Anti-Europe Parties?

Dannyboy83

I voted for FG at the last election, I told a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have voted that it was imperative to vote. It seems to me now tho, that a lot of people have lost faith in FG already.

New Taxes underway, sod all reform in the state sector spending, more of the same with bank redundancies, levies and bailouts etc.

At the moment, I see two lowest common denominators among the electorate
A) Anti-Europe
Anti-Immigrant

A lot of people don't know what they want, but they do know what they don't want.

Who are the current Anti-Europe parties?
Is it feasible that FF/FG & maybe Labour will unite into a Christian Democratic party?

I'm just guessing, but if the vote continues to be fractured, there is a probably a good chance that we won't see any of the 3 in power at the next election.

mgmt

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I voted for FG at the last election, I told a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have voted that it was imperative to vote. It seems to me now tho, that a lot of people have lost faith in FG already.

Support for FG is up according to the latest opinion polls.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Poll-shows-honeymoon-with-new-Irish-leader-continues-121852739.html

New Taxes underway, sod all reform in the state sector spending, more of the same with bank redundancies, levies and bailouts etc.

People havn't forgotten that FF caused the mess.

At the moment, I see two lowest common denominators among the electorate
A) Anti-Europe
Anti-Immigrant

a)Jobs
b)Jobs

Who are the current Anti-Europe parties?

Sinn Fein



I wish the Irish political parties became much more euro-skeptic. We wouldn't be in this mess if they had.

JustinDee

mgmt wrote: »

I wish the Irish political parties became much more euro-skeptic. We wouldn't be in this mess if they had.

So take what you can from Europe for the best part of three decades then say 'ta-ta'?
Were you around in the 70s and 80s? What exactly do you miss about those years?

Soldie

I'm unsure of the source but I saw this on Twitter the other day:

FG 45% (+18); Lab 16% (-13); FF 7% (-1); SF 6% (-2); Greens at 1% (-2); Ind 7% (-4); & DK's 18%

Dob74

Soldie wrote: »

I'm unsure of the source but I saw this on Twitter the other day:

FG 45% (+18); Lab 16% (-13); FF 7% (-1); SF 6% (-2); Greens at 1% (-2); Ind 7% (-4); & DK's 18%

That's a Quantum research poll so personally I wouldnt trust it.
They also do the polls for the spindo with some strange results, matching up perfectly with the editoral line.

Fg will be the number one right wing party.
Labour will struggle to stop Sf and ULA from eating into there support.
FF will hopefully go the same way of there friends the PD's.

Laminations

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

New Taxes underway, sod all reform in the state sector spending, more of the same with bank redundancies, levies and bailouts etc.

your OP is incorrect in many parts but where do you get this idea?

A minister is given specific responsibility for PS reform
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0411/breaking36.html

Semi state pay to be reduced
http://irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/howlin-says-semi-state-pay-will-be-cut-152133.html

Reduction of PS numbers is on target
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0506/public.html

Leave arrangements are being addressed
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0513/public.html


And you are aware they have been less than 3 months in the job?
If people expected FG to pull a miracle out their ass then they'll end up disappointed. If they blame FG for trying to put right FFs legacy of mistakes and mismanagement then there'll be plenty more misplaced blame

Dannyboy83

Laminations wrote: »

your OP is incorrect in many parts but where do you get this idea?

A minister is given specific responsibility for PS reform
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0411/breaking36.html

Semi state pay to be reduced
http://irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/howlin-says-semi-state-pay-will-be-cut-152133.html

Reduction of PS numbers is on target
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0506/public.html

Leave arrangements are being addressed
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0513/public.html

Yes, I'm aware of this, but it's a drop in the ocean, isn't it?
If a man overspends by 30k per year, and cuts 10k off that, he is still overspending by 20k per pear. He is still fecked eitherway.
He didn't balance his budget, he just painted over the rust really.

We don't have to take the Morgan Kelly path of bringing things back to 0 overnight, but the scale of reform being proposed is out of sync with what is required.
So, besides the fact that there is a thread running about this in the forum, I don't see it as worth discussing, because our trajectory has already been set.

And you are aware they have been less than 3 months in the job?

I am, but their trajectory is now set and it looks like they've already lost the war.

If you know your history, you know that Hitler didn't lose the war in 44, 43 or 42. He lost it in 41, when he failed to capture Moscow. After that, they were locked onto a course and just had to see it out.


What lies at the end of this trajectory?
I'm guessing either:
A) Default
or
Bailout Pt II

Either way, it's good news for any party running off the lowest common, populist, denominators
i.e. A) Anti-Europe & Anti-Immigrant

View

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of this, but it's a drop in the ocean, isn't it?
If a man overspends by 30k per year, and cuts 10k off that, he is still overspending by 20k per pear. He is still fecked eitherway.

That doesn't follow since the man remains perfectly free to balance his budget the following year. What isn't sustainable though would be a belief that he doesn't need to balance his budget and that anyone who gives him a loan to help him get his finances sorted out should gift him their money on a continuing basis.

Laminations

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of this, but it's a drop in the ocean, isn't it?
If a man overspends by 30k per year, and cuts 10k off that, he is still overspending by 20k per pear. He is still fecked eitherway.
He didn't balance his budget, he just painted over the rust really.

It's a drop in the ocean but it is a start, it is steps in the right direction.
The man who overspends by 30k per year needs to make changes to balance his books but if you are suggesting that he should take a leaf out of the MK School of economics and cut sharply, he could do more damage than good.

We are on the 90th floor of a building that is on fire. If we do not get out we are dead. There are many solutions being proposed, but moving down seems to be agreed and we are making progress, albeit slow. Your gripe with the government seems to be that we haven't already jumped out a window to hasten our descent and achieve our goal (escape the towering inferno) over a shorter timescale. Unfortunately the dull thud of head hitting concrete would be the death nell of our economy.

beeftotheheels

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If you know your history, you know that Hitler didn't lose the war in 44, 43 or 42. He lost it in 41, when he failed to capture Moscow. After that, they were locked onto a course and just had to see it out.

Why in October '41 to early '42 when he failed to capture Moscow?

Why not June '41 when he broke the Molotov Ribbentrop pact by launching Barbarossa? Had he not done that he would never have been bogged down in the USSR (and lets face it, European invasions of Russia never had a great track record).

Or let's accept that Barbarossa wasn't the problem. Why say that Moscow was? Had Stalingrad fallen, or had he ignored Stalingrad and taken the Caucasus with their oil then he would have achieved many of the objective benefits of the invasion without being mired in street fighting and being left at the mercy of scorched earth and general winter. Stalingrad was, after all, the big disaster of Barbarossa in terms of German casualties and efforts, not Moscow.

History, a bit like the economy, is open to subjective analysis. One key difference is that at least we acknowledge that history is generally written by the victors!

Dannyboy83

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Why in October '41 to early '42 when he failed to capture Moscow?

Why not June '41 when he broke the Molotov Ribbentrop pact by launching Barbarossa? Had he not done that he would never have been bogged down in the USSR (and lets face it, European invasions of Russia never had a great track record).

Or let's accept that Barbarossa wasn't the problem. Why say that Moscow was? Had Stalingrad fallen, or had he ignored Stalingrad and taken the Caucasus with their oil then he would have achieved many of the objective benefits of the invasion without being mired in street fighting and being left at the mercy of scorched earth and general winter. Stalingrad was, after all, the big disaster of Barbarossa in terms of German casualties and efforts, not Moscow.

History, a bit like the economy, is open to subjective analysis. One key difference is that at least we acknowledge that history is generally written by the victors!

Convenient then that all major historians agree that the Battle of Moscow was where the war was lost, where the trajectory was set and the war was ended.

Why not Stalingrad? Because the war was already lost
Why not Battle of Britain? Because they were still options available.
Why not Operation Barborossa? Because there were still options available and Hitler could still win.

It looks to me like we have a limited set of options, but still have a few.
But time is running out quickly.

Dannyboy83

Laminations wrote: »

It's a drop in the ocean but it is a start, it is steps in the right direction.

It would have been a nice start 3 years ago, this crisis is now going on in excess of 3 years and we're barely off the starting blocks.

The man who overspends by 30k per year needs to make changes to balance his books but if you are suggesting that he should take a leaf out of the MK School of economics and cut sharply, he could do more damage than good.

Not when the debt is about to drown him.
In that scenario, everything else is preferable.

At this level of accumulation, I don't see how we can evade bankruptcy or a bailout.
What are the projected repayments? 10billion per year?
That's in excess of the entire income tax take for 2010 unless I'm mistaken, but it would only pay half the social welfare bill.

So as I was saying - it looks like our trajectory is set.


The question I'm interested in is - what happens when we reach our destination?

Will the rabid anti-immigrant, BNP style, radical groups gain power?
Or with the socially conservative types unify to retain power?

mgmt

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The question I'm interested in is - what happens when we reach our destination?

Will the rabid anti-immigrants, BNP style, radical groups gain power?
Or with the socially conservative types unify to retain power?

What are you ranting on about? Where do you see anti-immigration support?

Dannyboy83

mgmt wrote: »

What are you ranting on about?

Where am I ranting?
I'm trying to have a discussion.

Where do you see anti-immigration support?

My partner is an immigrant, so I'm probably a bit more sensitive to it than Joe Soap.
A lot of Irish people are becoming very racist. Some don't even realise they're doing it. I hear a lot of comments in work most days now about Eastern Europeans.

Did anyone see Frontline last night? Johnny Foreigner and the Darkies! LOL

Everyday on Facebook, I'm seeing comments about all the Poles drawing Social Welfare.

I've also experienced it a good few times on here.

Actually, you'd want to open your eyes.

beeftotheheels

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Convenient then that all major historians agree that the Battle of Moscow was where the war was lost, where the trajectory was set and the war was ended.

I have to disagree unless you would care to deny "major historian" status to any of the gentlemen in the article below who pick a turning point other than Moscow!

http://www.historynet.com/what-was-the-turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm

Leading experts are completely split on this with a good number choosing Barbarossa or Stalingrad (out of multiple alternatives).

With the benefit of 70 years of hindsight leading figures on Second World War history cannot agree on where the turning point of the war was, yet you seem confident to state that within three months of assuming office our government's

trajectory is now set and it looks like they've already lost the war.

I'm sorry, I just cannot agree with this.

Dannyboy83

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I have to disagree unless you would care to deny "major historian" status to any of the gentlemen in the article below who pick a turning point other than Moscow!

http://www.historynet.com/what-was-the-turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm

Leading experts are completely split on this with a good number choosing Barbarossa or Stalingrad (out of multiple alternatives).

I should have explained to you that the Battle Of Moscow ended on Dec 7th - Pearl Harbour and the declaration of war on America.
You saw the event in isolation.
I was looking at the bigger picture. I reckon that's what Morgan Kelly does.

With the benefit of 70 years of hindsight leading figures on Second World War history cannot agree on where the turning point of the war was, yet you seem confident to state that within three months of assuming office our government's

Not only do leading historians see that as the turning point, but Winston Churchill, FDR, Stalin and Zhukov, all saw it as the turning point........when it happened.

I'm not saying the turning point has occurred within 3 months of their assuming office.

What I'm saying is that, this turning point already occurred in the past, at some stage BEFORE they assumed office - Because they are not prepared to do what is necessary.

beeftotheheels

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I should have explained to you that the Battle Of Moscow ended on Dec 7th - Pearl Harbour and the declaration of war on America.
You saw the event in isolation.
I was looking at the bigger picture. I reckon that's what Morgan Kelly does.

Not only do leading historians see that as the turning point, but Winston Churchill, FDR, Stalin and Zhukov, all saw it as the turning point........when it happened.

And yet, and yet, I can cite many leading historians who disagree with your analysis.

Propaganda is necessary in war time, keeping moral up is necessary in war time, declaring victories as turning points is necessary in war time (see the similarities with the bond markets here?)

I'm not understanding the reference to Pearl harbor, you think that the Japanese in celebration of the Soviet offensive decided to bomb Pearl harbor? Or perhaps the Soviet victory caused them to reconsider the long march through Siberia to launch an assault on Moscow?

If you're taking a position based on extrapolating a relationship between two unrelated (or at least tenuously related) facts then yes, that is exactly what Morgan Kelly seems to be doing recently.

I think your analogy is inspired by the way even though I disagree with it supporting your position.

Hitler (Lenihan) thought that he could do what had never been done by so many before him and invade Russia ("Cheapest bailout in history anyone"?).

In doing so he failed on a monumental basis to understand what he was undertaking, and misunderstood facts which seem so obvious in hindsight (Russia is a damn big place, they can move their munitions factories out of reach of your bombers, Uncle Joe gives you a fair run for your money in the despot stakes so will fight every bit as nasty as you will, the purges left the likes of Zhukov and Vasilevsky etc)

And the results were very, very nasty!

I just don't think anyone understood this at the time, and I don't think anyone understood the significance of it at the time.

But there is disagreement as to at what point the war was lost, even 70 years after the event so lets not try to simplify things here, the only point by which we know for definite the war was lost was on surrender, that the trajectory was set before then was likely, but from which point is open to discussion.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm not saying the turning point has occurred within 3 months of their assuming office.

What I'm saying is that, this turning point already occurred in the past, at some stage BEFORE they assumed office - Because they are not prepared to do what is necessary.

I'm afraid that based on your thorough analysis of WWII history I'm still going to have to disagree with you. We are taking steps in the right direction, so surrender is not our only option at this time.

Dannyboy83

beeftotheheels wrote: »

And yet, and yet, I can cite many leading historians who disagree with your analysis.

Propaganda is necessary in war time, keeping moral up is necessary in war time, declaring victories as turning points is necessary in war time (see the similarities with the bond markets here?)

I'm not understanding the reference to Pearl harbor, you think that the Japanese in celebration of the Soviet offensive decided to bomb Pearl harbor? Or perhaps the Soviet victory caused them to reconsider the long march through Siberia to launch an assault on Moscow?

The Japanese had already signed a non-agression pact with Russia, 2 months prior to this, there was no co-ordination.
That's precisely why Stalin was able to move Siberian troops to Moscow.
The significance of the Battle of Moscow, was that, this was when the Germans lost the momentum.
Stalingrad and the Kursk were efforts, but they were doomed to fail anyway by then. Hitler should have listened to Guderian, shouldn't have diverted to Kiev, should have captured Moscow before the winter.
And then, when they suffered their first major defeat, the went and declared war on America, meaning they were doomed to the power of doomed.

I think your analogy is inspired by the way even though I disagree with it supporting your position.

Thanks.
I'm not trying to predict the future based on WW2 btw:), it was just a useful analogy.

Hitler (Lenihan) thought that he could do what had never been done by so many before him and invade Russia ("Cheapest bailout in history anyone"?).

In doing so he failed on a monumental basis to understand what he was undertaking, and misunderstood facts which seem so obvious in hindsight (Russia is a damn big place, they can move their munitions factories out of reach of your bombers, Uncle Joe gives you a fair run for your money in the despot stakes so will fight every bit as nasty as you will, the purges left the likes of Zhukov and Vasilevsky etc)

And the results were very, very nasty!

I just don't think anyone understood this at the time, and I don't think anyone understood the significance of it at the time.

I wouldn't even go that far.
Wouldn't compare actors or anything, I don't think there is a comparison to be made there, even a contrast.

But there is disagreement as to at what point the war was lost, even 70 years after the event so lets not try to simplify things here, the only point by which we know for definite the war was lost was on surrender, that the trajectory was set before then was likely, but from which point is open to discussion.

Fair enough, I can agree to that.
It's a lot more complicated anyway when you drill down.
Mainly I wanted to draw the analogy between choosing trajectory and then the inability to change the trajectory later.

I'm afraid that based on your thorough analysis of WWII history I'm still going to have to disagree with you. We are taking steps in the right direction, so surrender is not our only option at this time.

No, I fully agree with you there actually.
We still have (limited) options.
That would be to close the deficit, through balancing the budget and doing it a lot quicker than we are currently doing.
Or else, if we don't, hope the ECB/IMF will give us another bailout.

But as I see it, that trajectory is chosen.

Seloth

This thread is hilarious!

JustinDee

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A lot of Irish people are becoming very racist. Some don't even realise they're doing it. I hear a lot of comments in work most days now about Eastern Europeans

Irish people have always been like that. They just never needed to be like that at home before.
Immigration to this country has shown a lot of Irish people for what they really are. Everybody's pal when things go well then apathetic begrudging whingers when it isn't.

I love it. Always entertaining, especially the wiki-waggers on the internet. Its like being in a taxi 24-hrs a day.

Laminations

JustinDee wrote: »

Irish people have always been like that. They just never needed to be like that at home before.
Immigration to this country has shown a lot of Irish people for what they really are. Everybody's pal when things go well then apathetic begrudging whingers when it isn't.

Generalising on the attitudes of a whole nation, eh, racist.

JustinDee

Laminations wrote: »

Generalising on the attitudes of a whole nation, eh, racist.

Thats the point, son.

Laminations

JustinDee wrote: »

Thats the point, son.

The point is for you to racistly label a nation racist?
Is your point to demonstrate utter hypocrisy?
Some Irish people are racist, some are not.
Some French people are racist (and like baguettes), others do not
Some Romanians are racist, some are not.
Etc

Dannyboy83

This thread actually is hilarious.

I'll try one last time.

Irish people are becoming more racist, it's becoming a lowest common denominator in Irish society.
**** is hitting the fan in our society and people want somebody to blame.
Only a matter of time before an anti-immigrant, anti-europe party will seek to capitalise on this lowest common denominator.


This is how politics works. There is nothing out of the ordinary about it.
Substitute the word immigrant for Republican, Free State, British.

Et Voila!


(If people still cannot grasp this, please lock the thread)

Dannyboy83

JustinDee wrote: »

Irish people have always been like that. They just never needed to be like that at home before.
Immigration to this country has shown a lot of Irish people for what they really are. Everybody's pal when things go well then apathetic begrudging whingers when it isn't.

It's true, we didn't see anywhere near the same hostility during the Celtic Pyramid years.

I love it. Always entertaining, especially the wiki-waggers on the internet. Its like being in a taxi 24-hrs a day.

I don't.
I have friends who have left because they were tired of taking **** off Irish people.
I don't want to leave Ireland, but if an anti-immigrant group started to become popular here, I don't see that we'd have much choice.
It's bad enough as is.


It reminds me of Gay friends who live in London and won't come home to Ireland because of the grief they get here.

This country is turning into a massive ****hole.

JustinDee

Laminations wrote: »

The point is for you to racistly label a nation racist?
Is your point to demonstrate utter hypocrisy?
Some Irish people are racist, some are not.
Some French people are racist (and like baguettes), others do not
Some Romanians are racist, some are not.
Etc

If you don't get what I was saying then I'm sorry for that. You'll live.

dsmythy

Amazing what simple words can do. Anti-Europe and anti-immigrant vs anti-EU and anti-immigration.