Land of Labour where a tax levy is a cutback

Bits_n_Bobs

Watching that muppet from Labour on last night frontline eventually at least attempt to answer Kenny's answer on Labours cutbacks:

'We will levy (I think it was Powergen?) and raise €900m'

I am not an economist, but I suspect that a levy does not equate with a cutback???? I absolutely and definitely want to see FF marched out of power ASAP, but I would really appreciate some level of honesty from what is likely to be a future coalition government party. Watching that gombeen man squirm about avoiding Kennys valid question was pathetic.

Then when Constantin said something about saving money in HSE by getting rid of what everyone recognises as a top-heavy overstaffed administration he starts hopping up and down 'You're going to fire people?? Fire people???'. Err, yeah, if someone has nothing to do you get rid of them.

I actually would like to vote for Labour in the next general election, can see feck all difference between FF/FG and honestly believe a fairly radical change is due, but they seem intent on making it impossible for me to give them my vote by the sort of willful obfuscation and stupidity.

Labour - please spell out to me what the hell economic policies you will implement when/if in power and leave out the populist claptrap.

gurramok

They don't want any public sector cut backs. God knows where they see narrowing of the deficit will come from as it won't be narrowed by raising taxes, they just sound like the unions.

Head The Wall

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Watching that muppet from Labour on last night frontline eventually at least attempt to answer Kenny's answer on Labours cutbacks:

'We will levy (I think it was Powergen?) and raise €900m'

I am not an economist, but I suspect that a levy does not equate with a cutback???? I absolutely and definitely want to see FF marched out of power ASAP, but I would really appreciate some level of honesty from what is likely to be a future coalition government party. Watching that gombeen man squirm about avoiding Kennys valid question was pathetic.

Then when Constantin said something about saving money in HSE by getting rid of what everyone recognises as a top-heavy overstaffed administration he starts hopping up and down 'You're going to fire people?? Fire people???'. Err, yeah, if someone has nothing to do you get rid of them.

I actually would like to vote for Labour in the next general election, can see feck all difference between FF/FG and honestly believe a fairly radical change is due, but they seem intent on making it impossible for me to give them my vote by the sort of willful obfuscation and stupidity.

Labour - please spell out to me what the hell economic policies you will implement when/if in power and leave out the populist claptrap.

They will restore the PS paycut and levy. They will then build a magic school, train up a few magicians and get them to pull money out of hats to run the country

Banned Account

Eamonn Gilmore was on newstalk this morning and refused to answer any questions straight out. This is the kind of bumbling bollix that reallyy gets my goat about politics. Still afraid to commit themselves to anything - thus providing a get out clause for when they may have to roll over on the promises.

I think there is still this notion that, if they are straight about cuts, they will lose a percentage of the vote. I think that they should realise that the populous is equally pissed with all of them so it just may be the case that the party that is honest, may actually swing the vote.

I'd love to have a buzzer that would give politicians a shock every time they refused to answer a straight question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

murphaph

I was lambasted in another thread for even countenancing giving FF a preference in the next election....for exactly the reasons outlined above!

I HATE FF and what they've done, BUT I am not about to vote them out and replace them with a party that wants to roll back the ps pay cuts (moves towards reality I would call them). FG have not been nearly vocal enough to distance themselves from this position, so they leave me with FF, great!

I WANT FG to provide the next government, but not in a coalition with a party that intends reversing the paycuts. A child could tell you we have 2 less apples a year than we are eating.

cson

Feck the magician idea; who needs them when Gilmore has bagged himself some money tree seeds. Sorted.

Now you can multiply wealth by dividing it. :pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Banned Account

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not 100% sure I agree with you here (on FG majority that is) for two reasons:

1) I find it really hard to fathom any concrete ideological differences between them and FF

2) Many of the swing voters would vote for them in a flash if Kenny was dumped in favour of Bruton - they don't have the balls to do it even though it would help them immensely, I'd like to see a party with balls at this stage.

Problem is though, we have no alternative:(

murphaph

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I went so far as to write to Leo Varadkar (I used to live in Clonsilla in his constituency and emailed him on things before he became a TD) and told him as much. They don't hear the silent majority like us because the silent majority don't engage in politics enough to steer it the way we want. Then the vocal minorities end up getting their way as the parties don't know why they were elected!

seamus

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Eamonn Gilmore was on newstalk this morning and refused to answer any questions straight out. This is the kind of bumbling bollix that reallyy gets my goat about politics. Still afraid to commit themselves to anything - thus providing a get out clause for when they may have to roll over on the promises.

I think there is still this notion that, if they are straight about cuts, they will lose a percentage of the vote. I think that they should realise that the populous is equally pissed with all of them so it just may be the case that the party that is honest, may actually swing the vote.

To be fair, it was actually a very clever avoidance. Gilmore was asked what way he thought the unions should vote on the croke park deal. He knows the right answer, but he also knows that the right answer is not the one that the unions want to hear, so he came up with some notion of non-interference to avoid answering the question and pissing anyone off.

Labour do populist politics, and they always have. The problem now is that we are coming up against issues where you two polar opposites - it's either cuts or no cuts - and there's no amount of sweet-talking and side-stepping you can do; you have to make a choice and choose one side or other.

Although Labour do seem to have a love of unions, I can't see them choosing the losing side in this one. In any case, if/when they get into government and see the figures, they will know that they can't just give the public service cuts back.

Tora Bora

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

See what you mean, BUT, better get Gilmore in as well, as in the REAL world, he will have no choice in the matter of reversing the pay cuts. ECB are already running the show, with the spectre of IMF standing at the door. Next government of whatever make up is going to have to impose cuts. There is no other way. Let him get his bib dirty in the eyes of Jacko and the boys in SIPTU. Then there will be some balance.

More important though is getting David Norris into the Park! :cool:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

I was lambasted in another thread for even countenancing giving FF a preference in the next election....for exactly the reasons outlined above!

I'll give you another reason; the NAMA ticking bomb (i.e. the reduction in what needs to be paid of by the loans is until 2014 if I remember correctly); FF created a lot of the mess inc. NAMA so let FF deal with the horse dung which is coming to the next government.

The amazing thing is Labour should be sweeping the poles if they had any brains and balls to stand up and offer even a half decent alternative to FF; talking about reversing PS savings though is just such a big no brainer that I expect people would rather vote for the Donald Duck party instead (outside of PS).

Banned Account

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, it was actually a very clever avoidance. Gilmore was asked what way he thought the unions should vote on the croke park deal. He knows the right answer, but he also knows that the right answer is not the one that the unions want to hear, so he came up with some notion of non-interference to avoid answering the question and pissing anyone off.

Labour do populist politics, and they always have. The problem now is that we are coming up against issues where you two polar opposites - it's either cuts or no cuts - and there's no amount of sweet-talking and side-stepping you can do; you have to make a choice and choose one side or other.

Although Labour do seem to have a love of unions, I can't see them choosing the losing side in this one. In any case, if/when they get into government and see the figures, they will know that they can't just give the public service cuts back.

I agree with you entirely Seamus, but am now at the stage where I couldn't give a tuppenny toss about clever avoidance, it has lost all appeal for me and I would give my left testicle for someone who would just stand up and be a friggin man about it. Otherwise we are ending up in the same circus, run by different clowns.

ei.sdraob

speaking of leftie politics

everyone remember Jack O'Connor @ 4:55

blabbing on about

Jack O'Connor wrote:

... those at the top of out society, the 5% percent, who own 40% percent of the wealth are determined to contribute nothing, and we my friends are equally determined that they will make their contribution whether they like it or not ...

anyone else found it amusing that himself is easily in the top 5% of the earners in this country with his 6 figure union job

****ing joker i tell ya :mad:

sheep being led to the slaughter :P those protesters are, they are being manipulated by the people they meant to hate....

invinciblePRSTV

murphaph wrote: »

I went so far as to write to Leo Varadkar (I used to live in Clonsilla in his constituency and emailed him on things before he became a TD) and told him as much. They don't hear the silent majority like us because the silent majority don't engage in politics enough to steer it the way we want. Then the vocal minorities end up getting their way as the parties don't know why they were elected!

Ah give over with this silent majority nonsense and reveal your true selves, this is not Newt Gingrichs America circa 1994 no matter what some may have you believe!

"Silent Majority" - middle class & middle aged Ireland who most certainly are not the majority in anything (except for whinging in broadsheets letters pages & places like boards)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And what do you think FG are becoming then? FG under Enda have set to emulate FF under Ahern by adopting populist policies like universal healthcare, public sector reform and maintaining the traditional tough line on crime.

A quick glance at Enda Kennys record since becoming FG Leader confirms this, ideology very much takes second place to populist measures, indeed this is partially why he was elected as FG leader initially as he offered a non specific ideological platform from which to lead the party.

To get anywhere near 60-70 seats in Irish Dail elections you will have have to lose ideological purity and adopt a populist line to win support amongst the various population segments.

To get an idea of this is to check out FG TDs press releases, just like their FF & Lab counterparts they will prosthelytize on any old issue to win local support, even if it does fly inthe face of official party policy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nody

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And a pink balloon; I want a pink balloon as well damn it! I'll vote for any politican giving me the above AND a pink balloon (I'll consider a yellow one in case pink once are out though)!

invinciblePRSTV

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This spiel could have come from any PD policy document during that partys formal existence. They too represented this 'Silent Majority' you speak of and promoted word for word pretty much everything you just mentioned and, at its peak, won less then 10% of available Dail seats. As i said the term silent majority implies something completely different to its literal meaning.

Banned Account

Labour Land - just an aside, but if Proinsias de Rossa was using this phrase, it might come out as Labour La La Land?

invinciblePRSTV

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Labour Land - just an aside, but if Proinsias de Rossa was using this phrase, it might come out as Labour La La Land?

Low brow humour of course but lets take your point and run with it.

Imagine a time when Labour, with the help of some ex stalinists, coalesced with a weak and divided FG to deliver the best Government that this state had ever had.

This is of course the 1994 - 97 period, with a Labour MoF pulling the purse strings and dictating economic policy as the country recorded record economic growth and prosperity with the original export led Celtic Tiger in tandem with significant advances in social policy (a knock on from 1990 & 1992 admittedly). on top of that emigration slowed to a trickle.

Of course a government was elected in 1997 to replace the progressive rainbow coalition which was certainly more pro business and definitely more conservative. Result? 21st century Ireland want backwards socially and her economy exploded due to the the 'pro business' legislation being in vogue.

Of course i was here growing up whilst all this happened, some contributors here who seem to either have spent time away from this country or are recent arrivals may not fully grasp how things happened the way they did here but when the talk of silent majorities and 'pro business' policies arrives like it has on this thread then it deserves to be met with the contempt it fully deserves.

Valmont

When you have someone speak of a certain percentage of the population controlling a 'percentage' of the wealth, what do they mean? I remember someone posting a criticism of that idea before; something to do with Bastiat. Anyone have a link? I've had a look around and I can't find anything specific.

ei.sdraob

Valmont wrote: »

When you have someone speak of a certain percentage of the population controlling a 'percentage' of the wealth, what do they mean? I remember someone posting a criticism of that idea before; something to do with Bastiat. Anyone have a link? I've had a look around and I can't find anything specific.

alot of that "wealth" (well whatever of it remains after the stock/bank crashes) is locked away in businesses and property

you try to "liquidate" that wealth you end-up with alot of people out of work and/or living on the street

then again pinko communists are never good with economics to begin with

any liquid wealth that can be taxed easily like cash or gold or whatever is long gone out of this country or well hidden...

seamus

Valmont wrote: »

When you have someone speak of a certain percentage of the population controlling a 'percentage' of the wealth, what do they mean?

It's a socialist soundbite which bemoans the poor ordinary worker not getting his fair share of the pie. What it fails to acknowledge is that the poor ordinary worker doesn't supply his fair share of the ingredients for that pie in the first place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bits_n_Bobs

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Low brow humour of course but lets take your point and run with it.

Imagine a time when Labour, with the help of some ex stalinists, coalesced with a weak and divided FG to deliver the best Government that this state had ever had.

This is of course the 1994 - 97 period, with a Labour MoF pulling the purse strings and dictating economic policy as the country recorded record economic growth and prosperity with the original export led Celtic Tiger in tandem with significant advances in social policy (a knock on from 1990 & 1992 admittedly). on top of that emigration slowed to a trickle.

Of course a government was elected in 1997 to replace the progressive rainbow coalition which was certainly more pro business and definitely more conservative. Result? 21st century Ireland want backwards socially and her economy exploded due to the the 'pro business' legislation being in vogue.

Of course i was here growing up whilst all this happened, some contributors here who seem to either have spent time away from this country or are recent arrivals may not fully grasp how things happened the way they did here but when the talk of silent majorities and 'pro business' policies arrives like it has on this thread then it deserves to be met with the contempt it fully deserves.

I absolutely take your point. Ruari Quinn was a good MoF.

I have already stated I would like to see Labour returned to government. What might stop me from actually voting for them is the utter lack of details that they seem capable of voicing on what they are going to do once they are back in government.

Couple this with what is a strong link to PS dominated unions, Howlin hopping up and down last night at the suggestion that some admin staff in the HSE should be let go as they have no work to do, and my fear is not that we will have an ideological swing to the left for a few years - frankly I would welcome that.

My greatest fear is that the whole focus of Labour will be to increase taxes, seek no cuts anywhere and make no attempt to reform even the grossest instances of inefficiencies within the PS. While I do not believe that madness is what Labour is actually going to do, I for one would like it spelt out a bit clearer before I feel comfortable casting my vote for them.

I kind of object being treated like a complete moron, which is exactly how I felt while contemplating voting for Labour while Howlin was squirming away avoiding answering straight questions last night.

Taxipete29

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I absolutely take your point. Ruari Quinn was a good MoF.

I have already stated I would like to see Labour returned to government. What might stop me from actually voting for them is the utter lack of details that they seem capable of voicing on what they are going to do once they are back in government.

Couple this with what is a strong link to PS dominated unions, Howlin hopping up and down last night at the suggestion that some admin staff in the HSE should be let go as they have no work to do, and my fear is not that we will have an ideological swing to the left for a few years - frankly I would welcome that.

My greatest fear is that the whole focus of Labour will be to increase taxes, seek no cuts anywhere and make no attempt to reform even the grossest instances of inefficiencies within the PS. While I do not believe that madness is what Labour is actually going to do, I for one would like it spelt out a bit clearer before I feel comfortable casting my vote for them.

I kind of object being treated like a complete moron, which is exactly how I felt while contemplating voting for Labour while Howlin was squirming away avoiding answering straight questions last night.

The policy document Brendan Howlin was talking about and pointing to is freely available on the Labour website as are their other published policies.

Labour are not trying to hide anything. For anyone who wants to know their plans all they have to do is read.

Banned Account

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The policy document Brendan Howlin was talking about and pointing to is freely available on the Labour website as are their other published policies.

Labour are not trying to hide anything. For anyone who wants to know their plans all they have to do is read.

Newstalk this morning:-

Ivan Yates : "So Eamonn, what about water charges, will you support bringing them back"

Eamonn Gilmore:" There are many things to consider with this..."

IY: "so you haven't thought about it then?"

EG: "yes, we have thought about it"

IY: "well, then, will you be bringing them back?"

EG: "there are many things to consider with this ..."

IY: "Ok then, since you are kicking that to touch ..."

EG: "I'm not kicking it to touch"

IY: "OK, what about a property tax?"

EG: "There are many things to consider with this ..."

:rolleyes:

Fcukin' politicians

Bits_n_Bobs

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The policy document Brendan Howlin was talking about and pointing to is freely available on the Labour website as are their other published policies.

Labour are not trying to hide anything. For anyone who wants to know their plans all they have to do is read.

That document (prebudget.pdf is what I assume you are talking about?) is more than a bit...'vague' is perhaps the most polite way of me expressing myself.

The pay saving of 1.3b consists of reform through negotiation with PS unions. This was called 'benchmarking' for the last decade and has not really led to much pay saving. I realise I am repeating myself, but Howlin nearly had a fit at the suggestion of firing universally recognised surplus admin staff in the HSE who currently do nothing - surely the lowest hanging fruit of any 'reform'?

Next header is non-pay current spending @0.9b - no problem with that claim, but it (and significantly more) has already been identified by a Mr. Colm McCarthy in a report fairly savaged by Labour across the media from what I can remember.

Next item 'Capital savings through lower tender prices' - errr, would that be called 'deflation'??? You know, when the whole economy shrinks by a good 10% it might be possible to shave a few percentage points off what you are paying for something?? Not exactly rocket science...

Then we have the bit that blows the whole document out of the water. Under the category 'Saving' there is something called 'Revenue Enhancing'. They even have a helpful second table which spells it out nicely 'carbon levy', 'target reduction in pensions reliefs' etc etc. These are not 'savings' they are increases in taxes - whether they are valid and reasonable increases is not the point, they are increases in taxes, or 'revenue' for the government. You know, the bit thats kind of opposite 'savings' in terms of establishing just how much money we need to beg from the markets to fund ourselves??

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me how someone telling me a government tax is a saving is not someone treating me like an idiot???

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cson

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd say it's meant to be that way tbh.

You've actually downloaded and opened their jobs and recovery report and that's the findings and suggestions <BLANK>

Taxipete29

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/budgetpowerpoint.pdf


Its defo not blank.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Update your version of adobe, I can see the content fine

invinciblePRSTV

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I absolutely take your point. Ruari Quinn was a good MoF.

I have already stated I would like to see Labour returned to government. What might stop me from actually voting for them is the utter lack of details that they seem capable of voicing on what they are going to do once they are back in government.

I'm not au fait on Labour Party policy but i imagine it along with all the other parties is busily laying the groundwork for eye catching policy proposals/parish pump goodies for the hopefully imminent 3 by elections and General Election (t minus 2 years at most)

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Couple this with what is a strong link to PS dominated unions, Howlin hopping up and down last night at the suggestion that some admin staff in the HSE should be let go as they have no work to do, and my fear is not that we will have an ideological swing to the left for a few years - frankly I would welcome that.

Actually Labour has formally distanced itself from the Trade unions in the past few years, but i doubt Labour will do anymore then any other of the establishment parties and go out of their way to antagonise the sizeable PS vote. The mad Thatcherites on here want blood in the form of savage cuts which will be forthcoming whoever is in charge and will surely occur before the next GE, but no party would be mad enough to antagonise the PS in the way some on here want, it's not smart politics.

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

My greatest fear is that the whole focus of Labour will be to increase taxes, seek no cuts anywhere and make no attempt to reform even the grossest instances of inefficiencies within the PS. While I do not believe that madness is what Labour is actually going to do, I for one would like it spelt out a bit clearer before I feel comfortable casting my vote for them.

I think come closer to election time all parties will be forced to outline in detail what exactly their public service reform packages will be. however laughable policies encouraging mass privatisation of all public services as suggested will be met with the contempt by the Irish public, this i can guarantee.

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I kind of object being treated like a complete moron, which is exactly how I felt while contemplating voting for Labour while Howlin was squirming away avoiding answering straight questions last night.

Agreed Howlin was no good but he is like most Irish TDs, a good constituency man. Very unlikely he will be getting a cabinet seat in any future FG/Lab/misc Cabinet.

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Newstalk this morning:-

Ivan Yates : "So Eamonn, what about water charges, will you support bringing them back"

Eamonn Gilmore:" There are many things to consider with this..."

IY: "so you haven't thought about it then?"

EG: "yes, we have thought about it"

IY: "well, then, will you be bringing them back?"

EG: "there are many things to consider with this ..."

IY: "Ok then, since you are kicking that to touch ..."

EG: "I'm not kicking it to touch"

IY: "OK, what about a property tax?"

EG: "There are many things to consider with this ..."

:rolleyes:

Fcukin' politicians

Here we go

Session 3 : Protecting the Environment & Enhancing Local Government

Motion 95

Conference notes with concern:
The government's stated commitment to introduce domestic water charges.
Conference affirms:
The Labour Party's unequivocal and absolute opposition to the re-introduction of water charges on households.
Conference further affirms:
Its commitment to campaign with and for communities against water charges.
Conference mandates:
That in the event of the Fianna Fail-Green coalition introducing water charges the Labour Party when next in government will bring forward legislation to abolish water charges as an absolute priority.
Conference further mandates:
That this commitment to abolish water charges when in government will be a key objective for the Labour Party in the run up to the next General Election

As can be seen the Labour Party themselves don't want Water Charges either but they, like property taxes, will inevitably be introduced. Gilmore knows this but he still has to formally deny it.

danbohan

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

This spiel could have come from any PD policy document during that partys formal existence. They too represented this 'Silent Majority' you speak of and promoted word for word pretty much everything you just mentioned and, at its peak, won less then 10% of available Dail seats. As i said the term silent majority implies something completely different to its literal meaning.

labour are doing 100% more to reelect fianna fail than fianna fail , they would scare the bejayus out of anybody that thinks about where this country is or is going too, alas lots of people dont think

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Head The Wall

Valmont wrote: »

When you have someone speak of a certain percentage of the population controlling a 'percentage' of the wealth, what do they mean?

He neglected to tell the crowd what percentage of the total income tax received comes from these same people with wealth.he must have forgotten to mention it

invinciblePRSTV

danbohan wrote: »

labour are doing 100% more to reelect fianna fail than fianna fail , they would scare the bejayus out of anybody that thinks about where this country is or is going too, alas lots of people dont think

Didn't i come across your good self cheerleading for Sean Quinn a while back? you said it best yourself when you say the problem is people in this country don't think:).

danbohan

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Didn't i come across your good self cheerleading for Sean Quinn a while back? you said it best yourself when you say the problem is people in this country don't think:).

true , and your point is?

thebman

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

2) Many of the swing voters would vote for them in a flash if Kenny was dumped in favour of Bruton - they don't have the balls to do it even though it would help them immensely, I'd like to see a party with balls at this stage.

Hang on, how does that show they don't have balls?

If anything it shows they do have balls. They obviously believe in him as a leader that is good for the party and they know he is a liability to the public yet they continue to support him and would rather try to improve his image with the public than remove who they feel is a good leader.

Does that not demonstrate balls? Any party could be populist and claim their leader must go if unpopular. Many FF members can be seen to be less than fully behind Brian Cowen.

Besides Enda is no more unlikeable than Brian Cowen, its all just media perception that he has no charisma because none of the leaders of any of our parties have charisma.

During the Bertie years, the media constantly mocked Enda (coincidently at a time when their property sections were the most profitable parts of their business) and talked about Bertie being an average Joe. Yet we know Bertie is anything but an average Joe and we know all our leaders have no charisma.

Enda Kenny at least turns up reasonably dressed and can make a speech without slurring his words and can stand up straight, even if he comes out with stupid statements every now and again, so do all politicians especially Brian Cowen.

My Biggest problem with FG is they come out with what they obviously feel is a populist yet idiotic policy every now and again. That would be my biggest fear if they got into power. If they just stuck to sensible policy, they'd probably win a landslide. I agree it would be a wise move to come out and rule out coalition with Labor at the moment but its politics. I would rather they come out and commit to lower spending, policy to encourage business and stating what taxes they will increase/introduce to get our budget in order.

Bits_n_Bobs

thebman wrote: »

I would rather they come out and commit to lower spending, policy to encourage business and stating what taxes they will increase/introduce to get our budget in order.

Yup they would almost have my vote if they were to do that, Enda or no Enda, I don't really care how charismatic he is or not - to hell with charisma, some honesty would be refreshingly welcome.

The only problem I really have voting in FG is I am fed-up of both FF/FG and their respective lack of vision/ideology. If the PD's were still about as far as I am concerned it would be a choice between them and Labour. As it is, I am struggling to vote for Labour and may vote for FG, deeply uncomfortable as it makes me to vote for FG as it will in effect be a vote for 'a bit of a minor alteration' in policies rather than any sort of meaningful change.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well as minority coalition party, Labour would have power to implement some of their policies not all. Much like the Greens they would have to accept that they aren't the major party in government.

They would harm the reduction in expenditure and harm the way the new taxes will be introduced but they will not stop it being implemented same as the Greens have not stopped NAMA or anything FF really wanted to do no matter how much the Green party against something in the run up to the election.

I think Labour would get some of their policies implemented but only if it suited FG to implement them if FG stay strong in polls that is.

Taxipete29

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Labours proposals for reform of the HSE sought 1000 redundancies at management level. Thats hardly protecting the bloat is it??

I have no problem with people who are opposed to Labour and its ideas but they should really take the time to read the policies instead of listening to soundbites on the radio and opinion pieces in the Indo. Most of the objections to Labour on this forum are for policies which either dont exist or are not official policy at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

oh were not friends anymore so :P
tsk tsk, a libertarian using a closed top down Steve Jobs controlled, authoritarian operating system, whats world coming to... :P

anyways the pdf has errors in it (its actually acrobat 4+ compatible) here it is readable online

Taxipete29

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe Howlin needs to read the policy too . To be fair as soon as he opened his mouth Kenny was jumping down his throat. Give the man a chance and you might get an answer. Kenny is no fan of Labour or the Unions

Bits_n_Bobs

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I have no problem with people who are opposed to Labour and its ideas but they should really take the time to read the policies instead of listening to soundbites on the radio and opinion pieces in the Indo. Most of the objections to Labour on this forum are for policies which either dont exist or are not official policy at all.

I read the policy document you mentioned previously and supplied you with my thoughts on it here, however you don't seem to want to reply to anything I have written - and after all the time I took to scan the damn pdf - positively hurtful of you

Having said that, if Labour representative demonstrated any sort of consistency in communicating its own policies, as witnessed by a few instances on this thread, maybe people might pay attention to the policies??