Labour Party: End of the line for Gilmore/Burton?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

itsalltrue

they are shocking bad. It was pointed out to me that they would have been Democratic Left and have now taken over Labour.

They have managed to push old Labour, Pat Rabbite and Ruari Quinn, out of the piture. They are 2 good debaters which haven't been used

Chucky the tree

I just don't think people want a Labour majority in Government. I think their drop in numbers have also a lot to do with the election becoming closer and people actually bothering to check their policies. Months ago people didn't do this, they just got their impression of Labour from gilmore sound bites on TV which was impressive. Similiar to SF, at one point they were on 16% however they've not done anything horribly wrong really I just think people have been more exposed to their economic policies and now realise there ridiculous. At one point Pearse Doherty was the golden boy of politicis, not now though.

Ireland has a country of 4.5m+ people, 300,000 are employed in the Public sector. Labour should have realised in our current claimate being in bed with the Unions was going to be a vote loser for te majority of the country. A policy of 50% taxes too 50% cuts was always going to be a vote loser for them. Gilmore takes the blame, but I think they should have had run a 2/1 ration of taxes to cuts.

sensibleken

Theyve put in a shocking performance, im very disapointed. But I've read both manifestos and I'll be giving them my first preference. Wont even give a transfer to fine gael

Bottle_of_Smoke

Some great points there particularly about the trade unions. Just some minor criticism.

Gilmore/Martin debate: Really Martin had advantages here, he knows he's not going to be in power, so he didn't have to defend proposed policy like Gilmore did. I also don't think he wiped the floor with him. In football terms I'd say it was more like a 4-3 win

Secondly, perhaps its not that Gilmore is terrible, its just that Labour's policy is terrible. I think people are wakening up to the fact that the social democracy approach just doesn't work and the end result is usually just an inefficient right-wing economic model.

jimmycrackcorm

It's not the end of the line for Gilmore and Burton as there are no figures to stand in their place. Whilst Quinn and Rabitte are good, they're old hat at this stage.

Rubik.

Labour will still comfortablely beat the so called spring tide of 32 seats in the 1992 election and are still on course to be part of the next Government. Gilmore will still have done far better than his predecessors - Rabitte and Quinn. The Labour parties demise is being greatly exaggerated and the Gilmore bashing is just more of the same thing from the OP.

Chucky the tree

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Some great points there particularly about the trade unions. Just some minor criticism.

Gilmore/Martin debate: Really Martin had advantages here, he knows he's not going to be in power, so he didn't have to defend proposed policy like Gilmore did. I also don't think he wiped the floor with him. In football terms I'd say it was more like a 4-3 win

Secondly, perhaps its not that Gilmore is terrible, its just that Labour's policy is terrible. I think people are wakening up to the fact that the social democracy approach just doesn't work and the end result is usually just an inefficient right-wing economic model.

It's like a 4-3 win for Crawley town verus Manchester United, while only a 1 goal win it's still a huge shock. A person who's been a Minister for 14 years in a Government that have bankrupt the country should never be coming out on top in a debate against Gilmore.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mewso

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I just don't think people want a Labour majority in Government. I think their drop in numbers have also a lot to do with the election becoming closer and people actually bothering to check their policies. Months ago people didn't do this, they just got their impression of Labour from gilmore sound bites on TV which was impressive. Similiar to SF, at one point they were on 16% however they've not done anything horribly wrong really I just think people have been more exposed to their economic policies and now realise there ridiculous. At one point Pearse Doherty was the golden boy of politicis, not now though.

It's nothing to do with people checking their policies. It's much more to do with media influence imo. If people were checking policies they would have serious questions about FG instead of blind belief in the "5 point plan".

How are people checking policies when the major criticism of Labour is that they are "in bed with the unions"? As common a soundbite on these forums as any in the media.

Enda Kenny on last nights debate insisted there would be no compulsory redundancies in the PS so surely that means he won't be confronting the unions any time soon either.

Soldie

Rubik. wrote: »

Labour will still comfortablely beat the so called spring tide of 32 seats in the 1992 election and are still on course to be part of the next Government. Gilmore will still have done far better than his predecessors - Rabitte and Quinn. The Labour parties demise is being greatly exaggerated and the Gilmore bashing is just more of the same thing from the OP.

Labour would be doing very well to beat the Spring Tide of 33 seats comfortably, especially based on recent polls. It's looking like Labour will win around 35 seats, and Fine Gael are into 70s territory, at this stage. It's quite possible that Fine Gael will be able to form a government with whatever Greens get returned (Trevor Sargeant and Eamon Ryan have decent chances), and some right-leaning independents (Noel Grealish, Shane Ross, etc.). In my own constituency, Dublin South, Labour's second candidate, Aidan Culhane, was a strong contender for the 5th seat a couple of weeks ago, whereas now he is essentially out of the race. Labour's second candidates have slipped behind in many constituencies.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rubik.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Any recent constituency by constituency analysis I've read has but Labour in and around 40 seats. The Irish electorate is by nature conservative. FF voters are essentially swapping one centre-right party for another. This, imo, is a far greater factor than the merits or otherwise of FG's and Labour's electoral campaigns.

Jack Sheehan

I'm shocked at Labour's performance in this election. I'm still voting for Alex White but christ it's not because of anything Gilmore said. Frankly I won't be unhappy if FG sneak a majority.

gerryo777

It's gotta be said though, an endorsement from that weasel jack o'conner and that other t**t david begg is a sure vote loser!!!

Manach

To be fair, if Ivana Bacik is elected, then Joan Burton will suddenly become a model of sanity and reason.

mewso

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not disputing that the Unions endorse Labour. What I'm interested in is what people think the real difference will be between Labour and FG in terms of how they deal with the Unions. Do you think FG will take them on?

the groutch

Manach wrote: »

To be fair, if Ivana Bacik is elected, then Joan Burton will suddenly become a model of sanity and reason.

I'd actually vote for Hanafin if I thought it would keep Bacik out

grahmkeatley

Rubik. wrote: »

Any recent constituency by constituency analysis I've read has but Labour in and around 40 seats. The Irish electorate is by nature conservative. FF voters are essentially swapping one centre-right party for another. This, imo, is a far greater factor than the merits or otherwise of FG's and Labour's electoral campaigns.

Labour for all intensive purposes are a center-right party, with some left policies sprinkled to still pander to some of the old-school Labour left leaning support. But for the most part, Labour are NOT a left of center party.



-Graham

mewso

grahmkeatley wrote: »

Labour for all intensive purposes are a center-right party, with some left policies sprinkled to still pander to some of the old-school Labour left leaning support. But for the most part, Labour are NOT a left of center party.

They are like all parties these days, imo, a market research party. They will gravitate towards what will get them elected while hiding in small print some of the core beliefs that still exist.

seamus

mewso wrote: »

It's nothing to do with people checking their policies.

I'm not so sure you're right. Certainly myself and a couple of other people I know were going to vote a first preference for Labour. Then I looked up previous proposals, votes and comments by Labour in a number of areas and realise that I can't the support such a party. And others that I know have done the same.
In fact, Labour will get no preference from me this time around, I will give FF a preference purely to keep Labour from gaining at all from my vote. This is purely because I went and checked on things that they've actually done and/or proposed.

This also seems to be an (the first?) election where people aren't looking at "What has he done for me and my neighbours?, rather "What is he planning to do to me and my country?". As I've said elsewhere on boards, while I like a lot of the labour candidates individually, and they do quite good work at the local politics level, I cannot support a lot of their national policies. And I think a lot of other people have similarly looked at Labour's national policies and ideas and decided that Labour are not the way go.

I agree with statement in the OP that Gilmore seems to have let an easy victory slip from his grasp. What should have been a free-for-all feast on the carcass of FF with a bonanza across the board, Labour have landed back where they were. One poll a couple of months ago put Labour on top, possibly heading a coalition government with FG. Now they're polling at half FG's rate, barely above FF.

That is very much missing an open goal by anyone's standards.

I can't take Joan Burton seriously any more. I just keep thinking of a Gift Grub sketch from a few weeks back where Joan was complaining about being harangued

mewso

seamus wrote: »

I think a lot of other people have similarly looked at Labour's national policies and ideas and decided that Labour are not the way go.

If thats your reasoning then fine but I believe most people are choosing FG for vague promises and ignoring Labour because they haven't made any promises on similar lines. I'll be voting Labour as the lesser of all evils to be honest as I find politics in this country completely devoid of any real alternatives at all. I firmly believe FG can't deliver. If I'm proved wrong then great but they have always represented the Uncle trying to be cool to me. Ideas men with no clearly defined way of implementing them. It would take a lot to change my mind.

While I agree with the OP Labour have messed up and I would desperately like to see them slapped into opposition now considering the polls for another term to sort themselves out. Had they a chance I still think they would be the best option as a majority Government. Now they seem doomed to the ultimate failure that will be the minority part of a coalition.

Most will agree that extreme left-wing politics doesn't work (some won't) but there are so many people here who seem unwilting in their faith of extreme right-wing politics (FG are closer to that than anything else imo). If it fails other uncontrolled factors will be blamed.

I also think people have pinned their hopes of FG to rid us of the memory of FF because for many people it has always been one or the other. It's FG's turn now and they are talking a good game.

seamus

mewso wrote: »

While I agree with the OP Labour have messed up and I would desperately like to see them slapped into opposition now considering the polls for another term to sort themselves out. Had they a chance I still think they would be the best option as a majority Government. Now they seem doomed to the ultimate failure that will be the minority part of a coalition.

I thought that Gilmore had been doing quite well for Labour until now. I think if Pat Rabbitte had stayed on they could actually be in a much better position now.

Interesting times certainly. Labour's problem is that if this is seen as failure for them, Gilmore might step down and someone like Varadkar or Bacik step into the fold. This will shift them into being an extremist party and the writing will be on the wall.
On the other hand, it's probably more likely that someone like Ruairi Quinn would take up the reigns after Gilmore.

mewso

seamus wrote: »

Gilmore might step down and someone like Varadkar or Bacik step into the fold.

I know it's a typo but I'm struggling to think of who you meant that made you think of Leo instead

edit - Call it a Finegaelian slip.

Killer Pigeon

Labour has obviously made plenty of PR mistakes over the past few weeks which are invariably obvious. I personally think it all boil down to lack of experience running such big companies. Remember that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil both have a mammoth amount of large marketing experience between them - they have always been the largest parties and the main contenders in every election so far. This is the first time that Labour has run so many candidates. I think the Labour leadership were far too optimistic when planning their campaign strategy which has had detrimental effects on their public perspective.

I think that this optimism got to the head of many top Labour figures, such as Joan Burton and Eamon Gilmore. They knew Fianna Fáil would lose a colossal amount of seat due to their mismanagement of the country and that they would leave a political power vacuum behind them. The Labour leadership thought naively that it was all for the taking and they thought they were on the home straight. They thought that they would get some form of majority if they not only attacked the common enemy but also the rest of their opponents and former allies. I think this lead to arrogance in their public conduct. We see this in particular in Joan Burton's disastrous interview with Vincent Brown on TV3 a number of weeks back.

Yes, they have made mistakes but I think that many people in Labour have the ability. Joan Burton would be a far greater Minister for Finance in my opinion than Michael Noonan in terms of her professional experience. Gilmore would, in my opinion, be a far more charismatic and articulate leader than Enda Kenny. There is potential there certainly but Labour fail in electioneering experience.

I think a lot of Labour's decent in the polls can be attributed to right-wing scaremongering, something that we haven't seen for a number of years. I dislike the notion floating the inter-political medium that Labour are a 'high tax' party. For instance on last night's debate, Eamon Gilmore mentioned that Labour wanted €3 billion revenue from taxes while Fine Gael wanted €4 billion. If this were false, then Enda Kenny would have disagreed with him, which he didn't. Evidently Fine Gael is a higher tax party than Labour, by a margin of €1 billion.

There's also a perception of Labour being a Union dominated party. Yes, Labour have links with the Unions and have since their inception. The Unions and Labour both share a socialist ideology and in this sense there was a natural attraction. However, I wouldn't say that are Union dominated. As had been said here numerous times, Labour only receives 4% of their founding from the Unions as a whole each year. I didn't join Labour with intent on being hot lick with corrupted Unions; I joined because I believe strongly in various socialist principles which they spout and because of their strong liberal stance. This notion that Labour wants to get into government just to serve supposed Union overlords without a care or concern for the country is a completely vague theory at best.

But alas, the damage is done and no words of mine could possibly help mend their tarnished reputation. The only thing now that could help boost their reputation is a change of leadership, no matter how good or bad the present leadership of the party are. I would love to see Labour get into government to bring about social change and fulfil their liberal agenda; gay marriage, clear legislation on abortion and a new secular and more egalitarian constitution that will help the country run more efficiently. Of course such issues are secondary to the wider economic problem fallen on this land but for some people they matter and a Labour voice, however small, in a coalition government could help press these issues as well as striving to attain economic recovery. I just hope that the electorate take these issues and Labour's stance on them into consideration when they exercise their democratic right on Friday.

Sincerely,

KP.

seamus

mewso wrote: »

I know it's a typo but I'm struggling to think of who you meant that made you think of Leo instead

Ahah! I don't know who it was I was thinking of. I did for a while think that Varadkar was Labour, so maybe that was a brain fart

_Bella_

I don't believe that Gilmore performed too badly in this campaign but I think trying to win an election on his popularity alone was always going to fail. Their biggest mistake was making Joan Burton finance spokesperson. She doesn't have a clue and came across awful on all media appearances. I have no idea why Quinn wasn't made finance spokesperson from the beginning. Here you have someone with experience in the position and an excellent reputation.

Labour changing their policies all the time didn't help either They didn't appear to the public to be able to make the hard decisions that are required by our economic position. Going after Fine Gael was also never going to work. Fine Gael and Labour had been seen as close allies over the last few year and most Fine Gael supporters would have given the Labour candidate automatically their next preference. Once they started their attacks people began to think they couldn't work together which meant Fine Gael gained.

Eamon Gilmore made an effort to show that Fine Gael and Labour could work together last night. It is still the most likely outcome but most people had not considered a Fine Gael majority/ FG with independents until Labour began their attacks.

Blowfish

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interestingly enough Labour didn't even attempt to distance themselves from the unions leaders comments as a few days later Joan Burton posted up this.

RonMexico

There isn't much to figure out regarding the support for FG - the alternative have been exposed time and time again as being incompetent and unwilling to take the necessary steps to get us out of this mess. Labour have been a major disappointment - a few weeks ago they had a commanding lead in the polls and Gilmore was also way ahead of Kenny in terms of popularity. So what happened - well a number of things but one major fault was the selection of Joan Burton as spokesperson on finance. People hate her and she was borderline psychotic on Vincent Browne - to the point that her appearance was a trending topic worldwide on twitter. She is a massive liability and the quicker they get rid of her the better. At the moment people only care about one thing, as Clinton said - "It's the economy, stupid." Then they see Joan Burton as a potential Minister for Finance and freak out. There are loads of other reasons and I could write an essay on all of this but there is one reason for you to consider. How things could have been different had Gilmore selected Ruairi Quinn instead of Burton.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Blowfish

Personally I think that FF actually helped in bringing down Labour. For the whole campaign, a lot of FF's rhetoric has been to attack the differences between FG and Labour and keep repeating the 'how are these supposed to go into power together when they completely disagree with eachother' mantra.

Given that a huge amount of the electorate are going to completely avoid FF like the plague anyway, painting a divide between FG and Labour has completely backfired for FF as it's made people examine FG and Labour individually rather than as a defacto coalition.

Given that the glaringly obvious issue of the election is economics, looking at them individually, Noonan/Bruton/Varadkar have come across a hell of a lot better than Burton all along, hence pushing FG closer to a single party government.

K-9

Gilmore has been very poor. Martin taking Enda to task for trying to privatise everything in last nights debate and hardly a peep out of Gilmore on the matter!

Labour suffer because whether we like it or not, socially conservative parties will gather the majority of the votes in this election. They also face huge competition from SF and left independents that don't see them as radical enough.

The scare tactics have moved from Labour to the threat of a FG majority now though, will be interesting to see if the FG vote holds steady or even increases from the last poll. I don't think Enda did that particularly well in the debate. Martin scored a few political points of him on privatisation and hidden taxes like water rates and property taxes.

amacachi

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I think a lot of Labour's decent in the polls can be attributed to right-wing scaremongering, something that we haven't seen for a number of years. I dislike the notion floating the inter-political medium that Labour are a 'high tax' party. For instance on last night's debate, Eamon Gilmore mentioned that Labour wanted €3 billion revenue from taxes while Fine Gael wanted €4 billion. If this were false, then Enda Kenny would have disagreed with him, which he didn't. Evidently Fine Gael is a higher tax party than Labour, by a margin of €1 billion.

Labour keep saying though that they want to have a bigger ratio of taxes:cuts than FG so how can they put up less tax and also make far fewer cuts than FG?

Earthhorse

I don't know enough about the Labour Party to know whether this spells the end for Gilmore and Bruton. To be honest, I was half hoping that, in the event of a coalition, the sooner Bruton got into power the sooner she would be out of it. The question is who is going to step in to replace them?

Despite losing substantial ground in the polls there's still a good, if diminishing, chance that Labour will be the minority party in a coalition government and, if that's the case, no change of leadership will come about, I expect. If FG go in with Independents or the Greens then I think there's a good chance the leadership will change, though maybe not right away.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I would love to see Labour get into government to bring about social change and fulfil their liberal agenda; gay marriage, clear legislation on abortion and a new secular and more egalitarian constitution that will help the country run more efficiently.

This is the thing. There are many voters, like myself, who would love to give Labour a first preference (they will appear somewhere on my card), thanks to progressive policies such as the above, but their attitude toward the public service just kills all that. Such a shame.

Zubeneschamali

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I would love to see Labour get into government to bring about social change and fulfil their liberal agenda; gay marriage, clear legislation on abortion and a new secular and more egalitarian constitution

If a Coalition could have Labour's social policy and Fine Gael's economic policy, that would be cool.

Unfortunately, I think we're more likely to see a coalition in which Labour prevents meaningful cuts to spending while Fine Gael prevents gay rights, abortion legislation and constitutional reform.

It's easier for each party to obstruct the other than allow the other a victory which will annoy their own supporters.

mewso

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope because thats not what I said.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not arguing what they were I'm arguing what they are. While I would concede that it might be wrong or misleading of me to call them the closest thing to extreme right-wing it's no more wrong than saying Labour are in bed with the Unions. They are the most right-wing party in this country are they not? Is the political map is incorrect then fair enough. I'm no political expert just someone with an opinion.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Using a political leader from the US is hardly the best place to go. Is there such a thing as left-wing politics in the US. There is liberal which is a different matter entirely. What does left leaning mean in the context of Enda Kenny? He spends 30 seconds a day wondering how someone on the dole makes ends meet?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are not missing anything as I didn't allege anything of the sort although their position on same sex marriage would make me wonder what other little nuggets are hidden away in there.

RDM_83 again

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If their a social-democratic party how come they are in the center-right CPP grouping in the EU rather than the center left grouping of the PASD.

Saying somebody is left wing by comparing them to Barak Obama just shows how the US majority political system is far to the right of the EU. I could compare Martin to Barak Obama (who was pro=Palestinian in his campaign) and he looks like Hamas!

edit-by pro-Palestinian meant from a us stand point

mewso

Earthhorse wrote: »

but their attitude toward the public service just kills all that. Such a shame.

What attitude? The plan to reform it?

woop

itsalltrue wrote: »

they are shocking bad. It was pointed out to me that they would have been Democratic Left and have now taken over Labour.

They have managed to push old Labour, Pat Rabbite and Ruari Quinn, out of the piture. They are 2 good debaters which haven't been used

erm pat rabbite is not "old labour" if by that you mean non democratic left folks

seamus wrote: »

I thought that Gilmore had been doing quite well for Labour until now. I think if Pat Rabbitte had stayed on they could actually be in a much better position now.

Interesting times certainly. Labour's problem is that if this is seen as failure for them, Gilmore might step down and someone like Varadkar or Bacik step into the fold. This will shift them into being an extremist party and the writing will be on the wall.
On the other hand, it's probably more likely that someone like Ruairi Quinn would take up the reigns after Gilmore.

fine gael takeover of labour shocker!

RDM_83 again

Oh and my EU point was that the PASD contains the actual social democrats, rather than the christain democrats which FG are

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

But they aren't Social Democrats which was your original point in reply to Mewso are they? they fit in with the major right wing parties in Europe. Do you think Ireland would really be better if we had people like Jean Marie Le Pen being getting a minority of votes so that Ireland would have a political scene more similar to europe (there was a thread on this that I can't find)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Apologies misread that part of your post.

The points you are referring to are all policies that Christian Democrats are also committed too as well.

My point isn't that they are extremist simply that they are not social democrats.

i.e they are more right leaning than SDLP in North, Social Democrats in Germany etc.

Chucky the tree

mewso wrote: »

It's nothing to do with people checking their policies. It's much more to do with media influence imo. If people were checking policies they would have serious questions about FG instead of blind belief in the "5 point plan".

How are people checking policies when the major criticism of Labour is that they are "in bed with the unions"? As common a soundbite on these forums as any in the media.

Enda Kenny on last nights debate insisted there would be no compulsory redundancies in the PS so surely that means he won't be confronting the unions any time soon either.

People probably do have serious questions about FG's policies but feel they are still the best of a bad bunch which is my personnel opinion.

You could be right, they don't need to check policies when Jack O'Connor is doing a great job in turning everyone off Labour without even needing too. Why would he be so vocal against a FG Government and be pushing for Labour to form a coalition?

“If that party (Fine Gael) is in government on its own it will be a recipe for disaster because it will be committed to the same deflationary policies which it outlined in its own manifesto,” he added.

Mr O’Connor, also president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), spoke out as he launched the congress paper A Better, Fairer Way to Recovery.

Its five-point alternative strategy to tackle the economic and jobs crisis focused on a new deal on Ireland’s €85bn bailout package, creating jobs, protecting incomes, respecting rights in the workplace, and protecting public services.

At least Enda and FG have recognised the how badly reform is needed in the public sector by looking for 30,000 cuts. Even if they don't achieve them all, or by voluntary redunacy it is still a lot better then any other parties policy of trying to deal with the problem.

Pal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I hope you're right.
Enough of these useless pair of twits.

mewso

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You could be right, they don't need to check policies when Jack O'Connor is doing a great job in turning everyone off Labour without even needing too. Why would he be so vocal against a FG Government and be pushing for Labour to form a coalition?

Are you asking a question of me here? This is what I love about politics and discussion on it. If you have one point of view then thats it. Jack O'Connor is supporting Labour because he wants an easy life and if thats what he expects it's also how Labour will deal with him. Q.E.D. Hey maybe thats true but your conclusion about how "everyone" is making their decision is a bit general. A certain percentage are put off by that, a certain percentage want to see it, some couldn't care less and so on. What is really clinching it for FG imo is media coverage and soundbites from that same media.

As I have said if people were looking at policy they would be asking why Enda Kenny can't answer detailed questions about his 5 point plan, how he intends to get rid of 30000 public servants without compulsory reduncancies, how he intends to implement his health care plan without it costing more than we can afford and without it ending up like the dutch model is going, what he will do if renegotiations with the IMF don't succeed. Similar questions can be asked of all the parties but FG are getting a bye because the medai and quite a few here too see them as the great white hope.

The idea that because we are in dire straits we stop asking questions, stop expecting better politics, stop caring about the less well off because we want rid of those who got us here and want to let the usual substitutes take their place because they have a new sheen and a positive sounding language.

The irony for me is in times like these it's even more important to ask the questions, demand more and keep our social conscience but it all goes out the window because of the numbers. If the numbers don't add up you are out on the street. Sorry we would look after you if times were better but...

So many theories. You can't pay that much welfare in times like these. You can't tax big earners because now more than ever we need these people stimulating the economy with their business. Now more than ever we need an efficient public sector because half of them are sitting on their arse. So many theories but every time the only theories that are valid are the right-wing theories. Left-wing theories have never worked. Right-wing theories when put into practice have been stymied and so have never had a chance to work properly. This time our new preferred right-wing party will get it right because we all know these theories when properly put into practice do the job finally...If they don't it will be because of the pasky left influence in Government.

Chucky the tree

mewso wrote: »

Are you asking a question of me here? This is what I love about politics and discussion on it. If you have one point of view then thats it. Jack O'Connor is supporting Labour because he wants an easy life and if thats what he expects it's also how Labour will deal with him. Q.E.D. Hey maybe thats true but your conclusion about how "everyone" is making their decision is a bit general. A certain percentage are put off by that, a certain percentage want to see it, some couldn't care less and so on. What is really clinching it for FG imo is media coverage and soundbites from that same media.

Can you explain how Labours vote has plummeted so close to an election then?

As I have said if people were looking at policy they would be asking why Enda Kenny can't answer detailed questions about his 5 point plan, how he intends to get rid of 30000 public servants without compulsory reduncancies, how he intends to implement his health care plan without it costing more than we can afford and without it ending up like the dutch model is going, what he will do if renegotiations with the IMF don't succeed. Similar questions can be asked of all the parties but FG are getting a bye because the medai and quite a few here too see them as the great white hope.

Maybe voters have a big suspicion he won't be able to do it by voluntary redundencies but will do it by compulsory redundancies instead. I've yet to see any other party or leader answer detailed question about any of their manifestos either.

The idea that because we are in dire straits we stop asking questions, stop expecting better politics, stop caring about the less well off because we want rid of those who got us here and want to let the usual substitutes take their place because they have a new sheen and a positive sounding language. The irony for me is in times like these it's even more important to ask the questions, demand more and keep our social conscience but it all goes out the window because of the numbers. If the numbers don't add up you are out on the street. Sorry we would look after you if times were better but...

No one said stop asking questions. Ask them all you like, but if you know anything about politics then don't expect an honest answer from any of them. Of course it goes out the window because of numbers, I love the way you say numbers as if they mean nothing. We are bankrupt and had to take out a huge loan to cover our banks and our deficit thanks to massive public service wages and social welfare bill. In pixie land we're money grows on trees that might be workable but not here unfortunately.

mewso wrote: »

So many theories. You can't pay that much welfare in times like these. You can't tax big earners because now more than ever we need these people stimulating the economy with their business. Now more than ever we need an efficient public sector because half of them are sitting on their arse. So many theories but every time the only theories that are valid are the right-wing theories. Left-wing theories have never worked. Right-wing theories when put into practice have been stymied and so have never had a chance to work properly. This time our new preferred right-wing party will get it right because we all know these theories when properly put into practice do the job finally...If they don't it will be because of the pasky left influence in Government.

Good lad mewso, finally on board!

Boulevardier

I cannot believe some of what I am seeing on this thread. Much of it seems to be premised on complete lies, such as the one that trade unions mainly represent "cosseted" people, or that the public service is the big problem.

The problem is not of course the trade unions, except insofar as they have funked calling a much-needed general strike.

The problem is the cosseted banking and establishment elite.

As for Labour, they shot themselves in the foot by saying from day 1 that they were going into government with FG and only with FG. Voters then understandably ask themselves why not just vote FG and be done with it?

Anyway, it now seems like the Irish electorate are plumping for the same old free-market mumbo jumbo that has got us where we are.