Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Fine Gael government policies
-
23-06-2017 7:47pm#1Interested in tracking the policies and direction of our government, currently Fine Gael, and the relationship, if any to pre-election promises or partnership deals , (Indies/FF) floated.
Yesterday we had the issue of regulation and the construction sector and Fine Gael wanting it to remain self regulated, which I found odd considering our recent history. We could also save tax payer monies if we left the banks to it but we can't trust either to completely police themselves IMO.
Today;Varadkar defends use of AIB proceeds to pay down debt
Leo Varadkar made the comments in Brussels following criticism from the Opposition that it should be used for infrastructure and housing.
"As the money was borrowed, and as it came from the National Pension Reserve Fund, the money will of course be used to repay our debt which in turn reduces our debt service costs, which is important too," he said.
"In relation with what we do with the money, some people in the Opposition are conflating different issues.
"The money that was put into AIB in the first place was borrowed money ... so having borrowed the money we're going to use the money that we now receive from the sale to pay down our national debt and that's the appropriate thing to do. If you borrow money you can pay it back.
"Infrastructure is a different issue. We have spending ceilings. Those spending ceilings derive from the fiscal rules, derive from the Fiscal Treaty which we voted for in a referendum derived from our own domestic legislation."
Labour leader Brendan Howlin was among those who said the Government was following "the wrong strategy" by writing down debt rather than investing "in our schools and hospitals."
I can see Leo's point but it does feed into the narrative that the ongoing issues we face are not as important as the ones already tackled; helping banks and opening up credit. Also the AIB money isn't earmarked for anything.
We could put it into social housing or if needs be contractual obligation/pay offs to trim the fat in various areas deemed dysfunctional, health etc.
If we've issues needing money, are we basically saying they can wait? Are we in a race to appease the EU shylocks?5
Comments
-
Interested in tracking the policies and direction of our government, currently Fine Gael, and the relationship, if any to pre-election promises or partnership deals , (Indies/FF) floated.
Yesterday we had the issue of regulation and the construction sector and Fine Gael wanting it to remain self regulated, which I found odd considering our recent history. We could also save tax payer monies if we left the banks to it but we can't trust either to completely police themselves IMO.
Today;
I can see Leo's point but it does feed into the narrative that the ongoing issues we face are not as important as the ones already tackled; helping banks and opening up credit. Also the AIB money isn't earmarked for anything.
We could put it into social housing or if needs be contractual obligation/pay offs to trim the fat in various areas deemed dysfunctional, health etc.
If we've issues needing money, are we basically saying they can wait? Are we in a race to appease the EU shylocks?
This is the old argument again really.
Its fairly clear, to me anyway, that the govt's handling of the crisis from 2011 onwards was fairly prudent and was good for the country overall.
I stress govt, because like now, FG and Leo are in a coalition.
It would seem like the old bangers and whingers still want debt forgotten about, not the best policy IMO.
What has been working needs to be kept working, but the usual suspects,will decry best policies anyway.0 -
I would assume, hopefully, that the money saved on the debt payments will be pumped back into the economy to address some of the social issues that exist.
I can understand why people would like to see the money spent, but given the situation around brexit and other external economic factors would it not be prudent to reduce our national debt when we have the opportunity?0 -
Government finances do not work like household finances. An individual with private debt, should pay down their debts - governments however, traditionally are supposed to roll-over debt over time, and let it be eaten away through GDP increases and inflation.
Our government could be boosting GDP and easing the housing crisis (providing a further boost to GDP, as excessive rents turn into greater discretionary income, and thus consumer spending) - and this would reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP', through increasing economic-activity/GDP - effectively reducing our debt burden relative to GDP.
There is no way of reducing an individuals private debt burden, in the same way as the public debt burden can be reduced, as above - making them completely incomparable.
The entire narrative which pushes the idea that eliminating public debt is a good thing, is a simplistic moralistic argument, which depends upon tricking people into thinking that public debts should be treated like private debts (and in general, that public finances should be treated like private finances) - it's just a handy propaganda tool, for governments that wish to deliberately neglect and constrain public spending, for political (not financial...) reasons.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16289
Which works as long as there is a steady inflation (there's not) and that you have low enough debt level to start with (Ireland at almost 80% is still quite high). If you have a 5% inflation it makes sense to let the debt be eaten up over time; however current eurozone debt remains well below 2% and we have an upcoming financial crash coming (between Brexit and the stockmarkets pumped up by ECB and the Fed with free money before even talking Trump economics and China's grey banks) which will take a big bite out of that GDP. Now instead is the time to prepare to get the financial space for when that downfall comes to counter it with suitable investment rather than simply pouring it away when things are going well in the economy like what happened right before the initial financial crisis hit Ireland.KyussBeeshop wrote: »Government finances do not work like household finances. An individual with private debt, should pay down their debts - governments however, traditionally are supposed to roll-over debt over time, and let it be eaten away through GDP increases and inflation.
Our government could be boosting GDP and easing the housing crisis (providing a further boost to GDP, as excessive rents turn into greater discretionary income, and thus consumer spending) - and this would reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP', through increasing economic-activity/GDP - effectively reducing our debt burden relative to GDP.
There is no way of reducing an individuals private debt burden, in the same way as the public debt burden can be reduced, as above - making them completely incomparable.
The entire narrative which pushes the idea that eliminating public debt is a good thing, is a simplistic moralistic argument, which depends upon tricking people into thinking that public debts should be treated like private debts (and in general, that public finances should be treated like private finances) - it's just a handy propaganda tool, for governments that wish to deliberately neglect and constrain public spending, for political (not financial...) reasons.0 -
It works as long as you are boosting GDP - you don't need steady inflation to do this. We aren't even remotely close to our full GDP potential - we should start by maxing that out.
Define what is a 'suitable investment' versus what you consider 'pouring it away'?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 16289
Infrastructure such as fibre, road network (dual motorway for truck transport so not going into villages but intentionally outside etc.), high capacity power buried cables to provide redundancy, port capacity for container ships/Liquid Gas etc. to provide foundations for companies to set up everywhere in Ireland. This is the physical side of the things; other would be to streamline legal system etc. but that requires more moral courage rather than hard cash on hand.KyussBeeshop wrote: »Define what is a 'suitable investment'
First time buyer support, cutting tax bands, raising various grants for unemployment etc. We could go even further back to 2007 where all parties were competing on out promising each other but the point of it being mainly vote buying exercises rather than actions that have long term positive effect.versus what you consider 'pouring it away'?0 -
Okey - well ya I'd agree with those infrastructural investments - they would be suitable investments, likely to boost or bolster GDP - which are a better alternative to paying down national debt.0
-
KyussBeeshop wrote: »
Our government could be boosting GDP and easing the housing crisis (providing a further boost to GDP, as excessive rents turn into greater discretionary income, and thus consumer spending) - and this would reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP', through increasing economic-activity/GDP - effectively reducing our debt burden relative to GDP.
We have one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. There is no point making the an economic boom even bigger. In fact, many would argue the most prudent thing for the Government would be save now and spend in a few years when we are in a recession (it is inevitable) spend to prime pump the economy. Construction costs will be a lot cheaper then0 -
That's just speaking of an 'economic boom' as if it is an inherently bad thing - yet whether or not a boom is bad or not, depends upon what is being invested in (whether it is sustainable and productive or beneficial to society or not) - and the source of the money being invested (whether or not a private debt bubble is being generated).
The goals of public policy right now, should be to use public spending to ease the housing crisis, to invest in necessary infrastructure, and to bring the economy to full employment (by the economic definition, not layman definition), in a productive way, ASAP.
There is no better time to be spending on e.g. a blitz of social housing construction, than right now in the middle of a massive housing/rental crisis - when significant funds are starting to become available to our government.0 -
KyussBeeshop wrote: »
There is no better time to be spending on e.g. a blitz of social housing construction, than right now in the middle of a massive housing/rental crisis - when significant funds are starting to become available to our government.
No better time? Unemployment is 6% and we have one of the fastest growing economies in Europe by far. Yet you think the Government needs to prime pump the fastest growing economy in Europe? There is zero logic in it.
It is a horrific time to spend money. Construction costs are extremely high as the private sector is building so much. The Government is going make construction more expensive and constrain the private sector
The best time for the Government to build is when we are heading for a recession or in a recession. You don't throw money at an overheating economy and say its great.But "given the vigorous expansion, the Government should avoid more fiscal stimulus than currently planned" so as to avoid the risk of overheating the economy, it added.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0601/792541-oecd-on-ireland/0 -
Advertisement
-
It's where you 'throw money' though. Using money to build social housing and throwing it at contractors by way of tax or subsidy gimmicks are two different things. We're content to feed private industry as par for the course but spending money on our selves gets the quare eye.
Fine Gael have been artificially bolstering/heating the housing market all along.0 -
You're speaking of the economy as if it's one homogeneous entity, as if it all overheats at once - except it's not, it's made up of many different sectors/industries, which interact with one another in complex ways - with overheating usually being based within a portion of these sectors/industries, not all of them at once.wordofwarning wrote: »No better time? Unemployment is 6% and we have one of the fastest growing economies in Europe by far. Yet you think the Government needs to prime pump the fastest growing economy in Europe? There is zero logic in it.
It is a horrific time to spend money. Construction costs are extremely high as the private sector is building so much. The Government is going make construction more expensive and constrain the private sector
The best time for the Government to build is when we are heading for a recession or in a recession. You don't throw money at an overheating economy and say its great.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0601/792541-oecd-on-ireland/
You speak of the construction sector as if its capacity is fixed and will not expand as more demand is placed on it - except this is not how things work, spending/investment in the construction industry typically expands it over time, rather than 'crowding-out' others.
You don't wait until recessions before engaging in time-critical investments, such as a housing blitz for alleviating a severe shortage of housing/rentals - just because governments should spend/invest more when recessions hit, doesn't mean they should be putting off critical investments in the present in order to spend at this later date.
It's rather silly to expect governments to defer spending, to a time (recessions) when their finances are typically enormously challenged and when spending cuts are what are being pushed for the hardest - it's almost like the entire point of such a suggestion, is to just blanket-oppose government spending in general.0 -
KyussBeeshop wrote: »You speak of the construction sector as if its capacity is fixed and will not expand as more demand is placed on it - except this is not how things work, spending/investment in the construction industry typically expands it over time, rather than 'crowding-out' others.
The massive price inflation at the moment in construction indicates that its capacity is in fact somewhat fixed.On Wednesday, the Fiscal Advisory Council cautioned that a leap in construction to address “pent-up demand” in the housing market could overheat the economy, bidding up prices and wages, and undermining competitiveness in a throwback to the mid 2000s.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/is-ireland-in-danger-of-creating-another-housing-bubble-1.3113704KyussBeeshop wrote: »You don't wait until recessions before engaging in time-critical investments, such as a housing blitz for alleviating a severe shortage of housing/rentals - just because governments should spend/invest more when recessions hit, doesn't mean they should be putting off critical investments in the present in order to spend at this later date.
The private sector is building huge amounts of housing. They would build more if the state made it more attractive to build ie loosening building regs, height restrictions etc. The private sector can supply more housing if facilitated by the state policies. We don't have to solve the housing shortage by throwing state money at itKyussBeeshop wrote: »It's rather silly to expect governments to defer spending, to a time (recessions) when their finances are typically enormously challenged and when spending cuts are what are being pushed for the hardest - it's almost like the entire point of such a suggestion, is to just blanket-oppose government spending in general.
It is not silly at all. It supported by most economists ie the use of economic stabilizers. Take money out of the economy, when it is booming and spending when it contradicting. It smoothes business cycles. Government borrow during recessions to fund this economic stimulus. So their finances being challenged is not relevant as long as they are credit worthy which is the case for most developed nations.
The entire point of the suggestion is spend when it is necessary. Does the economy need prime pumping? No. Does it need prime pumping in a recession? Yes. Can we prime pump in a recession, if we have not reduced our debt during economic growth? Eh? It is hard when you did not pay down debt as throwing money at a booming economy0 -
What is this 'massive' price inflation, and what rate is it averaged out over the last few years? Short-term price inflation from an industry that is ramping-up production, is to be expected - and is not an indication of fixed capacity, unless it persists over the long term without an expansion of production.wordofwarning wrote: »The massive price inflation at the moment in construction indicates that its capacity is in fact somewhat fixed.
The private sector has been and is currently failing by a huge margin, to provide anywhere near enough houses or rentals.wordofwarning wrote: »The private sector is building huge amounts of housing. They would build more if the state made it more attractive to build ie loosening building regs, height restrictions etc. The private sector can supply more housing if facilitated by the state policies. We don't have to solve the housing shortage by throwing state money at it
We don't have to solve the housing shortage with the failed policy of waiting for the private sector either - because we currently have a crapload of state money coming in that can be thrown at this problem, creating huge progress in fixing it in a relatively short period.
So, no - we should not wait for private markets to fix everything, that's already a massive failure, and many actors in the private markets would rather we stay in this current mess so they can milk it for all its worth.
We should use public funding in this instance, because there is a massive ongoing market failure.
You're not talking about economic stabilizers though - you're talking about choking public spending when we're not even at full economic capacity, i.e. prolonging the downturn of the current economic cycle - that's the opposite of what economic stabilizers are all about.wordofwarning wrote: »It is not silly at all. It supported by most economists ie the use of economic stabilizers. Take money out of the economy, when it is booming and spending when it contradicting. It smoothes business cycles. Government borrow during recessions to fund this economic stimulus. So their finances being challenged is not relevant as long as they are credit worthy which is the case for most developed nations.
The entire point of the suggestion is spend when it is necessary. Does the economy need prime pumping? No. Does it need prime pumping in a recession? Yes. Can we prime pump in a recession, if we have not reduced our debt during economic growth? Eh? It is hard when you did not pay down debt as throwing money at a booming economy
You deflate individual sectors of an economy that are booming, not deflate the entire economy by choking public spending.
If, by the next recession, you have a higher Debt vs GDP, because you failed to maximize GDP to it's full potential, before paying down your Debt - then yes, then you're likely to be in more trouble, come the next recession.
We won't be 'pump priming' the economy come the next recession anyway - because deficit-scaremongering political/ideological arguments will prevail again, over economic arguments - recessions nearly always mean massive cuts to government spending.0 -
On the massive price inflation I heard this morning on the radio that the Unite Union want a pay rise for crane drivers which will put them on €62 k per year, which is likely to drive other building site workers to look for pay rises. May not be massive inflation but apparently building costs are high already so this won't help.0
-
The House Construction Cost Index has barely changed in a decade:
0 -
wordofwarning wrote: »...We don't have to solve the housing shortage by throwing state money at it
Yet we do exacerbate the housing crisis and maintain the private housing market by throwing state money at it.On the massive price inflation I heard this morning on the radio that the Unite Union want a pay rise for crane drivers which will put them on €62 k per year, which is likely to drive other building site workers to look for pay rises. May not be massive inflation but apparently building costs are high already so this won't help.
That's the free market. People can charge what they like. Contractors/developers can charge as much as they can get away with and if the public can't meet it, the state throws tax payer money at them or their customers. I don't see why the onus of 'the greater good' should fall on private individuals.
On a judicial note. Leo seems to be making good moves as regards appointments. I've always felt the Judiciary were literally a law onto themselves. Transparency is always a good thing.0 -
The free market increases will push up the cost of providing social housing as these same contractors will be the ones building any social houses as the councils don't have a cohort of builders waiting around to get building..That's the free market. People can charge what they like. Contractors/developers can charge as much as they can get away with and if the public can't meet it, the state throws tax payer money at them or their customers. I don't see why the onus of 'the greater good' should fall on private individuals.0 -
The free market increases will push up the cost of providing social housing as these same contractors will be the ones building any social houses as the councils don't have a cohort of builders waiting around to get building..
Yes. And contractors/developers won't be doing us a solid by taking a cut in personal profit to save us money either. That's the way it is.A ban on fixed-price waste collection is being introduced by the Government to encourage recycling and reduce the amount of rubbish.
However, the Opposition has said there are fears it will mean higher bills for households.
Minister for the Environment Denis Naughten has announced the new scheme, to replace the controversial plan for a pay-by-weight system shelved by the Government last year.
Mr Naughten said he decided not to introduce a "compulsory one-size-fits-all per kilogramme charging system".
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0627/886009-waste-charges/
Why does every environmental crusade end up making money for some concerns while hitting the tax payer?
Let's take it on face value, (will probably be ridiculed by even FG supporters for doing so at a later date) and buy this move is about lessening our dependence on landfills and helping the environment. Why does it always have to result in more cost?
Would a simpler cure not be to have recycling bins that must contain recyclable waste or they aren't collected, coupled with rubbish/general waste bins that aren't collected if seen to contain recyclable materials? Folks will soon get into the swing. And if paying by use/weight, it would be less as the weight would be spread out, saving the tax payer/customer and the environment? Or maybe that's not the goal of course...0 -
KyussBeeshop wrote: »What is this 'massive' price inflation, and what rate is it averaged out over the last few years? Short-term price inflation from an industry that is ramping-up production, is to be expected - and is not an indication of fixed capacity, unless it persists over the long term without an expansion of production.
The SCSI have stated tender price inflation for construction was 6.3% in 2016 alone. It was 5.5% in 2015 and 5% in 2014. Sharp price increases indicate seriously constrained production capacity. Not quite fixed, but extremely constrained. Demand is rising faster than supply
https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=1161&field=fileKyussBeeshop wrote: »because we currently have a crapload of state money coming in that can be thrown at this problem, creating huge progress in fixing it in a relatively short period.
Eh? You have just confirmed you have no idea what you are talking about. We are running a deficit. We don't have a 'crapload of money'. What is the figure on the crapload of money ?KyussBeeshop wrote: »You're not talking about economic stabilizers though - you're talking about choking public spending when we're not even at full economic capacity, i.e. prolonging the downturn of the current economic cycle - that's the opposite of what economic stabilizers are all about.
I am not saying cutting public spending. I am saying there is no need to add fuel to a fire that is burning strong.
Explain to me how loading on a ton of debt now making borrowing more expensive in a recession when we need to prime pump will not be concern?
What is full capacity of the economy BTW?0 -
Advertisement
-
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said he is determined that the Government will have enough money to cut income taxes in the October budget, even if that means raising other taxes.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/income-tax-cuts-may-be-funded-by-other-tax-hikes-says-varadkar-1.3136456
Can someone enlighten me as to what Varadkar means by:“I am determined that we find some space to increase the take home pay of two million people who work really hard in this country, who get up every day, go to work, pay the taxes that make everything else possible,” the Taoiseach said.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/income-tax-cuts-may-be-funded-by-other-tax-hikes-says-varadkar-1.3136456
It's great to try lower the tax burden on those feeling squeezed, but he's obviously got no plan on where he'll make up the difference. And regardless of how well spread out raises are, does he think the unemployed or off-shore tax residing king pins of industry are going to supply these monies? My taxes are down but food/rent are up?
Is it just more hyperbolic bluster? It seems to me he's trying damn hard to be devisive and create inward squabbles among the public.
His talk begs the question; Who are these people who don't get up in the morning and what's been done about it? He needs to check his vague Trump-esque bluster IMO.
And how does this populist move feed into the Fine Gael narrative of us not having the money to fix the ongoing worsening crises because Paddy won't pay enough tax?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,668 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21548
I assume he means he's going to increase indirect taxation, VAT etc, which will hit people at the lower end more as seems to be his goal. Alternatively he may have no plan to make up the difference and this is just a way of forcing FF to pull the plug. Then in the election he can campaign on the basis of "vote FG for more money in your pocket".0 -
Can someone enlighten me as to what Varadkar means by:
It's great to try lower the tax burden on those feeling squeezed, but he's obviously got no plan on where he'll make up the difference. And regardless of how well spread out raises are, does he think the unemployed or off-shore tax residing king pins of industry are going to supply these monies? My taxes are down but food/rent are up?
Is it just more hyperbolic bluster? It seems to me he's trying damn hard to be devisive and create inward squabbles among the public.
His talk begs the question; Who are these people who don't get up in the morning and what's been done about it? He needs to check his vague Trump-esque bluster IMO.
And how does this populist move feed into the Fine Gael narrative of us not having the money to fix the ongoing worsening crises because Paddy won't pay enough tax?
Trump-esque? Is that the new word to disparage political ideals not liked?
It seems Mr Trump has achieved something after all.
I'd see it as an attempt to broaden the tax base once again. Its fair to try to make the tax take more inclusive really, I think if Leo is as good as his rhetoric perhaps there is a chance of a fairer distribution of our tax load. Time to reward work as well, I hope he keeps it going.0 -
Bishopsback wrote: »Trump-esque? Is that the new word to disparage political ideals not liked?
It seems Mr Trump has achieved something after all.
I'd see it as an attempt to broaden the tax base once again. Its fair to try to make the tax take more inclusive really, I think if Leo is as good as his rhetoric perhaps there is a chance of a fairer distribution of our tax load. Time to reward work as well, I hope he keeps it going.
By Trump-esque I mean in the manner of Trump. That being using ill thought out rhetoric. As I said, if he's on about people "who get up every day, go to work, pay the taxes" who else is there that he's referring to? What's the take from this? Is it the suggestion that the previous Fine Gael government pandered too much to non-taxpayers, people who like a lie in of a morning? It's devisive and I'd hope for a little more class, a move on from the 'toddle along', 'whingers' 'go do something' ignorance we've seen.
If, as has been suggested, some of the issues needing addressing relate to a lack of money and it's partly the fault of the public for having an unwillingness to pay the taxes required to foot the bill, his move is populism flying in the face of that suggestion. 'We can't tackle X because Paddy won't pay higher taxes, in the meantime we'll try lower taxes for them who pay taxes'. Blarney. As gets bandied about here often enough, 'Social housing lower tax? the money will have to come from somewhere'.
In short, he's going to try lower taxes for those who pay taxes by raising costs/prices elsewhere. Does he think taxpayers live in a bubble and their pockets won't be hit?
People want value for money. Not a government that seem to be content with the way things are and feel it's more important to be populist rather than do their job. Where's the 'do what needs doing, even if it's not popular' Fine Gael party of myth and legend? I suppose they got there's so it's time to play for popularity.0 -
By Trump-esque I mean in the manner of Trump. That being using ill thought out rhetoric. As I said, if he's on about people "who get up every day, go to work, pay the taxes" who else is there that he's referring to? What's the take from this? Is it the suggestion that the previous Fine Gael government pandered too much to non-taxpayers, people who like a lie in of a morning? It's devisive and I'd hope for a little more class, a move on from the 'toddle along', 'whingers' 'go do something' ignorance we've seen.
If, as has been suggested, some of the issues needing addressing relate to a lack of money and it's partly the fault of the public for having an unwillingness to pay the taxes required to foot the bill, his move is populism flying in the face of that suggestion. 'We can't tackle X because Paddy won't pay higher taxes, in the meantime we'll try lower taxes for them who pay taxes'. Blarney. As gets bandied about here often enough, 'Social housing lower tax? the money will have to come from somewhere'.
In short, he's going to try lower taxes for those who pay taxes by raising costs/prices elsewhere. Does he think taxpayers live in a bubble and their pockets won't be hit?
People want value for money. Not a government that seem to be content with the way things are and feel it's more important to be populist rather than do their job. Where's the 'do what needs doing, even if it's not popular' Fine Gael party of myth and legend? I suppose they got there's so it's time to play for popularity.
Well take the reverse of the argument, if all this social housing is to be built, health service fixed to a decent standard, etc etc. Where are the politicians that are shouting for a quick fix to all these issues going to get the money to implement all these policies.
Are we to see raised taxes on the employed people and those paying their already hard pressed mortgages, ever inflating health insurance costs, etc etc. Are we to become a benevolent to the point of slavery state?0 -
Bishopsback wrote: »Well take the reverse of the argument, if all this social housing is to be built, health service fixed to a decent standard, etc etc. Where are the politicians that are shouting for a quick fix to all these issues going to get the money to implement all these policies.
Are we to see raised taxes on the employed people and those paying their already hard pressed mortgages, ever inflating health insurance costs, etc etc. Are we to become a benevolent to the point of slavery state?
Name one human being calling for a quick fix? Action, yes.
The only moves relating to a quick fix I've seen are subsidies and tax relief for landlords given out, that only seem to make things worse. That's throwing tax payer money at a problem with little chance of even easing the problem.
Are you saying there's no money, so let's move along? We may as well organise tax cuts? The idea that the hard pressed tax payer needs a cut in tax take while the very things squeezing him/her are made and let get worse is plain silly.
Cutting personal take home tax won't lead to cheaper rent/food/other charges/taxes especially as they increase. Fianna Fail policy in the making.0 -
The thread is pointless unless we monitor all parties and see what percentage of their policies get implemented over the course of the Dail, after all that is what we elected them to do. We can then rank the parties in terms of successful implementation of their policies.
In an era of coalition governments, rather than single-party majority government, no political party will be able to implement 100% of their policies, in an era of new politics, even opposition parties should be able to persuade others of the merits of their policies and have some implemented. All parties should then end up with a score somewhere between 0 and 100%.0 -
The thread is pointless unless we monitor all parties and see what percentage of their policies get implemented over the course of the Dail, after all that is what we elected them to do. We can then rank the parties in terms of successful implementation of their policies.
In an era of coalition governments, rather than single-party majority government, no political party will be able to implement 100% of their policies, in an era of new politics, even opposition parties should be able to persuade others of the merits of their policies and have some implemented. All parties should then end up with a score somewhere between 0 and 100%.
This is a Fine Gael specific thread. It's in the name.
If/when they are no longer in government you'd have a point.
What 'era of new politics'? That notion was quashed by the early days of 2012.
Much of your post is covered over in the Leo/Manifesto thread. This one relates to Fine Gael policies, as they appear, as they change and will of course include input from coalition partners because it's been generally agreed FG manifesto's are meaningless.0 -
This is a Fine Gael specific thread. It's in the name.
If/when they are no longer in government you'd have a point.
What 'era of new politics'? That notion was quashed by the early days of 2012.
Much of your post is covered over in the Leo/Manifesto thread. This one relates to Fine Gael policies, as they appear, as they change and will of course include input from coalition partners because it's been generally agreed FG manifesto's are meaningless.
New politics is the politics since the last election when we have a minority government etc.
Comparison is a useful tool. If you want to measure how successful a party is by the percentage of manifesto implemented, you must compare it to how everyone else is doing. It is a bit silly criticising FG for implementing say only 15% of their manifesto (or whatever you want to pick) when other parties are on 0%.0 -
Advertisement
-
Politics is the art of the possible, that means compromise to achieve things. There is that famous quote from Bismark:If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made
Seems someone saw some being made and now complains that he cant enjoy his morning Fry anymore.
0
Advertisement