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

Why the anger against current government?

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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. :(


  • Options
    #63
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    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.


  • Options
    #64
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    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.


  • Options
    #65
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    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.


  • Options
    #66
    iverjohnston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,242 ✭✭✭iverjohnston


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    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...


  • Options
    #68
    Eight Ball
    Closed Accounts Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Eight Ball


    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.


  • Options
    #69
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.


  • Options
    #70
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


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

    Isn't it still Defined Benefit though?


  • Options
    #71
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    hardCopy wrote: »
    Isn't it still Defined Benefit though?

    No, defined contribution.


  • Options
    #73
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    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.


  • Options
    #74
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    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.


  • Options
    #75
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    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.


  • Options
    #76
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    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


  • Options
    #77
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    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.


  • Options
    #78
    micosoft
    Registered Users Posts: 2,359 ✭✭✭micosoft


    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.


  • Options
    #79
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    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.


  • Options
    #80
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    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)


  • Options
    #81
    Horrid Henry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 100 ✭✭Horrid Henry


    The public sector pension scheme is defined benefit.

    To suggest otherwise is erroneous in the extreme.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    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.


  • Options
    #83
    Horrid Henry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 100 ✭✭Horrid Henry


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


  • Options
    #84
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,498 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    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.


  • Options
    #85
    sarumite
    Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    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.


  • Options
    #86
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


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


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


  • Options
    #87
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.


  • Options
    #88
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    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.


  • Options
    #89
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    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)?


  • Options
    #90
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Horrid Henry
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 100 ✭✭Horrid Henry


    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...


Advertisement