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

FF and FG, what's the difference?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »

    Faux humour?

    It drips from your posts. Your attempt at humor to either escalate a situation or sidestep a question is par of the course.

    Swings and roundabouts we have the worst drinking water quality in the EU I suppose. In your zealot fanatical zeal to blame FG for the matter you cannot tell the bark from the trees.

    Which brings me full circle to the OP. THIS is why we have FF and FG in power all this time.


  • Options
    #63
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    markodaly wrote: »
    It drips from your posts. Your attempt at humor to either escalate a situation or sidestep a question is par of the course.

    Swings and roundabouts we have the worst drinking water quality in the EU I suppose. In your zealot fanatical zeal to blame FG for the matter you cannot tell the bark from the trees.

    Which brings me full circle to the OP. THIS is why we have FF and FG in power all this time.

    Walt a goddam minute here, you seem to think I'm debating the standard of our drinking water?

    I've not once commented on it, I pointed out that water charges are no more, due to the findings of a commission of experts that were handpicked by FG.

    You claimed that the commission was an answer to a FF request, I've been looking into this, and I can't see any evidence of FF ever requesting this commission - ever.

    That's what I'm discussing with you, stop trying to claim I'm "sidestepping an issue" - that's your own downfall here, own it.


  • Options
    #64
    atticu
    Registered Users Posts: 691 ✭✭✭atticu


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    An opposition that supports the government for favours is pointless, no?
    This is not a meeting of social policy. It would be great if government and opposition worked in such a manner. The role of the opposition is to call out bad policy, not call out bad policy and then support it.

    When FF can still muster 20 seats after the meltdown and IMF etc., we're in trouble IMO. FG taking them on for 'stability' after castigating them for votes in the run up to the election is disgraceful.

    I am not sure that you understand the role of an opposition political party.

    Let’s see what some people have said about opposition parties:

    ‘I'm saying (quite clearly) that opposition parties all claim to have the answers to our problems, it's only when that get in that you'll find out whether their claims turn out to be complete fluff or not.’

    I can only conclude from that that it is not healthy to have an opposition party that never gets into power, or in fact to pay too much attention to an opposition party who disagree for the sake of disagreeing.


  • Options
    #65
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Do you have a link showing that FF specifically requested the expert commission established by FG?

    Regardless of who requested it to be set up, their findings still flew in the face of the people who established them to begin with.

    That wasn't Brendan ogle, Paul Murphy, Gerry Adams or any other bogeyman, it was the very commission of experts that FG handpicked.

    Some kick in the face.


    Except that the Commission didn't get rid of water charges, just changed the nature of them.

    The legislation providing for water charges is still in place.


  • Options
    #66
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I was very happy with the make up of government in 2011, what do I know?
    That's not the case. FG weren't forced to look to FF. They chose to.
    People didn't vote for a FF/FG coalition which is essentially what we have. If they ran on that, don't you think the votes may have landed differently?


    You don't seemed to have grasped the politics behind coalition governments as they function across democracies.

    Parties run for election on their policies. After the election, they bargain with other parties to see how much (or how little) of their policies can be implemented. That is a compromise. Only those who are prepared to bargain will get into government, unless they get an overall majority.

    FG didn't have any options other than FF, because the other parties refused to play ball. FG talked to Labour and the Greens, but were unable to do deals with them.

    If you think FG shouldn't have got support from FF, explain to us what else they could have done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,998 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Having been our of the country for a while it becomes clear that there's absolutely no difference between. FF Nd FG. I'm absolutely certain that whichever party was in power over the last decade, the policies implemented would be almost exactly the same.

    Whichever party was In Opposition would have pretended they were completely opposed to the government's decision. And if they were in government they would have done exactly the same.

    I expect FF to be a bit more tolerant of corruption. Brown envelopes etc. Enda had a couple of corruption accusations, but nothing Compared to what Bertie was Into. Between dig-outs and failure to recall where money came from etc. Enda wasn't in the same league.

    But policy wise, I expect them to look after the old and wealthy, big business and tax earnings but not wealth. Two cheeks of the same arse.


  • Options
    #68
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,842 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    I used to support water charges but had a change of heart. Why? Because the workers would end up paying for everything as usual and everyone else ,” de vunerabble” , would get it for nothing... as usual ...

    It would be interesting to take fg out , when the economy is “ booming “ that might signal that if they think they can fail on everything other than a booming economy, they’ll be out on their ear ...


  • Options
    #69
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Except that the Commission didn't get rid of water charges, just changed the nature of them.

    The legislation providing for water charges is still in place.

    They ultimately decided that the sitting govt got shot of the charging mechanism FG and labour implemented.

    My bad.


  • Options
    #70
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »

    That's what I'm discussing with you, stop trying to claim I'm "sidestepping an issue" - that's your own downfall here, own it.

    Yet, here you are debating water charges as if it's a new debate. Its old and tiresome and weird to be honest. Water changes have nothing to do with the OP.

    The OP is wondering if FF and FG are the same and I am giving an example of why these two parties are always in government. We do not to standard politics here at all. We are an outlier in many aspects. For example water charges.

    If you want to give out and bemoan the fact that FG and FF are always in government and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, you have to examine why.


  • Options
    #71
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    blanch152 wrote: »
    You don't seemed to have grasped the politics behind coalition governments as they function across democracies.

    .
    .
    .

    If you think FG shouldn't have got support from FF, explain to us what else they could have done.

    Matt seems to forget that there was not one but FOUR votes for Taoiseach in the Dail after the 2016 election.

    The numbers fell where they fell, if FG and FF didn't agree to some form of government, what else exactly should have happened. Another election or some other magical outcome?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    markodaly wrote: »
    Yet, here you are debating water charges as if it's a new debate. Its old and tiresome and weird to be honest. Water changes have nothing to do with the OP.

    The OP is wondering if FF and FG are the same and I am giving an example of why these two parties are always in government. We do not to standard politics here at all. We are an outlier in many aspects. For example water charges.

    If you want to give out and bemoan the fact that FG and FF are always in government and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, you have to examine why.

    I'm not "debating" water charges - they were introduced to the thread by another poster, I just reminded/corrected a poster as to why water charges are no more - finished because of the expert commission.

    The same way you had to be corrected as to whom came up with the expert commission to begin with - you have kept it up for a few days now, doubling down on the lie that it was an FF idea/request - which is a downright lie.

    Own it.


  • Options
    #73
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,842 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    “Expert commission” in an Irish context, has given me the best laugh since the Maria Bailey thread in after hours ...


  • Options
    #74
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    “Expert commission” in an Irish context, has given me the best laugh since the Maria Bailey thread in after hours ...

    Hang around for a while, next thing you know Maria Bailey will have been pushed off a swing by a FF TD, and given legal advice to seek compensation by an FF minister.


  • Options
    #75
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Mod Note

    The charter states:
    When offering an opinion, please state so. Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flaming and a poster/moderator may demand further evidence. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

    Allegations of lying are taken very seriously. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable without proof, the onus is on you to provide the proof that they are deliberately and intentionally trying to deceive.

    There have been some reported posts on this two points.

    The mods have reviewed recent posts and concluded that nobody was lying in this respect. It was a reasonable assertion to make.

    So let's drop the accusations of lying.

    However, this is the second time in a week that I've had to intervene with posters bickering on thread. Let's be more polite with one another.

    Thanks


  • Options
    #76
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I'm not "debating" water charges - they were introduced to the thread by another poster, I just reminded/corrected a poster as to why water charges are no more - finished because of the expert commission.
    ...

    Which was agreed upon by the most recent program for the government.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/the-full-document-fine-gael-fianna-f%C3%A1il-deal-for-government-1.2633572

    The 'expert commission' was at the behest of FF, which was agreed to by FG.

    You are the only person here trying to re-write history.


  • Options
    #77
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Phoebas wrote: »
    If all of the parties had ran with their coalition partnerships on offer, we would still end up with FG and FF, because, as you'll recall, after the last election all of the other parties declined to do a deal.

    And that included the parties that campaigned together under the common 'right2change' platform. They set out their stall and then dismantled it after the election.

    Clearly pointing out we didnt vote for it. We got unforeseen consequences of our votes, sure.

    IMO an opposition has a duty to oppose any bad policies they see and agree or back any good.
    Complaining but nodding along anyway is not good enough frankly.


  • Options
    #78
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Clearly pointing out we didnt vote for it. We got unforeseen consequences of our votes, sure.
    That's the thing with a multi-party, proportional system ; it's common for no manifesto presented at an election to secure a mandate by attracting a majority of votes.

    In the UK's charmingly quaint system they avoid any problems by deeming the manifesto that has attracted the most support to have secured a mandate, even though a clear majority of the electorate may have rejected it.

    More sophisticated systems such as ours take the view that what a party secures is not a mandate to implement its manifesto, but a mandate to enter negotiations to form a government, using its manifesto as the basis for its negotiating position and aiming to get some of it reflected in the programme for government. The resulting programme for government is considered to have a mandate not directly, from the votes of the people, but indirectly, from the approval of a majority of the elected representatives of the people.


  • Options
    #79
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That's the thing with a multi-party, proportional system ; it's common for no manifesto presented at an election to secure a mandate by attracting a majority of votes.

    In the UK's charmingly quaint system they avoid any problems by deeming the manifesto that has attracted the most support to have secured a mandate, even though a clear majority of the electorate may have rejected it.

    More sophisticated systems such as ours take the view that what a party secures is not a mandate to implement its manifesto, but a mandate to enter negotiations to form a government, using its manifesto as the basis for its negotiating position and aiming to get some of it reflected in the programme for government. The resulting programme for government is considered to have a mandate not directly, from the votes of the people, but indirectly, from the approval of a majority of the elected representatives of the people.

    As pointed out FG ran on demonising FF, not to mention the faux manifesto. FF or FG getting in on promises that turn into wishes and evaporate is nothing new, the difference here is we've supposed political rivals who to me obviously are more interested in being in power than anything else, like exacerbating crises, is at least 'stable' like it's a good thing.


  • Options
    #80
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Complaining but nodding along anyway is not good enough frankly.
    And that's basically what the opposition parties did after the last election.

    They complained about FG and FF but then nodded them into power by not being willing to make the compromises that are always going to be necessary to gain power themselves.


  • Options
    #81
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That's the thing with a multi-party, proportional system ; it's common for no manifesto presented at an election to secure a mandate by attracting a majority of votes.

    In the UK's charmingly quaint system they avoid any problems by deeming the manifesto that has attracted the most support to have secured a mandate, even though a clear majority of the electorate may have rejected it.

    More sophisticated systems such as ours take the view that what a party secures is not a mandate to implement its manifesto, but a mandate to enter negotiations to form a government, using its manifesto as the basis for its negotiating position and aiming to get some of it reflected in the programme for government. The resulting programme for government is considered to have a mandate not directly, from the votes of the people, but indirectly, from the approval of a majority of the elected representatives of the people.


    It has taken a while for our political system to reach this understanding. For a long time, not entering a coalition was a core value of Fianna Fail. Some of the political parties still do not understand this, adopting an all or nothing position.

    It is not surprising therefore that the electorate do not fully understand this. It can be difficult to understand why the party you support does not fully implement all of its promises. Understanding that some of its promises were incompatible with its coalition partner(s) is difficult, especially when the particular promises dropped were those that the individual voter was most attached to.

    However, if there is one thing that is a wasted vote, it is a vote for a party that has minority support but is unprepared to go into coalition government.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Phoebas wrote: »
    And that's basically what the opposition parties did after the last election.

    They complained about FG and FF but then nodded them into power by not being willing to make the compromises that are always going to be necessary to gain power themselves.

    I was talking about FF as an opposition party, (FF are opposition) I can see the confusion, which is my whole point.


  • Options
    #83
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It has taken a while for our political system to reach this understanding. For a long time, not entering a coalition was a core value of Fianna Fail. Some of the political parties still do not understand this, adopting an all or nothing position.

    It is not surprising therefore that the electorate do not fully understand this. It can be difficult to understand why the party you support does not fully implement all of its promises. Understanding that some of its promises were incompatible with its coalition partner(s) is difficult, especially when the particular promises dropped were those that the individual voter was most attached to.

    However, if there is one thing that is a wasted vote, it is a vote for a party that has minority support but is unprepared to go into coalition government.

    As with Labour before them, they should really find some ethics and take a stand on issues with their partner. Like the Greens with FF, not taking a stand is what destroyed them but I guess these parties want to remain in power as long as possible over and above any political ideology. Which goes back to FF being a disaster that ruined the country but good enough if keeping FG in power.

    No it's not that at all. It's being in 'opposition' or being a junior partner and not speaking out on policies you supposedly disagree with or turning a blind eye to cronyism. It gets to the stage that your role has no point.
    There's having to change or drop policy and reneging on 'changing the way we do business' which as you know FG were more than eager to continue with the same cronyism that had gone before.

    I disagree. Voting for a party you don't agree with or one you can't trust is wasting your vote and worse if you are empowering proven incompetent crony mongers. How do we expect to ever have viable options if we vote in such a manner?


  • Options
    #84
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It has taken a while for our political system to reach this understanding. For a long time, not entering a coalition was a core value of Fianna Fail. Some of the political parties still do not understand this, adopting an all or nothing position.

    It is not surprising therefore that the electorate do not fully understand this. It can be difficult to understand why the party you support does not fully implement all of its promises. Understanding that some of its promises were incompatible with its coalition partner(s) is difficult, especially when the particular promises dropped were those that the individual voter was most attached to.

    However, if there is one thing that is a wasted vote, it is a vote for a party that has minority support but is unprepared to go into coalition government.

    I don't agree with that, a minority party will always be limited in what they can achieve, but they may have more influence from the opposition benches than as part of a government where ultimately collective responsibility applies.
    Holding a government to account is an important function and not without influence.


  • Options
    #85
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    No it's not that at all. It's being in 'opposition' or being a junior partner and not speaking out on policies you supposedly disagree with or turning a blind eye to cronyism. It gets to the stage that your role has no point.

    A coalition partner that constantly speaks out against policies they disagree with that are in the program for government is not a proper coalition partner. All your philosophy would lead to is a great increase in general elections and unstable governments.

    As to attempted slurs that some parties are only interested in being in power - that is essentially their raison d'etre. It is a nonsensical criticism.


  • Options
    #86
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    A coalition partner that constantly speaks out against policies they disagree with that are in the program for government is not a proper coalition partner. All your philosophy would lead to is a great increase in general elections and unstable governments.

    As to attempted slurs that some parties are only interested in being in power - that is essentially their raison d'etre. It is a nonsensical criticism.

    Agreed.

    I disagree, how is calling out crony behaviour or policies that damage society ever a bad thing?

    No slur, pointing out my opinion based on form. Labour should have walked with Shortall IMO. Staying on to remain in power didn't work for them or the Greens before them.
    I think your idea that the whole point is to stay in power is very cynical. I can see how that's what we've become accustomed to but it shouldn't be acceptable in a party we support IMO. As we've seen from both FF and FG. However it seems FF/FG voters are far more forgiving than the supporters, (former supporters) of Labour or the Greens.


  • Options
    #87
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Amazingly, people's definition or judgement of what constitutes a policy that damages society is not consistent. I find it highly unlikely that anyone in government is regularly wilfully doing so and exceptions are very rare. You don't agree with them, but neither you nor clearly the parties you have voted for have entered government.

    Minority parties in coalition have indeed suffered greatly over the years. No doubt that has helped contribute to the fracturing of the Dail and that will quite possibly help you get your apparent wish of a massive increase in the number of general elections.


  • Options
    #88
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Amazingly, people's definition or judgement of what constitutes a policy that damages society is not consistent. I find it highly unlikely that anyone in government is regularly wilfully doing so and exceptions are very rare. You don't agree with them, but neither you nor clearly the parties you have voted for have entered government.

    Minority parties in coalition have indeed suffered greatly over the years. No doubt that has helped contribute to the fracturing of the Dail and that will quite possibly help you get your apparent wish of a massive increase in the number of general elections.

    My apologies, I assumed by 'program for government' you meant stated intentions and proposed policies, not anything made up as they went along after taking office or turning a blind eye to cronyism.
    FF are doing it today. They complain about policy but vote along with it anyway to keep the 'stability'. Labour turned a blind eye to Reilly's clinic allocation, plenty of examples in every government including the current one.

    That's your surmising of my points, meaning you missed them.
    A poor or ineffective opposition is not good. Same being in a power sharing situation is worse. If you are okay with incompetence and cronyism for however you may justify it in the polling booth, that's your right.
    FG are playing the role we've seen FF play time and again, doing pretty much what they like, poorly and FF nodding along after a bit of a quiet protest.


  • Options
    #89
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    joe40 wrote: »
    I don't agree with that, a minority party will always be limited in what they can achieve, but they may have more influence from the opposition benches than as part of a government where ultimately collective responsibility applies.
    Holding a government to account is an important function and not without influence.

    Then why be part of a government?

    That statement belies all we know about Irish politics. Every serious party wants to be in power. Those that don't are not serious and prefer protest and megaphone politics.


  • Options
    #90
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I think your idea that the whole point is to stay in power is very cynical. I can see how that's what we've become accustomed to but it shouldn't be acceptable in a party we support IMO. As we've seen from both FF and FG. However it seems FF/FG voters are far more forgiving than the supporters, (former supporters) of Labour or the Greens.

    Maybe its just pragmatic?

    One can hold all the highest ideals and morals they want, but at the end of the day, if you want to enact change, you will have to get stuck in and be in government.

    You have a very idealistic notion about the current situation regarding FG and FF.
    You bemoan the fact that FG has propped up FF, even though its actually FG in government.

    A history lesson. The election occurred on the 26th of February.
    Enda Kenny was elected on the 4th go on the 6th of May. We did not have a functioning government for well over two months, ten weeks in fact.

    How many times should the Dail have voted for a Taoiseach before we had another general election? Five? Ten?

    If there was another election, the polls indicated we pretty much would have been back at the same place numbers-wise, with FF and FG having to do some deal in order to form a government.

    In your ideal world, they shouldn't have done any deal whatsoever. OK fine. So please tell us what then should they or other parties should have done to form a government?

    I have asked this question a few times now but it's been ignored, so perhaps this time you can enlighten us on the intractable and real problem the 2016 election brought us, rather than your idealised version of events and outcomes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    markodaly wrote: »
    Maybe its just pragmatic?

    One can hold all the highest ideals and morals they want, but at the end of the day, if you want to enact change, you will have to get stuck in and be in government.

    You have a very idealistic notion about the current situation regarding FG and FF.
    You bemoan the fact that FG has propped up FF, even though its actually FG in government.

    A history lesson. The election occurred on the 26th of February.
    Enda Kenny was elected on the 4th go on the 6th of May. We did not have a functioning government for well over two months, ten weeks in fact.

    How many times should the Dail have voted for a Taoiseach before we had another general election? Five? Ten?

    If there was another election, the polls indicated we pretty much would have been back at the same place numbers-wise, with FF and FG having to do some deal in order to form a government.

    In your ideal world, they shouldn't have done any deal whatsoever. OK fine. So please tell us what then should they or other parties should have done to form a government?

    I have asked this question a few times now but it's been ignored, so perhaps this time you can enlighten us on the intractable and real problem the 2016 election brought us, rather than your idealised version of events and outcomes.


    I have asked this question many times since the election of Enda Kenny in 2016 and I have yet to see a single coherent answer on these threads.

    The essence of protest politics is to object to everything and to offer no practical solutions. Complaints about the election of Enda Kenny in 2016 fall into that category, as there was no other possibility.


Advertisement