Sinn Fein/ULA and Economics

Richard Hillman

If hypothetically the government broke down tomorrow and Sinn Fein and the ULA were elected into power, say a joint coalition. I would like to know from the supporters of these groups, what would be their respective plans be to turn the economy around?

I would like to know about their future plan rather than what they would have done.

donvito99

We'd all be screwed, neither have provided any credible solutions. All they do is put up childish protests inside or outside the Dáil, with soundbite after soundbite after soundbite being communicated to the eejits that actually voted for these people.

Soldie

According the ULA's website, this is their plan:

• Scrap the EU/IMF deal
• Tax the rich
• Reverse the cuts
• Nationalise the banking and construction sectors
• Get rid of bin tax and any other household taxes
• Increase corporation tax
• Reduce the working week without loss of pay and share the work with the unemployed
• Create a public works program
• Nationalise the oil and gas industry
• Get rid of all anti-immigration laws

meglome

I thought the words Sinn Fein/ULA and the word economics were mutually exclusive. Maybe someone will explain it differently though.

Nelson Muntz

Soldie wrote: »

According the ULA's website, this is their plan:

• Scrap the EU/IMF deal
• Tax the rich
• Reverse the cuts
• Nationalise the banking and construction sectors
• Reduce the working week without loss of pay and share the work with the unemployed
• Create a public works program
• Nationalise the oil and gas industry
• Get rid of all anti-immigration laws

Easy things to say when you know you will never get near power

RichardAnd

Though I do think that many of the ULA members are honest in that the believe what they are doing is right, I don't think they fully understand the situation.

Take People Before Profit, for example. On their website, they make the following statement on transport;

Cheaper fares, extra buses and major investment in an integrated public transport system to reduce congestion and pollution.

Well that's great but the question arises, how can it be paid for? A great number of their promises seem to follow the same route, not that empty promises are anything new. When this is brought up however, the answer always seems to be something like "let the rich pay". I don't like to put down other people's beliefs but alot of that seems to be a little fast and loose.

Chucky the tree

I think both parties know there ideas are ridiculous, certainly a lot of Sinn Feinn supporters do. Most of them will avoid any kind of discussion on it here though and they know they can't defend the indefensible. As you say though, every political party lies so Sinn Feinn are no different then all the other politicians but it's the supporters getting up on there high horse beating the drum about how they aren't is what's laughable.

dsmythy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I think both parties know there ideas are ridiculous, certainly a lot of Sinn Feinn supporters do. Most of them will avoid any kind of discussion on it here though and they know they can't defend the indefensible. As you say though, every political party lies so Sinn Feinn are no different then all the other politicians but it's the supporters getting up on there high horse beating the drum about how they aren't is what's laughable.

I wouldn't say it's lying. It's more like they say all these things to get into power with the intention of carrying them out only to be hit by a reality check when it comes to implementing them.

For example the ULA tax the rich and bump up corporation tax. All well and good until those on the end of massive tax rises say thanks, but no thanks. They probably keep their immigration policy super quiet too lest their voters hear about it.

ei.sdraob

refer to Greece for an example

An Teashop

You may have a point. BUT for ff and fg supporters to look down their nose with regards economic policy is also laughable. For example On another thread yesterday some pointed out Endas "contract" from a few years back. This was the know all fg's strategy which we know now to be redicilous.

Parties are run by principles. The fg and ff principal i.e. Bank guarantees, paying of bondholders, is keeping us from falling if a cliff for now. But the people they are taking advice from for the past years (europe and troika) aren't exactly full of ideas either and what ideas they do have are all stalling the inevitable. The euro experiment is failing and is doomed to fail. This will have repercussions on Ireland which none of us including fg know exactly what will be.

Point is, some toffs in this country need to stop looking down their noses at others. Ff screwed it up, fg watched and let it happen and now their policy is to do what Europe say.

Funny how ff and fg supporters are laughing at sf etc while the rest of the world is laughing at these gombeens.

LeixlipRed

ULA is comprised mostly of revolutionary socialists, there never will be a majority ULA government under our system of parliamentary democracy.

jimmycrackcorm

The ula are never really questioned about the mechanics of their policy. Eg. If they believe that the gas and oil should be nationalised then why not we just invest in drilling ourselves. Surely with all these hundreds of billions of reserves we have it would be worthwhile for us to buy in the expertise and technology to do it completely and keep all the profits.

But of course the ULA are the magpies of the political world.

p1akuw47h5r3it

LeixlipRed wrote: »

ULA is comprised mostly of revolutionary socialists, there never will be a majority ULA government under our system of parliamentary democracy.

They'll never be in Government full stop.

Drumcondra Mafia

Soldie wrote: »

According the ULA's website, this is their plan:

• Scrap the EU/IMF deal
• Tax the rich
• Reverse the cuts
• Nationalise the banking and construction sectors
• Get rid of bin tax and any other household taxes
• Increase corporation tax
• Reduce the working week without loss of pay and share the work with the unemployed
• Create a public works program
• Nationalise the oil and gas industry
• Get rid of all anti-immigration laws

We are screwed. What until the socialist "wurker" barks at Big Joe about those immigrants taken "our jobs". Clearly Joe does not understand school and hospital planning.

How do they expect to create public works program without money? Will they get the best skilled to come on board?

Increase Corporation Tax? How about the government, when looking for industry etc being more picky about the type of companies that come here when dishing out the grants.

Reduce working week without loss, oh Lord for we don't live in utopia. Share the work with the unemployed, wonder will our distinguished TD's be willing to let the ordinary "wurker" do his job for a few days with the wages etc? What is the point going to Third Level Education with this attitude?


Have these idiots actually priced all of this and does it contain detailed plans as to who this can be all achieved?

Its depressing that we have Left Wing Groups that are completely devoid of reality

jimmycrackcorm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

They'll never be in Government full stop.

Even if they had enough numbers to become a junior coalition partner, they wouldn't be capable of compromising on their "principles" to at least achieve some goals.

BluntGuy

ULA Plans wrote:

Reduce the working week without loss of pay and create tens of thousands of jobs by sharing out the work.
No to compulsory work for dole schemes or fake jobs.

I don't know if I find this ironic or just...

...

Well... flat out stupid.

WalterMitty

Vincent Browne , who is left leaning himself, exposed the economic naievity and illeteracy of the ULA on a regular basis. I remeber the poster boy of the ULA RBB was absolutely destroyed by VB one night. They dont tell the truth of what their policies would mean like big pay cuts for all public servants and welfare recipients to balance books, lower standards of living,capital and investment flight, unprofitable capital projects, unviable job creation etc etc.

nesf

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't know if I find this ironic or just...

...

Well... flat out stupid.

Thatcher's quote on socialism was never so appropriate as there.

irishh_bob

WalterMitty wrote: »

Vincent Browne , who is left leaning himself, exposed the economic naievity and illeteracy of the ULA on a regular basis. I remeber the poster boy of the ULA RBB was absolutely destroyed by VB one night. They dont tell the truth of what their policies would mean like big pay cuts for all public servants and welfare recipients to balance books, lower standards of living,capital and investment flight, unprofitable capital projects, unviable job creation etc etc.

half the country is left leaning , rte is left leaning , the irish times is left leaning , vincent browne is far left

jimmycrackcorm

irishh_bob wrote: »

half the country is left leaning , rte is left leaning , the irish times is left leaning , vincent browne is far left

That's why he sits on the left side of his panel?

Slydice

I reckon they'd probably burn the bondholders (yeah with petrol for any pedants).

After that, I'd say they'd have to negotiate some kind of joint policy as most coalitions do.

Bergkamp 10

nesf wrote: »

Thatcher's quote on socialism was never so appropriate as there.

Yes a perfect woman to base our economy on....:rolleyes:

Suryavarman

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Yes a perfect woman to base our economy on....:rolleyes:

Nobody suggested that we base our economy upon her. What Nesf stated was that her quote on socialism ("Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money") was very apt to describe some of the ULA's economic policies. While we're at it, there is plenty worse people to base economic policies on.

Bergkamp 10

The only thing I would do is the opposite of anything she ever stood for.

irishh_bob

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

The only thing I would do is the opposite of anything she ever stood for.

she reinvigorated a moribund british economy , she was an ogre on northern ireland but the woman had balls

AhSureTisGrand

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

The only thing I would do is the opposite of anything she ever stood for.

I've been told she was opposed to murder, rape, and piracy on the high seas

Pride Fighter

irishh_bob wrote: »

half the country is left leaning , rte is left leaning , the irish times is left leaning , vincent browne is far left

Yet FF and FG won 96 seats and right leaning independents brought that number over 100. I'd hardly call RTE or the Irish Times left leaning either.

SupaNova

Soldie wrote: »

According the ULA's website, this is their plan:

• Scrap the EU/IMF deal
• Tax the rich
• Reverse the cuts
• Nationalise the banking and construction sectors
• Get rid of bin tax and any other household taxes
• Increase corporation tax
• Reduce the working week without loss of pay and share the work with the unemployed
• Create a public works program
• Nationalise the oil and gas industry
• Get rid of all anti-immigration laws

I saw this a while back, i thought it might change with the realization of how stupid most of these policies are, guess not.

SupaNova

Probably not fair to lump Sinn Fein and the ULA together. I think Sinn Fein had a somewhat coherent plan in comparison to the ULA. The ULA truly take the biscuit.

Chuck Stone

Soldie wrote: »

• Scrap the EU/IMF deal
• Tax the rich
• Reverse the cuts
• Nationalise the banking and construction sectors
• Get rid of bin tax and any other household taxes
• Increase corporation tax
• Reduce the working week without loss of pay and share the work with the unemployed
• Create a public works program
• Nationalise the oil and gas industry
• Get rid of all anti-immigration laws

Oh sweet mercy. Economic naivety worse than that of FF and those who looked on jealously promising a supercharged version of FF (FG/Lab).

An Teashop wrote: »

You may have a point. BUT for ff and fg supporters to look down their nose with regards economic policy is also laughable.

Very true.

cianisgood

I just had a read through sinn feins economic plan and they don't sound to crazy
http:/www.sinnfein.ie/economy
that said it hasn't been updated in a while
SR Technics?????

The Scientician

I have some sympathy for certain elements of the ULA but does it really exist as a coherent entity? There's no internecine fighting like leftwing internecine fighting. If they ever got to a point where they could share power I imagine they'd internally melt down.
Regardless of left or right POV do any set of economic policies exist that are guaranteed or likely to yield the most benefit for the most people other than laissez-faire capitalism?

RichardAnd

I think this thread illustrates the danger of extremes. Far left policies, as can be seen, are virtually unworkable and in many cases, a good laugh. However, let's not forget that far right policy can be equally destructive. Extreme capitalism might generate profit (for some) but to get it, it supports virtually any method without consideration to the welfare of others.

Thus, the method is take the best of the left and the best of the right. Aiming for profit is very important but equally so is the care of others and fairness. Don't go left or right, always aim straight ahead

nesf

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Yes a perfect woman to base our economy on....:rolleyes:

The woman is perfectly capable of having a point even if you severely disagree with her overall political stance.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Soldie wrote: »

According the ULA's website, this is their plan:

• Scrap the EU/IMF deal
• Tax the rich
• Reverse the cuts
• Nationalise the banking and construction sectors
• Get rid of bin tax and any other household taxes
• Increase corporation tax
• Reduce the working week without loss of pay and share the work with the unemployed
• Create a public works program
• Nationalise the oil and gas industry
• Get rid of all anti-immigration laws

Lunacy.

dsmythy

RichardAnd wrote: »

I think this thread illustrates the danger of extremes. Far left policies, as can be seen, are virtually unworkable and in many cases, a good laugh. However, let's not forget that far right policy can be equally destructive. Extreme capitalism might generate profit (for some) but to get it, it supports virtually any method without consideration to the welfare of others.

Thus, the method is take the best of the left and the best of the right. Aiming for profit is very important but equally so is the care of others and fairness. Don't go left or right, always aim straight ahead

Is that not what we've been doing in Ireland for the last 80+ years?

Denerick

LeixlipRed wrote: »

ULA is comprised mostly of revolutionary socialists, there never will be a majority ULA government under our system of parliamentary democracy.

Thats the problem with revolutionary socialists, they know they would never have a majority of public opinion behind them because society is in thrall to capitalist ideas such as freedom to think independently of a predetermined ideological dogma bordering on religiosity.

Our system of parliamentary democracy allows people to express their will in elections and referenda. Theoretically if revolutionary socialists could persuade enough people to abandon the system then it could be overturned, the parliamentary system does allow for such a revolution. However revolutionary socialists realise that no such event could ever occur peacefully (As people are, by and large, sane) so instead there would have to be revolutions, purges, counter purges, gulags re-education camps etc. etc.

A lovely ideology when you get down to it. Now where did I leave my monocle and brandy...

Denerick

RichardAnd wrote: »

Thus, the method is take the best of the left and the best of the right. Aiming for profit is very important but equally so is the care of others and fairness. Don't go left or right, always aim straight ahead

We have that with social democracy. We abandoned it in the 80s. If those ideological children on Dame Street weren't so stupid and short sighted they'd understand that it wouldn't be so difficult to return to that golden age of mass employment, elevated living standards, and social mobility.

John KK

regardless of who come to power FF/FG/LAB it end up the same, the people get screwed and we get the same old same old. SF and ULA are the only people who will do something different, and it is something different we need.
They couldnt make more of a mess than what is currently going on, so i think they deserve to bring their "big changes" to politics. If it doesnt work so what, were screwed anyway. Someone has to stand up to europe and the banks, and SF are the only people who woudl do it.

meglome

John KK wrote: »

regardless of who come to power FF/FG/LAB it end up the same, the people get screwed and we get the same old same old. SF and ULA are the only people who will do something different, and it is something different we need.
They couldnt make more of a mess than what is currently going on, so i think they deserve to bring their "big changes" to politics. If it doesnt work so what, were screwed anyway. Someone has to stand up to europe and the banks, and SF are the only people who woudl do it.

How are they cutting the deficit again?

FetchTheGin

RichardAnd wrote: »

I think this thread illustrates the danger of extremes. Far left policies, as can be seen, are virtually unworkable and in many cases, a good laugh. However, let's not forget that far right policy can be equally destructive. Extreme capitalism might generate profit (for some) but to get it, it supports virtually any method without consideration to the welfare of others.

Yet someone who thanked your post, said that a quote from thatcher was relevent in this case. A moderator of politics no doubt.

I think the current Canadian political and economic system is the best in the world.

AhSureTisGrand

FetchTheGin wrote: »

Yet someone who thanked your post, said that a quote from thatcher was relevent in this case. A moderator of politics no doubt

I quote Karl Marx sometimes but it doesn't make me a socialist. A lot of thinkers have had good ideas on something at least

Good loser

John KK wrote: »

regardless of who come to power FF/FG/LAB it end up the same, the people get screwed and we get the same old same old. SF and ULA are the only people who will do something different, and it is something different we need.
They couldnt make more of a mess than what is currently going on, so i think they deserve to bring their "big changes" to politics. If it doesnt work so what, were screwed anyway. Someone has to stand up to europe and the banks, and SF are the only people who woudl do it.

Not good enough.

They're economically illiterate so far.

Show no understanding of how political power works.

LovelyHurling

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If hypothetically the government broke down tomorrow and Sinn Fein and the ULA were elected into power, say a joint coalition. I would like to know from the supporters of these groups, what would be their respective plans be to turn the economy around?

I would like to know about their future plan rather than what they would have done.

I wouldn't call myself a SF supporter, but I would generally support their economic principles.

The problem is that SF do not have the courage nor the position to ever enforce any of their convictions.

The thing is, to be a true Marxist one must be ready to act on the Marxist economic philosophy, not be some 'social democrat' which is all that SF really are ever likely to be in practice. I don't imagine you are looking for a lesson on Marxism,nor are you likely to be remotely interested in Marxism. So I won't bore you with it.

Therefore, SF would be most likely to go down the social democratic route, which would likely be to mirror what has happened in Greece in the past 18 months. It would be worse than both the genuinely capitalist approach according to its own assessment, but possibly much better than the genuinely socialist/ Marxist approach according to the traditional capital model.

nesf

LovelyHurling wrote: »

I wouldn't call myself a SF supporter, but I would generally support their economic principles.

I think it's a stretch to say they have principles. I mean, look at the North, it's bog standard social democrat stuff from them, nothing fancy or particularly unusual. They're just another form of Labour with harder left rhetoric.

But actual principles they live by? No, I don't think so. I think they'll tell you just what they need to secure your vote similar to other politicians.

LovelyHurling

Oh come on now, I didn't say anything about the North. I'm talking about economic principles, as in their strictly academic or theoretical outlook.

Nobody mentioned morality, and surely it's best that morality stays out of it.

It's ridiculous, even for the likes of me and I said I'm not a SF supporter. You can hardly even mention a SF policy from a theoretical perspective without someone shouting but what about Jean McConville!.

nesf

LovelyHurling wrote: »

Oh come on now, I didn't say anything about the North. I'm talking about economic principles, as in their strictly academic or theoretical outlook.

Nobody mentioned morality, and surely it's best that morality stays out of it.

It's ridiculous, even for the likes of me and I said I'm not a SF supporter. You can hardly even mention a SF policy from a theoretical perspective without someone shouting but what about Jean McConville!.

Well I'd agree that in the South they espouse such principles, I just question whether they really hold them and whether they can be called a principled party as such. Then maybe I'm being too cynical, too harsh and asking to much for a party to be principled.

BOHtox

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Yet FF and FG won 96 seats and right leaning independents brought that number over 100. I'd hardly call RTE or the Irish Times left leaning either.

In fairness, I would not call Labour left-wing. Perhaps by definition of the Labour party they are but not by economic policy. They seem to agree with FG with nearly everything. They're more right, in an economic sense and political, than FF.

LovelyHurling

nesf wrote: »

Well I'd agree that in the South they espouse such principles, I just question whether they really hold them and whether they can be called a principled party as such. Then maybe I'm being too cynical, too harsh and asking to much for a party to be principled.

Again, who said anything about principles?

All anybody is talking about here is an economic point of view, i.e. their economic principles and whether or not they stand up to scrutiny. Why do you want to bring morality (i.e. being 'principled' in a general sense) into this?

I'm sure it wouldn't be acceptable for me to keep bringing up the Labour party's stance on abortion in a discussion on their role in Budget 2012, would it?

nesf

LovelyHurling wrote: »

Again, who said anything about principles?

All anybody is talking about here is an economic point of view, i.e. their economic principles and whether or not they stand up to scrutiny. Why do you want to bring morality (i.e. being 'principled' in a general sense) into this?

I'm sure it wouldn't be acceptable for me to keep bringing up the Labour party's stance on abortion in a discussion on their role in Budget 2012, would it?

I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about holding economic principles dear to your heart and following them regardless of public opinion. Apologies for the confusion.