Is a Fianna Fail - Sinn Fein coalition inevitable?

blanch152 · 26-04-2019 12:22pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Or that the current lot are no better than the others. As blanch has already posted, clearly looking after No1.

Half a dozen of one and six of the other.

Riveting altogether.

The point I am making (in case it is misunderstood) that voters for all parties are looking after number 1 in most cases. There was a misplaced idea that it is only voters for FF and FG who are looking after number 1 when in fact most people vote for a party that is going to do something for them at the expense of someone else.

Only castigating FF and FG for appealing to people wanting to look after number 1 is a short-sighted, misinformed opinion. In fact, anyone who actually believes that most voters for other parties are doing otherwise than looking after number 1 could well be suffering from a delusion.

I would put the proportion of voters who think about voting on the basis of what is best for the country at around 10% and the number who actually do it somewhat less.

James Brown · 26-04-2019 2:23pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The point I am making (in case it is misunderstood) that voters for all parties are looking after number 1 in most cases. There was a misplaced idea that it is only voters for FF and FG who are looking after number 1 when in fact most people vote for a party that is going to do something for them at the expense of someone else.

Only castigating FF and FG for appealing to people wanting to look after number 1 is a short-sighted, misinformed opinion. In fact, anyone who actually believes that most voters for other parties are doing otherwise than looking after number 1 could well be suffering from a delusion.

I would put the proportion of voters who think about voting on the basis of what is best for the country at around 10% and the number who actually do it somewhat less.

That explains why FF/FG have been at the helm for so long.
Looking after number one by supporting parties with little to no chance of getting into government anytime soon seems very odd. Unless of course you like the cut of their jib for other reasons.

We often read how parties on single digit percentage support are merely populist while FF/FG seem to do well by making hard choices, such as bankrupting the country, austerity and gross mismanagement. I think once the lights remain on we'll be stuck with FF/FG in one form or other. What does that say about us?

*********

It's sad but I've come to the realisation that the best thing that could happen to the country is a FF/SF government, in no small thanks to FG.
Housing, health, education would be tackled and while FF will wet their beak and likely an element of SF, the country will be far better off with improving rather than worsening crises. The days of 'economy' first and only are shown to be a farce. I could take more austerity if it meant working taxpayers could support themselves.

McMurphy · 27-04-2019 9:03am

I see that FG have promised to slash lpt in whatever areas they get local candidates into for the local elections (doh) while FF have refused to match their promise, only going so far as saying they'll (FF) only promise not to raise LPT in whatever areas they get into in the locals.

If you were championing FG introducing the LPT and lauding them for doing so, then surely you'd have to be viewing them as being possibly financial populists and fiscally irresponsible right now, or are we back to the football team unwavering support?

I will definitely enjoy the spin room minions response on social media outlets to this conundrum in the coming weeks.

christy c · 27-04-2019 9:38am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I see that FG have promised to slash lpt in whatever areas they get local candidates into for the local elections (doh) while FF have refused to match their promise, only going so far as saying they'll (FF) only promise not to raise LPT in whatever areas they get into in the locals.

If you were championing FG introducing the LPT and lauding them for doing so, then surely you'd have to be viewing them as being possibly financial populists and fiscally irresponsible right now, or are we back to the football team unwavering support?

I will definitely enjoy the spin room minions response on social media outlets to this conundrum in the coming weeks.

Is this just more childish, "look over there" political point scoring? If that is true, then yes, it is financial populism and irresponsible. But doesn't change the fact that SF have been proposing irresponsible nonsense for years.

Seems that you have no issue with SF doing it but when FG do it you're on here beaming with joy.

McMurphy · 27-04-2019 10:06am

christy c wrote: »

Is this just more childish, "look over there" political point scoring? If that is true, then yes, it is financial populism and irresponsible. But doesn't change the fact that SF have been proposing irresponsible nonsense for years.

Seems that you have no issue with SF doing it but when FG do it you're on here beaming with joy.

Seems you misread my question, as I never as much as mentioned the shinners

However, I thank you for your honesty.

If that is true, then yes, it is financial populism and irresponsible

christy c · 27-04-2019 10:23am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Seems you misread my question, as I never as much as mentioned the shinners

In a thread about SF and FF I assumed that there was some reference to them, particularly when (from memory) you said you did/would vote for SF. Maybe you just posted in the wrong thread?

Anyway, to get back on topic, do you agree with FG cutting LPT? If yes, then why bring it up in a SF/FF thread? If no, then I assume you'd be equally as critical of any party who proposed cutting it?

McMurphy · 27-04-2019 10:43am

christy c wrote: »

In a thread about SF and FF I assumed that there was some reference to them,

In a thread about SF/FF potential coalition, yes there's going to be some reference to Sinn Fein, that's inevitable I suppose, but in my lpt related post, I didn't bring them up, I know they campaigned against the introduction of LPT, and have been reducing it (With FGs blessings) in what councils they have major sayings in (as they said they'd do)

particularly when (from memory) you said you did/would vote for SF. Maybe you just posted in the wrong thread?

Your memory isn't standing over you particularly well, but my voting preferences aren't relevant anyway.

Anyway, to get back on topic, do you agree with FG cutting LPT? If yes, then why bring it up in a SF/FF thread? If no, then I assume you'd be equally as critical of any party who proposed cutting it?

Oh I'm not being critical, I said I'm going to enjoy their frape room minions spinning their reasons for doing so following their previous spinning for the need to introduce it, and the absolute necessity to do so.

christy c · 27-04-2019 11:15am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

In a thread about SF/FF potential coalition, yes there's going to be some reference to Sinn Fein, that's inevitable I suppose, but in my lpt related post, I didn't bring them up, I know they campaigned against the introduction of LPT, and have been reducing it (With FGs blessings) in what councils they have major sayings in (as they said they'd do)

Your memory isn't standing over you particularly well, but my voting preferences aren't relevant anyway.

Oh I'm not being critical, I said I'm going to enjoy their frape room minions spinning their reasons for doing so following their previous spinning for the need to introduce it, and the absolute necessity to do so.

Firstly, apologies I thought you said you would vote for SF.

Again I don't see why you would bring up FG's LPT position in a thread about two other political parties.

And lastly, seems I was correct in that it was just childish point scoring- "Frape room", "minions".

McMurphy · 27-04-2019 11:24am

christy c wrote: »

Firstly, apologies I thought you said you voted for SF.

I give them a vote, but (from memory) it was behind Catherine Murphy and James Lawless, I vote on a candidates ability and work ethic in the past, the FG candidate was a donkey, and deservedly lost his seat last time out.

Again I don't see why you would bring up FG's LPT position in a thread about two other political parties.

Really? You don't see why I would bring up an incumbent party's promises in an upcoming election, and how their bedfellows/opposition/2-in1 titled in this thread won't match their promise?

Why wouldn't I bring it up? Tis a fairly relevant topic to bring up in this thread.

And lastly, seems I was correct in that it was just childish point scoring- "Frape room", "minions".

Chillax, it's just a tongue in cheek reference to a recent article that exposed how Leo wanted party members to shill talk shows under the pretence of being ordinary Joe's. :cool:

manonboard · 27-04-2019 11:24am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's sad but I've come to the realisation that the best thing that could happen to the country is a FF/SF government, in no small thanks to FG.
Housing, health, education would be tackled and while FF will wet their beak and likely an element of SF, the country will be far better off with improving rather than worsening crises. The days of 'economy' first and only are shown to be a farce. I could take more austerity if it meant working taxpayers could support themselves.

How do you see that occurring?
Im in no way being antagonist about it, I'm curious how you think it would actually be implemented?
My understanding of FF from my experience is largely they do similar stuff as FG. I think they are a bit better economically but at the same time, they really mad some big mess last time with inaction or protective measures, and while i agree with the bailout.. i think it was hugely harmful too.

When it comes to SF.. They seem like they would never fire/sack/lay off people from the health care, and it seems that many roles are hugely over populated, and i never hear them suggest anything to make it more efficient.
I'd see them as creating alot more social housing.. but this just kinda prolongs the problem as i can see it.. Sure.. its already so crazy that some people work so hard to get a home, and others are given one for so little.. it really de-incentives people to earn as hard, and in the future...those that are given houses now will have no capital to rest on in their pension years

christy c · 27-04-2019 11:36am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Really? You don't see why I would bring up an incumbent party's promises in an upcoming election, and how their bedfellows/opposition/2-in1 titled in this thread won't match their promise?

Why wouldn't I bring it up? Tis a fairly relevant topic to bring up in this thread.

Chillax, it's just a tongue in cheek reference to a recent article that exposed how Leo wanted party members to shill talk shows under the pretence of being ordinary Joe's. :cool:

Fine, I don't see it as particularly relevant but I see your point.

I wouldn't really call it tongue in cheek, more childish than anything.

McMurphy · 27-04-2019 11:41am

christy c wrote: »

Fine, I don't see it as particularly relevant but I see your point.

I wouldn't really call it tongue in cheek, more childish than anything.

Why do you care? Personally I wouldn't give a dam about how someone referred to a newspaper article unless it had touched some kind of a nerve.

A political partys WhatsApp messages being leaked would be way beyond anything I might care in the slightest to though, but this prob goes back to my football team analogy.

Idbatterim · 27-04-2019 11:53am

I read recently in a poll, that many wanted improved services rather than tax cuts. L!O!L is this the same welfare careerists and primarily elderly who have been moaning about any lpt increase? Pathetic. Forgot the water charges , going back there would be madness. But the lpt and all its bull**** exemptions should be brining in a lot more and use it for income tax reductions and housing. Tax take from income taxes gone from twelve to over twenty billion in the last few years!

McMurphy · 27-04-2019 12:05pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read recently in a poll, that many wanted improved services rather than tax cuts. L!O!L is this the same welfare careerists and primarily elderly who have been moaning about any lpt increase? Pathetic. Forgot the water charges , going back there would be madness. But the lpt and all its bull**** exemptions should be brining in a lot more and use it for income tax reductions and housing. Tax take from income taxes gone from twelve to over twenty billion in the last few years!

The gamekeeper has turned poacher ldb.

christy c · 27-04-2019 1:54pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why do you care? Personally I wouldn't give a dam about how someone referred to a newspaper article unless it had touched some kind of a nerve.

A political partys WhatsApp messages being leaked would be way beyond anything I might care in the slightest to though, but this prob goes back to my football team analogy.

Don't worry, I'm not going to have sleepless nights about it. I saw something I thought was childish and said so.

McMurphy · 27-04-2019 2:44pm

christy c wrote: »

Don't worry, I'm not going to have sleepless nights about it. I saw something I thought was childish and said so.

Did you contact the news site and tell them the same?

Fine Gaels Frape Room

No point in letting me know.

christy c · 27-04-2019 2:50pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did you contact the news site and tell them the same?

Fine Gaels Frape Room

No point in letting me know.

You seem to be giving this too much thought, this is a discussion forum and when you said something childish I pointed that out. Whether I contacted an external news site or not is irrelevant.

McMurphy · 27-04-2019 3:05pm

christy c wrote: »

You seem to be giving this too much thought, this is a discussion forum and when you said something childish I pointed that out. Whether I contacted an external news site or not is irrelevant.

No christy, you are the one who seems to be giving it too much thought, I posted that FG have promised to slash lpt in whatever areas they get into, FF have refused to match this promise.

Now given that there was huge resistance to the introduction of LPT, and FG and their online supporters had given all kinds of reasons for the need to introduce it, and many (even on this site) have been telling us that it's way too low (arguably), i stated that I was looking forward to the frape room minions spinning this bit of an about turn by them.

You appeared to call me out on the "Frape Room minion" post as being childish, I explained it was a tongue in cheek reference to an earlier article, to which you repeated your remarks, to which I replied explaining exactly what it meant, why it was tongue in cheek, and even did the courtesy of linking you to same.

First you were annoyed at me even daring to bring up the incumbents in the thread to begin with, but that's not how a discussion website works.

christy c · 27-04-2019 3:32pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No christy, you are the one who seems to be giving it too much thought, I posted that FG have promised to slash lpt in whatever areas they get into, FF have refused to match this promise.

Now given that there was huge resistance to the introduction of LPT, and FG and their online supporters had given all kinds of reasons for the need to introduce it, and many (even on this site) have been telling us that it's way too low (arguably), i stated that I was looking forward to the frape room minions spinning this bit of an about turn by them.

You appeared to call me out on the "Frape Room minion" post as being childish, I explained it was a tongue in cheek reference to an earlier article, to which you repeated your remarks, to which I replied explaining exactly what it meant, why it was tongue in cheek, and even did the courtesy of linking you to same.

First you were annoyed at me even daring to bring up the incumbents in the thread to begin with, but that's not how a discussion website works.

I still think the Frape room and minions thing was childish, even if another website uses that phrase it doesn't make it less childish. You say tongue in cheek, I say childish. I'll agree to disagree

Idbatterim · 27-04-2019 5:34pm

“Now given that there was huge resistance to the introduction of LPT, and FG and their online supporters had given all kinds of reasons for the need to introduce it, and many (even on this site) have been telling us that it's way too low (arguably), i stated that I was looking forward to the frape room minions spinning this bit of an about turn by them.” What do you mean that the .18% lpt is too low ? I get the impression many on boards , would like to see every tax scrapped other than income taxes! Instead of having workers pay for nearly everything, the should pay for the lot!!!

James Brown · 29-04-2019 1:54pm

manonboard wrote: »

How do you see that occurring?
Im in no way being antagonist about it, I'm curious how you think it would actually be implemented?
My understanding of FF from my experience is largely they do similar stuff as FG. I think they are a bit better economically but at the same time, they really mad some big mess last time with inaction or protective measures, and while i agree with the bailout.. i think it was hugely harmful too.

When it comes to SF.. They seem like they would never fire/sack/lay off people from the health care, and it seems that many roles are hugely over populated, and i never hear them suggest anything to make it more efficient.
I'd see them as creating alot more social housing.. but this just kinda prolongs the problem as i can see it.. Sure.. its already so crazy that some people work so hard to get a home, and others are given one for so little.. it really de-incentives people to earn as hard, and in the future...those that are given houses now will have no capital to rest on in their pension years

I would see SF and likely FF making a return to social housing moving away from the current failed efforts to do it piecemeal. I would also hope for some form of cap on companies buying up housing/apartments for rental stock.
FF are a party I would like to see dissolved, but compared the current policy I think they would back more social housing and might be on the same page if in with SF. I don't want to get into a housing debate, I'm for more social housing to give working tax payers a decent chance at a decent life.

it really de-incentives people to earn as hard

I think this is the biggest load of nonsense, (biting my tongue here) one might come across.
I'm not trying to be patronising or condescending, it must be said that many, if not most low income, to 'middle' income people work damn hard and for them to pay exorbitant rents for the profits of private individuals or companies is a national shame IMO. Making it easier for these people won't spoil them and I find that whole mindset must come from people who likely own a home and have little to no life experience outside of their own comfortable bubble as it's hard for me to understand how anyone can think like that.
FYI: many many people work hard all their lives and have no capital to rest on in their pension years. You can't save or invest what you spend on living and getting from month to month.

Idbatterim · 02-05-2019 3:07pm

I would love to see a poll conducted, where there was an option of the below!

A) Vote FF and happy with their performance

Vote FF as best of a bad lot
C) Vote FG and happy with their performance
D) Vote FG as best of a bad lot
E) Dont vote for FFG

FreudianSlippers · 03-05-2019 10:00am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would see SF and likely FF making a return to social housing moving away from the current failed efforts to do it piecemeal. I would also hope for some form of cap on companies buying up housing/apartments for rental stock.
FF are a party I would like to see dissolved, but compared the current policy I think they would back more social housing and might be on the same page if in with SF. I don't want to get into a housing debate, I'm for more social housing to give working tax payers a decent chance at a decent life.

So this is where I have a problem with the people who consistently bash FF on this forum; they inherently accept (as you have here) that their economic and taxation policy leads to results. As I've said many times on here, I'm party agnostic... I vote based on the candidate in my constituency that best matches my views first and the party which has the best policy to fix the issues second.

FG (who I voted for in the last election) wants to take excess tax take and squirrel it away for a rainy day, when *looks outside* its raining. FF would take that money and splurge it on massive infrastructure developments including social housing. FG has been spectacularly bad in Government, there's frankly no denying that.

I'm not sure how one can, with a straight face, say that FF policy would benefit society on one hand but that you want to see the party dissolved on the other?

blanch152 · 03-05-2019 11:59am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So this is where I have a problem with the people who consistently bash FF on this forum; they inherently accept (as you have here) that their economic and taxation policy leads to results. As I've said many times on here, I'm party agnostic... I vote based on the candidate in my constituency that best matches my views first and the party which has the best policy to fix the issues second.

FG (who I voted for in the last election) wants to take excess tax take and squirrel it away for a rainy day, when *looks outside* its raining. FF would take that money and splurge it on massive infrastructure developments including social housing. FG has been spectacularly bad in Government, there's frankly no denying that.

I'm not sure how one can, with a straight face, say that FF policy would benefit society on one hand but that you want to see the party dissolved on the other?

The thing about FF is that from time to time, their standard policy of looking after builders and developers is actually the right thing to do. The problem is that when they get voted in and do that, the voters forget to vote them out again immediately at the next election, and the required infrastructural investment turns into an overheating of the economy with an inevitable collapse.

FreudianSlippers · 03-05-2019 12:03pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The thing about FF is that from time to time, their standard policy of looking after builders and developers is actually the right thing to do. The problem is that when they get voted in and do that, the voters forget to vote them out again immediately at the next election, and the required infrastructural investment turns into an overheating of the economy with an inevitable collapse.

The good thing is that the new EU rules which came in after the 2008 global economic crash mainly prevent any future EU governments from making the same mistakes of the past. There's little to no reason for the extraordinarily conservative economic policies of FG.

blanch152 · 03-05-2019 12:39pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The good thing is that the new EU rules which came in after the 2008 global economic crash mainly prevent any future EU governments from making the same mistakes of the past. There's little to no reason for the extraordinarily conservative economic policies of FG.

The two biggest mistakes of the FG administration will be seen as the Children's Hospital decision and the National Broadband decision.

The Children's Hospital could have been built on a greenfield site in Connolly Blanchardstown for half the cost. The co-location benefit isn't worth the premium paid for it. The first €1 bn of the Broadband decision is necessary to get up to 90% coverage, but if this country is to have a sustainable future, there needs to be a penalty for living in unsustainable one-off housing down every boreen. Not having luxury broadband is a suitable penalty.

The €2.7 bn wasted as a result of those two decisions could have been spent on the M20, the N6 Galway bypass and on public transport in Cork, Limerick and Galway future-proofing those cities and in line with Project 2040.

James Brown · 03-05-2019 2:43pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So this is where I have a problem with the people who consistently bash FF on this forum; they inherently accept (as you have here) that their economic and taxation policy leads to results. As I've said many times on here, I'm party agnostic... I vote based on the candidate in my constituency that best matches my views first and the party which has the best policy to fix the issues second.

FG (who I voted for in the last election) wants to take excess tax take and squirrel it away for a rainy day, when *looks outside* its raining. FF would take that money and splurge it on massive infrastructure developments including social housing. FG has been spectacularly bad in Government, there's frankly no denying that.

I'm not sure how one can, with a straight face, say that FF policy would benefit society on one hand but that you want to see the party dissolved on the other?

You say consistently bashing, well I mean they provide so much material I and others would be remiss or even party stooge like, not to point it out surely? I too generally vote based on the candidate however Fianna Fail and to a mildly lesser extent Fine Gael are two organisations with form and a candidate signing up to either would have a black mark against their name, obviously I would have thought.
You misunderstand FG. That's the impression they like to give, fiscal conservatism, while they do givaway budgets, oversee costly crises and will not hold themselves accountable on anything, such as the Children's Hospital over run. You summed up FF pretty well.
Compared to FF/FG policy currently, as I explained in my comments, SF would likely be social housing heavy and as you described FF likely to splurge on massive infrastructural developments, ergo, more social housing would be a good thing IMO, and it's likely to happen with a FF/SF partnership.
You're looking to dismiss a comment you didn't understand obviously. I've explained it again. If SF were in with FF. Doesn't mean I have to be a supporter of either to comment on how better they may be for society than FF/FG.

jimmycrackcorm · 11-05-2019 3:55am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FG (who I voted for in the last election) wants to take excess tax take and squirrel it away for a rainy day, when *looks outside* its raining. FF would take that money and splurge it on massive infrastructure developments including social housing. FG has been spectacularly bad in Government, there's frankly no denying that.

I'm not sure how one can, with a straight face, say tha?

FF before the recent FG governments instigated the policy of not investing in social housing.

They also were responsible in the good years for massively increasing the HSE annual budgets. Did we get better services and cut waiting lists? No.
Did we get higher healthcare worker salaries, yes!

L1011 · 11-05-2019 12:20pm

If SF fall in polling faster then FF go up (the IT poll today), there won't be enough of them to create a coalition anyway

AndrewJRenko · 12-05-2019 11:58am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

FF before the recent FG governments instigated the policy of not investing in social housing.

They also were responsible in the good years for massively increasing the HSE annual budgets. Did we get better services and cut waiting lists? No.
Did we get higher healthcare worker salaries, yes!

Have you looked at the improvement in cancer outcomes and stroke outcomes? Have you looked at the increases in numbers treated in A&E using existing resources?

Do you need someone to explain the connection between salary levels and recruiting and retaining staff for you?

Is a Fianna Fail - Sinn Fein coalition inevitable?

Comments