Leo Varadkar & Fine Gael Manifesto

charlie14

LionelNashe wrote: »

Did they have the numbers though? I don't know what was in their manifesto, so I'm not arguing, just asking the question. It seems to me that the parties can promise what they like before elections, because they know they'll be in a coalition afterwards and then they'll have to compromise and change their plans anyway. Also, other unpredictable things happen, like the economy doing less well than expected, and that gives them another get-out clause. I think parties should have to state their priorities in such a way that we know what their highest priorities will be in the event that they have to enter a coalition, and/or face monetary restraints, and so can't do everything.

If a party has the numbers then imo there is a democratic onus on them to have their manifesto as their programme for government.
If not then there obviously has to be compromise.
The point I was making that in relation to water charges what we got from the FG/Lab government was neither.
It was a completely different policy that bore no resemblance to what was contained in either their manifestos.
During the lifetime of a government certain areas around finance may change, but nowadays during GE election campaigns all parties through the Dept of Finance are well aware of state finances.
They do not just walk in and discover some massive hole, regardless of what they may say once there.

Buckmickley

charlie14 wrote: »

So are you saying you are here for discussion ?
With you refusing to answer questions and ignoring what posters say, I was off the opinion you were just here to blind the rest of us with your own understanding of manifestos, coalitions and programmes for government with your hyperbolic " This threads educational values, instructive mainly on the definition of a coalition & programme for government will be everlasting"

If you had read my posts you would have seen that with a coalition I said there had to be a compromise from both parties on programme for government.
Then again, perhaps you did and are just conveniently avoiding answering where there was compromise in the manifestos of both FG and Labour manifestos where FG were not going to charge domestic households for water until we had a system fit for purpose and Labour were opposed to charges.

Interesting take on democracy.
Are you saying that is the prerogative of just voters or does it also include those elected to govern in that when a party or a number of parties forming a government, are entitled to ignore totally their manifestos that got them voted into office and simply change their policies, which is what happened in that instance ?

But I have discussed with you and why said manifestos are not possible to implement
Beyond that it's pointless blustering on about how evil a party,any party is for not doing what they lacked enough votes for to achieve
I actually do not understand why that's not understood by one or two posters here other than it being the basis for vacuous moaning

For Reals

Buckmickley wrote: »

But I have discussed with you and why said manifestos are not possible to implement
Beyond that it's pointless blustering on about how evil a party,any party is for not doing what they lacked enough votes for to achieve
I actually do not understand why that's not understand by one or two posters here other than it being the basis for vacuous moaning

I get your point. I agree with your point. However, there are exceptions when money isn't really an issue and both coalition partners are selling the same line.
This goes back to FG not pursuing elements of their 2011 manifesto, which mirrored elements of Labour's.
The point is on whether FG decided not to pursue such elements or were unable to. All the dismissive arrogance in the world won't sell the latter though. Everything points to choosing not to. Unless someone can show efforts in that regard, tabled, only to be scuppered by Labour.

Buckmickley

For Reals wrote: »

I get your point. I agree with your point. However, there are exceptions when money isn't really an issue and both coalition partners are selling the same line.
This goes back to FG not pursuing elements of their 2011 manifesto, which mirrored elements of Labour's.
The point is on whether FG decided not to pursue such elements or were unable to. All the dismissive arrogance in the world won't sell the latter though. Everything points to choosing not to. Unless someone can show efforts in that regard, tabled, only to be scuppered by Labour.

That's all fine and dandy except we are not privy to the intricacies of the negotiations,who decided to prioritise what,who to put it bluntly acted the pr1ck on one issue or another
It's no different to any agreement before it's made,fights banging on desks calmness,everything etc
Ergo we're back to evaluating the agreement not the aspirations

If we weren't we'd have had a united Ireland and a U.K. out of the GFA etc etc etc

For Reals

Buckmickley wrote: »

That's all fine and dandy except we are not privy to the intricacies of the negotiations,who decided to prioritise what,who to put it bluntly acted the pr1ck on one issue or another
It's no different to any agreement before it's made,fights banging on desks calmness,everything etc
Ergo we're back to evaluating the agreement not the aspirations

If we weren't we'd have had a united Ireland and a U.K. out of the GFA etc etc etc

Fair enough. We don't know the finer, behind closed doors details as to why. Maybe Labour bullied FG. Which would be surprising to be fair. Maybe along the lines of 'Reilly can open clinics anywhere he likes and go to town with IW/metering, but despite both our manifestos, no tackling elitism and cronyism, not overly fussed about ministerial department accountability either and carry on as FF did before us as regards housing!'. Seems like a plausible scenario.

Buckmickley

FYI,Reilly Hogan and to a certain extent Kenny (for his need of their advice) were a cancer on FG in my opinion
You don't have to *not* support a party when it isn't everything you'd like
I'm not expecting perfection but I'm hoping for the new man,younger guard to be not a death Knell yet but a good bit of the way there to the Irish party business of looking after their own
It's one thing that would set FG apart and I'd say FF know it

Going slightly off topic,Knowing Vradaker,I'd imagine he was livid with the last minute judge decision
But like all compromises,it was probably not worth the fight,softly softly catchy Wormey etc
It's interesting though given his background that he's probably the most anti FF leader I've ever seen
So interesting times ahead

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

But I have discussed with you and why said manifestos are not possible to implement
Beyond that it's pointless blustering on about how evil a party,any party is for not doing what they lacked enough votes for to achieve
I actually do not understand why that's not understood by one or two posters here other than it being the basis for vacuous moaning

The point I am making which you either do not understand or do not wish too has nothing to do with a party not having enough votes to implement their manifesto.
I have told you on a number of occasions that with a coalition it will always entail compromise.
You have said that the programme for government is what matters and have even offered to give us a definition of democracy.
Do you believe that a programme for government that includes a policy that is not just a compromise, but at total variance with both FG and Labours manifestos as water charges were, is democratic ?
In both lying to the electorate, were they in fact not the real agitators rather than the members off the electorate that voted for them based on their manifestos!

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

FYI,Reilly Hogan and to a certain extent Kenny (for his need of their advice) were a cancer on FG in my opinion
You don't have to *not* support a party when it isn't everything you'd like
I'm not expecting perfection but I'm hoping for the new man,younger guard to be not a death Knell yet but a good bit of the way there to the Irish party business of looking after their own
It's one thing that would set FG apart and I'd say FF know it

Going slightly off topic,Knowing Vradaker,I'd imagine he was livid with the last minute judge decision
But like all compromises,it was probably not worth the fight,softly softly catchy Wormey etc
It's interesting though given his background that he's probably the most anti FF leader I've ever seen
So interesting times ahead

He may have been livid, but his actions afterwards didn`t do himself any favours in the Irish party business of looking after their own.

Not an auspicious start imho.

Buckmickley

charlie14 wrote: »

He may have been livid, but his actions afterwards didn`t do himself any favours in the Irish party business of looking after their own.

Not an auspicious start imho.

In fairness that's an argumentative opinion
I'd say he was livid that he didn't get to steer the decision,not the choice itself
No actual rule he said was broken but you'd know (maybe not you) that he'd have preferred a different way
In the bigger scheme of things it's the proverbial hoo ha in a tea cup
More to do with writers of newspaper copy and Martin having nothing better to rant about to get said copy
Seen it all before on all sides

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

In fairness that's an argumentative opinion
I'd say he was livid that he didn't get to steer the decision,not the choice itself
No actual rule he said was broken but you'd know (maybe not you) that he'd have preferred a different way
In the bigger scheme of things it's the proverbial hoo ha in a tea cup
More to do with writers of newspaper copy and Martin having nothing better to rant about to get said copy
Seen it all before on all sides

Nothing argumentative about my opinion.
I believe Kenny caught him on the hop and whereas it may have been legal, there were still a lot of questions that went unanswered using claims of cabinet confidentiality that haven`t left a good impression.
With it supposed to be discussed on Tuesday at cabinet, Varadkar rushing it through on the Sunday and making the appointment didn`t look great either.
To me anyway it looks as if when he realised it looked dodgy his first instinct, rather than looking at it gain, was to tough it out.

Buckmickley

I doubt Vradaker intently rushed it through now and it's gone off the news quickly rightly in my opinion anyway in favour of other things which says a lot for its value either as news or as fodder

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

I doubt Vradaker intently rushed it through now and it's gone off the news quickly rightly in my opinion anyway in favour of other things which says a lot for its value either as news or as fodder

You doubt Varadkar rushed it through with him approving her appointment on a Sunday and having her out in the Park on Monday morning when the whole issue was up for Cabinet discussion on Tuesday.
Seriously now

Nothing lasts forever in the headlines. Nowadays less than times past, but it did feature for quite a while.
Not an auspicious start for Varadkar imo.

Buckmickley

He was efficient and moved on

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

He was efficient and moved on

Time will be the judge of that.
As another Taoiseach once observed, it can be the small hurdles that do the damage more so than the large.