Do Irish People really think that FG/Labour will offer real change ?

Drumpot

Just curious if people really thought about the kind of politician/party they are voting in ?

Ok. The old "surely they couldnt be as bad as the current shower" is a fair enough , if not ill advised view to be taken by the majority of the electorate, but, have people actually considered the way they want this country to progress ?

I speak of no particular party, I promote no party (therefore some think it defaults to promoting FF :rolleyes:).

I speak of proper change. Whoever the party is. I heard a couple of FG and Lab people speaking on the radio but couldnt help but be cynical of their intentions.

When there is a new party, what sort of change do people actually think will happen?

Its funny and sad in equal measure that people think voting for anybody but FF is an automatic vote for change and improvement. Before people jump on their idiotic high horse, I am not advocating a vote for FF. I am advocating a vote for a better politician. People keep asking "well, we can only vote for the politicians on front of us". . No, if most of the electorate said to their local politician that they wanted a fairer society with a political structure that reflected this (salaries, decisions etc), they would get it.

I emailed my local td today. I have contacted him many times to let him know how I feel and what my priorities are in relation to this country. If even half the people of this country did that we would have a better country and a better society.

I dont promote any party as I believe in most cases, most principles of parties have the greater good at heart. However, what happens is that populist opinion overrides principles and most parties do not get the opportunity to practise true democratic fairness.

What has happened with FF in power is nothing short of disgusting and highlights the ignorance of us, as an electorate, to properly value our vote. This takes nothing away from the lies we have been sped or the true horror of the damage that has been caused by the last 3 governments. It just shows that we can be the people who dictate the destiny of our future.

Because I know the default assumption for people to make is that I am sitting in a nice house in dalkey (because of my positive view on this country), I can say I am in terrible negative equity (house was bought for 320k in boom), loads of loans, holding onto my job and struggling to subsidise my family.

I really believe, even from my own negative perspective, that this country can prosper and rise from the ashes. But I think it requires not just a monetary sacrifice, but an ability to simply grow up and accept responsibility for the actions that we have taken as a society. Our government wont do this, I dont see what purpose it shows by society following this and doingt the same. We should be trying to follow the Germans post WW2. They pulled together and worked harder for each other for less and made their country one of the most powerful one of the world.

After this statement, most Irish have an answer "well we didnt cause this" or "what about the guys who caused the mess". . And while I agree with their points, how does this get the country to a more positive position? Accountability is something I desire more then most in the political establishment but if people can truly understand the concept of accountability, they will accept that it eventually comes with a nations acceptance of its own flaws. With that comes the accountability we desire. .

I am prepared to work for a better Ireland. . I just question whether the majority of the electorate feel the same. .

the_syco

Drumpot wrote: »

Ok. The old "surely they couldnt be as bad as the current shower" is a fair enough , if not ill advised view to be taken by the majority of the electorate, but, have people actually considered the way they want this country to progress ?

The way I see it is that if you want more Union Sector pay increases, vote Labour.

View

the_syco wrote: »

The way I see it is that if you want more Union Sector pay increases, vote Labour.

Labour haven't been the ones giving out the pay increases to the Unions over the last decade+. You seem to be confusing them with FF.

alang184

Unfortunately, it appears to me that the majority of the electorate are not interested in politics or if voting just go along with the herd (i.e. what Prime Time and RTE news tells them - if Prime Time presents just FG and FF for the debate, then people assume there's a good reason for it, and go along with it).

You're absolutely right with your general idea. I don't want to vote for any of the parties, because the way that they manifest themselves in this political system is flawed.

The elected TDs are supposed to carry out the wishes of their constituency, or at least act on the mandate of the constituents. It is illogical then to find this FF/Green government still trundling along when clearly many (if not all) constituencies do not want their TDs to continue in government. This is the centre-piece of the whole flawed system; the TDs are whipped into line and do what is in the party's interest - putting party before constituents (party before people).

I love the idea of independents getting far more involved in the system. Many arguments can be made against a Dail full of independents. But at least this way, the so much needed individuality could be expressed, which currently, is not at all.

amacachi

If it looks like FG could get a majority or form a government without Labour I would vote for them, but that's not going to happen.

meglome

I'm not a fan of political parties generally for several reasons. I won't vote FF or the Greens and I have a major problem with Labour in that they won't say a bad thing about the working man/woman. Sinn Feins economic policy's are not for me so that leaves FG, Independents or a new party that I like the look of before the election.

Tony Gregory was my TD and I gave him a first preference and did the same for Maureen O'Sullivan in the by-election, both independents. I have given high preferences to the Greens but that won't be happening again with this current lot.

There's way too much of 'sure they're all the same'. We don't know that unless we find out. One thing I do know the status quo has not worked. I'll put it this way if anyone can convince me that there will be accountability there's a good chance I'll vote for them.

I only hope the electorate snap out of blaming everyone else and start blaming themselves for not caring properly about who they elected and not punishing those who didn't perform.

TheUsual

I can tell you right now that Fianna Gael are terrified of being the next majority party in the next Government.
They have plans for 'new jobs' and all that but at the end of the day the same money will have to cut from the Government day-to-day spending. They will make the same enemies that Fianna Fail make today, and maybe they will have to compromise their policies with Labour.
Labour have no policies to judge them by so I cannot comment on zero ideas. They mean nothing to me to be honest - positive or negative.

I'm not a Fianna Fail voter (first choice anyway), maybe Fianna Fail are looking forward to recharging their batteries in opposition while Fianna Gael and Labour accept a poisioned challice of spending cuts and savings.

The only happy politician at the moment is Bertie Ahern.

bleg

Anything is better than the crowd of inept, stubborn and talentless so and sos we have in charge at the moment.

PeakOutput

the reason i think fg+ labour is the best option right now is because i dont htink the fundamentals of the system need to be changed(broadly speaking)

i still believe in a center right solution and think that it was individualsgreed and idiocy coupled with a non enforcement of the regulations that led to our current state

i think the system properly implemented is still the best option and assuming that fg + labour have learned that they cant get away with the greed anymore that ff and their friends have gotten away with then i think they are the best people to change the culture. but there is definitely a risk that nothing will change at all

also iirc they are in favour of dail reform which is sorely needed imo

edit: by the way ill never vote labour but i think its inevitable that that will be the coalition

FreudianSlippers

Labour will destroy this country. If people think it's bad with FF at the moment they're in for a shock if they elect Labour.

FG are a bunch of idiots with a moron in charge too. Really, there is no competent or good political groups in this country (or any country for that matter)

syklops

amacachi wrote: »

If it looks like FG could get a majority or form a government without Labour I would vote for them, but that's not going to happen.

Does not compute.

I can tell you right now that Fianna Gael are terrified of being the next majority party in the next Government.

Its Fine not Fianna.

They have plans for 'new jobs' and all that but at the end of the day the same money will have to cut from the Government day-to-day spending. They will make the same enemies that Fianna Fail make today, and maybe they will have to compromise their policies with Labour.
Labour have no policies to judge them by so I cannot comment on zero ideas. They mean nothing to me to be honest - positive or negative.

Who are these enemies that Fianna Fail have? One of the reasons we are in the mess we are in is that Fianna Fail made no enemies. They cozied up to developers and speculators in the Galway tent. They increased social welfare at a time when it was easier to get a job than any other time in the state's history. They gave the public sector big increases in funding.

syklops

OisinT wrote: »

Labour will destroy this country. If people think it's bad with FF at the moment they're in for a shock if they elect Labour.

FG are a bunch of idiots with a moron in charge too. Really, there is no competent or good political groups in this country (or any country for that matter)

So what do you suggest? Dont bother voting, waste of time etc?

efb

Labour? Show me the money!!!

It all can't come from this magical top tax rate- they'll leave anyway!!!

johnnyskeleton

Drumpot wrote: »

Just curious if people really thought about the kind of politician/party they are voting in ?

Yes. Labour are pro worker (including PS) pro welfare, pro education and pro health, which they propose to pay for with higher taxes. They do not propose to change the corporation tax rate though (as is sometimes suggested of them) as in fact they were germain to bringing it in in the first place. They will make savings by cutting waste and quangos, and are arguably the least corrupt of the big three parties. They are also the only party who are not in favour of bailing out the banks at taxpayer's expense, which is the sole reason why I would give them a vote in the next election.

Fine Gael are pro private sector, anti-welfare, pro education and pro health, in respect of which they hope to strike a good balance between medium level taxes (i.e. current levels or slightly less) and medium level services. They too will make savings by cutting waste and quangos and while they are sometimes considered FF lite in terms of corruption, they are much closer to Labour's level of anti-corruption than FF's wheel greasing machine. They were in favour of a limited bailout rather than the blanket developer's bailout, which earns them partial credit. However, their lack of spine in voting for the bank guarantee is a big black mark in my book.

FF are jokers. They thought they could run a low tax high spend country indefinately. They have no actual policies other than to get into power and stay in power, and they do so by buying votes (higher welfare, higher services, lower taxes, whatever the punter wants). There are also a litany of scandals and corrupt activities attributable to them. They bailed out the banks in a manner which was either grossly negligent or, if you believe it was to bail out the developers, shamlessly corrupt and self serving.

I accept that all three major parties are centre right parties and there are not the extremes of left/right we see in other countries, but that is not unique to us. If you look at labour across the pond, they have been everything but a socialist party under "new labour" and there are very real comparisons to be drawn between FF/New Lab; FG/Cons; and Lab/LD.

Ok. The old "surely they couldnt be as bad as the current shower" is a fair enough , if not ill advised view to be taken by the majority of the electorate, but, have people actually considered the way they want this country to progress ?

Aside from the very real differences between the parties highlighted above, all things being equal there are benefits to replacing one generic party with another:

1) any party in power too long becomes complacent. voting in the opposition is the only way the citizens have to get the government to listen to them;
2) any party in power too long develops a level of cronyism and corruption which is not good for the country;
3) every newly elected party brings with it a short term boost - the "Obama bounce" which, at least for the first few months, spurrs the economy, increases domestic confidence and gives hope to international commentators and investors who have been critical of the past government.

Therefore change, even change for change's sake, is good.

I speak of proper change. Whoever the party is. I heard a couple of FG and Lab people speaking on the radio but couldnt help but be cynical of their intentions.

Of course we would all like to see proper change, and it is easy to fall into a pit of despair wondering how real change will ever come in the current system. But real change will only come when we show willingness to abandon the current ruling party. A change to FG/Lab now, while not that significant in itself, could spell the end of the FF/FG duopoly that has plagued this country since the civil war. We might then see new better parties emerging.

When there is a new party, what sort of change do people actually think will happen?

The only way for a new party to gain any sort of traction is to have just one or two big ticket issues that people can get behind. Their policies on other issues can be put forward as the party expands, but the trick is to start small. Thus, parties which advocate a libertarian society or an entirely new form of government will not gain as much traction as, for example, a "low tax low spend" or a "high spend high tax" clear cut party would get. IMO of course.

Its funny and sad in equal measure that people think voting for anybody but FF is an automatic vote for change and improvement.

See above. If it means that the people appointed to public office for no reason other than they are shagging the former taoiseach lose their jobs, then that is an automatic improvement IMO.

Before people jump on their idiotic high horse, I am not advocating a vote for FF. I am advocating a vote for a better politician. People keep asking "well, we can only vote for the politicians on front of us". . No, if most of the electorate said to their local politician that they wanted a fairer society with a political structure that reflected this (salaries, decisions etc), they would get it.

I'm afraid not. We really do need people of integrity to come along and offer alternatives. But people of integrity are afraid to run for election because they will be beaten time and time again by pork barrell politics. Changing from FF to FG/Lab will not make FG/Lab better people, but it will give hope to those of true integrity who don't want to enter politics because of fear they will get bogged down in local issues. FG are no different, indeed, when GL left the party he was criticised for not doing any favours for his local constituents (even though that is not what the people of that area wanted), but at least a change from FF is the first step to show that real change is possible.

johnnyskeleton

OisinT wrote: »

Labour will destroy this country. If people think it's bad with FF at the moment they're in for a shock if they elect Labour.

For anyone who believes that the biggest problem for Ireland is not the budget deficit but the bank guarantee and bailouts, then Labour would have saved the country, not destroyed it, as they are the only party to have opposed the guarantee and subsequent bailouts.

Morgan Kelly is of the view that it is the banks, not the deficit that is our biggest problem:

What is driving our bond yields to record levels is not the Government deficit, but the bank bailout. Without the banks, our national debt could be stabilised in four years at a level not much worse than where France, with its triple A rating in the bond markets, is now.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/professors-mortgage-war-a-little-farfetched-2418491.html

So to suggest that Labour would destroy the country is an incredible statement that you have not sought to support with any evidence or analysis other than a bald assertion. I suspect it stems from a fear of social-democractic policies, but that fear is in my view misguided. Labour accept that cuts have to be made and taxes have to be raised.

FreudianSlippers

syklops wrote: »

So what do you suggest? Dont bother voting, waste of time etc?

No. I'm probably going to vote for FG, but I just cannot stand Labour and their policies (or lack thereof)

silkworm53

Anything is better than the crowd of inept, stubborn and talentless so and sos we have in charge at the moment.

So the answer is to vote for Fine Gael/Labour who are more of the same?:rolleyes:

Labour are pro worker (including PS) pro welfare, pro education and pro health

So were Fianna Fail and look where they got us? The biggest spending increases in the nation's history which have bankrupted the country.
More of the same again?

which they propose to pay for with higher taxes.

More taxes to kill off any green shoots of recovery. Great. Will they pay for my plane ticket out of here?:mad:

They do not propose to change the corporation tax rate though (as is sometimes suggested of them) as in fact they were germain to bringing it in in the first place.

They won't change it because it is the only source of revenue keeping the lights on at the moment.

They will make savings by cutting waste and quangos, and are arguably the least corrupt of the big three parties.

So why is Gilmore shouting and roaring about FF cutting the quangos and the waste?

They are also the only party who are not in favour of bailing out the banks at taxpayer's expense, which is the sole reason why I would give them a vote in the next election.

How is the economy supposed to be sustained without banks? Do tell genius.

Fine Gael are pro private sector, anti-welfare, pro education and pro health, in respect of which they hope to strike a good balance between medium level taxes (i.e. current levels or slightly less) and medium level services.

Weren't FF pro private sector, pro-jobs with less than 5% unemployed, pro education and pro health? FF are trying to keep taxes low and the services they can on the limited resources available following the economic crash.
What is so different about what FG propose? Nothing. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic more like.

They too will make savings by cutting waste and quangos and while they are sometimes considered FF lite in terms of corruption, they are much closer to Labour's level of anti-corruption than FF's wheel greasing machine.

They are only good as gold boy scouts because FF kept them out and have been running the country while they were outside in the political wilderness. When was the last time blueshirts won an election????:rolleyes:

They have no actual policies other than to get into power and stay in power, and they do so by buying votes (higher welfare, higher services, lower taxes, whatever the punter wants).

That's what the punter still wants ffs. The only reason FF are so unpopular now is because everything must go and tax hikes are on the cards.
If things turn around FF will be back in their good books.
FG and Labour never listened to the punters.
Gilmore spent most of his adult life conspiring that the Soviets would take over the country - only when that didn't work he became a democrat.
A shyster of the highest order.
They are just spoofers and BS artists - Gilmore's performance on the Late Late last night speaks for itself. Tubs didn't have to interject. Gilmore just hung himself with the rope he was given.

Changing from FF to FG/Lab will not make FG/Lab better people, but it will give hope to those of true integrity who don't want to enter politics because of fear they will get bogged down in local issues.

All politics is local Don't you know that?

Politics is not about integrity. That's for babies. Politics is about power.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

For anyone who believes that the biggest problem for Ireland is not the budget deficit but the bank guarantee and bailouts, then Labour would have saved the country, not destroyed it, as they are the only party to have opposed the guarantee and subsequent bailouts.

Morgan Kelly is of the view that it is the banks, not the deficit that is our biggest problem:



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/professors-mortgage-war-a-little-farfetched-2418491.html

So to suggest that Labour would destroy the country is an incredible statement that you have not sought to support with any evidence or analysis other than a bald assertion. I suspect it stems from a fear of social-democractic policies, but that fear is in my view misguided. Labour accept that cuts have to be made and taxes have to be raised.

I really do not agree with fiscal redistribution, nationalisation and other typical democratic socialist policies. I'm also not a fan of unions or union politics which Labour heavily favours.

I think that it is both the budget deficit and the bailouts that are the problems.

However, I think the bailout was the right thing to do at the time and based on the information at hand. That information ended up being false and we should have pulled out when we found out that the information was false instead of trudging along, but the original concept of guaranteeing the banks was a legitimate economic move.

Labour also has no real policies. I've been on their website and looked at their "our ideas" section and it is full of vagueness - in fact their most comprehensive policy document is on sport :rolleyes:

Labour has no view on the massive public sector borrowing requirement which is as much of a problem as any of the bailouts.

Chuchoter

Well,judging by Eamon Gilmore last night, labour intend on raising 6bil by cutting nothing.

MagicSean

View wrote: »

Labour haven't been the ones giving out the pay increases to the Unions over the last decade+. You seem to be confusing them with FF.

No just to themselves. As have the rest of the TDs.

Larsist

I completely agree with the overall point of this thread. With an election most likely for early next year I have no idea who I am going to vote for.

I believe we need a change but FG have done nothing to make believe they are any different than FF. Enda Kenny is on old style politician who fit seamlessly into FF.

As for Labour, so far there all there proposals have been so high level that only an idiot with consider voting for them. I am not necessarily against Labour but unless they provide detail of their plans they might as well be FF.

I am starting to think voting for independents might be the way to go but most of them seem to be single issues candidates.

silkworm53

Larsist wrote: »

I am starting to think voting for independents might be the way to go but most of them seem to be single issues candidates.

Way back in 1997 a single issue candidate won a seat in Donegal on the issue of shutting down illegal satelite dishes. How about a candidate who stands up for the little man and his dodgy boxes?

johnnyskeleton

OisinT wrote: »

I really do not agree with fiscal redistribution, nationalisation and other typical democratic socialist policies. I'm also not a fan of unions or union politics which Labour heavily favours.

There is no party in Ireland, including the former PDs (our so called liberal party) who are against fiscal redistribution, nationalised enterprises and general social democractic policies. So to prefer one group of social democracts e.g. FG over another e.g. Labour, because you don't like social democratic views is an unusual argument.

While Labour do have a strong union support base, they are moving fast away from that. The fact that they have not declared whether they would support the croke park agreement suggests that, at least when it comes to PS and banks, they are not in favour of what the unions currently want.

OisinT wrote: »

I think that it is both the budget deficit and the bailouts that are the problems.

Both are problems, but the bailout is the bigger problem. In any event it is a non issue between the big 3 parties, since for the last few years they have all advocated higher public spending. A slight difference is that Labour aren't as big into social welfare (at least, for people who have never worked) as FF are.

OisinT wrote: »

However, I think the bailout was the right thing to do at the time and based on the information at hand.

It was the right thing to do at the time if you're view is that the banks should be saved at all costs.

OisinT wrote: »

That information ended up being false and we should have pulled out when we found out that the information was false instead of trudging along, but the original concept of guaranteeing the banks was a legitimate economic move.

It's not like that came as a shock. In fact, the government themselves were advised not to implement the guarantee as broadly as they did because it would lead to disaster. What did they do, they not only ignored that advice but told the people that they had received "the best international advice". So they got the advice and ignored it, and through careful wording led people to believe that they were advised to bring in the full guarantee.

OisinT wrote: »

Labour also has no real policies. I've been on their website and looked at their "our ideas" section and it is full of vagueness - in fact their most comprehensive policy document is on sport :rolleyes:

They do have real policies, at least, as real as any of the other parties. I have set them out in brief above.

OisinT wrote: »

Labour has no view on the massive public sector borrowing requirement which is as much of a problem as any of the bailouts.

That's demonstrably untrue. They are committed to the Stability and Growth Pact target:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/budget/news/opposition-refuses-to-give-rehn-guarantees-on-cuts-2413764.html

Again, it is pointless requiring them to set out the exact areas where cuts will be made and the extent of those cuts, because the current government have all the information and have only in the last few months disclosed it to the opposition. Labour believe that a lower frontloading of the cuts makes more sense. While I don't agree with them on that, it is simply not true to say that they have no view on the borrowing.

johnnyskeleton

silkworm53 wrote: »

So were Fianna Fail and look where they got us? The biggest spending increases in the nation's history which have bankrupted the country.
More of the same again?

No, Labour have indicated their intention to make cuts to government spending. But as a long term proposition they favour a high level of public services.

silkworm53 wrote: »

More taxes to kill off any green shoots of recovery. Great. Will they pay for my plane ticket out of here?:mad:

Higher taxes are inevitable. Ireland is by no means the highest taxed country in Europe. If you want to leave, that's your own business, but I don't think any party can realistically claim that there will not be tax increases.

silkworm53 wrote: »

So why is Gilmore shouting and roaring about FF cutting the quangos and the waste?

Why is Gilmore complaining about the quangoes and the waste? Because he doesn't agree with them I suppose.

silkworm53 wrote: »

How is the economy supposed to be sustained without banks? Do tell genius.

The question is misleading. Just because we need to have banks, doesn't mean that we need to have these particular banks run inefficiently at the taxpayers expense. Money lending is a very popular economic activity worldwide - if there is profit to be made lending in Ireland international banks will come. Unfortunately, because the government has propped up a number of loss making banks with a blank cheque, this has scared off international banks from investing here. So instead of a functional, albeit non-indigenous banking system, we have a disfunctional indigenous one that is costing the State a massive amount of money. To phrase it in terms of either having a banking system or not is incorrect and a scare tactic.

silkworm53

The question is misleading. Just because we need to have banks, doesn't mean that we need to have these particular banks run inefficiently at the taxpayers expense. Money lending is a very popular economic activity worldwide - if there is profit to be made lending in Ireland international banks will come. Unfortunately, because the government has propped up a number of loss making banks with a blank cheque, this has scared off international banks from investing here. So instead of a functional, albeit non-indigenous banking system, we have a disfunctional indigenous one that is costing the State a massive amount of money. To phrase it in terms of either having a banking system or not is incorrect and a scare tactic.

The savings and loans of Irish businesses and individuals are tied up in the banks that have been bailed out. If they are allowed to fail then the economy collapses and the IMF will take over our sovereignty.
Maybe you should try learning a little about economics.

charlemont

wont be as useless or corrupt as Fianna Fail..

thetonynator

efb wrote: »

Labour? Show me the money!!!

It all can't come from this magical top tax rate- they'll leave anyway!!!

Well in theory it can -see todays indo - but it requires an 84% tax on earnings over 100,000 . . :rolleyes:

sligopark

IN a word

NO

FG supported everything gombeen ff proposed through the celtic tiger. labour monkeys not having a clue have voted eamon getmore as their leader - pompous know it all whose wife is caking it in with governement land deals and he eyes up a ministerial pension that costs €20K per month of the ten years it takes to get it... any of us able to chuck €20K into a pension fund for some predatory politician?


FG/Labour - aren't these the nationalists who advised us sell off our sovereignty via the lisbon treaty?

I am loving the time coming for them to turn up on my doorstep but it'll probably be like the second lisbon treaty when a labour leaflet was pushed through my door between 1am and 2am

cowardly ar$eholes feathering their nests

we need new politics and discussions around establishing such

Z Brannigan

FG and Lab will not offer anything different. FG are far more conservative than FF and if they end up as the majority party, they won't let Labour implement any of their own policies.

What I would love to see would be a Labour, Sinn Féin government which also included the smaller leftist parties.

In my experience they have always been very hard workers on the ground and going by some of their proposals they seem to know their stuff. SF's pre-budget submission is very impressive although I was a bit disheartened to see Labour say they would uphold the budget if they got into government in the next few months.

If it came down to me having to choose Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil, I would still pick FF.

Daniel S

I'd say Fine Gael would double their voters if they got rid of the gob$hite, Enda Kenny. I'm honestly sick of him. I'd like to vote for FG, but I can't let that man into power...

Can't vote for FF because they caused this mess.

Labour are no better than FF afaik, and they have that finance spokeswomen who drives me mad as soon as she opens her gob.

Can we not just get some polititions from Canada, Germany or Australia?

S'pose I'll be voting Sinn Féin.

gandalf

Are you honestly saying that people should continue to vote in the crowd that have made an absolute mess of our economy and who may have comprised our sovereignty in the process?

That's like telling an abused women to stay with the man that is abusing her because her next relationship may turn out to be abusive as well!

That is a perverse logic.

meditraitor

mtb_kng wrote: »

Labour are no better than FF afaik,.

please elaborate on this point? just so you know afaik mean's "as far as I know"

ArtSmart

I've posted this elsewhere but it's relevant here ( i hope)

Ultimately politics in Ireland flutter around the centre.

The issue isn't really this party of that party, it's now a question of mandate.

It's in the interest of all parties, especially FF, that they take their case to the electorate.

if we get it wrong, so be it. that's democracy.

but implementing significant policy objectives in the current extra-ordinary situation without a public input, is plain undemocratic and unwise.

meditraitor

ArtSmart wrote: »

but implementing significant policy objectives in the current extra-ordinary situation .

This is also the FF excuse, an extraordinary situation has no precedence.... What we need to see is extraordinary punishment once FF/Banker?builders are toppled from their ivory tower.

Have the opposition the stomach for it?

amacachi

syklops wrote: »

Does not compute.

What doesn't?

djsomers

To reiterate a point I made on another thread. It is time for this country to wake up to the fact that FF and FG are one and the same. It is time for real change.

ArtSmart

meditraitor wrote: »

This is also the FF excuse, an extraordinary situation has no precedence.... What we need to see is extraordinary punishment once FF/Banker?builders are toppled from their ivory tower.

Have the opposition the stomach for it?

well, let's get the shiite sorted first.

then go a huntin...

nesf

They won't offer "real change" because they'll spend their time in Government climbing out of the present hole we're in. They'll get to do some fringe stuff but their order of Government has already been decided for them. They just get to choose where the 15 billion comes from rather than getting to guide new investment.

Amhran Nua

alang184 wrote: »

This is the centre-piece of the whole flawed system; the TDs are whipped into line and do what is in the party's interest - putting party before constituents (party before people).

The party's policies should come before the constituents at the national level. People should vote for party policies (which are supposedly decided upon by the parliamentary party anyway), not for TDs, so we don't end up with TDs too busy attending funerals and fixing fences to attend to the national questions, which is what we have today. Ditch the single transferable vote and move to a party list system, like the other 99% of countries with proportional representation, and we'll see an end to the tyranny of the parish pump. I'd strengthen the local authorities a bit simultaneously mind you, so that local issues are attended to properly.

Labour seem to be trading on Gilmore and left-leaning rhetoric rather than any particular plan of action. I mean if I was to ask, what specifically does Labour intend to do about the deficit and the disastrous banking guarantee, can anyone give me a straight answer?

FG are a bit further along, they have some good ideas, no question, but their hands are tied because of the very system that is going to put them into power. For example, they won't get party support for a party list system because TDs know full well that takes power away from the individual TD.

sanbrafyffe

ya that bastxxx left us in this damage.he shud of been voted back into clean up his mess.imagine he was corrupt back in the 80s .could u imagine how corrupt he was in the boom.cant stand him

TheUsual wrote: »

I can tell you right now that Fianna Gael are terrified of being the next majority party in the next Government.
They have plans for 'new jobs' and all that but at the end of the day the same money will have to cut from the Government day-to-day spending. They will make the same enemies that Fianna Fail make today, and maybe they will have to compromise their policies with Labour.
Labour have no policies to judge them by so I cannot comment on zero ideas. They mean nothing to me to be honest - positive or negative.

I'm not a Fianna Fail voter (first choice anyway), maybe Fianna Fail are looking forward to recharging their batteries in opposition while Fianna Gael and Labour accept a poisioned challice of spending cuts and savings.

The only happy politician at the moment is Bertie Ahern.

simonj

FF and FG are simply two cheeks of the one arse.
What does strike me is that FG supporters see Leo Varadker as some kind of an Irish Obama - folks, if they get in hecause of the heave it is likely he will end up on the back benches.

We need to get beyond post civil war dynastic politics and reform the electorial system -and get new ideas.

A lot of FG policies are lifted from Amhran Nua, but their proposed reforms on elections are not enough.
FF and FG, like the republicans and democrats in the US. are happy to perpetuate a two party system.

sanbrafyffe

i will be deciding between FG of sinn fein.not the fondest of kenny but if he sticks to his promises of Abolishing the useless seanead and cuttin the tds down to 144 from 166.i like this idea as the seanead is full of failed poloticians and waste of government money.id like to see ireland being run that each county has 2 poloticians and maybe 4 in dublin and cork as there bigger populated.theres no doubt we have too many idiots in the dail.he wants to get rid of the HSE as its a shambles and a drain on the economy.i like these ideas to be honest

syklops

amacachi wrote: »

What doesn't?

You said you would vote for them if they got a majority, but they wont so your not going to.

How are they meant to get a majority if people like you dont vote for them?

To reiterate a point I made on another thread. It is time for this country to wake up to the fact that FF and FG are one and the same. It is time for real change.

I think its time people stop saying we need real change, and realise that right now, this minute, we need any change. Look at what happened to the bond markets when Angela Merkur said the word "Ireland". A change in government would bring new confidence to the markets, lower interest rates. It would also cheer the company up a bit.

Real change doesn't happen over night. Its a very lazy attitude to think(or hope) real change will happen as a result of one election.

thebman

We need to uncover the dirt of the banking crisis and tell the world so they can believe once and for all we are starting to deal with our problems.

There is no point in pretending all was well in Irelands banking system and it was Lehman's that caused all our problems.

We need to clean house and we can't do that with the architects of our demise still in control.

ArtSmart

interesting posts throughout this thread.

I was thinking about Irish politicians (specifically TD's) recently and tbh there are very few of them that I would describe as wasters. The majority - across all parties I would regard as competent and hard working.

Unfortunately the belief and trust in politicians has been undermined over the last number of years.

I also think the last thing we need to be doing is reducing our level of representation - after all being represented in the Dail is what democracy is all about. It's an expense I'm happy to pay for.

as for parish pump politics - the connection with a politician is essential to democracy. I wonder how accessible to their constitutes politicians in other countries are.
The prob is of course local issues being put before national ones - but that is driven by the local people, not the politician - unless he/she wishes to appease the locals. ie people see their own probs first, the nation second.
any changes must ensure we dont throw the baby (access to our reps) out with the bathwater

As for differences between parties, yes, some exist, of course they do. but i dont see any of the main parties as radically different.

The issue at the moment as i said before is mandate from the people.

thebman

The problem isn't that Irish politicians aren't hard working, its that they are working toward the wrong goals.

ArtSmart

I think the point made about complacency when any political party is in power too long is a valid one. beyond that, not so sure.

johnnyskeleton

silkworm53 wrote: »

The savings and loans of Irish businesses and individuals are tied up in the banks that have been bailed out. If they are allowed to fail then the economy collapses and the IMF will take over our sovereignty.
Maybe you should try learning a little about economics.

I disagree. Your analysis is based on a presumption that the entire money supply is in the banks and that they are completely insolvent.

Put another way, the economy would not be significantly worse than it is now, as new banks come in and take over the business of day to day lending and transactions.

Also, the IMF don't ever "take over our sovereignty", so if it's all the same with you I won't take economic lessons from you.

Amhran Nua

ArtSmart wrote: »

The prob is of course local issues being put before national ones - but that is driven by the local people, not the politician -

It's being driven by the single transferable vote system. If you have councillors dealing with local issues, and many of them do a credible job of it, and TDs also looking after the local issues, who exactly is looking after the national issues? The civil service?

ArtSmart

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It's being driven by the single transferable vote system. If you have councillors dealing with local issues, and many of them do a credible job of it, and TDs also looking after the local issues, who exactly is looking after the national issues? The civil service?

Well, party pump politics is messy i agree. but as stated (on this thread?) we have to be careful with any changes.
I reckon most local issues should be dealt with by local councillors.

Hence i reckon the best solution is the devolution of more power to local councillors - within reason. so most issue can be dealt with locally from councillors. and most importantly - that councillors are PROHIBITED from becoming TD (at least until 5 years out of the game) that way being a councillor wont be used as a stepping stone to the Dail - which is exactly what it is for many and hence the 'clientilism' culture. and those who run locally will act more genuinely for local issues. Of course, if they run as party members it wont work either as they'll appeal to the TD's in power. so that should be prohibited also. aspirational to say the least...

Dempsey's issue (and others) is that

1/unless one hangs around the parish pump you wont get elected - hence it's hard to get new blood / quality candidates into politics - those with expertise who want to serve but dont have the 'common touch' -hence a call for the list system

2/ politician are tied to petty constituency concerns which distracts from their bigger objectives

3/ conflict arise between politicians of the same party to win over constituents - wasting time etc.


however, if the proposed devolution to local councillors happened the TD can only deal with national issues for their constitutes, reducing elements of clientilism.

STV is not the issue - devolution of power is.

(STV has many plus sides not necessarily related to electing TDs, but useful all the same. Hence as i say, devolution of power is the way to go.)

Having said all that, if devolution did not happen something 50/50 might work

or a version of the US system, with each county having a rep (senator) in a higher house - and the rest in a lower house. though cant see that happening any time soon...

actually this is worthy of a thread.