Primetime Dec 1st

femur61

Anyone see Primetime last night, the panel wasn't made up of squabbling TD's but ordinary people who made an awful lot of sense. Eamon Dunmphy (!), Dr. Elaine Byrne, Proffessior Diarmis Ferriter, and ,Margaret Ward. Basically theirs wasn't a blame game but resolutions were put forward. Now we have a chance to wipe the slate clean and implement some real change.

Terrible what has happened but the EU/IMF hopefully will implement reform. Political system needs reform badly, weed out the cronyism and parish pump politics. PS needs reform, and banks.

When IMF went into UK in '76 by '81 had turned a corner, Iceland is already starting to see growth as well as Lativia.

Have to admit personally I feel it will the same gobsh1ts with the same parish pump politics and the boys looking after the boys.

Bob_Latchford

Yes saw it, and agree not so hopeful that change will come. The choices arent available to the people + they are hobbled by the debt.

The ballot papers will look all to familiar come election time.

Dempo1

As depressing as the subject matter was, it was an excellent program and quite refreshing to hear some common sense debate about how we got here and perhaps solutions as to were we go from here. I was worried Dunphy was going to hijack the debate but Miriam kept him in toe and whilst Dunphy is right to be angry, i guess the time is right to start moving on. I have to say Dunphy was actually quite impressive and Miriam O Callaghan seems to be the only broadcaster who his feeling the pain of the ordinary Irish Citizen. Vincent Browne to be fair has also to be commended but at times i get a sense he just enjoys kicking bankers and politicians rather than debating the substance of the issues to hand.

All in all, an excellent program but where to we go from here?:o

Ash.J.Williams

I really enjoyed primetime last night, in fact i was moved by it. A panel of forward thinking, awe inspiring thinkers and eammon dunphy.

My conclusion from the whole thing was that the forthcoming elections are a total waste of time...whoever wins will be replacing despicible rot, with more despicible rot. Dunphy was right when he suggested some of the panel and people like Fintan O'Toole should go forth and run for office.

How can we change things? A national protest to overturn the current political system is required right now.....a total review of the constitution and let 2011 be the beginning of the new Irish republic.

Bob_Latchford

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

How can we change things? A national protest to overturn the current political system is required right now.....a total review of the constitution and let 2011 be the beginning of the new Irish republic.

The problem is there is vacuum now. Who is going to organise this? Who can the people get behind and trust.

The next election will come too quick in a way, there wont a choice you can trust to make the right changes. Independants and rejection of the political elite might be only choce

Ash.J.Williams

Bob_Latchford wrote: »

The problem is there is vacuum now. Who is going to organise this? Who can the people get behind and trust.

The next election will come too quick in a way, there wont a choice you can trust to make the right changes. Independants and rejection of the political elite might be only choce

Would there be any harm in having a number of Sin fein/people against profit/socialists and other minority parties littered amongst the elite in the next dail?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bob_Latchford

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Would there be any harm in having a number of Sin fein/people against profit/socialists and other minority parties littered amongst the elite in the next dail?

Its trust that would be missing imo. Dont think sinn fein are adverse to cronyism and lining their own and their friends pockets myself.

Prefer good sprinkling of independants who could stop a FG continuation of the status quo for 4 years tinkering around the problems

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately the constitution needs a rewrite, it is not suited for modern Ireland.

Japer

femur61 wrote: »

When IMF went into UK in '76 by '81 had turned a corner, Iceland is already starting to see growth as well as Lativia.

If the politicians had set an example and worked harder + smarter for less money, and if heads had rolled in the regulators office / central bank / banks / government, and if government expenditure was reduced to sensible levels ( we still are paying the public servant and social welfare recipient in Louth on average double what their counterparts in Newry get ), then there would be light at the end of the tunnel sometime in the next 5 years. The UK or Iceland or Latvia does not give a retiring govt minister a pension pot worth 4 million, or their average retiring policeman a pension pot worth 1.2 million. THE IMF has saddled us with a big loan but not tackled public sector pay + pensions like it did in Latvia for example, even though the public servants there were paid a fraction of ours. Morale will not improve unless core matters are tackled.

femur61 wrote: »

Have to admit personally I feel it will the same gobsh1ts with the same parish pump politics and the boys looking after the boys.

+1

Tim Robbins

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Dunphy was right when he suggested some of the panel and people like Fintan O'Toole should go forth and run for office.

That's the problem with a lot of these people. They are great hurlers on the ditch. If George Lee never made a fool of himself and was on the panel we'd be saying: "Sure shouldn't he go for politics".

These people are brilliant at engaging the public. This is what their job is. This is why they are the highest paid people in the media. They are brilliant at engaging the public.

However, that doesn't mean they'd be any good at politics. George Lee, again case in point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ash.J.Williams

The thoughts of seeing FG being carrried shoulder high as if they've done something of merit will sicken me come election time....

We need a new party....

Ash.J.Williams

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's the problem with a lot of these people. They are great hurlers on the ditch. If George Lee never made a fool of himself and was on the panel we'd be saying: "Sure shouldn't he go for politics".

These people are brilliant at engaging the public. This is what their job is. This is why they are the highest paid people in the media. They are brilliant at engaging the public.

However, that doesn't mean they'd be any good at politics. George Lee, again case in point.

It wasn't like that last night though. It's hard to describe, it wasn't point scoring or preaching, it was different.

johnnyskeleton

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I really enjoyed primetime last night, in fact i was moved by it. A panel of forward thinking, awe inspiring thinkers and eammon dunphy.

It's a bit like the Obama campaign - all buzzwords but no real policy. "We need change" "Yes we can" "Dynamic" "Business plan for the future" "Set our goal and try to achieve it" etc.

The general gist of it was "We need a new [unspecified] vision to be decided at a time [unspecified] and a place [unspecified] and then we need to elect people [unspecified] to work on its implementation [vague]".

To be honest, I'm pretty sick of being lectured about how the current system is "just broken" and we need a new "working democracy" etc.

What, specifically are people proposing? At least FG and that right wing party have suggested electoral reforms by reducing the number of TDs, a list system and abolishing the seanad. That might mix things up considerably. The trouble is, while people like this "change" and a "new vision for Ireland" talk, they don't like the very specific talk about how instead of having their local TD doing them favours there will be less TDs and they will be on a national level.

The same with cuts in spending and increases in taxes. Whenever someone talks about specifics people change their views quite dramatically.

So all this talk about change sounds great, but when it comes down to implementing even the most basic changes Irish people revert to type and choose the comfortable glove that is FF/FG who will buy their way to power and tell us not to worry about that scary IMF.

johnnyskeleton

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Unfortunately the constitution needs a rewrite, it is not suited for modern Ireland.

1. What changes would you make?

2. What is the purpose of these changes?

3. Can't the same be done with amendments to the constitution rather than an entire rewrite?

I would much prefer to be allowed vote on the different changes than to have to accept an entirely new constitution en bloc.

ei.sdraob

Take all the godly stuff out of it for once,

Impose a borrowing limit on debt for another (As Germans are doing)

Thirdly deal with whole blasphemy/libel mess and enshrine whistle-blower protection into the constitution.

Ash.J.Williams

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's a bit like the Obama campaign - all buzzwords but no real policy. "We need change" "Yes we can" "Dynamic" "Business plan for the future" "Set our goal and try to achieve it" etc.

The general gist of it was "We need a new [unspecified] vision to be decided at a time [unspecified] and a place [unspecified] and then we need to elect people [unspecified] to work on its implementation [vague]".

To be honest, I'm pretty sick of being lectured about how the current system is "just broken" and we need a new "working democracy" etc.

What, specifically are people proposing? At least FG and that right wing party have suggested electoral reforms by reducing the number of TDs, a list system and abolishing the seanad. That might mix things up considerably. The trouble is, while people like this "change" and a "new vision for Ireland" talk, they don't like the very specific talk about how instead of having their local TD doing them favours there will be less TDs and they will be on a national level.

The same with cuts in spending and increases in taxes. Whenever someone talks about specifics people change their views quite dramatically.

So all this talk about change sounds great, but when it comes down to implementing even the most basic changes Irish people revert to type and choose the comfortable glove that is FF/FG who will buy their way to power and tell us not to worry about that scary IMF.

The whole "change" idea was PR though, and fg last campaign was influenced by american PR...."change change change" bull****....sick of it all, it should be ilegal for a party to hire PR companies.

Liam Byrne

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The whole "change" idea was PR though, and fg last campaign was influenced by american PR...."change change change" bull****....sick of it all, it should be ilegal for a party to hire PR companies.

The "FG" campaign ?

Sure FF got the Obama PR company to build their new website, spending money abroad and refusing to support talented Irish people. One of them was even on The Last Word saying "we could do with a bit of Obama" :rolleyes:

They then went on to complain from high heaven when the GAA imported grass for Croke Park, because the GAA weren't supporting Irish enterprise.

Double-standards abound.

femur61

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Would there be any harm in having a number of Sin fein/people against profit/socialists and other minority parties littered amongst the elite in the next dail?

My thoughts exactly, never thought I'd be thinking that way but I hate the Irish political electoral system. Parish pump politics.

ei.sdraob

Impose a borrowing limit on debt for another (As Germans are doing)

seems IMF will be bringing something like that in

gollem_1975

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It wasn't like that last night though. It's hard to describe, it wasn't point scoring or preaching, it was different.

last nights primetime was a bit meh.

a unified (and lightweight imo) panel, no opposing views , no hard questioning by the host..

all I got from it was "we need to reinvent ourselves" * 100 times.

No-one was asked to suggest how we would "re-invent" ourselves or what we would "re-invent" ourselves as.

I didn't find it optimistic at all.. it left me feeling a little bit empty thinking "are these guys the people who are going to help us reinvent ourselves?"

actually one positive was Eamon Dunphy suggesting that Elaine Byrne should run in the general election. this was probably a throwaway remark by Eamon Dunphy but if more of these "hurlers on the ditch" as some people call them were to run for election then maybe this would be a start along the road to re-invention.
some people give out about the calibre of politician we have in this country but the calibre of the intelligentsia is not exactly overwhelming either.

ixtlan

gollem_1975 wrote: »

actually one positive was Eamon Dunphy suggesting that Elaine Byrne should run in the general election. this was probably a throwaway remark by Eamon Dunphy but if more of these "hurlers on the ditch" as some people call them were to run for election then maybe this would be a start along the road to re-invention.
some people give out about the calibre of politician we have in this country but the calibre of the intelligentsia is not exactly overwhelming either.

Agreed. This is the core of our problem as regards re-invention of the political system. It's all very well to talk of reform and overthrowing things. To do this we need to elect politicans who will do it. And yes, we do have to elect such people. I do not want to have a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent. If the many many charismatic populist pundits I see on the media really want to do something then yes, I'm sorry guys, you do need to run for election. And yes, I'm sorry again, you do need to figure out how to run a political party, where a large group of elected people decide on a range of policies, because 166 independent voices are never going to quickly make decisions.

George Lee was a terrible terrible disappointment. It reminds me of the scene in Mission Impossible II where Tom Cruise is complaining about how tough the mission is and he is then chastised by Anthony Hopkins... "It is Mission Impossible, Mr Hunt, not Mission Difficult". George basically said "it's too hard", though he never actually said "I'm sorry it was too hard for me, I have failed you, better people than me will have to solve the problems". I would have some respect for him if he had said that.

Ix

gollem_1975

ixtlan wrote: »

Agreed. This is the core of our problem as regards re-invention of the political system. It's all very well to talk of reform and overthrowing things. To do this we need to elect politicans who will do it. And yes, we do have to elect such people. I do not want to have a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent. If the many many charismatic populist pundits I see on the media really want to do something then yes, I'm sorry guys, you do need to run for election. And yes, I'm sorry again, you do need to figure out how to run a political party, where a large group of elected people decide on a range of policies, because 166 independent voices are never going to quickly make decisions.

George Lee was a terrible terrible disappointment. It reminds me of the scene in Mission Impossible II where Tom Cruise is complaining about how tough the mission is and he is then chastised by Anthony Hopkins... "It is Mission Impossible, Mr Hunt, not Mission Difficult". George basically said "it's too hard", though he never actually said "I'm sorry it was too hard for me, I have failed you, better people than me will have to solve the problems". I would have some respect for him if he had said that.

Ix

even if these talking heads were to endorse an existing political party.

or if a new party was to say.

"we are the "acme democrats" and our economic advisors are Morgan Kelly etc. Our communications advisor is , Our foreign affairs advisor is ?"

then we might be getting somewhere.. but as you say yourself ( and yes I am aware of the irony ) .. "talk is cheap"

Drumpot

Im killed saying it to everybody I meet .

If they want real change, challenge all local T.D.'s at your door. Have at least one question they couldnt possibly be prepared for. Dont just assume because they are a good skin or with a party you like, that they will automatically be a good servant for the Irish People. .

If people want real change then changing the current government is not enough, people have to change the way they vote and why they vote for people. If you want a guy who's best traits are that they hate FF and will fix the potholes on your road, you are consigning this country to a longer term of misery then we need have.

I have to say, some of the people defending lame Labour and FG policies are just as dispacably blind to our country's cause as the FF party people they claim to despise. To presume that voting for anybody but FF is the way forward is easily the most ignorant and self defeating excercise we could possibly hope to engage in. The next election is not about getting FF out, its about getting the right people in.

Drumpot

gollem_1975 wrote: »

then we might be getting somewhere.. but as you say yourself ( and yes I am aware of the irony ) .. "talk is cheap"

If talk is cheap, why do we have to pay so much for FF spin doctors ?

Drumpot

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1. What changes would you make?

2. What is the purpose of these changes?

3. Can't the same be done with amendments to the constitution rather than an entire rewrite?

I would much prefer to be allowed vote on the different changes than to have to accept an entirely new constitution en bloc.

I agree, we dont need to rip it up entirely, just make practical changes to encourage a better person to lead our country (and keep a leash on their ego's when they get used to being in power!).

Accountability by our politicians, councellors and public servants would be a start. Take out the bit in their contracts that says they have to kill somebody to lose their job!

Any wastage of taxpayers money will be publically published for all to see and the people at the heads of each department/project have to be disclosed and debated openly. The government is bound by legislation to publish all reports irrespective of its views, failure to do so will be met with stiff penalties. All tendered projects need to be published and the reasons for choosing a certain bidder over another should be disclosed.

All expenses must be accounted for and published on an open online forum (and available in local library's) that all taxpayers have access to. These have to be updated annually. Failure to complete at set time will result in no allowable expenses for that year (no exceptions).

In the longer term I would be looking to get rid of the whip system. Politicians should be allowed to vote against their parties when they dont agree with certain things. The biggest problem with this is that we need to have a functioning dail - ie. where politicians put the country first by sometimes voting with the government on policies they genuinley feel are for the greater good of the country.

Any government that gets into power has to disclose all their "promises" in an open independent forum for all to see and scrutinise. At the end of their term, this will be the starting point for debate on what they achieved. There will be at least 3 shows (free to all TV/Radio channels) whereby the parties leaders and leading members of these partys openly engage in discussions of where they succeeded and failed, with encouraged viewer interaction. Make these political forum part of our culture. If people like to be led by our media, then lets use it to encourage clarity and enlightenment in how people vote by using the media.

No politician is allowed to interfere with any sort of Social welfare application, garda investigation, public service job applications etc. Any proven interference will mean they have to resign their post immediatly. All invesigations of any sort of "foul play" will be heard and completed within 30 days. Only on a judges opinion can this deadline be increased and it must be justified on record and scrutinised by 3 judges randomly selected to prevent anybody trying to get a favourable judge. I think the threat of losing their lavish pensions would be one penalty that should be considered, moving to losing their seat/job etc.


Encourage whistleblowing. Anybody who has definitive credible information that leads to the penalising of people taking advantage of taxpayers money (Fas anybody?), will be compensated with a significant lump sum and honored by An Taoiseach, if it leads to a proper savings to the exchequer. Anybody who is found to be negligent (or worse still involved) in wasting taxpayers money will at least be fined, sacked or criminal proceedings.

This is only one small aspect of change I would like to see in Irish Politics. Make it harder for the dodgy door to door salesman to dupe people and eventually we will get more and more genuine politicians. Make it more difficult to middle and upper management in public service get positions of influence simpy down to their term working for the taxpayer. Encourage productivity and give incentives for public servants to work harder - promotion payrise etc. Make accountability real and have harsh penalties for people thinking they can do what they want with our hard earned money ! Get the public involved in the politics of their country and how it is run. Only by getting everybody on board with reform will it happen.

nesf

Found it annoying to be honest. Very little worthwhile analysis. All a bit too bleeding heart for me, we should be focussed on how to fix things not wasting airtime with yet more whining about problems.

later12

I thought the same... Eamon Dunphy wincing poetically about the Irish people, and some American windbag (no offence) waxing lyrically about something she read on wikipedia about Persia... blatantly overusing the words "vision" and "reinventing" without actually saying anything about what their vision is, or what exactly they were going to "reinvent".

Margaret: The practical application of the vision is the issue here
Miriam: What;s the vision margaret?
Margaret: Well... that's the issue.

Ugh. 45 minutes I'll never get back.

gollem_1975

Drumpot wrote: »

If talk is cheap, why do we have to pay so much for FF spin doctors ?

well during the boom we overpaid for everything in this country so it wouldn't suprise me if FF had to overpay for these "spin doctors" too.

btw: who are these spin doctors anyway and how much do they get paid ?

i.e. does anyone know their names ?

gollem_1975

Drumpot wrote: »

Im killed saying it to everybody I meet .

If they want real change, challenge all local T.D.'s at your door. Have at least one question they couldnt possibly be prepared for. Dont just assume because they are a good skin or with a party you like, that they will automatically be a good servant for the Irish People. .

If people want real change then changing the current government is not enough, people have to change the way they vote and why they vote for people. If you want a guy who's best traits are that they hate FF and will fix the potholes on your road, you are consigning this country to a longer term of misery then we need have.

I have to say, some of the people defending lame Labour and FG policies are just as dispacably blind to our country's cause as the FF party people they claim to despise. To presume that voting for anybody but FF is the way forward is easily the most ignorant and self defeating excercise we could possibly hope to engage in. The next election is not about getting FF out, its about getting the right people in.

If they really want real change then perhaps they probably should not leave change up to someone who calls to their door once every 5 years..
they need to get involved too.
whether that means running as a candidate themselves, getting involved in a party or group or helping a candidate in the election.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

I thought the same... Eamon Dunphy wincing poetically about the Irish people, and some American windbag (no offence) waxing lyrically about something she read on wikipedia about Persia... blatantly overusing the words "vision" and "reinventing" without actually saying anything about what their vision is, or what exactly they were going to "reinvent".

Margaret: The practical application of the vision is the issue here
Miriam: What;s the vision margaret?
Margaret: Well... that's the issue.

Ugh. 45 minutes I'll never get back.

Worst bit was when she started going on about how the country needs a business plan...

Economies are really, really not like businesses. Really.

eric hoone

Admittedly there was a lot of hot air and gnashing of teeth on primetime, but at least the premise of the show was changing the system. People are desperate for real change and may be driven to extremes in the polling booths in the new year unless the major parties step up with radical reforms. The status quo will not be tolerated.

keithcan

Drumpot wrote: »

make practical changes to encourage a better person to lead our country

Accountability by our politicians, councellors and public servants would be a start. Any wastage of taxpayers money will be publically published for all to see and the people at the heads of each department/project have to be disclosed and debated openly. The government is bound by legislation to publish all reports irrespective of its views, failure to do so will be met with stiff penalties. All tendered projects need to be published and the reasons for choosing a certain bidder over another should be disclosed.

See here's the thing.
The first sentence above - make practical changes etc. - is utterly countered by the next lot of baloney. Publish all reports in libraries, penalties (stiff ones, begorrah) to follow if they're not in place etc. What's the result? a load of public officials publishing a load of reports that nobody will read except some journalists determined to spring a story. And the place gets even worse cause people who should be DOING THINGS are publishing reports about what they do in the minority of time they've got left to do anything like proper work after they're finished doing the reports. Baloney.

keithcan

I've heard a few people saying how Professor Diarmaid Ferriter was very good etc giving his views on where we went wrong. Well maybe reform can begin at home. A professor in one of our 3rd level institutions, @ €100k +, earns at least one third again versus Northern Ireland equivalents. In my experience those particular institutions here are bloated and overpaid. We've 'Doctors' (not the medical types, unfortunately) to beat the band on staff and it's often not clear what they are usefully at. But getting great pay, even more so if you considered their hours and the hols.

femur61

More people will challenge the candidates when they come to the door. Everybody is more aware of the economy now, so maybe some change will occur. The local retired hurler/footballer who’s retired will have a headache at the end of the campaign because Mary and Johnny are asking about bond markets, IMF/EU, basically and more importantly where is our money gone?

ROCKMAN

Drumpot wrote: »

Im killed saying it to everybody I meet .

If they want real change, challenge all local T.D.'s at your door. Have at least one question they couldnt possibly be prepared for. Dont just assume because they are a good skin or with a party you like, that they will automatically be a good servant for the Irish People. .

If people want real change then changing the current government is not enough, people have to change the way they vote and why they vote for people. If you want a guy who's best traits are that they hate FF and will fix the potholes on your road, you are consigning this country to a longer term of misery then we need have.

I have to say, some of the people defending lame Labour and FG policies are just as dispacably blind to our country's cause as the FF party people they claim to despise. To presume that voting for anybody but FF is the way forward is easily the most ignorant and self defeating excercise we could possibly hope to engage in. The next election is not about getting FF out, its about getting the right people in.

I would try take this one extra step ,
Every candidate running for election must attend a pre-election local public debate/forum within their constituency to face the voters and their questions .

Amhran Nua

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What, specifically are people proposing? At least FG and that right wing party have suggested electoral reforms by reducing the number of TDs, a list system and abolishing the seanad.

Hope that's not a roundabout reference to what we're trying to do, we're a non-dogmatic group, best described as "the radical centre". The closest thing I've come across to the right wing in Ireland is the new Irish Liberal Party, which is a Libertarian group. Lovely people though and well able to go.

gollem_1975 wrote: »

or if a new party was to say.

"we are the "acme democrats" and our economic advisors are Morgan Kelly etc. Our communications advisor is , Our foreign affairs advisor is ?"

Can't, my keyboard is worn out trying to gain support from a public figure. Politicians won't support you unless you already have buckets of support, like getting a loan from the bank, you can't get it until you don't need it, and media figures usually just don't bother answering.

eric hoone wrote: »

People are desperate for real change and may be driven to extremes in the polling booths in the new year unless the major parties step up with radical reforms.

But sure what, Labour hasn't even bothered to publish any policies, preferring to ride on the coat tails of Gilmore's rhetoric. FG is coming up with a few good ideas, but first of all their hands are tied because everyone in power in that party gained their power through the current system so there won't be too much boat rocking, and secondly they are just trying to hoover up the undecideds in the hopes of an overall majority.

The first and last question any politician in Ireland will ask is, will this increase the number of people who vote for me, not what's best for the country. It's gotten so blatant that Cowen in his graceless party exit statement had the neck to say that sometimes the national good must come before personal and party ambitions.

Drumpot

keithcan wrote: »

See here's the thing.
The first sentence above - make practical changes etc. - is utterly countered by the next lot of baloney. Publish all reports in libraries, penalties (stiff ones, begorrah) to follow if they're not in place etc. What's the result? a load of public officials publishing a load of reports that nobody will read except some journalists determined to spring a story. And the place gets even worse cause people who should be DOING THINGS are publishing reports about what they do in the minority of time they've got left to do anything like proper work after they're finished doing the reports. Baloney.

A politician should know every expense and a department should know every expense anyways. Putting them together and publishing them is not rocket science nor does it need to be difficult (although we know it can be made to be difficult by sections not looking to have their figures readily available to be scrutinised!).

Do you know what sort of change will happen by knocking every idea to try to encourage people to get more involved in the running of their country ? None. I dont mind people picking holes in my points, but at least offer alternatives! Of course, some people dont want change for their own vested interest reasons, but I am sure boardies will gladly give you the benefit of the doubt! I never said all my suggestions were all sound, but my main point was that we need accountability and greater transparency in the spending and wastage of taxpayers money. If you disagree with this statement, then swing your hook elsewhere.

You took one part of a thread intended to get more people interested in the running of our country and classed it baloney. Its this kind of attitude that will have us stuck with the same crap and the same ignorant electorate.

And if it makes it easier for Journalists to expose corruption or inadequacies in the public service, where's the harm in that ?

Have you any credible suggestions or are you one of those people that loves nothing better then to knock down suggestions people try to make to improve things, with nothing to actually offer to the table ?

gollem_1975

ROCKMAN wrote: »

I would try take this one extra step ,
Every candidate running for election must attend a pre-election local public debate/forum within their constituency to face the voters and their questions .

And every voter must attend these townhall meetings as well I suppose ?

I would advise any of you that are serious about trying to get more influence on the political system to contact one of your local representatives with a view to helping them, leafleting, canvassing etc.

you will get an insight into politics that you won't get from posting on Boards and it might take you the next step towards running yourself.

gollem_1975

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Can't, my keyboard is worn out trying to gain support from a public figure. Politicians won't support you unless you already have buckets of support, like getting a loan from the bank, you can't get it until you don't need it, and media figures usually just don't bother answering.

yes, I'd imagine its neigh impossible unless you already have a profile.

it probably suits the talking heads not to be politically affiliated because then they can change their minds/rhethoric to suit whichever way the wind blows or at least withdraw from the public eye if the advice they give turns out to be cr@p (Notice how we don't see "Comical" Austin on the TV much these days)

also they probably get paid more for their opinion whilst they are outside of the political parties.. once they are associated with the parties they won't get paid.

At least Eamon Dunphy admitted that he himself wouldn't go for election because he didn't like the lifestyle. We don't really know why it wasn't George Lee's cup of tea (though if George Lee was to become an economic advisor for FG he wouldn't have been able to go back to RTE)

danbohan

femur61 wrote: »

My thoughts exactly, never thought I'd be thinking that way but I hate the Irish political electoral system. Parish pump politics.

Would there be any harm in having a number of Sin fein/people against profit/socialists and other minority parties littered amongst the elite in the next dail?

Sin fein/people against profit/socialists ??

the problem is they are against other peoples profits , people who through their profits create jobs that enable these socialists to earn an income or better still get 196 per week for doing nothing , as well as that there is no guarantee that in time they would not be as corrupt as what we have if you need examples look to former eastern block .

ROCKMAN

gollem_1975 wrote: »

And every voter must attend these townhall meetings as well I suppose ?

I would advise any of you that are serious about trying to get more influence on the political system to contact one of your local representatives with a view to helping them, leafleting, canvassing etc.

you will get an insight into politics that you won't get from posting on Boards and it might take you the next step towards running yourself.

Yes hopefully the time is right for mass attends and support for such events , There are a hell of alot of people out there that questions and issues that need answering.

The idea behind the meetings would be to gain my support and maybe help instead of blindly contacting ,canvassing and lobbying for one or other local representive because he's/she's one of the lads or ah sure he's/she's with the family party....

As for posting here , don't jump to conclusions you (like me ) don't have a clue about posters political knowledge , involvement or history.

gollem_1975

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Yes hopefully the time is right for mass attends and support for such events , There are a hell of alot of people out there that questions and issues that need answering.

The idea behind the meetings would be to gain my support and maybe help instead of blindly contacting ,canvassing and lobbying for one or other local representive because he's/she's one of the lads or ah sure he's/she's with the family party....

As for posting here , don't jump to conclusions you (like me ) don't have a clue about posters political knowledge , involvement or history.

Sorry . I assume from many of the idealistic posts I see on these boards that most people posting have not experienced the mundane and practical realities of Irish party politics (canvassing,leafleting,postering at election times, fixing the "parish pump")

However if my assumption is incorrect I won't lose any sleep over it

Basically it seemed to me that your complaint is that people aren't being spoonfed by their politicians/representatives..
i'm suggesting that the people who are genuinely interested in having their questions answered should chase down the politicians.

in fact to run with your idea , if you are involved in a residents association/community group why don't YOU arrange a town hall meeting.
I'd say the politicians would be interested in attending this if you could ensure there would be a crowd of voters there...it would be a more efficient use of their time to speak to many in a heated(pun intended) indoor environment than to go out knocking on doors.

In fact maybe you're on to something. Though I feel that these Town hall meetings needs to be as a result of active citizenry from the bottom up rather than something that is compulsory from the top down.

micro_dot

the thing about reinvention is that you do end out with the same people in the same roles as before. That's what happened after Nazi Germany and that's what happened after the communists. I saw it myself with east Germany after the communists. The old principal of the school was there, demoted, but present. Everyone had to talk to him, because they were themselves complicit in spying, and the janitor whose wife had taken part in the 1989 marches was still the janitor.

That programme had a hidden theme for me in reinvention. Who are we at the low point of Fianna Fail? Their special guest was that guy from Aer Arann who'd had a famous encounter with Michael O'Leary in the Galway tent. Look about you in any medium sized town. Them middle aged lads in anoraks who 'howyah boy' each other never emigrated in the 80's because they were well connected, they're not really the worst. Watch out for the forces of deregulated darkness that destroyed the economy, privatised health, destroyed the peedees and Fianna Fail and had a fair go at society. Where will they next appear?

Reinvention: the same people doing the same things, but called something else.

keithcan

Drumpot wrote: »

A politician should know every expense and a department should know every expense anyways. Putting them together and publishing them is not rocket science nor does it need to be difficult (although we know it can be made to be difficult by sections not looking to have their figures readily available to be scrutinised!).

Do you know what sort of change will happen by knocking every idea to try to encourage people to get more involved in the running of their country ? None. I dont mind people picking holes in my points, but at least offer alternatives!

Have you any credible suggestions or are you one of those people that loves nothing better then to knock down suggestions people try to make to improve things, with nothing to actually offer to the table ?

You're right, Drumpot, it shouldn't be difficult to know the expenses of public servants. And it isn't. Here's the publicly available rates:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ072009.pdf
You see these things are publicly available and they always were. But if you'd rather get into a rage with the idea that the AREN'T avilable, well good for you if it's what you like. I'm a public servant. If I travel or am away on work, those are the rates. And guess what? I don't want to travel. I don't want to be away from my family etc etc. But if it's the job, then so be it and I do it without complaint, but not out of choice and certainly not cos I'm looking for money. And they're the rates and that's what I get and always always always you could see that info.
As to a constructive suggestion? don't vote for the same politicians over and over and over again. Because lots of people did. Extraordinarily enough, the huge numbers who voted time after time over the last decade to make FF the biggest party in the Dail seem not now to exist. I never will vote for them, but then, I never ever did. Cos it was obvious to anyone who wanted to 'get it' that they were a bad lot.
There have been disasters in the public service, the political class and the private sector (hello... the Banks... the builders). That doesn't mean all private or public workers or even all politicians are bad. A bit of balance would go a long way and perhaps lead to intelligent, well-judged reforms across all sectors. But a huge start is that the people of the country change their decades-long voting patterns.

gollem_1975

keithcan wrote: »

You're right, Drumpot, it shouldn't be difficult to know the expenses of public servants. And it isn't. Here's the publicly available rates:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ072009.pdf
You see these things are publicly available and they always were. But if you'd rather get into a rage with the idea that the AREN'T avilable, well good for you if it's what you like. I'm a public servant. If I travel or am away on work, those are the rates. And guess what? I don't want to travel. I don't want to be away from my family etc etc. But if it's the job, then so be it and I do it without complaint, but not out of choice and certainly not cos I'm looking for money. And they're the rates and that's what I get and always always always you could see that info.

thanks for providing the link. however I think Drumpot was not referring to information about the rates but rather the amounts of money spent on expenses. you say that you don't personally abuse the expenses regime however high profile examples such as the Ivor Callely case indicate that some people do abuse these schemes and you would be naieve to think that this doesn't go on in the civil/public service too.

keithcan wrote:

As to a constructive suggestion? don't vote for the same politicians over and over and over again. Because lots of people did. Extraordinarily enough, the huge numbers who voted time after time over the last decade to make FF the biggest party in the Dail seem not now to exist. I never will vote for them, but then, I never ever did. Cos it was obvious to anyone who wanted to 'get it' that they were a bad lot.
There have been disasters in the public service, the political class and the private sector (hello... the Banks... the builders). That doesn't mean all private or public workers or even all politicians are bad. A bit of balance would go a long way and perhaps lead to intelligent, well-judged reforms across all sectors. But a huge start is that the people of the country change their decades-long voting patterns.

I think this is a case of hindsight being 20/20 vision. how was it "obvious to anyone who wanted to 'get it'" ?.
I wanted to 'get it' but apart from some corruption allegations (some of them proven) on balance I though they were actually doing a good job.

FF's problem now is due to the fact that it WAS in government. It was a no-brainer for them to be kept voted in when they kept everyone happy. and by everyone I don't mean the golden circle.. the standard of living in Ireland increased immensely during this period.

FF Didn't just become the major party in the last 10 years.. in fact(a) FF haven't had an overall majority since Charlie Haughey (before that they were getting overall majorities!!! )

I don't recall the (public sector) unions complaining about partnership and benchmarking brought in during this period.

Labour and FG both complained that we weren't spending enough money! (though credit to FG they did oppose the farce that was benchmarking)

Ireland had been no stranger to economic hardship and when the good times started to roll (i.e. when the cheap credit started flooding in) ireland partied.
I lived within my means..but my means were now the means of a single male working in the IT sector whereas my first job on graduating pre-celtic tiger was in a cafe..so I had a good time.

I bought into the idea that a government could keep everyone happy. which is what a centrist populist gov such as FF tried to do imo.

I saw that there was a bubble in the property sector ( but this was something that affected me as I had a major decision as to whether I would get on the ladder in 06.. I decided against it ) and I didn't believe there would be a soft landing.
however I believed that the government (FF, regulators, Civil service) and the bankers/developers knew what they were doing. I believed that the EU and the ECB knew what they were doing.
However just like the people who overpaid for property during the boom it appears that these groups also did not know what they were doing either! well not enough to prevent what has happened in the period 2008-2010 anyway.

I think that voting patterns are going to change as a result of this crisis.. so you don't need to worry about that.

what could be worrying is that we could could too far to the left or too far to the right.

Going forward I think that people need to become more active, more demanding , better informed.

ultimately we need to foster a better work ethic (thats rich coming from me i know..but I do believe its something we need to do ) in both the private and the public sectors.
we need to have politics from the bottom up. perhaps attitudes need to go back to the time when we didn't expect the state to do so much for us.
we need to look after our own neighbours and family better..e.g. was great to see people out clearing up snow and ice outside their property. saying hello to strangers passing by on the street etc.

keithcan

gollem_1975 wrote: »

thanks for providing the link. however I think Drumpot was not referring to information about the rates but rather the amounts of money spent on expenses. you say that you don't personally abuse the expenses regime however high profile examples such as the Ivor Callely case indicate that some people do abuse these schemes and you would be naieve to think that this doesn't go on in the civil/public service too.

Ok Gollem, here's yet another link:http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=169&m=m
The point yet again is that there's loads of this info out there, but some people at the moment, unfortunately, would rather blast out their indignation rather than research it. Thanks for telling me that "...(I) would be naieve to think that this (abuse of expenses) doesn't go on in the civil/public service too". Hey get this, I'm not naieve. It goes on in the public sector and the private sector.

My slamming of FF is not a case of hindsight - it was judgement. Just as your support for them was your judgement. They were beholden to the construction sector and landowners and never had the breath of vision to invest in a more sustainable economic/enterprise model in the country; the immediacy of transaction taxes via stamp duty etc. was too attractive in the short-term. And they were behaving in equally crass ways in previous terms of office as well. Take too long to list the examples. Of course, of course there were sound decisions (and sound enough people) in there too, but fundamentally they've been flawed definitely since Haughey. But you supported them. Your judgement was they were actually doing a good job. To me it wasn't at all a "no-brainer for them to be kept voted in when they kept everyone happy". Sorry, you're just dreadfully wrong here and the country is paying the price.

I do resent you telling me as a public servant that you "...don't recall the (public sector) unions complaining about partnership and benchmarking brought in during this period". What twisted thinking are you applying that I must have supported a mismanaged social partnership process? I didn't cos, like so much else of what was happening, I judged it was really badly managed. Again I tell you, I never gave a FF candidate as much as a preference. If I was the public servant you appear to believe is the norm (absolutely not the case btw), then surely me and all my colleagues would have wanted to keep FF in power. We didn't.

I could tell stories about the celtic tiger and it's impact on the public sector - schemes being implemented left, right and centre so as to give out the revenues that were flowing in and to garner popularity, when individual public servants could see this was out of hand and spending for the sake of it. It's the sort of thing that happens when one party is kept in power too long. The 2007 general election - what a chance to change Govt. Not taken - and the country is paying the price.

gollem_1975

keithcan wrote: »

If I was the public servant you appear to believe is the norm (absolutely not the case btw), then surely me and all my colleagues would have wanted to keep FF in power. We didn't.

I don't believe you are "the norm"..
"the norm" (including many of your colleagues in the public sector) did vote for them and voted for their low tax-high spend policies.

however the money that was coming into the coffers did allow the government to do this.

In hindsight this policy was not sustainable.

however it is probably the light-touch regulation of the banks that was the Irish economies achilles heel. something which wasn't given much coverage by politicians of any ilk or the media during the boom.

If you had more than 12 posts here we would have evidence that you did complain vociforously about how the country was being run (after all Boards.ie, propertypin and politics.ie) were the only places I found that did have a contrary opinion to "the norm". In fact you can go back through the archives of boards.ie and I'd bet that prior to Northern Rock there wasn't much activity in the Irish economy board.. accomodation and property on the other hand was a different story altogether.

ps: my use of the phrase "no-brainer" could be misinterpreted..I meant that because there was full employment , improved standard of living, increased disposable income etc. during the boom.. many people wanted to keep the status quo/keep the party going and therefore vote for the government that "we're giving it to them" ( i.e. giving their own money back to them!).. though the other parties probably would have promised to give the people even more in order to get into power.

however to cut a short story long I think your judgement of the situation was correct Keithcan.

who would advise supporting now Keith ?

Drumpot

keithcan wrote: »

Ok Gollem, here's yet another link:http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=169&m=m
The point yet again is that there's loads of this info out there, but some people at the moment, unfortunately, would rather blast out their indignation rather than research it. Thanks for telling me that "...(I) would be naieve to think that this (abuse of expenses) doesn't go on in the civil/public service too". Hey get this, I'm not naieve. It goes on in the public sector and the private sector.

My slamming of FF is not a case of hindsight - it was judgement. Just as your support for them was your judgement. They were beholden to the construction sector and landowners and never had the breath of vision to invest in a more sustainable economic/enterprise model in the country; the immediacy of transaction taxes via stamp duty etc. was too attractive in the short-term. And they were behaving in equally crass ways in previous terms of office as well. Take too long to list the examples. Of course, of course there were sound decisions (and sound enough people) in there too, but fundamentally they've been flawed definitely since Haughey. But you supported them. Your judgement was they were actually doing a good job. To me it wasn't at all a "no-brainer for them to be kept voted in when they kept everyone happy". Sorry, you're just dreadfully wrong here and the country is paying the price.

I do resent you telling me as a public servant that you "...don't recall the (public sector) unions complaining about partnership and benchmarking brought in during this period". What twisted thinking are you applying that I must have supported a mismanaged social partnership process? I didn't cos, like so much else of what was happening, I judged it was really badly managed. Again I tell you, I never gave a FF candidate as much as a preference. If I was the public servant you appear to believe is the norm (absolutely not the case btw), then surely me and all my colleagues would have wanted to keep FF in power. We didn't.

I could tell stories about the celtic tiger and it's impact on the public sector - schemes being implemented left, right and centre so as to give out the revenues that were flowing in and to garner popularity, when individual public servants could see this was out of hand and spending for the sake of it. It's the sort of thing that happens when one party is kept in power too long. The 2007 general election - what a chance to change Govt. Not taken - and the country is paying the price.

Perhaps there is loads of info out there on expenses but it should be all gathered together and easy to access on one website. It should also have more detailed breakdowns for people that want to investigate it more. You see, having it all over the place in bits does nothing to encourage people to look it up and see how their money is being wasted spent.

And as a public servant, I presume you declined the pay increases that came with benchmarking on principle and because you "didnt support a mismanaged partnership process" ? Anybody who took the pay increase that was agreed with government/unions was happy enough to go along with whatever they were doing. Its amazing that the government kept giving into over 300,000 public servants, few of which were voting for them! :rolleyes:

I love people that come onto boards and protest their innocence and downright opposing of the previous governments, but were happy to benefit from their decisions while the going was good. .

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

I love people that come onto boards and protest their innocence and downright opposing of the previous governments, but were happy to benefit from their decisions while the going was good. .

I love people that come onto boards and assume that those who question the bona-fides of the innocent and downright opposition based on sound and consistent principles and assume that they are pretending and are former happy beneficiaries who ignored the unsustainability and have somehow changed their stance only recently due to the recession.

They're wrong, of course, but I love them anyway.