Just lost respect for Kenny

Liam Byrne

Enda Kenny was asked why they are paying €800 million to UNSECURED/UNGUARANTEED bondholders, and waffled on about realities.

We elected you to be fair to and represent the Irish people, and paying out stuff that you have no legal obligation to do is unacceptable.

Values of investments go up or down; investors know that.

Cop on and stop throwing our money away, or else resign.

Your party did not get a vote from me to continue FF's waste.

Wolfe Tone

You voted for FG? How could you not know that it would be more of the same? Seemed obvious to me, FF and FG are the exact same except one sides great grandads signed the treaty.

Liam Byrne

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You voted for FG? How could you not know that it would be more of the same? Seemed obvious to me, FF and FG are the exact same except one sides great grandads signed the treaty.

Well the only other option available to me was to vote independent, so voting for a combination of FG & Labour (I didn't give FG first preference) was a way of ensuring that we got the corrupt FF out.

I had said at the time that it was a case of voting for the least-worst option.

But I also expected FG & Labour to act in our interests.....at least some bit.

Unfortunately I was wrong.

Sickened.

Independent will now be my only option, and unless we get 83 or more independents that isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Wolfe Tone

Well at least you admitted you got it wrong, my concern is that people like you will get it wrong again next time and vote FF back in as "the least worst option" to get the current shower out.

Still, I am hopeful that people will cop that FF and FG are the same, labour are the new greens and they need to vote for an alternative. Personally I hope that alternative is SF or the ULA.

Coillte_Bhoy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well the only other option available to me was to vote independent, so voting for a combination of FG & Labour (I didn't give FG first preference) was a way of ensuring that we got the corrupt FF out.

I had said at the time that it was a case of voting for the least-worst option.

But I also expected FG & Labour to act in our interests.....at least some bit.

Unfortunately I was wrong.

Sickened.

Independent will now be my only option, and unless we get 83 or more independents that isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Just what the country needs, a majority of Independents.:rolleyes: Really, why did you think FG/Lab would be any different when it came to the main issue? Because they said so?? In fairness you seem fairly clued in on politics so surely you knew there was a never a hope in hell of them standing up to the ECB/EU?

Liam Byrne

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well at least you admitted you got it wrong, my concern is that people like you will get it wrong again next time and vote FF back in as "the least worst option" to get the current shower out.

Don't worry about that. I haven't voted FF since Haughey ripped us off, and have no intention of ever doing so.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Personally I hope that alternative is SF or the ULA.

My view of SF is well-known, so I won't reiterate it here.

Liam Byrne

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Just what the country needs, a majority of Independents.:rolleyes: Really, why did you think FG/Lab would be any different when it came to the main issue? Because they said so?? In fairness you seem fairly clued in on politics so surely you knew there was a never a hope in hell of them standing up to the ECB/EU?

Well as I said there were 2 priorities; 1 was to ensure that FF were out, ending the culture of corruption, and 2 was a hope that they might have some balls and represent the country.

I take your point on the independents (it's far too variable, with a few decent ones and a few vultures like Healy-Rae and the likes of Lowry)

But the only other option is to not vote, and that's wrong too.

We really do not have anyone in this country prepared to do what's required, and that sickens me.

I've been asked about running for election and I've said no on the basis that I would probably last a week due to intolerance for the self-serving nature of what passes for a politician in this country.....promise everything and change nothing.

It sickens me that we are not only screwed by FF, but also by the lack of a party prepared to buck the trend and act towards a better, fair country.

guitarzero

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Enda Kenny was asked why they are paying €800 million to UNSECURED/UNGUARANTEED bondholders, and waffled on about realities.

We elected you to be fair to and represent the Irish people, and paying out stuff that you have no legal obligation to do is unacceptable.

Values of investments go up or down; investors know that.

Cop on and stop throwing our money away, or else resign.

Your party did not get a vote from me to continue FF's waste.

Seriously, k, dead serious, honestly right, here goes, ehem, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT!?!?!?!

For them to fulfill there promises?

La lala lalalala la lalala lala la..............

Drumpot

Liam , we have had our differances and I know you wanted better (we all did) but this is exactly what I was saying when I said might happen if you think anybody but Fianna Fail would be that much better . . I was never suggesting it was wrong to want FF out, I was just saying that benchmarking FG against them was setting low standards! I am sorry that , so far, I have been proven right!

FG supporters will correctly say that it is difficult to judge a government over months, but you can certainly pull them up on things they promised and failed to even awknowledge. Not answering opposition questions and spoiling debates is one of the smaller things they have completely adopted from an FF government they used to lambast for not being honest and communicating with their electorate.

I fear they are still in opposition mode thinking that they can keep avoiding hard answers to difficult problems. Promising the world, cutting nobody but still finding billions in savings. They are no longer on Pat Kennys frontline picking figures out of their holes!

Perhaps now, the people of Ireland will start asking proper questions of other parties and we might actually get real change!

anymore

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You voted for FG? How could you not know that it would be more of the same? Seemed obvious to me, FF and FG are the exact same except one sides great grandads signed the treaty.

I nbrought my teenage kid into the voting centre, gave him the ballot paper to fill in anyway he wished. Happily he didnt voted FF or SF. I am looking forward to boycotting the Presidential elections. After a lifetime of trying to be positive about Irish politicians, I now accept that 95% of them are just parasitic gob****es.

dlofnep

You got what you voted for I'm afraid. I'm content with the fact that I voted for Sinn Féin who did not believe it was right, just or even obligatory to pay out unsecured debt.

Drumpot

dlofnep wrote: »

You got what you voted for I'm afraid. I'm content with the fact that I voted for Sinn Féin who did not believe it was right, just or even obligatory to pay out unsecured debt.

I wouldnt be patting yourself on the back quite yet!

Dont think many people disagreed with Sinn Fein's stance on the bailout, people just didnt believe they had a plan on how to actually run the country once we had given people who lend us money the fingers.

They made a huge presumption that after spending the Pension reserve fund in 1 year, we would be able to go back to the markets completely ignoring the price that would potentially be put on Irish Bonds.

If sinn Fein can get their pie in the sky economics sorted, they may very well become a big player in the next election.

danbohan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Enda Kenny was asked why they are paying €800 million to UNSECURED/UNGUARANTEED bondholders, and waffled on about realities.

We elected you to be fair to and represent the Irish people, and paying out stuff that you have no legal obligation to do is unacceptable.

Values of investments go up or down; investors know that.

Cop on and stop throwing our money away, or else resign.

Your party did not get a vote from me to continue FF's waste.

i cannot believe you were naive enough to think there would be any real difference between fine gael , or fianna fail or the labour party .have a look at the people involved , see any difference in backgrounds , attitudes, ability , ? i dont, with the exception of some the younger ones like varadkar , maybe

pconn062

Wow, if Sinn Fein are really our best option then we really are screwed.

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

Liam , we have had our differances and I know you wanted better (we all did) but this is exactly what I was saying when I said might happen if you think anybody but Fianna Fail would be that much better

I don't think I ever said that they'd be much better.......just that they were less corrupt, which was an improvement.

But I did say at the time that that alone wouldn't be enough.

I'm seriously at a loss as to where this country is likely to go; unlike some others in this thread I cannot stomach SF as a viable option because of their double-standards re violence and because they have absolutely no idea of real economics having come from a subsidised statelet......and of course I also believe that they shouldn't be in the Dáil since they refuse to call this country by name, waffling on about 26 counties.

Basically they are still pandering to their core support, and while they stick with that they are completely at odds with my views.

But are they seriously looking like a possible option for the next election ? Just as FF's corruption and incompetence and anti-ordinary people mindset caused people to turn to FG & Labour (despite their obvious limitations), will FG & Labour's incompetence and anti-ordinary people mindset drive them to an SF that isn't good for the country either ?

Drumpot

pconn062 wrote: »

Wow, if Sinn Fein are really our best option then we really are screwed.

It really depends on whether or not people want real change or just something that looks like change but underneath really isnt.

For all the discussion of change with a "new" FG/Lab, people forget that many of our politicians (even in opposition) have been part of a defunct Dail for some time and they have all gotten used to a culture that born out of entitlement and a "we know best, we will do what we want without explaining ourselves" kind of attitude to its people.

Heres a small example of the sh*te that we let our governments away with. They got rid of the garda drivers . . Good on them . . But they replaced them with civilian drivers who get a lower basic wage . . But unlike the garda drivers, the civilians can claim mileage allowance. When Pat Rabbitte was asked how much of a real savings had been made by getting rid of guards, he got ratty and wouldnt answer because in truth the savings were little if anything. But publically the electorate thinks this problem was fixed by our dashing new government. Also know that one of the FG'ers hired his brother in Law to drive him around .

Cue the defenders - Sure they are only in government awhile - Sure why cant they hire family members etc etc etc . . These are the kinds of things that people rightly got very animated with FF about , but if you want real change you will apply the same disgusted standards to this government.

If people want real change they will stop excusing what is wrong.

Heres one question. Why have we former teachers running the department of finance and public service reform and two economists working in other ministerial positions ? Simply because they didnt suck their leaders hard enough. Partys are all about themselves and those at the top, nothing to do with whats best for the country.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

they have absolutely no idea of real economics having come from a subsidised statelet...

Hmm that could now also describe the 26 counties of the south :eek:

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Hmm that could now also describe the 26 counties of the south :eek:

The what ? There are only 6 counties in Munster.

Drumpot

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't think I ever said that they'd be much better.......just that they were less corrupt, which was an improvement.

But I did say at the time that that alone wouldn't be enough.

I'm seriously at a loss as to where this country is likely to go; unlike some others in this thread I cannot stomach SF as a viable option because of their double-standards re violence and because they have absolutely no idea of real economics having come from a subsidised statelet......and of course I also believe that they shouldn't be in the Dáil since they refuse to call this country by name, waffling on about 26 counties.

Basically they are still pandering to their core support, and while they stick with that they are completely at odds with my views.

But are they seriously looking like a possible option for the next election ? Just as FF's corruption and incompetence and anti-ordinary people mindset caused people to turn to FG & Labour (despite their obvious limitations), will FG & Labour's incompetence and anti-ordinary people mindset drive them to an SF that isn't good for the country either ?

I fear that they might very well be more peoples choice next time around. Adams is a clown and I genuinley believe (when I was on frontline) that Pearce Doherty doesnt actually believe half the sh*t he says regarding their economic position. If he gets into power and tweaks their views on economics, I think they could be a serious contender!

Whatever decisions FG are taking were going to be tough, but they are treating us like schmucks. I would of loved a regular (maybe every 3 months) address from the Taoiseach to keep us informed on events that are ever changing. This was one of their basic promises but they keep Kenny away from questioning etc as much as possible. This is soley to protect the party at the expense of clarity to the people of Ireland.

Labour were given the Public service reform by FG as a masterstroke. When they refuse to do anything to their core voters, they will eventually be forced to slash and burn (once this government has pillaged everybody else) the public service.

So at the very least I can see a large portion of voters who voted for the populist stance that labour took look for an alternative that equally offers them the pie in the sky waffle that Labour promised. People will still not want to bring themselves to vote FF, FG will of lost much of its initial popularity, so the only party worth voting for would be SF. Again I am speaking in terms of voters who jump on populist party bandwagons, not necessarily rational, long term thinking voters.

What FG are relying on is that Labour will be their Green party or PDs. They will be stuck in a position that is going to eventually have to slash the cost of public service and while they will have casualties, Lab will be the big loser. FG are also relying on the hope that there will be a European wide solution before the election. So they can announce how great they are for getting our Interest rates reduced and loan terms improved (when it had nothing to do with them!).

I used to say that we didnt need a new party, more a new way of thinking and voting. I do genuinley believe if people actually bothered their arse to at least keep tabs on what their politicians are doing (or not doing), we might end up getting a better party in power. But even from talking to a friend who is deep rooted in a particularly party, I think we may very well need a new party with new ideas and hungry, honest people who want to get into office the right way for the right reasons.

LostinBlanch

Liam,

FG/Lab have shown themselves to be nothing more than continuity FF.

Just with more handwringing and shoulder shrugging rather than the in your face arrogance and outright corruption of FF.

Meanwhile the bailout money laundering continues.

Scofflaw

I'm sure I'll get some stick for saying this, but there is an unpleasant possibility here, which is that what Fine Gael are doing they're doing because it's in the best interests of the country. Once you set aside the fantasies of telling everyone to stuff it and somehow walking away debt-free, the incoming government were going to have the same set of options as the outgoing one, and the same limited number of real-world options for dealing with them, because they were donning the strait-jacket prepared over the decade of the bubble.

Paying back the bank debt isn't about the banks, it's about the deficit. The deficit will not be sorted by 2013, or 2014, or whenever we're supposed to be re-entering the markets - and if the deficit isn't sorted, about the only option at this point is to look like people who pay their debts no matter whether they "guaranteed" them or not, because otherwise there is no chance of return to the markets at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Drumpot

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Liam,

FG/Lab have shown themselves to be nothing more than continuity FF.

Just with more handwringing and shoulder shrugging rather than the in your face arrogance and outright corruption of FF.

Meanwhile the bailout money laundering continues.

Theres plenty of time for them to learn to be arrogant and in your face. They have quickly learned how to avoid answering to the people of Ireland so it wont be long before they start speaking down to us all!

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

......because they were donning the strait-jacket prepared over the decade of the bubble.

They knew that when they applied for the job, and they knew what people wanted.

I remember my reaction when Mary Hanafin lied on Vincent Browne about the unguaranteed payout in January, and I am not partisan; if I criticised her for her stance on that then I'll criticise Kenny for his comments yesterday.

There is no obligation to pay out.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Paying back the bank debt isn't about the banks, it's about the deficit.

A deficit that will take longer to pay out if they keep throwing money away.

Drumpot

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure I'll get some stick for saying this, but there is an unpleasant possibility here, which is that what Fine Gael are doing they're doing because it's in the best interests of the country. Once you set aside the fantasies of telling everyone to stuff it and somehow walking away debt-free, the incoming government were going to have the same set of options as the outgoing one, and the same limited number of real-world options for dealing with them, because they were donning the strait-jacket prepared over the decade of the bubble.

Paying back the bank debt isn't about the banks, it's about the deficit. The deficit will not be sorted by 2013, or 2014, or whenever we're supposed to be re-entering the markets - and if the deficit isn't sorted, about the only option at this point is to look like people who pay their debts no matter whether they "guaranteed" them or not, because otherwise there is no chance of return to the markets at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Im not actually arguing about everything they are doing, I am arguing about how they are doing it. Whether I am right or wrong, I get the same sense of dissapointment from this government in terms of how I feel they are treating me as the electorate. Sure they cant even seem to communicate between themselves, let alone with their people.

While they have had limited choices to make, so far I think its obvious they will protect certain vested interest groups until they are forced into a corner. You might say that this is what any other party would do, if in power, but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be pulled up on it. And even when they do make a choice, they look like they are making stuff up (like the hospital fiasco) or lieing to us.

When people start excusing normal or expected practises in politics (that are more about protecting the party as opposed to the country), they allow these practises to continue without a challenge. We all know that Kenny is being shielded from the media to protect FG. I dont really care if any other country is doing it, but I think this country needs a regular address from our Taoiseach in these trying times. You can bet your ass if Kenny was able to speak like Pearce Doherty he would be on TV everyday and would be hammering opposition parties at Leaders question time! Ah but sure doesnt that make sense for the party so its ok!!!

Will doing things like communicating regularly with the Irish people, openly admitting U-turns or when they did things arseways sort out the problems of this country ? No, but it could start a long term better politics in this country if it forced parties to start putting the people first and putting populist stategies in the bin.

Maybe these boys will somehow end up doing the right thing for this country, but even if that comes to pass, I dont think people are wrong to highlight things that they do in the meantime that are just plain wrong . .

Scofflaw

Maybe these boys will somehow end up doing the right thing for this country, but even if that comes to pass, I dont think people are wrong to highlight things that they do in the meantime that are just plain wrong . .

I wouldn't argue with that at all. And I wouldn't argue that Fine Gael didn't give unrealistic promises in opposition, either. I would argue that accepting those promises was a bit unwise - politics is definitely a caveat emptor game.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Coillte_Bhoy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The what ? There are only 6 counties in Munster.

Well thanks for that.

Chucky the tree

I think expecting FG or any political party to go along with every single promise they make is very naive. Especially when it's guranteed to be a coliation Government.

Drumpot

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I think expecting FG or any political party to go along with every single promise they make is very naive. Especially when it's guranteed to be a coliation Government.

I dont think anybody expects all partys to be in a position to honor all their crazy promises. Perhaps the solution is not to promise things you are not sure you can deliver ? Just because we have become conformed into thinking that this is an ok practise to engage in pre-election, doesnt mean that we should just allow it to continue unchallanged.

I certainly dont think it helps in anyway by saying that people are naieve if they think politicians should keep to their word on things they promise for votes. I dont think it makes people naieve, it just means they want a better politician then the kind they have been offered thus far. Positive progression of politics in Ireland can come from wanting better, not excusing bad practise.

dlofnep

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure I'll get some stick for saying this, but there is an unpleasant possibility here, which is that what Fine Gael are doing they're doing because it's in the best interests of the country.

Crippling the state with unsustainable levels of debt, by paying off unguaranteed bondholders is not in the interests of the country. The only way we can return to the markets is by having sustainable levels of debt. That is the single most important clause.

So stop pretending that this is in the best interests of the state. It isn't.

Dannyboy83

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with that at all. And I wouldn't argue that Fine Gael didn't give unrealistic promises in opposition, either. I would argue that accepting those promises was a bit unwise - politics is definitely a caveat emptor game.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If you hire a builder to demolish your shed, and he builds you a conservatory instead - you give him his marching orders.
If you elect a politician to cut expenses, and they increases taxes instead - you are powerless to do anything until the next General Election.

Caveat Emptor was fine when you could hold politicians accountable.
Like the Ancient Greeks or Romans did.
I was listening to Dan Carlin's podcast on the Roman Republic, they were frequently assassinating politicians for corruption, for lies, for populism.

Caveat Emptor no longer really applies in business.
The Sale of Goods Act; enhanced consumer rights; legal standards of acceptance and so on.
Business has moved on.

We have nothing like that in Irish politics.
Irish politics has moved backwards if anything.

Our political system is broken; politics is one of the only professions where you can lie through your teeth to get a job, admit you have lied when you have the job, then get to keep the job anyway.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with that at all. And I wouldn't argue that Fine Gael didn't give unrealistic promises in opposition, either. I would argue that accepting those promises was a bit unwise - politics is definitely a caveat emptor game.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Completely backwards.

Instead of lowering people's expectations and telling them they should accept that politics is caveat emptor, we should kick out those who lie and make empty promises, thereby making everything above board and acceptable.

Then the politicians will become honest in their claims and say "we WILL do X and we will TRY to do Y", and people can make and informed decision, rather than basing the running of the country on "who is the most convincing bull****er".

Chucky the tree

Drumpot wrote: »

I dont think anybody expects all partys to be in a position to honor all their crazy promises. Perhaps the solution is not to promise things you are not sure you can deliver ? Just because we have become conformed into thinking that this is an ok practise to engage in pre-election, doesnt mean that we should just allow it to continue unchallanged.

I certainly dont think it helps in anyway by saying that people are naieve if they think politicians should keep to their word on things they promise for votes. I dont think it makes people naieve, it just means they want a better politician then the kind they have been offered thus far. Positive progression of politics in Ireland can come from wanting better, not excusing bad practise.

Politicians always lie, always have lied and always will lie in the future so expecting any different is pretty naive. You can say we shouldn't allow it to continue, but how? By electing an honest politician? Lol, goodluck finding one.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If you hire a builder to demolish your shed, and he builds you a conservatory instead - you give him his marching orders.
If you elect a politician to cut expenses, and they increases taxes instead - you are powerless to do anything until the next General Election.

Caveat Emptor was fine when you could hold politicians accountable.
Like the Ancient Greeks or Romans did.
I was listening to Dan Carlin's podcast on the Roman Republic, they were frequently assassinating politicians for corruption, for lies, for populism.

Caveat Emptor no longer really applies in business.
The Sale of Goods Act; enhanced consumer rights; legal standards of acceptance and so on.
Business has moved on.

We have nothing like that in Irish politics.
Irish politics has moved backwards if anything.

Our political system is broken; politics is one of the only professions where you can lie through your teeth to get a job, admit you have lied when you have the job, then get to keep the job anyway.

The electorate are the ones who are broken, they are the ones who vote for liars each and every time and seem to have no interest in changing that.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well as I said there were 2 priorities; 1 was to ensure that FF were out, ending the culture of corruption, and 2 was a hope that they might have some balls and represent the country.

I take your point on the independents (it's far too variable, with a few decent ones and a few vultures like Healy-Rae and the likes of Lowry)

But the only other option is to not vote, and that's wrong too.

We really do not have anyone in this country prepared to do what's required, and that sickens me.

I've been asked about running for election and I've said no on the basis that I would probably last a week due to intolerance for the self-serving nature of what passes for a politician in this country.....promise everything and change nothing.

It sickens me that we are not only screwed by FF, but also by the lack of a party prepared to buck the trend and act towards a better, fair country.

There are other options .. you could choose to join one of the political parties and try to influence change from the inside . . or you could form your own party

Of course, one person cannot influence change but if enough good people chose to engage in the process then change could be brought about . .

Change will not come from the bulletin boards !

anymore

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure I'll get some stick for saying this, but there is an unpleasant possibility here, which is that what Fine Gael are doing they're doing because it's in the best interests of the country. Once you set aside the fantasies of telling everyone to stuff it and somehow walking away debt-free, the incoming government were going to have the same set of options as the outgoing one, and the same limited number of real-world options for dealing with them, because they were donning the strait-jacket prepared over the decade of the bubble.

Paying back the bank debt isn't about the banks, it's about the deficit. The deficit will not be sorted by 2013, or 2014, or whenever we're supposed to be re-entering the markets - and if the deficit isn't sorted, about the only option at this point is to look like people who pay their debts no matter whether they "guaranteed" them or not, because otherwise there is no chance of return to the markets at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I dont think anyone is suggesting repudiating the entire indebtedness ! Am I correct in saying that ? Indeed I seem to remember a former FG leader,( and an economist to boot ) now deceased who was happy to accpet a partial debt write off - no doubt I will get some stick for mentioning that rather inconvenient fact

Scofflaw

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If you hire a builder to demolish your shed, and he builds you a conservatory instead - you give him his marching orders.
If you elect a politician to cut expenses, and they increases taxes instead - you are powerless to do anything until the next General Election.

Caveat Emptor was fine when you could hold politicians accountable.
Like the Ancient Greeks or Romans did.
I was listening to Dan Carlin's podcast on the Roman Republic, they were frequently assassinating politicians for corruption, for lies, for populism.

Caveat Emptor no longer really applies in business.
The Sale of Goods Act; enhanced consumer rights; legal standards of acceptance and so on.
Business has moved on.

We have nothing like that in Irish politics.
Irish politics has moved backwards if anything.

Our political system is broken; politics is one of the only professions where you can lie through your teeth to get a job, admit you have lied when you have the job, then get to keep the job anyway.

We can and do fire politicians, though - and just did so. Fine Gael know that the mismatch between what they promised and what they'll deliver will cost them votes at the next election - and that's how the system works.

Short of tying political parties to a literal, legally-enforceable contract, I'm not sure what other system would work better. And who exactly would judge whether they had performed the contract? Surely that has to be the electorate, who would vote on their performance...oh...hold on a moment...

Crippling the state with unsustainable levels of debt, by paying off unguaranteed bondholders is not in the interests of the country. The only way we can return to the markets is by having sustainable levels of debt. That is the single most important clause.

So stop pretending that this is in the best interests of the state. It isn't.

We can all agree that having high debt levels is certainly not in the interests of the State...but we do...and as long as we're running a deficit in the public finances...which we are...we need to acquire more debt. And as long as we need to acquire more debt...which we do...the question is whether it is cheaper in the long term to repudiate some of the debt at the expense of potentially higher costs for the acquisition of more, or not. You can call for the debt to be repudiated simply on the basis that you consider it odious, but that has nothing to do with the long-term benefits of doing so, and hence the long-term good of the country.

If repudiating these relatively small amounts of debt means another, say, two years not able to return to the markets, and spending those two years having our policies dictated at least in outline by the troika, then repudiating the debt produces the opposite of the sovereignty Sinn Fein are supposed to be advocating - which suggests that it's simply populist sloganeering, and would be abandoned if ever they found themselves in government. That's the joy of opposition - the ability to make unrealistic promises that you would no more be able to fulfil in government than any other party. The problem comes when you actually get into government...as per the thread. Sinn Fein's promises are no more realistic - indeed, a good deal less so - than Fine Gael's, and the gap between promise and action would be correspondingly larger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

There are other options .. you could choose to join one of the political parties and try to influence change from the inside . . or you could form your own party

Well there's none that even represents me, so joining one isn't an option.

I might look at the latter option - I know that Biggins was contemplating starting one for the most recent election, and I might just tie in with that to avoid it being "just one person".

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Completely backwards.

Instead of lowering people's expectations and telling them they should accept that politics is caveat emptor, we should kick out those who lie and make empty promises, thereby making everything above board and acceptable.

Then the politicians will become honest in their claims and say "we WILL do X and we will TRY to do Y", and people can make and informed decision, rather than basing the running of the country on "who is the most convincing bull****er".

We should . . but that requires that we have others who will step up to take their place. . not a bunch of ragbag independents like Luke Flanagan and Mick Wallace who will achieve nothing, but a structured and organised group of capable and principled politicians. .

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

We should . . but that requires that we have others who will step up to take their place. . not a bunch of ragbag independents like Luke Flanagan and Mick Wallace who will achieve nothing, but a structured and organised group of capable and principled politicians. .

"achieving nothing" is a far better result than achieving the downfall of the state and the bankrupting of ordinary people.

I haven't seen a "capable and principled politician" in years, and that "structured and organised grouping" that you refer to is usually the reason that politicians don't vote with their conscience and follow the stupid "party" whip.....of course, if they were "capable and principled" they wouldn't do that, so there might be a glimmer of hope in there somewhere.

How do you suggest it could start, though ? If I went in and proposed that, say, ALL expenses should be vouched and that childrens' allowance should be only paid for 2 children, how many of the current turkeys do you think would support me for that particular Christmas ? I'd be ostracised by the current elite like a shot.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well there's none that even represents me, so joining one isn't an option.

I might look at the latter option - I know that Biggins was contemplating starting one for the most recent election, and I might just tie in with that to avoid it being "just one person".

Its an option if you make it one . . Honestly Liam, having followed your views on boards for a number of years I doubt any party could represent you 100% . . but a parties 'representation' is developed by its membership . . If you choose to become involved, you get to influence that 'representation' . . It requires compromise of course but nothing was ever achieved without compromise

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"achieving nothing" is a far better result than achieving the downfall of the state and the bankrupting of ordinary people.

you really think that Luke and Mick (the almost-bankrupt property developer) could (in the process of achieving nothing) help to avoid the downfall of the state and the bankrupting of ordinary people ??

Scofflaw

anymore wrote: »

I dont think anyone is suggesting repudiating the entire indebtedness ! Am I correct in saying that ? Indeed I seem to remember a former FG leader,( and an economist to boot ) now deceased who was happy to accpet a partial debt write off - no doubt I will get some stick for mentioning that rather inconvenient fact

Both this government and the last have written off whatever debt they've considered to be burnable without serious consequences. That which isn't being burned isn't being burned because the government sees there as being consequences to doing so which outweigh the savings made by doing so. We have had a partial debt write-off already courtesy of junior bonds.

One can certainly argue that the government is being excessively cautious, much like the ECB - but to claim that there simply isn't any question about whether it should be done is short-sighted and thoughtless.

Politicians don't want to do things that are unpopular. Making the bondholders suffer instead of taxpayers would be wildly popular, as well as improving the government's financial position. That both the previous government and this government have pursued this unpopular path suggests that there are strong reasons for doing so. Because, amazingly enough, politicians would like even Liam to be happy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

you really think that Luke and Mick (the almost-bankrupt property developer) could (in the process of achieving nothing) help to avoid the downfall of the state and the bankrupting of ordinary people ??

Now that FF have already set it in motion, no.

My point was that if FF had "achieved nothing" we'd all be better off.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Now that FF have already set it in motion, no.

My point was that if FF had "achieved nothing" we'd all be better off.

Part of the problem was the achieving nothing. . particularly where it comes to banking regulation.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

That both the previous government and this government have pursued this unpopular path suggests that there are strong reasons for doing so.

There is obviously a strong reason for it, but it's not one that's in the interests of the Irish people; just as there was a strong reason for NAMA, but it wasn't in the interests of the Irish people - just the vested interests.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because, amazingly enough, politicians would like even Liam to be happy.

No they don't. Not unless its some sort of warped masochistic happiness that's available when you have barely enough cash to survive the additional stealth taxes and you look at con-men swanning off with massive unvouched expenses and bonuses and 3 month holidays.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Part of the problem was the achieving nothing. . particularly where it comes to banking regulation.

Ah yes - your old friend Bertie's mate, appointed nepotistically because he was "my friend".

If only Bertie had "done nothing" instead of appointing that useless twit.

If only the smokescreen of those "financial regulator" ads wasn't just a pathetic attempt to be seen to do something, lulling people into a false sense of security.

If only whoever manufactured those ads had "done nothing", allowing us to actively question whether banks were behaving instead of giving us the false impression that Mr Mahon Tribunal's mate was acting in our interests.

But having done nothing about that, FF proceeded to NOT "do nothing" on that secretive September night.

blahfckingblah

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm seriously at a loss as to where this country is likely to go; unlike some others in this thread I cannot stomach SF as a viable option because of their double-standards re violence and because they have absolutely no idea of real economics having come from a subsidised statelet......and of course I also believe that they shouldn't be in the Dáil since they refuse to call this country by name, waffling on about 26 counties.

Basically they are still pandering to their core support, and while they stick with that they are completely at odds with my views.

i was begining to see your point of view regarding sinn fein describing the country that way, then i saw that you suggested sinn feins elected representitives and economists come from a "subsidised statelet". its base is in parnell square and the majority of its dail representitives are from the republic and as much as it might pain you to hear it they have substantial support nationally

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah yes - your old friend Bertie's mate, appointed nepotistically because he was "my friend".

If only Bertie had "done nothing" instead of appointing that useless twit.

If only the smokescreen of those "financial regulator" ads wasn't just a pathetic attempt to be seen to do something, lulling people into a false sense of security.

If only whoever manufactured those ads had "done nothing", allowing us to actively question whether banks were behaving instead of giving us the false impression that Mr Mahon Tribunal's mate was acting in our interests.

But having done nothing about that, FF proceeded to NOT "do nothing" on that secretive September night.

'If only' indeed . . . 'If only's' are of little value at this stage. . I am more focused on looking forward . .

DexyDrain

Now it has dawned on me, this is why Ireland is a neutral country! Who would want to fight alongside an army who wants their commander to shout over the loudspeaker in the heat of battle "looks like we're f****d lads, supplies running low, food almost gone, Jesus if this goes on another 12 hours the enemy will win by default".

The most amazing thing about this whole saga is how few people realise we are in every sense at all out economic war, we are swimming with the sharks while trying to plug our wounds and swim at the same time. Britain would have been overrun within months if Churchill had just come out and said 'look the spitfires and hurricanes are being blown out of the skies faster than we can build them and their pilots are on the verge of complete physical and mental exhaustion.' It would have been honest, it would have given people pretty accurate expectations, but it would also have lost the war. Germany abandoned the invasion because they did not know how close to collapse the RAF really was. National interest often means being extremely tactical with the information you have to hand.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

'If only' indeed . . . 'If only's' are of little value at this stage. . I am more focused on looking forward . .

Strange how all FF members say that nowadays. None of them wanted to say it when they were in power, or think about where they were leading us.

Any sign of that Mahon Tribunal yet ? I know that the due date is in the past but since it hasn't been released yet we can also "look forward" to that.

Bad and all as Kenny is, at least he had some of my respect to lose.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There is obviously a strong reason for it, but it's not one that's in the interests of the Irish people; just as there was a strong reason for NAMA, but it wasn't in the interests of the Irish people - just the vested interests.

That's a point of view, and arguable.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No they don't. Not unless its some sort of warped masochistic happiness that's available when you have barely enough cash to survive the additional stealth taxes and you look at con-men swanning off with massive unvouched expenses and bonuses and 3 month holidays.

I didn't say it was possible to make you happy, Liam, only that they'd like you to be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I didn't say it was possible to make you happy, Liam

Completely uncalled for. Will I bother reporting it or will you do the decent thing and delete it yourself ?