General Election 2012

K-9 wrote: »

I think you've nearly gathered my point, pretty close but as a poitical realist who has followed political history, both North and South, it will be SF trying to wag the dog as much as it can and FG will have huge internal difficulty with that tail.

The PD's and Alberts comments come to mind "this little temporary arrangement" come to mind. FG would only take on SF if they'd play a poodle and a well trained one at that.

SF face a huge task in the next election to gain a big amount of seats, they're like FF under Haughey, transfer toxic. FF/FG/Labour core voters aren't going to transfer to them which means they'll need 22/23% to break through the 20 seat barrier.

Labour could get 33 seats odd in 1992 with less votes, but transfer friendly. FG maybe a mathematical possibility but it maybe better SF ignore Govt. A FF/Lab/SF coalition would be a better bet.

this cracks me up!! you think SF would bend over and take it up the political ass from FG..? if they do I will never vote for them again, they know that people see that and its not in their or the country's interest..

the time of FF FG LAB domination of Irish politics is coming to a close, as a lot of politicians say - we need a new Ireland, so lets change the policies and bullsh1t

nice_very wrote: »

a big LOL at all the anti Sinn Fein posters in the last year from the GE to the presidency election, proven wrong wrong wrong time and time again.

How were any critics wrong in relation in Sinn Fein? They are not in government and until they are, people like yourself will continue to be deluded that they could do a better job of handling the FF mess than FG/Lab. It would be nearly worth it to give them a few months on the potty to bring a bit of realism to the minds of some of their supporters.

nice_very wrote: »

I said roughly 6 months ago, this govt will not last to full term... Taoiseach Adams to preside over the 2016 Easter Sunday celebrations, as president of Irelands oldest party and the only one representing the 1916 ideals, I think its very appropriate.

Well as long as their focus is on the pressing issues of the day and not some irrelevant, historical ****… :rolleyes:

I will never under any circumstances vote Sinn Fein and anyone who would consider voting for a party with SF's history and connections needs to seriously rethink their ideas and beliefs.

I will vote FG as I am not as bitter as many and I can see that they are doing what they have to to get us out a situation that was not their fault, but that they were left to clean up when the cowards in FF ran.

lugha wrote: »

Ah yes, “history of connections to”. What a sinister sounding, but ultimately meaningless expression. The German chancellor, or her office, has “historical connections” to Nazism etc.

Can you point to any examples of fascist behavior/attitudes amongst contemporary (i.e. not dead for decades!) FG folks?

If you are looking for anti-democracy types in the current Dail, you need not look past Sinn Fein. And their connections aren’t yet very historical!

And even if there wasn’t this “difficulty” with them, only the most willfully deluded would think they, or any other party, would have done any better in the last year than FG/Lab.

The treatment of the Irish citizens (on their deathbeds), who were the victims of the Hepatitis C scandal, by your Minister for Finance when he was Minister for Health may be something you may care to defend? After all, what's the lives of a few plebs, and their entitlement to justice, when compared with the reputations of the medical elite and the Dept. of Health? Shur, some of them weren't even graduates.

On your second point, even Colm McCarthy (An Bord Snip), a rabid SF hater, and darling of the Far-Right, admitted on National television, that he'd far rather have Pearse Doherty, negotiating in Brussels on behalf of the Irish people , than Michael Noonan.

And while I may detest McCarthy, and what he stands for, I'm not sure I'd call him wilfully deluded, and to hear someone from FG call him so, given his relationship with the Govt. seems a bit ironic.

lugha wrote: »

And this amount to fascism, how exactly?
And what do you think good ‘ol Pearsey might achieve? The fine speeches he makes that impress the gullible types around here won’t achieve much. We need the cheap money and we have precious little leverage to negotiate more favourable terms.

Unless you think we should go nuclear and perhaps sell one of our islands to the Chinese or Iran or something like that?

Oh, and I’m not "from" FG, or Labour. They are the best option at the moment only because the others are so bad.

Well, it wasn't exactly fascism I was referring to, although an authoritarian elite claiming to be acting in the interest of the citizenry they purport to represent, is something, a lot of people would tend to associate with fascism. It was said more, in response, to your morally superior attitude towards SF, and your implication that FG's questionable moral behaviour is historical; borne out by your request for contemporary examples. I merely gave you one.

Btw, I noticed, you sidestepped the issue of defending his behaviour. Given his history, what makes you think he would act in the interests of the citizenry or justice?

It is impossible to know what Doherty may or may not achieve. He certainly couldn't achieve much less, and again while I don't have much time for Colm Mc Carthy (or George Soros or Warren Buffet for that matter) I'm not sure that I'd sneeringly refer to them as "gullible types".

The only thing that is certain is that if you don't point out that you are not responsible for debts and instead scream from the rooftops that you intend to honour them, the creditors sure as hell aren't going to stop you.
Pointing out that if European governments choose to save the private banking sector, then the burden must be shared equally by the citizenry of Europe would be a good place to start.

We actually have quite a lot of leverage, and not just legal, moral and judicial. We actually have far more leverage than Greece had as their problems stemmed solely from their own sovereign debt and lack of fiscal responsibility, whereas ours stemmed from this but also to a huge degree from doing what was necessary to save the private European banking sector from going into meltdown. Greece have managed to have all bondholders burnt to the tune of 70%.

I don't see what your problem is with selling our islands to China and Iran. We've already agreed to sell them our forests.

Btw, for what it's worth, I'm not pro-SF myself, but like yourself, I just see them as the best of a bad lot at the moment.

The economic mess left behind by FF is of catastrophic proportions and rules them out of any consideration of a vote for at least the next decade.

It will take at least another 5 years to clear the debris and given the good progress made to date in clearing up the mess FG / Lab would have to be first preference.

SF / the left have taken the populist route, creating the impression that there is some sort of quick and easy solution to the disaster - there isn't. Once the dust settles people will see through this for what it is.

Conchir wrote: »

Do most people here pick one party to vote for, regardless of who the candidates are in your constituency? I can't vote yet, but I would imagine when I can, I'll pick candidates individually, based on, y'know, their politics. From most of the replies it appears people pick a party, and not the individuals. Just strikes me as a bit strange.

Your position would be absolutely right if the governing of the country was not done under the Party whip system (where politicians are forced to vote a certain way). Even so, you will have noticed that we have far more independents this time around, because more people are starting to think like you. Your way of voting is generally more common in council elections.

An independent's power to affect policy is generally very limited, unless the government holds a slim majority, and in this scenario, independents tend to act in the interest of their constituents rather than the National interest. Unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Although, the technical group, formed by the smaller parties and independents in this Dail, is a refreshing and welcome new departure imo.

JoeGil wrote: »

The economic mess left behind by FF is of catastrophic proportions and rules them out of any consideration of a vote for at least the next decade.

It will take at least another 5 years to clear the debris and given the good progress made to date in clearing up the mess FG / Lab would have to be first preference.

SF / the left have taken the populist route, creating the impression that there is some sort of quick and easy solution to the disaster - there isn't. Once the dust settles people will see through this for what it is.

Aah, come on now chief, I don't think any party on the right or the left (or any independent for that matter) has tried to claim that there is a silver bullet to deal with the economic disaster left by the catastrophic incompetence of the last government.

K-9 wrote: »

Got it in one, seems a bit lost though through no fault of his own. Higgins and Ross get all the publicity and TV exposure! I suppose he's new to the scene and those 2 are around for years.

Yeah, it's a pity alright, as he is excellent. However, Ross and Higgins were the obvious choices to lead the technical group, due to their experience of Leinster House and how it works. Otherwise, the new independents would have been sidelined and led up the garden path by the old hands. At least he'll learn the ropes, and, if re-elected,know where to go, and how to go about getting things done and making his voice heard.

On the bright side, though, Claire Daly doesn't get much speaking time either. Every cloud has a silver lining.:pac:

I'd be voting ULA candidates all the way. Joe Higgins is a ledge. Imma call for a socialist revolution.

honestly I wouldn't want to vote for any of them. I am surprise by how vote SF have in this thread though!

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Well, it wasn't exactly fascism I was referring to, although an authoritarian elite claiming to be acting in the interest of the citizenry they purport to represent, is something, a lot of people would tend to associate with fascism. It was said more, in response, to your morally superior attitude towards SF, and your implication that FG's questionable moral behaviour is historical; borne out by your request for contemporary examples. I merely gave you one.

Perhaps you are misrepresenting your point but what exactly is fascist about an elite (or any elected body) “acting in the interest of the citizenry they purport to represent”???

If you want to label my attitude to SF “moral superiority”, so be it. I just happen to think that if a group who takes up arms, on behalf of a people but plainly against the wishes of the people, and seemingly see nothing wrong with this, then they have a very different, and incompatible, world view with those of us more who are more democratically minded.

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Btw, I noticed, you sidestepped the issue of defending his behaviour. Given his history, what makes you think he would act in the interests of the citizenry or justice?

Whatever you think about Michael Noonan’s behavior with respect to the Hep. scandal (and like most, I am none too impressed with his approach), I do think he was acting, or at least attempting to act, on behalf of the taxpayer by limiting their exposure to expensive lawsuits. And in this respect, he was not very different form many other administrations.

Every few years we see stories of ordinary honest citizens who challenge the state simply to get basic education access for their autistic children, or more recently, an abuse victim who tried to hold the state to account for her ordeal, being challenged full on by the offices of the state.

Coming in heavy is not something that is peculiar to Noonan, we see that all the time. What earned him infamy is the cack-handed and utterly insensitive approach he took.

If you disagree, perhaps you can tell me in whose interest you think Noonan was acting when he took his rather misguided line in that scandal?

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

It is impossible to know what Doherty may or may not achieve. He certainly couldn't achieve much less

Actually he could. If he jeopardized access to the cheap money we get at the moment it would leave us immeasurable worse off.

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

The only thing that is certain is that if you don't point out that you are not responsible for debts and instead scream from the rooftops that you intend to honour them, the creditors sure as hell aren't going to stop you.
Pointing out that if European governments choose to save the private banking sector, then the burden must be shared equally by the citizenry of Europe would be a good place to start.

We actually have quite a lot of leverage, and not just legal, moral and judicial. We actually have far more leverage than Greece had as their problems stemmed solely from their own sovereign debt and lack of fiscal responsibility, whereas ours stemmed from this but also to a huge degree from doing what was necessary to save the private European banking sector from going into meltdown. Greece have managed to have all bondholders burnt to the tune of 70%.

That is an argument that morally, we should have leverage, not that we do.

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps you are misrepresenting your point but what exactly is fascist about an elite (or any elected body) “acting in the interest of the citizenry they purport to represent”???

Wow, way to misquote me. I said CLAIMING TO BE acting... but I'll leave the fascist thing be, or we'll end up in a debate over propaganda, authoritarianism, manifestos, mandates, etc.

If you want to label my attitude to SF “moral superiority”, so be it. I just happen to think that if a group who takes up arms, on behalf of a people but plainly against the wishes of the people, and seemingly see nothing wrong with this, then they have a very different, and incompatible, world view with those of us more who are more democratically minded.

True, but then again, with that reasoning we'd still have slavery and apartheid. People like order and the status quo. I'd also point out that Sinn Fein is by far the biggest Nationalist party in the North not the SDLP.

Whatever you think about Michael Noonan’s behavior with respect to the Hep. scandal (and like most, I am none too impressed with his approach), I do think he was acting, or at least attempting to act, on behalf of the taxpayer by limiting their exposure to expensive lawsuits. And in this respect, he was not very different form many other administrations.

Every few years we see stories of ordinary honest citizens who challenge the state simply to get basic education access for their autistic children, or more recently, an abuse victim who tried to hold the state to account for her ordeal, being challenged full on by the offices of the state.

Coming in heavy is not something that is peculiar to Noonan, we see that all the time. What earned him infamy is the cack-handed and utterly insensitive approach he took.

If you disagree, perhaps you can tell me in whose interest you think Noonan was acting when he took his rather misguided line in that scandal?

His own, and the interests of powerful special interest groups with a voice, who he was too gutless to take on in a fight. Easier to kick a cripple. No different to his siding with paedophiles rather than children over thirty years, or his siding with Goldman Sachs today.



Actually he could. If he jeopardized access to the cheap money we get at the moment it would leave us immeasurable worse off.

I don't think the ECB would try to threaten us, and again, while they are loaning money to commercial banks at 1%, I'm not sure I'd agree with your definition of cheap. Also, it is a sad state of affairs, when the citizenry of a nation are relying on the IMF to fight their corner against their own government.


That is an argument that morally, we should have leverage, not that we do.

That would be a matter for the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights to decide.

Btw, I notice, that again you have chosen to ignore/delete the parts of my post,that you don't have an answer to. Care to comment on McCarthy/Soros/Buffet and the IMF being the only sort of "wilfully deluded" "gullible" fools who could be taken in by Doherty's populist drivel? But, of course, you're probably right. They're as weakminded and easily-led as that fool Stiglitz. They need a dose of reality. They probably haven't even read the true reality of the situation, like Minister Noonan explained today... in the Indo.