Why I remain staunch FF

Liam Byrne

Question for the OP.....

What would FF have to do in order for you not to "remain staunch FF" ?

Or are we talking unwavering, blind and unquestioned loyalty, regardless of any logic, track record or further corruption ?

EDIT : I'm not purely having an anti-FF moment with the above, because I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would be "staunch" (or even "loyal" to) any party, tbh.....if they do well and are ethical, you vote for them, and if not, you don't.

lugha

33% God wrote: »

Nonsense, stability means nothing if it is undemocratic, little more than politicians desperately holding onto power while pushing through unpopular policies which will destroy the country for decades to come in order to keep their buddies sitting pretty.
A dictatorship would be far more stable altogether, I say we have one of those. Dibs on being Dictator.

I see. So you advocate a dictatorship but a democratic one, (as an undemocratic dictatorship would "mean nothing") which would refrain from taking unpopular decisions? :pac:

Personally, and in a crisis, I am not sure if I wouldn't rate stability higher than democracy. (Not that I consider holding off on calling bye-elections to be the most grievous sins against democracy. It's not as if they have introduced martial law!)

Liam Byrne

lugha wrote: »

Personally, and in a crisis, I am not sure if I wouldn't rate stability higher than democracy.

1) What if the crisis was caused by those in power ?
2) If a government outlawed elections completely, they'd be very stable indeed; based on the above statement, you'd be OK with that ?

33% God

lugha wrote: »

I see. So you advocate a dictatorship but a democratic one, (as an undemocratic dictatorship would "mean nothing") which would refrain from taking unpopular decisions? :pac:

No, I quite obviously don't advocate a dictatorship at all.

Personally, and in a crisis, I am not sure if I wouldn't rate stability higher than democracy. (Not that I consider holding off on calling bye-elections to be the most grievous sins against democracy. It's not as if they have introduced martial law!)

In a crises I would rather have a voice, rather than have stuff pushed upon me by a group of people who have become to see themselves as Kings who do not have the interest of the people at heart.

DJCR

I don't know what to say to this.

I would lean FF as I don't the others have anything to offer (that will work)

I mean - FG and Labour are both on record saying that FF were "tight" and "not spending nough during the boom years".... now they talk of "waste and immaturity" with regards spening.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!

However, saying that both cadidates for FG in my constituency are quite good..... i would give them 2 and 3 on the ballot!!

So again the question comes to Local Vs. National politics... do I choose the candidates that are best for the country (IMO FF) or best for my area (Prob FG).

This I believe (appart from the mammy/daddy votes for them context) is the reason for stanchness with regards to voting patterns. Do you stick with wahts good for the country (whats good for the country is good for everyone and therefore indirectly your constituency) or whats good for your constituency.........

quest qu'on peut dire??

Liam Byrne

DJCR wrote: »

I mean - FG and Labour are both on record saying that FF were "tight" and "not spending nough during the boom years".... now they talk of "waste and immaturity" with regards spening.

There's no contradiction in that.....it just depends on what they were spending it on, and whether they demanded value for money and productivity.

It's pretty obvious that benchmarking was a disaster, that eVoting machines were a disaster, that Ahern wasted millions by trying to get the Bertie Bowl off the ground before giving in (AFAIK the FAI would have their own stadium by now and not be co-tenants with IRFU), "regulators" and quangos that may as well not have been there, not to mention the current bank bailout which is far from "tight" but is doing the country no good (to put it mildly).

So you can't comment about how much would be spent without looking at what it would have been spent on.

As a household analogy : FF spent it on booze, flashy neon Santas, Playstations and botox, whereas it's quite possible that FG would have spent it on food, clothing and education and clothing. Unfortunately we'll never know.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Question for the OP.....

What would FF have to do in order for you not to "remain staunch FF" ?

Or are we talking unwavering, blind and unquestioned loyalty, regardless of any logic, track record or further corruption ?

EDIT : I'm not purely having an anti-FF moment with the above, because I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would be "staunch" (or even "loyal" to) any party, tbh.....if they do well and are ethical, you vote for them, and if not, you don't.

I'm going to guess that its the alternatives that don't inspire him with confidence. I wouldn't be happy with any government that involved some of the rather hard core Labour party tbh. However I think we do need a change of government, if for nothing but to keep the system fresh. I also think it would be a bad idea to have an election now as it would have a destabilising effect, the recovery we're experiencing is quite weak. Markets are also falling again which often precedes a recession by 6 months.

2012 will be time enough for an election.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's no contradiction in that.....it just depends on what they were spending it on, and whether they demanded value for money and productivity.

Like the abolition of Stamp Duty?

Sand

I found an intriguing article that might be relevant

Why Do Women Stay In Domestic Violence Situations?

The relationship between men and women involved in domestic violence is extremely dependent. Despite this extreme mutual dependence women often feel they have some control over the situation. Their perception of being in control is an illusion. As long as women feels their is hope for the relationship, she will remain in the relationship even if she and her children are being abused. The average length of time in which women will stay in a domestic violence situations has shortened since shelters, 24 hour hotlines and other community resources have become readily available.

To leave domestic violence , a woman needs:
* A place to live
* A source of income
* Child care arrangements
* Transportation

In most cases, battered women and children will remain at risk because:
* They believe they need the resources of person who is battering them
* They believe there will be no further acts of violence.

Dependance?
Illusion of control?
desperate hope?
Belief we need their resources?
Belief theyve learned and wont do it again?

What Are Characteristics Of Batterers?

*Most batterers are needy human beings who can be loveable and loving.
*They use violence to get their way with intimate partners but can often behave normally toward other family members, work associated and others.
*They are often extremely insecure in their ability to trust others. They have difficulty establishing close friendships.
*They tend to be critical or jealous of their partners.
* They often deny responsibility for their behaviors and can often deny that the abuse occurred. They minimize the impact of their assaultive behavior and blame their partners for there behavior.
* They need to control. Batterers choose to abuse and their purpose is to control.

Can seem loveable? loving? normal?
critical or jealous?
deny responsibility?
minimise impact their behaviour?
blame victims for their behaviour?
need to control?

Might go a long way to explaining the psyche of that stubborn residual support for Fianna Fail and indeed gombeen politics in Ireland in general. I mean, despite making such a complete hamse of the fiscal situation, and being run by a complete shower of incompetents, werent we telling concerned neighbours only a week a two or ago that we were fine, that it was nobody elses business?

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm going to guess that its the alternatives that don't inspire him with confidence.

That's not what I asked.

He said he was "staunch FF"; much like many people were "staunch Catholics" until the level of scandal eventually made them rethink their blind and misguided loyalty.

If someone considers that FF have done a good job over the last 10 years, then I can disagree with them and leave it at that (mind you, how FF can inspire any confidence is beyond me, but that's another debate completely - this one is about being a "staunch" follower, regardless of confidence)

But if someone is a "staunch" follower, and describes themselves as such, then it strikes me as pretty ridiculous.

Example : I agreed initially with a lot of what the PDs said, but then they took it too far and privatised without ensuring the safeguards.....I'd never have described myself as "staunch PD", but they were decent while O'Malley was there. But once they overstepped the mark, I refused point-blank to even offer them a preference anywhere on the sheet.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I also think it would be a bad idea to have an election now as it would have a destabilising effect, the recovery we're experiencing is quite weak.

I'd disagree on this, since there would be a hell of a lot more confidence in the economy if FF hadn't blindly bailed out the banks (including Anglo) and completely pissed off almost every "normal" hardworking individual in the country. A proper sea-change could inspire confidence that the old guard had been broken and that things would be done differently from now on, with no nods and winks.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

2012 will be time enough for an election.

I shudder to think at the amount of damage FF have done over the past approximately 18 months, let alone what they could manage in another 18.....

33% God

DJCR wrote: »

I
So again the question comes to Local Vs. National politics... do I choose the candidates that are best for the country (IMO FF) or best for my area (Prob FG).

This I believe (appart from the mammy/daddy votes for them context) is the reason for stanchness with regards to voting patterns. Do you stick with wahts good for the country (whats good for the country is good for everyone and therefore indirectly your constituency) or whats good for your constituency.........

quest qu'on peut dire??

The answer is pretty obvious. You vote for whoever you feel would make the better legislator, as that is the position that you are voting the individual into. That will (or at least should) be his/her job, one for which he/she will be fairly handsomely remunerated by you. You should probably decide that based on whether or not you agree with their political philosophy.
The local government are the ones who you should be voting for based on local issues as that is their job.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Like the abolition of Stamp Duty?

If regulation had been in place and doing its job, who knows ?

Abolishing stamp duty might even have stopped FF relying on it as a source of day-to-day income, and if it were in conjunction with a ban on 100% mortgages, an enforcement of the 3xSALARY rule (maybe even 3x one person's salary) or a 25-year-maximum, then you never know.

I mean, a proper banking system where domestic mortgages and commercial developer loans were kept separate would have avoided the conflict of interest that I started to notice about 8 years ago.

If planning laws ensured that houses were built that could be extended, rather than squeezing 50 houses into an acre, then we could have had a construction industry based on extensions that people wanted, rather than a so-called "property ladder" and a mindset that "we'll be selling someday and will get something back or even make a profit".

maynooth_rules

Exactly what is wrong with the country and many of its electorate. Why be staunch anything. Ill take a wild wild guess and say that you were born into a Fianna Fail family:rolleyes:. Is it too hard to study the proposals put forward by each party and base your vote on that. I have voted for many different parties, and never consider myself staunch anything.
Personally I want a government with good, honest committed politicians like Richard Bruton, Leo Vradakker, Brian Hayes, Simon Coveney and James Reilly who have good ideas for the future. It is for this reason that I will be voting FG in the next election, not because I will 'remain staunch' FG. Give me the list of politicians I just metioned rather than tired, out of their depth waste of spaces like Mary Coughlan, Noel Dempsey and the great Biffo.

Says it all that Fianna Fail somehow see Brian lenihan as their great white hope
http://www.irishelection.com/2009/11/brian-lenihan-is-europes-worst-finance-minister/

oppenheimer1

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Exactly what is wrong with the country and many of its electorate. Why be staunch anything. Ill take a wild wild guess and say that you were born into a Fianna Fail family:rolleyes:. Is it too hard to study the proposals put forward by each party and base your vote on that. I have voted for many different parties, and never consider myself staunch anything.
Personally I want a government with good, honest committed politicians like Richard Bruton, Leo Vradakker, Brian Hayes, Simon Coveney and James Reilly who have good ideas for the future. It is for this reason that I will be voting FG in the next election, not because I will 'remain staunch' FG. Give me the list of politicians I just metioned rather than tired, out of their depth waste of spaces like Mary Coughlan, Noel Dempsey and the great Biffo.

Says it all that Fianna Fail somehow see Brian lenihan as their great white hope
http://www.irishelection.com/2009/11/brian-lenihan-is-europes-worst-finance-minister/

Its from the FT, its a paper with the "stupid paddy" attitude, even during the good times.

maynooth_rules

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its from the FT, its a paper with the "stupid paddy" attitude, even during the good times.

Fair enough, that was only thrown in there at the end though. Thats the **** stirrer in me;)

lugha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

1) What if the crisis was caused by those in power ?

If you were to be logical, that would be irrelevant. The optimal action to take in any scenario, political or otherwise, is the one that will maximise the benefit to you. You wouldn’t refuse a life buoy from the reckless mariner than put you in the water in the first place? You should only vote for an alternative government if you believe it to be in the best interests of the country, not to get your once of flesh off FF for their misdeeds of yesteryear. Who was it that said, “before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves”. I am not making a case for keeping FF in power. Ditch them if you will, but do so for the right reasons.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

2) If a government outlawed elections completely, they'd be very stable indeed; based on the above statement, you'd be OK with that ?

No I wouldn’t. My stable I mean that we would be seen in the eyes of the international community, lenders and the like, as (to continue my maritime theme!) a steady ship. (Perhaps stable wasn’t the right word). A prohibition on elections would hardly achieve that. My preference after the next election would be for a FG-Labour government with no extra bits. But if the choice was between a FF led two party government, or a FG led eclectic coalition, I am not so sure if the first option wouldn’t better serve out interests.

Liam Byrne

lugha wrote: »

If you were to be logical, that would be irrelevant. The optimal action to take in any scenario, political or otherwise, is the one that will maximise the benefit to you. You wouldn’t refuse a life buoy from the reckless mariner than put you in the water in the first place?

I know that if someone else was simultaneously offering me a second option [life-buoy] I'd go for that one; not from a "revenge" perspective, either.....it'd be purely a matter of trust.

lugha wrote: »

You should only vote for an alternative government if you believe it to be in the best interests of the country, not to get your once of flesh off FF for their misdeeds of yesteryear.

Well if they couldn't manage a country when we were flush, what hope is there that they can manage it now ?

And if they don't even acknowledge the amount that they contributed, then they have no credibility.

And if they choose to waste money on the Anglo cesspit, then they're not fit for office.

Not to mention that if you reward a reckless/careless idiot, they will see no reason to become careful and will repeat their mistakes.

lugha wrote: »

Ditch them if you will, but do so for the right reasons.

Don't worry, I will. And it will be for the right reasons.

lugha wrote: »

No I wouldn’t. My stable I mean that we would be seen in the eyes of the international community, lenders and the like, as (to continue my maritime theme!) a steady ship. (Perhaps stable wasn’t the right word)

OK - fair enough.

However with Lenihan changing his story and figures every second week, while Anglo loom like an Icelandic volcano, the eyes of the international community must be rolling in their heads.

In the case of lenders, it's not about credibility, it's about ensuring that someone fits their bills, regardless of the fact that its not going to be those who ran up the bills.

Credibility would imply that an outsider looking in would see that we take regulation seriously, and that we jail irresponsible speculators, and that we've cleaned up banking to make it safe to invest in this country again......we've done none of the above, bar maybe Elderfield firing a few shots across the bows, but simultaneously avoiding rocking any actual meaningful boats (maritime theme again).

lugha wrote: »

But if the choice was between a FF led two party government, or a FG led eclectic coalition, I am not so sure if the first option wouldn’t better serve out interests.

Rampant commercialism and cronyism vs a balance between capitalism and workers rights ? Sounds ideal to me, if they could manage it. I would be worried about Labour and the unions, but again, considering that upward-only benchmarking was FF's stupid idea in the first place, that hardly puts Labour out on a limb, relatively speaking.

steelcityblues

Don't let the admittedly decent attempt of reverse psychology by the OP fool those weaker minds!

Fiskar

The OP can be staunch FF for an eternity but it will not change the result at the next election. FF will get hammered, don't see them back in power for at least a decade.:D

maynooth_rules

Fiskar wrote: »

The OP can be staunch FF for an eternity but it will not change the result at the next election. FF will get hammered, don't see them back in power for at least a decade.:D

Don't get too excited yet. Do not underestimate the level that Civil war, vote the way of the family politics still exists in Ireland. Surely in any other EU country a party which has done what FF have in recent years would be in the political doldrums for a generation.

Liam Byrne

Fiskar wrote: »

The OP can be staunch FF for an eternity but it will not change the result at the next election. FF will get hammered, don't see them back in power for at least a decade.:D

I thought that at the last election, but don't underestimate them.....FF are the cockroaches of politics.

I don't yet know what country I'll move to if this shower of corrupt, self-serving *****s get back in, but I do know that I'll gladly turn my back on Ireland at that stage, because if enough people vote for them then it's not an Ireland I want to be a part of.

Fiskar

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Don't get too excited yet. Do not underestimate the level that Civil war, vote the way of the family politics still exists in Ireland. Surely in any other EU country a party which has done what FF have in recent years would be in the political doldrums for a generation.

Don't believe any of the 450,000 approx on the dole will be thinking about family politics when the election comes round.
Most FF councillors and TDs have run for cover, cannot get my councillor next to or near our estate. Don't see them trying hard at the next election either to win votes. As an FF voter last time out I will be abstaining from the vote next election (I am employed BTW). See a similar situation occurring as in the UK election as I don't see any one party having any "flash of genius" to get the economy going or getting on top of the issues facing the country.

SeaFields

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't yet know what country I'll move to if this shower of corrupt, self-serving *****s get back in, but I do know that I'll gladly turn my back on Ireland at that stage, because if enough people vote for them then it's not an Ireland I want to be a part of.

Don't forget that at almost every poll about 25% continue to support FF. On top of that you will have the younger population, who traditionally don't vote FF, heading for far away fields since this country can offer them nothing. And you have the people disillusioned with politics who prob wont vote as they are more concerned with keeping a roof over their head and food on the table. :mad:

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I thought that at the last election, but don't underestimate them.....FF are the cockroaches of politics.

I don't yet know what country I'll move to if this shower of corrupt, self-serving *****s get back in, but I do know that I'll gladly turn my back on Ireland at that stage, because if enough people vote for them then it's not an Ireland I want to be a part of.

Just consider this dude:

FF havent made the cutbacks necessary
almost all the bonds are due to mature during the life of the next govt

meaning the next govt will make almost all of the hard cut backs and will face sovereign default. I know alot of people who will just see FG/Labour come into power and things fall apart. FF will gain popularity again.

The damage is already done the best we can hope for at this stage is for FF to be annihilated as a party. That can only happen when every stratus of Irish society is hurt. This will only happen when we face default. Thats the only way to turn the "FF til I die" types

Fiskar

Fiskar wrote: »

Don't believe any of the 450,000 approx on the dole will be thinking about family politics when the election comes round.
Most FF councillors and TDs have run for cover, cannot get my councillor next to or near our estate. Don't see them trying hard at the next election either to win votes. As an FF voter last time out I will be abstaining from the vote next election (I am employed BTW). See a similar situation occurring as in the UK election as I don't see any one party having any "flash of genius" to get the economy going or getting on top of the issues facing the country.

This all happened in the 1980s, FF ran up a huge deficit, people lost jobs FF survived and history repeated itself

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

FF havent made the cutbacks necessary
almost all the bonds are due to mature during the life of the next govt

I'm well aware of that.....it's rinse & repeat......FF make a bollox of the economy, the others come in and spend so long cleaning it up that the public forget, and FF ride in for the recovering tide to make a mess again.

My point is that if people fall for this again then the [collective] country deserves what it gets. FF have even admitted they want to re-inflate the boom, since the success of NAMA depends on it, and to hell with competitiveness......expensive homes and mortgages all the way...

It's the main reason that we've had no sustainable, long term strategy in this country.

And if it doesn't change, it's time for anyone with a brain to turn their back on it.

It could be a great country if run properly and forward-thinking, but if the majority don't want that, then I'm not going to foot the bill after the next election.

bonzos

scr123 wrote: »

Its two years now since the economy began to collapse around our ankles. The property bubble burst as expected and the economy went in to recession as expected it would at some stage. At that moment what we didnt know was the extent of the problems at the banks.Two years of economic, political and social upheaval but it looks as if there is light at the end of the tunnel. There are people who want to smash that light but their political agenda is easily read and they will not succeed..
I want a change of government because its wrong to have a one party State, FF have gone stale and because FF have been at fault in too many areas. However, when I look to my left I see Labour and a concoction of extremists whose economic policies revolve around TAX AND SPEND. Look to my right and I see Fine Gael who have economic policies of NO TAX AND NO SPEND. Economically, politically and socially the Left and Right are so far apart the thoughts of them in government together is terrifying..
I have read and listened to all the attacks of FF and they are being repeated ad nauseum. Life is about words like balance, equilibrium, negotiation, compromise, hope, optimism, solutions, confidence and more. I see nothing coming from the Left or Right that will resolve the problems facing this country and under the circumstances I remain staunch FF

Just as a matter interest...what is your view on the conduct of CJH,Bertie,Ray Burke,The Flynn's,Jim mc Daid,John O Donoghue..etc.Do you feel these people represent you in a approriate manner in public office? Alot of these people ae been discribed as "honourable" by fellow FFers. Do you agree? Have they conducted themselves correctly in representing the irish people?

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm well aware of that.....it's rinse & repeat......FF make a bollox of the economy, the others come in and spend so long cleaning it up that the public forget, and FF ride in for the recovering tide to make a mess again.

My point is that if people fall for this again then the [collective] country deserves what it gets. FF have even admitted they want to re-inflate the boom, since the success of NAMA depends on it, and to hell with competitiveness......expensive homes and mortgages all the way...

It's the main reason that we've had no sustainable, long term strategy in this country.

And if it doesn't change, it's time for anyone with a brain to turn their back on it.

It could be a great country if run properly and forward-thinking, but if the majority don't want that, then I'm not going to foot the bill after the next election.

yeah totally agree
where do we go though? US visa is lottery system, Australia completely closed shop to offshore migration visa applications recently.
Suppose its pick the least screwed European country and learn a language. The UK is probably the best option....!

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If regulation had been in place and doing its job, who knows ?

Abolishing stamp duty might even have stopped FF relying on it as a source of day-to-day income, and if it were in conjunction with a ban on 100% mortgages, an enforcement of the 3xSALARY rule (maybe even 3x one person's salary) or a 25-year-maximum, then you never know.

I mean, a proper banking system where domestic mortgages and commercial developer loans were kept separate would have avoided the conflict of interest that I started to notice about 8 years ago.

If planning laws ensured that houses were built that could be extended, rather than squeezing 50 houses into an acre, then we could have had a construction industry based on extensions that people wanted, rather than a so-called "property ladder" and a mindset that "we'll be selling someday and will get something back or even make a profit".

I think you are missing my point, which was none of the parties in the Dáil were advocating fiscal responsibility during the boom. In fact the government at the time was criticised for not spending enough. It was a waste they said to pay down the national debt with the unexpected budget surplus. With this in mind how could one be confident in the current oppositions ability to manage the nation? At least the incumbents are trying and succeeding with the cuts they have imposed and are not backing down on them.

Better the Devil you know... at least until 2012.

Baralis1

Fianna Fail have an awful lot of faults, not least their refusal to allow those three by-elections, but at the end of the day, would Fine Gael have done anything different over the last 10 - 15 years if they had led a coalition. It would basically have been role reversal. They and Labour encouraged spending and the boom as much as anyone else with their policies. I think whatever government we have needs to be stable and last a full 5 year term is we are to get back on track. And I really couldn't stomach Enda Kenny as Taoiseach, why don't they get rid of him and bring on Richard Bruton, or better still, Leo Varadkar - someone young with fresh ideas.