The will of the people, or the greater good?

southsiderosie

Some have suggested that since the public is opposed to austerity measures, that legislators should respect that and vote against these policies, regardless of what financial markets will do. Some have even offered that these kinds of decisions be put to a public vote, rather than decided in national legislatures.

For me this raises the issue: what does representation mean then in a liberal democracy? Is it the role of politicians to only do what voters want, damn the consequences? If so, given the popularity of government spending - especially in good economic times - is there any way to prevent governments from spending countries into bankruptcy at the behest of the population? Or, should politicians vote in what they see as 'the national interest', even if this may go against popular opinion?

I am not a fan of direct democracy, or populist governing. While I vote for people who broadly share my political views, I also expect them to sometimes set aside party politics or the 'popular' thing to do the 'right' thing (as amorphous as these principles may be!). In the case of austerity measures, I think it is appropriate that the same legislative bodies who approved past spending now have to approve present austerity measures (or at least negotiate the terms of them). In a representative democracy, I think we need to let the representatives do their jobs - our job as citizens is to hold them accountable for their decisions. Unfortunately, I think in a lot of cases - Ireland in particular - voter failure to do the latter in the past has helped lead to a crisis in the present.

SeanW

But what if we had been given the chance to vote for the bank bailouts? We definitely would NOT have voted to piss ~€40bn up against Anglos wall!

And what's more, it was not in the national interest to do so.

Hence I think it's somewhat inaccurate to suggest that there's a simple choice between direct democracy and allowing us to be totally government by the political class "in the national interest," given the "no-billionaire-gambler left behind" approach that our current political class, at the insistence of our "friends" in Europe, that has been pursued at the moment.

Einhard

I don't think it's true that the general public are against austerity measures. Despite what the ULA and the Occupied movement would have us believe, FG especially, and Labour too, were upfront about the cutbacks that would have to be implemented should they get elected. SF, the ULA and others, advocated a different approach, and they were roundly defeated at the polls. Furthermore, despite all the noise that the hard left is generating about the issue, a large plurality of people intend to pay the propery charge according to a Red C poll out last month.

I think most people realise that austerity measures are necessary, and I think that's been reflected consistently in the support for the political parties proposing them- FG, Labour, and FF.

southsiderosie

SeanW wrote: »

But what if we had been given the chance to vote for the bank bailouts? We definitely would NOT have voted to piss ~€40bn up against Anglos wall!

And what's more, it was not in the national interest to do so.

Hence I think it's somewhat inaccurate to suggest that there's a simple choice between direct democracy and allowing us to be totally government by the political class "in the national interest," given the "no-billionaire-gambler left behind" approach that our current political class, at the insistence of our "friends" in Europe, that has been pursued at the moment.

But how did the "political class" get there in the first place? They were elected by the people.

What, then, would you propose? Because I don't really see a middle ground between direct democracy and representative democracy. In addition, most countries allow for public referendums on constitutional issues.

I don't think the current problems are due to a deficit of democracy, but rather a deficit of common sense and understanding of basic economics - among both elected officials and voters.

timesnap

When it was more than obvious that Ireland needed a government of national unity,our parties could not see that.
i do not see why you say Ireland in particular ssr?
the finance minister had a gun put to his head the night before the sweeping bank guarantee,until then the banks had being playing smoke and mirrors.
Anglo was the mistake imo,but with such little notice and nobody fessing up,what was he to do?

the EU for all its patronising pats on the back for Ireland are using us until they might see an alternative to bailouts.

Godge

SeanW wrote: »

But what if we had been given the chance to vote for the bank bailouts? We definitely would NOT have voted to piss ~€40bn up against Anglos wall!

And what's more, it was not in the national interest to do so.

Hence I think it's somewhat inaccurate to suggest that there's a simple choice between direct democracy and allowing us to be totally government by the political class "in the national interest," given the "no-billionaire-gambler left behind" approach that our current political class, at the insistence of our "friends" in Europe, that has been pursued at the moment.

We had a chance in 2007 to vote for someone to govern this country. We had in front of us an outgoing government when over the previous ten years when presented with any problem from grumbling old-age pensioners (free medical cards) to striking nurses and teachers (benchmarking) to expectant middle-class voters (SSIAs) just threw money at the problem. What did we do? We re-elected them. So what did they do when the problem of Anglo came along. They threw money at it. So why was anyone surprised. The Irish electorate had voted for a party whose clear record was to throw money at problems and that is what they did. Except this time, they didn't have enough money to throw at the problem.

So like it or not, while we didn't vote for the specific issue of giving €40 bn to Anglo, we voted for a crowd who knew no other way of dealing with problems, so we voted for it. How people continue to forget that we elected that stupid FF government is beyond me.

The OP makes a good point. We elect people to do the right thing because we can't trust ourselves and we should vote them out if they get it wrong. Look at us, we change our mind on Europe every 18 months if you think about our referenda results. We actually might have voted for the bank guarantee if given the chance in September 2008 - remember the idiots who told us it would be the cheapest bank bailout in the world, who wouldn't have wanted that deal?

Arguably, the last election, by overseeing the demise of FF shows that representative democracy works (except in Cork South-Central, Limerick East and Galway West where we re-elected three of the biggest culprits).

Einhard

Godge wrote: »

We had a chance in 2007 to vote for someone to govern this country. We had in front of us an outgoing government when over the previous ten years when presented with any problem from grumbling old-age pensioners (free medical cards) to striking nurses and teachers (benchmarking) to expectant middle-class voters (SSIAs) just threw money at the problem. What did we do? We re-elected them. So what did they do when the problem of Anglo came along. They threw money at it. So why was anyone surprised. The Irish electorate had voted for a party whose clear record was to throw money at problems and that is what they did. Except this time, they didn't have enough money to throw at the problem.

So like it or not, while we didn't vote for the specific issue of giving €40 bn to Anglo, we voted for a crowd who knew no other way of dealing with problems, so we voted for it. How people continue to forget that we elected that stupid FF government is beyond me.

The OP makes a good point. We elect people to do the right thing because we can't trust ourselves and we should vote them out if they get it wrong. Look at us, we change our mind on Europe every 18 months if you think about our referenda results. We actually might have voted for the bank guarantee if given the chance in September 2008 - remember the idiots who told us it would be the cheapest bank bailout in the world, who wouldn't have wanted that deal?

Arguably, the last election, by overseeing the demise of FF shows that representative democracy works (except in Cork South-Central, Limerick East and Galway West where we re-elected three of the biggest culprits).

I never actually twigged the relationship between FF's throwing money at problems in order to make them go away, and the approach to the banking crisis. It's an interesting analogy. I might use it sometime!

amacachi

The only answer IMO is to limit government so that it can't put such a burden on people who did nothing to deserve it. Under any kind of socialist (very broad obviously) system there's a "collective responsibility" that rests on the entire public which I think is wrong.

timesnap

Godge, of course people will vote for a party that does not tax too much, is willing to borrow too much, and bury its head in the sand.
hands up by any country that did not do it better times?
that includes America where the OP comes from.

Godge

amacachi wrote: »

The only answer IMO is to limit government so that it can't put such a burden on people who did nothing to deserve it. Under any kind of socialist (very broad obviously) system there's a "collective responsibility" that rests on the entire public which I think is wrong.

Do you understand the implications of that?

You are saying that we shouldn't have to bear the burden of the bank bailout because it was people in the banks who made the stupid decisions.

So we shouldn't have given compensation to the Hepatitis C victims because it was donors who had given us contaminated blood?
So we shouldn't have given any compensation to victims of child abuse either?
What about the nursing homes compensation? I am a taxpayers and I had nothing to do with how those people were treated, why should I pay for their compensation?
What about the Stardust compensation tribunal? Small money but why should the state pay for it.

All of the above are things that the government paid out on our behalf that would be outlawed by your proposal. Is that what you really want?

Chucky the tree

As Godge said, the people of Ireland have answered time and again what they want from their Government. In 2002 this was some of the stuff contained in the Fine Gael manifesto under Michael Noonan

This general election is not just about choosing a government. Far more impor tantly,
it is about choosing the kind of Ireland we want for the future. The people now have the
oppor tunity to choose between two kinds of Ireland.
In this election, Fine Gael offers the people a radically different vision to that of Fianna
Fáil and the PDs.
For the past five years we have suffered from a government that has no par ticular vision
at all – other than to cling on to power for as long as it possibly can.
They have no coherent view of the future they want to create for Ireland -- except to wish
for more of the same, to hope against hope that the good times will keep on rolling.
Their approach is driven by a fixation of looking after their friends among the rich and
power ful – hoping that some of the wealth and privilege they lavish on the top of our
society will somehow, willy-nilly, trickle downwards and solve all our problem

Fine Gael’s vision is of a forward-looking Ireland, that plans its future with care

FF and Pds have let public spending get totally out of control. Compared to a promise to keep growth to
4% a year, their actual annual spending growth averaged 15%. Then, as the boom slackened, they
went on spending even faster last year, the growth hit a completely unsustainable 23%.
This demolished an Exchequer surplus of €3bn in 2000, and public finances are now on course for a €6bn deficit in 2004

Hold current spending growth to nominal growth in GDP plus 2%, subject to a current budget surplus of at least €2bn. Major spending to be only in the context of far-reaching reform.
Appoint a cabinet Minister to lead a value-for-money drive. Reform the public sector to embrace reorganisation, per formance related pay, merit-based promotion and quality benchmarking

Fine Gael got hammered in that election and Noonan had to step down. It's no wonder political parties in Ireland need to lie to get into office.

amacachi

Godge wrote: »

Do you understand the implications of that?

You are saying that we shouldn't have to bear the burden of the bank bailout because it was people in the banks who made the stupid decisions.

So we shouldn't have given compensation to the Hepatitis C victims because it was donors who had given us contaminated blood?
So we shouldn't have given any compensation to victims of child abuse either?
What about the nursing homes compensation? I am a taxpayers and I had nothing to do with how those people were treated, why should I pay for their compensation?
What about the Stardust compensation tribunal? Small money but why should the state pay for it.

All of the above are things that the government paid out on our behalf that would be outlawed by your proposal. Is that what you really want?

I understand the implications perfectly. The state wouldn't be on the hook for such things because they wouldn't have been responsible to begin with.

Godge

amacachi wrote: »

I understand the implications perfectly. The state wouldn't be on the hook for such things because they wouldn't have been responsible to begin with.

Thanks for the clarification. While I don't agree with your views I am glad to see that someone has thought through things a bit more than just burn the bondholders etc.

timesnap

I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.
the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

Democracy is becoming just another word for nothing left to lose.

Godge

timesnap wrote: »

I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.
the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

Democracy is becoming just another word for nothing left to lose.

Tell me who are the people who didn't benefit from the good times?

Who are the pensioners who didn't get the highest pensions in the Western World?
Who are the parents who didn't get the highest child benefit in the world?
Who are the public servants who didn't get the highest public service pay in the world?
Who are the construction workers who didn't benefit from the biggest building boom in the world?
Who are the unemployed who managed to avoid getting a job during the boom while picking up the highest social welfare rates in the world?
Which country had the most special needs assistants per pupil in the world?
Who are the private sector workers whose businesses didn't rip off all of the above and pay their workers more than anywhere else?
Who are the people who didn't get the opportunity to build their dream home in the middle of nowhere thanks to the generosity of the banks and the planners?
Who didn't get the opportunity to buy a computer and get an internet connection?

Well, if you didn't benefit from any of the above it was because

(1) You hid under a bush for ten years
(2) You didn't make the most of your opportunities
or (3) You behaved sensibly.

There should be another 99% and 1%. The 1% are those that fall into (1) to (3), the 99% are those that benefitted from the boom.


If you are in the case of (3) you didn't go overboard so you must be all right now. In the case of (2) you have only yourself to blame.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Icepick

Politicians are in the business of getting votes. That's why they follow 'the will of the people' rather than some democratic principles.

timesnap

Godge wrote: »

Tell me who are the people who didn't benefit from the good times?
Who are the pensioners who didn't get the highest pensions in the Western World?

Is that not something to be proud of in the case of those who did not abuse it?

Who are the parents who didn't get the highest child benefit in the world?

too much was paid in cash to the parents rather than free crechs

Who are the public servants who didn't get the highest public service pay in the world?

who are the people who did not care at the time because they themselves were doing just nicely?

Who are the construction workers who didn't benefit from the biggest building boom in the world?

The people who worked hard when they could find work, but now are on the dole

Who are the unemployed who managed to avoid getting a job during the boom while picking up the highest social welfare rates in the world?

Why had the state neglected the genuine ones before the boom to the point were many had became unemployable.?
why did Harney have to go on job fairs around the world when the tiger needed more feeding?

Which country had the most special needs assistants per pupil in the world?

again do you not feel proud of that?

Who are the private sector workers whose businesses didn't rip off all of the above and pay their workers more than anywhere else?

mostly left without private pensions because the funds collapsed.

Who are the people who didn't get the opportunity to build their dream home in the middle of nowhere thanks to the generosity of the banks and the planners?

Living in dangerous ghost estates in negative equity for the most part.

Who didn't get the opportunity to buy a computer and get an internet connection?

Check out the Ireland offline forum to see how much of ireland has no BB[/QUOTE]

The rest of your post i did not consider worthy of a response other than to travel around ireland and meet the people instead of just going on statistics.

irishh_bob

timesnap wrote: »

I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.
the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

Democracy is becoming just another word for nothing left to lose.

the vast majority of people most certainly did benefit from the boom , wages went up substantially , so too wellfare , the tax payer is indeed picking up the tab for reckless banks but its a lie to say only a handfull of people done well out of the boom

paddyandy

Most people like myself do not understand the finer points and i dislike politicians trying to flatter us that we do . This "Let the people decide " idea is quite scary .The Parties should unite at a time like this and show solidarity for everyone's sake .It's too serious .We don't know where we're going anymore and it's no time for Dail Punch-ups .

southsiderosie

timesnap wrote: »

Godge, of course people will vote for a party that does not tax too much, is willing to borrow too much, and bury its head in the sand.
hands up by any country that did not do it better times?
that includes America where the OP comes from.

Chile. Its government came under huge pressure to spend the windfall profits from high copper prices, and it refused.

Also, not all Western democracies are facing meltdown right now - Germany has been doing relatively well the last few years, and Canada and Australia have been doing great. The countries that are in trouble are the countries that went crazy with public spending and/or experienced huge construction boom and busts. I would also add that countries like Spain, Ireland and Greece need to make serious labor & welfare market reforms; Germany did this a decade ago, and it was painful, but it has helped them in the long run.

tl/dr version - the countries which didn't spend the last decade kicking the can down the road and spending bubble-generated revenues are doing ok today. The ones that didn't, aren't. It's quite simple really.

timesnap wrote: »

I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.
the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

Democracy is becoming just another word for nothing left to lose.

Again, then what is the nature of a representative democracy?

I voted against George Bush in 2000. I protested against the Iraq war. I actively campaigned against Bush in 2004. By virtue of the fact that I did not agree with his policies, did not benefit from the housing boom, and did not benefit from his fiscally ruinous tax cuts, am I now somehow exempt from paying the cost of what the majority of my fellow citizens supported? I hate what has happened in the US over the last decade, but i also know that this is what people voted for - we live in a free country, and we don't have the excuse of 'we didn't know'.

Governments in democratic societies aren't some independent, hegemonic force - they are in place because of elections, and elections have consequences. I guess in a democracy we get the government we deserve, but I have to wonder what we did to deserve this.

texidub

Australia is not doing 'great.' It's in the middle of a boom and is facing the same prospect of collapse as economies like Ireland.

'The will of the people' Vs. 'the greater good'.. what a dangerously anti-democratic distinction to draw. But typical of certain strands of leftist thinking.

In a democracy, the will of the people *is* the greater good --for better or worse (yes I am aware of how that sounds to corporatist and leftist minds)-- and no amount of godwottery, wisdom, or insight dispensed from on high by our great and good rulers changes that fact.

Direct democracy FTW.

EDIT: And this nonsense about deserving what we get is just that.. nonsense. A proportion of the population votes once every 4/5 years and yet everyone is somehow responsible or to blame for everything --good or bad-- that happens in that period. Really?!

Democracy as we know it here is a huge psychological swindle: you are given a vote once every 4/5 years --that is, you are allowed to pick from the same or similar candidates from the same political and social class-- and then made culpable for everything that results... nonsense.

southsiderosie

texidub wrote: »

Australia is not doing 'great.' It's in the middle of a boom and is facing the same prospect of collapse as economies like Ireland.

'The will of the people' Vs. 'the greater good'.. what a dangerously anti-democratic distinction to draw. But typical of certain strands of leftist thinking.

In a democracy, the will of the people *is* the greater good --for better or worse (yes I am aware of how that sounds to corporatist and leftist minds)-- and no amount of godwottery, wisdom, or insight dispensed from on high by our great and good rulers changes that fact.

Direct democracy FTW.

EDIT: And this nonsense about deserving what we get is just that.. nonsense. A proportion of the population votes once every 4/5 years and yet everyone is somehow responsible or to blame for everything --good or bad-- that happens in that period. Really?!

Democracy as we know it here is a huge psychological swindle: you are given a vote once every 4/5 years --that is, you are allowed to pick from the same or similar candidates from the same political and social class-- and then made culpable for everything that results... nonsense.

Why do you think that direct democracy in any way would break existing power structures?

So the will of the people to maintain policies like segregation were 'the greater good'?

The will of the people to consistently demand more government programs while demanding lower taxes is for 'the greater good'?

Pretty much every democracy endows its legislature with the 'power of the purse' - it, and only it, has responsibility for public spending. The legislature is also responsible for upholding the constitution - in practice, this has meant that at times protecting the rights of the minority means voting against the will of the majority. Should politicians entrusted with such responsibility cater to every public whim, or should they look at the bigger picture and use their discretion? If voters don't like it, they can get rid of them. It's pretty simple.

texidub

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why do you think that direct democracy in any way would break existing power structures?

So the will of the people to maintain policies like segregation were 'the greater good'?

The will of the people to consistently demand more government programs while demanding lower taxes is for 'the greater good'?

Should politicians entrusted with such responsibility cater to every public whim, or should they look at the bigger picture and use their discretion? If voters don't like it, they can get rid of them. It's pretty simple.

If voters don't like it.. they can get rid of them IN 4/5 YEARS TIME, you mean.

You don't like segregation? I don't either. But just because YOU or I don't like it, doesn't mean that it's an inherently invalid choice for a people to make.

This is where the leftists and corporatists come together --both sides are ideologues who want to subject the rest of society to their vision. And both can disappear off up their own philosophical lacunae as far as I am concerned. I'm perfectly capable of living a fulfilling life without them.

EDIT: Can I just add that in so-called advanced democracies where there is no segregation (by law) there is segregation by choice. From London to Mexico to Perth.. vast swathes of people choose to live in communities populated mostly by people of the same skin colour/religion/language etc. Personally, I find that to be a little pathetic, but there you go.. so maybe it's not the best example for you to choose.

southsiderosie

texidub wrote: »

If voters don't like it.. they can get rid of them IN 4/5 YEARS TIME, you mean.

You don't like segregation? I don't either. But just because YOU or I don't like it, doesn't mean that it's an inherently invalid choice for a people to make.

This is where the leftists and corporatists come together --both sides are ideologues who want to subject the rest of society to their vision. And both can disappear off up their own philosophical lacunae as far as I am concerned. I'm perfectly capable of living a fulfilling life without them.

EDIT: Can I just add that in so-called advanced democracies where there is no segregation (by law) there is segregation by choice. From London to Mexico to Perth.. vast swathes of people choose to live in communities populated mostly by people of the same skin colour/religion/language etc. Personally, I find that to be a little pathetic, but there you go.. so maybe it's not the best example for you to choose.

I'm not talking about self-segregation - people can live wherever they want. I'm talking about state-sanctioned segregation a la Jim Crow laws in the American South. While these may have been popular with the majority in some places, and many of the Congressmen who voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act lost their seat for their troubles, ultimately it was in the national interest for all citizens to have the same rights under the constitution.

I would also add that is telling that the judiciary, which is relatively shielded from the whims of the public, is usually the more reliable defender of minority rights against the wishes of the majority - their job is to uphold the constitution, not follow the winds of public opinion.

Finally, as for voters getting rid of people, in parliamentary democracies, parties can withdraw their support from the government forcing early elections - and this usually happens when there is massive public pressure to do so. In the US, Congress is elected every two years. So I don't think that voters in most democracies are as stuck in as you make them out to be.

And I will ask again (since you ignored it the last time): why do you think that direct democracy would in any way break existing power structures?

Godge

timesnap wrote: »

Is that not something to be proud of in the case of those who did not abuse it?


too much was paid in cash to the parents rather than free crechs


who are the people who did not care at the time because they themselves were doing just nicely?


The people who worked hard when they could find work, but now are on the dole


Why had the state neglected the genuine ones before the boom to the point were many had became unemployable.?
why did Harney have to go on job fairs around the world when the tiger needed more feeding?


again do you not feel proud of that?


mostly left without private pensions because the funds collapsed.


Living in dangerous ghost estates in negative equity for the most part.


Check out the Ireland offline forum to see how much of ireland has no BB
The rest of your post i did not consider worthy of a response other than to travel around ireland and meet the people instead of just going on statistics.

All you have done there is agree with me that all those people benefitted from the boom. Yes, some of them suffered more than others when the boom ended but they did well during the boom. Those construction workers that lost their jobs still have their 09 jeeps and land-rovers though they may not be able to insure them now. If they had bought Nissan Micras at the time they would have been better off.

Nobody told anyone to buy a house in the middle of nowhere. People should always consider the long-term in those situations, they didn't but they did benefit during the boom.

ed2hands

texidub wrote: »

Democracy as we know it here is a huge psychological swindle: you are given a vote once every 4/5 years --that is, you are allowed to pick from the same or similar candidates from the same political and social class-- and then made culpable for everything that results... nonsense.

Would agree with this. The U.S. system is in effect a Plutocracy.

timesnap

Whew!too many individual points raised for this two fingered typist to respond to line by line,but appreciate those who have responded to me.
let me say that when i said the vast majority i should also have added that in retrospect it was a false benefit which they will pay the price for the rest of their lives.
i would split into three groups though:
those who benefited to a hugh extent.
those who mostly only held their own(in the main these were people who acted as totally responsible citizens)
the underclass who mostly remained an underclass,for some reason most societies seem to need an underclass to reassure themselves in some perverse way.

i DO believe in personal responsibility and people were reckless or stupid in many ways.
what i don't like is the tone of pleasure some people seem to display at the dire situation many people are now in.
even if some people feel they deserve everything they are getting,do their children deserve to be punished as well?
i have no idea why Irish people have an obsession with owning their own home,i would hazard a guess that it is almost a genetic memory of the days when landlords kicked people off their land.
Germans have no such hang up and very many of them are quite content to rent all their lives,it makes it so much easier to follow the jobs as they can move hundreds of miles at minimal cost.

there have been many cutbacks in welfare SSR,many of them hidden from the headline news on our budget days,and many more to come.
we are heading towards something that was unthinkable in Ireland, i.e there will be a tapering off of benefits until people will be entitled to nothing from the state.
some people will jump for joy at this,but think twice because the crime rate will shoot through the roof.

Direct democracy is not something i have given much thought to,is it in effect in any country?
i think in California if you can get 500,000 signatures on a petition you can propose anything be put to referendum.
from the little i know about it i don't think it is working out very well though?

hatrickpatrick

I would vote in favour of austerity.
Provided I could also vote in favour of SEVERELY punishing those who, through corruption and dishonesty, ran our banks into the ground.

Seriously, I think you'll find that a lot of people would be less hostile to austerity if there was seen to be ANY justice or ANY accountability for what happened.
White collar crime should be treated as crime, simple as. If what Seanie Fitz did was illegal he should be in court and possibly in prison, and if it wasn't illegal, then it should be, and the government should be legislating for it at this very moment.

jmayo

southsiderosie wrote: »

For me this raises the issue: what does representation mean then in a liberal democracy? Is it the role of politicians to only do what voters want, damn the consequences? If so, given the popularity of government spending - especially in good economic times - is there any way to prevent governments from spending countries into bankruptcy at the behest of the population? Or, should politicians vote in what they see as 'the national interest', even if this may go against popular opinion?
...
In a representative democracy, I think we need to let the representatives do their jobs - our job as citizens is to hold them accountable for their decisions. Unfortunately, I think in a lot of cases - Ireland in particular - voter failure to do the latter in the past has helped lead to a crisis in the present.

You see the problem with the voting public is they want austerity, but just for someone else.
A fair chunk of the of voters and particularly the recipients of increased spending were quiet happy with the ridiculous spending and would have immediately tried to remove the people from power that stopped it.

The problem particularly with Ireland is that a lot of the people still think the place is run by some mythical group that they should get one up on.
They never think that it is all of us that live here that actually makes up the system.
And what may benefit one of us today may adversely affect even more of us tomorrow.

Of course now it really is run by foreigners so they will claim they were right all along.
I don't know if it is a hangup from our past colonial history, but it is even practiced by the political class who like to take the system for all they can.

timesnap wrote: »

When it was more than obvious that Ireland needed a government of national unity,our parties could not see that.
i do not see why you say Ireland in particular ssr?
the finance minister had a gun put to his head the night before the sweeping bank guarantee,until then the banks had being playing smoke and mirrors.
Anglo was the mistake imo,but with such little notice and nobody fessing up,what was he to do?

Hell mr fianna fail.
Yeah a national government that should include the thieves, liars, fraudsters and papist lackies of fianna fail. :mad:
Yeah the former minister of finance and taoiseach of the day had no knowledge of Anglo even though he played golf with the chairman and had dinner with the board in the months during and leading up to the meltdown. :rolleyes:
Would you ever feck off with the bullsh**.

Godge wrote: »

... So what did they do when the problem of Anglo came along. They threw money at it. So why was anyone surprised. The Irish electorate had voted for a party whose clear record was to throw money at problems and that is what they did. Except this time, they didn't have enough money to throw at the problem.

Actually never thought of it that way.

timesnap wrote: »

Godge, of course people will vote for a party that does not tax too much, is willing to borrow too much, and bury its head in the sand.
hands up by any country that did not do it better times?
that includes America where the OP comes from.

Ah ffs resorting to the everyone is as bad mullarkey now. :rolleyes:
Check out how some other western governments did not go all out, creating a property bubble, allow their banks go apesh** and increase public spending based on the resultant bubble.

Nah that might show the holes in your assertion.

timesnap wrote: »

I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

True to an extent.

timesnap wrote: »

most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.

But who are really the weakest and poorest in society ?
Is the ones who have been on the dole for the last ten years, get their rent paid for, get allowances for Christmas, for christening, confirmations, get allowances for not having a spouse to help take care of their kids, etc... ?

Or is the ones who work in one of the cushiest sectors of the economy that up until recently guaranteed defined benefit pensions, lumpsums on retirement and 40 days annual leave a year ?

timesnap wrote: »

the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

It is amoral when you think that some work very hard for everything they have whilst others live off their hard work.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I would vote in favour of austerity.
Provided I could also vote in favour of SEVERELY punishing those who, through corruption and dishonesty, ran our banks into the ground.

Seriously, I think you'll find that a lot of people would be less hostile to austerity if there was seen to be ANY justice or ANY accountability for what happened.
White collar crime should be treated as crime, simple as. If what Seanie Fitz did was illegal he should be in court and possibly in prison, and if it wasn't illegal, then it should be, and the government should be legislating for it at this very moment.

This is very true.
bernie madoff went to jail in 90 odd days.
There have been two instances of ponzi schemes (breffni o'brien being one) in this country and as yet after a couple of years neither primary beneficiary has even faced trial.
What about the lawyers who ripped off customers and banks ?
Have either of the three multi year high profile cases reached court yet ?

Now that is not even going into the dodgy insider deals, share support schemes, breaches of normal company law with regard to director loans, etc that was practiced by some of our bankers.

RubyRoss

Direct democracy would be a disaster, in my view, as it would entail perpetual campaigning inviting more input from interest groups and opportunities for opposition parties to score points.

Only a minority of citizens have the time and the capacity to assess complex issues; that’s the whole point of electing a government to run the country for 4/5 years. The problem arises because that election contract has been destroyed; the elections are a nonsense driven by the media, political PR, and vested interests.

The parties don’t present genuine policies; they present PR friendly policies which hardly anyone expects will be implemented so the democratic contract is a farce.

Texidub is right to observe a tendency for corporatists and leftists to assume a fundamental deficiency with the people. This kind of thinking, rife in political media, implies that the public need to be manipulated for their own good. Now, there’s nothing wrong with holding that few but it doesn’t sit easily with the view that democracy should be about the will of the people.