Leo Varadkar & Fine Gael Manifesto

For Reals

Buckmickley wrote: »

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

Those 'facts' are falsehoods.
When both sides have the same agenda and it's not followed through, that's not down to any barrier put up by coalition partners. The only point here is not following through on elements of the manifesto was a choice.
What's a program for government other than two parties bringing their wants to the table and finding a middle ground? When both sides have goals that match, not following through is a decision.
We know the landscape changes sometimes rapidly, but blaming the mechanics of coalition, in this case with Labour, for Fine Gael's lack of follow through is disingenuous.

As with Fianna Fail and the current program, we must ask ourselves as agitators, (voters tied to no party) are Fine Gael in government with Fianna Fail to merely hold on to power? If not, and there to try their best to enact their 2016 manifesto or in the least the intent of it, after choosing to partner with Fianna Fail and Indies, have they now carte blanche to do what ever, because they've not got a majority, so they've no responsibility, for what policies they enact and which partners they choose? Bit of a win win isn't it? No responsibility.
Agitating, IMO.

Buckmickley

For Reals wrote: »

Those 'facts' are falsehoods.
When both sides have the same agenda and it's not followed through, that's not down to any barrier put up by coalition partners. The only point here is not following through on elements of the manifesto was a choice.
What's a program for government other than two parties bringing their wants to the table and finding a middle ground? When both sides have goals that match, not following through is a decision.
We know the landscape changes sometimes rapidly, but blaming the mechanics of coalition, in this case with Labour, for Fine Gael's lack of follow through is disingenuous.

As with Fianna Fail and the current program, we must ask ourselves as agitators, (voters tied to no party) are Fine Gael in government with Fianna Fail to merely hold on to power? If not, and there to try their best to enact their 2016 manifesto or in the least the intent of it, after choosing to partner with Fianna Fail and Indies, have they now carte blanche to do what ever, because they've not got a majority, so they've no responsibility, for what policies they enact and which partners they choose? Bit of a win win isn't it? No responsibility.
Agitating, IMO.

The strawman continues
As none of us are party to programme for government negotiations,we can only compare manifestos to programmes and draw conclusions
But we cannot confirm falsehood's such as you did
I do appreciate that avoiding these facts helps one Vent if one is so minded of course

For Reals

Buckmickley wrote: »

The strawman continues
As none of us are party to programme for government negotiations,we can only compare manifestos to programmes and draw conclusions
But we cannot confirm falsehood's such as you did
I do appreciate that avoiding these facts helps one Vent if one is so minded of course

You keep repeating what I've already responded to.
I'll leave it at blaming a like minded coalition partner (or coalitions in general) for Fine Gael's little or no follow through, just doesn't wash with this 'agitator'.

Buckmickley

But you didn't respond at all
You just deflected/ignored

Problem with that tactic is it doesn't convince the thinking mind

For Reals

Some good news. How leaving the construction industry to regulate itself made sense outside of benefiting the construction industry is one for the 'Program for Partnership' to discuss with itself.

Govt defeated in Dail vote on building standards
TDs voted by 84 votes to 46 in favour of the motion put forward by the Greens to put an independent regulator in the form of an Irish building authority in place and abandon plans to allow the construction sector to continue self-regulation.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0622/884833-dail-vote/

Trying to let the construction industry continue to self regulate while in defacto partnership with Fianna Fail

Well done Greens.

Buckmickley

For Reals wrote: »

Some good news. How leaving the construction industry to regulate itself made sense outside of benefiting the construction industry is one for the 'Program for Partnership' to discuss with itself.

Govt defeated in Dail vote on building standards
TDs voted by 84 votes to 46 in favour of the motion put forward by the Greens to put an independent regulator in the form of an Irish building authority in place and abandon plans to allow the construction sector to continue self-regulation.
https://www.rte.ie/new...22/884833-dail-vote/

Trying to let the construction industry continue to self regulate while in defacto partnership with Fianna Fail

Well done Greens.

That's not a good example to be throwing up on this threads subject simply because FF had their own amendment,FG theirs and then there was the green proposal,all essentially variations on the same theme

Both amendments have extensive agreement with the green motion except FG believed that the green motion takes all financial responsibility for housing defects away from the developers and lays it on the tax payer

How bringing that up makes any point about a manifesto other than parties cannot implement them unless they've a majority,I don't know

It's another lovely deflective bit of strawmanery though

For Reals

Buckmickley wrote: »

That's not a good example to be throwing up on this threads subject simply because FF had their own amendment,FG theirs and then there was the green proposal,all essentially variations on the same theme

Both amendments have extensive agreement with the green motion except FG believed that the green motion takes all financial responsibility for housing defects away from the developers and lays it on the tax payer

How bringing that up makes any point about a manifesto other than parties cannot implement them unless they've a majority,I don't know

It's another lovely deflective bit of strawmanery though

Seen a news report. Commented on it. Strawman all you like.
Maybe simply commenting as to why you side with leaving them regulate themselves, might be the more mature approach.

Buckmickley

For Reals wrote: »

Seen a news report. Commented on it. Strawman all you like.

Ah you did no research?
I did,that's the difference

You simply threw up a link and continued the straw man routine

markodaly

For Reals wrote: »

Some good news. How leaving the construction industry to regulate itself made sense outside of benefiting the construction industry is one for the 'Program for Partnership' to discuss with itself.



Trying to let the construction industry continue to self regulate while in defacto partnership with Fianna Fail

Well done Greens.

I would be of mind to say that this is off topic?

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

I would be of mind to say that this is off topic?

I would be off a mind that to limit discussion to the topic "Leo Varadkar & Fine Gael Manifesto" that after a handful of poststhe topic was dead due to irrelevance.

For Reals

markodaly wrote: »

I would be of mind to say that this is off topic?

I believe the thread to be about would Leo implement the FG Manifesto, is he obliged to? Posters have suggested it's near impossible for FG to implement manifesto and as was suggested, we should disregard manifesto and concentrate on the 'program for government'. Discussing policy changes is a natural progression I would have thought. Letting the industry that played a major role in our home grown crisis/crash continue to self-govern while in defacto partnership with the party that was in power at the time, is pretty note worthy. As I said, well done Greens.

markodaly

So, is this going to turn into a running thread on what FG have or not have done, ala a similar thread we had in the Cafe that ran for almost a year?

For Reals

markodaly wrote: »

So, is this going to turn into a running thread on what FG have or not have done, ala a similar thread we had in the Cafe that ran for almost a year?

I'm happy to move on. To go back to source; Does Leo need enact elements of the Kenny era manifesto or attempt to? Seems, no, manifestos aren't anything we can hold FG to unless they have a strong majority. The Program for partnership is seemingly the FG favoured party policy bible. So I guess the thread is done?

Buckmickley

For Reals wrote: »

I'm happy to move on. To go back to source; Does Leo need enact elements of the Kenny era manifesto or attempt to? Seems, no, manifestos aren't anything we can hold FG to unless they have a strong majority. The Program for partnership is seemingly the FG favoured party policy bible. So I guess the thread is done?

This threads educational values,instructive mainly on the definition of a coalition & programme for government will be everlasting
Look what's happened to the Tory manifesto in GB versus the queens speech when Mrs May lost her majority for instance
There are loads of good books on the topic
When I'm minded I'll suggest some good reads in the books sticky if it's still there
There's never enough learning

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

This threads educational values,instructive mainly on the definition of a coalition & programme for government will be everlasting
Look what's happened to the Tory manifesto in GB versus the queens speech when Mrs May lost her majority for instance
There are loads of good books on the topic
When I'm minded I'll suggest some good reads in the books sticky if it's still there
There's never enough learning

Glad you found it educational and instructive.
Personally I found it irrelevant as the FG manifesto 2016 whether under Kenny or Varadkar in terms of policy implementation isn`t worth the paper it is written on as they do not have the number to implement anything in it.
I did find both FG and Labours manifestos 2011 educational though in that they were also not with the paper they were written on. Nothing other than a "Isn`t that what you tend to do during an election".

Btw, if you are still keen on educating people on manifestos and programmes for government, perhaps send both parties a copy of each of their 2011 manifestos along with the results of the 2014 local elections with a little note saying " The writing was on the wall then lads and lassies but you just refused to learn and see where that got both your parties"

Buckmickley

charlie14 wrote: »

Glad you found it educational and instructive.
Personally I found it irrelevant as the FG manifesto 2016 whether under Kenny or Varadkar in terms of policy implementation isn`t worth the paper it is written on as they do not have the number to implement anything in it.
I did find both FG and Labours manifestos 2011 educational though in that they were also not with the paper they were written on. Nothing other than a "Isn`t that what you tend to do during an election".

Btw, if you are still keen on educating people on manifestos and programmes for government, perhaps send both parties a copy of each of their 2011 manifestos along with the results of the 2014 local elections with a little note saying " The writing was on the wall then lads and lassies but you just refused to learn and see where that got both your parties"

If it's irrelevant,why are you posting?
Don't tell me I also have to dig out a definition of that for ye too

As for the rest of your post it's still working on the false premise that a government without a majority can implement its policies in full
You also seem to be labouring under the assumption that no one should dare go look for votes for anything if there's the slightest risk it won't get enough votes

News flash Ireland is a democracy where differing opinions not only exist they're allowed
But then I'm not surprised as ye steadfastly refuse to recognise that compromise governments (coalitions) happen with hard bargaining as to what programme they'll follow
If you are finding that hard to grasp when it's as obvious as my heads wet there's water dripping above me,I'll just have to assume you're only interested in bluster not education or even a discussion
This is supposed to be a discussion forum don't you know

LionelNashe

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

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.

For Reals

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.

In certain aspects, which required no money to implement, both Labour and Fine Gael's manifestos were in sync. Yet rather than tackle cronyism, elites etc. they exacerbated the problem by taking part rather than tackling. Not to mention the complete wasted opportunity of seizing the mood and making large in-roads into restructuring health rather than concentrating on the economy and little else, even IW/environment was a gimmick in that regard. Priorities were geared towards business and society as a whole was left to twist, except in any regard that would assist business and opening up international lines of credit.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Serious posts only please. Obscure or vague references are not permitted.

charlie14

Buckmickley wrote: »

If it's irrelevant,why are you posting?
Don't tell me I also have to dig out a definition of that for ye too

As for the rest of your post it's still working on the false premise that a government without a majority can implement its policies in full
You also seem to be labouring under the assumption that no one should dare go look for votes for anything if there's the slightest risk it won't get enough votes

News flash Ireland is a democracy where differing opinions not only exist they're allowed
But then I'm not surprised as ye steadfastly refuse to recognise that compromise governments (coalitions) happen with hard bargaining as to what programme they'll follow
If you are finding that hard to grasp when it's as obvious as my heads wet there's water dripping above me,I'll just have to assume you're only interested in bluster not education or even a discussion
This is supposed to be a discussion forum don't you know

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 ?

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.