General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The problem is well your post

You don’t seem to understand that FG signed the Paris agreement, the Greens are just asking them to honour it instead of wasting billions on fines, this has been explained to you multiple times but you ignore and continue on....

Have you read the Greens manifesto by the way? I think you will find it excellent

Then read the back of fag box SF one, didn’t stand up to any scrutiny

People do seem to have issues with maths again, 25% is not a majority!!!

I have the green manifesto printed out in front of me. I also have their transport policy document printed out in front of me. I would actually recommend you read them, because obviously you haven't.

Not one single item in either has been given even an estimated cost. Not one policy has been put into the program for government. The only concession the Green got was to put up carbon tax, the very thing that will not reduce any emissions.

If you read the deal the greens have signed up to it actually allows this next government to do absolute ZERO with regards the 7% per year decrease in emission, but instead kick the can down the roads for the next government to deal with.

And no I have no problem with maths. I didnt claim a majority of the Green TD's were against the deal but for a political party to have 25% of its TD's telling its members to vote no to a deal says a lot doesnt it?

Bannasidhe

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why do we need another GE?


What will change? If by some magical coincidence SF do get enough votes to form a government what excuse will they come up with this time not to go into government?


After the last election I said I wanted SF in so they could be seen for how useless and get thrown out in a yearm, we never got a chance as they ran for the hills. What will change now with another election


The whole "they will run more candidates", where are these TD's? the best they pulled together was for last election and look what was in that lot!! need I remind everyone about the lovely Violet Anne etc


We have "up da Ra" boy




Hillarious! what they going to run next?

I have absolutely no Idea why you felt the need to go on a little tirade about SF in response to my post. I didn't even vote for them and quite possibly won't even give them a preference if and when there is another GE.
I also won't be giving the Greens a preference if they accept this PfG.

All I said, in response to a comment that the political left is a train wreck, is that the political right is in no position to be flinging stones given it's current location in a glasshouse of plummeting vote share.

Podge_irl wrote: »

While running an election is more viable now then a month ago, it is still fraught with complications. There are very many good, public heath reasons not to have another election right now. Calling an election a month ago would have been basically impossible.



I don't think FG are particularly desperate to "cling to power", which is a stupid phrase anyway seeing as political parties entire reason d'etre is to try and achieve power. However, this is the only govt that has a hope of actually being formed and there are myriad obstacles to another election cycle.

I agree. The logistics of running a GE is difficult in the current climate - but as restrictions are being lifted there is no reason it could not be done. I must admit that having over the years voted in a number of polling stations, and brought my parents to vote, there has never exactly been a queue - even when the turnout is good.
If people can spend 90 minutes in a pub people can spend 5 minutes in a polling station. A GE is now possible

It is interesting that Varadkar is making statements on issues such as LNG that have set the twittering Greens off on one. Strange thing to do to get the membership of a potential coalition partner worked up before they even vote on the proposed PfG.

My reading of the situation - and I could very well be wrong - is that given the bump in the polls FG now reckon they could win enough seats in a GE to dump the Greens - how FF feel about that is another thing given they are sinking in the polls.

guyfawkes5

Another election could turn out badly for FG.

Their polls in the immediate wake of the last Brexit agreement were quite good, but voters took a different mindset when judging who should be legislating for the next five years and FG ended up doing quite poorly (and only recovering a bit when they returned to SF-bashing).

Their Covid-19 polls seems to be similar, in that people are pleased that they handled it as well as they did, but also aren't fooled that they oversaw a lot of structural problems emerging in society in the last ten years and did far too little or nothing at all. It's an entirely fair critique that FG are good cabinet leaders but crap at writing laws - and that might hurt them at an election, good polls or not.

Podge_irl

guyfawkes5 wrote: »

Another election could turn out badly for FG.

I think FG would genuinely be happy enough to sit in opposition (though only as the main opposition party) so I don't think there is much of a downside to another election for them given the low based they are coming off anyway. I can't see them losing seats - who would they lose them to? Someone is going to have to profit from the collapse in support for FF.

efanton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...

I agree. The logistics of running a GE is difficult in the current climate - but as restrictions are being lifted there is no reason it could not be done. I must admit that having over the years voted in a number of polling stations, and brought my parents to vote, there has never exactly been a queue - even when the turnout is good.
If people can spend 90 minutes in a pub people can spend 5 minutes in a polling station. A GE is now possible

...

The obvious solution would be to have the polling over a two or three day period.
That way you could totally avoid any queues at the polling station, so the voting is not the problem.

The problem would be canvassing. Hundred of canvassers visiting thousands of homes across the country could be a nightmare if some canvassers unwittingly transmitted the virus.

But most people have their minds made up before canvassers appear on their doorstep, most parties will be running on an almost identical manifesto as the last election, so it might be possible to have a GE with no door to door canvassing.

Bannasidhe

efanton wrote: »

The obvious solution would be to have the polling over a two or three day period.
That way you could totally avoid any queues at the polling station, so the voting is not the problem.

The problem would be canvassing. Hundred of canvassers visiting thousands of homes across the country could be a nightmare if some canvassers unwittingly transmitted the virus.

But most people have their minds made up before canvassers appear on their doorstep, most parties will be running on an almost identical manifesto as the last election, so it might be possible to have a GE with no door to door canvassing.

I have been in my current house 15 years. Hotly contested urban seat. In all that time I have had canvassers call to my door a grand total of 3 times. Lots of leaflet drops, posted bumf etc but actual knock on door - 3.

And that's 3 more than in my previous homes. Been voting since the early 80s.

The main problem I would see is in the count centres - they would have to maintain social distance among counters, and tally men.
But on the plus side we would be saved those shots of triumphant red faced men (never seen it being done with a woman) being hoisted onto equally red faced men's (or by women) shoulders. I'm always half afraid someone will get a heart attack...

Shefwedfan

efanton wrote: »

I have the green manifesto printed out in front of me. I also have their transport policy document printed out in front of me. I would actually recommend you read them, because obviously you haven't.

Not one single item in either has been given even an estimated cost. Not one policy has been put into the program for government. The only concession the Green got was to put up carbon tax, the very thing that will not reduce any emissions.

If you read the deal the greens have signed up to it actually allows this next government to do absolute ZERO with regards the 7% per year decrease in emission, but instead kick the can down the roads for the next government to deal with.

And no I have no problem with maths. I didnt claim a majority of the Green TD's were against the deal but for a political party to have 25% of its TD's telling its members to vote no to a deal says a lot doesnt it?

You do realize printing is bad for environment

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You do realize printing is bad for environment

Ignorance is even worse.
I wish more people actually took the time to read each parties polices and made informed choices when voting.

Shefwedfan

efanton wrote: »

Ignorance is even worse.
I wish more people actually took the time to read each parties polices and made informed choices when voting.

You spent a few day discussing with me about train and rejecting any suggest, while not knowing about the possibility open for the train line to Navan which I mentioned numerous times.

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You spent a few day discussing with me about train and rejecting any suggest, while not knowing about the possibility open for the train line to Navan which I mentioned numerous times.

Not at all.

I argued that public transport works if there is a sufficient volume of commuters to make any scheme a non loss enterprise.

You were arguing that public transport should be everywhere, which simply is not feasible.

n return I suggested that being public transport is not going to be viable for every area in the country, that we should instead speed up the eradication of diesel and petrol cars and replace those cars with electric vehicles where public transport cannot be provided.

You apparently are against any form of car, even if it is electric, despite me proving to you that simply replacing all diesel and petrol cars with electric vehicles would contribute well over 20% of the reductions we need to meet the carbon emissions reduction target over 10 years.

I am all for public transport in the cities and larger towns where it makes sense and will not generate losses. For those areas where public transport s not financially viable my argument is simply lets spend some money speeding up the removal of as many diesel and petrol vehicles as possible as that is fairly simple and cost effective to do, and takes a huge chunk out of the carbon emissions we have to reduce.

Believe it or not I too would like to see this county meeting it carbon reduction targets. I just want to see that done in a way that is affordable and achievable.

Geuze

efanton:

I argued that public transport works if there is a sufficient volume of commuters to make any scheme a non loss enterprise.





To expect public transport to make a cash profit is unrealistic.

Public transit around the world is subsidised, that is normal.

Shefwedfan

Geuze wrote: »

efanton:

I argued that public transport works if there is a sufficient volume of commuters to make any scheme a non loss enterprise.


To expect public transport to make a cash profit is unrealistic.

Public transit around the world is subsidised, that is normal.

Ahh you are talking too much sense, I have tried with this poster adn they ignore



I think the easiest way to look at it


Public transport = less CO2
Less Co2 = less fines from Paris agreement

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

efanton:

I argued that public transport works if there is a sufficient volume of commuters to make any scheme a non loss enterprise.





To expect public transport to make a cash profit is unrealistic.

Public transit around the world is subsidised, that is normal.

We are talking about public transport in a rural setting.

Yes I could see a justification for subsidised public transport for cities where it is intended that the subsidy would make travelling by public transport financially advantageous to commuter rather then use personal transport in a bid to reduce traffic congestion. As you have stated this is done in many major cities already.

I simply cannot see how you are going to introduce public transport to all towns in this country, even in rural areas. How much would it cost? could the country actually afford this additional cost? and the justification of reducing traffic congestion simply would not be there.

I it could be done, cheaply and effectively, then absolutely I would agree with it.

Itssoeasy

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think FG would genuinely be happy enough to sit in opposition (though only as the main opposition party) so I don't think there is much of a downside to another election for them given the low based they are coming off anyway. I can't see them losing seats - who would they lose them to? Someone is going to have to profit from the collapse in support for FF.

Any polls from this period I wouldn't give as much weight as normal given the virus. So I'm saying FG and FF shouldnt be happy or pessimistic about the numbers.

BonnieSituation

efanton wrote: »

We are talking about public transport in a rural setting.

Yes I could see a justification for subsidised public transport for cities where it is intended that the subsidy would make travelling by public transport financially advantageous to commuter rather then use personal transport in a bid to reduce traffic congestion. As you have stated this is done in many major cities already.

I simply cannot see how you are going to introduce public transport to all towns in this country, even in rural areas. How much would it cost? could the country actually afford this additional cost? and the justification of reducing traffic congestion simply would not be there.

I it could be done, cheaply and effectively, then absolutely I would agree with it.

Who's suggesting public transport in all towns in Ireland beyond say any required PSO level?

Personally I'd ignore rural Ireland if it were up to me and pump infrastructure spending into Limerick, Cork, Waterford, Sligo, Letterkenny and Galway.

Podge_irl

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Any polls from this period I wouldn't give as much weight as normal given the virus. So I'm saying FG and FF shouldnt be happy or pessimistic about the numbers.

Fair point in general. But it still seems unlikely that the collapse in FF support and surge in FG support will be completely reversed. FG seem to have hit close to bottom in the last GE so not sure they have anything to really fear from another one. Given all that has happened since I can't really see any reason for their voters to desert them?

Shefwedfan

efanton wrote: »

We are talking about public transport in a rural setting.

Yes I could see a justification for subsidised public transport for cities where it is intended that the subsidy would make travelling by public transport financially advantageous to commuter rather then use personal transport in a bid to reduce traffic congestion. As you have stated this is done in many major cities already.

I simply cannot see how you are going to introduce public transport to all towns in this country, even in rural areas. How much would it cost? could the country actually afford this additional cost? and the justification of reducing traffic congestion simply would not be there.

I it could be done, cheaply and effectively, then absolutely I would agree with it.

Who has said they want public transport into every town?

Not sure why you are posting the same thing more or less on two different threads. Especially when this was discussed and answered on the previous thread

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Who has said they want public transport into every town?

Not sure why you are posting the same thing more or less on two different threads. Especially when this was discussed and answered on the previous thread

Well, it beats reading about the "urgent constitutional reform" we apparently need.

Geuze

efanton wrote: »

I simply cannot see how you are going to introduce public transport to all towns in this country, even in rural areas. How much would it cost? could the country actually afford this additional cost? and the justification of reducing traffic congestion simply would not be there.

I it could be done, cheaply and effectively, then absolutely I would agree with it.

But surely there already is PT in every town?

BE buses, and other operators?

I don't understand why you use the verb "introduce".

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry.

I am for improved PT, yes, and higher cap exp, and higher annual subsidies, yes.

But I don't agree with a blank cheque to send busses to every townland in the country.

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

But surely there already is PT in every town?

BE buses, and other operators?

I don't understand why you use the verb "introduce".

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry.

I am for improved PT, yes, and higher cap exp, and higher annual subsidies, yes.

But I don't agree with a blank cheque to send busses to every townland in the country.

Sadly not,

There are many many towns that no longer have public transport that once had it. Many more that have never had any form of public transport.
For instance a good example would be many of the towns that are on the N7. Since the bus companies now choose to use the motorways towns such as Mountrath have lost their bus service.

And I 100% agree with you, not every route would be viable.
Lets spend the money where it is needed and gives best bang for buck, even subsidise routes if that persuades people to avoid bringing cars into cities, but public transport covering every town in the country simply is not viable

Shefwedfan

https://www.buseireann.ie/pdf/1473240111-Network-Map.pdf

Not many towns without a bus!!!

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

https://www.buseireann.ie/pdf/1473240111-Network-Map.pdf

Not many towns without a bus!!!

are totally determined to make a fool of yourself

Is every town in Ireland on that map?
No.
So would it not be very safe to say as I have , that NOT EVERY TOWN has a bus service.

Shefwedfan

efanton wrote: »

are totally determined to make a fool of yourself

Is every town in Ireland on that map?
No.
So would it not be very safe to say as I have , that NOT EVERY TOWN has a bus service.

You really need to take a chill pill

ExMachina1000

Will Shane Ross still have a job. Isn't he an independent.

Bishop of hope

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Will Shane Ross still have a job. Isn't he an independent.

He got the bullet.

ExMachina1000

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He got the bullet.

Great news.

BonnieSituation

efanton wrote: »

Sadly not,

There are many many towns that no longer have public transport that once had it. Many more that have never had any form of public transport.
For instance a good example would be many of the towns that are on the N7. Since the bus companies now choose to use the motorways towns such as Mountrath have lost their bus service.

And I 100% agree with you, not every route would be viable.
Lets spend the money where it is needed and gives best bang for buck, even subsidise routes if that persuades people to avoid bringing cars into cities, but public transport covering every town in the country simply is not viable

So wait, are you for or against giving every two-bit village a bus service or not?

efanton

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So wait, are you for or against giving every two-bit village a bus service or not?

I have never once stated I am for giving every single town or village a bus service.
Shefwedfan seem to jump to and draw his own preconceived conclusions no matter what you write.

I am definitely for more public transport where it is both viable and affordable.
It makes sense to increase the amount of public transport this country has.

It does not make sense to try put public transport into every small town and village where it will hardly be used and cost the country a fortune.

That is why I have also advocated that where public transport can not be provided we also encourage replacing diesel and petrol cars with EV's.
Speeding that up by reducing VAT or VRT on EV's for instance to me makes sense,

BonnieSituation

efanton wrote: »

I have never once stated I am for giving every single town or village a bus service.
Shefwedfan seem to jump to and draw his own preconceived conclusions no matter what you write.

I am definitely for more public transport where it is both viable and affordable.
It makes sense to increase the amount of public transport this country has.

It does not make sense to try put public transport into every small town and village where it will hardly be used and cost the country a fortune.

That is why I have also advocated that where public transport can not be provided we also encourage replacing diesel and petrol cars with EV's.
Speeding that up by reducing VAT or VRT on EV's for instance to me makes sense,

Reducing the national fleet is what the goal should be. EVs still take up valuable road space never mind the environmentally unfriendly idea of scrapping perfectly good cars to replace them with other cars.

ExMachina1000

efanton wrote: »

I have never once stated I am for giving every single town or village a bus service.
Shefwedfan seem to jump to and draw his own preconceived conclusions no matter what you write.

I am definitely for more public transport where it is both viable and affordable.
It makes sense to increase the amount of public transport this country has.

It does not make sense to try put public transport into every small town and village where it will hardly be used and cost the country a fortune.

That is why I have also advocated that where public transport can not be provided we also encourage replacing diesel and petrol cars with EV's.
Speeding that up by reducing VAT or VRT on EV's for instance to me makes sense,

I would agree that putting public transport in every town and village is nonsensical. I feel spending 1.8 billion in 5 years on cycling infrastructure is also nonsensical.

That's public money.