if the government falls, then what??

Zubeneschamali · 04-11-2014 1:27pm

mrbrianj wrote: »

I think the "most" likely option will be FF/FG.
:
The landscape will have changed radically - RA or SF will be a strong opposition, for better or worse. We will have a right, left and centre. Expect eurosceptics and proEU to replace civil war politics.

I'd like to see a realignment around left-right, but the left would lose election after election, and end up in the middle like Labour today, and we'd be back with a smidge left of centre vs. a smidge right of centre.

Just like FF vs. FG/Labour coalition.

Dannyboy83 · 04-11-2014 1:47pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the Don't Know numbers are interesting.

If the last 3 years has left you saying Don't Know instead of SF, FF or Independent, what are you going to do on election day? Stay home, maybe, but I think there are a lot of FG/Labour voters in there who simply cannot and will not vote for SF or FF.

What percentage will sigh and vote FG/Labour again to keep SF out?

A lot less than 4 years ago; Labour are counting on it (as are FG & FF), but Labour will be maimed in any case.
I think it's quite unusual that people are not expecting to see a reactionary vote.

After the destruction of FF, in order to kill Civil War politics and finally bring about normal Left/Right politics, I think there are one of two things (or maybe both) left that need to happen:
A) FG/FF coalition

SF in office as the large coalition partner

If FF/FG will grow up and agree to go into government together, I'll vote for FG again.
If not, then I will vote for SF as a protest vote.
Whatever is most reactionary, that's the route I'll take.

An FF/FG government would be less painful, but we will learn more from an SF government.

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.

First Up · 04-11-2014 2:01pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A lot less than 4 years ago; Labour are counting on it (as are FG & FF), but Labour will be maimed in any case.
I think it's quite unusual that people are not expecting to see a reactionary vote.

After the destruction of FF, in order to kill Civil War politics and finally bring about normal Left/Right politics, I think there are one of two things (or maybe both) left that need to happen:
A) FG/FF coalition
SF in office as the large coalition partner

If FF/FG will grow up and agree to go into government together, I'll vote for FG again.
If not, then I will vote for SF as a protest vote.
Whatever is most reactionary, that's the route I'll take.

An FF/FG government would be less painful, but we will learn more from an SF government.

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.

And a protest vote for SF is about as constructive as cutting off your leg because you sprained your ankle.

crusher000 · 04-11-2014 2:23pm

For me party politics in Ieland doesn't mean squat, doesn't matter what party any particular politician is with it's all about the rich in Ireland holding onto the status quo keeping the old brigade in place and ensuring the rich of this country hold onto their wealth and the rest of the country paying a larger percentage of their earnings/welfare in taxes etc. They're is a huge void and in balance in Irish politics ( but it's the same across Europe ) where the people at the lower end of the wealth table are dragged further and further down. Then the net is widened to darg more people in. The current Government have bled and bled people dry they don't know where to stop, and am afraid won't stop until they have taken all our wages. A lot of people have nothing left at the end of the week for themselves, having to make choices on what bill to pay next, going without so their children will have dinner. Private sector wages have stood still for the last 5/6 years, yet demands on the wages have increased.

It's not a change in government we need but a change in the type of politician that we have.

ardmacha · 04-11-2014 2:25pm

crusher000 wrote: »

For me party politics in Ieland doesn't mean squat, doesn't matter what party any particular politician is with it's all about the rich in Ireland holding onto the status quo keeping the old brigade in place and ensuring the rich of this country hold onto their wealth and the rest of the country paying a larger percentage of their earnings/welfare in taxes etc. They're is a huge void and in balance in Irish politics ( but it's the same across Europe ) where the people at the lower end of the wealth table are dragged further and further down. Then the net is widened to darg more people in. The current Government have bled and bled people dry they don't know where to stop, and am afraid won't stop until they have taken all our wages. A lot of people have nothing left at the end of the week for themselves, having to make choices on what bill to pay next, going without so their children will have dinner. Private sector wages have stood still for the last 5/6 years, yet demands on the wages have increased.

It's not a change in government we need but a change in the type of politician that we have.

Which country is this? Not Ireland with one of the most progressive income tax regimes in the world, I presume.

crusher000 · 04-11-2014 2:27pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Which country is this? Not Ireland with one of the most progressive income tax regimes in the world, I presume.

For me party politics in Ieland

For Reals · 04-11-2014 2:30pm

Godge wrote: »

Eamon Cuiv doesn't think so, he would bring the two together in an instant.

http://www.midwestradio.ie/index.php/news/8323-eamon-ocuiv-calls-for-fianna-fail-and-sinn-fein-to-join-forces

"Eamon O'Cuiv is calling for Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin to join forces - in a bid to reunite the party that his grandfather Eamon de Valera split.
In an interview with the Irish Daily Mail, the Galway Deputy said out of all the parties Sinn Féin is the most compatible match to Fianna Fáil because they are both republican."

We've many shysters and greasy conmen in politics, but O'Cuiv is the biggest danger to Ireland of them all.
He's old school church and state. Was up to his neck in Fianna Fail, but backed off into the shadows pre demolishing of the country.

First Up · 04-11-2014 2:31pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Which country is this? Not Ireland with one of the most progressive income tax regimes in the world, I presume.

That plain and simple fact has been pointed out a thousand times but the Crushers of this world will not be denied their delusions.

triple nipple · 04-11-2014 2:38pm

nuac wrote:

Are there any Irish politicians or parties who are not republican?

fg, labour

crusher000 · 04-11-2014 2:50pm

First Up wrote: »

That plain and simple fact has been pointed out a thousand times but the Crushers of this world will not be denied their delusions.

Yes low income tax is great, USC, Paye, Pension levy and PRSI. Und mie ist the delusion one.

Godge · 04-11-2014 2:55pm

crusher000 wrote: »

Yes low income tax is great, USC, Paye, Pension levy and PRSI. Und mie ist the delusion one.

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/progressi...x-system-2013/

"Ireland has the most progressive income tax system (including employee social insurance contributions) in the EU and the wider OECD. The tax paid by a single person on half average earnings is the second lowest in the OECD and is less than one-thirteenth that in Denmark while the tax paid by a single person on two and a half times average earnings is the 9th highest in the OECD. At average income levels we are the 27th highest in OECD."

The 2015 budget increased progressivity in the income tax system. We are actually at the point where the only option for improving public services is to impose more income tax on the average and lower-than average earnings worker. Politically impossible in the current climate but that is the reality.

This is one of the more stark conclusions:

"If the average single worker in Ireland on an income of about €36,000 paid tax at the rates applicable in Denmark, they would pay over €7,600 more in income tax and social insurance contributions."

Why do I keep having to point out the facts time and again to people? We have the most progressive tax system in the world according to the OECD.

crusher000 · 04-11-2014 3:02pm

Godge wrote: »

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/progressi...x-system-2013/

"Ireland has the most progressive income tax system (including employee social insurance contributions) in the EU and the wider OECD. The tax paid by a single person on half average earnings is the second lowest in the OECD and is less than one-thirteenth that in Denmark while the tax paid by a single person on two and a half times average earnings is the 9th highest in the OECD. At average income levels we are the 27th highest in OECD."

The 2015 budget increased progressivity in the income tax system. We are actually at the point where the only option for improving public services is to impose more income tax on the average and lower-than average earnings worker. Politically impossible in the current climate but that is the reality.

This is one of the more stark conclusions:

"If the average single worker in Ireland on an income of about €36,000 paid tax at the rates applicable in Denmark, they would pay over €7,600 more in income tax and social insurance contributions."

Why do I keep having to point out the facts time and again to people? We have the most progressive tax system in the world according to the OECD.

My point is :

Poorer people in Ireland pay out more of their income in tax

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/poorer-people-in-ireland-pay-out-more-of-their-income-in-tax-1.1910725

crusher000 · 04-11-2014 3:05pm

Another call out.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/poorer-people-in-ireland-pay-out-more-of-their-income-in-tax-1.1910725

Specifically, the research showed the poorest 10 per cent of the population shelled out 16 per cent of their income on VAT while the top 10 per cent of earners paid out just 4 per cent.

Note figures 16% and 4%

Riskymove · 04-11-2014 3:11pm

crusher000 wrote: »

Note figures 16% and 4%

seriously?

4% of the highest income is a lot more than 16% of the lowest income

lower income groups spend more of their disposable income on things like food, booze, fags etc....hardly a surprise

crusher000 · 04-11-2014 3:15pm

Riskymove wrote: »

seriously?

4% of the highest income is a lot more than 16% of the lowest income

lower income groups spend more of their disposable income on things like food, booze, fags etc....hardly a surprise

Those with the least disposable income pay more preportional in taxes than those in the higher band.

Zubeneschamali · 04-11-2014 3:15pm

crusher000 wrote: »

My point is :

Poorer people in Ireland pay out more of their income in tax

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/poorer-people-in-ireland-pay-out-more-of-their-income-in-tax-1.1910725

I heard that report discussed on the radio: if you exclude the very bottom rung, you get the standard picture: a progressive tax system.

It's an unrefereed work in progress, original here at NERI. The guys on the radio couldn't figure out who that bottom decile were, exactly, that throw off the curve. They are apparently on much less than the lowest levels of social welfare. The original paper doesn't make it easy to tell, I only see an income breakdown into deciles for 1987.

Dannyboy83 · 04-11-2014 3:16pm

First Up wrote: »

And a protest vote for SF is about as constructive as cutting off your leg because you sprained your ankle.

as opposed to ?

trying the same thing and expecting a different result?

crusher000 · 04-11-2014 3:17pm

Godge wrote: »

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/progressi...x-system-2013/

"Ireland has the most progressive income tax system (including employee social insurance contributions) in the EU and the wider OECD. The tax paid by a single person on half average earnings is the second lowest in the OECD and is less than one-thirteenth that in Denmark while the tax paid by a single person on two and a half times average earnings is the 9th highest in the OECD. At average income levels we are the 27th highest in OECD."

The 2015 budget increased progressivity in the income tax system. We are actually at the point where the only option for improving public services is to impose more income tax on the average and lower-than average earnings worker. Politically impossible in the current climate but that is the reality.

This is one of the more stark conclusions:

"If the average single worker in Ireland on an income of about €36,000 paid tax at the rates applicable in Denmark, they would pay over €7,600 more in income tax and social insurance contributions."

Why do I keep having to point out the facts time and again to people? We have the most progressive tax system in the world according to the OECD.

Maybe because you don't understand the point so you use the same argument to back up the point you are trying to make.

First Up · 04-11-2014 3:34pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

as opposed to ?

trying the same thing and expecting a different result?

if you propose to tear something down, you ought to be able to describe what you will build in its place. "Something else" is not a strategy.

Godge · 04-11-2014 3:42pm

crusher000 wrote: »

My point is :

Poorer people in Ireland pay out more of their income in tax

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/poorer-people-in-ireland-pay-out-more-of-their-income-in-tax-1.1910725

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I heard that report discussed on the radio: if you exclude the very bottom rung, you get the standard picture: a progressive tax system.

It's an unrefereed work in progress, original here at NERI. The guys on the radio couldn't figure out who that bottom decile were, exactly, that throw off the curve. They are apparently on much less than the lowest levels of social welfare. The original paper doesn't make it easy to tell, I only see an income breakdown into deciles for 1987.

That report is a load of rubbish carried out by an organisation with an agenda.

Zubeneschamali is correct, it doesn't make sense. Who are the people who earn less than social welfare rates? Well, they are people who are living in households with significantly higher other income to make them ineligible for social welfare (students with small part-time jobs, stay-at-home spouses with part-time jobs etc.). Once you exclude them, the system is still progressive.

The OECD study is the only independent definitive study that measures the relative progressivity of income tax in various countries. We are the most progressive.

Godge · 04-11-2014 3:44pm

sign_out wrote: »

o cuiv becoming leader would signal the final nail in the coffin for FF , not only is the guy socially very conservative , he is also a tax and spend politican , he is completely and utterly from a different era and i say that as someone who knows he has plenty of integrity

O'Cuiv would sweep the vote outside Dublin for FF leaving SF to pick up the votes in Dublin and around the border region making them a natural fit for a coalition government that could get elected time and again.

Dannyboy83 · 04-11-2014 3:50pm

First Up wrote: »

if you propose to tear something down, you ought to be able to describe what you will build in its place. "Something else" is not a strategy.

:rolleyes:
Possibly the silliest statement I've read on boards this year.

New Deal, Third Way,

Does this ring a bell? "Change you can believe in"

..."Something else" is the MAIN strategy in politics.

mrbrianj · 04-11-2014 3:51pm

First Up wrote: »

if you propose to tear something down, you ought to be able to describe what you will build in its place. "Something else" is not a strategy.

You are right. But it does show the journey the nation has been on.

Nobody was happy with what was happening during the boom - we were just too busy or too comfortable to stop, but most could identify things weren't right.

In the crash, we sucked it up. Most went to the brink, alot went over. They are so fed up, and have been through so much, its not a case of "something else" its a case of "Anything else".

It wont work, but right or wrong, there is a section of voters wanting change regardless of what it brings - a very dangerous beast

Quin_Dub · 04-11-2014 3:56pm

There are a few things to consider here..

SF historically don't get close to their opinion poll numbers in actual votes - They usually pull in about 20% lower than the opinion polls whereas the other parties are usually within about 5% of their opinion poll figures.

That kind of vote level will not see them break 20 seats nationally.
I also don't see very many places where an SF candidate will bring in a running mate due to their lack of transfers from other parties..

What may happen is that SF candidates will push out other Left parties resulting in no major net loss for the traditional main parties- For example Richard Boyd-Barrett could very easily lose his seat to an SF candidate in the next election (they didn't run a candidate last time out) , but RB-B and SF will not both get seats in that constituency.

The "Don't Knows" will be the decider , if the economy continues on it's current trajectory and the Budget this time next years delivers further tax cuts , then they'll vote FF/FG/Lab.

FG will be the main party in Government after the next election , the only real question is who they'll be in coalition with. I cannot see them (or SF to be fair) doing a deal for FG/SF - Personally I think it will be an FG/Lab government with a thin majority or with the support of a few independents getting them over the line... FG/FF is a possibility , but it's hard to see them being able to do a deal..

First Up · 04-11-2014 4:02pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Possibly the silliest statement I've read on boards this year.

New Deal, Third Way,

Does this ring a bell? "Change you can believe in"

..."Something else" is the MAIN strategy in politics.

But what will that something else be? SF economics are populist gibberish. Agreed there is a percentage of idiots out there who will vote for it but nowhere near enough.

I think Quin_Dub's analysis is pretty accurate.

First Up · 04-11-2014 4:08pm

mrbrianj wrote: »

You are right. But it does show the journey the nation has been on.

Nobody was happy with what was happening during the boom - we were just too busy or too comfortable to stop, but most could identify things weren't right.

In the crash, we sucked it up. Most went to the brink, alot went over. They are so fed up, and have been through so much, its not a case of "something else" its a case of "Anything else".

It wont work, but right or wrong, there is a section of voters wanting change regardless of what it brings - a very dangerous beast

Agree but common sense has a habit of kicking in as people enter the voting booth.

Opinion polls, populist rabble rousers, protest marches and commentators stirring it up all get their innings but when it comes to the crunch, not many people vote to cut off their nose just to see what their face will look like.

PopePalpatine · 04-11-2014 4:10pm

For Reals wrote: »

We've many shysters and greasy conmen in politics, but O'Cuiv is the biggest danger to Ireland of them all.
He's old school church and state. Was up to his neck in Fianna Fail, but backed off into the shadows pre demolishing of the country.

Just out of curiosity (I guess O Cuiv's strategy of retreating into the shadows before the crash worked!), just how much of a social conservative is he?

VeryOwl · 04-11-2014 4:12pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

as opposed to ?

trying the same thing and expecting a different result?

False dichotomy.

BoJack Horseman · 04-11-2014 4:14pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

just how much of a social conservative is he?

Very.

He may not be militant Opus Dei member like Sen Ronan Mullins.
However he is very catholic.

I'd imagine a 2016-2021 programme for government with O'Cuiv involved would include commitments to avoid any 8th amendment/abortion referendum.
Or delaying/modifications of any SSM bill after the 2015 referendum.

Quin_Dub · 04-11-2014 4:17pm

First Up wrote: »

Agree but common sense has a habit of kicking in as people enter the voting booth.

Opinion polls, populist rabble rousers, protest marches and commentators stirring it up all get their innings but when it comes to the crunch, not many people vote to cut off nose just to see what their face will look like.

Agreed - Having a rant to a pollster is a very different thing to standing in the Polling station and checking that box..

A bit like Kinnocks Labour in the UK during the Thatcher years - Lots of people publically saying that they didn't like her and would vote Labour , but come Election day.....Different story..

I posted a link to an article in another thread about the Local elections a few months back and I still believe that it applies today and will continue to apply for SF in General elections for the foreseeable future..

This is a quote from a local election voter in this article.

Leo Oman says he will give Sinn Féin a vote. “I can’t wait to give the Government a kick” he says. He’s fuming over how they are “raiding pensions” and “hammering people with disabilities.” The water charge isn't too welcome either. But he won’t vote for Sinn Féin in a general election. “I wouldn't agree with their views.”

Replace "Local Election vote" above with "Response to Opinion Poll" in the above quote and you have the current Poll results...

if the government falls, then what??

Comments