Why the anger against current government?

v638sg7k1a92bx · 07-10-2013 3:23pm

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Less corrupt than FF isn't the target I'm looking for politics to achieve, the closure of the planning enquires, the perceived bias in the siting of the primary care centres, Phil Hogan's unpunished discriminatory remarks...

That's off the top of my head, none of those issues require fundamental reform of the institutions, just a reform of attitude, namely the holding of those in office to account for their actions.

Unfortunately perceived bias and discriminatory remarks do not constitute corruption. If you have any evidence to suggest that there is corruption within government that has not previously bee reported please tell us.

Skrynesaver · 07-10-2013 3:33pm

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Unfortunately perceived bias and discriminatory remarks do not constitute corruption. If you have any evidence to suggest that there is corruption within government that has not previously bee reported please tell us.

You ignore the action of the government as a whole in closing down investigations into planning corruption that could have fingered their own.

The cure to the perceived bias would have been to relocate the sites rather than sit through the discussion like a cat with half a wing hanging out of its gob, it may be perception, but a perception of arrogance ended the last shower.

As for discriminatory remarks not being corruption, it is true that they are not, however they are, or should be, as unacceptable coming from Hogan as they were coming from Noel O'Flynn in the previous administration.

Where have we heard that sort of deflection before though...

There's a fierce bang of same biological waste product different day about it all.

Zubeneschamali · 07-10-2013 3:52pm

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Where do you even start with trying to get through to that type of mentality?

I wouldn't be down on the current Government's performance, but Enda Kenny makes me cringe, too. He's the most superficial, waffly, conviction-free weasel out there, all juvenile point-scoring and deflecting questions. Yuck.

Sand · 07-10-2013 6:21pm

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Again, more personal gripes and nitpicking. Out of all the fiscal problems that this country has faced in the past five years, your main concern is the salary of one of Enda Kenny's personal advisor's. I never been a blue shirt by any stretch of the imagination but I have to hold my hand up and say that there is no comparison between this government and previous FF governments in terms of "noses in the trough". FF governments had an endemic level of corruption running through the party and yet people are now directing their anger at this govt over petty items such as one advisor's pay and as a result we can see FF creeping back up the polls.

As for reform, what exactly do people want? Five referendums in 2.5 years with more to follow, if that isn't reform I don't know what is?

I see that having already misinterpreted Rodento's position your're now misinterpreting mine. Keep it up and some might mistake it for wilful on your part.

The advisor's pay cap salary breach was not a complete list of my issues with this government. Far from it. It was an example of how this government began and continued its reign - when people make arguments they often attempt to explain their position by the use of examples.

What I was highlighting was that even on a very small issue (advisor salaries) Enda Kenny couldn't set an example and follow the guidelines. It is very, very, very hard to lead from the rear. So it should not be surprising to you that Enda Kenny's popularity takes a dive when he campaigns on the basis of restoring honest, transparent and humble government, demands people face up to fiscal realities and cutbacks but from his very first day in power he demonstrates he doesn't even have the character or courage to tell his advisors they need to follow the rules (which are still very comfortable salaries).

You could go on and on and on and on with more examples of how this government has engaged in crude hypocrisy, greed, cowardice and incompetence but I get the feeling you wouldn't listen.

And stop whining about the "resurgence" of Fianna Fail. The people voted for change last election. Fine Gael have delivered more of the same Fianna Fail style government. Why shouldn't people vote for Fianna Fail? Fine Gael have given them no reason whatsoever to vote for them, and "Not Fianna Fail" wont last forever.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 07-10-2013 9:24pm

Sand wrote: »

And stop whining about the "resurgence" of Fianna Fail. The people voted for change last election. Fine Gael have delivered more of the same Fianna Fail style government. Why shouldn't people vote for Fianna Fail? Fine Gael have given them no reason whatsoever to vote for them, and "Not Fianna Fail" wont last forever.

I've heard it all now. Bring back Bertie, he'll sort it out.

Sand · 07-10-2013 9:34pm

Yep, wilful.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 07-10-2013 9:36pm

Sand wrote: »

Yep, wilful.

I knew it was only a matter of time before you showed your true colours.

Sand · 07-10-2013 9:38pm

I'll give you some credit - you kept it going four pages. If you had started with "Enda Kenny is a great man altogether" it would have fallen apart quickly but you took a slightly reversed approach and did well.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 07-10-2013 9:43pm

Sand wrote: »

I'll give you some credit - you kept it going four pages. If you had started with "Enda Kenny is a great man altogether" it would have fallen apart quickly but you took a slightly reversed approach and did well.

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

Horrid Henry · 07-10-2013 9:43pm

Out the outset I'm declaring that I was a member of the PDs.

I'm no fan of FG or Labour, but they've done reasonably okay in my view.

People giving out about the property tax need to get real. Taxes like it are needed and are ridiculously low.

The government should have introduced far more Draconian cuts and taxes and just blamed it on the Troika. I actually fear that once we regain our economic sovereignty, we'll return to the old gombeenery.

hatrickpatrick · 07-10-2013 10:21pm

Lies, corruption and broken promises. The corruption and cronyism are my own particular pet hates - raising salaries in breach of a pay cap for old friends, allowing ministers to break various laws, granting immunity to former Anglo executives who should be up on criminal charges, half assing the notion of real democratic reform, refusing to even vote against a pay rise for a BOI executive when the people clearly demanded it and when such a vote wouldn't even have tipped the balance except to show the government's opposition to such pay rises - this government has been an unmitigated disappointment from the start.

And then, today, there's this.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/noonan-responsible-for-decision-not-to-release-anglo-legal-advice-court-hears-29640120.html

Brendan Grehan SC, for Mr Whelan, said that the issue of legal advice would be "crucial to this trial" especially if it had been subsequently sought or revisited after the alleged transactions.

"Ultimately, it (the decision not to waive privilege) goes back to the Minister for Finance," said Mr Grehan.

Mr Grehan said that the issue of legal advice was "a live issue" and potentially relevant to the question of whether a director acted reasonably.

Mr Grehan said that the IBRC, formerly Anglo and now in Special Liquidation - which was not being prosecuted but was asserting legal privilege - was a corporate entity that had been "dissolved at a rate of noughts".

Mr Grehan told Judge Nolan that the defence had "received very little" documentation from the Department of Finance.

The DPP has asked the Department of Finance to waive privilege over a 2009 report entitled "Project Atlas" compiled for the department by Dublin law firm Arthur Cox.

I mean for ****'s sake.
I'd love to be wrong on my theories of collusion at the highest level, but I've seen plenty of evidence pointing towards it and almost nothing to disprove it.

hardCopy · 07-10-2013 10:43pm

Painted Pony wrote: »

Yes the pension issue is a huge problem. And in fairness to the previous government they did make an issue to address the problem with their pension fund.

But is is a huge problem and I don't see anyway, especially given the current climate, that this, or any other government can solve it. Funding pensions from the exchequer was / is not a great idea. We can all expect to work for longer than we had thought and / or to get a much reduced pension, if we get one at all.

And this goes back to the broader question as to how much we could reasonably expect any government to do?

We should really stop hiring people on Defined Benefit pensions, this could be implemented immediately.

wolfpawnat · 07-10-2013 10:56pm

No matter what government got in during the first bit of the bust, they were going to be in for a hard job, to think otherwise is just plain lunacy. HOWEVER what has to be judged is their handling of the situation, and I for one think they handled it as spectacularly horrendously as FF could ever have done. The thing is people voted in a knee-jerk reaction against FF instead of for FG.

Cuts and taxes had to be part of sorting this, we all knew that, but the way they have dealt with them is horrific. Taxing the bejesus out of the lower and middle class, cutting SW payments to the most needy, cutting services, left right and centre while the rich remain rich and the SW scammers remain lazy. Leaving those paying taxes to hate all JSA recipients and those other SW people to be angry at the backlash from the taxpayers lobbing all of them together.

One thing I will give FG, they have used divide and conquer fantastically, we all are busy fighting with each other to notice they have not cut themselves and that they have working hours to die for while we slave to try and make ends meet on our incomes. But we are too busy bickering among ourselves to bother realising the bigger picture.

Godge · 07-10-2013 11:43pm

hardCopy wrote: »

We should really stop hiring people on Defined Benefit pensions, this could be implemented immediately.

Eh, they changed the pension system from 1 January 2013 for all new hires.

iverjohnston · 07-10-2013 11:51pm

Why the anger?

Famously explained on a comedy show decades ago.

"The dirty underpants theory"

You have 2 pairs of underpants, you never wash either pair.
You wear one pair until you cannot stand them any longer. Then put on the other pair.
You wear them until you cannot bear them any longer, at which point the other pair, still unwashed, look attractive again.
Repeat.

RichardAnd · 08-10-2013 6:30am

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Not sure if I agree re FG pleasing everyone. Property tax, water charges, abortion legislation, Haddington Rd are very unpopular.

It may seem that way, and you're quite right in a sense. Many of the more memorable projects undertaken by the government were universally loathed. However, they only serve to further the point I was making. I'm glad that you mentioned the Haddington Road Deal as it's a wonderful example of a political mistake. Allow me to explain.

The moment that the government broke the Croke Park Deal was the moment that should have decided the entire affair. By breaking the agreement in place (regardless of the veracity of that agreement), the Government instantly turned a massive majority of public workers against it. Had I been in power, I would have pushed ahead with wage cuts, compulsory redundancies and all sorts of other measures. Had I done that, I would have lost the vote of just about every public sector worker but I would have gained popularity of a whole load of other people. Further more, I would have shown that I have teeth, and being slightly feared by the electorate is always useful. I'm not saying that's what I wanted to see, but I'm just making a point.

However, the Government members didn't do that. What they chose to do was to find a middle ground. They angered public workers by breaking the CP deal and bringing in harsher working terms. They angered the public at large because, from the outside, the Haddington Road Deal seems to be a case of kicking the can down the road. Middle grounds are often, though not always, a sign of a weak ruler because by their spreading of the pain, they only really serve to piss everyone off.

The abortion affair is another example of this. The out come of that fiasco was a middle ground too. Both sides were left with the feeling that they had not gotten what they wanted and so, both were un happy. The Government should have chosen a side (the larger side) and rolled with that.

Of course, the above probably came about through internal disparagement in the cabinet. To me, this is a personal failing of Enda Kenny. As the head of the government, it is his job to keep his ministers in line and to make sure that proper policies are enacted.

Another fine, fine example of political stupidity is the Government's standing behind inept ministers. Reily is the best example of this by far. When that whole bombshell about his associations with propery developers and his favouritism of his own constituency came out, he should have been hung out to dry by the rest of the cabinet. Whilst personal loyalty (primarily from Mr. Kenny again) is a fine thing, it has no real place in the political world. By Standing by Reily, the Government gave the that corruption of venial and that they will stick together and look out for each other. The latter point is especially damning as it only reinforces the notion of "us" and "them" that prevails here.

I think that in one hundred years, a few Irish governments might appear in a political science book as an example of what not to do. We shall see...

Eight Ball · 08-10-2013 6:43am

Because they are as bad as FF and have broken most of the promises they made. Doesn't help that the leader of the nation hasn't the courage to engage in debate.

Zubeneschamali · 08-10-2013 8:52am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Taxing the bejesus out of the lower and middle class, cutting SW payments to the most needy, cutting services, left right and centre while the rich remain rich and the SW scammers remain lazy.

Actually, the signature party policies have been FG: No income tax rises and Labour: No cuts to core welfare rates.

I think both of those were mistakes, but they are the exact opposite of what you think they have done.

they have not cut themselves

Again, untrue. Look it up: what is Enda's wage now, what was Cowen's wage ?

FG just tried to abolish the Senate: there are 30 government party senators in there doing nothing on €65k+expenses each that they tried to abolish.

hardCopy · 08-10-2013 9:21am

Godge wrote: »

Eh, they changed the pension system from 1 January 2013 for all new hires.

Isn't it still Defined Benefit though?

v638sg7k1a92bx · 08-10-2013 9:22am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, the signature party policies have been FG: No income tax rises and Labour: No cuts to core welfare rates.

I think both of those were mistakes, but they are the exact opposite of what you think they have done.

Again, untrue. Look it up: what is Enda's wage now, what was Cowen's wage ?

FG just tried to abolish the Senate: there are 30 government party senators in there doing nothing on €65k+expenses each that they tried to abolish.

A large element of voter attitude is also Celtic tiger cubs coming undone. After 27 years of FF being all things to all people which effectively involved them buying their popularity year after year which we are now paying for. It's like a spoiled child coming of age and being told No for the first time.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 08-10-2013 9:22am

hardCopy wrote: »

Isn't it still Defined Benefit though?

No, defined contribution.

hardCopy · 08-10-2013 9:39am

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

No, defined contribution.

This scheme? http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Single-Scheme-booklet-Final.pdf

That's a guaranteed, index linked, no risk scheme, i.e. Defined Benefit.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 08-10-2013 9:48am

hardCopy wrote: »

This scheme? http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Single-Scheme-booklet-Final.pdf

That's a guaranteed, index linked, no risk scheme, i.e. Defined Benefit.

Somebody make him stop.

hardCopy · 08-10-2013 9:56am

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Somebody make him stop.

I'm not a pension advisor so I can only go by what's online, if I've misread the pdf I'm happy to be corrected.

sarumite · 08-10-2013 11:17am

nesf wrote: »

They're making cuts yes, the question is whether they're tackling the structural issues in the economy. Theses are things like, can we continue to fund pensioners at the current rate with our current tax regime going forward (the answer is no, when my/our generation retires we're pretty screwed unless our kids decide to be particularly fecund). Are they tackling (perceived) waste in the public sector? And so on. The cuts they're making tend to be quick fixes, water charges and property taxes aside.

To be fair, these are problems that plague most government, even those running successful economies. Pensions liabilities is a problem many governments have put on the long finger etc

v638sg7k1a92bx · 08-10-2013 11:52am

nesf wrote: »

They're making cuts yes, the question is whether they're tackling the structural issues in the economy. Theses are things like, can we continue to fund pensioners at the current rate with our current tax regime going forward (the answer is no, when my/our generation retires we're pretty screwed unless our kids decide to be particularly fecund). Are they tackling (perceived) waste in the public sector? And so on. The cuts they're making tend to be quick fixes, water charges and property taxes aside.

sarumite wrote: »

To be fair, these are problems that plague most government, even those running successful economies. Pensions liabilities is a problem many governments have put on the long finger etc

People can't have their cake and eat it, everybody wants good public services but they don't want to pay higher taxes to provide them. So we don't increase taxes and cut public expenditure but nobody wants to take a salary cut. Ultimately something has to give, we cannot run a low cost economy with low taxes and world class public services. Again this comes down to people realising that they need to readjust their expectations.

micosoft · 08-10-2013 1:10pm

Sand wrote: »

Assuming you are an adult and old enough to vote, did you expect a government to break all of its promises to the voters and remain popular?

The "all" is a bit of hyperbole but, yes I did and most seasoned voters did. The politicians of this country need to lie because of the huge number of voters who believe in fairydust and such like and wanted to magic . Any rational voter would have looked at the electoral promises and known that no Irish Government was in any position to promise anything given the fact we were on a IMF programme due to our ineptness at running our own country. The fact you believed these promises is far more of a reflection on yourself then the politicians offering them TBH.

Godge · 08-10-2013 1:59pm

hardCopy wrote: »

This scheme? http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Single-Scheme-booklet-Final.pdf

That's a guaranteed, index linked, no risk scheme, i.e. Defined Benefit.

It is not a traditional final salary defined benefit scheme.

The changes involved are quite significant in terms of saving to the Exchequer. I would guess that the new scheme could save 30-40% of the cost of a public service pension.

It is not the only reason why costs are coming down. In 2007, a study concluded that there was a €190 bn (? to the best of my recollection) public sector pension timebomb that would cause problems by the 2030s. However, it made certain assumptions, firstly that public service numbers would increase year-on-year and that wages would increase by inflation plus 2%.

Since 2009, public service numbers have gone down significantly and wages have gone down (two pay cuts and a pension levy). It would not be unreasonable to assume that the total cost to the exchequer of future public service pensions has gone from €190 bn to a figure somewhere between €95 and €120 bn thanks to the effect of the new pension scheme as well as the pay cuts.

sarumite · 08-10-2013 4:01pm

Godge wrote: »

It is not the only reason why costs are coming down. In 2007, a study concluded that there was a €190 bn (? to the best of my recollection) public sector pension timebomb that would cause problems by the 2030s. However, it made certain assumptions, firstly that public service numbers would increase year-on-year and that wages would increase by inflation plus 2%.

Since 2009, public service numbers have gone down significantly and wages have gone down (two pay cuts and a pension levy). It would not be unreasonable to assume that the total cost to the exchequer of future public service pensions has gone from €190 bn to a figure somewhere between €95 and €120 bn thanks to the effect of the new pension scheme as well as the pay cuts.

Surely the new pension scheme would have very limited impact on the cost of pensions maturing in the 2030's?

(also my understanding was that the pension levy was designed in such a way as that it won't have an impact on a persons pension)

Horrid Henry · 08-10-2013 4:57pm

The public sector pension scheme is defined benefit.

To suggest otherwise is erroneous in the extreme.

Godge · 08-10-2013 5:20pm

sarumite wrote: »

Surely the new pension scheme would have very limited impact on the cost of pensions maturing in the 2030's?

(also my understanding was that the pension levy was designed in such a way as that it won't have an impact on a persons pension)

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

Here is the report.

First my mistake from recollection, it actually does take account of the pension-related pay deduction otherwise known as the pension levy

"Overall, the examination found that, based on the cost of one year’s additional service, the pension provision for an average public servant will cost around 9% of pay after account is taken of contributions made including the new pension related deduction introduced in 2009. The gross cost is on average 20% under this method"

So the state is funding the pension at 9% of salary, not out of line with decent employers in the private sector.

"Gross outflows in the period 2009 to 2058 were estimated at €367 billion. When standard staff pension contributions and the recently introduced pensions related deduction are taken into account net outflows over the 50 year period are estimated at €157 billion in 2008 prices"

But €157 bn is below my €190 bn estimate. Then down to Appendix A:

"The value of the accrued pension liability is calculated assuming that future pension increases are awarded at the same rate as general salary inflation i.e. 1.75% p.a. above price inflation (pay parity)"

This has not happened in the five years since 2008, in fact pay has gone down with two pay cuts having been implemented.

"The projected change in the population leads to a projected increase in the size of the public service across all sectors of over 80% over the next 50 years"

The amount shown for 2018 is a 23% increase over 2008. This has no chance of happening. Public service numbers are decreasing and are well below 2008 levels, probably back around 2004 by now.

Those two key assumptions would have a dramatic effect on the costings. It is not possible for me to do the calculations without the raw material the C&AG had but it certainly is more than a 15% reduction and could me as much as 40% depending on how you project public service number growth forward from our current situation. I do not expect public service pay levels to get back to their 2008 levels until sometime early in the 2020s. This means that the CPI growth plus 1.75% is a serious overestimation.

None of that takes into account the effects of the new pension scheme. Firstly, new members will not be entitled to a pension until 65 (60 under the current scheme) and will therefore be at work rather than claiming pension. Secondly, the new scheme cleverly disguises the way that it reduces the amount of pension received. By calculating a referable amnount at each year, the scheme protects against big pay increases late in the career, something the existing pension scheme does not. Thirdly, the new scheme could be applied from tomorrow (or any future date) to all existing public servants by preserving existing service and only allowing new service to be accumulated under the new scheme. fourthly, the elimination of some forms of fast accumulation has a big effect in certain sectors.

All in all, it would be fair to say that the current and previous governments through the new pension scheme, the pay cuts, the pension levy and the reduced public service numbers have significantly addressed the public service pension timebomb.

However, by leaving the State pension alone, they have failed to address the bigger problem.

Horrid Henry wrote: »

The public sector pension scheme is defined benefit.

To suggest otherwise is erroneous in the extreme.

What has been stated is that the new pension scheme is not a traditional final salary defined benefit scheme. To say the new pension scheme is as generous as the previous one or that public service pension costs have not been addressed is also erroneous in the extreme.

Horrid Henry · 08-10-2013 5:38pm

It's a DB scheme and miles better than what most of the rest of us have...that's the point.

Sand · 08-10-2013 5:57pm

micosoft wrote: »

The "all" is a bit of hyperbole but, yes I did and most seasoned voters did. The politicians of this country need to lie because of the huge number of voters who believe in fairydust and such like and wanted to magic . Any rational voter would have looked at the electoral promises and known that no Irish Government was in any position to promise anything given the fact we were on a IMF programme due to our ineptness at running our own country. The fact you believed these promises is far more of a reflection on yourself then the politicians offering them TBH.

Politicians don't need to lie - they choose to because its easier. And for all your pretence at realism your innocence and surprise at the idea that voters might hold those lies against politicians is heart warming. Some people still believe in the free lunch it seems.

If politicians overpromise and underdeliver, then they get punished next time out. Voters can only judge politicians based on what they promised to deliver and what they actually delivered. If there is a constant, near open contempt for the electoral process by politicians they will earn constant, near open contempt of the politicians by the voters.

Its in the politicians court to improve the standard of politics in this country. Breakfast Roll Man isn't going to do it for them.

sarumite · 08-10-2013 7:19pm

Godge wrote: »

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

Here is the report.

Thanks, I haven't the time now but I will give it a glance later.

constance tench · 08-10-2013 7:28pm

iverjohnston wrote: »

Why the anger?

Famously explained on a comedy show decades ago.

"The dirty underpants theory"

You have 2 pairs of underpants, you never wash either pair.
You wear one pair until you cannot stand them any longer. Then put on the other pair.
You wear them until you cannot bear them any longer, at which point the other pair, still unwashed, look attractive again.
Repeat.

Something like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzN0Js0tKZ4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQdM9fhY2A

Zubeneschamali · 08-10-2013 8:38pm

Sand wrote: »

Politicians don't need to lie - they choose to because its easier.

I would prefer if Kenny had told the truth before the election, but I would also prefer if the Government had pulled an "oh my god, all promises are off" the second they got in, and made the cuts and tax hikes necessary while people were still in a mood to blame FF and the troika they visited on us.

Instead, FG's no income tax rise promise and Labour's no core welfare cuts promise mean they'll still be cutting before the next election, and we'll have a combination of gombeenism, economic lunacy with added terrorism and traitors in a FF-SF coalition next time.

Thanks for your honesty, Enda.

A Primal Nut · 08-10-2013 8:43pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because they've done pretty much nothing since they got in. The required cuts and reform have not been made, it's more of the same. More taxes and charges, not tackling waste and misspend, making sure they take care of themselves first.

And yet if they do make cuts the public service goes on strike or people on the dole kick up a fuss. So what can you do in their situation? Not much they can do.

A Primal Nut · 08-10-2013 8:47pm

I'm curious if anyone here thinks they would have done a better job of either increasing tax or reducing public service pay and entitlements (and dealing with the resulting strikes)?

Mr.Micro · 08-10-2013 8:51pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would prefer if Kenny had told the truth before the election, but I would also prefer if the Government had pulled an "oh my god, all promises are off" the second they got in, and made the cuts and tax hikes necessary while people were still in a mood to blame FF and the troika they visited on us.

Instead, FG's no income tax rise promise and Labour's no core welfare cuts promise mean they'll still be cutting before the next election, and we'll have a combination of gombeenism, economic lunacy with added terrorism and traitors in a FF-SF coalition next time.

Thanks for your honesty, Enda.

TBH the truth was,..... we were f**ked, and we sure did not Enda or FG to tell us that when they took over, as we already knew. We are lucky to have any state at all let alone any public services after the FF orgy over 11 years. What surprises me is that there have not been even more cuts, in view of the situation we were left in.

Horrid Henry · 08-10-2013 9:25pm

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm curious if anyone here thinks they would have done a better job of either increasing tax or reducing public service pay and entitlements (and dealing with the resulting strikes)?

I would have...

View · 08-10-2013 11:02pm

Sand wrote: »

Its in the politicians court to improve the standard of politics in this country.

No it isn't, it is in the voters' court as they elect the politicians, not the other way around.

If the electorate choose a poor standard of politicians then those politicians will be representative of the electorates' poor choices.

LordSutch · 08-10-2013 11:14pm

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Why the anger against current government?

Why? in a nutshell the current government has had to administer the painful & disgustingly awful medicine that has been required to heal a very sick economy (courtesy of the previous administration), namely Brian Cowan's Fianna Fail, hence the (falsely aimed) anger at the New government.

Thankfully Fianna Fail and their new leadership seem to have shed their old skin and are rebuilding themselves again under the new leadership of Micheál Martin, not that I'd vote for them myself, but at least they have undergone a painful and embarrassing transition into a credible opposition party.

bbam · 08-10-2013 11:29pm

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

People can't have their cake and eat it, everybody wants good public services but they don't want to pay higher taxes to provide them. So we don't increase taxes and cut public expenditure but nobody wants to take a salary cut. Ultimately something has to give, we cannot run a low cost economy with low taxes and world class public services. Again this comes down to people realising that they need to readjust their expectations.

People aren't stupid either..
MN companies are on the radio constantly spouting that they aren't here for the low corporate tax but rather for the skilled workforce.... Fine, they should be contributing more to the country through increased Corporate tax.

"people" in general aren't against tax increases, most are against tax increases that further erode the lives of the middle/low earners. Those on high wages could pay more tax, a third tax band as we had before would be very progressive

We are already paying "World Class" wages in certain public sectors yet we're not getting world class services... Either the services need to be provided or the salaries dropped to match...

I would dearly love to see a report on the spend of the money that was raided from the pension funds.. apparently for job creation. Apart from emigration I've seen no real attempt to recover sustainable jobs.
And there is the addition knock on effect that we are now told that there isn't sufficient funds remaining to provide pensions - so we have to provide for ourselves... Raid the pension fund - No tangible results - And now we have to make up the shortfall in pensions ourselves.. Nice work there lads.

Jobless figures are being manipulated by Tus, Jobs Bridge and such ponzy schemes.. Where no real lasting benefit is realised, but rather a churning of the long term unemployed through the schemes to beat down the statistics rather than tackle the problem.. Where the hell is the work activation measure in bringing potentially skilled people out to sweep the streets and pick litter - there are already sufficient council workers to do this - and now the councils are getting a similar scheme of long term unemployed workers out to be demeaned by sweeping streets and litter picking to be entitled for their payments - at the end they will have learned no skills. I see a local tus worker who is a skilled carpenter , out sweeping our local town streets - its hardly labour activation ! And a 4 week "computer" course might teach him how to use donedeal but it isn't training him to work in IT.

Personally I'd be thinking of exemptions such as the equine industry happily lap up.. Can we justify this tax free status for what is essentially a business controlled by the already rich.

What we saw at the last election was essentially a "change of jersey" in the dail. One set of schmoozers was replaced by another. There to make appointments for their cronies (which they said the wouldn't do). There to take advantage of tax breaks (which they had campaigned against). There to bow down to the paymasters in Europe (which they said they wouldn't do)..
Didn't Enda Kenny in opposition complain that the last government wasn't being liberal enough in their spending/policies - but now blames everything on their spending/policies ??
FG speak of the years of FF cronyism, shocking dealings and corruption. When the truth is more the fact that FG weren't in power is the only reason they didn't george themselves at the trough of power and excess. If they had been in power during the boom years they would have availed of the very same opportunities of corruption..

The anger isn't about who they are... but the fact that they are no different than those they blame for all the woes of the country - after being elected on a ticket of political change.

Zubeneschamali · 08-10-2013 11:45pm

LordSutch wrote: »

at least they have undergone a painful and embarrassing transition into a credible opposition party.

Yes, it's wonderful to see them shed their links with the past, and unite under the man who was:

Minister for Education and Science (1997–2000)
Minister for Health and Children (2000–04)
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (2004–08)
Minister for Foreign Affairs (2008–11)

under Bertie and then Cowen's leadership. A breath of fresh air!

v638sg7k1a92bx · 09-10-2013 9:45am

LordSutch wrote: »

Thankfully Fianna Fail and their new leadership seem to have shed their old skin and are rebuilding themselves again under the new leadership of Micheál Martin, not that I'd vote for them myself, but at least they have undergone a painful and embarrassing transition into a credible opposition party.

This is obviously a wind up.

sarumite · 09-10-2013 10:20am

Godge wrote: »

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

Here is the report.

First my mistake from recollection, it actually does take account of the pension-related pay deduction otherwise known as the pension levy

"Overall, the examination found that, based on the cost of one year’s additional service, the pension provision for an average public servant will cost around 9% of pay after account is taken of contributions made including the new pension related deduction introduced in 2009. The gross cost is on average 20% under this method"

So the state is funding the pension at 9% of salary, not out of line with decent employers in the private sector.

I still haven't had time to read the report, however reading your extract it appears the authors erroneously included the pension levy as a pension contribution when it was in fact a pay cut. If we correct for their mistake in their calculation would that put the real figure closer to something like 16.5% (assuming they mistakenly assumed the employee was contributing an average of 7.5%)?

golfball37 · 09-10-2013 10:49am

My hatred of this govt is nothing to do with cuts or taxes. They are doing the best they can with the hand they were dealt in that regard, of course they could do better but shur we all could.

My dislike stems from the promise of a new type of Politics and when James Reilly was put on the parapet he was backed without question, the Labour party even hung one of their own to save him. In any civilised country a man with his track record would fall on his sword but not in Eire.

hatrickpatrick · 09-10-2013 11:01am

It's not just the economy though. There's a perception that the government are colluding with and protecting the people who've screwed us over, and they're doing absolutely nothing to refute that.

wolfpawnat · 09-10-2013 11:09am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not just the economy though. There's a perception that the government are colluding with and protecting the people who've screwed us over, and they're doing absolutely nothing to refute that.

Exactly, if they were tried and put to jail, people would be more accepting of these austerity measures.

hatrickpatrick · 09-10-2013 12:38pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Exactly, if they were tried and put to jail, people would be more accepting of these austerity measures.

I wouldn't even demand that they be jailed as that's a matter for the courts, but for the DPP to grant immunity to Anglo's CFO, for Michael Noonan to stand idly by and abstain when he could have taken a moral stand against a pay rise for an executive in a bailed out bank, and for the department of finance to reuse to release legal advice which could aid the investigation are, to me, strong indicators of a high level of collusion.

I'm sure individual justifications can always be found but you must admit, when one steps back and takes all of these things together, a very ugly picture emerges, of people who should rightfully be punished for their actions being shielded, protected, and quietly let off without even a slap on the wrist.

Why the anger against current government?

Comments