Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gilmores facade is showing cracks

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Sand wrote: »
    The Croke Park agreement is between two parties. The unions and their membership. And the State. Gilmore intends to form at least part of the government of the State shortly.

    He is not however part of the Government. Were he to speak out now then the government, it's cronies and a few of the posters who have criticised him on here would be whinging about the opposition meddling where they should not be. He's dammed if he does and dammed if he dosen't.
    Sand wrote: »
    Union members are expressing doubts if the State will even hold up their side of the deal.

    SO they should be, it is unaffordable (IMO)
    Sand wrote: »
    They, and everyone else had a right to know what Gilmore thinks - does he think its a good deal for the State? Does he think its a good deal for the unions? If he is in government will he adhere to the Croke Park deal without reservation or will he feel able to dismantle it if he feels it is against State interests? Is he able to seperate the interests of the State and the public sector unions?

    Hey while we are at it lets clog up the airwaves by ensuring Gilmore is respond to every single Gov policy...
    Sand wrote: »
    These are questions that voters have a right to know an answer to. We give politicians a democratic mandate based on their policies and views. If Gilmore and his ilk refuse to espouse any views on issues of *critical* importance to the future of this State then they are basically empty suits, unfit for office.
    Gilmore has not refused to espouse a view on any issue. He's been pretty vocal, but hey if they are suits unfit for the office, then they can always get a job in Fianna Fail or one of the banks they bailed out...
    Sand wrote: »
    Their cowardice, Gilmore's in particular, is pathetic.
    Cowardice? right, no point in continuing with you, if that is your view.


  • Options
    #33
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    Profiler wrote: »
    Gilmore is waiting until the unions have given their response (backing or rejection) Were he speak out and suggest how they should respond it would be... well interfering.



    Well as the Church is a unelected and undemocratic body where Rome decides who is Bishop or not, exactly what good would Gilmore coming out and demanding Brady's resignation?




    Water charges are coming - Europe has decided that. So no decision to be made whatsoever.

    However until the Government has outlined how charges will be implemented how the vulnerable in society will be charged (or not) how can Gilmore give his response to a position not yet know.


    No, for that see Aherne, B.

    Ask John O'Donoghue that question ;)

    So Gilmore wants to be Leader who doesnt decide on any issue he can squirm out of ?
    Democratic Left tail wagging the labour Dog again !:D
    I suspect his refusal to answer these questions shows his lack of courage and sense of responsility - typical left wing bluffer !


  • Options
    #34
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Profiler wrote: »
    He is not however part of the Government. Were he to speak out now then the government, it's cronies and a few of the posters who have criticised him on here would be whinging about the opposition meddling where they should not be.

    You seem to be suggesting that the opposition shouldn't be ... erm ... opposing. At the very least you're creating a strawman: do you see Cowen "whinge" at Leader's Questions about the fact that the opposition is "meddling" in the government's affairs? The idea of opposition is intrinsic in parliamentary democracy.


    But you do, in a way, hit upon Gilmore's tactic. By being so elusive and by saying so little, he can avoid insulting anybody and pick up everyone's votes. It's the very definition of "populist": say what everyone wants to hear.


  • Options
    #35
    Breezer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    rightwingdub wrote: »
    Fine Gael won't get anywhere near an overall majority with Kenny in charge
    In all honesty, probably not, but individual votes add up to make a difference. If people genuinely want a government with FG but not Labour, then rallying behind FG is the way to do it. Dismissing them them on the basis that they'll also bring in Labour if not enough people vote for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    Profiler wrote:
    Hey while we are at it lets clog up the airwaves by ensuring Gilmore is respond to every single Gov policy...
    Yes, that is his job! Gordon Brown couldn't sneeze for the last few years without David Cameron having an opinion on it. The thing is, Gilmore (and Burton) are clogging up the airwaves, but despite that they're not really saying much.


  • Options
    #36
    rightwingdub
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    Breezer wrote: »
    In all honesty, probably not, but individual votes add up to make a difference. If people genuinely want a government with FG but not Labour, then rallying behind FG is the way to do it. Dismissing them them on the basis that they'll also bring in Labour if not enough people vote for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Yes, that is his job! Gordon Brown couldn't sneeze for the last few years without David Cameron having an opinion on it. The thing is, Gilmore (and Burton) are clogging up the airwaves, but despite that they're not really saying much.

    I'm considering voting FG if only they became a proper centre right political party, Kenny doesn't stand for anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    For anyone interested in formulating their own opinion and becoming familiar with Labour policy look here http://www.labour.ie/policy/

    From this Labour policy document (Dec 2009):
    There should a negotiated agreement to secure savings in the public sector wage bill
    And five months later Gilmore vows to reverse public sector pay cuts.
    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    In conclusion there is no facade showing cracks.

    Right, so Labour proposes reducing the PS wage bill by increasing PS wages - classic nineteen-eightyfour doublespeak... That looks like a crack in the facade to me ;)


  • Options
    #38
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    Breezer wrote: »
    When you said this:I decided I didn't really want to discuss it further, but my curiosity has gotten the better of me. Basically......where exactly are you getting this from?

    I mean that the police in the current dont anything particularly good in comparison the amount of damage cause by our stupid laws that we have. In theory a legal system is suppose to be productive in regards to conflict disputes, but current I see zero value for money in having our government. I prefer anarchy over a badly managed govenrment.

    I got my info from talking to him personally. I Googled it and this is what I got. He makes a vague reference to it. Its late and I'm tired. I'm not putting more effort than that.

    http://theconnollycolumn.blogspot.com/2007/09/eamon-gilmore.html
    Breezer wrote: »
    In all honesty, probably not, but individual votes add up to make a difference. If people genuinely want a government with FG but not Labour, then rallying behind FG is the way to do it. Dismissing them them on the basis that they'll also bring in Labour if not enough people vote for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Its not my place to tell you who to vote for but its like when people say they would vote Lib Dems if they thought they would win. Look up John Cleeses 1997 election broadcast to see what I mean.
    rightwingdub wrote: »
    I'm considering voting FG if only they became a proper centre right political party, Kenny doesn't stand for anything.

    Form your own party then.


  • Options
    #39
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,488 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @Profiler
    He is not however part of the Government. Were he to speak out now then the government, it's cronies and a few of the posters who have criticised him on here would be whinging about the opposition meddling where they should not be. He's dammed if he does and dammed if he dosen't.

    Oh please. Hes an elected member of the Dail and leader of what is apparently a popular party with aims to form a government next time out. Speaking out and laying out his views and policies in more than vague generalities is exactly what he should be doing. If he doesnt have any views on the policy of the state then maybe he ought to resign and open up his seat to someone with something to say.
    SO they should be, it is unaffordable (IMO)

    Are you running for election? If so, thanks for expressing a view on which someone can cast a vote on an educated basis. Now, has Gilmore or Labour expressed a view? Other than "No comment", nope. How is any voter to express a view in an educated fashion when even Gilmore is unable or unwilling to express even the basic essentials of his own parties policy?
    Hey while we are at it lets clog up the airwaves by ensuring Gilmore is respond to every single Gov policy...

    He was brought onto Newstalk to do an interview - he was asked a couple of simple, straightforward question to which he could have sketched out even the bare essentials of Labour policy. He dodged and ducked and dived and refused to explain what Labours view or his own view was on any of the questions asked of him. I am surprised he didnt offer a caveat when he was accused of being the leader of the Labour Party.
    Gilmore has not refused to espouse a view on any issue. He's been pretty vocal, but hey if they are suits unfit for the office, then they can always get a job in Fianna Fail or one of the banks they bailed out...

    Are you serious? Gilmore has no opinion on the Croke Park deal hes willing to share with the general public. No opinion on water charges that hes willing to share with the general public. And no opinion on the responsibility of Brady in the enablement/coverup of child abuse that hes willing to share with the general public.

    And thats just one interview!

    Hes vocal when it comes to rabble rousing, but hes got nothing to say beyond tirades against "unfairness", whatever that means.
    Cowardice? right, no point in continuing with you, if that is your view.

    A spade is a spade. The man and his party are terrified of actually having to give an opinion if its in anyway controversial. Real leadership material.


  • Options
    #40
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    Breezer wrote: »
    10 years old? That's insane. A huge amount has happened in healthcare since then, both in terms of medical knowledge and in organisational best practice, never mind the fact that the HSE was unheard of at that point. I'm not surprised it's not on the website if that's the best they have. There's been 2 general elections in the last ten years and we're approaching another one, what on earth have the various health spokespersons been doing in that time?

    It makes no odds that it is 10 years old. Particularly when Fine Gael have copied it word for word almost. The main difference between Labour's health proposals and Fine Gael is that Labour will not close any hospitals or hand them over to private interests. Fair Care advocates the Dutch model which has no state run hospitals, only private, for profit hospitals. Private enterprise is a good thing, but in terms of healthcare, health is a human right and should be provided for by the state, free of charge, not by big business that will skimp on healthcare provisions to extend profit-margins.


  • Options
    #41
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    From this Labour policy document (Dec 2009):
    And five months later Gilmore vows to reverse public sector pay cuts.



    Right, so Labour proposes reducing the PS wage bill by increasing PS wages - classic nineteen-eightyfour doublespeak... That looks like a crack in the facade to me ;)

    I've said this before and I'll say it again. Labour advocates cuts in public sector pay. We are in a mess, created by Fianna Fail. In a few years time, when the mess has been sorted, that is when we will reverse the public sector pay cuts, when we can pay. That wont be for a while, but temporary cuts are what we advocate with a reversal after stable, sustainable, economic growth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    I've said this before and I'll say it again. Labour advocates cuts in public sector pay. We are in a mess, created by Fianna Fail. In a few years time, when the mess has been sorted, that is when we will reverse the public sector pay cuts, when we can pay. That wont be for a while, but temporary cuts are what we advocate with a reversal after stable, sustainable, economic growth.

    If thats the case why doesn't gilmore come out and say he supports the Croke park deal? Its because he's a two faced waffler with no back bone and wants to be all things to everyone. It will be a sad day for the country if they are let anywhere near the chequebook


  • Options
    #43
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    If thats the case why doesn't gilmore come out and say he supports the Croke park deal? Its because he's a two faced waffler with no back bone and wants to be all things to everyone. It will be a sad day for the country if they are let anywhere near the chequebook

    Gilmore neither supports or rejects the deal. Perhaps you have heard that trade unions have a little thing called a ballot, where they let their members vote. Gilmore does not want to interfere in the democratic action of the union movement. It is not ethical or right to tell people how to vote.


  • Options
    #44
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    Gilmore neither supports or rejects the deal. Perhaps you have heard that trade unions have a little thing called a ballot, where they let their members vote. Gilmore does not want to interfere in the democratic action of the union movement. It is not ethical or right to tell people how to vote.

    Surely the leader of the third largest party in the Dáil should share his opinion with the electorate, considering the likelihood of him being in power come the next election. But Gilmore is a fence sitter and doesn't want to harm his popularity by pissing off one half of the electorate one way or another.

    What was the Labour party calling for during the boom times, why it was increased spending, rather than partially pay down the national debt which is what happened. An eye for prudence the Labour party have :rolleyes:

    That just about sums up any policy one needs to know about them.


  • Options
    #45
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Surely the leader of the third largest party in the Dáil should share his opinion with the electorate, considering the likelihood of him being in power come the next election. But Gilmore is a fence sitter and doesn't want to harm his popularity by pissing off one half of the electorate one way or another.

    What was the Labour party calling for during the boom times, why it was increased spending, rather than partially pay down the national debt which is what happened. An eye for prudence the Labour party have :rolleyes:

    That just about sums up any policy one needs to know about them.

    I think you will find Ruairi Quinn as finance minister created 1,000 jobs a week, introduced a 12.5% corporation tax rate, and Irelands first budget surplus. That is the actions of Labour during the boom times.


  • Options
    #46
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    I think you will find Ruairi Quinn as finance minister created 1,000 jobs a week, introduced a 12.5% corporation tax rate, and Irelands first budget surplus. That is the actions of Labour during the boom times.

    They seem to have lost their way in recent times then. I take it you don't deny they called for further spending increases back in 06-07? Spending increases which today would have left us further in the mire.


  • Options
    #47
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    They seem to have lost their way in recent times then. I take it you don't deny they called for further spending increases back in 06-07? Spending increases which today would have left us further in the mire.

    Fine Gael proposed the same thing. I fully accept what you just said. Also the figures provided for by the department of finance suggested economic growth far greater than what actually occurred and they did not see the current crash coming, despite several warnings.

    I'd also say that the policies FG/Lab in their joint manifesto had they been implemented post 07 we'd be in a worse situation now. Economically as well as electorally. Cause we'd be in a bigger hole economically, and electorally FG/Lab would be blamed for the crash rather than FF. FF would then sweep back to power as a single party, overall majority. That would be a disaster.


  • Options
    #48
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #49
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    It makes no odds that it is 10 years old. Particularly when Fine Gael have copied it word for word almost. The main difference between Labour's health proposals and Fine Gael is that Labour will not close any hospitals or hand them over to private interests. Fair Care advocates the Dutch model which has no state run hospitals, only private, for profit hospitals. Private enterprise is a good thing, but in terms of healthcare, health is a human right and should be provided for by the state, free of charge, not by big business that will skimp on healthcare provisions to extend profit-margins.


    This is one of the things that scares me about the Labour party. You're letting your ideology ruin peoples lives and for what? So the government has control over everyones lives? No country that allows their government run their healthcare has a good health care system.
    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    Gilmore neither supports or rejects the deal. Perhaps you have heard that trade unions have a little thing called a ballot, where they let their members vote. Gilmore does not want to interfere in the democratic action of the union movement. It is not ethical or right to tell people how to vote.

    So I dont get a vote or a ballot? Fantastic. Loving labour party democracy already.


  • Options
    #50
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If labour policies of the 70's 80's had been followed it would have been a complete disaster for the country !


  • Options
    #51
    Fuhrer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    Hazlittle wrote: »
    No country that allows their government run their healthcare has a good health care system.


    You mean apart from France, Italy, Japan, Norway etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    How many of labours lleaders have preached the Gospel of Socialism but have belonged to that most exclusve and lucrative of Capitalist institutions the Bar ? (Four Courts)


  • Options
    #53
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    Fuhrer wrote: »
    You mean apart from France, Italy, Japan, Norway etc.

    Are they not all ran by private business and the state just insures them? Besides Dutch healthcare is still better than all of them.


  • Options
    #54
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    I've said this before and I'll say it again. Labour advocates cuts in public sector pay. We are in a mess, created by Fianna Fail. In a few years time, when the mess has been sorted, that is when we will reverse the public sector pay cuts, when we can pay. That wont be for a while, but temporary cuts are what we advocate with a reversal after stable, sustainable, economic growth.

    That could very well be read a vote buying attempt aimed at both public and private sector. Some public servants undoubtedly deserve the pre cutback level of pay and more, but a blanket reversal of these cuts will just add to the tax/debt burden and hinder job creation.

    In any case, have you got the text of the reversal motion handy so we can form our own opinion?


  • Options
    #55
    danman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    Did I hear on the radio this morning, that Eamon Gilmore had plagerised an entire Dial speech from a post on a discussion forum?

    I'll try to find a link.


  • Options
    #56
    Sulmac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    danman wrote: »
    Did I hear on the radio this morning, that Eamon Gilmore had plagerised an entire Dial speech from a post on a discussion forum?

    I'll try to find a link.

    It was reported in the *shudder* "Irish" Daily Mail - link.


  • Options
    #57
    danman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    Sulmac wrote: »
    It was reported in the *shudder* "Irish" Daily Mail - link.

    Ahh, to be taken with a pinch of salt then.
    I didn't hear what paper had reported it, I wasn't even sure if I heard it right.


  • Options
    #58
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    At least Gilmore & Co are taking thier material from the Communist Manifesto anymore !


  • Options
    #59
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #60
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    danman wrote: »
    Ahh, to be taken with a pinch of salt then.
    I didn't hear what paper had reported it, I wasn't even sure if I heard it right.

    Copied from P.ie according to P.ie

    If you're not aware of it its a political discussion forum for people that dont know a thing about politics.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Breezer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    It makes no odds that it is 10 years old.
    You are joking, right? It makes no difference that a policy on healthcare is ten years out of date? Have you any idea how much can happen in the field of healthcare in ten years? Would you be happy if a government's communications policy was ten years out of date? "We will endeavour to put in place a national ISDN line infrastructure."
    Particularly when Fine Gael have copied it word for word almost.
    Well I have no idea whether they have or not since I can't see said ten year old policy.
    The main difference between Labour's health proposals and Fine Gael is that Labour will not close any hospitals or hand them over to private interests.
    That's a fairly significant difference, requiring a completely different model of funding.
    Fair Care advocates the Dutch model which has no state run hospitals, only private, for profit hospitals.
    A model which has worked very well.
    health is a human right
    I agree.
    and should be provided for by the state
    Why?
    big business that will skimp on healthcare provisions to extend profit-margins.
    No, they won't, because in a "money follows the patient" system that would result in patient (i.e. consumer) dissatisfaction and a loss of profit to competitors. What you have described is how our wonderful state-run system currently operates.

    I'm not opposed to a state-sponsored one-tier health system per se, but I look at every single state-run project in this country and I see delays, projects running overbudget, unions holding up what could actually be a decent service, or projects falling apart due to the State's inability to maintain them. It's time for a new approach. Which Gilmore doesn't have - he doesn't have any approach, other than this ten year old document that doesn't feature on his party's policy page.


Advertisement