Fine Gael overall majority: our best hope

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

I agree with a lot of what you say, but.....

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

1) FF are to blame
2) Non-wealthy people can't afford to pay any more tax

dan_d

I agree with the essence of what you're saying. But really, what it comes down to, is that we have no other choice!FG have to be our best option right now, simply because they're not FF. Which is a completely rubbish way to have to do business.

My view, however, would be that no matter what any of them say, none of them are committed to anything other than their own political careers. And that's it.I don't believe for a second that any of them mean half of what they say.I don't believe they will actually carry out any of these reforms. But you're right, in that I don't want to see SF anywhere near being in charge, and that we've had more than enough of unions for the last few years...which is the essence of Labour....and also, that power for the Greens and FF is a non-runner. So...we're left with FG. Like it or lump it.

Still don't trust any of them.Never did.

Einhard

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say, but.....



1) FF are to blame

True. To an extent.

2) Non-wealthy people can't afford to pay any more tax

False. or rather, depends on how you define "wealthy". Ireland does not, by any means, have a high individual tax burden. It is not as low as some might believe, but there is still significant scope for increases in personal taxation, without resulting in overly onerous burden on people. DIRT tax might be one area to look at. i was reading recently that average savings have shot through the roof over the bast few years. Increasing tax on the interest would target income already saved, and at the same time provide an incentive to invest the savings, whether on the high street or elsewhere.

As the level of savings indicate, Ireland is still a wealthy nation. The average industrial wage is still one of the highest in Europe, and once the unemployed are removed, average Irish disposable income is in the same category.

This leads me to the conclusion that there is reasonable scope for a general increase in taxes. However, it has to be carefully managed. One has to strive to find a balance between further damaging growth, imposing too great a burden on those on lower and middle incomes, and raising enough money to meet our obligations. Stating from the start that only the "wealthy" should be the focus of extra or increased taxation will not achieve this balance.

fifth

+1 While FG are the only option, they're more than that and are actually quite a good option (the more I think about it).

People want reform of the political system, health system and state bodies and FG are offering this.

Denerick

As much as I despise Labour in their present cowardly, populist, snifflingly vote grabbing absurdity (The site of Pat Rabbite eating Pat Carey alive in order to pander to idiots would turn me off that party for good) I don't believe Fine Gael are proposing anything radically different. The public service will be slimmed by around 10% whoever gets into power at this stage, and abolishing FAS and the HSE is just stupid - they are just going to give those bodies a name change. Similarily I'm not particulary worried about the number of TDs at present, its their personal qualities and character I worry about - something that would not change if there was 35% fewer of them.

Einhard

Denerick wrote: »

As much as I despise Labour in their present cowardly, populist, snifflingly vote grabbing absurdity (The site of Pat Rabbite eating Pat Carey alive in order to pander to idiots would turn me off that party for good) I don't believe Fine Gael are proposing anything radically different. The public service will be slimmed by around 10% whoever gets into power at this stage, and abolishing FAS and the HSE is just stupid - they are just going to give those bodies a name change. Similarily I'm not particulary worried about the number of TDs at present, its their personal qualities and character I worry about - something that would not change if there was 35% fewer of them.

TBH, I look at the personnel that FG have, and I'm impressed by them. That would be one of the reasons why I'll support them. They appear competent which, at the moment, and in comparison to FF and the Greens, that's quite an achievement in itself. I think it's a pity that Enda Kenny is still at the helm, but I think his relative absence over the past few days is significent, and points to the more collegiate style that FG are embracing.

PS: I'm really beginning to dislike Paul Gogarthy. What on earth was he thinking bringing his child to the press conference yesterday?

whatawaster

As much as i'd like a FG overall majority, it's not going to happen. It's going to be FG-Lab, so hopefully it will be something like a 70-30 split rather than closer to 50:50.

Labour aren't all bad, I think someone like Ruari Quinn would be a good addition to any cabinet for instance.

I hope for 3 things:
1) FG led government
2) FG Finance Minister (it has to be Richard Bruton - his punishment period is over)
3) FG Health Minister

bijapos

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This will solve very little. The Seanad abolition will go to a referendum. Apart from that they will reduce the number of TDs by 20 or so. What the system needs is a complete overhaul, **** the old system of counties and voting for TDs because they are local. The country needs a list system, and maybe 8 constituencies with their own regional administration. This is my main gripe with FG. The people want change, they will give FG a mandate for change but FG dont want full and proper change. The system is broke, we need a new system, not a couple of plasters to keep it going for another few years.

Reduce the size of the public service by 10 percent, and tackle waste, duplication, and inefficiency in public bodies

Interesting stuff, as are a lot of their documents but they regrettably lack specifics.

Abolish 145 state bodies and companies, including the HSE and FÁS, replacing them where necessary with more efficient, responsive alternatives

As Denerik said, its a name change, we need more specifics as to how Fas will change, what will make it different next time out. Again the documents FG have issued are lacking in more detail.

Ensure that at least one third of all senior public service appointments will be made from outside the current system

All senior positions should be advertised on an Ireland/Europe wide basis to ensure the best possible chance to get the best candidate.

In short, Fine Gael is committed to reducing the size of government, increasing transparency and accountability to the Irish people, and breaking up the cosy cabal of insiders that exists at the higher echelons of Irish public life.

Could you expand a bit more on this highlighted bit please.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

DF; Surely you'd take a tax hike of 2-3% for the good of the country? I hear what you're saying about tax evasion but for Gods sake, if you can afford it?

Old_-_School

I reckon if FG form an overall majority after the 2011 (2010?) election, their vote will be down below 15% by the time of the following election as they would be in charge over what is sure to be a period of immense hurt for the electorate and while I can't see FG doing much wrong, I can't see them doing anything inspirational enough to get us out of this mess and as a result all the swing voters will desert them.
With Labour in with them the blame will get shared. However I think FF could be in power again in 2015 with Labour. It might seem unthinkable now but history has shown that the Irish electorate have very short memories and that Labour will sleep with anyone to gain power.

dsmythy

Donegalfella pins his colours so I hope for the same although I won't be casting my vote with glee. They are merely the best of a bad lot.

danbohan

Denerick wrote: »

DF; Surely you'd take a tax hike of 2-3% for the good of the country? I hear what you're saying about tax evasion but for Gods sake, if you can afford it?

i have no problem paying some extra tax if its for good of the country , i have serious problems paying extra tax if it funneled into the black holes that are public sector , sw , banks as labour would seem to want , not to mention what my socialist friends in sinn fein would like to do to .

oscarBravo

dsmythy wrote: »

They are merely the best of a bad lot.

True - so they'll have to do until we start putting better candidates up for election.

I disagree with the "name change" argument: the Fine Gael health proposals have been modelled on the Dutch system, and they've made it clear for some time that the HSE will have to go.

Of course, the unions will fight them tooth and nail every step of the way, which is why I agree with DF that a Fine Gael majority would be desirable right now.

cleremy jarkson

FG majority is definitely the outcome I'd most prefer but at 40/1 on paddypower, it doesn't look like it could ever happen.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/irish-government?ev_oc_grp_ids=46674

droidus

So our best hope after more than a decade of centre right neo-liberal economic policies which have completely destroyed this country, is an even more economically right wing party which has explicitly identified itself with Thatcher and the tories?

What we need is a genuine alternative and a complete change in approach, not a change in management to a marginally 'more efficient' party which has roughly the same priorities as FF and pursues the same general policies.

Strange that 'high net worth individuals' would rather see minor changes in management rather than the radical changes in structure that we actually need. Anything to avoid those tax increases eh?

Einhard

droidus wrote: »

So our best hope after more than a decade of centre right neo-liberal economic policies which have completely destroyed this country, is an even more economically right wing party which has explicitly identified itself with Thatcher and the tories?

Socialising bank losses wasn't a "centre right neo-liberal economic policy". Neither was hiking SW payments to unsustainable levels. Neither was benchmarking. Etc, etc, etc...

whatawaster

droidus wrote: »

So our best hope after more than a decade of centre right neo-liberal economic policies which have completely destroyed this country, is an even more economically right wing party which has explicitly identified itself with Thatcher and the tories?

What we need is a genuine alternative and a complete change in approach, not a change in management to a marginally 'more efficient' party which has roughly the same priorities as FF and pursues the same general policies.

Strange that 'high net worth individuals' would rather see minor changes in management rather than the radical changes in structure that we actually need. Anything to avoid those tax increases eh?

I don’t think running up a 20billion deficit is a neo-liberal right-wing policy
I don’t think pumping tens of billions into banks and nationalizing them is a neo-liberal right-wing policy.

jank

Yes, yes, yes!

Would like to see it happen but its doubtful!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

droidus

Einhard wrote: »

Socialising bank losses wasn't a "centre right neo-liberal economic policy". Neither was hiking SW payments to unsustainable levels. Neither was benchmarking. Etc, etc, etc...

Low tax, 'open' economy, non existent regulation, low corporation tax, privatisation, bailing out the rich - all text book right wing economic policies.

They increase in SW and PS pay were minor scraps thrown to the electorate, you only have to look at the inequality index to see how little was actually gained by the poorest sectors, and benchmarking, or course, benefited the highest paid the most, TD's, ministers, heads of universities, senior civil servants... some of the top paid are still receiving benefits from benchmarking.

droidus

whatawaster wrote: »

I don’t think running up a 20billion deficit is a neo-liberal right-wing policy
I don’t think pumping tens of billions into banks and nationalizing them is a neo-liberal right-wing policy.

Protecting the interests of capital are a fundamental tenet of right economic systems. Of course there is a contradiction between that and the idea of a 'free market', just as there was a contradiction between the ideas of open markets and globalisation during the years of the Washington consensus when developing countries were forced to open their economies whilst developed countries protected theirs.

Its almost as if its all about adopting policies which protect the interests of business - regardless of self-professed ideology... but that couldn't be true now could it? :rolleyes:

whatawaster

droidus wrote: »

Low tax, 'open' economy, non existent regulation, low corporation tax, privatisation, bailing out the rich - all text book right wing economic policies.

They increase in SW and PS pay were minor scraps thrown to the electorate, you only have to look at the inequality index to see how little was actually gained by the poorest sectors, and benchmarking, or course, benefited the highest paid the most, TD's, ministers, heads of universities, senior civil servants... some of the top paid are still receiving benefits form benchmarking.

We don’t have an “open” economy. Our electricity, telecommunications, legal, audit/accountancy and transport sectors all are/were heavily regulated or closed industries.

murphaph

bijapos wrote: »

This will solve very little. The Seanad abolition will go to a referendum. Apart from that they will reduce the number of TDs by 20 or so. What the system needs is a complete overhaul, **** the old system of counties and voting for TDs because they are local. The country needs a list system, and maybe 8 constituencies with their own regional administration. This is my main gripe with FG. The people want change, they will give FG a mandate for change but FG dont want full and proper change. The system is broke, we need a new system, not a couple of plasters to keep it going for another few years.

I agree, however FG are at least heading down the right path. The have said they will get their new "citizens committee" or whatever it's called to investigate the replacement of STV with lists. It's the closest any party has offered. I think we should take it and if we get say, 20 TDs elected by list at the start, it will snowball. We are not going to get rid of poxy PRSTV in one go, worse luck. We need to be realistic and see that the proposals FG are offering are real change to Irish politics and will have a meaningful result.

droidus

whatawaster wrote: »

We don’t have an “open” economy. Our electricity, telecommunications, legal, audit/accountancy and transport sectors all are/were heavily regulated or closed industries.

Im sorry? What? :rolleyes: Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Until 2008, Ireland boasted one of the most vibrant, open economies in the world. The "Celtic Tiger" period of the mid- to late 1990s saw several years of double-digit GDP growth, driven by a progressive industrial policy that boosted large-scale foreign direct investment and exports. GDP growth dipped during the immediate post-September 11, 2001 global economic slowdown, but averaged roughly 5% yearly between 2004 and 2007, the best performance for this period among the original EU 15 member states. During that period, the Irish economy generated roughly 90,000 new jobs annually and attracted over 200,000 foreign workers, mostly from the new EU member states, in an unprecedented immigration influx. The construction sector accounted for approximately one-quarter of these jobs. However, the Irish economy began to experience a slowdown in 2008. The Irish property market collapsed, putting pressure on the Irish banks, which had a significant portion of their loan books in real estate. This, in turn, caused a collapse in the government’s finances because of a large dip in the amount of revenue raised from value-added tax and tax on property transactions.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3180.htm

Singapore slipped two notches to third place in a ranking of the world's most open economies in 2000, with Ireland and Switzerland ahead of it among the 62 nations surveyed.

The globalisation index, assembled by Washington-based Foreign Policy magazine and Electronic Data System's global consultancy, AT Kearney, measures economic integration, cross-border personal contact, transnational political engagement and technology usage to reach its conclusions.

While Singapore remained the world's top trading nation, it struggled to take full advantage of global portfolio capital flows, said the report on the magazine's website.

'A reorganisation of its main stock exchange helped to pull in some additional capital and position the country as a future financial centre, but the country evidently proved less attractive than others with larger or more dynamic economic hinterlands, including the combined euro-zone.'

Thus, while portfolio inflows to Ireland grew by some US$26 billion (S$48 billion) between 1998 and 2000, Singapore saw only US$1.3 billion in additional inflows.

The United States ranks 12th on the list, scoring high in the technology and political engagement measures, but low on economic integration.

It also scored low on the personal contact measure as most of its citizens do not travel abroad or have foreign contact via telephone or e-mail.

Countries such as Ireland, Singapore and Switzerland, which depend on trade, foreign investment and tourism scored highly.

The top 10 most globalised countries in 2000 by rank were: Ireland, Switzerland, Singapore, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Denmark, Austria and Britain.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200201/11/eng20020111_88454.shtml

List for the last 3 years here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_Index

kev9100

Absoloute BS. People love to portray the Labour party as radical leftists and that is simply not the case. Ruairi Quinn was the one who introduced the 12.5 corp tax rate and never gets any credit for it. Why is that?

Einhard

droidus wrote: »

Low tax, 'open' economy, non existent regulation, low corporation tax, privatisation, bailing out the rich - all text book right wing economic policies.

We have a balance of payments at the moment, and any growth in the next few years will be export lead, and highly dependent on multinationals based here. As such, our corporation tax and open economy are not right wing policies, they're the most logical policies to pursue. As Labour and the Unions have acknowledged. Bailing out the right is not a right wong economic policy either. Letting the banks fall and the investors (many of which, incidentally, were pension funds investing for people who would not describe themselves as wealthy) would have been a right wing economic policy. That didn't happen. instead what we had was state intervention in the private sector, which is most definitely not right wing.

They increase in SW and PS pay were minor scraps thrown to the electorate, you only have to look at the inequality index to see how little was actually gained by the poorest sectors, and benchmarking, or course, benefited the highest paid the most, TD's, ministers, heads of universities, senior civil servants... some of the top paid are still receiving benefits from benchmarking.

I only need to look at my own position on the dole to see how much SW claimants have benefited over the past decade. As for inequality indices, I don't really see their purpose. As long as a person is making or gaining enough money to meet their own needs, why does it matter what someone else is earning or gaining over and above them? Inequality indices are really indices of petty jealousy and envy.

As for benchmarking which you mention, how could that be described as right wing?

dicknorris

FG to get a overall majority

Get real for god sake it won't happen, has anyone on this thread looked at the opinion polls

senordingdong

Agree with OP, but I really don't see FG getting the overall majority. Which is what I want btw.

Labour are ahead in the opinion polls and I fear that FG have been out of Govt. so long that they may jump on any chance they get to take power...including entering a coalition...which could have serious effect on the reforms.

Badabing

It'll be near impossible for Fine Gael to get a overall majority as they would need to clean up in Dublin and meath kildare etc.. taking 2/3 seats there. AS i see it now Fine Gael will get 60 seats Labour 45 FF 48 rest 13.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

almighty1

FG, overall majority?

Sounds like a bad horror movie :eek:

thebigcheese22

whatawaster wrote: »

As much as i'd like a FG overall majority, it's not going to happen. It's going to be FG-Lab, so hopefully it will be something like a 70-30 split rather than closer to 50:50.

Labour aren't all bad, I think someone like Ruari Quinn would be a good addition to any cabinet for instance.

I hope for 3 things:
1) FG led government
2) FG Finance Minister (it has to be Richard Bruton - his punishment period is over)
3) FG Health Minister

No chance of Enda Kenny as Taoiseach and a FGer in Finance. If FG do win the election, they won't be much ahead of Labour.

Yitzhak Rabin

I would really love a FG overall majority.

I am really fearing the inevitable FG/Labour coalition. I think it is going to do real damage to this opportunity we have to fix our failed government model. I can see the next government being plagued by in-fighting, party politics, appeasing the unions in a Croke park mk II type deal. Then the worst part of all, is its going to allow FF to make lots of noise from the sidelines, and then a "reformed :rolleyes:" FF will get back into a position of power within a decade.

Nothing will have changed, and we will be left with this broken, clannish, juvenile political system we still have.

Given that the next government will be a FG/Labour coalition, the best outcome I can see, would be for it to fall apart within 12-18th months due to the diameterically opposing views on reform, and allow for a strong new party to emerge, with solely 'political and economic reform' as their platform to enter into a coalition with a slightly weakened FG and let them completely, and radically reform our system, and allow us to emerge from this in a decades time with a mature, efficient, and credible political system.

Valmont

Einhard wrote: »

Socialising bank losses wasn't a "centre right neo-liberal economic policy". Neither was hiking SW payments to unsustainable levels. Neither was benchmarking. Etc, etc, etc...

He's probably been reading the New Statesman. They've been harping on about neo-liberals ruining the world economy for months now.

droidus

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your figures on Public sector pay are massively, and Im sure willfully distorted by including the small percentage of top earners, which I have already mentioned, the main reason SW is such a burden now is because the economy has collapsed and the number of people on SW has nearly quadrupled, at the time the increase in SW was easily covered by the massive income in tax incomes, and was arguably necessary considering inflation was running at between 3-5% per annum during the boom years and the cost of living here increased to Nordic levels.

Benchmarking and the increase in SW were, as I said a marginal attempt to keep the PS happy and to pass on a tiny fraction of the wealth of this country to the poorest, it was not 'socialist', it was crumbs from the table, which we are now regretting because we've run out of bread and blown up the bakery.

If we hadn't created the "Wild West of European finance" in the IFSC through absolute abdication of regulatory responsibility, if we hadn't allowed the banks to go insane whilst laughing at the whitsleblowers and naysayers, if we'd had responsible regulation and taxation we would never had had a property bubble, or the financial crash and our deficit would be manageable.

We had to call in the IMF NOT because of our deficit, but because of our banking crisis. That much is abundantly clear.

The fact is, that we have lower taxation than nearly all of Europe, our spending on Public Services is in the lower third of the EU and our cost of living is still high.

There is certainly a case for PS wages at the top to come down, and there is a case for SW to come down - if accompanied by a reduction in the cost of living through utility reductions etc... but to blame SW and PS spending for this crisis is ridiculous, and betrays the kind of 'high net worth' wishful thinking and idiocy that got us into this mess.

dolphin city

wouldnt trust FG as far as I could throw them either. its FF all over again - have ye not learned that yet.

I don't know why the word "left" has everyone shaking in their shoes. Its a left govt that we need now. not this ar*e lickers and I am including labour in that - they are just as bad as the rest of them.

droidus

Valmont wrote: »

He's probably been reading the New Statesman. They've been harping on about neo-liberals ruining the world economy for months now.

Maybe you need to look up what it means, and consider why we've been ranked in the top twelve of the globalisation index for over a decade.

LK_Dave

I don't know if FG...or Labour for that matter...would be any different from the current shower. I just received a letter from FG's TD Jimmy Deenihan looking for the vote in the coming general election and asking if I had any issues to rise with him. All nice and sound of him but it was posted in a prepaid Seanad Éireann envelope. When will the gravy train never stop for these guys?? He may well be entitled to do this under the rules - rules which they drew up, I don't know. But this is just a small example how the Irish Tax payer is asked to take it up the a$$ every time from these muppets.

Einhard

droidus wrote: »

Your figures on Public sector pay are massively, and Im sure willfully distorted by including the small percentage of top earners, which I have already mentioned, the main reason SW is such a burden now is because the economy has collapsed and the number of people on SW has nearly quadrupled, at the time the increase in SW was easily covered by the massive income in tax incomes, and was arguably necessary considering inflation was running at between 3-5% per annum during the boom years and the cost of living here increased to Nordic levels.

Benchmarking and the increase in SW were, as I said a marginal attempt to keep the PS happy and to pass on a tiny fraction of the wealth of this country to the poorest, it was not 'socialist', it was crumbs from the table, which we are now regretting because we've run out of bread and blown up the bakery.

If we hadn't created the "Wild West of European finance" in the IFSC through absolute abdication of regulatory responsibility, if we hadn't allowed the banks to go insane whilst laughing at the whitsleblowers and naysayers, if we'd had responsible regulation and taxation we would never had had a property bubble, or the financial crash and our deficit would be manageable.

We had to call in the IMF NOT because of our deficit, but because of our banking crisis. That much is abundantly clear.

The fact is, that we have lower taxation than nearly all of Europe, our spending on Public Services is in the lower third of the EU and our cost of living is still high.

There is certainly a case for PS wages at the top to come down, and there is a case for SW to come down - if accompanied by a reduction in the cost of living through utility reductions etc... but to blame SW and PS spending for this crisis is ridiculous, and betrays the kind of 'high net worth' wishful thinking and idiocy that got us into this mess.

There's some truth in what you're saying alright. The regulation and oversight in this country was far too light, and that which was in place was unenforced. That certainly played a major part in our downfall, and it can be described as being a traditional part of right wing, laissez faire economic thinking.

However, and here's the nub, you refuse absolutely to accept that we were spending far beyond our means, and that government intervention was quite often unwarranted, heavy handed, and counter productive. The bailout of the banks cannot be described as right wing thinking for example. As for PS and SW payments, you ignore the fact that we are running a €20 fiscal deficit, which was brought about in the main by unsustainable spending. Certainly not part of traditional right wing ideology.

I think it's a mistake to attribute blame to one particular system or ideology, especially because there are few nations or governments which operate one only. In Ireland, Britain, even America, government policy operates on a fusion of left and right wing ideas. And aspects of both are to blame for our current position. There was too little regulation, yes; but equally, spending was uncontrolled. It's a bit disingenuous to call for oversight of the banks' spending, yet refuse to admit that the same is necessary for government spending. We are where we are, and we have to put ideology aside, and have an objective analysis of where we went wrong. And that means acknowledging that no one system got us into this mess, and that no one system will get us out of this mess. To state otherwise is but ideological posturing.

paddy462

I'll be happy with a Fine Gael - Labour government. They had the economy in a healthy position in '97 before things went crazy under Fianna Fail.
I'd like to see the creation of a Liberal Democratic Party in this country, one with no links to Fianna Fail whatsoever.

droidus

Einhard wrote: »

There's some truth in what you're saying alright. The regulation and oversight in this country was far too light, and that which was in place was unenforced. That certainly played a major part in our downfall, and it can be described as being a traditional part of right wing, laissez faire economic thinking.

However, and here's the nub, you refuse absolutely to accept that we were spending far beyond our means, and that government intervention was quite often unwarranted, heavy handed, and counter productive. The bailout of the banks cannot be described as right wing thinking for example. As for PS and SW payments, you ignore the fact that we are running a €20 fiscal deficit, which was brought about in the main by unsustainable spending. Certainly not part of traditional right wing ideology.

I think it's a mistake to attribute blame to one particular system or ideology, especially because there are few nations or governments which operate one only. In Ireland, Britain, even America, government policy operates on a fusion of left and right wing ideas. And aspects of both are to blame for our current position. There was too little regulation, yes; but equally, spending was uncontrolled. It's a bit disingenuous to call for oversight of the banks' spending, yet refuse to admit that the same is necessary for government spending. We are where we are, and we have to put ideology aside, and have an objective analysis of where we went wrong. And that means acknowledging that no one system got us into this mess, and that no one system will get us out of this mess. To state otherwise is but ideological posturing.

Thanks for a more considered reply.

Im not saying we should ignore Government spending. Im in favour of fiscal restraint and responsible spending.

I disagree with your assessment of our economic policies though, and even the examples you mention, the UK, the US and Ireland - are all well known to be closer to 'Boston than Berlin' in their economic policies.

I also disagree with the causes of the problems we face now. We were one of the most open economies in the world, the poster child of globalisation, held up as an example of all that is positive about neo-liberal policies, and now we are an example of what happens when those policies are taken to their natural extent in a real world situation.

AFAIC, one system DID get us into this mess - it was the overarching framework of right wing economic, pro-business, low tax, low regulation policies pushed by the PD's combined with FF's instinctive pro business stance and local cronyism and corruption which got us here.

But yes, we are where we are. and what I dont want to see in the future is more of the same kinds of policies that got us into this mess being repeated again, nor do I want to see the citizens of this country bear the burden of the casino losses made by banks and bondholders.

FG have no new ideas, they're going to pursue the same aims through different policies.

I think we need to look at different aims.

Bottle_of_Smoke

With Kenny as leader a FG overall majority gov is nothing but a pipe dream but too late to change that now. Pity because it may well be the best thing for the economy right now. It will be Labour/Fine Gael. I'd say something like 35:65.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dannyboy83

I believe a Fine Gael majority is the only viable option for the future sustainability of this country.

This image shows how the boom was squandered in Ireland.
Very few of the promises in Cork were delivered on, no North ring Road, no flood defences, a useless airport which is crumbling with debt and being strangled by the DAA. Cork is little different to most of the rest of the country, so much of the money was squandered.

This image shows the unsustainable positions Ireland maintains with regard to minimum wage - which is over inflated due to lucrative public sector wages and pensions

This table helps to portray the apartheid which continues to exist between public and private sector pay

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63180709&postcount=1

Last but not least; The IMF are to here to help fix the financial mess created by the Irish government and nothing else - not the social mess, not the union drama.
The bottom line is what concerns them.

Bear in mind, we have an income of 31billion.
We borrow 20billion per year, to pay for Social Welfare and Publi sector wages.
Socialism is strangling baby Ireland in her cot.


Either we elect a Fine Gael government, or the BRAIN DRAIN will begin - mass exodus of the wealth generating class who will refused to be taxed to the back teeth to prop up this socialist nightmare.

Liam Byrne

Einhard wrote: »

Ireland does not, by any means, have a high individual tax burden.

Factor in the cost of living here and doing business here and you have people on €1,500 a month who cannot afford to pay more.

Reduce the costs (many of which are due to Government contracts and quangos) and then see what's left over.

All I'm saying is that - in total - I have absolutely no money available to pay more tax; I don't mind paying what I am paying, and if the Government actually do some good for a change I don't mind paying out the same amount, but I cannot afford to pay more.

Einhard wrote: »

The average industrial wage is still one of the highest in Europe, and once the unemployed are removed, average Irish disposable income is in the same category.

And the cost of living comes out of that - including the cost of putting a roof over your head.

There is no point in looking at what people are paid unless you look at what people have to pay out. And I'm not talking luxuries here; I'm talking the basics, such as the sickening €450 house insurance quote that arrived today in the post.

the groutch

an overall majority would be bad for the country imo, we need accountability for the biggest party, which wasnt realistically possible in recent coalitions with the junior partner
at least with the FG/Labour coalition, Labour have a proper say and keep FG in check (thst's assuming that FG are the senior partner)

Spacedog

FG are pretty much the same as FF policy wise. for every corrupt FF politician there is a FG one on the other side.

as opposition FG resort to cheap name calling because 75% of the time they would so the same if they were in power.

as for the bitterness towards Labour, and the begrudging of social secutity payments to those who had contributed during the good times. you seem perfectly happy to take the last peice of bread from the mouths of the poorest people, for fear of becomming poor yourselves.

the implication that it's better for middle class people to leave Ireland to preserve a life of comfort, rather than poor people leaving ireland to scrape out a living is typical from both FF/FG supporters. show a bit of backbone and be willing bite the bullet and pay your share.

paddy462

FG and FF have similarity but they are members of two different groups in Europe.
A good move for the country is if someone had the leadership and strength to create a new Liberal Democratic Party without being linked to the old politics.

droidus

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, lets look at PS pay in comparison with other European countries:

One of the problems in comparing public sector wages internationally is that there is no internationally agreed definition of ‘public sector’ employee. For instance, in Ireland are ESB workers ‘public sector’? They’re not private sector as the company is publicly owned. However, they don’t fall into the category of ‘General Government Employee’ nor are they paid out of the Exchequer pay and pension budget. Defining these ‘public enterprise’ workers is one of the complications international agencies face when defining ‘public sector’ or ‘Government employees, especially when different countries have widely varying organisational practices.

However, the EU Klems database compiles comprehensive data on total labour costs and total hours worked by various economic sectors. Some of these can be directly related to the public sector - in particular NACE L: Public Administration & Defence. Throughout Europe, including Ireland, it is likely that all employees in this category will be public sector workers (unlike NACE N: Health & Social Work where, in Ireland, only about 55 percent of all employees are in the public sector).

So what do we find when we compare labour costs (wages plus employers’ payroll contributions) in the public administration sector which, in Ireland, makes up approximately 100,000 employees?



Irish labour costs rank 10th out of the EU-15
Irish labour costs per hour are €2.02 below the EU-15 average – or 7.2 percent
When compared with our peer group in the EU-15 (excluding the poorer Mediterranean countries), Irish labour costs per hour are €4.28 per hour below average – or 14.2 percent.

Of course, this is before both the pension levy (which wouldn’t show up as a pay cut in these tables) and the Budget 2010 pay cuts (which would). So there is a reasonable chance that Irish public sector labour costs will have fallen further behind European averages. (I won’t even go into PPPs, factoring in living standards; Irish public sector wages would fall even further behind European averages).

http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/politicaleconomy/2010/03/in-a-previous-post-we-saw-that-public-sector-labour-costs-are-below-average-by-eu-15-standards-the-argument-that-irish-publ.html

So even with filthy reds throwing money into the Public Service orgy of champagne and truffles, it seems we never went above 10th in the EU. Almost enough to make you think that the PS was actually underpaid at the onset of the bench marking process. Almost as if that was the situation that benchmarking was originally designed to address...

Have a look at the increases in dole payments from 2000-10:

Budget 2000: €96.50
Budget 2001: €106.66 (+10.5%)
Budget 2002: €118.80 (+11.3%)
Budget 2003: €124.80 (+5%)
Budget 2004: €134.80 (+8%)
Budget 2005: €148.80 (+10.3%)
Budget 2006: €165.80 (+11.4%)
Budget 2007: €185.80 (+12%)
Budget 2008: €197.80 (+6.4%)
Budget 2009: €204.80 (+3.5%)
Budget 2010: €196.00 (-4.3%)

Inflation during the past decade was nowhere near the level you claim it was. If benefits had increased in line with inflation since 2000, dole payments would be around €130 a week at the present time. Instead, they are €66 a week higher than that.

First of all, I never claimed that SW climbed in line with inflation, I said inflation was high during the boom years.

It also seems that in 2001, our net spending on SW was one of the lowest in the OECD, luckily mexico and South Korea stopped us from coming last:

Denmark 29.2 37.9 $29,000
Sweden 28.9 38.2 $24,180
France 28.5 34.9 $23,990
Germany 27.4 33.2 $25,350
Belgium 27.2 32.7 $25,520
Switzerland 26.4 31.6 $28,100
Austria 26.0 32.4 $26,730
Finland 24.8 32.3 $24,430
Netherlands 24.3 27.3 $27,190
Italy 24.4 28.6 $24,670
Greece 24.3 28.4 $17,440
Norway 23.9 33.2 $29,620
Poland 23.0 N/A $9,450
United Kingdom 21.8 25.9 $24,160
Portugal 21.1 25.5 $18,150
Luxembourg 20.8 N/A $53,780
Czech Republic 20.1 N/A $14,720
Hungary 20.1 N/A $12,340
Iceland 19.8 23.2 $29,990
Spain 19.6 25.3 $20,150
New Zealand 18.5 25.8 $19,160
Australia 18.0 22.5 $25,370
Slovak Republic 17.9 N/A $11,960
Canada 17.8 23.1 $27,130
Japan 16.9 18.6 $25,130
United States 14.8 19.4 $46,000
Ireland 13.8 18.5 $32,410
Mexico 11.8 N/A $8,430
South Korea 6.1 11.0 $15,090

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state For a proper table

Again, its almost as if SW levels in relation to GDP were very low to begin with.

No, I'm afraid you are completely wrong. In a hypothetical world without the crippling deficit, we would have faced into the banking crisis with a balanced budget and a low national debt of around €38 billion. Market confidence in our economy would have remained high. We could easily have managed on our own. The bankers have not brought this country to its knees by themselves.

Im sorry, this is nonsense. Youre saying that if our deficit was lower then we could have dealt with the banking crisis. Im saying that the Irish banking crisis was a direct result of the neo liberal policies of FF and the PD's, and that its clearly the crisis and the blanket guarantee which have dragged us down. Without the banking crisis the slump would not have been so severe, we'd have far less people on social welfare and the deficit would have been far more manageable.

The deficit is not the cause of this crisis. It is of course undesirable, but its still a relatively minor contributory factor. Even without the deficit the banks would still have dragged us to the door of the IMF. We're looking at what? €250 billion to stabilise the banking sector? The PS and SW bills are nothing in comparison.