Leo Varadkar & Fine Gael Manifesto

hometruths

How much of the 2016 Fine Gael Manifesto is Leo Varadkar likely to stick by?

Can a new Taoiseach just ignore it and do what he likes or is there some sort of understanding that he will broadly implement it?

charlie14

schmittel wrote: »

How much of the 2016 Fine Gael Manifesto is Leo Varadkar likely to stick by?

Can a new Taoiseach just ignore it and do what he likes or is there some sort of understanding that he will broadly implement it?

The fact that Varadkar has replaced Kenny as Taoiseach really changes nothing in relation to the FG 2016 manifesto.
Only the Taoiseach has changed, not the number of FG TD`s.
FG do not have the numbers to push through anything from that 2016 manifesto.

LeinsterDub

The S&C with FF is more likely to bind him

charlie14

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The S&C with FF is more likely to bind him

One and the same really seeing as FG do not have the numbers to do carry through any manifesto.
Any attempt to do it without an S&C would collapse the government due to losing a Dail vote.

For Reals

charlie14 wrote: »

One and the same really seeing as FG do not have the numbers to do carry through any manifesto.
Any attempt to do it without an S&C would collapse the government due to losing a Dail vote.

Still waiting on their 2011 Manifesto to manifest.

charlie14

For Reals wrote: »

Still waiting on their 2011 Manifesto to manifest.

True enough.
Not much point in having any belief in their 2016 Manifesto, even if they had the numbers, when we have seen how much they reneged on their 2011 Manifesto when they did have the numbers to actually make a difference.

Still, cronyism and strokes are going well for them.

Mr.Micro

FG might as well get together with FF and produce a common manifesto. Both parties are the same now, different in name only.

For Reals

Mr.Micro wrote: »

FG might as well get together with FF and produce a common manifesto. Both parties are the same now, different in name only.

It's different associations though. Both have their own networks. I can't see them teaming up officially. They'd be bickering over which pal/backer gets what.

charlie14

Mr.Micro wrote: »

FG might as well get together with FF and produce a common manifesto. Both parties are the same now, different in name only.

FG certainly made a major push the last 6 years to catch up.
Near as makes no difference now between them when it comes pulling strokes and looking after friends.
The big stumbling block on a common manifesto, as For Reals has pointed out, is they have different friends.

markodaly

You may as well consign the FG manifesto to the bin as it was rejected by the Irish people. FG did not win a majority, so why are people basing the governments performance on a piece of paper that did not receive a mandate.

If you are honest and true, you would base the performance of the government by the program for government agreed by FG and FF.

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Programme_for_Partnership_Government.pdf

For Reals

On the not able because no mandate etc. here's some samplers on transparency, cronyism.

Let's be clear, we are talking Fianna Fail here;

Fine Gael 2011: Manifesto

Behind the wreckage of our banking system, our health service, our public finances and the jobs market,
lies a cosy culture of cronyism and low standards that infiltrated the top of our political and public service
systems under recent Governments.
It is a culture that abandoned the principles underpinning the Republic that Fine Gael founded in 1949 by
distorting the power and resources of the State for the benefit of the few, not the many. It allowed special
interests to crowd out the public interest. It pushed the interests of citizens behind those of powerful
elites...

So what did their partners in government say?

Labour 2011: Manifesto

End political cronyism by opening up positions on state boards to all qualified candidates, and require appointments to be scrutinised by the D?il. A Whistleblower’s Law to protect those in the public and private sector who expose corruption or misconduct.
https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labour_election_manifesto_2011.pdf

So being in partnership was not a hindrance to follow through, (or lack there of) it would seem.
In fact both Labour's and Fine Gael's 2011 Manifestos are very similar and fit the tone of the time; new politics.

Fine Gael 2016: Manifesto

Fine Gael has learnt from the mistakes made by previous governments – we know that only a strong economy that supports people at work can pay for the services needed for a just society.

We are determined not to let Ireland go back – not to those who wrecked our economy in the first place, and not to those who would kill jobs with new taxes on work. In an uncertain world, our Long Term Economic Plan will reinforce Ireland’s position as a pro- jobs and pro-family country of stability, growth and opportunity for all.
https://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/Manifestos2016/FGManifesto16.pdf

Fianna Fail 2016: Manifesto

...
https://www.fiannafail.ie/download/An-Ireland-for-all-Fianna-FaCC81il-Manifesto.pdf

Can't find any reference less cronyism, transparency in their manifesto.
Which asks the question, rather than giving Fine Gael the benefit of the doubt, that they can't enact their 2016 manifesto due to partnering with Fianna Fail, why on earth did they partner with Fianna Fail in the first place? And if it's 'the best option', what's the point if unlike the last partnership with Labour, you're on a different wavelength?

As Enda himself put it, "We are determined not to let Ireland go back – not to those who wrecked our economy in the first place".

So the best way to save the country from repeating the past shenanigans of Fianna Fail, is to partner with Fianna Fail. Got it.

Let's see how the pamphlet for partnership pans out.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

You may as well consign the FG manifesto to the bin as it was rejected by the Irish people. FG did not win a majority, so why are people basing the governments performance on a piece of paper that did not receive a mandate.

If you are honest and true, you would base the performance of the government by the program for government agreed by FG and FF.

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Programme_for_Partnership_Government.pdf

People like to base their assessment of the Government's performance on whether they have delivered their promises set out in their manifesto. When there is a coalition government that is even better for the critics because it is impossible for either side to deliver on their manifesto.

What they fail to realise is that the only parties to have delivered any part of their manifestos over the last decade are FF, FG, Labour, the Independent Alliance and the Greens.

The likes of SF, AAA/PBP and other small groupings have managed to deliver 0% of their manifestos. Yes, they haven't compromised but compromising on nothing doesn't cost anything.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

People like to base their assessment of the Government's performance on whether they have delivered their promises set out in their manifesto. When there is a coalition government that is even better for the critics because it is impossible for either side to deliver on their manifesto.

What they fail to realise is that the only parties to have delivered any part of their manifestos over the last decade are FF, FG, Labour, the Independent Alliance and the Greens.

The likes of SF, AAA/PBP and other small groupings have managed to deliver 0% of their manifestos. Yes, they haven't compromised but compromising on nothing doesn't cost anything.

Your post ignores that a party or grouping has to be in a majority government to deliver on their manifesto.

FF, FG, Labour, the Independent Alliance and the Greens have all been in such government at some stage, so therefore have been in position to do so.
As of yet SF, AAA/PBP or any other present small groupings have not been in government.

The present FG/Independent Alliance is a minority government so is in no position to deliver on any manifesto, be that 2011 or 2016.
Perhaps no bad thing either when you consider the Maire Whelan Court of Appeal/Stepaside Garda station horse trading between Shane Ross and FG.

For Reals

charlie14 wrote: »

Your post ignores that a party or grouping has to be in a majority government to deliver on their manifesto.

FF, FG, Labour, the Independent Alliance and the Greens have all been in such government at some stage, so therefore have been in position to do so.
As of yet SF, AAA/PBP or any other present small groupings have not been in government.

The present FG/Independent Alliance is a minority government so is in no position to deliver on any manifesto, be that 2011 or 2016.
Perhaps no bad thing either when you consider the Maire Whelan Court of Appeal/Stepaside Garda station horse trading between Shane Ross and FG.

The initial premise was not having a mandate and partnering. It's been shown in 2011 for example both Labour and Fine Gael had similar manifestos, specifically in regard to Health, Cronyism etc. So the idea that one was restricting the other in that regard is false.
Getting back to Leo. His style regarding Martin and the Marie Whelan affair will not help any partnership. I'm sure Martin is merely point scoring but Leo needs cool his jets IMO, re: 'Casting aspersions'.

markodaly

For Reals wrote: »

The initial premise was not having a mandate and partnering. It's been shown in 2011 for example both Labour and Fine Gael had similar manifestos, specifically in regard to Health, Cronyism etc. So the idea that one was restricting the other in that regard is false.
Getting back to Leo. His style regarding Martin and the Marie Whelan affair will not help any partnership. I'm sure Martin is merely point scoring but Leo needs cool his jets IMO, re: 'Casting aspersions'.

The whole Marie Whealan thing is a storm in a tea cup. She is more than qualified, something which no one seems to take issue with. The manner of the appointment is what grates some, but optics aside, FF are just trying to make some headlines.

I would agree with Leo however that Martin needs to drop this as he is undermining the authority of the Judiciary by criticising a member of it. The branches of government are seperate for a reason. Its done, its over, she has been appointed. FF should drop it and lick their wounds.

For Reals

markodaly wrote: »

The whole Marie Whealan thing is a storm in a tea cup. She is more than qualified, something which no one seems to take issue with. The manner of the appointment is what grates some, but optics aside, FF are just trying to make some headlines.

I would agree with Leo however that Martin needs to drop this as he is undermining the authority of the Judiciary by criticising a member of it. The branches of government are seperate for a reason. Its done, its over, she has been appointed. FF should drop it and lick their wounds.

I agree it's mostly about Martin point scoring but he has an issue and Leo would better serve the FF arrangement by addressing it rather than kicking off. Leo's "Casting aspersions" suggests a personal dig from Martin. This brings it to a new level. As a leader Leo should be diffusing issues not escalating.
Maybe he can't help being who he is.

keane2097

The whole 'Maire Whelan is no Adrian Hardiman' line Martin came out the other days was pretty despicable I thought.

Chips Lovell

It's partly shadow boxing and partly one battle in the long war. Varadkar can respond robustly because he knows that Martin isn't going to force an election over this, since he needs to wait for the shine to go off the new Taoiseach before going to the polls.

But it's the sum total of controversies like this that will knock that shine off, so he has to keep chipping away.

Its one of those rows where you could see that pretty much any party, if they were in government, doing the same; and pretty much any party, if they were in opposition, furiously objecting to it.

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

The whole Marie Whealan thing is a storm in a tea cup. She is more than qualified, something which no one seems to take issue with. The manner of the appointment is what grates some, but optics aside, FF are just trying to make some headlines.

I would agree with Leo however that Martin needs to drop this as he is undermining the authority of the Judiciary by criticising a member of it. The branches of government are seperate for a reason. Its done, its over, she has been appointed. FF should drop it and lick their wounds.

She may have all the certificate hanging on her wall, but she is now appointed as a judge to the Court of Appeal having never sat on the bench. A position that three court judges applied for through her office of Attorney General, a position where she didn`t exactly cover herself in glory, and one where despite of all Varadkar`s talk of her competence, he wanted her gone from.

I don`t see Varadkar`s point on the branches of government being separate when his own government ignored the Court and Court Officers Act 1995 in appointing her and in the process were involved in horse trading with Shane Ross on the Stepaside Garda station to achieve it.
I would imagine from that sleight of hand cute political hoorism, the Judiciary feel their authority undermined by this government.

IMO the opposition were quite entitled to bring this up and Varadkar, FG and Ross made a complete mess of it resulting in a lot of the shine Varadkar had gained through the publicity of the FG leadership being wiped out by Kenny`s parting gift.

Buckmickley

Thanks to cabinet confidentiality the opposition don't know how the appointment was processed
vradaker did assure the house and the Downing st press conference though that it was done appropriately
He's also committed to fast tracking a more independent process

Martin made a hames of himself yesterday

Getting back on topic,how ridiculous is it on a politics forum that people don't know what a coalition is and what a C&S arrangement is for a minority government i.e. How they work

Neither have the authority to do anything other than implement bits of their manifesto

Criticism for not implementing specifics should be reserved for governments with a single party majority

Any other government should be criticised only for the lack of implementation of their programme for government or their C&S agreement

There's been no Single party government elected since Jack Lynch so going on about manifesto commitments is lazy and ignorance of the subject in my opinion

For Reals

Buckmickley wrote: »

Thanks to cabinet confidentiality the opposition don't know how the appointment was processed
vradaker did assure the house and the Downing st press conference though that it was done appropriately
He's also committed to fast tracking a more independent process

Martin made a hames of himself yesterday

Getting back on topic,how ridiculous is it on a politics forum that people don't know what a coalition is and what a C&S arrangement is for a minority government i.e. How they work

Neither have the authority to do anything other than implement bits of their manifesto

Criticism for not implementing specifics should be reserved for governments with a single party majority

Any other government should be criticised only for the lack of implementation of their programme for government or their C&S agreement

There's been no Single party government elected since Jack Lynch so going on about manifesto commitments is lazy and ignorance of the subject in my opinion

But what about coalitions were both parties have very similar goals? If both parties have the same alleged intent, but neither enact it in any meaningful way, if at all, that's on them surely? Claiming simply because it's a coalition doesn't carry much weight.
Of course there's shifting sands and priorities change, but supposed key intent that has no barrier, yet isn't followed through, is another matter.
If we can see any moves to follow up on election manifestos scuppered by coalition partners, then it might be something to buy into.

Would the public have taken to the streets to protest a move against cronyism, no more pandering to elites? They implemented what they wanted, and left the rest to be consigned to the 'just something you say' category, IMO.

Let's see how Leo fares. But unless he completely changes political character, I expect some noise and posturing but nothing to write home about.

charlie14

keane2097 wrote: »

The whole 'Maire Whelan is no Adrian Hardiman' line Martin came out the other days was pretty despicable I thought.

Was it not Varadkar that brought up Adrian Hardiman first ?

Adrian Hardiman who passed away recently aged 64 was a colossus of the Irish Judiciary.
For Varadkar to even hint that Maire Whelan is anywhere in Adrian Hardiman`s league was ridiculous I thought.

flutered

markodaly wrote: »

The whole Marie Whealan thing is a storm in a tea cup. She is more than qualified, something which no one seems to take issue with. The manner of the appointment is what grates some, but optics aside, FF are just trying to make some headlines.

I would agree with Leo however that Martin needs to drop this as he is undermining the authority of the Judiciary by criticising a member of it. The branches of government are seperate for a reason. Its done, its over, she has been appointed. FF should drop it and lick their wounds.

undermining the authority of the judiciry, the judicery has done that to themselves so often in the recent past, thay martin had no need to do so, walk down any street in ireland one can see numerous people with over 100 convictions acting the maggot without fear of their conciquences, look at the seanie stunt, look at the fist jobstown trial, look at the present one where procicution withnesses do not have to answer defense council questions, if the ball was on the other foot there would be protests already outside the joy

Buckmickley

For Reals wrote: »

But what about coalitions were both parties have very similar goals? If both parties have the same alleged intent, but neither enact it in any meaningful way, if at all, that's on them surely? Claiming simply because it's a coalition doesn't carry much weight.
Of course there's shifting sands and priorities change, but supposed key intent that has no barrier, yet isn't followed through, is another matter.
If we can see any moves to follow up on election manifestos scuppered by coalition partners, then it might be something to buy into.

Would the public have taken to the streets to protest a move against cronyism, no more pandering to elites? They implemented what they wanted, and left the rest to be consigned to the 'just something you say' category, IMO.

Let's see how Leo fares. But unless he completely changes political character, I expect some noise and posturing but nothing to write home about.

Unless you can name a coalition that was made up of parties with similar views and there have been none,so you can't and didn't for that obvious reason,then the above is a sidetrack to ignore my basic point that manifestos aren't implemented unless a party gets a mandate for single party majority government
It's more than a point it's a fact

Inconvenient as it is for party bashing perfection espousing unrealists, its programmes for governments that should be the focus for analysis
But then too much of those are actually implemented and therefore don't suit agitators

keane2097

charlie14 wrote: »

Was it not Varadkar that brought up Adrian Hardiman first ?

Adrian Hardiman who passed away recently aged 64 was a colossus of the Irish Judiciary.
For Varadkar to even hint that Maire Whelan is anywhere in Adrian Hardiman`s league was ridiculous I thought.

The snippet I heard was Varadkar pointing out three appointments made by Fianna Fail in the context of 'procedures' including Hardiman.

Martin then comes out with 'Whelan is no Hardiman' as if to say 'sure he was deadly so who cares how he was appointed'. I didn't think it came across well anyway.

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

Unless you can name a coalition that was made up of parties with similar views and there have been none,so you can't and didn't for that obvious reason,then the above is a sidetrack to ignore my basic point that manifestos aren't implemented unless a party gets a mandate for single party majority government
It's more than a point it's a fact

Inconvenient as it is for party bashing perfection espousing unrealists, its programmes for governments that should be the focus for analysis
But then too much of those are actually implemented and therefore don't suit agitators

So your contention is that a programme for government should be the focus for analysis rather than the manifesto`s of two coalition partners, if I understand you correctly.
If so where does that leave voters, or as you term them agitators, who having voted based on a party manifesto find themselves when two parties coalesce and their programme for government is at total variance from both their manifestos ?
A case in point being the FG/Labour coalition 2011-2016 as regards Irish Water where one party campaigned on "no nay never" on water charges and the other on that there would be no charges until we had a service fit for purpose.
Are you not really saying that party manifestos are, to quote Pat Rabbitte "Isn`t that what you tend to do during an election" nothing other than catch all promises to gain votes simply to be ignored when gaining enough seats to participate in government.
I`m not saying that parties in a coalition have to stick to the exact letter of their manifestos, that would make governance impossible.
But surely it should be a compromise of both, not what we got with the Irish Water fiasco which was as chalk too cheese from both their promises in their manifestos.
Is it any wonder that as such voters were agitated that in this instance both parties simply lied to them in their manifestos

charlie14

keane2097 wrote: »

The snippet I heard was Varadkar pointing out three appointments made by Fianna Fail in the context of 'procedures' including Hardiman.

Martin then comes out with 'Whelan is no Hardiman' as if to say 'sure he was deadly so who cares how he was appointed'. I didn't think it came across well anyway.

Varadkar and FG had been banging on for days about how eminently qualified Whelan was for the position.
Martin had told him Sunday night that he did not believe she was and pointed out a few of her less than surefooted advice to the government as Attorney General and her dealings with the Fennelly Commission.

For Varadkar to then stand up in the Dail and say he had never heard doubts as to her suitability, when he clearly had, and then compare her to Hardiman, especially when Varadkar was the one that wanted her gone as Attorney General in the first instance, certainly didn`t come across well for Varadkar.

Buckmickley

Where does it leave voters?

Simply put if the policies are popular enough and sensible,they vote in that party with a majority

It doesn't work that way though because voters are such a divided bunch so the best they can hope for is that enough people vote for their choice such that it has the strongest possible mandate to negotiate as much of its own manifesto into a programme for government as possible

So it's obvious that if you step outside for a minute and think about it ,manifestos are exactly that a wish list
Logically the people to blame for not having them implemented in full are the people that voted for someone else

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

Where does it leave voters?

Simply put if the policies are popular enough and sensible,they vote in that party with a majority

It doesn't work that way though because voters are such a divided bunch so the best they can hope for is that enough people vote for their choice such that it has the strongest possible mandate to negotiate as much of its own manifesto into a programme for government as possible

So it's obvious that if you step outside for a minute and think about it ,manifestos are exactly that a wish list
Logically the people to blame for not having them implemented in full are the people that voted for someone else

With a majority government I don`t see how a manifesto could be looked on as a "wish list".
It would and should be the programme for government that the electorate expressed their democratic wish to have.

In a coalition government then obviously there would have to be compromises by all parties, but that does not address the point I made in reference to your castigating voters as agitators when they voice their displeasure on a programme for government that has no bearing on either parties manifesto as was the case in the FG/Lab the 2011-2016 programme for government regarding Irish Water.

Neither party`s manifesto in that case was a "wish list" or a compromise.
It was simply a lie from both, and in a democracy voters were perfectly entitled to fell agitated.

For Reals

Buckmickley wrote: »

Unless you can name a coalition that was made up of parties with similar views and there have been none,so you can't and didn't for that obvious reason,then the above is a sidetrack to ignore my basic point that manifestos aren't implemented unless a party gets a mandate for single party majority government
It's more than a point it's a fact

Inconvenient as it is for party bashing perfection espousing unrealists, its programmes for governments that should be the focus for analysis
But then too much of those are actually implemented and therefore don't suit agitators

Labour and Fine Gael had the exact same manifesto points on Elites/cronyism. They'd enough in common to go into partnership willingly. To suggest Labour bullied Fine Gael into more cronyism than tackling it is ludicrous quite frankly.
Can you point to something Fine Gael fought tooth and nail to implement only to be scuppered by Labour, (early days on this incarnation)? Reilly's Clinic allocations? IW? Inappropriate NAMA shenanigans? Crony appointments? 'Looking after our own'?

As regards party bashing, manifesto baloney calling out more like .
What's an agitator? A person unhappy with renaged upon government election promises after wasting a vote on them? Lock them all up lest they toddle along too slowly, right?

The point is, when you have the ability to enact elements of your manifesto but choose not to. You cannot be believed on anything.

Buckmickley

For Reals wrote: »

The point is, when you have the ability to enact elements of your manifesto but choose not to. You cannot be believed on anything.

I'll say one thing for you,you're consistent in hanging on to the non sequiturs for fear you might have to accept the definition of a coalition ,a bargained programme for government between parties of what to and what not to implement from each other's manifestos
Or to accept the need for such is that opinions are too split among voters
Or to accept that to avoid chaos a compromise must be bargained on most things

Strawman analysis like yours never changes those facts ,it only tries to avoid them