Reasons why you should *not* vote for Fine Gael?

Dionysus

What are your reasons for not voting for Fine Gael in the forthcoming election?

I want to find out their policies and their 2011 election website is a monument to obfuscation. The website with their policies is here.

I've been impressed with Noonan and Varadkar. I think Kenny is a (much) better leader than John Bruton. I'm not impressed at all by Brian Hayes or his ideas for our education system. That's the superficial 'personalities' stuff.

What about their policies? Why, in your view, do Fine Gael's policies make it the party we should *not* vote for on February 25?

Dionysus

I'll start:

I think the Fine Gael plan to have a fire-sale of the family silver in the form of selling state companies which are highly profitable like ESB International, Bord Gáis and ESB PowerGen and Supply during a recession is myopic in the extreme.

Dirk Gently

Dionysus wrote: »

I'll start:

I think the Fine Gael plan to have a fire-sale of the family silver in the form of selling state companies which are highly profitable like ESB International, Bord Gáis and ESB PowerGen and Supply during a recession is myopic in the extreme.

I wouldn't worry about it. Lab and FG will pretty much cancel each other out. I doubt labour would sanction a selling of the silverware. I think both parties will veto each others respective too left or too right policies. I can see nothing other than a continuation of the FF 4 year programme with perhaps some very very minor political reforms.

The biggest differences between the two will be health (public v private) and cutting numbers in the public service. FG will be pushing the private agenda while Labour will try to limit it. I'd expect Leo V to clash with labour an awful lot as regards to health policy. FG will want to cut alot in the public sector, Lab will want to protect as much as it can.

These will be the battle grounds of the next government but apart from that it will be business as usual despite what either party is selling to their supporters during the campaign. I think its pretty much safe to ignore their individual policies and just expect them to manage the status quo over the next 5 years. Judging by Kennys demeanour today I'd imagine europe told him to get stuffed if he thought he was going to renegotiate the interest rate when in government. The best I'm hoping for is good management of existing government policy tbh.

Einhard

clown bag wrote: »

The biggest differences between the two will be health (public v private)

Not according to their respective manifestos. The main plank of FG's health policy is a move to Universal coverage, which I'd imagine Labour would be in favour of.

Pete_Cavan

Dionysus wrote: »

I'll start:

I think the Fine Gael plan to have a fire-sale of the family silver in the form of selling state companies which are highly profitable like ESB International, Bord Gáis and ESB PowerGen and Supply during a recession is myopic in the extreme.

That is the main reason I will vote for FG. These companies are only highly profitable because we are being over charged for electricity. In order for businesses in this country to grow we need to reduce costs, such as electricity.

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. At least in an open market competition forces producers to become efficient because they are competing on price and the only way they will gain customers is by reducing their prices.

The only reason the state should provides services is because nobody else will provide them/ provide them cheaply/ can afford the start up costs. This is not true of the electricity production market if the state retains ownership of the national grid. State-guaranteed monopoly-status means that the consumer's interests do not count. 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. They can't seek refuge from appalling service or high prices by choosing another company. I say let the people decide, in the spirit of democracy, who will supply their electricity.

NewEra also outlines what infrastructure FG 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 wasteful approach to infrastructure investment and insure value for money. Our current system of having our water infrastructure controlled by 34 local authorities means there is no overall plan and there is a fragmented approach. The same is true of broadband where we have several state owned companies pursueing there own policies and there is no cohesion. If our infrastructure remains operated by the state, it will only give us higher costs and poorer quality.

Sulmac

The biggest differences between the two will be health

Their health policies are almost identical - universal health insurance with a greater focus on primary care.

Fine Gael favour the Dutch model where this is provided by mandatory private insurance (from companies that are either for-profit or run like credit unions/trusts), where certain groups (children, unemployed, and so on) are given vouchers to have their premiums paid for. Prices are the same for everyone regardless of age, gender or health status and there is a system of risk equalisation.

Labour have been in favour of universal health insurance for over a decade now but still haven't made it clear what type. If not the Dutch type, the other one (also known as 'social health insurance') is basically the same except you pay your mandatory premium to the one (usually) state-owned company. This is the system used in Germany and Canada, I believe. In Germany, some also buy further private insurance (which is illegal in Canada).

Both systems still involve normal tax being used to pay for the system, usually around 75% of it.

The policies are only slightly different, but the end result is the same. The Dutch system would probably work better here since we already have a well established private health insurance market.

sligopark

Einhard wrote: »

Not according to their respective manifestos. The main plank of FG's health policy is a move to Universal coverage, which I'd imagine Labour would be in favour of.

universal medical cover paid by who? why shoudl the taxpayer pay for those who continue to damage theior health on a day to day basis?

Whewre are the incentives to generate better health?


Universal Cover - does this mean as it has done in the US increasing the medical pharma domination of the health care market, with policies and provision driven by a health care provider and vested interests, kicking back bribe like to the medical profession?

The pharm-medical approach has proven itself to be too costly and rising out of control.

Sulmac wrote: »

Their health policies are almost identical - universal health insurance with a greater focus on primary care.

Primary care through a general medical practitioner model. Physios and Chiropractors are primary health care providers in the UK; Nurse practitioners, Chiropractors and Osteopaths are primary health care practitioners in Canada - all proven to have decreased costs.

Sulmac wrote: »

The Dutch system would probably work better here since we already have a well established private health insurance market.

except the numbers able to afford private health care in Ireland have been dropping like stones in the last 18 months and now after the VHI and Aviva increases, surely to increase the speed of these numbers dropping off past gravity and into hyper drop off.

Sulmac

sligopark wrote: »

universal medical cover paid by who? why shoudl the taxpayer pay for those who continue to damage theior health on a day to day basis?

Whewre are the incentives to generate better health?

Universal Cover - does this mean as it has done in the US increasing the medical pharma domination of the health care market, with policies and provision driven by a health care provider and vested interests, kicking back bribe like to the medical profession?

The pharm-medical approach has proven itself to be too costly and rising out of control.

Well you already pay for the public system we have and for tax relief on private insurance, so I don't see why the proposal is at all controversial.

It could also be argued that by 'having' to pay for something like health insurance people would take some degree of personal responsibility for their own health (look at the US, they're health mad!), though maybe I'm being a bit too optimistic!

Primary care through a general medical practitioner model. Physios and Chiropractors are primary health care providers in the UK; Nurse practitioners, Chiropractors and Osteopaths are primary health care practitioners in Canada - all proven to have decreased costs.

I agree with you here, more emphasis needs to be placed on medical professionals who aren't doctors health care providers who aren't medical professionals (edited!). The effect this would have on costs and waiting lists would be huge.

except the numbers able to afford private health care in Ireland have been dropping like stones in the last 18 months and now after the VHI and Aviva increases, surely to increase the speed of these numbers dropping off past gravity and into hyper drop off.

The Dutch model sets maximum prices (I think it's something like €90-100 per month per adult, children are free), and then the companies compete by offering prices below this. The idea that people can't afford it is irrelevant since the unemployed have their premiums paid for with a voucher and people on lower-incomes have their premiums subsidised on a sliding scale. Everyone can afford it, and remember that the system removes 'out-of-pocket' payments like GP charges, prescription medicine charges, A&E charges, and so on.

Companies get subsidies for 'expensive' patients through a risk equalisation fund, since they aren't allowed to charge a person differently based on health, age, gender, or any other factor.

goat2

sligopark wrote: »

universal medical cover paid by who? why shoudl the taxpayer pay for those who continue to damage theior health on a day to day basis?

Whewre are the incentives to generate better health?


Universal Cover - does this mean as it has done in the US increasing the medical pharma domination of the health care market, with policies and provision driven by a health care provider and vested interests, kicking back bribe like to the medical profession?

The pharm-medical approach has proven itself to be too costly and rising out of control.





Primary care through a general medical practitioner model. Physios and Chiropractors are primary health care providers in the UK; Nurse practitioners, Chiropractors and Osteopaths are primary health care practitioners in Canada - all proven to have decreased costs.




except the numbers able to afford private health care in Ireland have been dropping like stones in the last 18 months and now after the VHI and Aviva increases, surely to increase the speed of these numbers dropping off past gravity and into hyper drop off.

can you emagine the amount of people who will die witing for treatment in the public hospitals because there will be big queus waiting from now on, as people are leaving vhi and aviva, as their prices are astronomical, i know alot already who have pulled out of vhi

sligopark

Sulmac wrote: »

Well you already pay for the public system we have and for tax relief on private insurance, so I don't see why the proposal is at all controversial.

fair point - mine was the dominance of a publicly paid for industry by a vested interest - but you do address this

Sulmac wrote: »

It could also be argued that by 'having' to pay for something like health insurance people would take some degree of personal responsibility for their own health (look at the US, they're health mad!), though maybe I'm being a bit too optimistic!

unfortunately america pays the most for disease care and ranks near the bottom for health world wide - they have no incentives for folk to porvide better health iniatives for themselves - nor have we.

Sulmac wrote: »

I agree with you here, more emphasis needs to be placed on medical professionals who aren't doctors. The effect this would have on costs and waiting lists would be huge.

I think you mean health care providers who aren't medical professionals - do you? Chiropractors and Osteopaths as per the UK?

Sulmac wrote: »

The Dutch model sets maximum prices (I think it's something like €90-100 per month per adult, children are free), and then the companies compete by offering prices below this. The idea that people can't afford it is irrelevant since the unemployed have their premiums paid for with a voucher and people on lower-incomes have their premiums subsidised on a sliding scale. Everyone can afford it, and remember that the system removes 'out-of-pocket' payments like GP charges, prescription medicine charges, A&E charges, and so on.

Companies get subsidies for 'expensive' patients through a risk equalisation fund, since they aren't allowed to charge a person differently based on health, age, gender, or any other factor.

TBH I will have to do a bit more investigation of this - but it looks good.

goat2 wrote: »

can you emagine the amount of people who will die witing for treatment in the public hospitals because there will be big queus waiting from now on, as people are leaving vhi and aviva, as their prices are astronomical, i know alot already who have pulled out of vhi

Yes it is sickening - there are also those dying because some specialitys wouldn't extend themselves for fear they will take jobs from another speciality.

Also what about those on waiting lists who could have never got there if they had seen other health care providers before hand on a screening type basis?

nesf

sligopark wrote: »

TBH I will have to do a bit more investigation of this - but it looks good.

It's bizarre as a policy in that at first glance many people automatically hate it (because it has the words mandatory private health insurance) but once it explained it makes an awful lot more sense than the current mess of a system we have.

lmtduffy

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is the main reason I will vote for FG. These companies are only highly profitable because we are being over charged for electricity. In order for businesses in this country to grow we need to reduce costs, such as electricity.

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. At least in an open market competition forces producers to become efficient because they are competing on price and the only way they will gain customers is by reducing their prices.

The only reason the state should provides services is because nobody else will provide them/ provide them cheaply/ can afford the start up costs. This is not true of the electricity production market if the state retains ownership of the national grid. State-guaranteed monopoly-status means that the consumer's interests do not count. 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. They can't seek refuge from appalling service or high prices by choosing another company. I say let the people decide, in the spirit of democracy, who will supply their electricity.

NewEra also outlines what infrastructure FG 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 wasteful approach to infrastructure investment and insure value for money. Our current system of having our water infrastructure controlled by 34 local authorities means there is no overall plan and there is a fragmented approach. The same is true of broadband where we have several state owned companies pursueing there own policies and there is no cohesion. If our infrastructure remains operated by the state, it will only give us higher costs and poorer quality.

Just a small point- if the failure of a service or institution results in the Gov. having to rescue it then it should be, at least in part state owned.

Also if the market in question is prone to market failure, then more reason for it to be in part Gov. owned.

gonedrinking

You should not vote for FG because of the obscene salaries they plan on paying themselves, almost as much as FF paid themselves.

Nehaxak

Their economic policies are completely right wing and without substance other than soundbite like headlines and little actual content or explanations as to their proper intentions.

For example, they say they will create 100,000 jobs - while in the same text they say they will sack 30,000+ from the public service, remove another 10% from the civil service in government offices, close fas, the Hse, and 145 quango's.

What's fas to be replaced with ? Where are the details ?
I know fas are complete crap but what are they to be replaced with and what's to be done with those currently employed in fas or those on training schemes ?

EVERYONE knows how much of a mess the HSE is in but what's to be done with all the people unemployed after FG shut it down ?

The 145 quango's, what 145 exactly ? What is to be done about the people employed directly and indirectly in the quango's ?

The 10% cut in the civil service employee's in government offices - how many people is that exactly ? What's to be done about those now that would be made unemployed ?

Where's the actual detail in all of this ? It's just a load of right wing self serving populist exclamations with no substance or detail behind any of it.

Now, I'm no maths wiz but I would guess with just that above, that's, oh I dunno, another 200,000+ made unemployed ?

So of the 100,000 jobs they'll create (in what exactly again?) what are there plans for the other hundreds of thousands they're sending on to the dole queue's ?

G'luck also to anyone if they think they'll have any sort of workers rights remaining if FG get into power or if there's any chance whatsoever of recovering any public money pumped into banks because of THEIR failures or that there'll be a stop of any sort put on further public money that we the public have to continue fronting for their failure.

It's the same thing all over again, socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. There is NOTHING that I can see that's different between FF and FG, they're one and the same, protecting vested interests and the stupidly wealthy to the detriment of the ordinary person.

That and no matter what, I will NOT vote for FG or pass any preference toward any of their candidates while they have that right wing incompetent fool Enda Kenny at the helm, a man whose made racist jokes in public in the past then gone around and demanded the media present don't publish his comments, of which to their detriment (and to show the depth of support they have from the media in Ireland, who spin everything they say and never question their policies) only one journalist didn't agree to do.

As much as FF wrecked this country, it will be totally and utterly destroyed if FG get into government. Go and actually read their policies and please actually read them in detail and see if you can find actual substance or detail within other than the right wing populist headlines/soundbites throughout.

Nehaxak

...and to backup my point of there being little or no difference between FF and FG, other than FG being more right wing...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0129/politics.html

FF open to backing a FG minority in government - I would presume they're so scared of an actual wide sweeping change in Irish politics with more voters shifting further left that they're now willing to put themselves (FF) out there in support of their friends in FG. What a joke that is. Says it all really.

gandalf

So what is your solution Nehaxak keep those people employed in jobs that in reality do not really exist? I have dealt with organisations like the HSE from a business perspective and the waste on the admin side in there is disgraceful and that's before you realise that the cost to keep these subsidised non-jobs in existence is syphoning funds away from our stretched front line services and is more than likely costing lives, it is most definitely making a lot of peoples lives more miserable.

The right time to sort out the Health Service and the rest of the public service was went times were good when we had funds to spare to give redundancies but the FF led Governments did what they always do the short term populist option totally buggering us when times got rough which they have.

There are a lot of things I do not like about Fine Gael but I know one thing from my perspective they are the only party saying what needs to be said about Public Service reform and the only ones saying that yes jobs will have to go. Given the predicament we are in thanks to the mismanagement of our economy by FF led Governments jobs are going to have to go any party saying otherwise are lying to you for your vote.

Nehaxak

gandalf wrote: »

So what is your solution Nehaxak keep those people employed in jobs that in reality do not really exist?

It's not about me, it's about FG. What are their solutions other than just throwing people on the dole ? Where is the substance and detail in their policies other than the headlines ? There's nothing there to backup or support what they're saying, there is no detail or plan at all. Are they just going to make it up as they go along and sure if there's any opposition, they now also have FF who have said they'll be available to back them up.

gandalf

If the Public Service is over subscribed with workers for the work available then it is any governing parties duty to cut back the cost to the tax payer. I can put my hand on my heart and say that the HSE is such an organisation within the Public Service and there are quite a few other areas that are the same.

It is not up to them to hand people jobs, that is every individuals responsibility. It is up to FG to create an atmosphere where job creation is possible and the best way to do that is to get costs for business down. A large portion of business costs are government related and unlike most of their other costs the government related ones are still rising. What I see from FG is realism that this has to change.

Again any party that says that we can get out of this without a large change in the numbers working in the Public Service is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Capt'n Midnight

gandalf wrote: »

So what is your solution Nehaxak keep those people employed in jobs that in reality do not really exist?

Decentralisation was another failed policy, even when people were allowed change department.

We have the crazy situation where the numbers in the public service are up how many % ?? and whereas people signed on weekly in the past ,now it's just once a month

IIRC the number of additional admisistrators in the HSE since the health board days is about the same as the number of nurses on frontline duty at any one time


back in the day the civil service was a meritocracy and attracted the brightest and best, perhaps we could see a return to this

Pete_Cavan

lmtduffy wrote: »

Just a small point- if the failure of a service or institution results in the Gov. having to rescue it then it should be, at least in part state owned.

In properly privatised markets the government does not have to rescue any institution, if they fail they fail. The only reason one would fail is because their prices are higher than that their competitors and therefore they cannot attract customers. It would not be in the best interest of customers for the government to rescue a company that is charging higher prices so they should be allowed to fail.

lmtduffy wrote: »

Also if the market in question is prone to market failure, then more reason for it to be in part Gov. owned.

The markets in question are only prone to market failure because of government intervention distorting the market.

Take energy production for example. 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. 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 (ie. the more customers you have the more you pay, smaller companies pay less so they can compete with the large companies).

If all energy producers are selling their electricity through the one national grid then producers compete on price only because the product is exactly the same regardless of who produces it (your kettle will not refuse to work because it does not like one companies electricity). You will have no connection fees if you change your energy supplier because it still comes off the same grid, and all your electrical goods will continue to work the same as before so the only factors you will consider where choosing your supplier is price. All energy producers are therefore forced to produce electricity at the lowest possible price in order to gain customers.

Producers would take a long term view in terms of developing their infrastructure because it may take a number of years to construct or upgrade a power plant. Also the costs of doing so are extremely high such that it would not be possible to make such invests regularly so any investment made would be expected to last 50 years or more. This means there is an incentive for the company to utilise the most efficient technology possible and they would have to take a long term view because you cant trade in and replace a power plant in 10 years time.

Pete_Cavan

Nehaxak wrote: »

Their economic policies are completely right wing and without substance other than soundbite like headlines and little actual content or explanations as to their proper intentions.

For example, they say they will create 100,000 jobs - while in the same text they say they will sack 30,000+ from the public service, remove another 10% from the civil service in government offices, close fas, the Hse, and 145 quango's.

Actually FG have put forward realistic proposals for job creation. Like I said in my first post on this thread, they plan to invest in the infrastructure companies need (water, broadband and energy), not only creating jobs in building the infrastructure but also reducing the cost of broadband and energy for businesses. Labour, in their Proposals for Budget 2011, simply 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.

Also FG want to slim down the public service, remove and amalgamate quangos (most of which are unnecessary), and remove the burden of our grossly over staffed but under performing public service from the taxpayer. For example, they want to "one stop shop for welfare", instead of the current situation where we have various different departments administering social welfare payments, rent allowance, medical cards, student grants, etc. Labour on the other hand will do nothing to eliminate this type of duplication for fear they might offend their union leader buddies.

lmtduffy

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

In properly privatised markets the government does not have to rescue any institution, if they fail they fail. The only reason one would fail is because their prices are higher than that their competitors and therefore they cannot attract customers. It would not be in the best interest of customers for the government to rescue a company that is charging higher prices so they should be allowed to fail.

No, there are numerous reasons for markets failing:
asymmetric information
a monopoly arises
or the market deals with what can be defined as public goods

and there can be more specific problems depending on the markets.
The only market that cannot fail is that which exists in perfect competition which is essentially impossible to achieve.

You need to go a little deeper with your economics here.

The markets in question are only prone to market failure because of government intervention distorting the market.

No the markets are prone to market failure because they are markets.

Take energy production for example. 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. 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 (ie. the more customers you have the more you pay, smaller companies pay less so they can compete with the large companies).

The problem here is, the government is allowing private companies to profit, but if these companies fail the government will have to intervene (we need a stable electricity provider) and take on the cost. This form of neo-liberalism is to most simply un-ethical.

If all energy producers are selling their electricity through the one national grid then producers compete on price only because the product is exactly the same regardless of who produces it (your kettle will not refuse to work because it does not like one companies electricity). You will have no connection fees if you change your energy supplier because it still comes off the same grid, and all your electrical goods will continue to work the same as before so the only factors you will consider where choosing your supplier is price. All energy producers are therefore forced to produce electricity at the lowest possible price in order to gain customers.

They will not compete on price only, that would be irrational, they will compete on further complimentary services that they will use to justify higher prices.

Producers would take a long term view in terms of developing their infrastructure because it may take a number of years to construct or upgrade a power plant. Also the costs of doing so are extremely high such that it would not be possible to make such invests regularly so any investment made would be expected to last 50 years or more. This means there is an incentive for the company to utilise the most efficient technology possible and they would have to take a long term view because you cant trade in and replace a power plant in 10 years time.

You cant and they wont, but guess who will recieve pressure to do it? the Gov.

nesf

lmtduffy wrote: »

No, there are numerous reasons for markets failing:
asymmetric information
a monopoly arises
or the market deals with what can be defined as public goods

and there can be more specific problems depending on the markets.
The only market that cannot fail is that which exists in perfect competition which is essentially impossible to achieve.

You need to go a little deeper with your economics here.

And the above are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of ways markets do fail. It's been a major field of research in Economics for the past two decades.

There are a myriad of reasons why an unregulated market might fail to work well. It's not an argument for big Government regulation but for careful surgical intervention to correct the imbalances inherent in the market.

lmtduffy

nesf wrote: »

And the above are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of ways markets do fail. It's been a major field of research in Economics for the past two decades.

There are a myriad of reasons why an unregulated market might fail to work well. It's not an argument for big Government regulation but for careful surgical intervention to correct the imbalances inherent in the market.

Yes, or even just accepting the theory of second best, and being ready for the costs that you may have to incur.
But when it comes to key industries or sectors, the Gov. is as well having a hand in it.

nesf

lmtduffy wrote: »

Yes, or even just accepting the theory of second best, and being ready for the costs that you may have to incur.
But when it comes to key industries or sectors, the Gov. is as well having a hand in it.

Yes, but people need to remember that regulating a market doesn't automatically fix things, generally it just changes what the problems are.

lmtduffy

nesf wrote: »

Yes, but people need to remember that regulating a market doesn't automatically fix things, generally it just changes what the problems are.

That's the theory of second best, essentially.
And although regulation doesn't automatically fix things, but markets do eventually fail.

Pete_Cavan

lmtduffy wrote: »

Yes, or even just accepting the theory of second best, and being ready for the costs that you may have to incur.
But when it comes to key industries or sectors, the Gov. is as well having a hand in it.

It depends what you mean by "having a hand in it", if you mean the government should compete in the market then that is fair enough. The government having a hand in a market and regulating it does not mean they should be the only operator in that market and should have free reign to dictate prices, as is the case with energy production. Nobody is saying that government regulation is not needed within markets (well Sean Fitz might) but there is no doubt that a state controlled monopoly (or a monopoly of any kind for that matter) can only lead to gross inefficiency and higher prices.

Tragedy

As Pete_Cavan kindly linked to FG's policy on job creation through infrastructure, I had a quick look.

Firstly, energy: 12billion, and all they say on the €12billion is that they'll sub-contract out to construction companies to improve insulation on homes(because sub-contracting from a state body to a private company has always worked well. ALWAYS), that they'll somehow magically create more energy, and that we'll swap to electric cars(despite the rest of the world looking on in amusement at our early adoption of electric cars that offer zero benefit over efficient diesels and are likely to be outdated within a few years as new battery, diesel and hydrogen technologies come online).
Fantastic way to spend €12billion.

Water: UK has spent £7.5bn in water infrastructure in the last 10 years, and the leakage rate has doubled. How is FG going to achieve a lowering of the leakage rate?(It doesn't say, I checked).

Under NewERA, Fine Gael will establish a new State holding company (“NewERA
Ltd.”) which will act as a “Manager” for the sector as a whole. It will oversee the
restructuring of the sector through a combination of mergers, divestments and the
creation of a small number of new companies. As a result of the NewERA
consolidation programme there will be a net reduction in public bodies, companies
or agencies. NewERA Ltd. will be held to account for its performance by the
Taoiseach of the day, who will appoint the CEO and the board of the company.

A state management company which has a CEO and board is appointed by the Taoiseach - this is a good thing? A Management company responsible for all semi states who's board and CEO are purely political appointments?

NewERA investments will stimulate the construction sector and the wider economy
in the face of the recession, supporting just over 105,000 additional jobs in four
years. These will be split almost evenly between jobs directly created from the
investment spending (construction, engineering etc.) and spin-off jobs from the extra
consumer spending and the positive competitiveness effects of the investment
programme. The new jobs are likely to be spread evenly between regions and skill
levels, and will likely be concentrated in the following areas:

The new jobs are likely to be likely in the likely did we say likely? We are being conservative in our likely and are likely to be likely in the likely.

Reduced Social Welfare Spending (80% of new jobs
taken by unemployed, saving €18,000 per head)

• Telecoms, civil and structural engineering
• Plant maintenance and operation
• Scientific researchers
• Insulation and home energy appliances
• Plumbing, electrical work and other construction crafts
• Software programming and support
• Forest maintenance and timber processing
• Digital content production for health, education and Government services

I didn't know we had copious amounts of telecoms, civil and structural engineers on the dole. Or scientific researchers. Or software programmers. Or forest maintenance and timber processing staff. Or digital content producers.
Something doesn't add up, badly.

At least €2 billion will come from a National Recovery Bond to be issued to
the Irish public, offering an annual interest rate set at above existing bank
deposit rates;

I'm in!

The balance will come from commercial bonds issued to Irish and international
pension funds and institutional investors. The recent success of Bord Gais in
raising funds indicates clearly that there is an appetite in the market for utility
debt. Bord Gais’ €550 million debut Corporate Bond was significantly oversubscribed.

Bond sale from Bord Gais isn't comparable to a bond sale on a new state management company overseeing huge investments in the midst of a recession with shaky public finances.

Pete_Cavan

Tragedy wrote: »

Firstly, energy: 12billion, and all they say on the €12billion is that they'll sub-contract out to construction companies to improve insulation on homes(because sub-contracting from a state body to a private company has always worked well. ALWAYS), that they'll somehow magically create more energy, and that we'll swap to electric cars(despite the rest of the world looking on in amusement at our early adoption of electric cars that offer zero benefit over efficient diesels and are likely to be outdated within a few years as new battery, diesel and hydrogen technologies come online).
Fantastic way to spend €12billion.

Would you rather see the government directly hire people to go around insulating houses? The state would not be able to do the work for cheaper than a private company. It wont create more energy, but less energy will be lost (because it will remain within the house instead of escaping) so more energy will be available for other uses.

Water: UK has spent £7.5bn in water infrastructure in the last 10 years, and the leakage rate has doubled. How is FG going to achieve a lowering of the leakage rate?(It doesn't say, I checked).

That comparison to the UK is meaningless. They have a huge water infrastructure network in the UK and spending £7.5bn over 10 years may have only upgraded 10% (just a made up figure to demonstrate my point) of the network. This would mean 90% of the network has deteriorated over than period leading to more leaks. It may be the case that £7.5bn was not enough funding for such a large network and hence the leakage rate increased. In any case it has absolutely no relevance to us.

The first thing FG want to do in relation to water is take it out of the hands of the 34 local authorities who currently control it. One authority would be able to spend the money more effectively and at the very least would offer value for money in that their will be less duplication. A lowering of the leakage rate will be achieved by improving the infrastructure which will be financed by water charges based on usage.

A state management company which has a CEO and board is appointed by the Taoiseach - this is a good thing? A Management company responsible for all semi states who's board and CEO are purely political appointments?

One state management company as opposed to 34 people in charge of water services within the various local authorities, so yes, this is a good thing. Also FG have Reinventing Government which calls for "at least 1/3rd of all appointments at a senior level in the Public Service (above PO level) will be made from outside the current system". This allows for more transparent government so it is not purely a political appointment.

The new jobs are likely to be likely in the likely did we say likely? We are being conservative in our likely and are likely to be likely in the likely.

Did you read the bit you quoted at all? It says the jobs are "like to be spread" and "will likely be concentrated in". They are saying where the jobs are likely to be created, not that they are likely to be created. The plan is about investing in the infrastructure to allow companies set up and develop, it is about creating the environment for the people of this country to create jobs, not the government dictating what jobs people should do. It is not about creating more public sector jobs which putting further strain on the state finances (we need to borrow money to cover the wages of the public servants we have already).

I didn't know we had copious amounts of telecoms, civil and structural engineers on the dole. Or scientific researchers. Or software programmers. Or forest maintenance and timber processing staff. Or digital content producers.
Something doesn't add up, badly.

The problem is we have copious amounts of construction workers on the dole, most of whom will never find employment within the sector in this country again. What do you propose, we build thousands more houses to employ these people? Those jobs were created during a government fuelled bubble the likes of which will never be seen again. FGs plan is about creating the market conditions for private companies to create jobs in other sectors, not about the government directly creating jobs.

Bond sale from Bord Gais isn't comparable to a bond sale on a new state management company overseeing huge investments in the midst of a recession with shaky public finances.

That bond sale was made in the midst of a recession with shaky public finances.

Tragedy

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Would you rather see the government directly hire people to go around insulating houses? The state would not be able to do the work for cheaper than a private company. It wont create more energy, but less energy will be lost (because it will remain within the house instead of escaping) so more energy will be available for other uses.

Which completely ignores that when state bodies sub-contract out to private companies, the state gets shafted. Time and time again. And yet that's the main crux of the proposal.

That comparison to the UK is meaningless. They have a huge water infrastructure network in the UK and spending £7.5bn over 10 years may have only upgraded 10% (just a made up figure to demonstrate my point) of the network. This would mean 90% of the network has deteriorated over than period leading to more leaks. It may be the case that £7.5bn was not enough funding for such a large network and hence the leakage rate increased. In any case it has absolutely no relevance to us.

It isn't relevant that our nearest neighbour embarked on an ambitious infrastructure upgrade over 10 years and the net result was that efficiency decreased? Ok.

The first thing FG want to do in relation to water is take it out of the hands of the 34 local authorities who currently control it. One authority would be able to spend the money more effectively and at the very least would offer value for money in that their will be less duplication.

Based on what examples would one country wide authority be more effective and efficient? The HSE?

A lowering of the leakage rate will be achieved by improving the infrastructure which will be financed by water charges based on usage.

Improving the infrastructure how? As already evidenced, our nearest neighbour(which also financed improving the leakage rate with water rates based on usage) achieved nothing.

One state management company as opposed to 34 people in charge of water services within the various local authorities, so yes, this is a good thing.

Proven by? Evidenced by? Based on what facts?

Also FG have Reinventing Government which calls for "at least 1/3rd of all appointments at a senior level in the Public Service (above PO level) will be made from outside the current system". This allows for more transparent government so it is not purely a political appointment.

Do you understand what a political appointment is? A political appointment is one where someone is appointed by a politician(and generally for political reasons, but not necessarily so). Also, "at least 1/3rd of all appointments at a senior level in the Public Service (above PO level) will be made from outside the current system" doesn't say they won't be political appointees, just that they will be new ones from outside the current system.

Sorry.

Did you read the bit you quoted at all? It says the jobs are "like to be spread" and "will likely be concentrated in". They are saying where the jobs are likely to be created, not that they are likely to be created.

It's based on an awful lot of likely's, and underpins a large part of the economic 'viability' for the plan.

The plan is about investing in the infrastructure to allow companies set up and develop,

Eh? Aside from better broadband, the plan has nothing to do with allowing companies to set up and develop.

it is about creating the environment for the people of this country to create jobs,

Eh? See above.

not the government dictating what jobs people should do.

If the government is the one spending the money, how do you figure they aren't dictating what jobs are being created? Are you actually stating that?

It is not about creating more public sector jobs which putting further strain on the state finances (we need to borrow money to cover the wages of the public servants we have already).

So the investments in energy production, timber and biomass production won't lead to more public sector jobs?

The problem is we have copious amounts of construction workers on the dole, most of whom will never find employment within the sector in this country again.

Which is why we need proper re-training and not the joke that is/was FÁS.

What do you propose, we build thousands more houses to employ these people?

I thought the whole point was that we had too many construction workers full stop, with an industry that grew too large based on a bubble.
And yet your(and I'm presuming by extension FG's) position is that this huge industry should be propped up, just in another form?

Those jobs were created during a government fuelled bubble the likes of which will never be seen again.

So the solution is to create a smaller construction industry bubble?

FGs plan is about creating the market conditions for private companies to create jobs in other sectors, not about the government directly creating jobs.

Nowhere in the plan is that evident.

That bond sale was made in the midst of a recession with shaky public finances.

That's when Bord Gais wasn't a semistate under the purvue of a politically appointed government management company. Bittuva difference there.

lmtduffy

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It depends what you mean by "having a hand in it", if you mean the government should compete in the market then that is fair enough. The government having a hand in a market and regulating it does not mean they should be the only operator in that market and should have free reign to dictate prices, as is the case with energy production. Nobody is saying that government regulation is not needed within markets (well Sean Fitz might) but there is no doubt that a state controlled monopoly (or a monopoly of any kind for that matter) can only lead to gross inefficiency and higher prices.

You'r right until you say a monopoly of any kind can only lead to gross inefficiencies, there are many cases where a monopoly, generally a Gov. one is, the only efficient way to provide a good, we call these natural monopolies.

Large scale public infrastructure products are things only Gov's will build so sometimes they might as well hold to a large part of it instead of building it and selling on the profits to private companies, because you have to be fair on them.

Pete_Cavan

lmtduffy wrote: »

You'r right until you say a monopoly of any kind can only lead to gross inefficiencies, there are many cases where a monopoly, generally a Gov. one is, the only efficient way to provide a good, we call these natural monopolies.

Large scale public infrastructure products are things only Gov's will build so sometimes they might as well hold to a large part of it instead of building it and selling on the profits to private companies, because you have to be fair on them.

I understand what you are saying, but there is not actually a market for some types of large infrastructure (for example, you could not have two Dublin - Cork tolled motorways operated by two different companies and competing for market share). This type of infrastructure has to be provided by the government. However, this is not the case with energy so private companies should be allowed into the market. It would produce lower prices than we have with our current state monopoly which is a good thing for customers. Like I said, the government can compete in the market if they want, but they shouldnt dominate it.

lmtduffy

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, but there is not actually a market for some types of large infrastructure (for example, you could not have two Dublin - Cork tolled motorways operated by two different companies and competing for market share). This type of infrastructure has to be provided by the government. However, this is not the case with energy so private companies should be allowed into the market. It would produce lower prices than we have with our current state monopoly which is a good thing for customers. Like I said, the government can compete in the market if they want, but they shouldnt dominate it.

But the state will always have to save or intervene with the energy market if something goes a-miss, so I think it makes more sense for it to keep a hand in it at all times, as opposed stepping back while private companies make profit and stepping forward when they make losses.

So I think we understand each other here, just slightly different conclusions.

Pete_Cavan

lmtduffy wrote: »

But the state will always have to save or intervene with the energy market if something goes a-miss, so I think it makes more sense for it to keep a hand in it at all times, as opposed stepping back while private companies make profit and stepping forward when they make losses.

So I think we understand each other here, just slightly different conclusions.

Like I said before, the government should "have a hand in it" by regulating the market to ensure they dont have to intervene not by controlling the entire market and dictating the prices.

nesf

lmtduffy wrote: »

But the state will always have to save or intervene with the energy market if something goes a-miss, so I think it makes more sense for it to keep a hand in it at all times, as opposed stepping back while private companies make profit and stepping forward when they make losses.

So I think we understand each other here, just slightly different conclusions.

There is a proposal to keep the State involved though at all times, at most people are saying to sell the ESB, not ESB Networks.

shannon_tek

Is it true they will hike college fees to 5k

Sulmac

shannon_tek wrote: »

Is it true they will hike college fees to 5k

No (if you mean registration fees).

In fact, what they want to do is to abolish the registration fee altogether and replace it with a graduate contribution/tax paid through the PRSI system where a graduate pays back around one-third of the cost of their third-level education once they start earning a certain amount after they graduate. This couldn't be introduced retrospectively though.

There's a document on it here.

Tragedy

Have they not changed their position at all since Sulmac? That green paper is fairly old.

Sulmac

Tragedy wrote: »

Have they not changed their position at all since Sulmac? That green paper is fairly old.

Not as far as I'm aware. It's not that old, really; less than two years (some parties have much older documents on their sites). It does have the old logo and spokesperson on it though!

Just did a quick Google search, this Irish Times article by Brian Hayes from November 2010 seems to suggest it's still their policy on third-level funding:

3 Introduce a graduate tax

The universities of this country are a bit like the Irish banks: they are broke. The international reputation and standards we aspire to simply cannot be achieved if the funding base for higher-level education is so dependent upon the State. I developed an idea for a funding system whereby graduates would make a contribution towards their education when they could afford to do so. The graduate tax, as some call it, could represent up to one-third of the unit cost of an undergraduate degree. The more expensive the course, the more a student would contribute. Those who benefit should make a contribution at a time they can afford to do so.

The priority for funding must always be primary and post-primary education. Improving standards in higher education is also essential, and that requires new money and a more rigorous approach to quality. If students have to make a contribution towards their education, instead of parents, I believe that standards will rise and the relationship between students and colleges will be transformed. Paying something back when you can afford it, as against paying it upfront when you start college, is the system of funding we should favour.

Tragedy

Cool, thanks! I'm not opposed to a graduate tax in that vein, I'm just wary of politicians saying that it will somehow increase funding in Universities.

andrewire

The main problem with FG is that they will protect the rich at all cost, just like FF did over its history in power. They will not help the people that actually need help to survive the crisis. I hope Labour wins more than 40 seats so they can at least have some control over social policies.

nesf

andrewire wrote: »

The main problem with FG is that they will protect the rich at all cost, just like FF did over its history in power. They will not help the people that actually need help to survive the crisis. I hope Labour wins more than 40 seats so they can at least have some control over social policies.

Er, what? FF were responsible for a crazy increase in social welfare and the minimum wage over the boom period along with constant lowering of the number being taxed and the amount of tax they paid.

Those are partly to blame for how big the mess we're in right now is. There are many things you can justifiably blame FF for screwing up in but neglecting the poor/those on lower incomes isn't really one of them.

andrewire

nesf wrote: »

Er, what? FF were responsible for a crazy increase in social welfare and the minimum wage over the boom period along with constant lowering of the number being taxed and the amount of tax they paid.

Those are partly to blame for how big the mess we're in right now is. There are many things you can justifiably blame FF for screwing up in but neglecting the poor/those on lower incomes isn't really one of them.

Read my post again. I didn't say FF neglected the poor. I said they protected the rich. Bailing out the banks is just part of saving the rich from huge losses. Furthermore, money isn't the only measure you can use to evaluate how a governmnet has treated the lower classes. The fact that the minimum wage was extremely high does not translate into a higher quality of life if those people earning it don't have the right public services, infrastructure, etc.

I am saying FG will neglect the poor when in government though.

scr123

My biggest nightmare is FG ever being a single party government with a solid working majority.

FG would slash social welfare, slash public service numbers, let banks go bust, let unemployment hit 50%, wipe out Budget deficit in one swoop, burn bondholders and criminals. And thats only the start !

Vote FG and watch the blood flow on the streets of Ireland !

The core of FG is self-righteous and intolerant and only matched by Labour+ on the other side of the political extreme

Liam Byrne

scr123 wrote: »

FG would slash social welfare, slash public service numbers, let banks go bust, let unemployment hit 50%, wipe out Budget deficit in one swoop, burn bondholders and criminals. And thats only the start !

Apart from the unemployment hitting 50% (something which I notice that you say they would "let" happen, rather than cause, thereby implying that that's the course that FF have set us on unless FG act) I don't have any objection to any of the others listed.

What's wrong with slashing a bloated public service ?
What's wrong with wiping out the budget deficit ?
What's wrong with burning bondholders ?
What's wrong with burning criminals ?

*Assuming the last two are purely metaphoric, of course

Sulmac

scr123 wrote: »

The core of FG is self-righteous and intolerant and only matched by Labour+ on the other side of the political extreme

The irony of someone who is clearly a Fianna Fáiler saying that.

nesf

andrewire wrote: »

Read my post again. I didn't say FF neglected the poor. I said they protected the rich. Bailing out the banks is just part of saving the rich from huge losses. Furthermore, money isn't the only measure you can use to evaluate how a governmnet has treated the lower classes. The fact that the minimum wage was extremely high does not translate into a higher quality of life if those people earning it don't have the right public services, infrastructure, etc.

Eh, bailing out the banks was done to save us all from huge losses, unless you think my quite modest savings being savaged by a haircut don't count as a huge loss (to me it bloody well would!).

Lack of public services and infrastructure is not a problem of the poor! It affects the middle classes just as much. The lack of services in some council estate areas is scarily bad but these are hangovers from ****ed up policies during the 60s-90s not necessarily the activities of the current Government. The same lack of services was foisted on many middle class people due to crap zoning and planning decisions over the past two decades but this was not the Government's fault as much as it was the fault of Local Government and far too little attention is paid to these guys.

Honestly, FF was the everyman party in power, yes it looked after developers but it also boosted the wages of nurses and teachers while increasing social welfare payments, pumping money into the public healthcare system and other measures that were broadly aimed and not restricted to or favouring the rich.


Also, saying FG will screw over the poor is blatant scaremongering along the same lines as saying Labour will screw over business. Neither are that dumb and both statements are caricatures at best and blatant politically motivated lies at worst.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mgmt

Dionysus wrote: »

I'll start:

I think the Fine Gael plan to have a fire-sale of the family silver in the form of selling state companies which are highly profitable like ESB International, Bord Gáis and ESB PowerGen and Supply during a recession is myopic in the extreme.

These companies are not profitable. They are a burden on the taxpayer. They basically get a free reign to increase their prices by the fact that their is no real competition in the energy market.