Bizarre stuff at PDs conference

Zebra3

Did anyone hear a number of PDs slating FF at their conference today? Do they realise who they've been in government with for the last ten years, and who they hope to be in with for the next five?

They even had a go at FF over the Galway Races tent which is a bit ironic considering the begging letters they sent or were planning to send out to Ireland's richest.

Oh and McDowell proposed more income tax cuts after slating Labour for doing the same. Well, not quite. PDs proposals naturally enough will benefit the rich more.

mike65

FF need to be reminded they won't be in power without a supporting act, so the conference is a good time to remind them. Of course Labour will bail FF out but thats another thread.

Mike.

flogen

Zebra3 wrote:

Oh and McDowell proposed more income tax cuts after slating Labour for doing the same. Well, not quite. PDs proposals naturally enough will benefit the rich more.

Yep - when Labour promise to drop the standard rate of tax by 2% they're taking part in "auction politics". When the PDs do it (and, according to the SBP today, FF soon too), they're being economically sensible and doing what's best for the country.

Oh, and the PDs voted against McDowell's privacy bill and for the re-examination of cafe bar licences.

DadaKopf

Or maybe PDs know they're gonna crash and burn in the election.

NewDubliner

McDowell & the PDs have lost al touch with reality. He praised the so-called 'decentralisation' project even though it's over-budget, late and won't deliver on its objectives. Just the kind of government waste that the PDs claim to be against.

Rebeller

Ah! The last gasp of a dying party. Come June they will be no more and the land will rejoice!!

InFront

Bizarre stuff is exactly how I'd describe it too. I heard someone on Radio 1 a while ago describe it as being like Michael McDowell kneeling in front of the media saying *love me, please love me!*:D
In fairness to them, there was one excellent proposal made at the conference, and that was the Ombudsman for Older People, which does seem well overdue.

Some of it was just cringe-worthy though... who was it called the Minister for Trolleys "one of the most courageous politicians of our generation"? Yeah, up there with Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi I'm sure.:)
Then there was McDowell's half hearted "Are you with me!?", which roused about as much passion as a block of concrete.
And as for taking off FF - they've been in Government with them for over 9 years, they're planning on going back - why were they being so critical of their coalition partners - and then calling the opposition a fragmented coalition

For me personally though, the highlight of the show was Richie Molloy's speech where he said:

I would urge all Government ministers to remove or at least reduce the number of automated answering services in their Departments. Push button one. Push button two. It can be really frustrating - particularly for the elderly and hard of hearing. People should not be distanced from services because they are not used to waiting for one beep and or another.

Never let it be said that the PDs have all the wrong priorities, eh.

As for the tax cut, I wonder if this is similarly unacceptable to FF as it was when Willie O'Dea came on Questions and Answers two weeks ago, and said that this kind of cut was simply not progressive, and that a far more intelligent step would be to increase the tax exemption bar or else create refundable tax credits. Is FF still, also, of the view that the 2% cut in the lower rate (which the PDs have emulated) is still going to cost around 3 billion and not 1 billion? Is it still a disastrous decision? What about the higher rate cut to 38%, what's that going to cost?

Should we be worried?

Villain

FF back benchers will be hanging McDowell out to dry from here on in after that conference, I wasn't surprised at them having a go at the Government it allows them to blaim FF for the problems of this state when they go door to door, however attacking the back benchers so strongly wasn't a good move for them imo.

mike65

Party conferences are about THE PARTY not about the government, from now until the election the PDs will not be thinking about much beyond getting the 5% of the national vote they require to remain in business (prolly 8-10% in Dublin is the target), so to appeal to the PDs core having a go at the FFers makes perfect sense.

The parties are in coalition but you can be sure many PD voters view Ahern et al through a murky lens (just as the same applies to FF votes regarding the PDs).

Mike.

eoineen

mike65 wrote:

Party conferences are about THE PARTY not about the government...so to appeal to the PDs core having a go at the FFers makes perfect sense.

Agreed. This way to slag off the FFers while in power with them is a tactical ploy by the part leadership to shore up dissent in the ranks.

Once the pretend electioneering gloves come off, you'll hear a lot worse.

Sponge Bob

the PDs and the Shinners have it in common that their supporters never show up in opinion polls but do at elections , I suppose admitting to supporting the PDs is like admitting you drop your chewing gum in Grafton St, yet many do .

gandalf

Well it obvious its panic stations at PD Headquarters, they know they are on track for an absolute stomping at the GE so now they are promising everything. Stamp duty, no probs will drop it, More tax cuts sure no problem, raise the pension why not.

Well they already have proven they are not the watchdogs of the government (replace with lapdog) so now it looks like they can't even be the economically prudent ones anymore.

Hmmm looks like the wheels have fallen off the wagon (they will probably give tax breaks for that as that!)

Yeah when it gets down to a anything you can do I can do better auction,it's pathetic really.

It's hard to guage any value in a pd election promise objectively though as If they get back into government, they will have agreed a programme which is unlikely to contain much of what they said in Wexford.

FG and Labour are easier grasped as they've pre agreed what they'll do.
The fly in their ointment being if they have to negotiate something with the Greens that would make some of their own tenets difficult to deliver.


I'd agree with Sponge though,Don't look to opinion polls to guesstimate what either SF or PD Dáil numbers will be after the next election as both are strong in particular constituencies-something thats not picked up on in an opinion poll.

If you take a dislike to either parties,then taking comfort in their opinion poll ratings would be a mistake.

bk

flogen wrote:

Yep - when Labour promise to drop the standard rate of tax by 2% they're taking part in "auction politics". When the PDs do it (and, according to the SBP today, FF soon too), they're being economically sensible and doing what's best for the country.

Well at least in fairness to the PD's, it has always been their policy and one of the founding principals of their party to reduce tax.

On the other hand it is completely the opposite to Labours general policy of high tax, high services, so it looks much more hypocritical and like "auction politics".

Basically Labour look like they have completely abandoned their principles just to win votes.

ballooba

bk wrote:

On the other hand it is completely the opposite to Labours general policy of high tax, high services, so it looks much more hypocritical and like "auction politics".

Maybe Labour have realised like the rest of us that high taxes does not equal high services, it means overstaffed government departments and overpaid civil servants.

gandalf

bk wrote:

Basically Labour look like they have completely abandoned their principles just to win votes.

What ensuring the working class and lower paid get a bigger slice of the pie, I think its totally in line with what they stand for.

If anybody has abandoned what they stand for its the PD's with their pension promise, at least with tax rates you can raise them. It will be virtually impossible to claw back the pension commitment, very un-PD like. Its like McDowell has just read Das Kapital or something.

Further proof that the Rothweiler has turned into a Poodle

mike65

What ensuring the working class and lower paid get a bigger slice of the pie, I think its totally in line with what they stand for.

Really? Labour has traditionaly stood for making the rich poorer not the poor richer. Anyways tax is now off the agenda. Its "something for everyone in the audience" so the emphisis has to move to spending and no-one has clean hands in that respect.

If anybody has abandoned what they stand for its the PD's with their pension promise, at least with tax rates you can raise them. It will be virtually impossible to claw back the pension commitment, very un-PD like

It was pointed out on radio yesterday that the commitment only amounted to 2 euro a week more than this years increase, so its not quite such a big deal really.

Mike.

MadsL

PDs voted against .... the re-examination of cafe bar licences.

Only sensible policy McDowell has come up with. Shame.

Monopoly on drink sales, where else would you get it...:rolleyes:

ballooba

I thought they voted for Cafe Bar Licences?

nesf

gandalf wrote:

What ensuring the working class and lower paid get a bigger slice of the pie, I think its totally in line with what they stand for.

Eh, the people who benefit the most from a straight lower band tax cut are the people who already max out said tax band. i.e. the people in the upper tax band. It could be in no way considered to be targeted at the poor and the working class. This, partially, is why it'll prove so popular. People might say that they want to see tax cuts for the poor/working class/whatever but if you offer them some of it too then they're a lot more likely to support you.

Dirk Gently

ballooba wrote:

I thought they voted for Cafe Bar Licences?

They did. They voted to re-examine the idea and depending on the outcome to make it policy. It was the privacy bill they voted against.


edit: Also, a question on their pledge to abolish stamp duty for first time buyers. Where there any measures to make sure it wont just be a windfall for developers?

The_Minister

I must say first, that many of you have taken things completely out of context, in MadsL's case, to the standards of the Sindo. Those of you who are determined in twisting the truth, I know will continue to twist the truth anyway. I'm talking more to those of you who may actually have misunderstood what was said.

Firstly, to clarify, the members voted to try to once again bring back the idea of cafe-bars, and voted for a re-examination of the minister's Privacy Bill. This is not nessacarily a decision against the bill, but it shows that certain people have concerns that it may infringe on civil liberties.

Secondly, on the subject of auction politics, I think some people may have misunderstood how McDowell was using the term. He said that the PDs were following "conviction politics" because they have always been in favour of tax cuts, to allow people to control how they spend their money. However, he was saying that Labour have always opposed this idea, Pat Rabitte condemning only a short while ago such tax cuts. It is when a party suddenly at an election, does such a massive roundabout with regards to its basic ideology, that they are accused of auction politics. As Michael McDowell said:

Michael McDowell wrote:

If I was to promise tomorrow to nationalise the banks, would you believe me?

It's the fact that it goes against everything that Labour has said in the past, that makes it auction politics.

Next, there is the OP's remark about the PDs condemning the FF'ers in the tent at the Galway races. I assume that he was referring to the speech that one candidate made against the privacy bill, where he said that he feared that it could be used to muzzle the media. This was a throwaway example, shoved between about three other examples of where this legislation could be misused. It does not mean that the PD's were condemning the (soon-to-be-replaced) tent, at the Galway races.

Next, I can't believe this....InFront I really can't believe that you would be so childish. Richie Molloy was laughing when he said that, as was the audience. It was a joke. Get over it.

Mike65 wrote:

The parties are in coalition but you can be sure many PD voters view Ahern et al through a murky lens (just as the same applies to FF votes regarding the PDs).

That's a very good summation. PDs aren't fond of FF, and visa-versa. Just look at what the Sindo said about the PDs if you want proof. It's a marraige of convienience.

As for pensions, PDs have always voted for, and proposed pension rises, there's nothing special about the €300 mark, it's actually not the big an increase as some people think.

Tristame wrote:

It's hard to guage any value in a pd election promise objectively though as If they get back into government, they will have agreed a programme which is unlikely to contain much of what they said in Wexford.

So far, none of the promises have contradicted the promises of FF. There is little that was promised that would greatly offend FF (though they have some of the statements), so I would imagine that the majority of the promises would make it in. I would not share your confidence when it comes to FG/Labour.

Clown_bag, the way that its not going to be a windfall for developers is by keeping stamp duty on most houses. That way, developers can't actually raise prices above the market level, which is what would happen if all stamp duty was abolished. If all stamp duty was abolished, then the current prices would remain the same.

The_Minister

I can't believe the issues that people are looking at, when so many other things happened at the conference.
a)A speaker supported the re-introduction of third-level fees, for people in fourth-level and up.
b) Fiona O'Mally announced the PD's enviornmental plan, which pledges to provide grants to the growers of elephant grass, to run all buses on biofuel, and to make sure that the ESB breaks-even, and does not make a profit.
c) The leader of the INO, who has never been fond of the PDs, and who asked his members to vote in a motion of no confidence in Mary Harney, spent about five minutes praising her, and acknowledged that she was making real progress, and took part in a standing ovation to her.

These are only some of the note-worthy things that occured, which deserve more discussion then that which has occured so far.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be rude, but the extent to which you are twisting words, and focusing on small events, is almost criminal (figuratively).

ballooba

Did you just delete and repost your comments to bump this thread?

The_Minister

No, I deleted the comments, because I wanted a chance to review them, and do some more research (ie. the term Pat Rabitte used to describe tax cuts, actual quote of speech critising FF). I was too busy to do it though, and it doesn't look like have the time any time soon, so I'm posting them as is.

Seth Brundle

mike65 wrote:

Of course Labour will bail FF out but thats another thread.

According to Pat Rabbitte they won't, ,well maybe they will, no they won't, well maybe, no...

Dirk Gently

ballooba wrote:

Did you just delete and repost your comments to bump this thread?

cheeky

yourself and your fellow FG'ers been canvassing for your own lot on boards for months at this stage.

I did notice the bump the other night though.

ballooba

clown bag wrote:

cheeky

Well it was a little bit strange.

clown bag wrote:

yourself and your fellow FG'ers been canvassing for your own lot on boards for months at this stage.

I wouldn't know how.

The TV viewership figures for the PD conference were in the paper yesterday. No where near the Labour conference, but still quite high. There is a lot of interest in this election if the viewership figures are anything to go by.

Seth Brundle

Did Garret Fitzgerald give a speech at the PD conference? Why?

The_Minister

kbannon wrote:

Did Garret Fitzgerald give a speech at the PD conference? Why?

Garret Fitzgerald is the Chancellor of NUI, he was speaking at a YPD workshop on 3rd level education, in that capacity. It's not as strange as it sounds (having a FG x-Thaoiseach speak at a PD conference). The PDs tend to pride themselves at having speakers that disagree with them at their conference. They say it means that they are listening to all-views, and not just brown-noses. They even got the hyper-conservative Christian gy from the Daily Mail to speak (forget his name)