to the Dáil and assume the party leadership, but he was deposed before that happened. The presidency and the leadership are two different posts that may be held by the same person but need not be. The former is elected by the Ard Fheis and heads the organisation. The latter is the parliamentary leader and elected by the electoral college. Enda Kenny was leader of the party for some time before becoming party president. 109.79.48.117 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for this claim. Snappy (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Party Name

Why is the full name of this party not mentioned in the entire article? Fine Gael-The United Ireland Party is the correct, full name of this party, just as Fianna Fáil-The Republican Party is the correct full name of that crowd. 86.44.77.178 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That was party full name originally back in 1933 but I couldn't find any sources to say that it is the party's current name. In the Registrar of Political Parties (as of April 2009) they are listed as Fine Gael. Please provide reliable sources to back up your assertion. Btw, Indymedia is not a reliable source, it's a blog. Snappy (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)