If there was a general election in the morning who would you vote for

Corkbah

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The 90s were a while ago, I'm sure there are lots of things said by politicians years ago that they have now gone back on when they realise what has to be done.

But some of the very same politicians and/or their children are in government or working as politicians these days....wasn't Noel o Flynn (Cork) asked NOT to run in the 2011 elections because Michael Martin thought it was bad for the party....and lets not get into his son's recent antics !! (you really think politicians have changed or simply learned how not to get caught)

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The property tax is essential to close the gap between what the country earns and what it is spending. I don't like it either but I am not sure what the alternatives are

There are plenty of alternatives: how many millions do you want to save: our politicians dont see the many flaws in todays society and only see the figures instead of the people, for example: frontline gardai should be increased, foreign trips should be abolished, do we need an army ? remove the wastage in the HSE, FAS (or is it now called Solas), Abolish the Seanad, remove the huge ministerial perks, forget about supporting for the families of former tisaoigh (plural of Taoiseach - probably spelled wrong), sector by sector create documented processes of carious departments, remove wastage workers - there are thousands of qualified unemployed people who simply cant get a job because they are not related to anyone in the Civil Service.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What tax is this "leaving Ireland tax" you are on about ?

the ridiculous departure tax which was I think €10 per person when exiting the country (not sure if its still in existence but its one of the measures brought in a few years ago which smelled of pub politics)

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Plastic bag tax went to environmental funds, not roads.
And I'd image it's that a real revenue generator these days as the numbers of plastic bags bought are very low

Apologies for getting the fund wrong - but either way after a few years they said it just goes into a fund and is not actually used for any specific purpose, I do agree that in this day and age they only make a couple of hundred thousand sales every week ...so its not worth a whole lot on the grand scale of things but its still a stupid tax.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I hate it too how people who have no ideas about technology talk about things like that

Glad we agree on some things :)

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Yea the system as it is means that national politicians end up doing local jobs, that is a problem but I would disagree that the vast majority of politicians do not see what is happening amongst the ordinary people of Ireland

woo hoo ... we agree again

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Stupidest idea I ever read on boards.ie

Sounds like something out of Kemer Rouge Cambodia or Stalinist Russia.

is it really worse than the "departure tax" ? have a look at political life in this country - sons, daughters, nephews, nieces of people who have been involved in systematically destroying this countries economic policies - I refer you back to Mr O'Flynn mentioned above and his son's recent antics !! ... look at the many politicians who took up seats following a family death ...look at the many politicians who have courted controversy (Ivor Callelly for example) ... how many families have been involved in political life simply because they are not qualified to do anything else....have a look at the young lady McEntee who wants to run and take her fathers Seat in Meath (East) ... does she know anything about politics ? (I dont know), is she qualified ? I dont know, she's 26 and has worked for her dad - no previous employment so she knows nothing of life outside the cushy number that politicians have.

Ask yourself this - how many times has a politician said something stupid ? would they have said that if they were properly trained in their field (ie. Minister for finance should have some grasp of economics as well as a qualification and work experience in that industry.)

Also, we gave away our fishing waters to the EU - something which we could have developed and made into a licenced business, we could have developed our fishing waters and created a sound enterprise, not to mention the various oil finds off the coast.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

We are not Iceland
We are part of an economic union, we cannot just unilaterally default and expect everything to be Ok in a few months

Not everyone is convinced that what Iceland did was a good move by the way (discussed on other threads)

An Economic experiment - not en economic union - if it was a union would the burden not be shared instead of flogging the dead horse, I do believe that the bank guarantee was a mistake and as a result of mis-information or selective information given to the minister at the time a decision was made - which could have been avoided - similar to the winding up of Anglo a few weeks ago .... why do it so fast ? if I was a conspiracy theorist I would suggest that the people involved in creating the debt were also influencing the collapse of Anglo, follow the money ... where has it all gone ?

oscarBravo

Hijpo wrote: »

The irish people are not stupid...

Indirect democracy thus far has failed to convince me of that; I have no reason to believe that direct democracy will work any better. As it is, referendum campaigns in this country are soul-destroying.

When we elect better governments; when we take those referendums we do hold seriously - then I'll re-think my views on direct democracy.

We dont just have a referendum on "not bothering to pay back the debt" it would be having a referendum to suspend the payments pending legal review of this odious debt.

So rather than just have a legal review, you pass the legislation required to hold a referendum, gear up the Referendum Commission to produce an information leaflet, print ballot papers, pay polling and count staff, and then - assuming the motion is carried - unilaterally default on our sovereign debt until such time as the legal review is carried out.

Yeah, sounds like an awesome way to run a country.

Anyway, why shouldnt the people have more say on issues that effect them, instead of being thrown a referendum here and there?

Because the people don't have full access to the information required to make informed decisions, and - based on the referendums we've been "thrown" in the past - the people aren't interested in putting the effort into acquiring and evaluating that information.

Even when we are given a say if they dont like it your made vote again :rolleyes:

Hm. So you're in favour of more referendums, as long as the same issue is never voted on twice?

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So sovereign default while a legal review is held? That will end well.

You'd swear that nobody was allowed take a legal challenge against the state's borrowing policies at the moment.

Maybe they can, but how long will it take to conclude if we are still paying the money? it certainly wont be wrapped up in the same time it took them to pass legislation to suit themselves and the banks.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Indirect democracy thus far has failed to convince me of that; I have no reason to believe that direct democracy will work any better. As it is, referendum campaigns in this country are soul-destroying.
When we elect better governments; when we take those referendums we do hold seriously - then I'll re-think my views on direct democracy.

If people have a vote that they see is worth while and brings change then they will vote. This is why people do not vote in the government selected referendums. The issues that effect the majority the most are not passed onto the majority to ballot there opinions.

So rather than just have a legal review, you pass the legislation required to hold a referendum, gear up the Referendum Commission to produce an information leaflet, print ballot papers, pay polling and count staff, and then - assuming the motion is carried - unilaterally default on our sovereign debt until such time as the legal review is carried out.
Yeah, sounds like an awesome way to run a country.

There is no point holding a legal review while you shell out a fortune, it is inevitable that will drag on for years and years and that defeats the purpose. Whats wrong with it? i dont think anyone is in denial about our gap between our national income and expenditure but private banking debt conjured into sovereign debt increasing it by a few billion is a problem and shows how disregarded the public is by the government.

Because the people don't have full access to the information required to make informed decisions, and - based on the referendums we've been "thrown" in the past - the people aren't interested in putting the effort into acquiring and evaluating that information.

The government are well able to provide the information they want the people to see and pay for the material with tax payers money, which is against the constitution right?. Why not make the information accessible? plenty of people with internet access where there is a never ending stream of information. Look at all the social media available to people. The only problem i see with making these informed decisions is the fact the public need to be informed and i dont believe the government are in favour of that.

Hm. So you're in favour of more referendums, as long as the same issue is never voted on twice?

No, i would have no issue with voting on something twice. However, under the circumstances of a government pushing a yes vote with a big yes campaign and the proposals are rejected, then the people are made vote again, thats when i would have a problem. What if something was introduced where by you cannot vote on the same issue twice within two years?

oscarBravo

Hijpo wrote: »

If people have a vote that they see is worth while and brings change then they will vote. This is why people do not vote in the government selected referendums. The issues that effect the majority the most are not passed onto the majority to ballot there opinions.

People don't vote because they are apathetic. The fervently-held view that the electorate will suddenly become enthusiastic enough about issues to make well-informed and carefully-reasoned choices in the event that there are vastly more referendums is little more than magical thinking.

There is no point holding a legal review while you shell out a fortune, it is inevitable that will drag on for years and years and that defeats the purpose. Whats wrong with it?

What's wrong with it is that a majority of people voting for something that superficially seems like a good idea doesn't magically make it one.

If you ask people whether we should stop paying our sovereign debts, a great many - possible a majority - will vote in favour. They won't do so because they have carefully evaluated the possible consequences of doing so and concluded that, on balance, those risks are more than offset by the benefits; they will do so because not repaying debt appeals on a visceral level, particularly if you've managed to convince yourself that it's not your debt in the first place.

i dont think anyone is in denial about our gap between our national income and expenditure but private banking debt conjured into sovereign debt increasing it by a few billion is a problem and shows how disregarded the public is by the government.

And there's the problem neatly encapsulated: you just conflated deficit with debt in the same sentence, and are probably unaware that you did so. What percentage of the electorate will carefully educate themselves as to the distinction - a crucially important one - before voting?

The government are well able to provide the information they want the people to see and pay for the material with tax payers money, which is against the constitution right?. Why not make the information accessible? plenty of people with internet access where there is a never ending stream of information. Look at all the social media available to people. The only problem i see with making these informed decisions is the fact the public need to be informed and i dont believe the government are in favour of that.

The public have to want to be informed. Most of the conversations I've had with people in the run-up to referendums involve the phrase "I don't know much about all this stuff" - which, in this era of ubiquitous and easily-accessible information, is pretty much unforgivable.

There's also the problem of confirmation bias. People have a tendency to reject information that doesn't support the conclusion they've already decided upon. A truly open mind is a very, very scarce commodity.

No, i would have no issue with voting on something twice. However, under the circumstances of a government pushing a yes vote with a big yes campaign and the proposals are rejected, then the people are made vote again, thats when i would have a problem. What if something was introduced where by you cannot vote on the same issue twice within two years?

What if the people have changed their mind within those two years, but have been disenfranchised by your dislike of being asked the same question more than once?

Hijpo

oscarBravo wrote: »

People don't vote because they are apathetic. The fervently-held view that the electorate will suddenly become enthusiastic enough about issues to make well-informed and carefully-reasoned choices in the event that there are vastly more referendums is little more than magical thinking. What's wrong with it is that a majority of people voting for something that superficially seems like a good idea doesn't magically make it one.

If you ask people whether we should stop paying our sovereign debts, a great many - possible a majority - will vote in favour. They won't do so because they have carefully evaluated the possible consequences of doing so and concluded that, on balance, those risks are more than offset by the benefits; they will do so because not repaying debt appeals on a visceral level, particularly if you've managed to convince yourself that it's not your debt in the first place. And there's the problem neatly encapsulated: you just conflated deficit with debt in the same sentence, and are probably unaware that you did so. What percentage of the electorate will carefully educate themselves as to the distinction - a crucially important one - before voting? The public have to want to be informed. Most of the conversations I've had with people in the run-up to referendums involve the phrase "I don't know much about all this stuff" - which, in this era of ubiquitous and easily-accessible information, is pretty much unforgivable.

There's also the problem of confirmation bias. People have a tendency to reject information that doesn't support the conclusion they've already decided upon. A truly open mind is a very, very scarce commodity. What if the people have changed their mind within those two years, but have been disenfranchised by your dislike of being asked the same question more than once?

Your claims of people being disinterested in voting may have carried weight when things were rosey but now that they realise how little voice they have when it comes to opposing immoral and excessive taxes and legislation they want change. Direct Democracy gives them this voice and rightly so. I used deficit because people know and understand the country runs a deficit, what people are unhappy with is the private debt added to national debt. I have not merged deficit with sovereign debt.
Have the government ever provided equal ammounts of information in equal detail on both sides of a referendum?

Changed there mind from what? I never said they should not be asked the question twice, im simply suggesting a way in which that nice treaty farce cant happen again.

None of them.

Why isn't there an option on the ballot paper, for 'None of the above'?

For Forks Sake

Deleted User wrote: »

None of them.

Why isn't there an option on the ballot paper, for 'None of the above'?

Because this is the real world, not a student union election?

For Forks Sake

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Because this is the real world, not a student union election?

So if I'm uninspired by the candidates, I either pick the best of a bad bunch, or don't vote?

I hate not voting, but I certainly won't be voting for someone I have no confidence in. At least if there's an option for 'None of the above' or a similar option, I'm showing my discontent and lack of confidence, as I'm sure, would many others.

efb

Spoil your ballot

eire4

I would go for Sinn Fein and then Labour or the Greens for second preference unless there was a very good indpendant running as well.