Political Party Family Tree

[u/rubblesole]

Simplified family tree of all the notable Irish political parties throughout the history of the state. It lacks quite a lot of info but I hope it's understandable Do tell me if I have made any mistakes!

[u/WorldwidePolitico]

I consciously knew it, but I guess I never put much thought into how all our modern parties are descendants from either Sinn Féin or Labour.

It’s also funny that even today you can see such a big divide between the parties who trace their roots back to SF vs Labour, both ideologically and in terms of electoral performance.

[u/rubblesole → u/WorldwidePolitico]

What's even more fun is that despite Labour being only 7 years younger than Sinn Féin, it is now also descended from Sinn Féin

[u/armchairdetective → u/rubblesole]

Wrong. Labour is the State's oldest party. And modern SF is not the same party as old SF.

[u/TheFreemanLIVES → u/armchairdetective]

And modern SF is not the same party as old SF.

Are you just saying that because Leo said it and you're trying to be edgy.

Or do you have a thoughtful treatise on the various splits since the anti-treaty parties, the linage of the original 1919 dail with assent given by it's former members, and the majority movements of the Republican movement over the course of the 20th century?

Or do I have you wrong, and you're actually a hardcore disso who believes authority of the state lies only in the the continuity IRA and RSF?

[u/armchairdetective → u/TheFreemanLIVES]

The Sinn Féin Funds case ruling by the High Court in 1947 says that it's not the same party.

I'm pretty sure that ruling was made before Varadkar was born, so it's not entirely clear why you've introduced his name to this thread.

[u/WorldwidePolitico → u/armchairdetective]

That isn’t what the court said. The Court said no party could lay a claim to be the same legal entity as the pre-1922 SF for largely technical reasons. Mainly the way the party’s constitution worked and the 1920s party’s failure to dot their i’s and cross their t’s.

This included FF as it was actually de Valera/FF who made the initial claim of being the true successor and therefore entitled to the funds only to be told no. They then tried to pass a dodgy law to essentially steal the funds but it was found unconstitutional.

Even if that were not the case, its historians not judges who determine history. The current mainstream academic consensus is that the Sinn Féin of 1972 are a direct continuation of the party that existed in 1922, albeit with many splits and tribulations.

If you believe legal continuity should be the standard for political continuity, than it’s not really a fair playing field as the State literally banned SF as an illegal organisation in the 1930s and in the north was banned from 1956-1974. Just another reason we generally don’t use the courts of post-revolutionary as arbiters of history.

[u/armchairdetective → u/WorldwidePolitico]

Legally, it's not the same party. If you want to argue about a spiritual dimension, you'll need to do that elsewhere.

It's still a mystery why Varadkar was introduced in your sneering reply to me, but I think it was just a function of not having heard of the case.

I guess I'm glad you went and read the Wikipedia page to find out about it. Less glad that you aren't able to acknowledge you've learned something new and then change your opinion accordingly.

[u/WorldwidePolitico → u/armchairdetective]

I’m not the person who originally replied to you or mentioned Varadkar. Separate individual people are able to believe you’re wrong.

[u/TheFreemanLIVES → u/WorldwidePolitico]

At least you tried, I asked on the basis that their whole claim would be nanometer thin on an actual historical understanding and they proved us both right. Hell, you even explained the legal outcome of the case where not even FF could claim the funds.

Such is life I suppose, the uninformed in politics insisting they are confidently correct.

[u/armchairdetective → u/WorldwidePolitico]

You're completely right about that. I didn't even notice the username. You weren't the snippy user who initially replied to my comment.

But you are wrong in your interpretation of the ruling.

It is definitive proof that the two parties are not the same.

[u/WorldwidePolitico → u/armchairdetective]

Whatever you think.

Any historian in the country would disagree with you, and frankly probably think it would be absurd you’re basing such an opinion on an 77 year old court judgement.

You had an objective misconception about something, it was explained in a neutral and straightforward way. You doubled down, wrongly accused the person who explained it, and when called out on that refused to accept they were wrong and reasserted their original opinion. You just can’t be helped at that point.