Why would you give Labor your vote ?

meditraitor · 16-06-2010 4:51pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You simultaneously maintain that Labour policies will 'collapse' our economy whilst wanting to know what they are. Either you are aware of them and can make such an assumption or you're not and you are talking nonsense, which one is it?
.

I cant wait till he answers this one............

cleremy jarkson · 16-06-2010 4:51pm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Are you seriously calling for torture of a politician? Reported, just due to sheer nastiness.

Okay, I take back what I said about the torture rack. My main points is that I'd love to make him say out loud what he knows but isn't telling the electorate ie. that he has no plans on how to fix the economy. If he did, and he was confident that they were economically viable, then he would be explaining them to us as he stands in the dail, instead of just giving out the whole time to Brian Cowen and the other fianna fcuk-ups for their previous mismanagement of the economy. He'd also know something magic that we don't know, seeing as there are no resources available to stimulate job creation.

To be honest, I'm afraid of Labour getting into power.

I also don't have much regard for fine gael as I don't think they explain their policies either. And when they bang on about a jobs fund I'm left wondering "isn't that just creating unsustainable employment for 100,000 people that also diverts funds for use on other things".

Don't like fianna fail either but I'd probably vote for them if there was an election tomorrow seeing as they know that cutting and taxing is the only option for Ireland (this being as a result of their stupid pro-cyclical policies during the boom, of course)

meditraitor · 16-06-2010 4:55pm

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

To be honest, I'm afraid of Labour getting into power.

Fear of what may I ask?

cleremy jarkson · 16-06-2010 4:57pm

meditraitor wrote: »

Fear of what may I ask?

Fear of them causing and presiding over a long period of stagnant economic growth and a double digit unemployment rate as a result of their reluctance to trim state spending.

thebigcheese22 · 16-06-2010 4:59pm

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Okay, I take back what I said about the torture rack. My main points is that I'd love to make him say out loud what he knows but isn't telling the electorate ie. that he has no plans on how to fix the economy. If he did, and he was confident that they were economically viable, then he would be explaining them to us as he stands in the dail, instead of just giving out the whole time to Brian Cowen and the other fianna fcuk-ups for their previous mismanagement of the economy. He'd also know something magic that we don't know, seeing as there are no resources available to stimulate job creation.

To be honest, I'm afraid of Labour getting into power.

Then your fear is misplaced. What happened with the only Labour Minister for Finance? Disaster? IMF came in? No...the economy was in the best shape it ever was, and he was definitely one of the most competent MoF's in Irish history. As well as that, we brought in many progressive legislation in tandem with economic growth - divorce, FoI legislation, decriminilising homosexuality, as well as creating the CAB etc. As well as being competent, what distinuishes us from FF and FG is that we're not corrupt.

Labour are not the ones that destroyed this economy and has forced the next couple of generations to pay off the debts of a reckless government. Labour have many policies which can be found at their website that I linked. This myth that Labour have no policy is being spread in the media by FF and FG types, mainly because they now see Labour as a credible threat.

cleremy jarkson · 16-06-2010 5:10pm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Then your fear is misplaced. What happened with the only Labour Minister for Finance? Disaster? IMF came in? No...the economy was in the best shape it ever was, and he was definitely one of the most competent MoF's in Irish history. As well as that, we brought in many progressive legislation in tandem with economic growth - divorce, FoI legislation, decriminilising homosexuality, as well as creating the CAB etc. As well as being competent, what distinuishes us from FF and FG is that we're not corrupt.

Labour are not the ones that destroyed this economy and has forced the next couple of generations to pay off the debts of a reckless government. Labour have many policies which can be found at their website that I linked. This myth that Labour have no policy is being spread in the media by FF and FG types, mainly because they now see Labour as a credible threat.

Of course, all these are true andwell worth praising. And you're right, Fianna Fail did ruin this country for, well, the forseeable future anyway. BUT, I don't remember Labour or Fine Gael trying to convince Fianna Fail to cut back on spending so much back in the heady days of the boom?

Also, when Ruairi Quinn was minister for finance from the end of 1994 (thanks wikipedia!), the country was starting to get its act together as a result of Fianna fails shoestring budgets of the late 80's and early 90's, which were necessary to rectify the non-action of the previous Labour/ Fine Gael government. Ruairi Quinn, in fairness to him though, didn't go and splurge like McCreevy; he kept the right mentality of fiscal rectitude and the country prospered. Still though, I just dont believe Joan Burton would be willing to make cuts and advocate fiscal austerity.

thebigcheese22 · 16-06-2010 5:15pm

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Of course, all these are true andwell worth praising. And you're right, Fianna Fail did ruin this country for, well, the forseeable future anyway. BUT, I don't remember Labour or Fine Gael trying to convince Fianna Fail to cut back on spending so much back in the heady days of the boom?

Also, when Ruairi Quinn was minister for finance from the end of 1994 (thanks wikipedia!), the country was starting to get its act together as a result of Fianna fails shoestring budgets of the late 80's and early 90's, which were necessary to rectify the non-action of the previous Labour/ Fine Gael government. Ruairi Quinn, in fairness to him though, didn't go and splurge like McCreevy; he kept the right mentality of fiscal rectitude and the country prospered. Still though, I just dont believe Joan Burton would be willing to make cuts and advocate fiscal austerity.

In fairness, the only reason that FF implemented shoestrings budgets is because they spent too much and there was almost universal acceptance of the need for cuts, with the Tallaght strategy. As Ruairi Quinn said yesterday, its the second time in his political career in which FF have bunkrupted the country - twice. While Labour have never done that.

Ok, let's say FF's cutbacks work miraculously, and their banking strategy pays for itself over time. Given their track record, what are the odds that they will bankrupt the country once again when we're in the Green? I'd say very high. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and if FF are in power any time soon, then the Irish people deserve all they get tbh.

Permabear · 16-06-2010 5:21pm

This post has been deleted.

killbillvol2 · 16-06-2010 5:23pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't know if any of ye saw Aprés Match last night featuring "Vincent Brown", "Joan Burton" and "Brian Lenihen". From about 1 minute on they take a good dig at the Labour party's ambiguity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lvkvyA8ZEI

Interesting piece to highlight - given that later in the clip "Brian Lenihan" says his strategy for our debt is to hope that the man forgets how much he lent us!

Eliot Rosewater · 16-06-2010 5:25pm

What this or that Labour MoF did in this or that year is irrelevant. What FF have done is irrelevant. When I'm judging Labour I'm going to base it on what Labour is going to do now.

Of the Labour policies you linked to, only one deals with the economy in a broad way. And that's what people here are looking for: their broad approach to fixing the economy. It's no surprise that people are worried. We're dealing with a €27 billion deficit and yet Gilmore has promised not to cut social welfare and the party has passed a motion advocating restoring public sector pay. Whether or not this restoration occurs in 2014 is a non-issue because

It's promising not to cut public sector pay anymore than it has been cut, which, in our current economic context, is foolish.
It's based on the assumption that the pay rises during the boom were justified. Were pay rises greater than the cost of living increases justified? Was the 57% increase in 7 years justified?

Overall, the Labour party is gaining an undesirable reputation for being ambiguous. We had the frontbench Labour member telling us that a tax increase was a spending cut. Gilmore is pursuing a staunch "on the fence" tactic: by not taking a side and insulting the other, he hopes to clean up both sides' votes. He truely is all talk and no substance. He couldn't even muster an opinion on the Croke Park deal: yeah, a strong leader he'll make.

So we have this one economic pdf. Notice one of their key aims: "Capital Budget savings through lower tender prices". 17% is the target. Clearly this an acknowledgment that the cost of living and the cost of doing business in this country is declining. Yet we won't be getting any corresponding decrease in social welfare rates etc.

Labour's policy contains, unsurprisingly, an increase in income tax. Income tax directly erodes the profits of those doing business here. In our modern world, people aren't afraid to up sticks and leave. And if you raise tax, this is exactly what employers and high skilled workers will begin to do.

The Labour policy contains a restoration of the totally unnecessary and nonsecular "Christmas bonus". Social welfare is not for buying presents, in my opinion.

There's also a bit of fluff. General talk of "efficiently measures" and "supply chain management". When people go to the polls they want to know exactly what's going on. When they vote for a party they invest a lot faith in them. The ambiguity that has been defining Labour for the past while is, frankly, an insult to this faith.

Pride Fighter · 16-06-2010 5:29pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Quite simply cause Fine Gael are a joke political party. I dont like to say it, and even though I always wanted Gilmore as Taoiseach I realistically knew it would be Fine Gael's leader. However the current joke that is afflicting Fine Gael makes me think they are not fit for government cause if they were to get in their would be leadership heave after leadership heave. The government would not last long. Unstable government = no confidence in markets = credit downgradings making borrowings more expensive.

limklad · 16-06-2010 5:33pm

FF - NO - Worst performing Government in Irish history, Read the news papers and watch the TV for plenty of reasons.

FG - No Worst Perfomance Opposition in Irish History to oust FF the Worst performing Government in Irish history with hitting two suicidal buttons. 1/. Sideling of George Lee rather than use him in the background and Individualise plans rather than working on a common plan and using all available resources to to come up with a good plan to get us out of our economic mess 2/. Always Blowing the huge lead they got in the last elections/polls with their infighting hypocrisy talk about unity with egos that I would normally associate with FF. FF is far more unified than FG despite been the worst performance Government in Irish History for blowing the Boom money.

So next Election I will be voting Labour since they are the only ones with creditability at this stage despite what plan they come up with. They are also the most stable party in Irish politics. There plan can't be any worst than than the other two main parties.

cleremy jarkson · 16-06-2010 5:35pm

I'd just like to add that I would certainly vote Labour IF they outlined (before the next election) EXACTLY AND CONCRETELY AND WITHOUT BULLSHÍT WAFFLEY-SPEAK on paper, what they plan to do and IF what they propose doing will genuinely reduce the governments deficit and give the country a chance at achieving good economic growth. But as a poster above said, they're gaining a reputation for ambiguity and until they bloody quit that, I will have no time for them.

rightwingdub · 16-06-2010 5:43pm

I wouldn't touch Labour with a bargepole and the fact that Gilmore has been able to get away with his pain free bull**it solutions is infuriating, also the media will need to dig up the dirt about his workers party Past, for crying out loud the man is an ex communist converted to the milder ideology of socialism.

I actually can imagine when Labour are in government and they are faced with the choice of cutting social welfare having promised to restore the Xmas bonus, all the gullible eejits who voted for Labour will be fuming:D

invinciblePRSTV · 16-06-2010 5:50pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What this or that Labour MoF did in this or that year is irrelevant. What FF have done is irrelevant. When I'm judging Labour I'm going to base it on what Labour is going to do now....

But why are you holding The Labour Party to such an exacting standard? no party is going to publish their full manifestos and policy documents for what they intend to do when in power until a GE is called. All FG have is their uncosted stimulus plan, FF are in damage prevention mode.

In a manifestos absence you'll have to read the runes to find out what a party is thinking, as i pointed out to the OP, you'll get this via party budget submissions, Oireachtas Ctte. submissions, party conference motions and published policy documents.

We're coming into the final part of this electoral cycle. Now it's become clear that the coalition Government will survive the course through to 2012, all parties have, or at least should have, begun their candidate selection programmes and over the course of the next year or so formulation of election manifesto's will begin.

All in all it smacks of rank hypocrisy for people like the OP to be demanding exactly what Labour have planned for when they get into power 2 years down the line when no party can legitimately predict the lie of the land this time in 2 years.

(plus the all important caveat that coalition Governments mean that party promises and manifesto pledges get thrown out the window in favour of whats agreed on in a Programme For Government)

jimmycrackcorm · 16-06-2010 5:54pm

Pride Fighter wrote: »

4) Labour's policies would have dealt with the banking crisis at less expense to the tax payer. If the banks were nationalised in late 08 early 09 it could have been done for less than 2 billion. Also opposing the guarantee would have meant that moribund bank Anglo-Irish would have hit the wall, which we all want to see.

Seriously - are you trying to tell us that the bank losses would not exist if they were nationalised - that the losses on developer lending would not exist otherwise?

Wouldn't Anglo also have been nationalized?

5) Labour have good policies, 9 policy documents have been written in the last 6 months http://www.labour.ie/policy/

Great - which one deals with the budget deficit between income and public sector + S/W spending?

limklad · 16-06-2010 6:00pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Labour's policy contains, unsurprisingly, an increase in income tax. Income tax directly erodes the profits of those doing business here. In our modern world, people aren't afraid to up sticks and leave. And if you raise tax, this is exactly what employers and high skilled workers will begin to do.

Income Tax is what the Government get from Employees from their Individual take home pay. Not the normal Business Taxes such as VAT and Corporation Tax, EU VAT, Employer's PRSI.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/how-is-company-taxed.html

Since you could not tell what Income Tax was, It shows up your post credibility as poor as FF's Judgement of state of our economy.

Permabear · 16-06-2010 6:05pm

This post has been deleted.

goldrun · 16-06-2010 6:08pm

It's quite simple really - there are 3 main parties and 2 of them have made it impossible to vote for them.
FF - may be making hard decisions now but we don't know if they are the right ones and they were, afterall, the ones who got us into this mess in the first place (I'd like to point out the the Irish public as a whole must take some blame cause we elected them).

FG - can't even sort their own party so how can they run a country. Seems to be made up of a lot of individuals more concerned with their own position than that of the country.

That leaves Labour - slightly left of centre; socialist policies fit with the mood of the country who are sick of the steal from the poor to give to the rich theme of the moment. Whether they can be effective in power is another thing.

If Labour want to maintain these gains they will need to become more definitive about their policies, otherwise people will do what they always do and vote for what they know. Knowledge is comfort.

sceptre · 16-06-2010 6:12pm

limklad wrote: »

Income Tax is what the Government get from Employees from their Individual take home pay. Not the normal Business Taxes such as VAT and Corporation Tax, EU VAT, Employer's PRSI.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/how-is-company-taxed.html

Since you could not tell what Income Tax was, It shows up your post credibility as poor as FF's Judgement of state of our economy.

Rather than personalising the discussion as you've done in your last sentence (with my moderator hat on, kindly refrain from doing that as it's not permitted and isn't particularly polite), it's apparent to me (and hence presumably to the blind monkeys) that what Eliot is referring to is that to provide an expected level of take-home pay (aka "net"), when deciding offered salaries (aka "gross") the particular employer effectively adds on an amount to compensate for the loss in income tax for the employee. Where income tax rises, many employees expect an increase in their gross pay to mitigate the loss in their net. Whether or not they have such an expectation, the cost still lies effectively with the employer (effective as opposed to a value-based calculation of the contribution of the individual employee to the overall worth of the company).

Obviously the direct cost to the employer is corporation tax, VAT where applicable and employer-PRSI. The indirect tax-related cost can be considered to be the amount paid by the employer to provide an attractive level of net pay, specifically being the difference between net and gross. It's still an associated cost in that it affects the level of cost to the employer, albeit an indirect one given that the tax is directly paid by the employee rather than the employer.

Call it "cost of employees to employers" 102. I rather hope that most members realised the original point before I made this post, mind you, whether or not they agree with its importance as a factor in job creation. This last part of course is one of the more significant divergences of opinion between those who want a low-tax economy and those who want a higher level of exchequer-funded services, implicitly requiring an, er, less low-tax economy.

Fuhrer · 16-06-2010 6:13pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah but despite the government falling to a nadir of unpopularity, Fine Gael are still pretty much on the same level as they were back then

Eliot Rosewater · 16-06-2010 6:13pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But why are you holding The Labour Party to such an exacting standard?

Why wouldn't I? There's an excuse running across this whole thread that goes something like "Labour aren't bad because look at what this other party doing". It's a red herring. I could give extreme examples of this logic but I'll restrain myself.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

In a manifestos absence you'll have to read the runes to find out what a party is thinking, as i pointed out to the OP, you'll get this via party budget submissions, Oireachtas Ctte. submissions, party conference motions and published policy documents.

The reason the media exists, and the reason political shows exist, it to give people platforms. I shouldn't have to go trawling through the business of Dail Eireann to find out what the Labour party are going to do (nor do I have the time). The Labour party gets ample airtime: it should be using this to tell the people what it's going to do. Instead it offers nothing but vague and ambiguous rhetoric.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

All in all it smacks of rank hypocrisy for people like the OP to be demanding exactly what Labour have planned for when they get into power 2 years down the line when no party can legitimately predict the lie of the land this time in 2 years.

You must be using a different definition of "hypocrisy" to me. Hypocrisy is when you say two conflicting things. The OP hasn't, from what I've seen, condoned ambiguity in other parties. He is fully entitled to question Labour in this way.

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Interesting piece to highlight - given that later in the clip "Brian Lenihan" says his strategy for our debt is to hope that the man forgets how much he lent us!

It's good satire. The reason the clip of Joan Burton offering nothing but vague rhetoric is funny is because it's partly true. Ditto for Lenehin, in a more indirect way.

Pride Fighter · 16-06-2010 6:16pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Seriously - are you trying to tell us that the bank losses would not exist if they were nationalised - that the losses on developer lending would not exist otherwise?

Wouldn't Anglo also have been nationalized?

The entire banking sector would have been nationalised. The bad banks would have been wound down and the good ones would have remained open. There would only be about 3 good banks left. The toxic debts would have been isolated and dealt with separately allowing the good banks to lend again. This would have been cheaper than the current situation. The state has given BOI/AIB 7 billion in recapitalisation, 4 to Anglo-Irish and are due to lose 22 billion on Anglo Irish bank. Nationalisation between late 08-mid 09 was the cheaper option. Its a no go now as it would cost too much though.

Great - which one deals with the budget deficit between income and public sector + S/W spending?

There is no policy document on this. But there is a pre-budget submission outlining Labour's cuts in spending in the last budget. Labour would have cut 5.8 billion euro, more than FF. The would have set aside 1.15 billion on a job creation, job retraining stimulus that would have taken 60,000 people off the dole.

limklad · 16-06-2010 6:21pm

sceptre wrote: »

Rather than personalising the discussion as you've done in your last sentence (with my moderator hat on, kindly refrain from doing that as it's not permitted and isn't particularly polite),

I attack the credibility of the post not the poster. The poster got the very basics of Income Tax incorrect.

Eliot Rosewater · 16-06-2010 6:21pm

sceptre wrote: »

Call it "cost of employees to employers" 102. I rather hope that most members realised the original point before I made this post, whether or not they agree with its importance as a factor, mind you.

Indeed, it's not as big a factor as a rise in corporation tax, for instance. But I do think it matters. Additional to your explanation is that high skilled workers (and thus usually well paid workers) will be less included to stay, or go to, a country that taxes them a lot. And small business owners will have their profits (income) taxed with income tax too.

rightwingdub · 16-06-2010 6:21pm

If Labour implement their tax the rich polcies then a lot of wealthy people will leave Ireland meaning that Ireland's tax base will be depleted even further, that will mean that there is a greater likelihood that Ireland will go bust.

I've a couple of questions for floating Labour voters.

1) Do you think that taxing people over €100k will result in more tax revenue?
2) Will taxing the rich even more create more jobs or less jobs?
3) Who creates jobs rich people or poor people?

Labour are a typical party of socialist begrudgery.

Eliot Rosewater · 16-06-2010 6:22pm

limklad wrote: »

I attack the credibility of the post not the poster. The poster got the very basics of Income Tax incorrect.

No, I don't think I did. People who own businesses have to pay tax on their income, ie their profit.

Pride Fighter · 16-06-2010 6:26pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The last poll by a different polling company showed Labour in first place.

What is afflicting Fine Gael at the moment is a leadership challenge—something that affects all political parties from time to time. There's nothing to suggest that this will lead to "leadership heave after leadership heave."

Whoever wins will not win decisively. This will lead to a split party that will want to see either a Kennyite or Brutonite as leader. Look at British Labour, the current situation sees Blairite/Brownite. However British Labour are grown up enough to row in behind whoever wins. I dont see this in Fine Gael. As a result, I conclude that FG led government will be unstable.

If Richard Bruton wins, we will have a potential Taoiseach who is a former ERSI economist, with an MPhil from Oxford. He even wrote his thesis on Irish public debt, which seems appropriate. Why is he not a "viable" Taoiseach?

Richard Bruton is capable no doubt. But he is in charge of a right wing party. Right wing, neo-liberal economics caused this mess. They cannot get us out.

Government with no clear direction on unsustainable public service pay and welfare bills = credit downgradings, making borrowings more expensive.

You know me as a Labour supporter from my previous posts. I'll tell you that you are speaking nonsense. Labour will implement the cuts. We have the unions on our side and they are willing to cut so long as they are done fairly. We will cut them fairly. If you examine the last pre-budget submission you'll see we advocated more cuts than Fianna Fail. Labour in government is the best bet for a recovery. And a recovery that will have job creation at the heart of it. Unlike the other parties.

sceptre · 16-06-2010 6:26pm

limklad wrote: »

I attack the credibility of the post not the poster. The poster got the very basics of Income Tax incorrect.

I suggest re-reading my post above as carefully as you need to. I referred to it as "cost of employees to employers" 102 rather than "cost of employees to employers" 101 for good reason, it being beyond the very basics of income tax - learning income tax in a vacuum as many undergrad business are taught (as indeed they were when I was doing income/corpo/etc tax modules in my first undergrad a number of years ago) can lead all too often to the belief that they operate in a vacuum, which they don't. Associated costs are associated costs, regardless of whether they're direct or indirect. Incidentally, that's the tl;dr version of my post above but I still reckon it's worth a second look to follow the thought journey in as fun a way as possible. Up to yourself obviously, it stands as reality regardless.

Rather than be as guilty as anyone else of zapping off-topic, which I try to avoid (and in fairness, I rather should avoid), I'll leave this side-discussion, partly because I've said all I particularly need to say to make the point I'm making.

Permabear · 16-06-2010 6:27pm

This post has been deleted.

Why would you give Labor your vote ?

Comments