General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What do the opposition do? If you disagree with them, they should stay quiet?
You are not addressing the point and have given no opinion on it.

If they have a majority in the House, (and if, as they claim, they have 50 bills lined up to pass only held up by some archaic provision about money bills, then they believe they have that majority), they form a government and they get on with delivering change instead of hurling from the ditch.

is_that_so

This is a good source for the populist election "promises". 1977(FF) and 2007(all) are worth attention!

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If they have a majority in the House, (and if, as they claim, they have 50 bills lined up to pass only held up by some archaic provision about money bills, then they believe they have that majority), they form a government and they get on with delivering change instead of hurling from the ditch.

Hey, Blanch. Posting as a courtesy. I'll not be engaging on any trips down magic rabbit holes. When you want to discuss claims of FG's misuse of the 'money message', valid, not? let me know. Slán.

L1011

jm08 wrote: »

So you have to put the services in then like broadband, power anyway!

Easier to subsidise satellite to the few who need to live in isolation than subsidise fiber for the many who have decided to.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

Whatever. My point remains, it is a cultural thing, not a populist thing.

CPOs would only work for social housing. It doesn't work for private individuals who end up building their own homes on their parents plots.

You have just proved my point on this being a populist policy.

Just because it's 'cultural' or because it was the way we have always done it, does not mean its a good idea to continue said policy.

Slavery was also a cultural thing.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

So you have to put the services in then like broadband, power anyway!

In Ireland, these are subsidised hugely. In other countries like NZ, if you want to live in the middle of nowhere, you will have to pay for your own power lines to connect up to the national grid, a cost that can be up to $50,000.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Hey, Blanch. Posting as a courtesy. I'll not be engaging on any trips down magic rabbit holes. When you want to discuss claims of FG's misuse of the 'money message', valid, not? let me know. Slán.

It is a valid point. The people giving out about money bills think they are in government. This is not how it works.

The government governs.

If there is another majority in the Dail to form another government, then let them at it. What they want to do, is be some kind of government by proxy by introducing these bills, claiming there is a majority for them, yet remain outside of government.

It is quite simple really.

Mules

Populism is a dirty word for those who are satisfied with the status quo. A lot of people who complain about it are just parroting the media.

FreudianSlippers

Matt here continues to post nonsense yet for once admits his beloved "anyone but FF and FG" position is so untenable that they will never even remotely touch power, have no clear political views (other than whatever the opposite of what FF/FG do) and are essentially useless.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. It seems you didn't understand my comment.
Wouldn't FF/FG fall into that? Did you read Kenny's 2011 manifesto? It was all about the system being corrupt and ignoring the average punter and favours for bankers and the like. FF will be at same claiming FG are the elites. That's why they need each other to survive and their spin merchants try keep it that way, IMO because parties on single digit support are the 'real' threat.
The other are guilty of same but FF/FG are the masters.

I understood your comment perfectly... you don't understand the difference between "populist" and "popular" and you're doubling down on the misunderstanding.

FreudianSlippers

jm08 wrote: »

That happens in Ireland as well. There are 100s of private water schemes in Ireland.

Great, so no problem then.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. It seems you didn't understand my comment.
Wouldn't FF/FG fall into that? Did you read Kenny's 2011 manifesto? It was all about the system being corrupt and ignoring the average punter and favours for bankers and the like. FF will be at same claiming FG are the elites. That's why they need each other to survive and their spin merchants try keep it that way, IMO because parties on single digit support are the 'real' threat.
The other are guilty of same but FF/FG are the masters.

Just in case anyone was wondering if this is a lie: It is.

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf


Just in case anyone was wondering what a 2011 manifesto has to do with anything: Nothing.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Hey, Blanch. Posting as a courtesy. I'll not be engaging on any trips down magic rabbit holes. When you want to discuss claims of FG's misuse of the 'money message', valid, not? let me know. Slán.

Matt,

I have clearly set out why there is no misuse of the “money message”. If you want to dig out a link to any one of those 50 bills, I will explain with reference to the details of the bill, why the money message is not misused.


I have also set out the alternative route to the opposition getting their Money bills enacted - go into government.

There has been no evidence at all presented by you or any other poster to demonstrate why FG have misused the money message (other than Paul Murphy or some other left-winger said it is so). Until such evidence is presented, it is perfectly normal in this forum to dismiss unsubstantiated claims such as yours.

is_that_so

Mules wrote: »

Populism is a dirty word for those who are satisfied with the status quo. A lot of people who complain about it are just parroting the media.

Populism tends to be about pleasing the largest number of people with the least amount of effort. Cutting tax by 2%, €21K Min wage, make MNCs pay for water charges or RTE(Thank you Paul Murphy!) are examples of simplistic notions that some will ask inconvenient questions about. Populism does not fare well on detail but nor do many voters!

markodaly

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just in case anyone was wondering if this is a lie: It is.

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf


Just in case anyone was wondering what a 2011 manifesto has to do with anything: Nothing.

It is good to draw attention to this fact. Many posters here fall into the trap of populist Utopian-ism as well.
Giving out all and sundry about 'da Government', posting simple back of the hanky solutions to complex problems, yet when solutions are put forward, they
are either no good enough, or ideologically not compatible to how they would look at the problem. But hey, a FG manifesto from 8 years ago, wrongly quotes is worth bringing up.

To put simple, sitting on the fence and being a hurler on the ditch is one of the most popular pastimes in Ireland.

xl500

The Rural Broadband contract is coming before cabinet today there seems to be no way to stop this and with a General Election expected in the Spring 2020 it will be a major shouting point for rural FG TDs

It is absolutely crazy to bring fibre to every home in the country regardless of where they are this is a major expense on the taxpayer and we wont even own the infrastructure

IMO we should run fibre to major towns and after that if you want to live on the side of a mountain or in the most remote place possible then thats your choice and you pay to bring the services to your site why should I as a taxpayer

There are comparisions being made to rural electrification this in no way compares at the time of that there was way less one off housing in the country

interestingly if you now decide to build in a remote location you pay to bring Electricty to your site

This is populism at its worst

blanch152

xl500 wrote: »

The Rural Broadband contract is coming before cabinet today there seems to be no way to stop this and with a General Election expected in the Spring 2020 it will be a major shouting point for rural FG TDs

It is absolutely crazy to bring fibre to every home in the country regardless of where they are this is a major expense on the taxpayer and we wont even own the infrastructure

IMO we should run fibre to major towns and after that if you want to live on the side of a mountain or in the most remote place possible then thats your choice and you pay to bring the services to your site why should I as a taxpayer

There are comparisions being made to rural electrification this in no way compares at the time of that there was way less one off housing in the country

interestingly if you now decide to build in a remote location you pay to bring Electricty to your site

This is populism at its worst

I agree with you completely and what is worse is that the only opposition is coming from people who say more should be covered by the government plan.

whisky_galore

xl500 wrote: »

There are comparisions being made to rural electrification this in no way compares at the time of that there was way less one off housing in the country

Driving around I see wrecks of houses everyday, miles from anywhere, that were once inhabited, so one off is not all hotel sized McMansions and bungalows with mock Classical columns.

I don't think I've been in any other country where there are so many derelict houses apart from a recent war zone.

blanch152

whisky_galore wrote: »

Driving around I see wrecks of houses everyday, miles from anywhere, that were once inhabited, so one off is not all hotel sized McMansions and bungalows with mock Classical columns.

I don't think I've been in any other country where there are so many derelict houses apart from a recent war zone.

They were unsustainable builds, and the number will only increase.

whisky_galore

blanch152 wrote: »

They were unsustainable builds, and the number will only increase.

People here don't want to live in old houses, they want brand new out of the box.
If you restore an old house you are seen as being a bit odd.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

It is a valid point. The people giving out about money bills think they are in government. This is not how it works.

The government governs.

If there is another majority in the Dail to form another government, then let them at it. What they want to do, is be some kind of government by proxy by introducing these bills, claiming there is a majority for them, yet remain outside of government.

It is quite simple really.

Completely avoiding the topic along with the rest of the gang. Just looking to discuss politics MarkO.
It's about claims that Fine Gael are misusing it. Derailing it to a talk on every other political entity not joining up is bizarre but serves to derail, so I get it.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

...

Just in case anyone was wondering what a 2011 manifesto has to do with anything: Nothing.

Everything. Talking about chancers railing against the man, (as per your supplied definition) got Fine Gael in and led to unelected Leo at the helm.
Recall 'change the way we do business', 'no more quangos'?
2011 has everything to do with Populism, it's the biggest and best example of populism at work. I can understand that's uncomfortable if you were hoping the thread would center on no mark parties on single digit support, but take it on the chin and move on comrade.

Dinny got the broadband contract so I don't expect any talk about it. Best man for mobiles, best man for water meters, best man for broadband. Is there anything he can't turn his hand to? The only shocking thing is he's good enough to spend so much time working hard on Irish contracts from Fine Gael, fair play.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Completely avoiding the topic along with the rest of the gang. Just looking to discuss politics MarkO.
It's about claims that Fine Gael are misusing it. Derailing it to a talk on every other political entity not joining up is bizarre but serves to derail, so I get it.

Completely avoiding the topic along with the rest of the gang?

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt,

I have clearly set out why there is no misuse of the “money message”. If you want to dig out a link to any one of those 50 bills, I will explain with reference to the details of the bill, why the money message is not misused.


I have also set out the alternative route to the opposition getting their Money bills enacted - go into government.

There has been no evidence at all presented by you or any other poster to demonstrate why FG have misused the money message (other than Paul Murphy or some other left-winger said it is so). Until such evidence is presented, it is perfectly normal in this forum to dismiss unsubstantiated claims such as yours.

You have been on here for days spouting about how FG are abusing the money message. I have asked you to dig out just one of the Bills that are allegedly being held up and I will point to how FG are not misusing the money message. You have been unable to do so, and default to parroting a line from Paul Murphy et al without a single thing to back it up.

We have got to a simple point:

(1) You say FG are abusing the money message.
(2) Everyone else says that there is no evidence of that.
(3) You say that people are ignoring that FG are abusing the money message
(4) Everyone else says that there is no evidence of that, and you are asked to produce a single example of same
(5) You say that people are ignoring that FG are abusing the money message and are "avoiding the topic along with the rest of the gang", descending into name-calling
(6) In this post, I set out at length where we have got to on this, and once again request that you produce a link to a single one of the Bills where FG have abused the money message, so that a debate on the facts can take place.

In response, in order of decreasing likelihood, I expect the following

(A) A further response calling out the FG "lackies" and "Dinny-lovers" for not blindly accepting that FG are abusing the money message
(B) A complaint that you are being bullied in this thread, possibly leading to another Feedback thread being opened.
(C) Actually producing a link as requested.

You may find the above post harsh, I would prefer to suggest robust, but your posts to date have added nothing but invective to the debate, and your refusal to produce any facts to back up your assertion is exasperating, to say the least. So please, surprise me, and actually back up your assertion with a link to a Bill that doesn't have money implications and is being held up by FG abusing the money message. After all, there are supposed to be 50 of them, so at least one must be close to the button.......

tobsey

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Completely avoiding the topic along with the rest of the gang. Just looking to discuss politics MarkO.
It's about claims that Fine Gael are misusing it. Derailing it to a talk on every other political entity not joining up is bizarre but serves to derail, so I get it.

And those claims are entirely baseless, based on all evidence shown to date. You can try give the stories traction by repeating them but it doesn't make them true.

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

And those claims are entirely baseless, based on all evidence shown to date. You can try give the stories traction by repeating them but it doesn't make them true.

Not the case. I asked for opinions and got comments like yours. Why post to close down something you don't want to discuss yourself?
Why are they entirely baseless? What evidence are you talking about?
I was under the impression the claim was the money message was being misused and some of the bills didn't fall into the category were they could be stalled by the money message. Can you show me different? I might be misinformed. Thanks.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not the case. I asked for opinions and got comments like yours. Why post to close down something you don't want to discuss yourself?
Why are they entirely baseless? What evidence are you talking about?
I was under the impression the claim was the money message was being misused and some of the bills didn't fall into the category were they could be stalled by the money message. Can you show me different? I might be misinformed. Thanks.

The claim was that the money message was being misused. Not a single piece of evidence has been produced to back up this claim, other that repeated rhetoric.

Here is one of the Bills - the LATENT DEFECTS REDRESS BILL 2019, sponsored by that great parliamentarian, Eoin O'Broin.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2019/87/eng/initiated/b8719d.pdf

In its first active clause, Section 3 (1), this Bill states:

"3. (1) On the establishment day there shall stand established a board to be known as the Latent Defects Redress Board (in this Act referred to as the “Board”) to perform the functions conferred on it by this Act."

Nowhere in the Bill does it state how this Board is to be funded, therefore it falls foul of the money clause. The assumption is that the magic money tree will pay for it.

So, there is the evidence that it is not being abused. Please present your evidence that it is being abused.

Dytalus

blanch152 wrote: »

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2019/87/eng/initiated/b8719d.pdf

In its first active clause, Section 3 (1), this Bill states:

"3. (1) On the establishment day there shall stand established a board to be known as the Latent Defects Redress Board (in this Act referred to as the “Board”) to perform the functions conferred on it by this Act."

Nowhere in the Bill does it state how this Board is to be funded, therefore it falls foul of the money clause. The assumption is that the magic money tree will pay for it.

So, there is the evidence that it is not being abused. Please present your evidence that it is being abused.

Gonna step in here, because I'm interested in the topic and haven't quite made up my mind. So gonna play devil's advocate against you blanch.

Provision of Objective Sex Education Bill 2018

I see no provision in there that necessitates additional expenditure - it asks for a change to the curriculum, but not one that requires additional materials or employment. After all, we already have sexual education - it would alter the topics covered. At an admittedly brief glance, I don't see how this bill falls foul of the money message limitations.

I mean, to be fair, unless we go through every bill being blocked we can't really say either way. I could easily see some bills being blocked unfairly, and others yet being perfectly justifiable - especially as they seem to have been blocked over a decently long period of time. The example you've given seems pretty cut-and-dry. A board needs members, and even if you're taking them from a stock of current employees/civil servants on the books it still takes up man-hours that they were spending elsewhere. Justifiably could be seen as a cost to the taxpayer and fall foul of the money message.

blanch152

Dytalus wrote: »

Gonna step in here, because I'm interested in the topic and haven't quite made up my mind. So gonna play devil's advocate against you blanch.

Provision of Objective Sex Education Bill 2018

I see no provision in there that necessitates additional expenditure - it asks for a change to the curriculum, but not one that requires additional materials or employment. After all, we already have sexual education - it would alter the topics covered. At an admittedly brief glance, I don't see how this bill falls foul of the money message limitations.

I mean, to be fair, unless we go through every bill being blocked we can't really say either way. I could easily see some bills being blocked unfairly, and others yet being perfectly justifiable - especially as they seem to have been blocked over a decently long period of time. The example you've given seems pretty cut-and-dry. A board needs members, and even if you're taking them from a stock of current employees/civil servants on the books it still takes up man-hours that they were spending elsewhere. Justifiably could be seen as a cost to the taxpayer and fall foul of the money message.

Again, if "(d) the rights of students to access factual and objective education on
reproductive healthcare is guaranteed, protected and upheld in all
schools" aren't available before now, who is going to pay for the extra material and information? Who is going to provide the money for the teacher education needed?

While the costs may be small, they are costs.

It is actually very difficult to point to Bills where there isn't a charge of some kind or another to the taxpayer, hence the question I asked of Matt. I fully suspect that the PBP have engaged in a charade of wasting court time and money purely for publicity for protest, and not expecting to actually win their case.

Dytalus

Again, if "(d) the rights of students to access factual and objective education on
reproductive healthcare is guaranteed, protected and upheld in all
schools" aren't available before now, who is going to pay for the extra material and information? Who is going to provide the money for the teacher education needed?

Sexual education materials are already supposed to be present in all schools. Its been mandatory in the JC curriculum since 2003 as part of SPHE. Ideally they should already be factual and objective - otherwise they've no place in a school. This shouldn't be seen as an "additional taxpayer cost" because they should already be there.

Granted, I'll admit there's definitely some schools where these materials are not available for whatever reason - but they're already supposed to be there, so it's hard to argue it's a new requirement under this amendments.

Also, nitpicking, it only requires their rights to access that material is upheld not that the school should provide them. No that is not a serious point I'm making, I'm just being a bother.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is actually very difficult to point to Bills where there isn't a charge of some kind or another to the taxpayer, hence the question I asked of Matt. I fully suspect that the PBP have engaged in a charade of wasting court time and money purely for publicity for protest, and not expecting to actually win their case.

Fair point, but then why even bother letting opposition parties bring bills before the Dáil? If there's almost always an arguable or certain cost to the taxpayer associated with proposed Bills, then any Bill can be stopped by the Government. Either remove the capacity for Private Member Bills, or raise the threshold for a 'money message' limit.

My understanding of the PBP argument is that they want it for "incidental" and minor costs the money message shouldn't be applicable. I'd rather have the capacity (however slight) for opposition parties to propose Bills - even if it's just to force the Government of the day to openly support/reject something and explain why it does so - than allow a blanket blockage of almost any Bill the Government doesn't want to have to deal with.

Of course if a limit is set on what counts as a money message justified block, it should be incumbent on the member/party proposing the Bill to provide evidence that it comes under whatever value is decided as "incidental".

James Brown

Dytalus wrote: »

Sexual education materials are already supposed to be present in all schools. Its been mandatory in the JC curriculum since 2003 as part of SPHE. Ideally they should already be factual and objective - otherwise they've no place in a school. This shouldn't be seen as an "additional taxpayer cost" because they should already be there.

Granted, I'll admit there's definitely some schools where these materials are not available for whatever reason - but they're already supposed to be there, so it's hard to argue it's a new requirement under this amendments.

Also, nitpicking, it only requires their rights to access that material is upheld not that the school should provide them. No that is not a serious point I'm making, I'm just being a bother.



Fair point, but then why even bother letting opposition parties bring bills before the Dáil? If there's almost always an arguable or certain cost to the taxpayer associated with proposed Bills, then any Bill can be stopped by the Government. Either remove the capacity for Private Member Bills, or raise the threshold for a 'money message' limit.

My understanding of the PBP argument is that they want it for "incidental" and minor costs the money message shouldn't be applicable. I'd rather have the capacity (however slight) for opposition parties to propose Bills - even if it's just to force the Government of the day to openly support/reject something and explain why it does so - than allow a blanket blockage of almost any Bill the Government doesn't want to have to deal with.

Of course if a limit is set on what counts as a money message justified block, it should be incumbent on the member/party proposing the Bill to provide evidence that it comes under whatever value is decided as "incidental".

Thank you.
Yes, I'm not sure what legal success they may have also I can't see the government voting to curtail their power.