FG & Lab vote in FF ex-minister to head public accounts committee

Nijmegen

John McGuinness, a junior minister in Brian Cowen's government till he stabbed them in the back to save his own electoral neck, and now Fianna Fail's spokesperson on small business, is the new head of the Public Accounts Committee.

He was in a contest against Shane Ross, and as FF couldn't muster the majority of votes on the committee required to swing it for themselves the boys in Fine Gael and Labour swung it for him, with an 11-2 result in the end.

Say what you like about Shane Ross, he'd be a lot, lot, lot more credible than a member of Fianna Fail to be the chief Oireachtas watchdog on government spending.

It seems FG, Labour and FF really are shameless in how they sow up things between themselves. FG and Labour wouldn't trust FF to run a bath, they tell us, but they're good enough to run the PAC.

Bull. You give me an easy ride, I'll give you an easy ride.

In the words of McGuinness himself, a Fianna Failer has been put in charge of "one of the most powerful Oireachtas committees. It has a key role to play in ensuring that there is accountability and transparency in the way Government agencies allocate, spend and manage their finances and in guaranteeing that the taxpayer receives value for money for every euro spent."

A Fianna Failer, to do that job? Bol****s.

From the Irish Times:

Fianna Fáil TD John McGuinness has been elected as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

He was elected by 11 votes to two when the committee met at Leinster House this afternoon.

Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Labour supported the Carlow-Kilkenny TD, while Independent Shane Ross and Sinn Fein TD Mary Lou McDonald voted against.

the groutch

lol at the simultaneous threads

this appointment shows how little difference there really is between the main 3 parties

later12

I would not think much of either deputy, Shane Ross or John McGuinness, for the chairmanship of the PAC. If it had to be a FFer I would say John McGuinness is a reasonable choice to do it. However, elsewhere among the opposition I would not put Ross at the top of the queue, perhaps somebody impartial from the Seanad, like Dr Martin McAleese.

Although, for the record, the PAC chair usually (always?) goes to a TD of the largest party in opposition.

bijapos

Nijmegen wrote: »

Say what you like about Shane Ross, he'd be a lot, lot, lot more credible than a member of Fianna Fail to be the chief Oireachtas watchdog on government spending.

Ross would have a little bit more credibility than McGuinness, not a lot. Ross was on Pat Kennys radio programme the Monday after the election. A listener asked per email if Ross was going to accept the €41,000 "leaders allowance" that every Independent gets. Ross said he knew nothing of this until just recently and was getting his staff to "look into it". Ross has previously attacked this same Leaders allowance in the Seanad, in a column for (I think) the Sunday Indo and on vincent Browne. The guy is a fraud and a liar imo, always was.

later10 wrote: »

Although, for the record, the PAC chair usually (always?) goes to a TD of the largest party in opposition.

Yes, but it doesn't have to. It just keeps everything stitched up nicely. If the Government are ever asked for progress they say its not in their hands. If the head of the PAC is ever asked for progress they say they are in opposition and its up to the govt to do something. A fcuking merry-go-round that helps all 226 members of the Oireachtas and nobody else.

If you want a member of the Oireachtas to head the PAC give it to Ming. Seems he went to all councillors in Roscommon and asked them to draw up a list of projects in their area where he can donate the money to. Should be ca €200,000 if the Dail runs its 5 year term. I heard this from a Roscommon councillor incidentally, a councillor who personally dislikes him.

Liam Byrne

I genuinely cannot believe that FG & Labour allowed this.

Ross did go down in my estimation when he wasn't present for discussion and votes about items that he was most vociferous about.

But an FF member in charge of "value for money" is so wrong any analogy will fall short.

ninty9er

John McGuinness has plenty of business experience, knows how to keep them going and I can't think of any media reports in which he cited Sean Fitzpatrick as a role model, something which Ross did.

Manach

Offhand is this one of those unwritten constitution rules, that the opposition always gets elected to a finance committee?

Inverse to the power of one!

I genuinely cannot believe that FG & Labour allowed this.

After all that's been and so little changed.......nothing different here, Just we've gone from FF to FF Zero and Labor Light.

Unsurprisingly, the fat remains.....

later12

Manach wrote: »

Offhand is this one of those unwritten constitution rules, that the opposition always gets elected to a finance committee?

Yes - particularly, the chair of the PAC. I do not know if it has ever been otherwise, I dont think so.

bijapos wrote: »

Yes, but it doesn't have to. It just keeps everything stitched up nicely.

Stitched up? The party is the largest party in opposition. I think it is reasonable - in general - that the largest party in opposition gets to chair the PAC. There are obvious reasons why it may not be appropriate for the governing parties to chair this committee, so the next best thing, within the context of parliamentary control, is for the responsibility to fall to the largest opposition party.

I can understand opposition to FF in this instance, certainly, but in general I would not call it a stitch up.

Chucky the tree

Don't see the big deal, not everyone in FF is corrupt and bent. Can anyone actually come up with a reason, apart from the fact he's a FF memeber, as to why he shouldn't get the job?

Nijmegen

later10 wrote: »

Yes - particularly, the chair of the PAC. I do not know if it has ever been otherwise, I dont think so.

Stitched up? The party is the largest party in opposition. I think it is reasonable - in general - that the largest party in opposition gets to chair the PAC. There are obvious reasons why it may not be appropriate for the governing parties to chair this committee, so the next best thing, within the context of parliamentary control, is for the responsibility to fall to the largest opposition party.

I can understand opposition to FF in this instance, certainly, but in general I would not call it a stitch up.

Well, convention is all well and good where it comes to honouring the dead and praising motherhood, but in the running of a good state I think you can pick and choose what you ignore. Labour and FG certainly do pick and choose - convention says that they abstain from the vote.

Fianna Fail is not the largest opposition party by the kind of country mile previously enjoyed (hence their big struggle to elect a chair of the PAC with the government parties abstaining), having 20 seats to their next rival with 16 (technical group) or 14 (Sinn Fein).

This is against the 2007 election, where FG had 51 seats to Labours 20, or 2002 where it was 30 to 20 (the narrowest in previous memory), or 54 to 17 in 1997... And so on.

So in that sense, convention has been usurped by the moving times. There was a tie, which did not happen in the past, and the government had the opportunity to break it.

They chose to vote, in this instance, for a representative of a party that they accused during their time in office of going against almost all the PAC is supposed to stand for as McGuinness tells it in the quote above.

Ross isn't everyone's cup of tea, but even if you consider him a populist, he's still a populist who has the blood of public sector waste mongers on his hands.

bijapos

later10 wrote: »

I can understand opposition to FF in this instance, certainly, but in general I would not call it a stitch up.

I meant stitched up in that the three main parties are quite happy to shover the position around amongst themselves so ensuing that little or no reform will take place in regard to politicians expenses.

In hindsight maybe I should have said "sown up", might have been a little clearer.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Don't see the big deal, not everyone in FF is corrupt and bent. Can anyone actually come up with a reason, apart from the fact he's a FF memeber, as to why he shouldn't get the job?

To be fair nobody in FG, Lab or FF is suited to the post, we need someone independent who is not scared of the reaction from party colleagues ehrn they do instigate reform.

Nijmegen wrote: »

Ross isn't everyone's cup of tea, but even if you consider him a populist, he's still a populist who has the blood of public sector waste mongers on his hands.

.........and a populist he is, one who is quite content to stuff his own pockets full of taxpayers money when it suits him. I'm afraid my own personal experience of Ross is that he talks the talk but doesnt feel he has to walk the walk. He would be useless when it came to cutting his own expenses.

Nijmegen

Ok - but the available choices were McGuinness (FF) or Ross (Ind).

In choosing FF the established parties show that they are simply a part of a well established and cosy golden circle.

Liam Byrne

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Don't see the big deal, not everyone in FF is corrupt and bent. Can anyone actually come up with a reason, apart from the fact he's a FF memeber, as to why he shouldn't get the job?

Everyone in FF is associated with criminal levels of waste because if they objected or voted against it we'd have heard about it.

Unless he went against the whip and voted with some level of a conscience, he's implicated in their collective decisions by choosing to remain a member and actively supporting their voting decisions.

It's hilarious - FF supporters want to implicate US even when we had nothing to do with the greed or the boom and voted AGAINST those decisions and party, and yet want to absolve their members who WERE involved and voted FOR those decisions.

LostinBlanch

This is the final straw for me. What with all the broken promises and blindly following FFs policies that are hastening this country on it's road to ruin. Now FG/LAB vote in a senior FF figure to oversight of govt spending (!) FG/LAB have shown themselves to be nothing more than Continuity FF.

bleg

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Don't see the big deal, not everyone in FF is corrupt and bent. Can anyone actually come up with a reason, apart from the fact he's a FF memeber, as to why he shouldn't get the job?

It ****ing stinks. We were supposed to be rid of this "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" party politics. Nothing against him being elected but the whip should not have been imposed.

Chucky the tree

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Everyone in FF is associated with criminal levels of waste because if they objected or voted against it we'd have heard about it.

Unless he went against the whip and voted with some level of a conscience, he's implicated in their collective decisions by choosing to remain a member and actively supporting their voting decisions.

It's hilarious - FF supporters want to implicate US even when we had nothing to do with the greed or the boom and voted AGAINST those decisions and party, and yet want to absolve their members who WERE involved and voted FOR those decisions.

lol, yea I'm sure you were very against all the increase spending of the Government. :pac:

Laminations

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Don't see the big deal, not everyone in FF is corrupt and bent. Can anyone actually come up with a reason, apart from the fact he's a FF memeber, as to why he shouldn't get the job?

The reason is because he is FF. Your request is unfair. It's like asking

'Can anyone actually come up with a reason, apart from the fact Tim is a pedophile, as to why he shouldn't get the child minders position?'

And no I'm not comparing FF with pedophiles I'm suggesting that past or current affiliations should be taken into consideration in these situations.

In the past (very recent past) FF hasn't exactly gone hand in hand with financial prudence and accountability. If that reason isn't good enough for you then how about not choosing him out of respect for the electorates wishes. It's quite obvious the electorate wanted FF sent to Coventry, and instead FG and Labour give em jobs. Jobs for the boys, the insiders.

Liam Byrne

Chucky the tree wrote: »

lol, yea I'm sure you were very against all the increase spending of the Government. :pac:

You can't be sure of anything because you don't know me.

But feel free to make convenient assumptions if you think it'll help your case.... :rolleyes:

For those more interested in facts and discussion rather than snide "lols", I'll make the point that many of us made the incorrect assumption that FF at least vaguely knew what they were doing, and while I would always recommend putting money away for a rainy day and spotted that the bubble was crazy, I would have liked to have had trust in the government that they could afford such expenditure in a sustainable way.

I couldn't have that, however, because of the ridiculous ego-projects and the fact that FF's measure of "success" and subsequent boast was how much money they threw at a problem, rather than how quickly it was solved.

So I'll save you some assumptions; yes I was against their spending.

What was your point - minus the incorrect assumption - again?

Scofflaw

McGuinness isn't a bad choice - a lot more clued in than the average TD. I appreciate the point that as a government TD he will have voted for a lot of objectionable things, but I would tend to blame the Whip system for that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

McGuinness isn't a bad choice - a lot more clued in than the average TD. I appreciate the point that as a government TD he will have voted for a lot of objectionable things, but I would tend to blame the Whip system for that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw we're sick of them blaming "the system", be it for holidays, pensions, expenses or bad voting.

They either work for us and vote with their conscience or not. It's simple.

Not to mention the fact that the only ones who can fix "the system" are those who won't vote against it and will then blame "the system" for their votes. It's a ridiculous situation.

jmayo

Do not agree with this.
It ranks up there with having liam lawlor chair the ethics committee.

It is time FG/Lab copped on and not play by the usual party rules as they are unofficially constituted in the Dáil.

People may slag off Ross, but it he has highlighted more cr** in his time than the rest of them put together.

Or perhaps people have never bothered their ar**es watching any of his committee interviews of ex AIB heads or his insistent questioning of Fás spending, his challenge to the EBS board which probably ended up saving us billions.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Scofflaw we're sick of them blaming "the system", be it for holidays, pensions, expenses or bad voting.

They either work for us and vote with their conscience or not. It's simple.

Not to mention the fact that the only ones who can fix "the system" are those who won't vote against it and will then blame "the system" for their votes. It's a ridiculous situation.

Then clearly more public pressure for reform of the system is needed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

The current government has been elected with a mandate toward fixing the system.

I find it a bit distasteful that a party that ran on the slogan of change is doing this because it is the way things have always been done.

More and more, FG/Labour are revealing that they want a hard left government elected next time or Libertas. Oh joy.

Not much point rebuilding ourselves with a still broken system as we will just end up back here in another 20 years with so much debt from this disaster that we won't be able to save ourselves next time.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Then clearly more public pressure for reform of the system is needed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, a better class of politician is needed - one that takes the initiative and votes with a conscience rather than what they can get away with.

"The system" means that it's highly unlikely that I would be caught if I robbed a house up the road......however I simply wouldn't do it.

And yes, I know that's illegal, however the stuff we have seen - fraudulent invoices, "expenses" for so-called expenses that weren't incurred, etc SHOULD BE, so that distinction isn't clear-cut.

Chucky the tree

Laminations wrote: »

The reason is because he is FF. Your request is unfair. It's like asking

'Can anyone actually come up with a reason, apart from the fact Tim is a pedophile, as to why he shouldn't get the child minders position?'

And no I'm not comparing FF with pedophiles I'm suggesting that past or current affiliations should be taken into consideration in these situations.

In the past (very recent past) FF hasn't exactly gone hand in hand with financial prudence and accountability. If that reason isn't good enough for you then how about not choosing him out of respect for the electorates wishes. It's quite obvious the electorate wanted FF sent to Coventry, and instead FG and Labour give em jobs. Jobs for the boys, the insiders.

How exactly is it obvious that the party that got the 3rd largest number of seats aren't wanted by the electorate?

It's clear people are happy with FF still, they had 20 seats, 6 more then the next party Sin Fein. I mean FF got a hell of a lot more votes then Shane Ross did so I think for democracy purposes it's right that the seat goes to FF and to the largest as has always been the case. It's clear there are people who want FF to have a hand in Government, while that can't be achieved I think it's only fair they are given important positions to highlight there popularity with the people.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can't be sure of anything because you don't know me.

But feel free to make convenient assumptions if you think it'll help your case.... :rolleyes:

For those more interested in facts and discussion rather than snide "lols", I'll make the point that many of us made the incorrect assumption that FF at least vaguely knew what they were doing, and while I would always recommend putting money away for a rainy day and spotted that the bubble was crazy, I would have liked to have had trust in the government that they could afford such expenditure in a sustainable way.

I couldn't have that, however, because of the ridiculous ego-projects and the fact that FF's measure of "success" and subsequent boast was how much money they threw at a problem, rather than how quickly it was solved.

So I'll save you some assumptions; yes I was against their spending.

What was your point - minus the incorrect assumption - again?

Fair enough. I can only assume you haven't voted in a general election in a long long time then.

Liam Byrne

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Fair enough. I can only assume you haven't voted in a general election in a long long time then.

Did you not learn from your earlier post not to make incorrect assumptions ?

And if you're going to trot out the FF line, I'll pre-empt that.

A gambler and a benefactor both spend €50,000......one is wasting it, one is making proper use of it, but both spend the same amount.

I will acknowledge that FG & Labour seem to have lost their way, and the only thing they have going for them are that they didn't cause the mess and aren't as corrupt as FF, but I can reassure you that if they keep going the way that they are then I won't be voting for them again.

THAT may put me in a position from which I am unable to justify voting for the "least worst", and therefore don't vote at all, but since you're referring to prior to/up to now, you're wrong. Again.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I genuinely cannot believe that FG & Labour allowed this.

Ross did go down in my estimation when he wasn't present for discussion and votes about items that he was most vociferous about.

But an FF member in charge of "value for money" is so wrong any analogy will fall short.

I felt nauseous when I heard this. The reason many of us voted for FG was to drive the most appalling Government this country has ever seen out of office and as far away from positions of power as possible. This is little better than a betrayal and from a strategic point of view it begins the rehabilitation of Fianna Fail. If FG and Labour feel FF can be trusted with the chairmanship of the most important Dail Committee, then why should the average voter not feel that they can trust their local FF politician - truly Enda Kenny has earned the sobriquet ' Useless Enda'. What a complete waste of space ! I feel sorrty for some Fg Tds, but the reality is that this disgraceful manoeuvre is jsut part of the cynical ' pass the parcel' that the three main political parties engage in. I imagine in the privacy of the Dail Bar they will all have a little celebratory drink.
One for all and all for one !:(

Chucky the tree

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Did you not learn from your earlier post not to make incorrect assumptions ?

And if you're going to trot out the FF line, I'll pre-empt that.

A gambler and a benefactor both spend €50,000......one is wasting it, one is making proper use of it, but both spend the same amount.

I will acknowledge that FG & Labour seem to have lost their way, and the only thing they have going for them are that they didn't cause the mess and aren't as corrupt as FF, but I can reassure you that if they keep going the way that they are then I won't be voting for them again.

THAT may put me in a position from which I am unable to justify voting for the "least worst", and therefore don't vote at all, but since you're referring to prior to/up to now, you're wrong. Again.

I really have no know idea who you could have voted for in 2007 or the years before who didn't have a policy of spend, spend, spend. Knock FF all you want for causing the mess, but at least realise that the mess would have been caused by any other party, arguable not as bad but we still would have been in bad situation.

Liam Byrne

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I really have no know idea who you could have voted for in 2007 or the years before who didn't have a policy of spend, spend, spend.

As I said, it all depends on what you're spending it on, and what you get in return.

Knock FF all you want for causing the mess, but at least realise that the mess would could have been caused by any other party

Could - yes. Would : pure unsubstantiated conjecture.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

......arguable not as bad but we still would have been in bad situation.

It's the scale of the situation that has crippled us, along with the incorrect assumption trotted out by FF that "we all" got greedy, in order to justify them screwing "us all".

Chucky the tree

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I said, it all depends on what you're spending it on, and what you get in return.

Could - yes. Would : pure unsubstantiated conjecture.

It's the scale of the situation that has crippled us, along with the incorrect assumption trotted out by FF that "we all" got greedy, in order to justify them screwing "us all".

Fine Gaels manifesot in 2007:
- So increasing OAP to €300 a week
- Free health insurance for under 16
- An extra 100,000 medical cards for families
- free GP visits for under 5's
- 2,000 more Garda
- More teachers
- Cut in income tax

What return would that have gotten us? A nice balanced budget? Hardly. Unsubstansiated conjuncture - wel if you can tell me how FG could have spend more while increased taxes all while not ending up with a hge budget deficit then I'd love to hear it. Maybe they were going to plant money trees.

the groutch

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Fine Gaels manifesot in 2007:
- So increasing OAP to €300 a week
- Free health insurance for under 16
- An extra 100,000 medical cards for families
- free GP visits for under 5's
- 2,000 more Garda
- More teachers
- Cut in income tax

What return would that have gotten us? A nice balanced budget? Hardly. Unsubstansiated conjuncture - wel if you can tell me how FG could have spend more while increased taxes all while not ending up with a hge budget deficit then I'd love to hear it. Maybe they were going to plant money trees.

which is why the three main parties are essentially all the same, they just look after different interest groups between elections

people had a chance for REAL change, but they blew it voting for FF Lite

Liam Byrne

the groutch wrote: »

which is why the three main parties are essentially all the same, they just look after different interest groups between elections

people had a chance for REAL change, but they blew it voting for FF Lite

Who else was there to vote for? Short of having 166 independents in there, what other option was there?

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Who else was there to vote for? Short of having 166 independents in there, what other option was there?

Well clearly a lot of people decided to vote Sinn Fein though it was not an option I felt I could pursue.

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

Well clearly a lot of people decided to vote Sinn Fein though it was not an option I felt I could pursue.

Oh, I know they ran for election, but like yourself they were not an option for me because of what they stand for.

I don't want to turn this into an SF bashing thread, so let's leave that as a simple case of "couldn't vote for them", leaving my original question intact - who else was there to vote for ?

And - given that the election is done and dusted and FG & Labour will be judged on their performance - the pertinent question (given FG & Labour's decisions to date) is probably "who the hell can we vote for next time around that will even remotely represent our beliefs and interests ?"

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh, I know they ran for election, but like yourself they were not an option for me because of what they stand for.

I don't want to turn this into an SF bashing thread, so let's leave that as a simple case of "couldn't vote for them", leaving my original question intact - who else was there to vote for ?

And - given that the election is done and dusted and FG & Labour will be judged on their performance - the pertinent question (given FG & Labour's decisions to date) is probably "who the hell can we vote for next time around that will even remotely represent our beliefs and interests ?"

Well Liam you cant actually say 'Lets ignore them" for what ever reason. The reality is that by the time the next GE comes around they will have gone further down the road of rehabilitation. I went into to the Cork City to see the election count. What struck me was the relatively young age profile of the Shinners and thier supporters compared to the other parties. SF got a TD in the north side and came damn near in the Southside -
Well as i referred to in a previous post, if FG feel that FF can be trusted with the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee, then why should the local FF man not be trusted ? That is the inexorable logic that follows on from the the decision of FG/Labour support for FF to run the PAC. At the next election, B Ahern is gone from the scene as is Brian Cowen, Brian Lenihan, Mary Harney and many of the electorate will never have heard of Charlie McCreevy. Some will remember that the very last leader of of the PDs is now a Junior Minister in Fine Gael and that FG welcomed another PD man, Pat Cox, back into their open arms. Enda Kenny will inevitably continue to amuse/appall the country with his gaffes. I would say that FF's chances of a comeback have improved a little already - much as i hate to say it. We know that Gilmore would run with open arms into the clutches of FF if that kept him in power - in fact at this stage, I would say Gilmore is really an FFer at heart.

nuac

McGuinness seems tgo have some practic al experience

Ross is just a jouralist with a posh accent.

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

Well Liam you cant actually say 'Lets ignore them" for what ever reason. The reality is that by the time the next GE comes around they will have gone further down the road of rehabilitation.

It's a debate for a separate thread. But I'm not ignoring them - I'm discounting them.

I just know that they couldn't possibly represent me or my views, and "further down the road to rehabilitation" is debatable, since they still engage blinkered double-standards and only see fault with "the other side" and only demand justice for "their own side".

Since - in addition to detesting their stance on other issues - I'm on neither side, they will not be acceptable as an option unless they change so much that they alienate their core support and start calling a spade a spade, which I sincerely doubt that they will ever do.

Anyway, we'll start a thread on that closer to the next election. For now we're discussing the fact that FG & Labour are fast writing themselves out of the equation as palatable options too, leaving me with no-one to vote for in said election.

Nijmegen

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Anyway, we'll start a thread on that closer to the next election. For now we're discussing the fact that FG & Labour are fast writing themselves out of the equation as palatable options too, leaving me with no-one to vote for in said election.

You have raised a rather interesting issue for the Irish electorate: If FG and Labour fail to impress, or convince us that they're just like FF... Who do we vote for?

A minority of Labour's voters - more center than left - and a very small fraction of FG's would go left into the arms of Sinn Fein or further afield.

Independents, while providing some real value in the chamber at this time as a good opposition, are not a sustainable answer to providing a government.

The only current party a moderate voter can look at is Fianna Fail. It's uncertain if the party will even have its house in order to capitalise on that, but regardless a lot of people will - or should and will be reminded that they should - find it difficult to go vote for FF after everything.

FF dropped 58 seats, FG and Labour picked up 42 of those. Moderate independents picked up (arguably) 4, for a total of 46 seats.

The left in SF and ULA got 14 of the swing, the balance of 5 seats go to indies of whatever hue.

Let's say of the 17 Labour picked up 7 are going back to the left, giving you 39 FF (2007) moderate seats in play at the next election from that source.

I'll give myself room for margin of error and say 23.5% of the electorate, so between a fifth and a quarter, is up for grabs from that source alone. Then you begin eating into the moderate base FG and Lab picked up in 2007 (that old PD vote, for one), and you maybe get a discontentment bounce that helps that along.

Well, there's a lot of room for a new party or set of parties in the center and, perhaps (less so) center right, to replace the Goliaths.

I'm not saying it will happen - it'll require such a movement to be competently set up, and FG, Lab and FF won't sit idly by and let it eat their lunches. But it's interesting.

thebman

This is why I think we will/should see Libertas run in the next election.

They would steal a lot of the current vote from FG's and Sinn Fein would get most of the Labour vote I think.

All they have to promise is real change which the big parties have failed to.

Nijmegen

thebman wrote: »

This is why I think we will/should see Libertas run in the next election.

They would steal a lot of the current vote from FG's and Sinn Fein would get most of the Labour vote I think.

All they have to promise is real change which the big parties have failed to.

Well, I think Libertas has shot its bolt in the past. It's too associated with the fringe right to really connect beyond, maybe, some ex-PD voters.

Irish people tend to live more moderately, in the middle of the spectrum, like most people in stable democracies for that matter...

thebman

Nijmegen wrote: »

Well, I think Libertas has shot its bolt in the past. It's too associated with the fringe right to really connect beyond, maybe, some ex-PD voters.

Irish people tend to live more moderately, in the middle of the spectrum, like most people in stable democracies for that matter...

Well yes but when people want change and the main parties refuse to allow change as FG are being discovered to be no different to FG, people may turn to the fringes to destabilize our democracy in an attempt to change the system.

That is why when economies collapse, crazy parties come to the top. Which is why it is so important that the FG/Labour collation actually change the political system to the level the electorate want or they may find Ireland turn to the fringes to try to change our system so we don't have a corrupt political system.

If Libertas don't rise than that will only leave Sinn Fein for such people to turn to.

Chucky the tree

thebman wrote: »

Well yes but when people want change and the main parties refuse to allow change as FG are being discovered to be no different to FG, people may turn to the fringes to destabilize our democracy in an attempt to change the system.

That is why when economies collapse, crazy parties come to the top. Which is why it is so important that the FG/Labour collation actually change the political system to the level the electorate want or they may find Ireland turn to the fringes to try to change our system so we don't have a corrupt political system.

If Libertas don't rise than that will only leave Sinn Fein for such people to turn to.

Sinn Fein are as bad as the others. A simple look through their expenses claim proves it.

thebman

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Sinn Fein are as bad as the others. A simple look through their expenses claim proves it.

Do you think most people will do that come next election?

They didn't do it for FG...

anymore

thebman wrote: »

Do you think most people will do that come next election?

They didn't do it for FG...

FG were very quick to forget about the Moriarity Report- why is that ?

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

FG were very quick to forget about the Moriarity Report- why is that ?

They kicked out Lowry. That's what makes them slightly more credible than FF - they do actually get rid of the bad guys.

Still crap decision-makers, mind, so that improvement over FF ain't enough.

Min

John McGuinness is on the Marian Finucane show.

Min

I voted for John McGuinness, he says what he thinks, I know him and he does work for the country and his constituents.

John said Brian Cowen was upset when finance minister when he said the public service was not fit for service and it needed major reform, he was summoned by Bertie Ahern to meet him and Bertie had Cowen with him and they had a 'manly' discussion.
Berie and Brian were not happy at all with McGuinness and what he was doing on the public accounts committee as vice chairman, Pat Rabbitte on the public accounts committee was supporting the same reform measures that McGuinness wanted.
Bertie and Cowen put an end to any idea of reform.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They kicked out Lowry. That's what makes them slightly more credible than FF - they do actually get rid of the bad guys.

Still crap decision-makers, mind, so that improvement over FF ain't enough.

Well, actually, I was more focused on the role former Taoiseach John Bruton played in the affair - he was the man at the top who bore ultimate responsibility for the awarding of the contract. And of course in the wider sense FG and Labour now have the responsibility for dealing with questions that should arise from this and other tribunals. For example should the ownership or domination of multiple media outlets by wealthy individuals be restricted further. Should the position of ' Wealthy Tax Exiles' and the influence they exert over Irish society be examined and possibly be restricted. And so on.

Chucky the tree

thebman wrote: »

Do you think most people will do that come next election?

They didn't do it for FG...

Or maybe they did do it for the last election but just realised everyone is as bent as each other so they can either not vote or vote the the best of very bad bunch as they see it.

thebman

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Or maybe they did do it for the last election but just realised everyone is as bent as each other so they can either not vote or vote the the best of very bad bunch as they see it.

If they do they are wrong.

Other nations don't have the same level of abuse of the system as us. it is clearly a fault with our system that allows and practically encourages such behavior.