Does a Party forget how to Govern?

Villain

I was having a conversation with someone recently and they told me how they wanted FG to be in Government after the election I agreed that a change was needed however I was then thinking its being 10 years since FG were in Government and I'm wondering if people think they will be able to govern this sate after such a long time.

Do opposition TD's for the last 10 years remember what is involved in being a Minister and how to manage a department or is it just of a case of Senior Civil Servants being led by a different Minister and things going on as usual? Perhaps its a stupid question?

DMC

Well, as a comparison, look at Labour in the UK. 10 years in power now, but they had 18 years in opposition.

mike65

If remembering how to govern were the criteria then at some point elections would need to be abolished as the opposition would have to be considered incapable of running the country! :eek:

As DMC points out it did'nt stop labour across the water, there are several front benchers in FG and Labour who have been in government (its Labour who have the most).

Mike.

Villain

Thats an interesting fact that Labour have the most!

mikemac

Sure, don't they call the Civil Service the "permanent government"

If ministers had to be experts in their portfolio, only lawyers would become Ministers of Justice, teachers over Dept of Education, etc

Oh wait, we have that already:rolleyes:

Glenbhoy

I opened this thread thinking it was going to be about FF.

Marcus.Aurelius

Well, FF and the PDs seem to have forgotten how to rule, but they've been clueless from day one!

Judt

Generally, parties forget how to rule when they're in power. That's why parties that have been in power for a long time tend to have a lot more scandal and suchlike, when the people take being in power for granted and they have giant fisticuffs between them. Generally then the opposition, after a few years of being out of power, gets organised and take the seats back. Conservatives to Labour swing, and now some of the stuff happening to Labour in the UK, is a very good example.

Generally a party goes into power very organised, and gets disorganised over time. The opposition is disorganised when it's out of power, and gets more organised over time. The tipping point is when you get a new government, if the times are good as we have them now - obviously if something goes wrong midway, they're screwed. But long-serving governments are at least a sign that generally times are good.

bbbbb

As we get close to the sharp end of the campaign I expect the encumbents to come out with this piffle, basically how they're the only ones "experienced" enough to be "trusted" with running the country, and how voting for someone else will jeopardise all the growth experienced so far.

ballooba

bbbbb wrote:

As we get close to the sharp end of the campaign I expect the encumbents to come out with this piffle, basically how they're the only ones "experienced" enough to be "trusted" with running the country, and how voting for someone else will jeopardise all the growth experienced so far.

They already are. Ask any FF electioneer and they will tell you that their main selling point is "stability".

Bateman

Glenbhoy wrote:

I opened this thread thinking it was going to be about FF.

Same here.

The point about the senior civil servants running the country will probably prove worthy of a thread of its own at some point.

Bateman

ballooba wrote:

They already are. Ask any FF electioneer and they will tell you that their main selling point is "stability".

Harney's poster slogan; Don't Throw It All Away. :rolleyes:

jmayo

>>> Ask any FF electioneer and they will tell you that their main selling point is "stability".

I suppose you could say we have had stability over last ten years.
Afterall we have had the following
- continous drip feeding of reports on corruption from our elected representatives.
- continous drip feeding of reports on huge wastage of tax payers money on cockups within our public service.
- continous postponments in starting, never mind delivering, infrastructure projects
- continous self congratulatory backslapping from government
- continously being informed that we are so well off and our life has never been better while a lot of us sit in our cars for up to 4 hours a day getting from A to B
- continous reports of people left on hospital trolleys or left to die in stinking mismanaged nursing homes.

We have the stability of knowing: No One is to Blame.

The laugh is some people reckon the other crowd will jeportadise all of this.
Jeeze how much worse could they be ?

John_C

Judt wrote:

Generally, parties forget how to rule when they're in power.

This is basically my opinion as well. I think FF were good in their first five years but they've been threading water for a long time now.

thebman

jmayo wrote:

>>> Ask any FF electioneer and they will tell you that their main selling point is "stability".

I suppose you could say we have had stability over last ten years.
Afterall we have had the following
- continous drip feeding of reports on corruption from our elected representatives.
- continous drip feeding of reports on huge wastage of tax payers money on cockups within our public service.
- continous postponments in starting, never mind delivering, infrastructure projects
- continous self congratulatory backslapping from government
- continously being informed that we are so well off and our life has never been better while a lot of us sit in our cars for up to 4 hours a day getting from A to B
- continous reports of people left on hospital trolleys or left to die in stinking mismanaged nursing homes.

We have the stability of knowing: No One is to Blame.

The laugh is some people reckon the other crowd will jeportadise all of this.
Jeeze how much worse could they be ?

I would add that we also have the stability of not knowing how big a lot of our problems actually are! How many times have we been criticised by Europe for not having statistics on problems. If we don't know, it doesn't exist apparently.

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

They already are. Ask any FF electioneer and they will tell you that their main selling point is "stability".

I presume they are meeting the Opposition's big selling point, which is "change"...

is_that_so

jmayo wrote:

>>> Ask any FF electioneer and they will tell you that their main selling point is "stability".

I suppose you could say we have had stability over last ten years.
Afterall we have had the following
- continous drip feeding of reports on corruption from our elected representatives.
- continous drip feeding of reports on huge wastage of tax payers money on cockups within our public service.
- continous postponments in starting, never mind delivering, infrastructure projects
- continous self congratulatory backslapping from government
- continously being informed that we are so well off and our life has never been better while a lot of us sit in our cars for up to 4 hours a day getting from A to B
- continous reports of people left on hospital trolleys or left to die in stinking mismanaged nursing homes.

We have the stability of knowing: No One is to Blame.

The laugh is some people reckon the other crowd will jeportadise all of this.
Jeeze how much worse could they be ?

I don't disagree but the "other crowd" may not be able to fix some of these things anyway. It is a case of weighing up the various proposals(promises) and pick who you think may best agree with you and who you think can fix the most pressing problems.

If you expect miracles you will end up with broken promises. Either way in four or five years we will have a lot to say about the next lot , whoever they may be.

As for jeopardising things, I seem to remember that it was one M McDowell who set off on that path. Even though it's his thing to be big and scary he has since dropped it.

jmayo

jmayo wrote:

The laugh is some people reckon the other crowd will jeportadise all of this.
Jeeze how much worse could they be ?

Well take the North as an example.

Last time round John Bruton announced that he was sick of the ******* peace process and the IRA ended their ceasefire.

Were you saying how much worse could things be before that change of Government?

ballooba

A FF/SF coalition will jeopardise the peace process more than any other alternative. A SF government both north and south will be too much for the unionists.

I really like the signature I saw on here recently:
"Governments are like nappies, they need changing often and for the same reasons."

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

A FF/SF coalition will jeopardise the peace process more than any other alternative. A SF government both north and south will be too much for the unionists.

That is possible, but on the other hand if the DUP will go into Government with SF they can't complain if FF decide likewise.

ballooba

Deleted User wrote:

That is possible, but on the other hand if the DUP will go into Government with SF they can't complain if FF decide likewise.

Given the influence of the British and Irish governments on northern politics they could argue that SF would have too much influence. I can't see them being overly happy about it.