Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Land of Labour where a tax levy is a cutback

  • 18-05-2010 11:58AM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭


    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.


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,044 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,583 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    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:(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,044 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,258 ✭✭✭Tora Bora


    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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,555 CMod ✭✭✭✭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).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    speaking of leftie politics

    everyone remember Jack O'Connor @ 4:55

    blabbing on about
    ... 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....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭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)
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,555 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    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)!

    :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭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...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Bits_n_Bobs


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Taxipete29


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭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???


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement