A little over eighteen months ago, Aisling Considine was an Aontú rising star. She achieved over 10,000 votes in Dublin’s European Election, and then polled 1,500 votes in the Dáil election. These figures gave the party confidence, some of them told me at the time, that she was well on course to win a council seat in 2029, and would in time build a big enough base to challenge for higher office. Small parties are made or fall based on such candidates – people willing, as Considine appeared to be – to put in the hard graft over the long term.
But then yesterday, it all fell apart. Considine took to twitter to deliver a lengthy statement of resignation from the party, which you can read in full here. But some highlights, or lowlights depending on your position:
Over time, I came to the view that the party operates in a far more centralised and tightly controlled manner than I had anticipated. Rather than being the grassroots-led movement it presents itself as, I found decision-making to be concentrated within a small, left-leaning, group at the top.
I dedicated significant time and energy to Aontú because I believed it valued internal democracy and meaningful member engagement. However, I have found that loyalty to leadership often takes precedence over open debate, initiative, and the raising of legitimate concerns. In my view, internal democracy should be the pillar around which any political party functions.
In a subsequent tweet, she said:
There’s too much Sinn Féin in Aontú. When people told me Aontú is Sinn Féin Lite, I should’ve listened. Could’ve saved myself from all the authoritarian, underhand shenanigans, not to mention the latent socialism.
So, what gives? I can reveal that since last year, Ms. Considine and Aontú have been engaged in a disciplinary battle back and forth, concerning – essentially – the compatibility of her views and the way she communicated those views with party policy and strategy. She was suspended from membership for a period of 18 months from January this year, I can reveal.
Almost all of these policy disputes related to three areas: Gaza, transgender policy, and an alleged drift towards the “far right” by Ms Considine. I am also told by senior party sources that there was grave concern about the tone and nature of how she communicated her views on those policy differences, including the use of bad language. One source suggested to me that there was a perception that she had developed “twitter brain” and become too focused on likes and retweets over securing real world votes. There were also tensions about Ms. Considine’s apparent views on Sharia law and the perceived threat of Islam in Ireland, with her strong support for a motion banning Sharia law at an Aontú Ard Fheis putting her strongly at odds with party leadership, which supported a more pluralist stance and was unwilling to be seen to be singling one religion out for criticism.
On November 27th of last year, a document which this author has obtained was sent to Ms. Considine outlining a disciplinary case against her based on a series of tweets. This document can be viewed here, and sets out the party’s evidence against her.
That case includes examples of Ms Considine using the birth name of a transgendered individual and referring to them as “an abusive male”, something party sources emphasised might expose Aontu to legal risk. It also includes tweets mocking the Social Democrat party’s attitude towards transgenderism and specifically taunting Soc Dem leader Holly Cairns about the gender of her unborn child, a tweet which party sources caused them great difficulty, and a tweet mocking transgender females (men who transition to being women) as wearing “womanface”. On Gaza, Ms. Considine posted tweets targeting the Irish language act Kneecap and calling them “an embarrassment to Ireland, something the complaint document says is contrary to the party ethos. She was also indicted over a tweet to Micheál Martin on Gaza policy which said “It was always in Hamas’s hands to end the war #releasethehostages”.
There are also repeated examples of Ms. Considine using what might be termed unparliamentary and what was described to me as “severe and abusive” language, which I understand was a key concern for the party. The full complaint document, including all the allegedly offending tweets, may be found at the link above.
Ms. Considine, for her part, argued that she was being judged under the inappropriate code of conduct for the party, a new code having been introduced in July 2025 and replacing the version that existed before then. She protested that she was being unfairly held to rules that did not apply at the time she posted the allegedly offending tweets.
In January, a finding was made by the disciplinary committee, which can be found here. The result was that Ms. Considine was suspended for 18 months. Fewer than two months later, she has resigned her membership entirely.
A source in Aontú told me that the saga represents an ongoing challenge for the party, in terms of managing the differential expectations of a certain subset of online activists versus the much more moderate disposition of the electorate at large. “Peadar is trying to appeal to real world voters”, that source said, “while Aisling was eating up the adulation of the far-too-online crowd”. Another pointed to the particular difficulty that Aontu has had with perceived “right” leaning division over the Gaza war, pointing out that the party had dismissed former youth head John Bryan over strongly anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish comments earlier this year, while Considine’s views were strongly of a more Palestinian-skeptic hue.
I contacted Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín for comment yesterday. A spokesperson later sent a lengthy statement saying in part:
Aontú is the most democratic party in Ireland. It is the only party where the members decide policy through a democratic vote at Ard Fheiseanna. In 10 days’ time we will have our Ard Fheis and policy will be decided by open vote by the members.
All office holders and elected reps such as Aisling Considine are mandated respect and uphold that grassroots policy in public. Internal debate and descent is welcome and important but when the grassroots have decided policy, it is the job of elected reps and office holders to defend that policy in public until the next Ard Fheis. Latitude was initially given to Aisling but it happened dozens of times for well over a year. This generated push back from members who felt it ignored their internal democracy…..
…..Due to numerous complaints by party members against Aisling, the Ard Chomhairle was forced to ask An Coiste Caighdeáin (The Standards Committee) to hold an investigation into her behaviour. It was fair, open and transparent. Aisling was given every opportunity to engage and give her side of the story. Aisling never apologised for her behaviour or indicated that she would adhere to party policy going forward. An Coiste Caighdeáin found that Aisling had breached the constitution of the party, our Ard Fheis policy, our Code of Conduct and our Social Media guidelines.
When contacted, Ms. Considine declined to comment further, redirecting this reporter back to her twitter statement.