Markets Want A General Election

rumour

This may appear as great news but it only demonstrates the fickle nature of the markets.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLNE6AA03E20101111?pageNumber=3

Apparently the new 'market sentiment' is an election is now our cure. So be it. Arguably credibility can be obtained by an electoral mandate and the international impression is that all parties (I'm not sure about Labour) are comitted to the deficit plan of 3% by 2014.

I can't help but feel this will gain momentum especially as political consensus on how to resolve the problem is not apparent. What will we do?, we are stuck for money so it appears highly likely we will oblige (add to that the domestic motivations).

Here, its gets interesting who will we vote for? I currently think Labour will get elected, such is the fear now, rational choice is out the window, those promising the least worst option are going to be elected. The markets and reality of no money will have little relevance. That one was used at the second Lisbon referendum.

So my guess is people in droves will cling to labour as our saviours. The consequence of that will be fantastic to watch. Labour will not be able to deliver politically the austerity that is required. Having got elected by being cute whores they'll get no support and all the time whatever reserve money we have will run out. Our credibility comes into question all over again.

Whatever the terms of the rescue/bailout/restructure in this scenario it will be mainifestly worse if this is the outcome. But maybe we need to go through all this before the reality of our situation becomes apparent to our political classes, who lets face it have not seen fit to impose any real sanctions on themselves, which for me indicates they do not take it as seriously as they ought to.

I am interested to hear opinions on this. Perhaps some sort of poll could be organised in the politics forum, I do think the economy forum is a bit to directly related to the issue and will probably not deliver a realistic poll. How is that organised?

bamboozle

i think everyone wants a general election apart from FF who only care about themselves being in power.

wasnt it last month FF minister Frank Fahy was on the last word claiming bond interest rates were rocketing cause international markets were worried about a FG/Labour Govt! FF will say & do anything to cling onto power.

ei.sdraob

never mind the markets

we want an election

rumour

Yes government needs a mandate which this one clearly does not have.

However when they eventually agree to this either in the next few weeks or before christmas what do you think the outcome will be.

I'm inclined to think that we need to see the final stage of this crisis play itself out. The Irish electorate are going to vote for the guy that promises the least hardship never mind whatever realities are staring us in the face.

This will undoubtedly delay deliverying a credible plan at the alter of the markets, all of this is framed against a back stop of running out of money. I think we will have bled the country absolutely dry before it dawns on people(the electorate) how real and responsible they have to be when they go to the polls. This I do not see happening at the forthcoming election.

gmale

I dont think it is going to be quiet a Labour coup at the next elction. Yes they will do well but they wont be a majority party or the largest party in a coalition. Two of reasons for this:

1 - Labour will do really well in Dublin, FG will do only ok and FF will be destroyed. There will be a mix of SF and others (SWP, People Before Profit and Independents). I am not counting the Greens. Outside the commuter belt, Labour will struggle. FF will be destroyed and FG will do really well. Any majority that Labour hope to achieve through victory in the Dublin area will be squashed by the overwhelming number of seats from rural constituencies. Labour have never had a strong pressence outside the M50.

2 - The Irish people know there is pain coming. We get that there we are taking in 31 billion in taxes but spending 50 billion. We understand that cuts are necessary. I believe FF and FG when they say that they need to go to this extreme this year. I dont believe Burton when she talks about 4.5 billion this year. We know alot more pain is coming, lets rip the bandage quickly instead of this slow pulling that FF have been doing for the last 2 years.

I hope that FF get the budget through with the 6 billion in cuts and the with the support of FG. I hope that the Brian Cowen steps aside asap after the budget and I hope that we have a general election the first week in January. I hope that FG are the majority party in the next election with a very strong Labour party as coalition partners. I hope they can work out their differences by the 3rd week in january and form a strong Govt. That will give them 5 months to appease the markets before the country goes back to the bond markets.

Scenario 1 - markets are not happy, we go to the EU, they bail us out and we lose all sovereignty along with our Corporate Tax Rate
Scenario 2 - markets are happy, react well to new Govt, reacts well to 4 year plan and to the budget, bond rate drops to 5% (fingers crossed) and Ireland starts dealing agin in June
Scenarion 3 - scenario 2 happens and then the morgtage defaults choke the banks, the banks lose all liquidity and riddled with debt, bond rates rise dramatically and by August 2011 we are right back at Scenario 1

I would rather the IMF come to Ireland than Merkel

rumour

I'm by no means a political expert. But in hoping for a FG and strong labour coalition arguments between cuts/tax will surface. Labour will lean more towards tax.
Increased tax's have the potential to do enormous damage to the current fragile environment.
Sure if we could balance our books that is the point to incrementally increase tax however an immediate rush to do so in order to placate Lab & the unions has the potential to drive us quicker into your scenario 3.

Currently I believe the electorate will jump towards labour. In desperation the Irish electorate do not have a record of voting responsibly. Take Mr Healy Rae for example, do you think he will be re elected?

Regarding Merkel and IMF I agree.

murphaph

We need a strong government with a mandate to lead. This is not achieved by coalitions in general (though sometimes they work). We need a (fiscally) conservative party at the helm. Who are the most fiscally conservative party out there right now?

It's either FF or FG. It's not Labour anyway. FF are only now getting to grips with the notion of fiscal responsibility after years of blowing our money and fuelling an unsustainable property boom with stupid tax breaks and the like.

FF have, along with others, ruined the country (but were given the mandate to do it remember, the electorate can't be let off the hook that easily!). FG are all that's left for me.

I therefore hope for a strong FG majority government with a mandate to cut costs and implement change in both the political system (FG have at least proposed a referendum on abolition of the Seanad and the introduction of a partial list system) and in the public services.

It's the best we have at the moment but people need to contact their prospective FG TDs and let them know that we are ready for pain but that we expect them to lead by example and to cut their own salaries back to a level comensurate with what is effectively a failed state. No politician should be on more than 100k in my book. It should be an honour to serve in Dail Eireann, not a money making racket.

gmale

murphaph wrote: »

It's the best we have at the moment but people need to contact their prospective FG TDs and let them know that we are ready for pain but that we expect them to lead by example and to cut their own salaries back to a level comensurate with what is effectively a failed state. No politician should be on more than 100k in my book. It should be an honour to serve in Dail Eireann, not a money making racket.

Well said

Sleepy

murphaph wrote: »

We need a strong government with a mandate to lead. This is not achieved by coalitions in general (though sometimes they work). We need a (fiscally) conservative party at the helm. Who are the most fiscally conservative party out there right now?

It's either FF or FG. It's not Labour anyway. FF are only now getting to grips with the notion of fiscal responsibility after years of blowing our money and fuelling an unsustainable property boom with stupid tax breaks and the like.

FF have, along with others, ruined the country (but were given the mandate to do it remember, the electorate can't be let off the hook that easily!). FG are all that's left for me.

I therefore hope for a strong FG majority government with a mandate to cut costs and implement change in both the political system (FG have at least proposed a referendum on abolition of the Seanad and the introduction of a partial list system) and in the public services.

It's the best we have at the moment but people need to contact their prospective FG TDs and let them know that we are ready for pain but that we expect them to lead by example and to cut their own salaries back to a level comensurate with what is effectively a failed state. No politician should be on more than 100k in my book. It should be an honour to serve in Dail Eireann, not a money making racket.

Couldn't agree more.

Scofflaw

There are a couple of assumptions being made that bear examination, only one of which is being examined.

The first is that an election will necessarily deliver a coalition with a strong majority, which is not a given. The 2007 election was supposed to produce a Fine Gael landslide, and didn't - I'm leery of the supposed huge gains for the opposition which are once again being forecast on the basis of poll results.

The second is the coalition it delivers will be a strong coalition in terms of stability - which directly relates to the third assumption, that the new coalition will have a strong mandate to make the necessary cuts.

The problem here is that of the polls are anywhere near right, the one thing we can say is that Labour is very likely to form part of the next coalition - and Labour aren't campaigning on the basis of a strong mandate for cuts. If anything, they're making ground by hinting that we can somehow avoid them.

So any coalition with a strong Labour element isn't going into government with a strong mandate for austerity, and a strong Labour element is a likely ingredient of any new coalition. If Labour have anywhere near as many seats as their coalition partner, the result is either going to be a fudging of the cuts, or coalition tension - and Labour have walked away from coalition before.

I'd agree that our best hope for getting Fianna Fáil out of power is probably a mid-term election, but I'm not sure it will bring the stability that the markets are currently proposing it will.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gollem_1975

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are a couple of assumptions being made that bear examination, only one of which is being examined.

The first is that an election will necessarily deliver a coalition with a strong majority, which is not a given. The 2007 election was supposed to produce a Fine Gael landslide, and didn't - I'm leery of the supposed huge gains for the opposition which are once again being forecast on the basis of poll results.

The second is the coalition it delivers will be a strong coalition in terms of stability - which directly relates to the third assumption, that the new coalition will have a strong mandate to make the necessary cuts.

The problem here is that of the polls are anywhere near right, the one thing we can say is that Labour is very likely to form part of the next coalition - and Labour aren't campaigning on the basis of a strong mandate for cuts. If anything, they're making ground by hinting that we can somehow avoid them.

So any coalition with a strong Labour element isn't going into government with a strong mandate for austerity, and a strong Labour element is a likely ingredient of any new coalition. If Labour have anywhere near as many seats as their coalition partner, the result is either going to be a fudging of the cuts, or coalition tension - and Labour have walked away from coalition before.

I'd agree that our best hope for getting Fianna Fáil out of power is probably a mid-term election, but I'm not sure it will bring the stability that the markets are currently proposing it will.

cordially,
Scofflaw

would your view be that it might be better for the country for FF and GP to stay in power until the end of their term and for there not to be a general election (well assuming that the 6 billion in budget cuts are voted through) before then ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gollem_1975

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or even better a new party containing talent from all of the parties with none of the baggage and little of the blame for the current crisis.. or maybe economists such as George Lee,Morgan Kelly and D McW can put their money where there mouth is so to speak and give the electorate another option.

I think the markets would be happier with the current government remaining the course if they can sell the austerity measures. on the other hand I think there is a thirst for some blood letting amongst the electorate in that they want to see FF punished for their part in the crisis and they may be more likely to suffer cuts imposed by anyone other than FF.

I don't think that just because Labour is not talking about cuts now means that they will not impose cuts if they get in.. I mean who ever thought that the greens would hop into bed with FF before 2007 ?

Scofflaw

gollem_1975 wrote: »

would your view be that it might be better for the country for FF and GP to stay in power until the end of their term and for there not to be a general election (well assuming that the 6 billion in budget cuts are voted through) before then ?

Alas, if I say yes to that, people will assume that I simply want the Greens to remain in government as long as possible - which is of course true.

However, leaving that aside, and thinking only about the outcome of a likely general election (where I don't need to be biased, because the Greens aren't likely to be a factor) and onwards, I'd say that Fianna Fáil probably ought to stay to make the cuts it has made necessary. I don't see that any incoming coalition is going to be able to make many changes to what's required, I don't see that the hiatus caused by the inevitable changes of personnel and networks will be beneficial, and I don't see that turning the attention of the government to an election campaign is in any sense beneficial - it will deter the government from making necessary cuts, as well as diverting their attention. I don't really think making the budget subject to sets of competing election promises has any positive value either.

As far as the mandate of the current government goes - they have a mandate that extends to 2012, and which can be cut short by failure to pass a budget or by a vote of confidence. That mandate was delivered by the general election of 2007, and that's the only meaning the word actually has. People who claim they don't have a "mandate" are just using the word to mean that they personally don't think the government should remain in power - and unless the person saying it is the only voter in the country, it's a meaningless attempt to tart a personal opinion up as some kind of principle.

In the longer term, I don't think the new coalition would benefit from coming into power just to make cuts either. The current ire of the electorate with the Greens shows that people have short memories when it comes to apportioning blame, because the hole we're in is the result of policies pursued from 1997-2007.

The question of whether we, the citizens, would benefit from the change of government is a different one, and extremely hard to answer. Fine Gael and Labour are offering policies, contrary to the spin of their detractors, but those policies would: (a) need to be compromised between the coalition partners; and (b) need to actually be implemented. We don't know what policies would result from (a), and we don't know what policies would result from (b) either - we have no idea how the partners would compromise, and we don't know how, or even whether, any of the policies on offer could or would be implemented, given the realities of our fiscal position.

It seems to me that the markets are calling for an election not because they think it would produce a better government, but because it would remove any uncertainty over whether the current government was going to collapse by making it happen - markets hate uncertainty more than anything - but I'm not actually convinced that the results would remove uncertainty. We could, instead, suffer a short-term coalition that implodes under the weight of having to make the cuts one coalition partner sort of promised wouldn't happen, or find ourselves in a position where the uncertainty over our fiscal position increased as the result of a large election vote against austerity. You have to bear in mind that Goldman Sachs would like to see an IMF intervention, because that too would reduce uncertainty - in that case, over whether we were going to have IMF intervention. It's like someone wishing you would go into receivership so that at least they knew whether to sell their shares or not.

The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend, as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

gollem_1975 wrote: »

Or even better a new party containing talent from all of the parties with none of the baggage and little of the blame for the current crisis.. or maybe economists such as George Lee,Morgan Kelly and D McW can put their money where there mouth is so to speak and give the electorate another option.

the "economist" entertainer guy in bold was the one who suggested the blanket guarantee most likely in a late night meeting with Brian L

Spudmonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sometimes I think the electorate really don't know whats good for them, merely voting for whoever will give them most. Of course such mentions around here will have you labeled as being a fascist, communist or something other equally extreme.

gollem_1975

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the "economist" entertainer guy in bold was the one who suggested the blanket guarantee most likely in a late night meeting with Brian L

yes.. interesting I see a few posters have linked McW to the bank guarantee... I had forgotten about that.

my post was not intended as a personal vote of confidence in McW but more of a view that the economists and media figures such as McW (who probably are trusted more than our career politicians ) should put their money where their mouth is and put themselves before the electorate ? can't see it happening.. theres more money and better t&c's in punditry.

ei.sdraob

gollem_1975 wrote: »

yes.. interesting I see a few posters have linked McW to the bank guarantee... I had forgotten about that.

my post was not intended as a personal vote of confidence in McW but more of a view that the economists and media figures such as McW (who probably are trusted more than our career politicians ) should put their money where their mouth is and put themselves before the electorate ? can't see it happening.. theres more money and better t&c's in punditry.

Yes we could use with having several people who know alot more than the Brians when it comes to economics advising the government on their actions.

Tho people might notlike non elected "advisors" advising the govt, aint that what IMF does anyways?

Liam Byrne

This government has no credibility at home or abroad.

Unfortunately Lenihan & Co are still deluded enough to deny that fact, with the latest blame being levied on Angela Merkel's shoulders.

As for the "mandate" issue; the government's mandate might have been given in 2007, but at that stage "we" (I'm using the word loosely) did not know that they would sell our futures to stay in power or refuse point-blank to do numerous things in the interests of the country.

So they might have an old, out-of-date mandate, but they are the equivalent of someone who's been witnessed on numerous occasions engaging in dangerous driving - and in that scenario that person's driving licence (although "valid" for another 5 years) would be revoked.

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the "economist" entertainer guy in bold was the one who suggested the blanket guarantee most likely in a late night meeting with Brian L

Link / proof ?

Also, did he suggest "a" guarantee or the blanket version that the government imposed ?

danbohan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

rather than a coalition of ff/fg as they currently stand what we need is people with ability in both party's to break away and form a new party . their is too much deadwood , dumbs and corrupts in both party's ,we need a new beginning

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Link / proof ?

Also, did he suggest "a" guarantee or the blanket version that the government imposed ?

was in my sig for long time

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has made a wise choice. By coming up with a unique, Irish plan — guaranteeing all deposits — instead of importing a failed solution from abroad, he has instilled confidence in the Irish financial system.

Most importantly, Irish banks are now safe. This is the single most crucial upshot of yesterday’s move


...


However, by drawing a line in the sand and by indicating that the sovereign state will do its job and preserve the system, the minister has shown real leadership.


...


The minister obviously thought that by guaranteeing some banks and not others — as many of his advisers argued — he would open up the prospects of the weaker banks undermining the stronger ones. He has put the system first and this can only be a good thing.

As for Brian's late nite shenanigans with DMcW there were articles in paper and mention on RTE

gollem_1975

ei.sdraob wrote: »

was in my sig for long time




As for Brian's late nite shenanigans with DMcW there were articles in paper and mention on RTE

phew haven't time to read through all that.. i will say one thing.. i'm suprised that this article is still online

gollem_1975

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This government has no credibility at home or abroad.
Unfortunately Lenihan & Co are still deluded enough to deny that fact, with the latest blame being levied on Angela Merkel's shoulders.

and I for one hope they continue to deny it...

I think the outcome would be catastrophic if Brian Lenihan came out with a Morgan Kelly-esque "I have no further suggestions to give" comment.

Dannyboy83

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

murphaph

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Sometimes I think the electorate really don't know whats good for them, merely voting for whoever will give them most. Of course such mentions around here will have you labeled as being a fascist, communist or something other equally extreme.

It's true though. The Irish electorate, and the Irish electoral system have a lot of responsibility to bear.

People need to wise up and ANALYSE the policies being put to them by parties.

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

was in my sig for long time

As for Brian's late nite shenanigans with DMcW there were articles in paper and mention on RTE

Your D McW quote seems to be him supporting a blanket deposit guarantee, this is still very different than what the government did ain't it? And like he said if they didn't guarantee depositors in all banks the ones left unguaranteed would have rushed to withdraw their unsafe money causing a run. The problem was the blanket guarantee of all bondholders and especially Anglo bondholders who knew the risk they were taking for the massive returns they were previously getting - was McW in favour of this?

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Your D McW quote seems to be him supporting a blanket deposit guarantee, this is still very different than what the government did ain't it? And like he said if they didn't guarantee depositors in all banks the ones left unguaranteed would have rushed to withdraw their unsafe money causing a run. The problem was the blanket guarantee of all bondholders and especially Anglo bondholders who knew the risk they were taking for the massive returns they were previously getting - was McW in favour of this?

As I said earlier, he was positively fawning about it at the time. Here you go (again):

DMcW wrote:

Lenihan’s masterstroke has bought us time to sort out our own problems

We are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, some Irish banks have been so recklessly managed they hardly deserve to be covered by the guarantee.

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has made a wise choice. By coming up with a unique, Irish plan — guaranteeing all deposits — instead of importing a failed solution from abroad, he has instilled confidence in the Irish financial system.

Most importantly, Irish banks are now safe. This is the single most crucial upshot of yesterday’s move.

Political and financial reaction has been positive and, encouragingly for the challenges ahead, when everyone else around him was losing their heads the minister kept his.

The financial markets abroad have taken the news very positively. This is doubly impressive when you think of what is going on outside the country. Granted the markets will be jittery and unstable for some significant time to come.

However, by drawing a line in the sand and by indicating that the sovereign state will do its job and preserve the system, the minister has shown real leadership.

We now have an anchor and the stability banks needed to sort out their own houses. The whole point of this is to get credit and loans back into the real economy as quickly as possible.

Now, maybe he's talking about some other guarantee than the one that happened, but it really doesn't look like it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

None of the parties are particularly inspiring. Fianna Fail triumphed from 1997 to 2007 by being the best of a bad lot. Fine Gael and Labour havent exactly improved since then, its just Fianna Fail have lost credibility. The electorate is also pretty uninspring, theres no particular indication theres any change in mindsets as such - just a sullen rage at Fianna Fail and a desperate desire to vote for some other set of guys promining no pain, all gain. Until that changes and Irish voters mature, I dont think were going to see much better results without constitutional reform.

The Gilmore/Burton Labour Party are still either lying to voters or are in denial of the situation - one undermines the democratic process, and both ought to disqualify them from serious consideration.

Fine Gael are led by a man whose skills seem to lie more in administration than charisma, which I dont consider a major issue but its fairly damning that hes unable to capitalise on a political enviroment where his party is the only one with vaguely sensible proposals and the government are loathed. Kenny's leadership is also built on the parish pump TDs and the Senators, so his admirable claims for a reform agenda will run straight into a brick wall once the "Up Mayo!" boys get their hands on a Ministerial merc and the chance to bring home the bacon to their constituents.

And we have to remember - the same civil service that has overseen all aspects of this disaster will remain in place. We cant vote them out.

All in all, its to be hoped that a FG/LAB coalition is elected in early January and collapses in recrimination in March when the money runs out. Hopefully then the EU/IMF will take the lead in pushing the reform agenda in Ireland at a suitable pace, and hopefully the failure of the current political/public class will lead to constitutional/institutional reform.

@Scofflaw

The current ire of the electorate with the Greens shows that people have short memories when it comes to apportioning blame, because the hole we're in is the result of policies pursued from 1997-2007.

The people are rightly apportioning blame to the Greens for their governments disastrous policies of 2007-2010 which made an already bad problem even worse.

The only people who were allowed a chance to vote on NAMA were the Greens, and they decided to sell out the country for the price of a few bicycle paths. On top of that, they co-operated with the removal of democratic representation to voters in constituencies across the country, so as to keep a deeply incompetent government in power when people clearly wanted an election so that they too could have a voice in determining how the country would deal with the problems it was facing.

Unluckily for the Greens, whilst they are rightly terrified of facing the Irish people there will be an election and the Greens will be wiped out, and Irish politics will be better without them.

thebman

Labour will simply say after the election that they are in coalition and expect it to absolve them of any going back on what they say that they might do TBH.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote:

The people are rightly apportioning blame to the Greens for their governments disastrous policies of 2007-2010 which made an already bad problem even worse.

The only people who were allowed a chance to vote on NAMA were the Greens, and they decided to sell out the country for the price of a few bicycle paths. On top of that, they co-operated with the removal of democratic representation to voters in constituencies across the country, so as to keep a deeply incompetent government in power when people clearly wanted an election so that they too could have a voice in determining how the country would deal with the problems it was facing.

Unluckily for the Greens, whilst they are rightly terrified of facing the Irish people there will be an election and the Greens will be wiped out, and Irish politics will be better without them.

It's alright, Sand - I wasn't under the illusion that you liked the Greens, so you can spare me the rhetoric of outrage. A lot of people don't like the Greens, so there's no real need to pretend it's some kind of issue of principle as opposed to your personal viewpoint, because it's a viewpoint many Irish people share.

The Greens have done a chunk of what I voted for them for (Green stuff - you wouldn't be interested, or necessarily find it comprehensible). I somehow doubt there was anything you wanted from them anyway, apart, obviously, from not going into government with Fianna Fáil or otherwise interfering with real politics. They were great when they just sat on the Opposition benches and criticised Fianna Fáil, but it's all been downhill since they gave up that vacuous moral high ground in favour of actually doing something.

regards,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

We've had Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber running the country in alternating bouts of ineptitude and corruption since the state was founded.

Why in the name of God would you let Fianna Fail within an ass's roar of power ever again? How many times do they need to bankrupt the nation before you get the message?

Fine Gael have only fared better because they are not as fundamentally riddled with corruption, though the cronyism and parish pump pork barrel politics are just as familiar.

This time, we have to do things differently. We can't keep re-electing Party A then Party B then back to Party A again. They've had three or four generations now to prove their uselessness.

I'm voting Labour for that reason. In addition, they were the one party who were right about the banks from day one. I'd encourage others to do likewise.

Sand

It's alright, Sand - I wasn't under the illusion that you liked the Greens, so you can spare me the rhetoric of outrage. A lot of people don't like the Greens, so there's no real need to pretend it's some kind of issue of principle as opposed to your personal viewpoint, because it's a viewpoint many Irish people share.

Yes, many Irish people dislike the Greens. But that cant be in connection to their policies and decisions. It has to be irrational, right?:rolleyes:

Also Id appreciate if you didnt personalise things.

They were great when they just sat on the Opposition benches and criticised Fianna Fáil, but it's all been downhill since they gave up that vacuous moral high ground in favour of actually doing something.

Well, as a US president once said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." It is advice the Greens will wish they had taken when they see the Irish peoples judgement on their record in office.

rumour

Ladies & Gents,

Thanks for contributing. I started the thread to engage in some debate about probable rational outcomes, I've no interest in gripes. My motives are largely devoid of emotion. The seniors in here, (Scofflaw Donegalfella and ei.sdroab:rolleyes:)humbly with no disrespect intended to others (especially SAND!!) are all more or less in agreement that our current problems will if subject to an election not provide the necessary result. Increasingly on these threads the only credible solution is to balance our books. The question is, out of our choices which all posters have more or less agreed are limited, in an imminent election which party will secure the economic imperative.

Personally I find them all deplorable, however I must be a realist. I still think it is probable people will jump for Labour. They know it is bad, but Labour continue to promise the least of all evils. Rational analysis is irrelevant. When have the electorate in Ireland ever opted for the difficult choice.(I'll second that with sticking by it aswell).

Again can we organise a poll on this issue. The economics forum I believe is the wrong place as it will produce a distorted outcome.

This issue is now very important. The prospect of the public sector being paid in promissory notes is becoming less of a joke. As much as I think the PS needs reform I do not wish this.

Is it the moderators(Scofflaw??) who organise this?

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

Your D McW quote seems to be him supporting a blanket deposit guarantee, this is still very different than what the government did ain't it? And like he said if they didn't guarantee depositors in all banks the ones left unguaranteed would have rushed to withdraw their unsafe money causing a run. The problem was the blanket guarantee of all bondholders and especially Anglo bondholders who knew the risk they were taking for the massive returns they were previously getting - was McW in favour of this?

The guarantee should not have been a blanket and unlimited one for a start the likes of Anglo and INBS should have been frozen and examined, the date he wrote that is after the bondholders were guaranteed too (maybe he didnt realise the severity of that choice?)
but he is there on record

i do think we need a guarantee on deposit BUT at the eurozone level, similar to what is there in US, ive been on about this for a long time now


@rumour

I do think we need an election, I thought FF and the Brian's where incompetent but now i think they are truly dangerous (especially if they knew about Anglo)
The way I see it an election + cuts is better than cuts + election

that way a clear message is send out that the people want cuts, that's if they do want cuts (like happened in UK with tories/libdems) of course otherwise we are truly buggered

yes the opposition is useless and I have enough reasons not to vote for either Lab or FG, but I really think FF are dangerous

right now they are unwilling to admit they ****ed up and are not going to EU for bailout even tho signals have been sent that they are waiting for us. that is dangerous behaviour gambling the countries future

rumour

@ei.sdroab

I was in two minds about an election. I was wrong in thinking that, we can never go anywhere without a democratic mandate. If the populace deliver the wrong result well at least we can plan accordingly.

This is now what the markets are looking for, but that should always have been secondary.

Unfortunately I think the result will deliver the answer FF have been fudging for along time. That is we as a nation are not prepared to live within our means.

I cannot help but think there is a moral duty now imposed on all of us that understand this nightmare to inform people.

CoalBucket

rumour wrote: »

Arguably credibility can be obtained by an electoral mandate and the international impression is that all parties (I'm not sure about Labour) are comitted to the deficit plan of 3% by 2014.

Yes Labour have comitted to the 3% 2014 plan.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

Yes, many Irish people dislike the Greens. But that cant be in connection to their policies and decisions. It has to be irrational, right?:rolleyes:

Also Id appreciate if you didnt personalise things.

Well, as a US president once said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." It is advice the Greens will wish they had taken when they see the Irish peoples judgement on their record in office.

The majority of Irish people have never liked any environmental policy - this is the country that has long had the most outstanding judgements against it for failure to implement environmental legislation. They liked the Greens' rhetoric in opposition, but they were never going to like their policies actually being implemented. So, yes, the Greens were never actually going to be popular by implementing environmental policy - the only way they could have benefited from a coalition was if they weren't able to do anything.

regards,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Another good reason for an election would be the passing of the Greens into the dustbin of Irish political history.

CoalBucket

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is blatently untrue. If you look at Labours pre-budget proposals in 09 they recommended a reduction in public sector wages of 1.3bn.

Pay & Capital Spending
Public Sector Pay Bill 2010 Full Year
Negotiated Reduction in Public Sector Pay 1,300m

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

In relation to increasing taxes it is widely known that Labour are in favour of a new tax rate of 48% for incomes over 100,000. In addition Eamonn Gilmore is already on record saying Labour are in favour of a 50:50 split between cuts and taxes in the next budget. Labour have also committed to the reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014

The forecast contained in the document published today, suggest that total adjustments of €14 to €16 billion will be required to meet the 2014 target. Given the fragility of the Irish economy, Labour believes that an adjustment in the region of €4.5 billion would represent a better balance between the twin goals of deficit reduction and achieving economic growth, and would contain sufficient front-loading to demonstrate seriousness of intent.

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/12888948525033252.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0329/labour.html

We will not know Labours detailed position in relation to social welfare payments until the pre-budget proposal.

thebman

CoalBucket wrote: »

In relation to increasing taxes it is widely known that Labour are in favour of a new tax rate of 48% for incomes over 100,000. In addition Eamonn Gilmore is already on record saying Labour are in favour of a 50:50 split between cuts and taxes in the next budget. Labour have also committed to the reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014

Unfortuantely a 50/50 split just won't cut it TBH.

We need more cuts than tax increases as tax increases have more of a negative affect on the economy.

I wont' repost the IMF video backed by statistics on this so you can check their website for it.

It is one of the reasons they favor heavy cuts instead of heavy taxes if invited in.

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

Unfortuantely a 50/50 split just won't cut it TBH.

We need more cuts than tax increases as tax increases have more of a negative affect on the economy.

I wont' repost the IMF video backed by statistics on this so you can check their website for it.

It is one of the reasons they favor heavy cuts instead of heavy taxes if invited in.

Sure, because heavy cuts can provide an incentive - or "opportunity" in the very very loosest sense - for people to do something else to replace lost income, whereas heavy taxes prevent anybody replacing lost income.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83

Scofflaw wrote: »

The majority of Irish people have never liked any environmental policy - this is the country that has long had the most outstanding judgements against it for failure to implement environmental legislation. They liked the Greens' rhetoric in opposition, but they were never going to like their policies actually being implemented. So, yes, the Greens were never actually going to be popular by implementing environmental policy - the only way they could have benefited from a coalition was if they weren't able to do anything.

regards,
Scofflaw

I've never seen you misunderstand an issue before Scofflaw, so perhaps you're misunderstanding is deliberate?

You are claiming that the collapse in support for the Greens is based on their environmental policies. This is irrational, as they would have maintained at least their core base of support. And as you alluded to above, most people don't actually care about environmental policies either way.

As Sand already stated; It was their promise to maintain integrity and subsequent abandonment of this fundamental principle, in order to prop up Fianna Fail, which has led to their extinction.

murphaph

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Another good reason for an election would be the passing of the Greens into the dustbin of Irish political history.

Why do people hate the Greens so much? I understand for some it's the fact that they haven't collapsed this government and for others ist's simply that they dislike policies aimed at improving the einvironment.

I genuinely believe that if we had more Greens and fewer Fianna Failers we'd be a much better country for it. I believe that on the whole, the Greens are a fairly ethical party which to me is of the utmost importance.

I have never given the Greens a first preference I must admit but I would certainly consider it in the future. To my mind the Greens are an ethical party operating in an unethical system.

rumour

CoalBucket wrote: »

Yes Labour have comitted to the 3% 2014 plan.

I'm not sure that is true. Here are reports from Nov 10th on what transpired on the 9th.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1110/1224283025253.html

Labour’s finance spokeswoman Joan Burton said Mr Rehn asked her to confirm the party’s position that it agreed with the target deficit of 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2014.
“He didn’t ask for any other specific commitment but he gave the commission’s views in relation to adjustments and so on that they consider desirable,” she said.
“But our view is very much that while Ireland has responsibilities to Europe and to the euro zone, the European Union has responsibilities towards Ireland.”
Ms Burton said she told Mr Rehn the banking crisis and the Government’s handling of it was the principal reason the financial markets continued to lack confidence in Ireland. She said there could be no economic recovery unless the budget contained a strategy for growth, employment and job retention.
She was accompanied by Labour’s European affairs spokesman Brendan Howlin and MEP Alan Kelly when she met Mr Rehn at the European Commission’s office in Dublin yesterday morning. Mr Howlin said €6 billion of budgetary cuts would “stifle growth”.

Labour are only agreeing with a target, while saying the target will stifle growth and hinder economic recovery. Then it is subsequently reported on the same day.
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1020987.shtml

Ms Burton said she had told the commissioner her party’s view that the €6 billion adjustment planned for the budget was too much.
She said she had got the impression that the four-year target of €15 billion was a negotiated target and not an exact figure.

So its not entirely clear where labour stand with this deficit. If I can ascertain this I'm pretty sure any analyst can come to the conclusion that this is less than clear. Quess what happens on the 10th our bonds took their biggest one day leap. Coincidence maybe?
if you check Reuters, Bloomberg or any other international media source they all concluded that there is no consensus on resolving the deficit. Maybe Labour have miscommunicated this, but I think not.

Originally Posted by CoalBucket
In relation to increasing taxes it is widely known that Labour are in favour of a new tax rate of 48% for incomes over 100,000. In addition Eamonn Gilmore is already on record saying Labour are in favour of a 50:50 split between cuts and taxes in the next budget. Labour have also committed to the reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014

Now add the lack of certainty above to the plan set out here of a 50/50 burden and you are walking into the Morgan Kelly territory. There is an entire thread on this. The 48% rate is populist but will not deliver the funds needed so the lower paid will have to contribute, this is obvious but it is not clear from Labour. Essentially you squeeze more private sector people to an extent that they default, causing another round of the banking crisis. The growth figures that predicate the 'credible' plan which the EU approve are jeopardised, not by public sector default but by private sector default because expansion of the public sector will not deliver economic growth, only expansion of the private sector delivers this.

Now if we all vote labour fine, but we'll be back to square one and Mr Rehn will be back to educate the next government. Again this is fine,maybe the whole house of cards needs to be swept away before we realise how to make the correct choice. However as the time passes we run out of money. Then what?

I'd really like to see a poll and understand if the electorate are really that naive.

Dannyboy83

murphaph wrote: »

Why do people hate the Greens so much? I understand for some it's the fact that they haven't collapsed this government and for others ist's simply that they dislike policies aimed at improving the einvironment.

I genuinely believe that if we had more Greens and fewer Fianna Failers we'd be a much better country for it. I believe that on the whole, the Greens are a fairly ethical party which to me is of the utmost importance.

I have never given the Greens a first preference I must admit but I would certainly consider it in the future. To my mind the Greens are an ethical party operating in an unethical system.

I don't hate them, still think they are one of the best options the Irish electorate have & agree with a lot of their policies, environmental and otherwise.

However, their ethical status is now extremely questionable.
With the Willie O'Dea affair for example, I would have expected that they would simply take a steadfast position.
Instead, it was very questionable and could have gone either way.
Everyone is familar enough with NAMA and the rest for me not to bore people by reiterating it.

I don't care enough about environmental issues to put my vote the way of the Greens.
I do care enough about political integrity to vote for them.

Based on their actions over the last 3 years, they have effectively taken this trump card and set fire to it.

Integrity outweighs policy in my book.
I accept the argument of Green supporters who say they HAD to go into coalition with Fianna Fail to get anything accomplished.
This is fair & rational in my opinion.

I do not accept the argument that it is acceptable to sacrifice the nation's future, to get a few party policies rammed through.

Fianna Fail will be held accountable for saying one thing while doing another.
The same rule will apply to the Greens.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

we definitley do not need FF back in any form ,
you dont put criminals in charge of a crime scene.
every single one of them is criminally negligent.

we do not need a green party in the state the country is in
Eamonn Ryan is the intellectual equivalent of a cabbage , and Gormley is a wild eyed lunatic
they have no purpose to serve in this new vista we face.

we need a government focussed on reshaping the country first , in terms of cleaning up office , stabilising finance and productivity

the environment will have to take second place to this im afriad.

I am not fan of FG or labour , but the other pair -

no , just no .

CoalBucket

rumour wrote: »

I'm not sure that is true. Here are reports from Nov 10th on what transpired on the 9th.Labour are only agreeing with a target, while saying the target will stifle growth and hinder economic recovery. Then it is subsequently reported on the same day.
So its not entirely clear where labour stand with this deficit. If I can ascertain this I'm pretty sure any analyst can come to the conclusion that this is less than clear.

While maintaining our support for the target of reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014, the Labour Party believes that this level of front-loading of the total adjustment is misguided, and excessively risky.
No-one doubts for a minute the serious crisis that Ireland faces. The Labour Party has been consistent in our support for the goal of deficit reduction, and we have supported the target of reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014.

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/12888948525033252.html

Clear enough ?

Labour supports and is committed to reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014. The issue Labour has with the government plan is that it is front loaded and will stiffle growth and job creation.

rumour wrote: »

Now add the lack of certainty above to the plan set out here of a 50/50 burden and you are walking into the Morgan Kelly territory. There is an entire thread on this. The 48% rate is populist but will not deliver the funds needed so the lower paid will have to contribute, this is obvious but it is not clear from Labour. Essentially you squeeze more private sector people to an extent that they default, causing another round of the banking crisis. The growth figures that predicate the 'credible' plan which the EU approve are jeopardised, not by public sector default but by private sector default because expansion of the public sector will not deliver economic growth, only expansion of the private sector delivers this.

First of all there is no lack of certainty. The 48% rate is not populist. There is nothing do with "the elite" or the working class. The 48% rate is about taxing the people who can clearly afford to shoulder their fair proportion of the "burden" as you put it. Labour have also included in their proposal which you quoted in your post above for a credible job creation policy. This job creation is aimed at the private sector not the public sector. Your theory on expansion of the public sector doesn't have any foundation as a reduction in the public sector pay bill is also proposed.

rumour wrote: »

Now if we all vote labour fine, but we'll be back to square one and Mr Rehn will be back to educate the next government. Again this is fine,maybe the whole house of cards needs to be swept away before we realise how to make the correct choice. However as the time passes we run out of money.

IYO.

rumour wrote: »

I'd really like to see a poll and understand if the electorate are really that naive.

The only poll that I have seen that show the electorate are naive was the result of the last general election.

Sand

@Dannyboy

I do not accept the argument that it is acceptable to sacrifice the nation's future, to get a few party policies rammed through.

Fianna Fail will be held accountable for saying one thing while doing another.
The same rule will apply to the Greens.

Nicely put.

The Greens once offered an alternative which attracted voters. They have since demonstrated an amorality which would shame a Fianna Fail backbencher. The Irish electorate will judge them accordingly.

Green party loyalists will comfort themselves that voters never really liked them anyway, that its not them, its us. Denial has always been a stage in the grief process.

@rumour

I'd really like to see a poll and understand if the electorate are really that naive.

This is a Politics discussion forum, its wholly unrepresentative of the wider electorate. Sinn Fein would be the biggest party in the Dail if Politics forum vote distributions were indicative of wider voting patterns.