Why we need to vote anyone but Fianna Fail

Fouloleron

To put it simply,

A healthy government is one which changes regularly. If one particular political party stays in power for long lengths of time, they stagnate and grow out of touch. (sound familiar?).

So I choose not to vote Fianna Fail for the very simple fact that they have had their turn in government and another party needs its chance.

This is also reinforced by the utter disgrace they have brought to our country with their (very suspect) actions.

All plans, people and politics aside, a new government is needed to avoid anymore stagnation and that is why I will not vote for Fianna Fail.

Can I then ask, how can people still vote in FF ?

skelliser

Fouloleron wrote: »

So I choose not to vote Fianna Fail for the very simple fact that they have had their turn in government and another party needs its chance.

as opposed to

440,000 people on the dole,
massive negative equity,
worst economic crash of any OECD country,
massive emigration,
500 people on trolleys this very night!!
IMF,
Bertie.
McCreevy "when i have it, i spend it!",
Cowen,
Martin,
Lenny - "cheapest bailout in the world",
Harney,
O'Dea lied on a affidavit,
Convicted drink driver Dr Jim McDaid,
Jackie Healy Rae,
Frank "forty gaffs" Fahey -"now is a great time for first time buyers" spring 2009,
Michael Neary financial regulator - "banks are well capitalised" summer 2008,
golf games and dinner with Seanie,
Michael "21 million pension fingers" fingleton
and loads more.............

besides all that you've got some great logic! good man!!

here.from.day.1

Excuse my complete ignorance, but what party would have done any better?

Zubeneschamali

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

Excuse my complete ignorance, but what party would have done any better?

Fine Gael. Read Bruton's speeches after the FF budgets and estimates since 2003: he points up unsustainable reliance on the construction industry over and over again.

But I suppose Enda's haircut would have been worse for the country than MacCreevy, Cowen and Lenihan's mad economic policies, or something.

whippet

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fine Gael. Read Bruton's speeches after the FF budgets and estimates since 2003: he points up unsustainable reliance on the construction industry over and over again.

But I suppose Enda's haircut would have been worse for the country than MacCreevy, Cowen and Lenihan's mad economic policies, or something.

Didn't Bruton have a good traunch of Anglo Irish shares himself? Didn't see that coming, did he?

hallelujajordan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fine Gael. Read Bruton's speeches after the FF budgets and estimates since 2003: he points up unsustainable reliance on the construction industry over and over again.

But I suppose Enda's haircut would have been worse for the country than MacCreevy, Cowen and Lenihan's mad economic policies, or something.

You are right about Bruton's speeches but to consider them in isolation is a little foolish . . Can you point to the fundamental policy changes put forward by FG in their 2007 manifesto (or their 2002 manifesto) that might have led us down a different path ?

PyeContinental

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

Excuse my complete ignorance, but what party would have done any better?

Hard to see how anyone could possibly have done any better than the amazing job FF have done of it alright. :rolleyes:

bernardo mac

Just listening to M Martin on PK RTE.Trust him? I would as adder's fangs.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You are right about Bruton's speeches but to consider them in isolation is a little foolish . . Can you point to the fundamental policy changes put forward by FG in their 2007 manifesto (or their 2002 manifesto) that might have led us down a different path ?

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10009823.shtml

They talk about an over reliance on construction, addressing our lack of competitiveness and waste in the PS. There is also something in there about lines of accountability for civil service and ministers. But of course I'm sure you'll ignore all the proposals that may have made a difference and focus on the stamp duty element.

Although they are guilty of not spotting the massive bust, they recognised that even with the positive forecasts we couldn't be complacent.

Our competitiveness and export performance has suffered from a Government-driven inflationary boom that has dramatically raised costs, led to the re-emergence of a large and growing external payments deficit and made the Irish economy*too dependent on construction and the public sector for jobs growth.

Why do you think FF won the 2007 election? Because they were outlining tough decisions that would right the slips in our economy or because they had the biggest giveaway manifesto?

EDIT: sorry I see you said specific policy, and not that I don't trust you to read the link and educate yourself, I'll spoonfeed you so you can give an informed response. And before you mention it, you asked for differences in policy that may had led to a different outcome, hence I've not listed stamp duty/ income taxes

Their plan focused on spending the money more wisely

Budgeting for Growth and Stability

Budgetary policy under a Fine Gael - Labour Government will rest on five pillars, according to the programme:

1. Fiscal Prudence and Economic Stability. All commitments are subject to the over-riding commitment to adhere to the EU Growth and Stability Pact.

2. Higher Capital Spending; Increase capital spending to the levels set out in the National Development Plan 2007-13 and will invest 1% of GNP in the National Pension Reserve (NPRF) annually.

3. Targeted Tax Reforms; Proposals have been costed at €3.4 billion in 2007 terms (€2.4 billion net), equating to an average annual tax relief package of €680 million each year in 2007 prices.

4. Better Public Services; On top of existing commitments across a range of public services, FG/Labour will fund additional day-to-day spending on health and policing services, as agreed in the joint policies on health and policing. When delivered in full, these will cost an additional €1.6 billion in 2007 prices.

5. Better Value for Money; To enhance Oireachtas scrutiny of expenditure, and civil service capacity in expenditure management; will clarify lines of accountability for Ministers and Civil Servants.

More and better jobs

FG/Labour says the momentum to growth from construction will ease off in the coming years. This document sets out a 9-point plan to recover our lost international competitiveness and enter a more export-driven phase of growth.

1. Tax Competitiveness for Exporters; Maintain the 12.5% single rate of profits tax and expand of our tax treaty network with Asia.

2. Upskilling the Workforce; Develop a National Skills and Training System to progress 100,000 people by one level under the National Qualifications Framework, with a new 2-week statutory paid training leave paid out of the National Training Fund.

3. A "Next Generation" Telecoms; Will immediately extend broadband access across the country and create by 2012 a new, high speed, open access, Next Generation Network.

4. Competitiveness Through Research and Innovation; Will increase public funding for industry-led research and in-firm R&D and give greater attention to research areas of relevance to the services industry, including through the development of a new Institute of Advanced Studies in Applied Finance.

5. Ireland as a Life Science Leader; Will develop a National Life Sciences and Health Research Strategy to strengthen the relationship between industry, clinicians and researchers.

6. Less Regulatory Red Tape; Will deliver a 25% cut in the administrative burden (red tape) on companies.

7. The Green Economy; Will build a new Centre of Excellence for Alternative Energy Research and mandate ESB and Bord na Móna to become renewable energy leaders.

8. Faster and More Economical Delivery of Infrastructure; Will set up a Critical Infrastructure Commission to accelerate planning of key projects and a High Court for Infrastructure to accelerate judicial review of planning appeals.

9. Tighter Control of Utility Costs: Will give stronger powers to regulators in energy and telecoms and set up a new Competition Appeals High Court to accelerate regulatory appeals.

Zubeneschamali

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Can you point to the fundamental policy changes put forward by FG in their 2007 manifesto (or their 2002 manifesto) that might have led us down a different path ?

Here's Noonan's intro to the manifesto in 2002, tell me he was wrong:

For the past five years we have suffered from a government that has no particular vision at all – other than to cling on to power for as long as it possibly can.
They have no coherent view of the future they want to create for Ireland -- except to wish for more of the same, to hope against hope that the good times will keep on rolling.
Their approach is driven by a fixation of looking after their friends among the rich and powerful – hoping that some of the wealth and privilege they lavish on the top of our society will somehow, willy-nilly, trickle downwards and solve all our problems

Snakeblood

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

Excuse my complete ignorance, but what party would have done any better?

Everyone but Sinn Fein, probably.

Laminations

FFers will ask you for proof of this and that. You'll show them the proof and their question will change, each time introducing more speculation and assumptions and hypothetical scenarios. Nowhere in all of this will they acknowledge and accept the proof as their denial of it's existence helps them maintain their delusion that FF ('their' party) is the best to run the country.

R28

Laminations wrote: »

FFers will ask you for proof of this and that. You'll show them the proof and their question will change, each time introducing more speculation and assumptions and hypothetical scenarios. Nowhere in all of this will they acknowledge and accept the proof as their denial of it's existence helps them maintain their delusion that FF ('their' party) is the best to run the country.

I'm seeing a lot of Cognitive Dissonance in the FF faithful. The same principle where people in doomsday cults remain in the cult and become stronger believers even after their prophesied Apocalypse doesn't materialise.

McTigs

Laminations wrote: »

FFers will ask you for proof of this and that. You'll show them the proof and their question will change, each time introducing more speculation and assumptions and hypothetical scenarios. Nowhere in all of this will they acknowledge and accept the proof as their denial of it's existence helps them maintain their delusion that FF ('their' party) is the best to run the country.

this

They look for proof with "link please" and "show me where" and when they are provided with it, it's quickly ignored and, as you said, a new question asked.

FF is a state of mind not a political party. It's a religion. It's a cult.

I read here a bit but post rarely and it's like listening to scientists (men of logic and reason) arguing with bishops about evolution

No matter how much evidence and fact is presented it's disregarded nonsense and here say.

Fair play to ye knocking ye're heads against the brick wall, i wouldn't have the patience.

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10009823.shtml

They talk about an over reliance on construction, addressing our lack of competitiveness and waste in the PS. There is also something in there about lines of accountability for civil service and ministers. But of course I'm sure you'll ignore all the proposals that may have made a difference and focus on the stamp duty element.

Although they are guilty of not spotting the massive bust, they recognised that even with the positive forecasts we couldn't be complacent.



Why do you think FF won the 2007 election? Because they were outlining tough decisions that would right the slips in our economy or because they had the biggest giveaway manifesto?

EDIT: sorry I see you said specific policy, and not that I don't trust you to read the link and educate yourself, I'll spoonfeed you so you can give an informed response. And before you mention it, you asked for differences in policy that may had led to a different outcome, hence I've not listed stamp duty/ income taxes

Their plan focused on spending the money more wisely

I know they were talking about reducing reliance on construction but where in that manifesto is there a real policy that would have altered our current situation . . Please show me because I cannot see it . . ? ?

And yes, of course I will point you to the elements in their plan that I believe would have worsened our situation . .

- 2 point cut in the standard rate of income tax
- Abolish / reduce stamp duty
- Increase capital spending
- Support social partnership agreement

Above are listed 4 clear policy statements that we can say with reasonable certainty would have worsened our current situation had FG/LAB been in government. The bits you quoted show an understanding of the reliance on construction but I fail to see any coherent plan to reduce that reliance.

Laminations

R28 wrote: »

I'm seeing a lot of Cognitive Dissonance in the FF faithful. The same principle where people in doomsday cults remain in the cult and become stronger believers even after their prophesied Apocalypse doesn't materialise.

Yeah there is definitely a lot of that. It is also a case of Brehm's Theory of Psychological Reactance that is leading them to be more entrenched - i.e. a bunker mentality. Nobody likes to admit they were/are wrong and so they'll argue more fervently as a defense mehanism - if you are of a Freudian bent its simple ego defense.

Many FFers may need an equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous, a nice non-judgemental place where they can purge their bad habits, admit to their mistakes and move towards a healthier, less loyal, voting style. All this negative sentiment we are sending their way is making them feel their little group is being persecuted and naturally they go mega defensive and unreceptive to argument.

Of course there are those who are dyed in the wool FFers, its part of their self-concept and this late in life they probably feel scared to change, and this fear leads to self-efficacy problems and identity issues. What will they be if they are not FF?

Boards.ie has that effect on most threads, opinion is polarised and arguments take the form of debate, where each side tries to prove the other wrong. Maybe we need a dialectical approach....

Wow, I think I've just explained the psyche of the average FF voter!!

Sticky anyone? :pac:

here.from.day.1

PyeContinental wrote: »

Hard to see how anyone could possibly have done any better than the amazing job FF have done of it alright. :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to troll, I genuinely don't know much about the situation and am at a loss as to who to vote for.

My totally honest understanding of the main parties is as follows:

FF - Obviously made mistakes, but which parties would not have? Martin seems like a decent new leader now too and IF they were given another chance would they not seriously try to right their wrongs?

FG - I don’t like Edna Kenny, other than this I don’t know a whole lot about them.

Labour - I work for a big multinational (I earn peanuts btw) and people here say they would not be good for us. Also if they tax the rich, there’s nothing stopping them leaving and taking their money with them, no?

SF - Apparently have some interesting policies but they really need to drop the "United Ireland" thing, most of us don’t want it, we don’t have the €x Billion needed to sustain it and also the RA type people the party attracts makes me physically sick.

Greens - I drive a car with high emissions and I love it, I can barely afford it as it is!

Independents - Seems like a futile effort, also I spend very little time in my own constituency.

If anyone ever needed enlightenment, it’s me. I am registered to vote.

Thank you.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Above are listed 4 clear policy statements that we can say with reasonable certainty would have worsened our current situation had FG/LAB been in government. The bits you quoted show an understanding of the reliance on construction but I fail to see any coherent plan to reduce that reliance.

But we can't all say that with certainty

- 2 point cut in the standard rate of income tax

This may have boosted spending in the domestic economy as people had more disposable income to spend. This is more sustainable than the state funding itself off property taxes.

- Abolish / reduce stamp duty

Reducing the states reliance on these taxes would've been a positive but yes this would have fuelled the bubble - bad idea.

- Increase capital spending

How is investing in infrastructure a bad idea? And they had plans to manage the process more cheaply, fasttracking government works, reducing costs with less red tape

- Support social partnership agreement

Supporting social partnerhip =/= supporting Berties socialism. I think they would have taken a harder line with unions and in the PS had more success in reducing waste.

THE POINT IS we'll never know. I have my hypothetical situation and you have yours. So we can only argue on what actually was done. And what was that?

FF wrecked the shop.

Laminations

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

I'm not trying to troll, I genuinely don't know much about the situation and am at a loss as to who to vote for.

My totally honest understanding of the main parties is as follows:

FF - Obviously made mistakes, but which parties would not have? Martin seems like a decent new leader now too and IF they were given another chance would they not seriously try to right their wrongs?

- Battered wife syndrome

FG - I don’t like Edna Kenny, other than this I don’t know a whole lot about them.

- You should be voting on policy, not personality, use your initiative and look up their policies, they have a few.. Enda is not a good enough reason to not vote FG, just like any one man is not a good enough reason to vote FOR a party.

Labour - I work for a big multinational (I earn peanuts btw) and people here say they would not be good for us. Also if they tax the rich, there’s nothing stopping them leaving and taking their money with them, no?

- You need to look at their policy and decide whether they'd be good for you or not. I personally agree with some of Labours policies but for this election would prefer FG.

SF - Apparently have some interesting policies but they really need to drop the "United Ireland" thing, most of us don’t want it, we don’t have the €x Billion needed to sustain it and also the RA type people the party attracts makes me physically sick.

- I think they are the party most on side with citizens and the party most disgusted with us having to pay for private debt. I think they'd bust their balls for Ireland but they are economically illiterate and have some priorities backways. I also agree some members ties to paramilitarism have not been sufficiently publicly cut

Greens - I drive a car with high emissions and I love it, I can barely afford it as it is!

- They are more than just a carbon taxes. Green taxes are important for the long term viability of, well the planet. But I think they go about it in the wrong way and would sell their soul to achieve their agenda rather than represent Ireland in the interests of Ireland

Independents - Seems like a futile effort, also I spend very little time in my own constituency.

- There is no harm having strong, able minded nationally focused indeppendents in the Dail i.e. not Jackie Healy-Rae.

If anyone ever needed enlightenment, it’s me. I am registered to vote.

Thank you.

All that said, I cannot tell you who to vote for. I am voting FG with prefernces to other parties and possibly independents. I have not spelled out my rationale in detail here but you will find threads with convincing arguments for voting for FG and/or Lab. I've yet to see convincing arguments for FF or SF. But most importantly, you need to take an active part in informing yourself of the issues and policies and stop expecting to be spoonfed reasons to make up your mind. I will advise that you vote with the national, rather than local, interest in mind

Zubeneschamali

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

Martin seems like a decent new leader now too

New? He's been a FF Minister with Cabinet responsibility for the last 14 years!

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

But we can't all say that with certainty

- 2 point cut in the standard rate of income tax

This may have boosted spending in the domestic economy as people had more disposable income to spend. This is more sustainable than the state funding itself off property taxes.

Really ? ? So you agree with McCreevy's high spend / low tax ideas then . . Might more disposable income not also feed into a willingness to invest in a bigger house / bigger mortgage and further fuel the bubble ? Is there any evidence that McCreevy's tax reductions achieved what you propose FG/LAB's might have ?

- Support social partnership agreement

Supporting social partnerhip =/= supporting Berties socialism. I think they would have taken a harder line with unions and in the PS had more success in reducing waste.

Do you really believe that a government that included the (union-funded) Labour party would have taken 'a harder line with the unions' ? Do you see any evidence to suggest that the next government (if it includes Labour) will tackle the Public Sector ?

THE POINT IS we'll never know. I have my hypothetical situation and you have yours. So we can only argue on what actually was done. And what was that?

Nonsense, it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on what might have happened under an alternative administration and to take your own conclusions into account as you consider the future administration.

telekon

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

Excuse my complete ignorance, but what party would have done any better?

No, you are not excused from that ignorant statement.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Really ? ? So you agree with McCreevy's high spend / low tax ideas then . . Might more disposable income not also feed into a willingness to invest in a bigger house / bigger mortgage and further fuel the bubble ? Is there any evidence that McCreevy's tax reductions achieved what you propose FG/LAB's might have ?

Yes I strongly disagree with the 'spend it while I have it' policy of McCreevy. Low Tax/Moderate to high spend can work as long as you have targeted spending on essential infrastructure and sustainsble projects and ensure you get value for money. McCreevys high spend policy meant he (and FF) overspent and wasted money on stupid sh1t. Again this proposition that if two people say they'll spend the same amount on something you think it means you'll get the same result. Pay a 10yr old the hourly plumber rate to fix your leaky pipes. Your argument doesn't hold. FG saying they'll spend the same amount on something does not automatically give you the same result. Do you agree?

Do you really believe that a government that included the (union-funded) Labour party would have taken 'a harder line with the unions' ? Do you see any evidence to suggest that the next government (if it includes Labour) will tackle the Public Sector ?

I'm not here defending Labour but I think you need to supply evidence that they would engage in giveaway deals with the unions. Any evidence from the 90s when they were last in power? Any evidence that parallels the concessions given to the unions by Bertie the socialist? I have yet to decide if they'll get preferences, but I'm not gonna let their possible inclusion in government prevent me from voting FG. How will a vote for FF prevent Labour from doing anything?

Nonsense, it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on what might have happened under an alternative administration and to take your own conclusions into account as you consider the future administration.

Speculation is not worth as much as actual fact. You make up the actions of the hypothetical government which suit your argument. Evidence please to back up this speculation?

Reilly616

telekon wrote: »

No, you are not excused from that ignorant statement.

Actually, that squiggle at the end of his sentense means that it's not a statement...

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

Yes I strongly disagree with the 'spend it while I have it' policy of McCreevy. Low Tax/Moderate to high spend can work as long as you have targeted spending on essential infrastructure and sustainsble projects and ensure you get value for money. McCreevys high spend policy meant he (and FF) overspent and wasted money on stupid sh1t. Again this proposition that if two people say they'll spend the same amount on something you think it means you'll get the same result. Pay a 10yr old the hourly plumber rate to fix your leaky pipes. Your argument doesn't hold. FG saying they'll spend the same amount on something does not automatically give you the same result. Do you agree?

I agree, and perhaps a FG led government might have got more value for money; infrastructure etc might have improved. There's little evidence for this but I can accept that it 'might' have been the case. . The economic situation however is more a numbers game . . Lower Tax / Higher Spend = Bigger Deficit, regardless how much value we get.

I'm not here defending Labour but I think you need to supply evidence that they would engage in giveaway deals with the unions. Any evidence from the 90s when they were last in power? Any evidence that parallels the concessions given to the unions by Bertie the socialist? I have yet to decide if they'll get preferences, but I'm not gonna let their possible inclusion in government prevent me from voting FG. How will a vote for FF prevent Labour from doing anything?

Take a look at the donations to the labour party senior members and see how much of it comes from the Unions . . Then convince me that Burton et al will sit around a table with their donors and hammer out an agreement that is in our favour. He who pays the piper . . .

BTW, I'm not advocating a vote for FF and you are misunderstanding me if you think the only reason I comment on the actions of FG/LAB or anyone else is to big-up FF. I have already said in other threads that i will be voting FG. I believe there are two good outcomes for Ireland inc. from the upcoming election..

#1 FG overall majority
#2 FG minority government (with silent support from FF)... I started a thread on this a number of weeks ago and as we edge closer to election day this seems more and more like a better outcome than an FG/LAB govt.

Speculation is not worth as much as actual fact. You make up the actions of the hypothetical government which suit your argument. Evidence please to back up this speculation?

I've given you evidence. . I have told you what I think might have happened with a government that advocated lower tax, abolishment of stamp duty, increased capital spend, support social partnership . . I can't give you any more but I believe my assessment is not unreasonable.

telekon

Reilly616 wrote: »

Actually, that squiggle at the end of his sentense means that it's not a statement...

Ah technicalities...it's still an ignorant question though. You wouldn't like me to point out all your incorrect spellings now, would you?

scr123

Laminations wrote: »

Yeah there is definitely a lot of that. It is also a case of Brehm's Theory of Psychological Reactance that is leading them to be more entrenched - i.e. a bunker mentality. Nobody likes to admit they were/are wrong and so they'll argue more fervently as a defense mehanism - if you are of a Freudian bent its simple ego defense.

Many FFers may need an equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous, a nice non-judgemental place where they can purge their bad habits, admit to their mistakes and move towards a healthier, less loyal, voting style. All this negative sentiment we are sending their way is making them feel their little group is being persecuted and naturally they go mega defensive and unreceptive to argument.

Of course there are those who are dyed in the wool FFers, its part of their self-concept and this late in life they probably feel scared to change, and this fear leads to self-efficacy problems and identity issues. What will they be if they are not FF?

Boards.ie has that effect on most threads, opinion is polarised and arguments take the form of debate, where each side tries to prove the other wrong. Maybe we need a dialectical approach....

Wow, I think I've just explained the psyche of the average FF voter!!

Sticky anyone? :pac:

You have done absolutely nothing but make it clear you are a member of the ABFF who have a very disturbing hatred of FF. There is no polarisation on message boards for the simple reason 99.9% of posters are ABFF. This time 12 months as the Finance Bill is progressing through the Dail the vast majority of ABFF posters will have disappeared and the rest will have changed their nicknames. The ABFF right now have no grasp of reality but as the year goes on it will slowly hit them how stupid and ignorant they are and their shallowness will drive them into hiding never to be seen again.
What I cannot understand about the ABFF is that a very average brain like mine has not once on message boards come across one poster where I had to say to myself, hey you are out of your depth here

Kasabian

The day before the election I will recieve my salary. The bottom left- hand corner will remind me why I will never vote FF.

hallelujajordan

Kasabian wrote: »

The day before the election I will recieve my salary. The bottom left- hand corner will remind me why I will never vote FF.

One Week / Fortnight / Month later you will get your salary again. In the bottom left hand corner it will say the same thing.

None of the opposition (who so fervently attack the budget, but who cynically supported the finance bill) have proposed to do anything to reverse tax cuts / USC etc . .

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I agree, and perhaps a FG led government might have got more value for money; infrastructure etc might have improved. There's little evidence for this but I can accept that it 'might' have been the case. . The economic situation however is more a numbers game . . Lower Tax / Higher Spend = Bigger Deficit, regardless how much value we get.

Yes defcit goes up but if your spending is increasing the sources of tax then it can be sustainable. I don't advocate the high current spending we have but targeted spending to kick start reforms, that would not be recurrent and also an appropriate capital spending budget. A gigh spend policy aint the worst if you have a solid tax base not built on selling houses to each other

Take a look at the donations to the labour party senior members and see how much of it comes from the Unions . . Then convince me that Burton et al will sit around a table with their donors and hammer out an agreement that is in our favour. He who pays the piper . . .

Again we can only speculate. If the unions were paying the piper would that have meant the developers weren't? Now the picture you paint starts to make me wonder if the property bubble fuelled by an tax relief bonanza could have been avoided?

BTW, I'm not advocating a vote for FF and you are misunderstanding me if you think the only reason I comment on the actions of FG/LAB or anyone else is to big-up FF. I have already said in other threads that i will be voting FG. I believe there are two good outcomes for Ireland inc. from the upcoming election..

#1 FG overall majority
#2 FG minority government (with silent support from FF)... I started a thread on this a number of weeks ago and as we edge closer to election day this seems more and more like a better outcome than an FG/LAB govt.

It still remains confusing how you can bote for a party you do not support. My support can change easily enough from election to election based on policies and performance because I'm not alligned to any party. You remain in the belly of the beast. Why not leave FF and return when and if they reform. I'm sure their reform isn't contigent on your membership?

I've given you evidence. . I have told you what I think might have happened with a government that advocated lower tax, abolishment of stamp duty, increased capital spend, support social partnership . . I can't give you any more but I believe my assessment is not unreasonable.

But that would make what I think might have happened unreasonable and I dont think it is. Neither of our speculative positions are unreassonable but they still are speculation - very different from evidence.

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

It still remains confusing how you can bote for a party you do not support. My support can change easily enough from election to election based on policies and performance because I'm not alligned to any party. You remain in the belly of the beast. Why not leave FF and return when and if they reform. I'm sure their reform isn't contigent on your membership?

Their reform is contingent on the membership of people who support reform. I am one of those people.

And I will vote (as I always have done) on what I believe is best for the country regardless of which party I personally support. Right now, there is no doubt in my mind that FG will lead the next government. . The weaker the Labour party are in that administration, the better. . Hence, although I support FF I will use my vote strategically to try to influence a better outcome.

Laminations

scr123 wrote: »

You have done absolutely nothing but make it clear you are a member of the ABFF who have a very disturbing hatred of FF. There is no polarisation on message boards for the simple reason 99.9% of posters are ABFF. This time 12 months as the Finance Bill is progressing through the Dail the vast majority of ABFF posters will have disappeared and the rest will have changed their nicknames. The ABFF right now have no grasp of reality but as the year goes on it will slowly hit them how stupid and ignorant they are and their shallowness will drive them into hiding never to be seen again.
What I cannot understand about the ABFF is that a very average brain like mine has not once on message boards come across one poster where I had to say to myself, hey you are out of your depth here

Polarisation does not require equal cases on each side. 99% vs 1% still reflects polarised views, and an even more entreched position by the 1%. In 12 months you are right, I wont be posting as much here. My main reason for being here now is to try and convince others to vote based on national issues, to vote based on policy and to vote based on performance - oh and to avoid FF, but not to give just anyone your vote (yet after being corrected numerous times on this you still use ABFF).

And as to your average brain, maybe you lack proper depth perception? Because everyone else, even other FFers, can see you are spouting nonsense.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Their reform is contingent on the membership of people who support reform. I am one of those people.

Thats the catch 22 I dont get.

Reform is contigent on membership of people who support reform, but if they had supported reform why hasn't it happened? Why have the reformationist members allowed FF to slip into a party of self interest and low standards?

Fair play if you manage it but I think that when a brand is so damaged you should set up anew

Zubeneschamali

scr123 wrote: »

The ABFF right now have no grasp of reality but as the year goes on it will slowly hit them how stupid and ignorant they are and their shallowness will drive them into hiding never to be seen again.

I was ABFF in 1987, the first general election where I had a vote, and none of FFs shenanigans since have changed my mind.

I think the people who'll disappear after the election are all the "I'm an undecided voter, but I have complete amnesia and Enda looks like a plonker so I have to reluctantly vote FF, like my father and grandfather before me always did" types.

scr123

Laminations wrote: »

Polarisation does not require equal cases on each side. 99% vs 1% still reflects polarised views, and an even more entreched position by the 1%. In 12 months you are right, I wont be posting as much here. My main reason for being here now is to try and convince others to bote based on national issues, to vote based on policy and to vote based on performance - oh and to avoid FF, but not to give just anyone your vote (yet after being corrected numerous times on this you still use ABFF).

And as to your average brain, maybe you lack proper depth perception? Because everyone else, even other FFers, can see you are spouting nonsense.

Empty rhetoric and you know it !

Its amusing, you speak tirelessly for the ABFF and now you want to speak for the humble amount of FF'ers. If only closed minds came with closed mouths

Laminations

scr123 wrote: »

Empty rhetoric and you know it !

Its amusing, you speak tirelessly for the ABFF and now you want to speak for the humble amount of FF'ers. If only closed minds came with closed mouths

What is my mind closed to? My eyes are open, thats a start, and I see that your militant posts are rarely thanked by any of the more rational FFers. I'm sure HJ would agree you don't further his cause one bit, nor are you part of his idea for reform.

scr123

Laminations wrote: »

What is my mind closed to? My eyes are open, thats a start, and I see that your militant posts are rarely thanked by any of the more rational FFers. I'm sure HJ would agree you don't further his cause one bit, nor are you part of his idea for reform.

Is that the HJ who intends voting FG ?

The last FF poster I spotted on this board was someone named Bateman and that person was dumped rapidly

Curious about reference to "militant posts", can you elaborate please

Kasabian

hallelujajordan wrote: »

One Week / Fortnight / Month later you will get your salary again. In the bottom left hand corner it will say the same thing.

None of the opposition (who so fervently attack the budget, but who cynically supported the finance bill) have proposed to do anything to reverse tax cuts / USC etc . .

It will unless more cuts are implemented. It is FF who got us here and no amount of FF spin will hide that fact.

I have no issue with paying my share, tightening my belt as long my money is for the country and it's people.

It will not be the case it will be to keep failed banks afloat which should have gone into receivership in 2008.

The decision to blanket guarantee the banks was decided by FF and their big business buddies because of their arrogance and continued arrogance that they knew best. Fcuk FF.

hallelujajordan

Kasabian wrote: »

It will unless more cuts are implemented. It is FF who got us here and no amount of FF spin will hide that fact.

I have no issue with paying my share, tightening my belt as long my money is for the country and it's people.

It will not be the case it will be to keep failed banks afloat which should have gone into receivership in 2008.

The decision to blanket guarantee the banks was decided by FF and their big business buddies because of their arrogance and continued arrogance that they knew best. Fcuk FF.

Hate to break it to you but FG, who will doubtless lead the next election supported that guarantee.

And you are in for a sharp shock when you realise that very little will change post election and all of the talk of burning bondholders and renegotiating deals amounts to nothing . .

Kasabian

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Hate to break it to you but FG, who will doubtless lead the next election supported that guarantee.

And you are in for a sharp shock when you realise that very little will change post election and all of the talk of burning bondholders and renegotiating deals amounts to nothing . .

Don't preach.

I can see that FG are the other side of the same coin. I am fully aware of how little will change after this election.

The bond holders at best must share the burden.

What annoys me most is the blatant lies told to us by FF, they haven't enough respect to tell us what was going on, they have the audacity to think we are too stupid to be able to understand it.

I want to see a strong left government putting it up to our EU partners and force their hand on the bailout. This is not our debt it is private business debt attributed to the people of this country by FF to protect their banking and developer buddies.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations has received a 4 day ban for repeated personalisations and abuse, (despite a ban two weeks ago) and for trench warfare.

Relevant posters: please stop personalising the debate. It really does ruin it for those people who are genuinely interested in the discussion at hand. And please stop holding grudges for past discussions. I know it's a divisive issue, but be nice for the sake of the forum.

/mod.

Reilly616

telekon wrote: »

Ah technicalities...it's still an ignorant question though. You wouldn't like me to point out all your incorrect spellings now, would you?

"Too-shay"... :P

PyeContinental

Eliot, could you quote the personalisations and abuse?
I'm surprised and disappointed, as I thought Laminations was totally civil and very interesting to read.

Was it the examination of the psychological processes that might exist which could allow a seemingly rational person to vote for Fianna Fail after everything that has happened? I do think it's fascinating why an ordinary person (by that I mean someone who has nothing ostensible to gain from it) would do so. Assuming that there is no corruption or self interest at work, then wouldn't it be fascinating to discover the reason why? Battered wife / Stockholm syndrome was exactly what I was thinking of too. These days I assume that no one who is not getting rewarded in some way for it would be perverse enough to vote for Fianna Fail. I would be as surprised to meet one of these people now as I would be to meet someone who told me that they like getting up extra early on cold, dreary, wet Monday mornings.

I read vastly more on boards.ie than I write, and I get irritated with what seems to be the majority of people who post on this site (on every forum). Most people don't seem to know or care how to spell. When I see someone posting something like "The problem with there policies is..." I just skip to the next post. Invariably, this is an indication of something that is not worth reading. Most people don't seem to have lived long enough to have formed the faculties to think and reason for themselves. Most don't seem to even realise that the opinions they espouse are not their own, but facsimiles of ones which they believe are the correct ones to have. In other words, most barely know they're born. :pac:

So, it's been refreshing to read Lamination's posts which are well thought out and have been informing and educating me.

scr123 wrote: »

You have done absolutely nothing but make it clear you are a member of the ABFF who have a very disturbing hatred of FF.

I find this fascinating. The implication is that there is some kind of dissident group, known as the ABFF, and all that is needed to discredit somebody is to suggest that they are a member of this organisation.

Is hating FF disturbing or is it just that he has a type of hatred for them which is disturbing? What's disturbing about it? How does it disturb you?

FF - Obviously made mistakes, but which parties would not have? Martin seems like a decent new leader now too and IF they were given another chance would they not seriously try to right their wrongs?

As George W Bush would say, "Fool me nineteen times, shame on... you... ... ... If you fool me, ya can't get fooled again!" :pac:

Liam Byrne

scr123 wrote: »

You have done absolutely nothing but make it clear you are a member of the ABFF who have a very disturbing hatred of FF. There is no polarisation on message boards for the simple reason 99.9% of posters are ABFF.

And have you, even once stopped and asked yourself why this hatred exists ?

I'll tell you : it's because of what FF have done.

Are you seriously telling me that you cannot see that fact ?

scr123 wrote: »

This time 12 months as the Finance Bill is progressing through the Dail the vast majority of ABFF posters will have disappeared and the rest will have changed their nicknames.

Absolutely rubbish.

I've been here (on boards) for years, and intend to still be here for a while yet (although it's fingers crossed as to whether it'll be from an Irish address, thanks to FF).

I also won't be changing my name - that's for sure! :rolleyes:

scr123 wrote: »

The ABFF right now have no grasp of reality but as the year goes on it will slowly hit them how stupid and ignorant they are and their shallowness will drive them into hiding never to be seen again.

Again, glib soundbytes.......I don't think I've seen a single post of yours that doesn't simply spout stuff like the above without backing it up.

WHY do you think they are "stupid and ignorant" ? (and yet complain and report when people say the same about FF supporters) ?

scr123 wrote: »

What I cannot understand about the ABFF is that a very average brain like mine has not once on message boards come across one poster where I had to say to myself, hey you are out of your depth here

That appears to be because you don't actually engage and explain your thinking; it seems to be a default position that you refuse to even try to explain. You just trot out lines about "FG will be learn" or "ABFF will see" without a single explanation of WHY you believe this to be true.

I probably won't agree with what you believe, but it would be nice if just once you dropped the glib, vacuous soundbytes and actually explain your blind support of FF.

The "ABFF" - as you choose to call them (us) - have explained WHY we hate FF; clearly and backed up by facts.

We are under no obligation to explain ourselves to you, but it's a discussion board, so we do. You've ignored those as the reasons for the hatred, and then refused to explain your loyalty to FF; that's your right, but since people have explained to you and you dismiss them they are understandably getting frustrated when you don't acknowledge their concerns and reasons and then follow that up without explaining your own stance.

You have basically explained nothing about why you have an entrenched loyalty to FF.

That is why people cannot get their head around your stance and your posts.

Fouloleron

Again its a simple answer :

Governments need to change regularly for a healthy Democratic process, that is why , all party politics, motives and previous actions aside I will not vote FF.

(btw, I know the huge amount of problems FF have caused this country, I am just pointing out how at a fundamental level they should not be in power again.)

PyeContinental

Fouloleron wrote: »

Again its a simple answer :

Governments need to change regularly for a healthy Democratic process, that is why , all party politics, motives and previous actions aside I will not vote FF.

(btw, I know the huge amount of problems FF have caused this country, I am just pointing out how at a fundamental level they should not be in power again.)

I'm a little bit puzzled at this attitude too. Saying you won't vote for FF for the simple reason that a bit of variety is needed is like saying "Many people are exiting the building because it's on fire, but I just like to get out of the house once in a while".

Fouloleron

PyeContinental wrote: »

I'm a little bit puzzled at this attitude too. Saying you won't vote for FF for the simple reason that a bit of variety is needed is like saying "Many people are exiting the building because it's on fire, but I just like to get out of the house once in a while".

Governments who stay in power to long stagnate, like we have seen.

I am just pointing out one of the basic reasons why its best to not vote for FF, there are many many more.

Im not talking about a packet of biscuits here so its not just about variety, nor like a burning building (although you could argue that FF have burnt us and the youth out of Ireland)

irememberu

utube na fianna the last one song and tyhat will tell u why!!

KELTICKNIGHTT

Fouloleron wrote: »

To put it simply,

A healthy government is one which changes regularly. If one particular political party stays in power for long lengths of time, they stagnate and grow out of touch. (sound familiar?).

So I choose not to vote Fianna Fail for the very simple fact that they have had their turn in government and another party needs its chance.

This is also reinforced by the utter disgrace they have brought to our country with their (very suspect) actions.

All plans, people and politics aside, a new government is needed to avoid anymore stagnation and that is why I will not vote for Fianna Fail.

Can I then ask, how can people still vote in FF ?

in few years time,people will say same about fg or fg/labour
been the same for last 70 years,do you really think fg are better over just because there where in opposition,please
most partys are similar if people want too be really honest but i think
thats a reason for irish politics need a big change
all partys had a chance in last 5 way debate,too come too gether all for few years for sake of country and people too sort it,none of party's sept up too the challenge and wont because they all from same
so a thread like this really makes no sense too anyone with cop-on,
its ireland,3 main partys are not much different overall,
funny people outside ireland see this more clearly,wonder way