The Role of the Opposition

hallelujajordan

So, to start, allow me to recognise that the FF led governments of the past decade or so have made serious economic policy blunders that allowed a property bubble to expand out of control and that ultimately burst and is now swallowing us all in its debt. This thread does not seek to alter that reality or to absolve FF from any of the blame for where we are . .

But I am interested in understanding what people think the role of the opposition in Dail Eireann is . . . ? In other threads I have suggested that the opposition pushed similar economic policies to the government and are therefore somewhat culpable, at which point I am usually attacked and accused of trying to shift the blame. . .

But this is an important point. . 80-odd deputies sit on the opposition benches and are paid a salary from the public purse. If the government are 100% responsible for all the decisions that are made then why are we wasting our money paying opposition TD's ? What's their job and what do we get for the salary we pay them ?

In my view, the role of the opposition is to provide alternative ideas and suggestion, to play an active role in legislating and to constantly seek to challenge the direction of the government. . . If they fail to do that, are they not somewhat culpable ?

By my reckoning, we have been paying 80-odd opposition TD's in or around 100k per annum for the last 10 years . . . Thats €80 million ? probably in excess of €100M when you add expenses. . . Did we get value for money ? What exactly did we get for our €80M ? Did they keep the government in check ? Did they provide economic strategic counterbalance ? And if not, don't we have the right to hold them accountable in the same way that we should hold the government accountable ?

thebman

In Ireland the role of the opposition seems to be to never admit the government did anything right.

However I don't think FF would do anything other than this when in opposition either.

I also think that the opposition fear not getting credit for their ideas if they give them from the opposition benches.

In reality, similar people would also have been giving political donations to the opposition as to the government which highlights part of the problem with our system.

Lastly with unrivaled economic growth in the history of the state, there are no policies the opposition could have offered to slow the boom and certainly none that involved slowing the property bubble with so many people benefiting from its continuation.

DB10

The opposition are largely clueless, and we will get nowhere while guys like Enda Kenny and Gilmore are still at large, and tasked with leading the country.

Young blood with new ideas are needed.

Shea O'Meara

I agree with thebman.

There's a circular argument here.
FFail supporters often say FG/Lab would have done the same.
In opposition FFail would have done the same?
Can we really see, if roles were reversed, FFail saying 'Hey lets put all this fussing and a feuding aside and help the country'?
Also there is a case for any party in power taking the ideas of others and rebranding them as their own. As regards votes, this would not assist another party in getting in at the next election and that's what it's all about.
Although it doesn't happen enough, we need people outside of the ruling party, whom ever they may be, to bring attention to and call for votes on issues within the public interest.
The way FFail recently lied to the country regarding the bailout and telling us we were fine until the middle of next year for example.
If there is nobody calling the ruling party to question a lot would slip by us.
I believe all main parties will pass the budget. I would not because coupled with the current IMF situation I think every citizen should get every detail and be asked what their opinion is. This will be hanging over us a long time and is bigger than party politics, bigger than FFail, FG, Lab etc. I know this would not be very practical, but we're talking generations here not a few years in the abyss.

On a side note, why would anyone still support FFail. Seriously what more need they do?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ninty9er

I am someone who, let's be honest, has been a government supporter on these boards and sought to defend policies on the basis that in particular cases I supported them at the time.

I don't even think Brian Cowen would guarantee Anglo if he could turn the clock back, but a decision HAD to be made. I agree with ideas such as NAMA as it doesn't set out to forgive debt which is a common misconception by the clueless and angry.

I also agree and give credit where I believe opposition ideas are sound. The main example I can think of is Fine Gael's school clustering plan. It's not a popular idea, but I have supported it because it is in the national interest to introduce efficiencies across society. It doesn't bother me that people will have to travel 30/40 minutes to school. It's common in many places anyway.

The opposition has failed in the last number of years not becuase it isn't any good at all, but because it's spending most of its time telling us why the government is bad and very little telling us why it it better.

As someone who would consider running for national elections for Fianna Fáil in the next 10 years, I certainly would be someone who would give credit where it's due and not criticise excessively without much sign of giving a workable alternative.

southsiderosie

thebman wrote: »

Lastly with unrivaled economic growth in the history of the state, there are no policies the opposition could have offered to slow the boom and certainly none that involved slowing the property bubble with so many people benefiting from its continuation.

That is not true. It wasn't simply a matter of stopping; the government passed laws that fueled the fire. The ESRI warned then in 2000 about the overheating economy, and they were ignored.

Eliot Rosewater

You can read Fine Gael's manifesto for the 2007 election here: http://www.irishelection.com/2007/05/fine-gael-manifesto/

"Extend medical cards to 100,000 more families."
"Free Health Insurance for every child under 16."
"Cut stamp duty."
"Cut 20% tax rate to 18%."
"ensure Ireland’s strong economy and jobs are not put at risk by complacency or lack of competitiveness."

All the links to FG's manifesto on their website are dead or re-direct to their homepage. If I were FG I'd be trying to hide it too.

Laminations

The opposition haven't covered themselves in glory, indeed they've been quite terrible but they are still better than, and less culpable than the government and failing any other alternatives having to choose between the parties I'd pick the opposition. Also this isn't exactly true.

Not only did the opposition parties not significantly criticize ballooning government spending, they actually proposed to imitate FF's fiscally destructive policies.

The criticism wasn't evident in their election manifestos, because it wasn't what the electorate wanted to hear but look at

http://www.politics.ie/fine-gael/81108-richard-brutons-budget-speeches.html

The mistake FFers make in debates is that they think their opponents think the opposition are good, whereas in reality we just think they are the best of a bad lot

imme

hallelujajordan wrote: »

(1) So, to start, allow me to recognise that the FF led governments

(2) In my view, the role of the opposition is to provide alternative ideas and suggestion, to play an active role in legislating and to constantly seek to challenge the direction of the government. . . If they fail to do that, are they not somewhat culpable ?

(3) Did they keep the government in check ? Did they provide economic strategic counterbalance ? And if not, don't we have the right to hold them accountable in the same way that we should hold the government accountable ?

that´s very magnanimnous of you OP. Who else would you blame if you can´t imagine that the govt is responsible for our current state.

(2) No, that´s not the roe of opposition as I see it. An opposition shouldn´t just say the opposite of what a govt says, that´s just stupid. A govt says 500 euro more for OAP´s, and the opposition says no, just because they´re the opposition.
An opposition is there because they didn´t get enough vote to be the govt, they should say what their policies are, not say the opposite of what the govt says.
The opposition in Ire is made up of disparate parties, not a uniform body. We don´t have an official opposition, as in other parliaments. The opposition doesn´t have uniform policies, or a uniform view.

Opposition can propose all sorts of legislation, govt´s rarely take legislation from oppositions in Ire. If the govt has enough votes they´ll put forward their policies and not bother with the opposition, not even their own backbenches at times.

(3) The role of opposition isn´t to provide an economic strat. counterbalance, where did you get that from. The role of an opposition is to state their own policies.

We should hold all lawmakers to account, only trouble is some had the power to change things, some didn´t, some bankrupted us and let banks run riot, the other didn´t.

I thought Michael McDowell was the Govt watchdog!:D

Come election day the entire Dail will be judged, one party will suffer a bloodbath, that´ll be your answer as to who the Irish people think is accountable.;)

kaiser sauze

This question is entirely redundant because of the structure of our legislative arm.

The government(executive) decide what gets discussed, what gets passed and when the Oireachtas sits and rises.

hallelujajordan

imme wrote: »

that´s very magnanimnous of you OP. Who else would you blame if you can´t imagine that the govt is responsible for our current state.

Not trying to be magnanimous . . trying to prevent the inevitable accusations that this thread is seeking to shift the blame, really all I want to do is explore what the role of the opposition ought to be. .

imme wrote:

(2) No, that´s not the roe of opposition as I see it. An opposition shouldn´t just say the opposite of what a govt says, that´s just stupid. A govt says 500 euro more for OAP´s, and the opposition says no, just because they´re the opposition.

I'm not saying they should just vote against the government for the heck of it . . that would be stupid. But if their role is just to pursue their own policies and if we recognise that they can do nothing in opposition with those policies then what value are they adding ? How are they worth €80M over the past 10 years ?? and why am I paying them to develop policies that they can do nothing with ?

(3) The role of opposition isn´t to provide an economic strat. counterbalance, where did you get that from. The role of an opposition is to state their own policies.

I'm suggesting that this might be a more valuable role . . . If all politicians and parties drift into the populist centre ground then what is the point of having a government and an opposition. . . why not just have a government ?

Come election day the entire Dail will be judged, one party will suffer a bloodbath, that´ll be your answer as to who the Irish people think is accountable.;)

You are right . . and then in 5 years time we will judge a failed FG/LAB government and swing back to FF . . . Is it not time that we held the entire political system accountable rather than just those who hold power ?

So let me ask you a question . . What is the role of the opposition ? Pursuing their policies is the role of the party itself but not of the opposition . . the country should not be paying them to pursue their policies ? Why have we paid them €80M over the last 10 years ? What value do they offer and how do we hold them to account ?

gimme5minutes

ninty9er wrote: »

As someone who would consider running for national elections for Fianna Fáil in the next 10 years, I certainly would be someone who would give credit where it's due and not criticise excessively without much sign of giving a workable alternative.

You would consider running for election for a party that has no next to zero ideology, that bankrupted the country, that is regarded as a laughing stock internationally, that stoked an unsustainable property bubble, that is littered with corruption and incompetence, that puts incompetent people in powerful positions in state agencies purely because they are pals with the leader, that has caused tens of thousands of young people to emigrate (including several of my own family), that has messed up the planning in every town in Ireland, that has blown hundreds of millions on useless tribunals rather than letting gardai investigate corrupt politicians, etc...etc...

If you think the Irish people need more of that in the future, good luck. Why not join a party that hasn't done any of the stuff I mentioned above? Or even start your own party? If you feel strongly about making Ireland a better place surely you can find a better outlet for your views than the washed-up FF. It's not like FF have any ideology on how society should be run, their ideology seems to be soley 'we should be in power', so why would it be difficult to leave them, what exactly is keeping you there at this stage?

As for the opposition in this country, they aren't up to much but by they are still the 'only game in town' at this stage. I really can't see how they could have made a bigger balls of the country than FF. FF in power has led to the worst possible outcome for this nation, the IMF in town and Ireland signing up to an enormous bailout that we will never be able to pay off. FF did that, not FG/Labour.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Not trying to be magnanimous . . trying to prevent the inevitable accusations that this thread is seeking to shift the blame, really all I want to do is explore what the role of the opposition ought to be.

This would actually be a valid exercise were it not for your party allegiance and your own party's attempts to shift the blame.

As a result of those, it is difficult to view this thread as anything other than more of the same partisan tactics.

If FF had been more open and honest and accepted their massive failures then we could also look at who else failed.

But having someone from a party whose stock reply is "I don't accept that" point fingers elsewhere is double-standards.

Drumpot

Firstly, it doesnt matter if somebody is an FF supporter or not once their message is fair, honest and sensible. By discriminating against their opinion by attacking their political position as opposed to the point being made, you are simply being ignorant to proper progressive debate. Ironically this is just as ignorant as the stance that many feel that FF have been taking by not considering the views/values of their people because they simply think that their opinions are more valuable by default.

The oppositin defenders have still not properly commented on the fact that they are promoting the concept of voting for the alternative that was calling for more spending and in no way encouraged the bubble to stop.

Its completely ridiculous to argue "well its better then the current crowd" without anything substantial to back up why you feel this way. These are opposition people who are used to the kind of culture in the dail -

• Tell the people what they want to hear
• Only implement policies that enhance your popularity
• Abuse your position of power

What opposition party has recommended that accountability of politicians be at the forefront of a new government ?

That says it all for me and if people think that getting anybody but FF represents true change, then we have learned nothing . .

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This would actually be a valid exercise were it not for your party allegiance and your own party's attempts to shift the blame.

As a result of those, it is difficult to view this thread as anything other than more of the same partisan tactics.

If FF had been more open and honest and accepted their massive failures then we could also look at who else failed.

But having someone from a party whose stock reply is "I don't accept that" point fingers elsewhere is double-standards.

Liam, how can you read the first sentence of my opening post and then accuse me of double standards and partisan tactics ? Can we not get away from the partisan crap for a second and just engage in a discussion ? I have always accepted that FF made mistakes but i also feel that it is important to look at the political system as a whole and how it has failed us.

Liam Byrne

You are still a member of FF, and until your party starts taking responsibity for its choices any attempts by a member will stink of more of the same, whether intentional or not.

Drumpot

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You are still a member of FF, and until your party starts taking responsibity for its choices any attempts by a member will stink of more of the same, whether intentional or not.

You still fail to engage in proper debate with anybody who doesnt massage your own extreme views that appear to be based on anger more then objective principles.

You might aswell go and tell all FF supporters to go and hang themselves if they dont think voting for anybody but FF is the way forward to this country . . Sounds familiar doesnt it and we know how that kind of attitude has worked for us .

If you want true change you will discuss all facets of politics, not just push the debates into farcial "Im not speaking to you, even if you make good points unless you agree with my view on FF".

SkepticOne

To the extent that the opposition have power, they have culpability. But being rubbish alone is not sufficient.

My opinions or those of anyone on this forum might likewise be rubbish and be disastrous if they were to be adopted as policy by a government. But because we have no power, we are not culpable.

The question then is how much power does an opposition party have? I would say next to none in matters of the day to day running of the country, and minimal power in legislative matters.

Do they have influence? I don't think they have any more influence than many of the lobby and business groups that talk to the government. Possibly they have a sort of "anti-influence" in that the government may feel the need to adopt contrary policies in response to proposals from the opposition. But then should influence be counted here at all? Shouldn't the buck stop with the government in any case? We are too sympathetic I think to government ministers saying that all they did was go along with the consensus on this or that issue and so should not be blamed and personally I'm tired of ministers saying "ah sure we're no worse than them other fellas".

So anyway being a bit crap is not the same as being culpable. This is not to say that we should not have political and electoral reform to improve the quality of politicians. I think it is very important that we should have that.

southsiderosie

Drumpot wrote: »

Its completely ridiculous to argue "well its better then the current crowd" without anything substantial to back up why you feel this way. These are opposition people who are used to the kind of culture in the dail -

• Tell the people what they want to hear
• Only implement policies that enhance your popularity
• Abuse your position of power

What opposition party has recommended that accountability of politicians be at the forefront of a new government ?

That says it all for me and if people think that getting anybody but FF represents true change, then we have learned nothing . .

I don't think that voting for the opposition in this case is voting for change. But I think that is besides the point at this stage.

Voting for the opposition doesn't necessarily or even have to serve as a vote of endorsement of their policies. Opposition voting can also be used as a punishment mechanism by the population against the ruling party. Frankly, I think this is healthy in a democracy, and if FF ever had to do a long stint in the political wilderness (like Labour in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s), they maybe they would actually change their modus operandi.

If parties know that they will be punished by voters when they screw up, then they have more of an incentive to pay attention to the public and to managing the affairs of state. But FF has historically been able to rely on legacy voting, and have been somewhat shielded from proper electoral punishment in a way that most political parties (especially in Europe) are not.

If I were a young FF party member, I would kind of hope that the party got utterly destroyed in the next round of elections, and that pretty much most of the current leadership were thrown out of the Dail. Then maybe people could get together and really start to think about developing a core set of policies and principles moving forward. The sad thing is, I would expect that some of the young guns will lose out, while the Bertie Aherns of the party will survive.

SkepticOne

A lot of the problem comes down to the extreme localism of Irish politics. Fianna Fail don't need core policies or principles and they don't really need to do much as a parliamentary opposition party. They can claw their way back to power by quietly building up support at the local level campaigning purely on local issues. In fact this is what I think they will do. They have lost credibility as a party of national government, so it makes sense for them to stay out of that over the next few years. But keep the local organisation going, and quietly build up support for individual TD candidates downplaying the Dáil role. The party leader would be more like a manager, brokering deals, keeping everyone happy.

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

You still fail to engage in proper debate with anybody who doesnt massage your own extreme views that appear to be based on anger more then objective principles.

You might aswell go and tell all FF supporters to go and hang themselves if they dont think voting for anybody but FF is the way forward to this country . . Sounds familiar doesnt it and we know how that kind of attitude has worked for us .


If you want true change you will discuss all facets of politics, not just push the debates into farcial "Im not speaking to you, even if you make good points unless you agree with my view on FF".

Under normal circumstances that might be a valid criticism, however my opinion is coloured by the fact that FF have chosen to lie and deflect at every opportunity, making it impossible to accept and bona fides in their approach to anything, especially blame, which they've tried to land on Lehman's door and even on my door.

And that's not really my fault - it's a case of "ten times bitten, eleventh time shy".

Spudmonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This would actually be a valid exercise were it not for your party allegiance and your own party's attempts to shift the blame.

As a result of those, it is difficult to view this thread as anything other than more of the same partisan tactics.

To be honest Liam, you are so biased against FF at this stage that you view any attempt to question the opposition as somehow excusing the government.

More should take place than just removing one shower of gombeens and replacing them with another and I frankly I don't see how questioning is somehow exalting the incumbent crowd.

Liam Byrne

Spudmonkey wrote: »

To be honest Liam, you are so biased against FF at this stage that you view any attempt to question the opposition as somehow excusing the government.

More should take place than just removing one shower of gombeens and replacing them with another and I frankly I don't see how questioning is somehow exalting the incumbent shower.

I agree. FG apparently OK'd pay an expense rises for themselves last week, which has probably lost them my vote.

I just cannot take any more blame or financial discussion with FF.

I'll gladly have it with neutrals, though, and have emailed Kenny to tell him that that pay rise vote lost FG my vote.

hallelujajordan

SkepticOne wrote: »

To the extent that the opposition have power, they have culpability. But being rubbish alone is not sufficient.

My opinions or those of anyone on this forum might likewise be rubbish and be disastrous if they were to be adopted as policy by a government. But because we have no power, we are not culpable.

The question then is how much power does an opposition party have? I would say next to none in matters of the day to day running of the country, and minimal power in legislative matters.

Do they have influence? I don't think they have any more influence than many of the lobby and business groups that talk to the government. Possibly they have a sort of "anti-influence" in that the government may feel the need to adopt contrary policies in response to proposals from the opposition. But then should influence be counted here at all? Shouldn't the buck stop with the government in any case? We are too sympathetic I think to government ministers saying that all they did was go along with the consensus on this or that issue and so should not be blamed and personally I'm tired of ministers saying "ah sure we're no worse than them other fellas".

So if they have no power, minimal influence and therefore no culpability then what value do they offer ? Why are we paying them ?

southsiderosie

hallelujajordan wrote: »

So if they have no power, minimal influence and therefore no culpability then what value do they offer ? Why are we paying them ?

Because Ireland is a democracy and they were elected?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I agree. FG apparently OK'd pay an expense rises for themselves last week, which has probably lost them my vote.

I just cannot take any more blame or financial discussion with FF.

I'll gladly have it with neutrals, though, and have emailed Kenny to tell him that that pay rise vote lost FG my vote.

Liam, If we accept your argument that FF are 100% responsible and not look elsewhere at what might be broken then we have no chance of fixing things. .

I really hoped this thread wouldn't turn into a 'blame debate' . . sigh !!

hallelujajordan

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because Ireland is a democracy and they were elected?

Indeed, elected into Dail Eireann but thats not my question . . The 80+ TD's that form the government have an obvious role, its easy to measure them and to hold them accountable . . Don't the opposition also have a role and shouldn't we hold them accountable for properly discharging it ? ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Liam, If we accept your argument that FF are 100% responsible and not look elsewhere at what might be broken then we have no chance of fixing things. .

I really hoped this thread wouldn't turn into a 'blame debate' . . sigh !!

Where did I say that FF were 100% responsible ?

They are 100% responsible for their choices re the guarantee, Anglo, NAMA, the IMF and the unfair cuts, but there's a load of people responsible to varying degrees for the mess we are in, including bankers, solicitors, auctioneers and a small proportion of very, very greedy individuals and speculators.

Let's park my obvious lack of credibility for anyone who chooses to remain in FF for a while.

What can an opposition do, other than object to crazy government policies ? What can they do besides raise the issue and vote against them ? The problem is four-fold, as far as I see it.

1) The opposition is weak, there's no doubt about that. We need and deserve better politicians all round, as shown by the fact that although FG stopped their members from fraudulently claiming "attendance" expenses during the volcano, those members who tried it are still members. I would have kicked them out because I'd want nothing to do with anyone who pulled a stunt like that.

2) The government has far too much say. Even in the current scenario where most of the country and all of the opposition agrees that FF don't have a mandate for what they are doing, there is no way to kick FF out; once Cowen brazens it out, spouting "I don't accept that" and lying re IMF intervention and god knows what else to add to his unexplained "We're not ***king letting Anglo fail!" outburst then there is no way for an opposition to ensure that the will of the people is done

3) The party whip also ensures that no opposition motions get carried and even the most sickening and unacceptable government motion gets carried.

4) There are some ridiculous practices which all sides engage in that has no place in a house of representatives, for example John O'Donoghue's pathetic waffling both when he was forced to resign and his later revenge waffling.

So maybe we should have no opposition; or maybe opposition should be open and transparent debate with the public instead.

Mind you, the opposition did force O'Donoghue out, so they have some uses when they want to expose corruption and unacceptable goings-on.

thebman

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Indeed, elected into Dail Eireann but thats not my question . . The 80+ TD's that form the government have an obvious role, its easy to measure them and to hold them accountable . . Don't the opposition also have a role and shouldn't we hold them accountable for properly discharging it ? ?

We should but it would have been pointless to say the boom was unsustainable from the leaders of the opposition as it would have just reduced their approval ratings as the government propaganda network (RTE) would have spun it as the opposition want to return to the 80's and hate Ireland.

TBH one of the groups with the most blame is the Irish media even the private media as they could easily have exposed the bubble for what it was but choose to kick back off the property pages advertising rolling in.

It doesn't really matter what the opposition says if the media don't report it and give it a prime slot, it never happened as far most of the public are concerned.

thebaldsoprano

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In my view, the role of the opposition is to provide alternative ideas and suggestion, to play an active role in legislating and to constantly seek to challenge the direction of the government.

I've harped on about FG supporting the bank guarantee scheme in a different thread, it's also worth noting that Labour and Sinn Fein didn't offer anything new here either. They both supported earlier drafts and only pulled out because their conditions weren't met - not because they were opposed to the idea or had an alternative to socialising private debt like Iceland's solution.

Granted the damage to the economy was already done at this stage, but if either of these parties try to score points around election time with taxpayers shouldering private banks' debt burden, it'll be nothing but hot air.

thebman

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I've harped on about FG supporting the bank guarantee scheme in a different thread, it's also worth noting that Labour and Sinn Fein didn't offer anything new here either. They both supported earlier drafts and only pulled out because their conditions weren't met - not because they were opposed to the idea or had an alternative to socialising private debt like Iceland's solution.

Granted the damage to the economy was already done at this stage, but if either of these parties try to score points around election time with taxpayers shouldering private banks' debt burden, it'll be nothing but hot air.

Not really, their reasons for supporting it were based on government information which was factually inaccurate.

The government was saying the banks wouldn't need a bailout at the time essentially and didn't want our money.

This was not the case as it turned out. The real question nobody can tell us the answer to is did the government know more than it was letting on at the time or were they making decisions without all the facts?

What you were asking the opposition to do was come out and tell the world that our government was lying and our banks were about to go down without a bail out. They would need to have known this information and been able to prove it at the time.

thebaldsoprano

thebman wrote: »

Not really, their reasons for supporting it were based on government information which was factually inaccurate.

The government was saying the banks wouldn't need a bailout at the time essentially and didn't want our money.

This was not the case as it turned out. The real question nobody can tell us the answer to is did the government know more than it was letting on at the time or were they making decisions without all the facts?

What you were asking the opposition to do was come out and tell the world that our government was lying and our banks were about to go down without a bail out. They would need to have known this information and been able to prove it at the time.

Rough estimates of the amount of debt being guaranteed were known to the press, so I'd imagine the opposition had at least some idea what they were letting us in for. They saw fit to play high stakes poker with 400 billion of taxpayers' money, and the Government has since been called on a large part of the bet. The whole point of the guarantee was that the Government didn't know what would happen, why else would they have offered the banks insurance on all their liabilities? If they had reliable data and could determine a reasonable exposure to taxpayers then they could have made this amount available to the banks.

What FF knew or didn't know isn't really the point - the opposition should have done their homework. The real question is why didn't they offer alternatives?

kaiser sauze

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Rough estimates of the amount of debt being guaranteed were known to the press, so I'd imagine the opposition had at least some idea what they were letting us in for. They saw fit to play high stakes poker with 400 billion of taxpayers' money, and the Government has since been called on a large part of the bet. The whole point of the guarantee was that the Government didn't know what would happen, why else would they have offered the banks insurance on all their liabilities? If they had reliable data and could determine a reasonable exposure to taxpayers then they could have made this amount available to the banks.

What FF knew or didn't know isn't really the point - the opposition should have done their homework. The real question is why didn't they offer alternatives?

As was indicated in a recent PAC meeting where the execs of NAMA were before it, they all but stated the banks were lying about the figures from the start.

thebaldsoprano

kaiser sauze wrote: »

As was indicated in a recent PAC meeting where the execs of NAMA were before it, they all but stated the banks were lying about the figures from the start.

All the more reason why an alternative from the opposition would've been nice. I'm really surprised that they all gravitated towards the bailout - or then again, maybe it's not all that surprising...

kaiser sauze

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

All the more reason why an alternative from the opposition would've been nice. I'm really surprised that they all gravitated towards the bailout - or then again, maybe it's not all that surprising...

FG, in particular, have major reservations about the NAMA process and never supported a permanent blanket bank-liabilities guarantee.

Labour's opposition to the guarantee, as it turned out, is well known.

thebaldsoprano

kaiser sauze wrote: »

FG, in particular, have major reservations about the NAMA process and never supported a permanent blanket bank-liabilities guarantee.

Labour's opposition to the guarantee, as it turned out, is well known.

I wasn't questioning NAMA though, just the bailout. FG voted for the bank guarantee scheme and even FF didn't see it as a permanent measure.

If Labour were against the guarantee scheme then what was their alternative? I don't remember one being proposed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way defending FF - they're a disaster and I hope they're out of power for at least 20 years if not permanently. It's just that the opposition weren't that much better when we needed them.

Shea O'Meara

Questions for FFail supporters:

Why no pro-FFail threads giving a critique or your own party?
Surely you can debate the workings of FFail, being members or supporters of a democratic party? Why only post on your party in defence mode?

Also, if, as a lot of FFail folk on here have conceded, FFail are responsible for most if not all the problems our country currently faces, why do you support FFail?
Why always, and not just this thread, raise issues on how opposition parties are poor at best?
Tell us why FFail are better!
If annoyed at what you tag 'anyone but FFail', tell us why we should support them.

The need for the opposition, much like those of us who point out FFail's flaws on boards is, FFail supporters never seem to poke holes at their party other than to attempt to censor ahead of time any anti-FFail sentiment.
If I were proudly affiliated with a party, believe me, I'd rail against any wrong doings or flawed policy probably more so than a party I hadn't put my name behind. Example, the greens got support from me in the past, which I shall not be repeating.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Liam, If we accept your argument that FF are 100% responsible and not look elsewhere at what might be broken then we have no chance of fixing things. .

What is the point in looking at what's broken if we don't do anything when we are faced with it? FF are not 100% responsible but do you accept they are most responsible and as a party they are broken - losing the trust of the people? You'll support something that's broken, you'll vote for something that's broken so it's a bit rich you looking at the opposition in the interests of our democracy. When you wake from your stupor of FF support you get to credibly criticise the opposition. People in glass houses....

I asked this on another thread that suddenly went very quiet. In response to your comment

hallelujajordan wrote: »

But if people go around accusing FF of being 100% responsible for the situation we are in then they are failing to look at the bigger picture which means we will fail to learn the important lessons that will help us fix the political system.

I said

Laminations wrote: »

But you are a FF supporter, you will vote for the most culpable. What have you learnt? Total hypocrisy talking about lessons learnt. Of course people share some blame, the opposition shares some blame, but do you even recognise FF are the most culpable??

hallelujajordan

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Questions for FFail supporters:

Some answers . . .

Why no pro-FFail threads giving a critique or your own party?
Surely you can debate the workings of FFail, being members or supporters of a democratic party?

Are online forums really the best place to debate the internal workings of any organisation . . ? I don't see any other party members doing this and I'm not sure why you would expect FF to . .

Why only post on your party in defence mode?

This thread certainly isn't defensive. . look at the opening post for god sake . . but it is important to look beyond FF failings and seek to learn broader lessons about what is wrong with the political system . .

Also, if, as a lot of FFail folk on here have conceded, FFail are responsible for most if not all the problems our country currently faces, why do you support FFail?

On the one hand, you say we only post in defence mode and then you recognise that we are willing to concede to the failings of FF ? ? ? I have gone on record here describing in detail why I support FF . . Go look for it if you are interested but I'm not going to repost it so that each point can be attacked and the thread is dragged further off-topic . .

Why always, and not just this thread, raise issues on how opposition parties are poor at best?

Because it's important ! People criticise (rightly in some cases) the actions of FF and are very likely to replace them with a FG led government. . . It is important to recognise before we make that decision that had FG been in place more or less the same decisions would have been taken over the last 10 years, we would be in the same place we are today and the anger and vitriol would be channeled in another direction. Just look at the 2007 policies posted earlier in this thread . . At a time when we were overspending FG wanted us to spend more ! FG tout themselves as a better alternative to the current administration. It's important to examine if this is really true.


Back on topic . . can someone tell me what should the role of the opposition be ? how can we make sure they add value for their huge cost and how can we hold them accountable for the amount of taxpayers money they spend ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It is important to recognise before we make that decision that had FG been in place more or less the same decisions would have been taken over the last 10 years

According to FF supporters, anyway.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Back on topic . . can someone tell me what should the role of the opposition be ? how can we make sure they add value for their huge cost and how can we hold them accountable for the amount of taxpayers money they spend ?

As I said, I'd start by holding the government accountable considering what they've wasted.

Lenihan reckons TD wages & expenses are only a drop in the ocean, remember ? That's why he won't cut those.

thebman

This thread is odd as despite talking about the role of opposition and how its failed, no reform ideas have been raised.

Its almost like FF supporters are just trying to pass some blame to the opposition (ignoring whether they deserve it or not).

If you actually think the opposition couldn't do their job because of the system, why don't you offer credible changes that could be made to make it better since FF will have to get comfortable in opposition very shortly. I mean that is what you ask the opposition to do yet you can't do it yourself when trying to criticise them not forcing your party to do the right thing.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

According to FF supporters, anyway.

Actually no, according to their own stated policies and manifestos during that period. What FG wanted to do is on record and some of it is posted earlier in this thread; It is not something I am making up.

As I said, I'd start by holding the government accountable considering what they've wasted.

You are not answering the question . . . I agree with you that we have the hold the government accountable and we will, probably some time next February . .

but answer the question . . the opposition have cost you the taxpayer somewhere in the region of €80M over the last 10 years . . do you feel you got value for money . . ?

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Actually no, according to their own stated policies and manifestos during that period. What FG wanted to do is on record and some of it is posted earlier in this thread; It is not something I am making up.




You are not answering the question . . . I agree with you that we have the hold the government accountable and we will, probably some time next February . .

but answer the question . . the opposition have cost you the taxpayer somewhere in the region of €80M over the last 10 years . . do you feel you got value for money . . ?

Sorry to butt in. However, there are several things which must be addressed.

First, the current administration (both Government and Opposition) is worth nothing. They have been hopelessy bad, and the political classes have been found out as clueless over the past three years. They have no real ability to deal with the crisis which has come upon us. At Governmental level, the difficulties which have proven to exist in the banking strategy have led to the introduction of the ECB and the IMF. I am happy to admit that socially and infrastructurally were are leaps and bounds ahead of many countries in the world. However, between the political classes and a small cabal of bankers our economy is more comparable with failing economies in Africa, then it is with the more robust economies in Europe.

The opposition has been racked with infighting and reactionary politics. However, it is far less damning the the assertions which could be levelled at the door of Fianna Fail. Im no fanboy of FG, but your implied assertion that they have not proffered any alternative policies is ludicrious. Whether the plans are sustainable or not is beside the point. However, the have put forward alternatives to our current healthcare model (which I happen to be ad item with the Government on), alternatives to the way in which third level education can be serviced financially, and alternatives in managing the public defecit (the 113 Billion Euro plan might spring to mind).

Labour have taken up the mantra of the "attack dog". This is often the role played by the Junior partner in Government or opposition. Their alternatives are poor, but their rhetoric has caused the Government significant difficulties.

In combination, I believe both to be poor, and I feel that they have not truly called this Government to task.

Finally, I would also point out that if what you are saying is what you believe, then you will criticise the 1994-1997 FF opposition as one of the worst, and most valueless opposition parties ever ?

thebaldsoprano

thebman wrote: »

This thread is odd as despite talking about the role of opposition and how its failed, no reform ideas have been raised.

Its almost like FF supporters are just trying to pass some blame to the opposition (ignoring whether they deserve it or not).

If you actually think the opposition couldn't do their job because of the system, why don't you offer credible changes that could be made to make it better since FF will have to get comfortable in opposition very shortly. I mean that is what you ask the opposition to do yet you can't do it yourself when trying to criticise them not forcing your party to do the right thing.

Not all of us doing the criticising are FF supporters!

I voted for the Greens in the last election, a decision I was later mightily pissed off with. I'll likely vote FG in this election, but not before taking a good hard look at their performance and that of other opposition parties. Unfortunately, this hasn't been all that impressive. So far, FG seem to be the best of a bad lot - they might take some tentative steps towards standing up to the PS unions, but I'm not expecting much from them with the banks. Labour/SF seem to have little to offer apart from hot air.

Inverse to the power of one!

Nasty point this.....

Just think about the logic of it......
Boom times, opposition opposes, is said to be obstruction to prosperity, lose vote share, opinions further sidelined.....lie in wait to hope the people will eventually recognize the validity of their viewpoint.

Boom times, opposition largely agrees, fails to ring alarm bells, gets the popular vote for people who like their flavor of sthick.........and when it all goes to hell, get elected on the basis of the extra numbers to what they maintained during the good times even though they were also wrong.

It's the economy of politics o_O

hallelujajordan

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Nasty point this.....

Just think about the logic of it......
Boom times, opposition opposes, is said to be obstruction to prosperity, lose vote share, opinions further sidelined.....lie in wait to hope the people will eventually recognize the validity of their viewpoint.

Boom times, opposition largely agrees, fails to ring alarm bells, gets the popular vote for people who like their flavor of sthick.........and when it all goes to hell, get elected on the basis of the extra numbers to what they maintained during the good times even though they were also wrong.

It's the economy of politics o_O

The latter being where we are today . . my question is, this being the case (and I think you are right) then what role, what value to the opposition bring ? . . They are costing us a heck of a lot of money !

Liam Byrne

Well then get FF to bring in rules to scrap the opposition!

They'll only be doing themselves out of a job come January, anyways, so it's fine by me!

Might even be the first time ever that FF save us money rather than waste it.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well then get FF to bring in rules to scrap the opposition!

They'll only be doing themselves out of a job come January, anyways, so it's fine by me!

Might even be the first time ever that FF save us money rather than waste it.

Or . . . as we look at reforming the entire political system (as I think we need to), we can and should consider the role and accountability of the opposition . . .

southsiderosie

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are online forums really the best place to debate the internal workings of any organisation . . ? I don't see any other party members doing this and I'm not sure why you would expect FF to . .

There are active threads right now on Sinn Fein and both Democrats and Republicans in the US. There have been a number of threads on Fine Gael, especially during the backbencher revolt. To say that the internal mechanics of parties are not - or should not be - debated on a political discussion board is ridiculous.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This thread certainly isn't defensive. . look at the opening post for god sake . . but it is important to look beyond FF failings and seek to learn broader lessons about what is wrong with the political system.

There are very few posters on board who do not thing that the Irish political system isn't broken, and there have been many threads over the last few months which discuss ways to fix this, including shrinking the Dail, switching to a list system, etc.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Back on topic . . can someone tell me what should the role of the opposition be ? how can we make sure they add value for their huge cost and how can we hold them accountable for the amount of taxpayers money they spend ?

Frankly, I think the focus on looking at the monetary cost of opposition is bizarre. Certainly all Dail-related costs should be up for debate - there are too many TDs and they are paid too much money, both directly and in terms of benefits - but how can you do a cost-benefit analysis of the opposition? If they are not actively contradicting the government's policies, then - what - we dock they some of their pay? I don't think you can put a price tag on this.

The job of a political party is to represent the interests of its voters, and to balance those interests against the national interest (however they define it). This is their role, whether in opposition or in government. From this perspective the behavior of the opposition in the 00s made sense: Labour got what it wanted through social partnership and benchmarking, and FG never put up much of a fight because they were too busy trying to be FF-lite and people were making money hand over fist. Ultimately, over the boomiest of the boom years, the interests of the constituencies of all three large parties were relatively in alignment, in no small part because FF is essentially a populist party, and is not bound to any particular set of policies or political principles. If the party in government is flexible enough to keep both unions and international investors happy, it is very hard to see where the opposition is going to come from, unless they are fundamentally opposed to capitalism or high levels of government spending (theoretically Sinn Fein and the early version of the PDs might fit the bill. Labour and FG do not).

The value of politicians in general is up for debate. But the value of parties is in the hands of voters. If voters think that parties add value politically, then they will support them. If they don't, they won't. Simple as. You cannot monetize the wishes of voters in a democracy. If you think a party is useless, then don't reward them with votes.

hallelujajordan

southsiderosie wrote: »

Frankly, I think the focus on looking at the monetary cost of opposition is bizarre. Certainly all Dail-related costs should be up for debate - there are too many TDs and they are paid too much money, both directly and in terms of benefits - but how can you do a cost-benefit analysis of the opposition? If they are not actively contradicting the government's policies, then - what - we dock they some of their pay? I don't think you can put a price tag on this.

The job of a political party is to represent the interests of its voters, and to balance those interests against the national interest (however they define it). This is their role, whether in opposition or in government. From this perspective the behavior of the opposition in the 00s made sense: Labour got what it wanted through social partnership and benchmarking, and FG never put up much of a fight because they were too busy trying to be FF-lite and people were making money hand over fist. Ultimately, over the boomiest of the boom years, the interests of the constituencies of all three large parties were relatively in alignment, in no small part because FF is essentially a populist party, and is not bound to any particular set of policies or political principles. If the party in government is flexible enough to keep both unions and international investors happy, it is very hard to see where the opposition is going to come from, unless they are fundamentally opposed to capitalism or high levels of government spending (theoretically Sinn Fein and the early version of the PDs might fit the bill. Labour and FG do not).

The value of politicians in general is up for debate. But the value of parties is in the hands of voters. If voters think that parties add value politically, then they will support them. If they don't, they won't. Simple as. You cannot monetize the wishes of voters in a democracy. If you think a party is useless, then don't reward them with votes.

So, I agree with everything you are saying about political parties, why they exist and what their role as a party ought to be . .

However, once elected to Dail Eireann they become something more than a political party. They become either part of the government or part of the opposition. It's easy to understand what the governments role is and it is easy to measure their value (or lack of) and to hold them accountable . .

If their job is just to represent the interest of their voters then why the heck are we all paying for them ? The governments job is to govern on behalf of everyone . . surely the opposition should have a similar role ?

And can you really be comfortable with spending so much taxpayers money without being able to do any cost benefit analysis ?