Could someone please explain the Sinn Fein / ULA "no cuts" solution?

Eliot Rosewater

(I think this is suited to this forum - it's about two parties' election policies - sorry if not.)

Both Sinn Fein and the United Left Alliance (ULA) have said that there should be (by and large) no cuts, and that the December cuts should be reversed.

Last year the country had a budget deficit of around €18 billion, and the cuts are there to mitigate against this.

Additionally, the EU/IMF bailout is premised on the cuts programme. Sinn Fein and the ULA have said that the EU/IMF team should leave anyway.

So, a Sinn Fein/ULA administration has just undone the cuts and gone back on the EU/IMF deal. So the budget deficit is about €6 billion worse than it would be under FF or FG, and we're (presumably) borrowing money at enormous rates on the market to fund outgoings.

Is there a sensible economic explanation of what happens now? Or is it as ill-thought-out as it seems on the surface?

alastair

Essentially they're suggesting a wealth tax and non-payment of bondholders debt to reduce the national debt. The ULA line does indeed appear fairly flakey on specifics (like where the operating cash for year one comes from), and while the SF plan is a bit more firmed up, it only really works if the wealth tax windfall isn't mobile (fairly naive imo). There's more of course, but that's most of the meat.

nesf

It's simple, neither are going to be in power next term so neither actually has to implement any policies so they can promise the sun, moon and stars to their base and not have to worry too much about the actually nitty, gritty details.

Wealth tax + raised corpo tax + burning the bondholders and big business plays very well in large segments of the population, the issue is those people tend to either have no accepted, refused to accept or are just plain ignorant of the consequences of any of those three options.

guinnessdrinker

I don't know the answer but I'm guessing at a basic level one of SF/ULA's policies would be that they advocate the wealthier in society would pay a greater share towards clearing our debt burden than those that are less well off.

Cookie_Monster

Their going to plug Richard Boyd Barret into the Poolbeg power station. All the hot air and ****e he sprouts will be converted into power and we can export billions in electricity thus repaying our debts and having a virtual infinite surplus.

LeixlipRed

These policies, the ULA's, which SF have borrowed of course, are not the issue. The ULA is comprised of revolutionary socialist parties. We are not social democrats. We believe in battling for reforms we open people's eyes to the possibility of revolution. So we never will be in power discussing where the cuts must fall, we'll either be in opposition or we won't have a parliament

nesf

LeixlipRed wrote: »

These policies, the ULA's, which SF have borrowed of course, are not the issue. The ULA is comprised of revolutionary socialist parties. We are not social democrats. We believe in battling for reforms we open people's eyes to the possibility of revolution. So we never will be in power discussing where the cuts must fall, we'll either be in opposition or we won't have a parliament

Yeah and the people you want to tax to pay for your plans won't stay in such a country after a revolution, so exactly how is the ship going to float?

hallelujajordan

Notable the rush of responses from SF or ULA supporters with their answers to your challenge OP . . :rolleyes:

johngalway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Is there a sensible economic explanation of what happens now?

A sensible economic explanation? No. It's a cynical vote grabbing mechanism by scaring already terrified people.

They can pay all they like out of the pension reserve fund, but it won't cover a full calendar year. They say they will not pay back the money already loaned (Pearse Doherty on Newstalk between 9.30am and 9.50am this morning). Then they expect to be able to borrow MORE money off the SAME people they've just screwed the following year.

YEAH, RIGHT.

It must be fantastic living in flowery shinner land where reality doesn't count.

maccored

i think doherty explained it decently enough on newstalk this morning. well, as decently as any politician has ever explained anything economic (i mean, look at where FFs policies have got us)

Tipp Man

maccored wrote: »

i think doherty explained it decently enough on newstalk this morning. well, as decently as any politician has ever explained anything economic (i mean, look at where FFs policies have got us)

So lets be having that explanation then?

ghostdancer

yeah, just caught the end of Pearse Doherty on newstalk and he explained it pretty well.

as an aside, I remember Eamon Gilmore a few months ago on the Late Late saying that he wouldn't cut X,Y and Z, without explaining what he would cut, or making any mention of tax hikes under Labour.

meditraitor

ghostdancer wrote: »

yeah, just caught the end of Pearse Doherty on newstalk and he explained it pretty well.

as an aside, I remember Eamon Gilmore a few months ago on the Late Late saying that he wouldn't cut X,Y and Z, without explaining what he would cut, or making any mention of tax hikes under Labour.

Never mind gilmore, tell us exactly how as you heard Doherty explain it? Out with it!

Oh I heard it...
It was the same shoite he came out with on primetime last night...
Basically use the remainder money already raised on the bond markets last year and use the last of the pension reserve to keep us going this year.

He ignored the fact that we have 12 billion in sovereign bonds that fall due for repayment this year,presumably he wants to default on those...


Meantime default on the ecb/imf thing completely and then after a year go back to the bond markets looking for more money next year.

Meanwhile raise a billion from a wealth tax and raise a new tax rate on the over 100k families bringing their marginal rate on their last income including prsi or whatever it will be called to over 60%

It was laughable fairy land stuff.

Michael o'Regan of the irish times said it was all daft.

Bottle_of_Smoke

LeixlipRed wrote: »

These policies, the ULA's, which SF have borrowed of course, are not the issue. The ULA is comprised of revolutionary socialist parties. We are not social democrats. We believe in battling for reforms we open people's eyes to the possibility of revolution. So we never will be in power discussing where the cuts must fall, we'll either be in opposition or we won't have a parliament

There's no appetite for socialism in Ireland. It just wouldn't function. We are a small island nation and there are too many powerful interests surrounding us to ensure it would fail.

I don't understand how anyone can advocate for Ireland becoming a socialist state. Just so unrealistic.

johngalway

Deleted User wrote: »

Michael o'Regan of the irish times said it was all daft.

And daft it certainly is, but, no more than Joe Higgins, the ULA and whomever, SF won't be seeing power so they can say as they please. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be workable, it doesn't have to be anything other than offering false hope to attract votes. Preying on peoples anger and ignorance by offering the hope of something that doesn't exist.

LeixlipRed

nesf wrote: »

Yeah and the people you want to tax to pay for your plans won't stay in such a country after a revolution, so exactly how is the ship going to float?

Ah, come on, I'm not that naive, the only way socialism would work is if there was a Europe wide revolution. Socialism cannot exist in isolation as we seen with the collapse of the original revolution in Russia in the early 20s. If the revolution had spread to Germany maybe Stalin wouldn't have been able to divert the course of the movement into something quite different than from what was intended. A revolution in Ireland in isolation would be pointless.

Tipp Man

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There's no appetite for socialism in Ireland. It just wouldn't function. We are a small island nation and there are too many powerful interests surrounding us to ensure it would fail.

I don't understand how anyone can advocate for Ireland becoming a socialist state. Just so unrealistic.

I would have to disagree with the opening comment in bold. I think there is quite a large appetitie for socialism in Ireland which is getting considerably stronger. Maye not extreme socialism but certainly a strong left incline

Tipp Man

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Ah, come on, I'm not that naive, the only way socialism would work is if there was a Europe wide revolution. Socialism cannot exist in isolation as we seen with the collapse of the original revolution in Russia in the early 20s. If the revolution had spread to Germany maybe Stalin wouldn't have been able to divert the course of the movement into something quite different than from what was intended. A revolution in Ireland in isolation would be pointless.

Does this mean that you want Ireland to be as socialist as possible while still being able to exist with other European countries?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Tipp Man wrote: »

I would have to disagree with the opening comment in bold. I think there is quite a large appetitie for socialism in Ireland which is getting considerably stronger. Maye not extreme socialism but certainly a strong left incline

I'm talking about socialism. What you refer to as extreme socialism.

Scandinavia is not socialist.
Sinn Fein are not socialist.
Spending more on health services is not socialism.
A left inclination is not socialism

Bottle_of_Smoke

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Ah, come on, I'm not that naive, the only way socialism would work is if there was a Europe wide revolution. Socialism cannot exist in isolation as we seen with the collapse of the original revolution in Russia in the early 20s. If the revolution had spread to Germany maybe Stalin wouldn't have been able to divert the course of the movement into something quite different than from what was intended. A revolution in Ireland in isolation would be pointless.

Ok well glad you cleared that up in your last post it looked like you were advocating it for Ireland alone.

LeixlipRed

Tipp Man wrote: »

Does this mean that you want Ireland to be as socialist as possible while still being able to exist with other European countries?

Well I believe that fighting for reforms for the working class is a path towards radicalism and revolution. The ULA if elected will fight tooth and nail for the working class. Ok, the policies are somewhat flimsy but that's only because within the current system there's no place for radical left economics. But let's look around here, whose policies are solid? Whose policies guarantee an economic recovery for all? That insure no poverty, no sufferring, nothing? Not one single party can guarantee that. So if you vote for the ULA you're voting for people who will fight your corner, a movement of the working class for radical change.

FF/FG/Lab all bow to the interests of big business. The ULA do not.

Tipp Man

maccored wrote: »

i think doherty explained it decently enough on newstalk this morning. well, as decently as any politician has ever explained anything economic (i mean, look at where FFs policies have got us)

ghostdancer wrote: »

yeah, just caught the end of Pearse Doherty on newstalk and he explained it pretty well.

Still waiting for your explanations guys??

Or anywone who is SF - come on there are plenty of ye on every other SF thread so why not on here??

don't be shy inform us all

Eliot Rosewater

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Ok, the policies are somewhat flimsy but that's only because within the current system there's no place for radical left economics.

Are you saying the policies the ULA are putting forward won't work then?

All this talk of revolution sounds to me like a decoy. There isn't going to be a Euro-wide revolution. So what are the ULA going to do in its absence? How are they going to manage the country if they get into power? How are they going to deal with the budget deficit?

I don't see any answers here.

LeixlipRed wrote: »

But let's look around here, whose policies are solid? Whose policies guarantee an economic recovery for all? That insure no poverty, no sufferring, nothing? Not one single party can guarantee that.

Of course they can't. We're in a recession. There is always suffering in reccesions.

LeixlipRed

Why should any working class person suffer for the mistakes of financial speculators? They shouldn't, it's morally wrong.

Secondly, the ULA has no interest in being in power in the sense that you imagine power to be i.e. parliamentary democracy. That's the core point I'm trying to make. You say there isn't going to be a revolution? What about the wave of civil disobedience sweeping North Africa and the Middle East at the moment? The whole point of the ULA's campaign is to win people over to radical left politics. Show them that in fighting for reforms that it's actually the system we need to overthrow and not individual parties or governments.

What you're looking for me to tell you is what a ULA TD would do if he was Minister for Finance. That is not going to happen. We're not electoralists, that's the whole point!

Eliot Rosewater

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Why should any working class person suffer for the mistakes of financial speculators? They shouldn't, it's morally wrong.

To say that this boom is merely the mistake of financial speculaters is simplistic in the extreme. Everyone bought into the boom, and most people benefited (at the time). Social welfare rates increased enormously, for example.

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Secondly, the ULA has no interest in being in power in the sense that you imagine power to be i.e. parliamentary democracy. That's the core point I'm trying to make.

So what will the ULA do in parliament and/or if gets into power?

And why is engaging with the democratic system not enough? Are the ULA proposing some kind of violence? Or some kind of reneging on the constitution and the rights within?

LeixlipRed

Violence? Yes, we're gonna come to your house and beat you up :rolleyes:

If you're not gonna have a serious debate I'm just going to ignore your posts to be honest. Educate yourself on the parties involved in the ULA and come back to me when you know what our politics are. We're revolutionary socialists, we don't believe in the current parliamentary democracy. You're not asking the right questions.

Tipp Man

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Violence? Yes, we're gonna come to your house and beat you up :rolleyes:

If you're not gonna have a serious debate I'm just going to ignore your posts to be honest. Educate yourself on the parties involved in the ULA and come back to me when you know what our politics are. We're revolutionary socialists, we don't believe in the current parliamentary democracy. You're not asking the right questions.

How would governence happen in your "revolutionary socialist" state?
Without parliament who runs the state?

ei.sdraob

All this talk of revolution reminds me of this

GeorgeOrwell wrote:

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age,
there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle,
and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne
countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their
attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the
essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous
upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always
reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium,
however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of
the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change
places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim--for it
is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed
by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside
their daily lives--is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in
which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is
the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods
the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always
comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their
capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the
Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they
are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their
objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of
servitude, and themselves become the High.

Viva la revolution

LeixlipRed

Tipp Man wrote: »

How would governence happen in your "revolutionary socialist" state?
Without parliament who runs the state?

Everyone.

LeixlipRed

ei.sdraob wrote: »

All this talk of revolution reminds me of this




Viva la revolution

You might want to have a google about George Orwell's political ideology. Begins with S and ends with ocialist

ei.sdraob

LeixlipRed wrote: »

You might want to have a google about George Orwell's political ideology. Begins with S and ends with ocialist

Uhm where did you get the idea that I don't know his background

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Everyone.

Direct democracy or something else?

LeixlipRed

Because you're using those comments, which sounds to me like a criticism of the rise of capitalism, against the movement. Anyway, doesn't matter.

Direct democracy, workers councils, right of instant recall, etc, etc,. None of this stuff is new.

jimmycrackcorm

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Why should any working class person suffer for the mistakes of financial speculators? They shouldn't, it's morally wrong.

Why should any working class person suffer from crime? It's also morally wrong but we have to deal with the situation as it is.

The fact is that our society only functions with a working bank system so it is next to impossible to divorce the part that includes financial speculation gone awry.

rokossovsky

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Ah, come on, I'm not that naive, the only way socialism would work is if there was a Europe wide revolution. Socialism cannot exist in isolation as we seen with the collapse of the original revolution in Russia in the early 20s. If the revolution had spread to Germany maybe Stalin wouldn't have been able to divert the course of the movement into something quite different than from what was intended. A revolution in Ireland in isolation would be pointless.

Trotskyite wet dream - it'll never happen. And most socialist revolutions have ended miserably with the workers betrayed by party apparatchiks with their noses in the trough (just like the capitalist ones) and eventually voting with their feet and heading west. Were any posters here around for the events of 1989? World wide socialist revolution never happened in revolutionary epochs of 1840s, or 1920's - they wont happen now.

shadowninty

communism has too much issues to work, ESP in a developed country
communism is a strong medicine, like chaemo that is often the only way for a country where the vast majority live in awful poverty, to become a country that is someway developed
think of countries like Russia or China
of course it stops working relatively quickly, leading to captilist reform (China) or implosion (USSR)
perhaps some countries in Africa could do with communism, that might not be so bad a thing if it wasn't for the loss of life it would entail

but there is no EU country that communism would be anyway good for

shadowninty

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Ah, come on, I'm not that naive, the only way socialism would work is if there was a Europe wide revolution. Socialism cannot exist in isolation as we seen with the collapse of the original revolution in Russia in the early 20s. If the revolution had spread to Germany maybe Stalin wouldn't have been able to divert the course of the movement into something quite different than from what was intended. A revolution in Ireland in isolation would be pointless.

while I am far from a proponent of communism, this post sums up my thoughts