Labour or Fianna Gael, Whats the difference? Why vote for one over the other?

finnegan2010

Ok So I voted for FF before never again...
Im trying to decide who i should vote for this time.
I have been on both FG and Labours web sites.
Listened to them rabbiting on.
They seem to be saying the same things. "need to increase jobs".. "driving the economy"... "reform public service"... "Investing in our future?!"
Im trying to work out who I should vote for, are there any fundamental differences here? Labour are more Pro working class man as far as i know, am i wrong. FG would be more pro-business and corporate sector like FF only to a lesser extent?

DoesNotCompute

off the top of my head here's two differences:

1. Enda Kenny comes across as a plank, vs Gilmore, who seems very well spoken, and appears to be a good leader.

2. Labour will honour the Croke Park Agreement, and will not do anything too drastic so as not to p*ss off the unions, whereas Fine Gael are likely to make massive cuts across the public sector

edit: Fine Gael are more right-wing than Fianna Fáil, so in theory at least, they should be more pro-business and corporate sector. I'm not too familiar with their policies in this regard to be honest

finnegan2010

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

off the top of my head here's two differences:

1. Enda Kenny comes across as a plank, vs Gilmore, who seems very well spoken, and appears to be a good leader.

Yes true too true

2. Labour will honour the Croke Park Agreement, and will not do anything too drastic so as not to p*ss off the unions, whereas Fine Gael are likely to make massive cuts across the public sector

You just made my mind up for me! Ill be voting FG. that agreement was a joke huge cuts need to be made there!

edit: Fine Gael are more right-wing than Fianna Fáil, so in theory at least, they should be more pro-business and corporate sector. I'm not too familiar with their policies in this regard to be honest

Thanks

sanbrafyffe

well i know SFA about polotics and have recently got interested after the way fianna fail let us down and brought us too this mess.irish polotics is all a mess and is all wrong.school teachers as ministers etc.dont no alot bout kenny but seems a very serious man and with high determinations.even bruton challenged him and lost well so the party stated there that he is the man to lead the way.it would be hard to get a bit of craic out of him.well my father is massive into polotics and always remember him sayin

"the uk are better in a conservative government and ireland is better under a fianna gael government"

maybe he mite be right hes 66 now and shud know wat hes on about

dolphin city

for me the are all the same. Fianna "Gale" (as in windy) are another version of fianna FAIL. Labour reminds of the unions - started out working for the people but decided to side with the managers instead.

People keep saying we need change in this country - so let's change

vote for the parties that FF FG and Lab says not to. Only then will we get change like we want it.

we can go through bad times being dictated to by france and germany or we can go through the same bad times on our own terms. and remember Germnay needs us probably more than we need them. Lets stop the lickarsing and lets get ourselves a backbone.

Bloody Nipples

dolphin city wrote: »

and remember Germnay needs us probably more than we need them. Lets stop the lickarsing and lets get ourselves a backbone.

I'd love to hear where you've pulled that "fact" from :rolleyes:

finnegan2010

dolphin city wrote: »

for me the are all the same. Fianna "Gale" (as in windy) are another version of fianna FAIL. Labour reminds of the unions - started out working for the people but decided to side with the managers instead.

People keep saying we need change in this country - so let's change

vote for the parties that FF FG and Lab says not to. Only then will we get change like we want it.

we can go through bad times being dictated to by france and germany or we can go through the same bad times on our own terms. and remember Germnay needs us probably more than we need them. Lets stop the lickarsing and lets get ourselves a backbone.

i think germany needs us like a hole in the head right now in fairness lol , but thanks for the input

Bloody Nipples

Essentially, Labour are (left-wing) socialist democrats, though not too incredibly left of centre and Fine Gael are (right-wing) christian democrats, though not too incredibly right of centre.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democracy#Christian_democracy

Here are links to both, you should read up on them, decide which you prefer and then vote for them.

Pete_Cavan

finnegan2010 wrote: »

Ok So I voted for FF before never again...
Im trying to decide who i should vote for this time.
I have been on both FG and Labours web sites.
Listened to them rabbiting on.
They seem to be saying the same things. "need to increase jobs".. "driving the economy"... "reform public service"... "Investing in our future?!"
Im trying to work out who I should vote for, are there any fundamental differences here? Labour are more Pro working class man as far as i know, am i wrong. FG would be more pro-business and corporate sector like FF only to a lesser extent?

The difference, in terms of investing in our future at least, is that FG have put forward an actual proposal on how they will do this. They have
NewEra which outlines what they will invest in (water, energy and broadband which we actually need for growth as opposed to roads which we have enough of) and how they will end our fragmented approach to infrastructure investment to insure value for money. FG also speak of selling semi-state assets to remove that burden from the taxpayer and use the money raised for a stimulus package. Labour on the other hand just talk about "recycling €500million into job creation" with no indication on how they will do it, what type of jobs they will be, how they will benefit the economy or if they are long term jobs or just short term jobs resulting directly from that investment.

Both parties have set out how they will reform the government and public sector, the main difference being FG accept that there will need to be serious reform and jobs lost here, whereas Labour think they can reverse all cuts and not lose any jobs while making the public sector efficient (lala land if you ask me). Also Labour favour clearing the deficit through a balance between taxes and cuts, whereas FG want more cuts in public spending than tax increases.

Obviously I will be voting FG but it is not because of party allegiance or preconceived ideas (I have never voted for them before), I will be voting for them based on these policies. My summary is biased, but only because I believe FG policies will be better for our country in the short and long term.

cancercowboy

Never mind the haters, Fine Gael's policies are on the net.

regarding Job Creation:

http://www.new-era.ie/jobs.html

regarding Fine Gael's policies on Health Care, you can read them here:

http://www.faircare.ie/


However if you want to get a good idea of all their polices check out the Wikipedia article, it does a very good job summarizing their Ideology and policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Gael#Ideology_and_policies

give them a read.

Fine Gael are not "right wing" they are centrist party. The Fine Gael party has members from all walks of Irish life with all sorts of political views on the spectrum from "left" to "right". I personally feel Fine Gael are very progressive party and don't consider them very conservative at tall. Since the demise of the Progessive Democrats Ireland really hasn't had a right wing party.

The Volt

cancercowboy wrote: »

Never mind the haters, Fine Gael's policies are on the net.

regarding Job Creation:

http://www.new-era.ie/jobs.html

regarding Fine Gael's policies on Health Care, you can read them here:

http://www.faircare.ie/


However if you want to get a good idea of all their polices check out the Wikipedia article, it does a very good job summarizing their Ideology and policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Gael#Ideology_and_policies

give them a read.

Fine Gael are not "right wing" they are centrist party. The Fine Gael party has members from all walks of Irish life with all sorts of political views on the spectrum from "left" to "right". I personally feel Fine Gael are very progressive party and don't consider them very conservative at tall. Since the demise of the Progessive Democrats Ireland really hasn't had a right wing party.

Privitisation, Cuts and Leo Varadkar are all right-wing things they have to offer.

NuMarvel

cancercowboy wrote: »

Never mind the haters, Fine Gael's policies are on the net.

regarding Job Creation:

http://www.new-era.ie/jobs.html

regarding Fine Gael's policies on Health Care, you can read them here:

http://www.faircare.ie/

However if you want to get a good idea of all their polices check out the Wikipedia article, it does a very good job summarizing their Ideology and policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Gael#Ideology_and_policies

give them a read.

Fine Gael are not "right wing" they are centrist party. The Fine Gael party has members from all walks of Irish life with all sorts of political views on the spectrum from "left" to "right". I personally feel Fine Gael are very progressive party and don't consider them very conservative at tall. Since the demise of the Progessive Democrats Ireland really hasn't had a right wing party.

"Faircare is currently being updated and will return shortly. Thank you."

By any chance do you have a link to that policy on any other site? I wanted to have a look at it yesterday, but I got the above message.

Hector Mildew

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

off the top of my head here's two differences:

1. Enda Kenny comes across as a plank, vs Gilmore, who seems very well spoken, and appears to be a good leader.

Yes, Kenny is at his best when he says nothing (in public), hence his low profile at present. I'm guessing that he's undergoing some intensive public relations/ media training in advance of the TV debates.

Gilmore is more media friendly though in a (my opinion here) non commital keep everyone happy way reminisent of Bertie...

2. Labour will honour the Croke Park Agreement, and will not do anything too drastic so as not to p*ss off the unions, whereas Fine Gael are likely to make massive cuts across the public sector

Both parties have said they'd honour this agreement as it allows for major reforms. Labour have said they will call for 15,000 voluntary redundancies from the public secor, Fine Gael will call for 30,000 but say that most of these will be through 'natural losses.'

Earlier today, I heard a labour person say that they would remove the public sector recruitment ban by giving managers more freedom in how they allocate their budgets.

edit: Fine Gael are more right-wing than Fianna Fáil, so in theory at least, they should be more pro-business and corporate sector. I'm not too familiar with their policies in this regard to be honest

They have decent policies, and a 4 year plan, which sound very sensible, I just wish they would publish them on their new fangled website in place of the Enda Kenny videos and posters..

cancercowboy

Voltwad wrote: »

Privitisation, Cuts and Leo Varadkar are all right-wing things they have to offer.

So when you sell your house, you're "privatizing" it?

Honestly, the state owned companies that don't turn a profit and cost the people of this country, millions should be sold off. Those that are profitable should be kept and made more profitable getting better value for money. This is Fine Gael policy and it's also common sense.

Sorry but we have to have "cuts" because there's no money left now that Fianna Fáil have given our money away to the banks. The country needs money to run on. There is no alternative, sadly.

However, we would have made different cuts and expect the richest in our society to pay more, not less as they have done under this budget brought forward by Fianna Fáil. Public healthcare, taxing the rich, these are not actions of a right wing party.

d'Oracle

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

Essentially, Labour are (left-wing) socialist democrats, though not too incredibly left of centre and Fine Gael are (right-wing) christian democrats, though not too incredibly right of centre.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democracy#Christian_democracy

Here are links to both, you should read up on them, decide which you prefer and then vote for them.

It would be significant to correct you here.
The Irish Labour Party are Social Democrats, not Socialist Democrats.


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

d'Oracle

Voltwad wrote: »

... and Leo Varadkar are all right-wing things they have to offer.

I love it.

Uriel.

NuMarvel wrote: »

"Faircare is currently being updated and will return shortly. Thank you."

By any chance do you have a link to that policy on any other site? I wanted to have a look at it yesterday, but I got the above message.

Yep - all available policies here.
http://research.finegael.org/polcol/a/25/article

Fair Care specifically here - http://www.finegael.org/upload/file/FairCare.pdf

cancercowboy

NuMarvel wrote: »

"Faircare is currently being updated and will return shortly. Thank you."

By any chance do you have a link to that policy on any other site? I wanted to have a look at it yesterday, but I got the above message.

Yeah it's down, it's a 5 year plan to untangle this mess of a healthcare system we have now. Here's a summary from wikipedia:

The Irish health system, being administered centrally by the Health Service Executive, is seen to be poor by comparison to other countries in Europe, ranking outside expected levels at 25th according to the Euro Health Consumer Index 2006.Fine Gael has become the first party in Ireland to break with the system of private health insurance, public medical cards and what it calls the two tiers of the health system and has launched a campaign to see the system reformed. Speaking in favour of the campaign, Fine Gael health spokesman James Reilly stated "Over the last 10 years the health service has become a shambles. We regularly have over 350 people on trolleys in A&E, waiting lists that go on for months, outpatient waiting lists that go on for years and cancelled operations across the country..."
Fine Gael launched its FairCare campaign and website in April 2009, which states that the health service would be reformed away from a costly ineffective endeavour, into a publicly regulated system where universal health insurance would replace the existing provisions.
This strategy was criticised by Fianna Fáil Minister for Children, Barry Andrews. The spokesperson for family law and children, Alan Shatter TD, robustly defended its proposals as the only means of reducing public expenditure, and providing a service in Ireland more akin to the German, Dutch and Canadian health systems.

and a link from the website from Uriel.

http://www.finegael.org/upload/file/FairCare.pdf

dolphin city

finnegan2010 wrote: »

i think germany needs us like a hole in the head right now in fairness lol , but thanks for the input

you are very welcome, but you need to broaden your thinking.

Hector Mildew

NuMarvel wrote: »

"Faircare is currently being updated and will return shortly. Thank you."

By any chance do you have a link to that policy on any other site? I wanted to have a look at it yesterday, but I got the above message.

It took a while to find - their old site is linked from 'contact us' in their website Whoever decided not to include a direct link to policies and candidates needs talking to.

Here's a link to Faircare..

http://research.finegael.org/polcol/a/13/article

d'Oracle

cancercowboy wrote: »

Honestly, the state owned companies that don't turn a profit and cost the people of this country, millions should be sold off. Those that are profitable should be kept and made more profitable getting better value for money. This is Fine Gael policy and it's also common sense.

Which ones?

cancercowboy

d'Oracle wrote: »

Which ones?

Whichever publicly owned companies that are not profitable. It should be evaluated on an individual basis.

My opinion, having worked in CIÉ, is that it is certainly a candidate. The CIÉ group of companies have never turned a profit and that would be fine if they provided a great service, but they don't. They are wasteful, inefficient, and provide a lousy service. The worst part is they survive on the tax payer to run but we still have to pay a fare to use them. We are paying twice. I'd love to see the CIÉ companies sold to a company that would reinvest in them, cut out the fat, and provide a much better service. However, this is my personal opinion.

The ESB is very profitable and we should keep it ensuring it is ran even more effectively.

Pete_Cavan

Voltwad wrote: »

Privitisation, Cuts and Leo Varadkar are all right-wing things they have to offer.

What is your problem with privitisation? ESB prices are kept artificially high to encourage people to switch to Bord Gais or Airtricity to give the illusion of competition. Basically ESB customers are being over-charged and the taxpayer is subsidising the cost of electricity from Bord Gais in order to break up ESBs monopoly but there are no advantages to removing this monopoly because any savings in the cost of electricity are canceled out by the subsidies you are paying for through taxes levies. At least in an open market competition forces producers to become efficient because the only way they will gain customers is by reducing their prices.

These companies have NO incentive to improve the quality of their services or reduce their prices because no matter how annoyed the consumer gets with them there's no escape from them. You can't seek refuge from appalling service or high prices by choosing another company. Clearly there are people here who would rather see every householder and business in the country to be over charged and are happy for everybody in the country to loss out as long as no one makes a profit.

d'Oracle

I only partially agree.

Privatisation does not necessarily ensure an improvement of standards.
And we would still need Quasi CIE to coordinate public transport activities. (akin to Aer Rianta or ESB networks)

The reality is if these companies were privatised we would end up spending considerably more on public transport. We are not the UK. I don't believe that we have the capacity for an affordable private owned public transport network.

I never accept the "our tax money" argument because it is misleading and over simplistic. Public funds come from lots of place.

cancercowboy

d'Oracle wrote: »

I only partially agree.

Privatisation does not necessarily ensure an improvement of standards.
And we would still need Quasi CIE to coordinate public transport activities. (akin to Aer Rianta or ESB networks)

The reality is if these companies were privatised we would end up spending considerably more on public transport. We are not the UK. I don't believe that we have the capacity for an affordable private owned public transport network.

I never accept the "our tax money" argument because it is misleading and over simplistic. Public funds come from lots of place.

Public funds come from our pockets and investments made with the money from our pockets.

As far as transport goes, I disagree. I think the fact that we are a small country makes it much easier for a private company to come in simply because it's less risk and much more manageable. I don't think it would cost us more, having worked there I've see first hand the waste and inefficiency a private company wouldn't stand for it because it would cut into profits.

As far as CIÉ goes it's been in the cross hairs for a very long time and it was going to be shutdown, and the individual companies to be ran autonomously, before the financial crisis occurred.

As far as a governing body goes, you don't need a quango when you have the department of transportation already.

Hector Mildew

d'Oracle wrote: »

I only partially agree.

Privatisation does not necessarily ensure an improvement of standards.
And we would still need Quasi CIE to coordinate public transport activities. (akin to Aer Rianta or ESB networks)

The reality is if these companies were privatised we would end up spending considerably more on public transport. We are not the UK. I don't believe that we have the capacity for an affordable private owned public transport network.

I never accept the "our tax money" argument because it is misleading and over simplistic. Public funds come from lots of place.

The way I see it, our Government's job should be to maintain and manage the use of infrastrucure such as the electricity supply grid, rail network, communications network, fishing grounds, etc. Actual supply of services should be left to private operators who are licenced and regulated by the Government (for a portion of their profits).

The mistakes made with Eircom, i.e. selling the network as part of the company, should not be repeated.

Uriel.

cancercowboy wrote: »

Whichever publicly owned companies that are not profitable. It should be evaluated on an individual basis.

My opinion, having worked in CIÉ, is that it is certainly a candidate. The CIÉ group of companies have never turned a profit and that would be fine if they provided a great service, but they don't. They are wasteful, inefficient, and provide a lousy service. The worst part is they survive on the tax payer to run but we still have to pay a fare to use them. We are paying twice. I'd love to see the CIÉ companies sold to a company that would reinvest in them, cut out the fat, and provide a much better service. However, this is my personal opinion.

The ESB is very profitable and we should keep it ensuring it is ran even more effectively.

I think the difficulty with your suggestion is that, generally, and rightly so, public companies (like transport ones) are not set up to be profitable. They are set up to provide essentially social services that can't be profitable.

Taking bus routes for example, certain bus routes would not be undertaken by private companies because they are not financially viable or certain bus times (e.g. off peak times) would be cut out because of lower passenger numbers.

Social services don't exist (nor usually can they) to make profit.

But I do think all publicly provided services need to be seriously scrutinised with a view to ensuring lower operating costs and greater efficiencies.

d'Oracle

cancercowboy wrote: »

Public funds come from our pockets and investments made with the money from our pockets.

As far as transport goes, I disagree. I think the fact that we are a small country makes it much easier for a private company to come in simply because it's less risk and much more manageable. I don't think it would cost us more, having worked there I've see first hand the waste and inefficiency a private company wouldn't stand for it because it would cut into profits.

I know that is what you're getting at, I just am not convinced that it is a sensible investment from the point of view of return. Its not a manageability thing, its purely that I don't think there is the volume of custom to generate the necessary revenues to make it viable and profitable. It would probably wind up meaning less services and greater price.

This is why we keep it.

cancercowboy wrote: »

As far as CIÉ goes it's been in the cross hairs for a very long time and it was going to be shutdown, and the individual companies to be ran autonomously, before the financial crisis occurred.

No arguements there.

cancercowboy wrote: »

As far as a governing body goes, you don't need a quango when you have the department of transportation already.

The department of transportation are not a technical organisation.
The same as DCNER don't administer the Gas and Electrical networks.
Or defence do not administer the armed forces.
Or DSAT don't run the GAA, IRFU, Tourism Ireland etc.

To make them do so would firstly require taking on new people and secondly create an extra bonus layer of bureaucratic quagmire.
Quangos and Not-for-profits are useful, just not in the volume they exist now.

Hector Mildew

Uriel. wrote: »

I think the difficulty with your suggestion is that, generally, and rightly so, public companies (like transport ones) are not set up to be profitable. They are set up to provide essentially social services that can't be profitable.

Taking bus routes for example, certain bus routes would not be undertaken by private companies because they are not financially viable or certain bus times (e.g. off peak times) would be cut out because of lower passenger numbers.

Social services don't exist (nor usually can they) to make profit.

But I do think all publicly provided services need to be seriously scrutinised with a view to ensuring lower operating costs and greater efficiencies.

That could be achieved by licencing profitable routes on the condition that the private companies also service a less profitable route, provides a late night service, etc.

Uriel.

Hector Mildew wrote: »

That could be achieved by licencing profitable routes on the condition that the private companies also service a less profitable route, provides a late night service, etc.

It might not be profitable for a private company to take on Route A (a very profitable, highly sought after route) while also taking on route B (a severely loss making route). It will depend and differ across the country and across routes etc...

Hector Mildew

Uriel. wrote: »

It might not be profitable for a private company to take on Route A (a very profitable, highly sought after route) while also taking on route B (a severely loss making route). It will depend and differ across the country and across routes etc...

That's true, we're having the same problem with broadband provision. For those routes, it could be more cost effective to subsidise the loss making routes, making them attractive to private companies, rather than maintaining an entire public company for that purpose.

Pete_Cavan

Hector Mildew wrote: »

The way I see it, our Government's job should be to maintain and manage the use of infrastrucure such as the electricity supply grid, rail network, communications network, fishing grounds, etc. Actual supply of services should be left to private operators who are licenced and regulated by the Government (for a portion of their profits).

The mistakes made with Eircom, i.e. selling the network as part of the company, should not be repeated.

BANG! (thats the sound of you hitting the nail on the head)

The government would be able to create a perfectly competitive market in energy production if it were to sell off its assets to a number of private companies but retain the national grid . They simply sell off the assets to a number of private companies, the state could retain a number of assets and compete in the market if they wished. The Energy Regulator would regulate the market and prevent monopolies from developing. The private companies would have to pay towards the maintenance and upgrade of the grid, perhaps the amount they pay be based on their market share which would improve competition. If all energy producers are selling there electricity through the one national grid then producers compete on price only because the product is exactly the same regardless of who produces it.

Somthing similar could be done with telecommunications. Getting back to the topic of the thread, as I said in my earlier post, part of the reason I will be voting FG because they have a realistic plan for the development of such infrastructure and it is are that will allow our economy to grow. The left wing parties dont have policies in relation to this and will ensure everything remains operated by the state, despite the fact that that will give us higher costs and poorer quality.

Koyasan

I heard John Gormley on the news say he was asked what the difference was between FG and FF, and answered that he couldn't say.

The led me to this

http://jasonomahony.ie/?p=6930

which I found useful for clarrifying somethign before going into more depth.

Fianna Fail: Moderately low tax, pro-business, moderately pro-union, pro-social spending, socially moderate, pro-European.

Fine Gael: Moderately low tax, pro-business, moderately pro-union, pro-social spending, socially moderate, pro-European.

Labour: Moderately low tax, pro-business tax, pro-union, pro-social spending, socially liberal, pro-European.

Greens: Moderately low tax except for resource taxes, pro-social spending, socially liberal, pro-European.

meditraitor

finnegan2010 wrote: »

Ok So I voted for FF before never again...
Im trying to decide who i should vote for this time.
I have been on both FG and Labours web sites.
Listened to them rabbiting on.
They seem to be saying the same things. "need to increase jobs".. "driving the economy"... "reform public service"... "Investing in our future?!"
Im trying to work out who I should vote for, are there any fundamental differences here? Labour are more Pro working class man as far as i know, am i wrong. FG would be more pro-business and corporate sector like FF only to a lesser extent?

Did you read the FG policy documents? If so I guess it'll be a labour number 1.

If you want to read policies that are not cut and paste from a wikipedia economics page then have alook at these

http://www.labour.ie/

xE

If you vote Labour, you'll end up getting Fine Gael anyway. Labour will never make a majority in the Dail, so the guaranteed result will either be a Fine Gael majority or a Lab/FG coalition.

As for Fine Gael, they're pretty much no difference than Fianna Fail once you shave off the rhetoric and the waffle about "change".

d'Oracle

xE wrote: »

If you vote Labour, you'll end up getting Fine Gael anyway. Labour will never make a majority in the Dail, so the guaranteed result will either be a Fine Gael majority or a Lab/FG coalition.

As for Fine Gael, they're pretty much no difference than Fianna Fail once you shave off the rhetoric and the waffle about "change".

Don't forget Hope.

The problem with the rest of it is you are making the assumption that Labour won't be the main party in the next government. While you are probably right, if we all vote along the lines of what other people vote for, then nothing will change.

If everybody voted for labour, then they would have enough seats to at least be senior party
Because they have enough candidates to do so. If people don't want to vote for them, fine, but they should not be doing that on the grounds that FG will get in. They should do it because they don't agree with Labour Policy.

xE

meditraitor wrote: »

Did you read the FG policy documents? If so I guess it'll be a labour number 1.

If you want to read policies that are not cut and paste from a wikipedia economics page then have alook at these

http://www.labour.ie/

Great sales pitch.

I notice that while they mightn't be copied and pasted from Wikipedia, the Shinners allege that some copying and pasting was undertaken on their documents by Labour.

baloonatic

Just my 2c,

I support Fine Gael's policies on most issues so they have my vote.

I was also partial to Labour's values and i would have most definitely voted for them in some capacity UNTIL i saw Joan Burton's shameful antics.

d'Oracle

xE wrote: »

Great sales pitch.

I notice that while they mightn't be copied and pasted from Wikipedia, the Shinners allege that some copying and pasting was undertaken on their documents by Labour.

Dunno how that happened seeing as Sinn Fein have no documents up to copy and paste.

A lot people round here seem to get their idea and opinions of policy from cute hoor news media and forums.

Alerting people to actual policy documents is helping people make an informed decision. People should do it and for all parties.

While I'm at it, anyone have a link for FG's policies?
Their website is atrocious.

meditraitor

xE wrote: »

Great sales pitch.

I notice that while they mightn't be copied and pasted from Wikipedia, the Shinners allege that some copying and pasting was undertaken on their documents by Labour.

Who alleged this? What did they allege?

Pete_Cavan

xE wrote: »

As for Fine Gael, they're pretty much no difference than Fianna Fail once you shave off the rhetoric and the waffle about "change".

What a ridiculous statement. People think FG and FF are the same because they preceive them both to be centre right parties and therefore must be the same. I would argue that FF are not a centre right party at all. A lot of their policies over the past 13 years have been predominantly left wing, they worked very closely with the unions on social partnerships increasing public sector pay to among the highest in EU, they increased social welfare payments to among the highest in EU and increased the minimum wage to among the highest in EU. There were also some right wing policies but IMO these mainly came from the PDs. The crisis we have now is due to the fact that the government didnt follow one philosophy and combined left wing high government spending with right wing low taxes which has left us with a deficit between income and expenditure of almost €20bn.

FG are a genuine centre right party and are therefore nothing like FF. To suggest that they are displays a very basic understanding of political theory but no understanding of the politics in practice which we have seen from the last government.