Pointless referenda

Dr_serious2

There are many major problems in this country. Number one is the cost of living, and the accomodation situation in our urban centres. We have other problems of course, including corruption, health, education and lack of accountability but we all know that.

Anyway, the heat is kept off the politicians to a large extent as we seem to have a new referendum to talk about now every six months. Some, such as the abortion referendum, were important. Most however, like abolishing the seanad, blasphemy, judges pay, lowering the age for President etc. are a load of crap to keep us talking while our politicians mess up the country. Next we have the ridiculous referendum on women in the home. The outcome will have no impact on anyone.

We should be protesting to our politicians about our housing shortages, high taxes and abominable health care. Instead we will spend half the time arguing about this pointless referendum. Does anyone else think that the politicians are giving is the illusion of choice to keep us placated?

Collie D

Can we get a poll on this?

Dr_serious2

Dr_serious2 wrote: »

There are many major problems in this country. Number one is the cost of living, and the accomodation situation in our urban centres. We have other problems of course, including corruption, health, education and lack of accountability but we all know that.

Anyway, the heat is kept off the politicians to a large extent as we seem to have a new referendum to talk about now every six months. Some, such as the abortion referendum, were important. Most however, like abolishing the seanad, blasphemy, judges pay, lowering the age for President etc. are a load of crap to keep us talking while our politicians mess up the country. Next we have the ridiculous referendum on women in the home. The outcome will have no impact on anyone.

We should be protesting to our politicians about our housing shortages, high taxes and abominable health care. Instead we will spend half the time arguing about this pointless referendum. Does anyone else think that the politicians are giving is the illusion of choice to keep us placated?

The spinmaster wouldn't be pleased with your rational train of thought.

kneemos

Hear little else other than the housing crisis,health care and Lord save and deliver us Brexit.

Seth Brundle

Dr_serious2 wrote: »

We should be protesting to our politicians about our housing shortages, high taxes and abominable health care. Instead we will spend half the time arguing about this pointless referendum. Does anyone else think that the politicians are giving is the illusion of choice to keep us placated?

I think there was next to no discussion about the last referendum and given the turnout it and the Presidential election didn't feature heavily on people's minds.
However, you want them to sort out housing: by them doing what over the current plans?
As for high taxes, they're not that high. For the supports and infrastructure we expect, we should be paying a lot more than we are.
And with the "abominable health care" how does it compare globally? I stayed in a hospital for a heart attack a few years ago and couldn't fault it. There may be too many admin staff but I'd hardly describe it as abominable!

Bubbaclaus

Weren't these referendums decided on by a citizens assembly aka ordinary citizens and not politicians? Besides, people have the capacity to think about and discuss more than 1 issue at a time.

kneemos

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I think there was next to no discussion about the last referendum and given the turnout it and the Presidential election didn't feature heavily on people's minds.
However, you want them to sort out housing: by them doing what over the current plans?
As for high taxes, they're not that high. For the supports and infrastructure we expect, we should be paying a lot more than we are.
And with the "abominable health care" how does it compare globally? I stayed in a hospital for a heart attack a few years ago and couldn't fault it. There may be too many admin staff but I'd hardly describe it as abominable!

People are waiting years for routine yet life altering operations in fairness.
Not to mention the war zone of A+ E.

_Kaiser_

Saw this mentioned earlier and my first thought was that it's Leo and FG pulling their usual stunt of trying to keep the electorate distracted from their failings on things like housing, health, cost of living and many other things.

These referenda are all important steps in their own right, but when people are having trouble keeping a roof over their head, or getting medical treatment when they need it, they're hardly priorities.

alchemist33

Probably the worst episode of Pointless ever.

Dr_serious2

Dr_serious2 wrote: »

Anyway, the heat is kept off the politicians to a large extent as we seem to have a new referendum to talk about now every six months. Some, such as the abortion referendum, were important. Most however, like abolishing the seanad, blasphemy, judges pay, lowering the age for President etc. are a load of crap to keep us talking while our politicians mess up the country. Next we have the ridiculous referendum on women in the home. The outcome will have no impact on anyone.

We should be protesting to our politicians about our housing shortages, high taxes and abominable health care. Instead we will spend half the time arguing about this pointless referendum. Does anyone else think that the politicians are giving is the illusion of choice to keep us placated?

100% agree. "Let's have a referendum!" is the Irish conservative response to everything, quickly coming behind the classic "Let's set up a committee" response (if the Brits had a written constitution you can be sure their conservatives would love this eternal referendum distraction). That's the key difference between the Irish liberals and the leftwing and what makes the former actually conservative - the liberals will focus on all sorts of bullshít, cost-free raiméis like referenda on some obscure esoteric nonsense "right", whereas genuine leftwingers will want to redistribute money to make society more equal. The clowns on the right - clowns because most of them are not rich yet are making a rich man's argument - misconstrue liberals as "the left" when in economic terms the "liberals" of modern Ireland are firmly on the right. Firmly.

Our less erudite denizens of "the right" really thought our "liberals" wanted all those immigrants (who will be firmly priced out of Blackrock, Killiney, Foxrock etc where our "liberals" live) because liberals believe in a just world and not because they keep labour costs, and thus product costs, low?

Classical ideological liberalism is the ideology responsible for An Drochshaol 1845-51, Reagan, Thatcher and loads more evil shít like those child-labour produced clothes most of us buy (shhh - let's all be outraged about that one in about 50 years time). Don't let their post-WWII "humanitarian" dressing fool you. The Irish Times is the newspaper of the English ascendancy - it's only into "minority rights" because they're precisely the rights that a colonial community and its remnants have always loved. They've been dressing up their naked self-interest and tradition as "open-minded" without challenge for some time now.

Seth Brundle

kneemos wrote: »

People are waiting years for routine yet life altering operations in fairness.
Not to mention the war zone of A+ E.

How has holding a referendum (especially given that we would have been holding the election anyhow) made any difference to the queues?
What are the reasons for the long waiting lists and what have we done to resolve them? I believe that it principslly comes down to location and money - too many hospitals where we want to but can't facilitate everything. We (taxpayers) are not willing to fund what we want.

Seth Brundle

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

These referenda are all important steps in their own right, but when people are having trouble keeping a roof over their head, or getting medical treatment when they need it, they're hardly priorities.

But there isn't a shortage of property per se. There is a shortage of property in key locations. We also have plenty of supports out there for someone struggling.
Thousands of landlords have left the trsditionsl rental business in favour of the likes of AirB&B because of stupid laws that favour the scumbag tenant. Government interference has messed up the rental sector making available properties even rarer.
We piss a vast fortune each year funding a rake of homeless charities. Is the problem down to a lack of money or accommodation?

feargale

I'm reminded of the Holy Joe, pillar of the community who told me years ago, when the repeal of the contraceptive ban was being mooted, that what the government should be talking about was jobs. What jobs were they talking about in 1935 when they introduced their Dark Age bans?
Anyone who regrets the removal of the the blasphemy law should emigrate to Pakistan.

kneemos

There was practically nothing about the referendum to be fair,all the yapping was for the election.
Might as well knock another one off the list while we're in the booth anyway.

Scott Tenorman

You would hope the Government would be able to multi-task, e.g. the blasphemy referendum has absolutely no bearing on their plans to tackle housing.
I wouldn't have thought anyone could claim otherwise TBH about the above example.

Twat-Badger

Dr_serious2 wrote: »

There are many major problems in this country. Number one is the cost of living, and the accomodation situation in our urban centres. We have other problems of course, including corruption, health, education and lack of accountability but we all know that.

Interesting that you should mention corruption. Would you prefer instead that we gave up our rights to have a say on changes to our constitution and allowed those (possibly corrupt) people in power make those decisions for us?


Furthermore to your assertion that corruption is a major problem, the facts would say otherwise...
https://www.transparency.org/country/IRL

Grayson

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I think there was next to no discussion about the last referendum and given the turnout it and the Presidential election didn't feature heavily on people's minds.
However, you want them to sort out housing: by them doing what over the current plans?
As for high taxes, they're not that high. For the supports and infrastructure we expect, we should be paying a lot more than we are.
And with the "abominable health care" how does it compare globally? I stayed in a hospital for a heart attack a few years ago and couldn't fault it. There may be too many admin staff but I'd hardly describe it as abominable!

I was in hospital in Bolivia. That wasn't even abominable. Although there were animals wandering through the ward.

Badly Drunk Boy

Collie D wrote: »

Can we get a poll on this?

I'd prefer a lengthy tribunal...

dxhound2005

Dr_serious2 wrote: »

There are many major problems in this country. Number one is the cost of living, and the accomodation situation in our urban centres. We have other problems of course, including corruption, health, education and lack of accountability but we all know that.

Anyway, the heat is kept off the politicians to a large extent as we seem to have a new referendum to talk about now every six months. Some, such as the abortion referendum, were important. Most however, like abolishing the seanad, blasphemy, judges pay, lowering the age for President etc. are a load of crap to keep us talking while our politicians mess up the country. Next we have the ridiculous referendum on women in the home. The outcome will have no impact on anyone.

We should be protesting to our politicians about our housing shortages, high taxes and abominable health care. Instead we will spend half the time arguing about this pointless referendum. Does anyone else think that the politicians are giving is the illusion of choice to keep us placated?

You go ahead and protest. Report back on how you get on.

Zorya

The cost per referendum is between 10 and 20 million euros.

I heard today about a machine that is used to remove clots from the brain after stroke which helps people enormously to recover. These operations are done on about 250 people per year. It is called a thrombectomy. There are 2 of the machines that do them in Ireland, and the one in Dublin is so old it keeps breaking down and the manufacturing company will cease making spare parts for it next year. They cost about 1.5 million each.

I would prefer that my government buys new ones of these machines, plus another one or two of them, and a few more other machines that do other life-changing jobs like that - I don't want to vote on women in the home, or mayors powers, or any of the other crap some talking shop churned out as being important.

Dr_serious2

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You go ahead and protest. Report back on how you get on.

Good man DX, you have the public good at heart. Are you still defending Ray Darcy's half a million pay cheque from the public purse?

dxhound2005

Health spending is going up next year to €17.2 billion, an extra €2 billion over this year. That should be able to pay for the machines.

Church on Tuesday

Still a lot to be said for abolishing the Seanad. It's a consolation prize for failed politicians. Pricey one too.

And if nothing else, it would get rid of that idiot Ronan Mullen from the public eye for a time.

Zorya

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Health spending is going up next year to €17.2 billion, an extra €2 billion over this year. That should be able to pay for the machines.

But it'll more likely pay for a bigger batch of managers to shine the arses of their trousers on state of the art office furniture. Why does there have to be awareness campaigns about these machines and fund raisers if the machines will be paid for?
Anyways I am fed up to the gills with referenda. ''Democracy ....assigning a kind of equality indiscriminately to equals and unequals alike!'' ~ Socrates. Heh.

kneemos

Zorya wrote: »

But it'll more likely pay for a bigger batch of managers to shine the arses of their trousers on state of the art office furniture. Why does there have to be awareness campaigns about these machines and fund raisers if the machines will be paid for?
Anyways I am fed up to the gills with referenda. ''Democracy ....assigning a kind of equality indiscriminately to equals and unequals alike!'' ~ Socrates. Heh.

I like a good referendum.

Zorya

kneemos wrote: »

I like a good referendum.

That sounds like a metaphor

mammajamma

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Weren't these referendums decided on by a citizens assembly aka ordinary citizens and not politicians? Besides, people have the capacity to think about and discuss more than 1 issue at a time.

youd think people at large could handle more than one issue at a time, but I don't believe that anymore.

These referenda are distractions, I agree. The good thing is that they are running out of crap to use as a deflective shield.

Just consider the logic. A housing crisis dragging into its 2nd, 3rd, 4th year and someone decides that now is the appropriate time for money/airtime/resources/discussion about the "womans place in the home". Yeah, makes sense alright.

Bubbaclaus

mammajamma wrote: »

youd think people at large could handle more than one issue at a time, but I don't believe that anymore.

These referenda are distractions, I agree. The good thing is that they are running out of crap to use as a deflective shield.

Just consider the logic. A housing crisis dragging into its 2nd, 3rd, 4th year and someone decides that now is the appropriate time for money/airtime/resources/discussion about the "womans place in the home". Yeah, makes sense alright.

There's not enough builders in the country to solve the housing crisis in a quick timeframe. It's going to take a while. Are we supposed to just sit back and discuss nothing else in the meantime?

orourkeda1977

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Saw this mentioned earlier and my first thought was that it's Leo and FG pulling their usual stunt of trying to keep the electorate distracted from their failings on things like housing, health, cost of living and many other things.

These referenda are all important steps in their own right, but when people are having trouble keeping a roof over their head, or getting medical treatment when they need it, they're hardly priorities.

If the announcement of a referendum is enough to distract you from their failings, Why?

_Kaiser_

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

If the announcement of a referendum is enough to distract you from their failings, Why?

Because many people nowadays have the attention span of a goldfish and are easily split on an issue, resorting to arguing among themselves over trivialities and semantics (we see it on this forum all the time).

mammajamma

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

There's not enough builders in the country to solve the housing crisis in a quick timeframe. It's going to take a while. Are we supposed to just sit back and discuss nothing else in the meantime?

Its called prioritisation, so yeah. Anything with "crisis", such as housing or health comes first with undivided attention. Undivided.

Anything that nobody even thought about for 500 years should come dead, dead last, when we're living in a utopia.

Doesn't matter if the referenda use only 2% of the collective effort, its still 2% wasted in a time when there isn't room for waste. And its wasteful to the point of suspicion, so I get where the op is coming from.

Scott Tenorman

mammajamma wrote: »

Its called prioritisation, so yeah. Anything with "crisis", such as housing or health comes first with undivided attention. Undivided.

Anything that nobody even thought about for 500 years should come dead, dead last, when we're living in a utopia.

Doesn't matter if the referenda use only 2% of the collective effort, its still 2% wasted in a time when there isn't room for waste. And its wasteful to the point of suspicion, so I get where the op is coming from.

There is an actual department to deal with housing. Are the ministers for say transport or education just supposed to sit on their arses and wait until the priority issue of the day is sorted before doing anything? That would be a shameful waste of resources

Berserker

The presidential election was a complete was of time. Is it not possible for the political classes to agree that the current president is going to remain in place for the next term? Anyone with half a brain knew that MDH was going to win this time round.

mammajamma

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

There is an actual department to deal with housing. Are the ministers for say transport or education just supposed to sit on their arses and wait until the priority issue of the day is sorted before doing anything? That would be a shameful waste of resources

That's assuming that the current set-up of governance is de-facto "good" and efficient.

When we have allowed several crises to develop while other departments/groups have sweet FA to do, besides busy themselves and get in the way, that's a problem.

We need a governmental/agency that is flexible and efficient to the task.

Therefore, the mode of governance is not fit for task.

Therefore, the government are guilty of poor management at best, and downright distraction at worst.

Either way it will be borne out in the next several elections.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Saw this mentioned earlier and my first thought was that it's Leo and FG pulling their usual stunt of trying to keep the electorate distracted from their failings on things like housing, health, cost of living and many other things.

These referenda are all important steps in their own right, but when people are having trouble keeping a roof over their head, or getting medical treatment when they need it, they're hardly priorities.

I heard this trotted out during the marriage equality referendum in 2015 and I totally disagreed with the sentiment then and I still disagree with it now. If we wait for the “right time” to hold a referendum, they would never happen. There would never be a right time. How do you even define that?

The marriage equality referendum was very important to a great many people, as was the referendum on the eighth amendment. Why should they have to wait until the country is fixed? (a point that is probably pretty much impossible to reach and which means different things to different people) Was the blasphemy one pressing? Probably not which was it was a good idea to hold it on the same day as an election that had to happen at that particular time and not a separate date.

Bubbaclaus

mammajamma wrote: »

Either way it will be borne out in the next several elections.

With FG gaining a large amount of seats? (per recent polls). They are the most popular party in every age group and every part of the country.

What you are posting isn't exactly tying back to reality.

mammajamma

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I heard this trotted out during the marriage equality referendum in 2015 and I totally disagreed with the sentiment then and I still disagree with it now. If we wait for the “right time” to hold a referendum, they would never happen. There would never be a right time. How do you even define that?

The marriage equality referendum was very important to a great many people, as was the referendum on the eighth amendment. Why should they have to wait until the country is fixed? (a point that is probably pretty much impossible to reach and which means different things to different people) Was the blasphemy one pressing? Probably not which was it was a good idea to hold it on the same day as an election that had to happen at that particular time and not a separate date.

I don't agree with your sentiment at all. You either have priorities or you don't.

Yes, people hanging around for marriage equality for some people is less important than the basic needs of housing and shelter across the country. Yes, abortion or not is less important than basic health provision for all people.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the needs of the many come before the needs of the few, always. Unless youre running a banana republic...hmm...

Scott Tenorman

mammajamma wrote: »

I don't agree with your sentiment at all. You either have priorities or you don't.

Yes, people hanging around for marriage equality for some people is less important than the basic needs of housing and shelter across the country. Yes, abortion or not is less important than basic health provision for all people.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the needs of the many come before the needs of the few, always. Unless youre running a banana republic...hmm...

It doesn't have to be either or, you can deal with priorities AND other stuff at the same time.

Deal with the needs of the many AND the needs of the few

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mammajamma wrote: »

I don't agree with your sentiment at all. You either have priorities or you don't.

Yes, people hanging around for marriage equality for some people is less important than the basic needs of housing and shelter across the country. Yes, abortion or not is less important than basic health provision for all people.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the needs of the many come before the needs of the few, always. Unless youre running a banana republic...hmm...

If you are waiting for all a country’s problems to be solved before referenda can happen, that time will never come. So nothing should change while we’re waiting? You really think we wouldn’t have these social problems had those referenda not happened?

I wondered how homosexual folks felt when they heard sentiments like that uttered in 2015. The simple wish to be on equal footing with heterosexual couples was dismissed as unimportant because deeply entrenched social problems also existed. The two have nothing to do with each other so why not try and fix one the issues when it seems possible? Why wait? The other social issues can also be tackled.

dxhound2005

Berserker wrote: »

The presidential election was a complete was of time. Is it not possible for the political classes to agree that the current president is going to remain in place for the next term? Anyone with half a brain knew that MDH was going to win this time round.

Blame Sinn Fein and the county councillors who nominated the dragons and Freeman. FG, FF and Labour did not want the election.

keano_afc

Central African Republic.

mammajamma

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

It doesn't have to be either or, you can deal with priorities AND other stuff at the same time.

Deal with the needs of the many AND the needs of the few

I don't think you understand what prioritisation means.

mammajamma

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If you are waiting for all a country’s problems to be solved before referenda can happen, that time will never come. So nothing should change while we’re waiting? You really think we wouldn’t have these social problems had those referenda not happened?

I wondered how homosexual folks felt when they heard sentiments like that uttered in 2015. The simple wish to be on equal footing with heterosexual couples was dismissed as unimportant because deeply entrenched social problems also existed. The two have nothing to do with each other so why not try and fix one the issues when it seems possible? Why wait? The other social issues can also be tackled.

Yeah I know what you mean. I remember walking down a street in an American city, some person waffling in my ear about gay rights on their way to a very expensive restaurant near their luxury apartment.

When I pointed out the countless homeless, destitute people we were passing (even in that nice part of the city), and how they surely needed more social attention than somebody who likes to stick their dingdong in preferential places and need marriage rights to solidify their sexual orientation.....I was greeted with a face of shocked amusement.

In other words ,im glad it worked out for your particular gripe in life, and how you prioritised it against the "other".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mammajamma wrote: »

I don't think you understand what prioritisation means.

Out of interest, has any country in the world ever solved all of its problems? If so, how did they achieve that? We have so much to learn!

Scott Tenorman

mammajamma wrote: »

I don't think you understand what prioritisation means.

It doesn’t mean putting all your resources into one thing at the expense of everything else.

Here is a dictionary definition to help you out:

“determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or tasks) according to their relative importance.”

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mammajamma wrote: »

Yeah I know what you mean. I remember walking down a street in an American city, some person waffling in my ear about gay rights on their way to a very expensive restaurant near their luxury apartment.

When I pointed out the countless homeless, destitute people we were passing (even in that nice part of the city), and how they surely needed more social attention than somebody who likes to stick their dingdong in preferential places and need marriage rights to solidify their sexual orientation.....I was greeted with a face of shocked amusement.

In other words ,im glad it worked out for your particular gripe in life, and how you prioritised it against the "other".

What is my particular gripe in life? I don’t know what it is so I’m all ears. Tell me something about myself that I don’t know.

mammajamma

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

It doesn’t mean putting all your resources into one thing at the expense of everything else.

Here is a dictionary definition to help you out:

“determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or tasks) according to their relative importance.”

Sure, and what percentage would you assign to elements termed "crisis"?

mammajamma

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What is my particular gripe in life? I don’t know what it is so I’m all ears. Tell me something about myself that I don’t know.

You focused on gay rights, you insinuated that those issues should be of parallel importance to what many would consider "more" important.

It is a logical assumption that you are vested in that opinion.

Ta dah.

It is also nothing to do with the conversation, and I was wrong to bring any kind of personalisation to it.

Scott Tenorman

mammajamma wrote: »

Sure, and what percentage would you assign to elements termed "crisis"?

About three fiddy?

mammajamma

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

About three fiddy?

So you DO understand prioritisation

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mammajamma wrote: »

You focused on gay rights, you insinuated that those issues should be of parallel importance to what many would consider "more" important.

It is a logical assumption that you are vested in that opinion.

Ta dah.

It is also nothing to do with the conversation, and I was wrong to bring any kind of personalisation to it.

I mentioned the two big referenda of the last few years in a thread about... referenda. They were examples.

You used specious reasoning, not logical reasoning.

I’m not gay nor have I actively campaigned for gay rights personally. I’m actually just able to empathise with people whose interests and causes they hold dear.

Would you have argued back in the day that fighting for everyone to be able to vote wasn’t important because people were living in poverty in tenements at the time?