Behind closed doors

ninty9er

In light of the comments that turn up every now and again bitching about Enda Kenny, Mary Coughlan and to a lesser extend Brian Lenihan etc....

Is it not more important what these people do behind their desks than on TV. Fair enough we're all impressed for some reason when a politician delivers a non-scripted speech, but what does it REALLY matter if politicians get numbers wrong on TV, which the opposite side is rarely able to correct them on anyway, when in reality the time it actually matters is when they're behind a desk making decisions based on what's in front of them.

The ability of a TD, Senator, Minister or [insert job description here(excluding teachers and lecturers)] to perform his or her job bears absolutely no relation to being able to recall facts and figures. It impacts their ability to get elected in the case of politicians, but not their ability to do their job.

lostexpectation

o'keefe got his number wrong when he was behind his desk, as did lenihan and cowen with the budget, and foecasts.

Victor

Politicians have an odd job desciption, but they are essentially managers. They have a few important function - representing people, formulating policy, running the state and providing leadership.

Speeches are about leadership and stem from one of the other three points above. While, yes, people sometimes mis-state things, it is important that they know enough about the subject matter to minimise the number of mistakes and mis-statements that they make.

HydeRoad

ninty9er wrote: »

In light of the comments that turn up every now and again bitching about Enda Kenny, Mary Coughlan and to a lesser extend Brian Lenihan etc....

Is it not more important what these people do behind their desks than on TV. Fair enough we're all impressed for some reason when a politician delivers a non-scripted speech, but what does it REALLY matter if politicians get numbers wrong on TV, which the opposite side is rarely able to correct them on anyway, when in reality the time it actually matters is when they're behind a desk making decisions based on what's in front of them.

The ability of a TD, Senator, Minister or [insert job description here(excluding teachers and lecturers)] to perform his or her job bears absolutely no relation to being able to recall facts and figures. It impacts their ability to get elected in the case of politicians, but not their ability to do their job.

Well, I agree entirely, politicians should be judged on the substance of their work, not their public pronouncements.

So, to take Mary Coughlan as an example, what has she ever contributed by way of 'behind the desk' decisions that might make up for her seemingly incredible lack of public ability?

List me three things.

Heinrich

I tend to form my opinions on their performance rather than the waffle they spout on tele or in the House. That said, the country is in a woeful mess.

• Lousy public transport
• Lousy Road systen
• Lousy Health Service

and that's only the start of the long list of failiures!

luckat

+1 to Heinrich's list.

But also you do like to feel that someone's on top of his game. If a writer says: "I really like that speech of Shakespeare's that starts 'What though the struggle naught availeth'," it doesn't *necessarily* say s/he's no good at the job, but at the same time, you kind of feel a writer should be able to distinguish between Shakespeare and Milton.

In the same way, you expect a minister for transport or health or environment to be au fait with the state of affairs in his or her ministry's ambit.

ninty9er

HydeRoad wrote: »

So, to take Mary Coughlan as an example, what has she ever contributed by way of 'behind the desk' decisions that might make up for her seemingly incredible lack of public ability?

List me three things.

Her most successful portfolio to date has been agriculture. I'm sure farmers will disagree, but as someone from a PAYE family, the 90% of them that are leeches on the state are of little concern to me.

• Investment in research for improved dietery quality
• "Stressing the contribution of well focused research to policy making, the Minister said that the earlier Scientific Study on Children's Diet had provide an evidence base to support the decision to launch the National “Food Dude” programme to encourage increased consumption of fruit and vegetables by primary schoolchildren, which was run in over 300 primary schools in 2006, and the review and re-launch of the school milk scheme to include a wider range of dairy products."
• €38m Research Stimulus Fund Programme

you asked for 3, there you go....I suppose you'll want another 3 now? Just to prove you can never be satisfied either. I've provided 3 as asked. I won't be providing more.

lostexpectation

you have to give examples of judgements she made or efficacy of these programmes, not just not obvious initiatives.

let our master deal with it and don't worry your pretty little heads with it /99'er

Liam Byrne

What you're saying (and I would agree) is that style is (or should be) a lot less important than substance.

But in the case of the current crowd of incompetents, they have neither.

HydeRoad

ninty9er wrote: »

Her most successful portfolio to date has been agriculture. I'm sure farmers will disagree, but as someone from a PAYE family, the 90% of them that are leeches on the state are of little concern to me.

• Investment in research for improved dietery quality
• "Stressing the contribution of well focused research to policy making, the Minister said that the earlier Scientific Study on Children's Diet had provide an evidence base to support the decision to launch the National “Food Dude” programme to encourage increased consumption of fruit and vegetables by primary schoolchildren, which was run in over 300 primary schools in 2006, and the review and re-launch of the school milk scheme to include a wider range of dairy products."
• €38m Research Stimulus Fund Programme

you asked for 3, there you go....I suppose you'll want another 3 now? Just to prove you can never be satisfied either. I've provided 3 as asked. I won't be providing more.

While I am all for giving the kids milk in school, especially now that many parents probably won't be able to afford to feed them properly at home, it is very easy to be praised for lashing public money at obscure research programmes during a time of boom when the country was, relatively speaking, swimming in money.

Could that €38 million for dietary research be justified now given we cannot afford just €10 million to protect young girls from cancer?

Does throwing a few million euro at dietary research programmes during a time of boom really qualify that girl for the post she holds now in a time of economic near strangulation, where a slip of the tongue can mean the difference between public confidence in this government and loss of same? She has shown precious little initiative or even grasp of reality since the spanner tightened. My question was based on the hope of finding some justification for her current position of responsibility, and I haven't found that yet. I'd really like to hear your defence of her present appointment...

ninty9er

The RSFP for example, is an example of the knowledge economy that we have been told is fictional. Ministers have to allocate these funds. The allocation is where the work is, and diet is a major issue facing this country, with a serious amount of obese kids as well as adults out there.

And for anyone bemoaning the health budget and CCV, as it was put to me by a parent:

"I'd be ashamed to say, now knowing such a vaccine exists, that I didn't scrape together the €250 it costs to get it done over the however many visits it takes if I cared that much about it"

Simple fact is, people didn't care enough to go get it done before it was announced, but now that it's being delayed, the thing they never knew about and weren't going to do is SOOOOO important.....but only if the State pays for it.

Come off it. The Children's Allowance would cover the cost.

HydeRoad

ninty9er wrote: »

Simple fact is, people didn't care enough to go get it done before it was announced, but now that it's being delayed, the thing they never knew about and weren't going to do is SOOOOO important.....but only if the State pays for it.

Come off it. The Children's Allowance would cover the cost.

Tell that to some of the thousands of families who will be out of a breadwinner in 2009. Kids won't have to worry about dying of cancer in later years if their main preoccupation is dying of hunger beforehand. I exaggerate slightly but you get my point.

Fair play to you, you come out fighting every time a bad word is said about Fianna Fáil, but my God that last statement is a real doozie. Imagine Brian Lenihan coming out with that one.

There is not a single, honest thing in this current administration. Every public utterance, whether thought properly through beforehand or not, is a line of spin woven to waxen the sheen of The Party, the result being that if they ever had an honest straightforward thing to say, their lack of credibility undermines them.

Let them stay put for another year or so, to let as much of this Rot as possible deservedly stick to them, then be rid of this whole rotten generation of them. Fianna Fáil need to be put out as long as it takes to rid The Party of the slime of the Bertie years, and to realise that there is a whole community of Irish people in this country relying on them, not just a golden circle of Party sympathisers.

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

Her most successful portfolio to date has been agriculture. I'm sure farmers will disagree, but as someone from a PAYE family, the 90% of them that are leeches on the state are of little concern to me.

....
you asked for 3, there you go....I suppose you'll want another 3 now? Just to prove you can never be satisfied either. I've provided 3 as asked. I won't be providing more.

No I beg to differ, the leeches of the state are your f***ing party who have screwed this country and most of it's citizens once again.
Ah your party helped the builders, the developers, the bankers, the bought off public sector union leaders and all your friends by landing the rest of us with years of debts and probable emigration once again.
Hell you are still trying to save your friends the bankers and developers at our expense.
Actaully I would say you have some f***ing neck to accuse anyone of being leeches :mad::mad::mad:

The only positive I take form this whole mess is the kicker that this time FF are having to face the mess they have helped create.
Sadly as can be broadly seen, even by the ones lauding the builders party at the last election, is that the ff ministers are incapable of doing anything constructive and benefical. Sittting on hands is not doing something.
Signing away our future and blowing the money to keep grubby little grredy eejits out of bankruptcy is not doing soemthing.

BTW you can't come up with 3 another items because you had to scrape the barrell to come up with the original 3.

ninty9er wrote: »

The RSFP for example, is an example of the knowledge economy that we have been told is fictional. Ministers have to allocate these funds. The allocation is where the work is, and diet is a major issue facing this country, with a serious amount of obese kids as well as adults out there.

And for anyone bemoaning the health budget and CCV, as it was put to me by a parent:

"I'd be ashamed to say, now knowing such a vaccine exists, that I didn't scrape together the €250 it costs to get it done over the however many visits it takes if I cared that much about it"

Simple fact is, people didn't care enough to go get it done before it was announced, but now that it's being delayed, the thing they never knew about and weren't going to do is SOOOOO important.....but only if the State pays for it.

Come off it. The Children's Allowance would cover the cost.

Those remarks stink of "let them eat cake" :mad:
Is that ff's policy, sure withdraw everything and if they care enough then they will find the money some how.

ninty9er

jmayo wrote: »

No I beg to differ, the leeches of the state are your f***ing party who have screwed this country and most of it's citizens once again.

Check the poverty index from 97-07 and come back to me with your retraction.

sceptre

On the latest little discussion, I'm one of those annoying little tykes that draws a distinction between correlation and causation. Any chance of a few completed dot drawings that demonstrate that the hand hasn't been off the rudder all these years? I realise that it can't be proved conclusively so a basic outline (even one including the phrase "small, open economy" as the shaking capstone) would keep me happy in my flu bed.

Yes, I'm bored, don't feel like a movie and need amusement

mikemac

ninty9er wrote: »

I'm sure farmers will disagree, but as someone from a PAYE family, the 90% of them that are leeches on the state are of little concern to me.

Not 89% or even 91%? Exactly 90%?
Don't quote stats if you're not going to back them up. Or have you a link?

Doubt it so I'll give you a link
Even you must know some farmer somewhere in some county.
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/cap_ben_default.jsp, have a look at the what they get from a scheme for 2007, it's not all schemes.
It's not even dole money, you'd be better off long-term unemployed

They took a bigger cut then most PAYE workers in the last budget, but sure not big enough says you.

ninty9er wrote: »

Check the poverty index from 97-07 and come back to me with your retraction.

Fantastic work there, does it include social housing for farmers in rural areas?

ninty9er

It is my FIRM belief that if a farmer cannot run a farm profitably without subsidies, they should not run a farm at all.

And yes I know farmers, and no they don't like my views, but I won't lose sleep over it.

It would make more sense for 3 farmers with 80 acres a piece to work 240 together than 80 each, but simple pig headedness on the part of just one of the 3 would put a spanner in that, to the detriment of all 3. It would also reduce the need for farm labour and increase the efficiency of the 240 acre unit.

I don't believe in subsidies where they are not necessary. I've seen/prepared the accounts of farmers getting 40k in subsidies whose kids get grants because they draw so much from the farm that it makes no profit.

You need land to farm, my issue is with planning not social housing on that front. Why should a farmer get social housing, they already have an advantage over someone who has to go and buy the land before building a house.

nesf

sceptre wrote: »

On the latest little discussion, I'm one of those annoying little tykes that draws a distinction between correlation and causation. Any chance of a few completed dot drawings that demonstrate that the hand hasn't been off the rudder all these years? I realise that it can't be proved conclusively so a basic outline (even one including the phrase "small, open economy" as the shaking capstone) would keep me happy in my flu bed.

Yes, I'm bored, don't feel like a movie and need amusement

This would require us to decide what exactly the hand on the rudder could control now wouldn't it?

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

Check the poverty index from 97-07 and come back to me with your retraction.

Yeah and while you are checking things check the personal debt levels carried by a hell of a lot of Irish people, the live register over the last few months, the probable state borrowing for the next year just to pay for the inflated public sector, the bank bailouts or should I say the developer bailouts that have resulted from all the fine work of your party :rolleyes:

ninty9er wrote: »

It is my FIRM belief that if a farmer cannot run a farm profitably without subsidies, they should not run a farm at all.

And yes I know farmers, and no they don't like my views, but I won't lose sleep over it.

It would make more sense for 3 farmers with 80 acres a piece to work 240 together than 80 each, but simple pig headedness on the part of just one of the 3 would put a spanner in that, to the detriment of all 3. It would also reduce the need for farm labour and increase the efficiency of the 240 acre unit.

I don't believe in subsidies where they are not necessary. I've seen/prepared the accounts of farmers getting 40k in subsidies whose kids get grants because they draw so much from the farm that it makes no profit.
...

Jeeze you now sound almost communist with your forced collectivisation of the Irish farming community.
Do you know many farmers are just scraping by ?
Most farmers are not on anything close to 40k in income, never mind subsidies.

You don't appear to lose much sleep over anything be it farmers, children in over crowded classrooms, young girls not being vacinated against cervical cancer or the fact your party is run by a bunch of incompetent chancers.
You will be at home in ff alright.

ninty9er

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah and while you are checking things check the personal debt levels carried by a hell of a lot of Irish people

Nobody forced people to borrow beyond their means.

jmayo wrote: »

Jeeze you now sound almost communist with your forced collectivisation of the Irish farming community.
Do you know many farmers are just scraping by ?
Most farmers are not on anything close to 40k in income, never mind subsidies.

Don't know many that are scraping by, none at all in fact. If they have to scrape by, they should give up. Simple business. Corner shop can't compete = corner shop closes down or joins a franchise.

The same should apply to any business model. Be it farming, fishing or polishing shoes.

I can see the TV ads now:
"This is Jacinta, she's 14 and her family has no income earner....she has 3 small brothers and both her parents are on the dole....their family welfare allowance is a meagre untaxed €2,689 per month"

"For less €1 a day you could vaccinate Jacinta against cervical cancer so her parents can continue to smoke 40 a day, alternatively you may wish to join the dole queue"

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

Nobody forced people to borrow beyond their means.

Yes very true, except due to your party and it's love affair with all things construction they had to pay way above a normal acceptable multiple of their average salary in order to get somewhere to live. This was particualrly the case for those with young families since our tentant protection laws are a joke.

ninty9er wrote: »

Don't know many that are scraping by, none at all in fact. If they have to scrape by, they should give up. Simple business. Corner shop can't compete = corner shop closes down or joins a franchise.

The same should apply to any business model. Be it farming, fishing or polishing shoes.

A farm is more than a just a business, it is a way of life, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Also a farm is usually the main family home and has probably been so for generations.
Of course you can counter so maybe the corner shop.
But I guess you would rather see a large shopping centre on the edge of town with a desolate town centre and no local shops.
Afterall the local ff party councillors and td(s) probably got a few quid in contributions from the shopping centre developers :rolleyes:

ninty9er wrote: »

I can see the TV ads now:
"This is Jacinta, she's 14 and her family has no income earner....she has 3 small brothers and both her parents are on the dole....their family welfare allowance is a meagre untaxed €2,689 per month"

"For less €1 a day you could vaccinate Jacinta against cervical cancer so her parents can continue to smoke 40 a day, alternatively you may wish to join the dole queue"

What about the ones that don't drink and smoke and are trying to get by on low incomes ?
BTW that last sentence of yours ("for less than €1 a day") sounds like one of those ads for helping children in the third world.
But I guess that is where we are headed.
After all we have a semi third world type of mickey mouse governments with more than a few smells of corruption for a few years now :rolleyes:

ninty9er

jmayo wrote: »

Yes very true, except due to your party and it's love affair with all things construction they had to pay way above a normal acceptable multiple of their average salary in order to buy somewhere to live. This was particualrly the case for those with young families since our tentant protection laws are a joke.

Fixed....and that was unnecessary too. I do agree a mistake was made in not penalising property speculation.

jmayo wrote: »

What about the ones that don't drink and smoke and are trying to get by on low incomes ?

They'll have no problem paying then, will they;)

jmayo wrote: »

BTW that last sentence of yours ("for less than €1 a day") sounds like one of those ads for helping children in the third world.

It was supposed to.

HydeRoad

I have to say, if the calibre of ninty9er's responses here were a model for the official FF response to similar questions, they'd never have got within a mile of power. Have you read back over them at all? Do you not see the tone you are putting across?

By the way ninty9er, I might have misconstrued your use of the word 'Fixed' in that last contribution, you surely aren't advocating that FF 'fixed' the problem of the gross discrepancy in house prices during the Bertie years??? I suppose if you blame FF for our ill preparedness for a world recession, you can take from that their 'responsibility' for the fall in house prices, but it could hardly be described as deliberate on their part, they would sell their soul to have us back the way it was, in the pockets of their runaway developers...

Darragh29

Well here's my 2 cents worth...

I think that the clear lack of political leadership and in particular the lack of vision and ability to inspire and motivate this country, that we are seeing at this time from Cowen, Coughlan & Lenhian, is directly responsible for the poor sentiment we are seeing everywhere now. This negativity and complete doom and gloom has bedded in now and will be extremely hard to get past. I personally think that people are so angry that we aren't six months in a recession and it would appear that this thing is barely upon us but we haven't a pot to p*ss into. Clearly the government has been p*ssing our money all over the place with no regard for value for money.

I don't run with the argument that it doesn't matter how these folks perform in public, it's their ability to run their brief behind the scene that is important.

This government are now associated with the biggest p*ssing away of good money we have probably ever known in Ireland and having left the country out on a plank with unsustainable income streams, doesn't now have an answer to resolve the problems they have caused.

I personally don't think we can actually get past this disaster while we have this government, because people are refusing to engage with them, because they associate this government with a monetary disaster.

They cannot inspire the taxpayers of this country or lead them to a vision of a better Ireland because they have no credibility whatsoever. Until this is resolved and the only way I can see it being resolved is by calling a general referendum, we are all stuck in this sorry situation...

Moriarty

ninty9er wrote: »

And for anyone bemoaning the health budget and CCV, as it was put to me by a parent:

"I'd be ashamed to say, now knowing such a vaccine exists, that I didn't scrape together the €250 it costs to get it done over the however many visits it takes if I cared that much about it"

Simple fact is, people didn't care enough to go get it done before it was announced, but now that it's being delayed, the thing they never knew about and weren't going to do is SOOOOO important.....but only if the State pays for it.

Come off it. The Children's Allowance would cover the cost.

You appear to badly need to read up on the reasons for vaccination in a public health context. You've completely missed the point and don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Liam Byrne

HydeRoad wrote: »

I have to say, if the calibre of ninty9er's responses here were a model for the official FF response to similar questions, they'd never have got within a mile of power.

While they're not "the official FF response" (i.e. "please elect us again" soundbites), they're definitely the way FF think.

Now if only the rest of us had jobs that paid us 100K per year, 3 months off for summer, a month off for Christmas and paid us extra to actually turn up, plus unreceipted "expenses", plus backhanders and "wins on de horses", we wouldn't have a credit crunch and the whole problem would go away......

Darragh29

Moriarty wrote: »

You appear to badly need to read up on the reasons for vaccination in a public health context. You've completely missed the point and don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Our government don't do preventative anything and this is a major part of the problem in this country. It has always amazed me how a government need so many consultants reports. They need these consultants reports to give them a handle on a problem. To my mind, if there is a problem in the first place, there has been a government failure that should trigger a resignation from office.

We'll be seeing loads of resignations in 2009 because they will become necessary to calm people down because folks are starting to run out of patience with this shower.

Seth Brundle

ninty9er wrote: »

It is my FIRM belief that if a farmer cannot run a farm profitably without subsidies, they should not run a farm at all.

And yes I know farmers, and no they don't like my views, but I won't lose sleep over it.

It would make more sense for 3 farmers with 80 acres a piece to work 240 together than 80 each, but simple pig headedness on the part of just one of the 3 would put a spanner in that, to the detriment of all 3. It would also reduce the need for farm labour and increase the efficiency of the 240 acre unit.

I don't believe in subsidies where they are not necessary. I've seen/prepared the accounts of farmers getting 40k in subsidies whose kids get grants because they draw so much from the farm that it makes no profit.

A stockholder with 50 acres in Leitrim who has say 30 suckler cows will make how much profit in 2008 (either with or without EU payments)? They cannot afford to buy more land nor can they afford to stop (what would they do instead?).
Were EU payments to be removed, then the cost of Irish produce (whether meat or grain) would be impacted. Are you willing to pay more for your food? Are you willing to pay more for your pint? Furthermore, were EU payments removed then those unwilling to pay the higher prices for Irish produce would prompt the retailers to quickly source these items from non-EU countries such as beef from Brazil where traceability is regarded as dubious.
As for farmers receiving 40k in subsidies - you prepared their accounts to meet the criteria laid out by the laws of the country. Presumably then your role included reducing their tax liability. Which is worse then? Them receiving money or you helping them justify keeping it?
Your understanding of the Irish Agriculture industry is obviously limited so you should possibly stay quiet on that front.

ninty9er wrote: »

You need land to farm, my issue is with planning not social housing on that front. Why should a farmer get social housing, they already have an advantage over someone who has to go and buy the land before building a house.

How many farmers have received social housing? The current property situation where people cannot afford to raise a deposit never mind go looking for a mortgage is a direct result in the lack of action by the administrations in the last or so. As for planning being the issue - who has the final say in that?

jmayo

HydeRoad wrote: »

I have to say, if the calibre of ninty9er's responses here were a model for the official FF response to similar questions, they'd never have got within a mile of power. Have you read back over them at all? Do you not see the tone you are putting across?

By the way ninty9er, I might have misconstrued your use of the word 'Fixed' in that last contribution, you surely aren't advocating that FF 'fixed' the problem of the gross discrepancy in house prices during the Bertie years??? I suppose if you blame FF for our ill preparedness for a world recession, you can take from that their 'responsibility' for the fall in house prices, but it could hardly be described as deliberate on their part, they would sell their soul to have us back the way it was, in the pockets of their runaway developers...

HydeRoad,
these are typical of ninty99er's responses.
Regarding education cuts he saw the problem not with lackof facilities, class sizes upto 40 but with the fact that teachers were not dedicated and lack of moral. Yep he got that from talking to friends who are student teachers :rolleyes:
He didn't bother talking to teachers who have been working in the system all their lives.
When he said he "fixed" my post I think he means he changed my word "get" a house to "buy" a house.
Of course nobody ever needs to buy a house, especially since we have such greate tenancy laws in this country.

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well here's my 2 cents worth...
...
I personally think that people are so angry that we aren't six months in a recession and it would appear that this thing is barely upon us but we haven't a pot to p*ss into. Clearly the government has been p*ssing our money all over the place with no regard for value for money.
...
This government are now associated with the biggest p*ssing away of good money we have probably ever known in Ireland and having left the country out on a plank with unsustainable income streams, doesn't now have an answer to resolve the problems they have caused....

Darragh29,
where have you been for the last 10 years ?
Remember Luas came in way over budget and behind shcedule.
Remember the great bertie bowl National Stadium.
But where is the stadium for this few hundred million spent?
Remember PPARS, electonic voting, new prison site, decentralisation, Port Tunnel (not deemed safe by Dublin Fire Brigade and some major foreign tunnell experts), M50 (that has to be widened even though only built a few years ago).
Need I go on ?
Of course the ffers always state that we got some much needed infrastructure and in the grand scheme of things they were small overruns etc.
But all the overruns, all the wasted few millions add up.
Added to this they increased public spending by adding hugely to HSE admin numbers, by increased number of state agencies and by the excercise of placating their buddies in public sector unions through process of benchmarking.

Darragh29 wrote: »

Our government don't do preventative anything and this is a major part of the problem in this country. It has always amazed me how a government need so many consultants reports. They need these consultants reports to give them a handle on a problem. To my mind, if there is a problem in the first place, there has been a government failure that should trigger a resignation from office.

We'll be seeing loads of resignations in 2009 because they will become necessary to calm people down because folks are starting to run out of patience with this shower.

Our government, public sector and indeed the cosy cartel at the top tier in private companies don't do resignations. If they did then more than half the cabinet would be gone, the central bank and financial regualtor would have been fired for negligence and incompetence, the board and top executives of Fás would have been fired and the top executives in banks would have been axed as part of the bailout.
Did any of the above happen ?

turgon

An ogra Fianna Fail man is advocating Soviet style communist collectivization as a cure to our agricultural woes. The recession is really biting it seems.

Seth Brundle

turgon wrote: »

An ogra Fianna Fail man is advocating Soviet style communist collectivization as a cure to our agricultural woes. The recession is really biting it seems.

Maybe its more of the FF policy to blame everyone else when things go wrong!

sceptre

turgon wrote: »

An ogra Fianna Fail man is advocating Soviet style communist collectivization as a cure to our agricultural woes. The recession is really biting it seems.

I didn't draw that out of what he said at all, I assumed it was a "farm unprofitable? Feel free to sell out to someone bigger like another business might have to" comment.