FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

christy c wrote: »

Back to this rubbish of taking out a loan? Also previously referring to Hello magazine, I think you might need to look closer to home as to why you do not get the "discussion" you desire.

If you do not have anything constructive to say I'll leave you to it.

Why is it rubbish, they didn't take out a loan?
So that's it? not much of a disagreement/discussion.

That's my view of them and their abilities. The idea, IMO, was to have a shiny new set of young bright lights at the front. PR and selfies over content.

If so disinterested why feel the need to comment at all, you being relatively impartial and all? How did they succeed and how much over and above their failures?

Bowie wrote: »

So another time when Fine Gael looking to the private market to solve a societal problem bit the tax payer in the arse.

Gee, wonder what possible reason consultants would have to want private operations to start again.

The private hospital deal was intended as insurance - if they had become full something would have gone wrong. But its easy optics to poke at the govt for an eminently sensible strategy.

Bowie wrote: »

If you are in the minority of people unaffected by the housing, homelessness, health crises, you might think that way, but surely, even if bereft of any empathy, a logical mind would acknowledge their failings out weigh their ability to take out a generational loan.
For totally failed I suppose we'd need look at their senior partner of choice Fianna Fail.

How are you defining unaffected. Because claiming over 2.45 million people are affected by those issues seems a bit of stretch.

Bowie wrote: »

Why is it rubbish, they didn't take out a loan?
So that's it? not much of a disagreement/discussion.

That's my view of them and their abilities. The idea, IMO, was to have a shiny new set of young bright lights at the front. PR and selfies over content.

If so disinterested why feel the need to comment at all, you being relatively impartial and all? How did they succeed and how much over and above their failures?

Para 1: it's rubbish because you are trying to reduce what FG did to "taking a loan". A logical mind as you put it would know there was far more to it.

Para 2: Hello magazine might be your view of them but it is childish and one that does not support discussion that you claim you desire. Plenty of other ways you could have phrased that.

Para 3: I an not disinterested in this topic, hence why I posted. But I am not interested in discussing this with people like yourself due to rubbish referenced in points 1 & 2 for example.

Brendan Bendar

Podge_irl wrote: »

Gee, wonder what possible reason consultants would have to want private operations to start again.

The private hospital deal was intended as insurance - if they had become full something would have gone wrong. But its easy optics to poke at the govt for an eminently sensible strategy.

Now now... don’t expect those lads to understand that strategy Podger.

What they do is sit on the fence and try to poke holes in what people try to do.

I wouldn’t give them much heed, if I were you.

Of little consequence.....

Podge_irl wrote: »

Gee, wonder what possible reason consultants would have to want private operations to start again.

The private hospital deal was intended as insurance - if they had become full something would have gone wrong. But its easy optics to poke at the govt for an eminently sensible strategy.

Yes and I wondered when the defenders of the indefensible would wheel out that chestnut. I was expecting someone else, but still.

But it's easier to dismiss all criticism from all quarters as biased, optics wise. There are details and explanations for the opinions put forward. Awkward I know.

christy c wrote: »

Para 1: it's rubbish because you are trying to reduce what FG did to "taking a loan". A logical mind as you put it would know there was far more to it.

Para 2: Hello magazine might be your view of them but it is childish and one that does not support discussion that you claim you desire. Plenty of other ways you could have phrased that.

Para 3: I an not disinterested in this topic, hence why I posted. But I am not interested in discussing this with people like yourself due to rubbish referenced in points 1 & 2 for example.

That's pretty much all they did aside from forgiving massive debts owed to the tax payer from certain quarters.

I did not want to say they were ****e at their jobs. I thought adding some slight whimsy might make it more palatable. Unfortunate it bothered you so much.

Yeah, you never showed how their successes outweigh their generational record breaking failures.

Bowie wrote: »

Yes and I wondered when the defenders of the indefensible would wheel out that chestnut. I was expecting someone else, but still.

But it's easier to dismiss all criticism from all quarters as biased, optics wise. There are details and explanations for the opinions put forward. Awkward I know.

Do you disagree with the statement that they were taken over as spare capacity?

Do you disagree that consultants working on a cost-only basis would have incentive for private, profitable operations to start again?

Why is it indefensible? How can people simultaneously bemoan people on trolleys etc and lack of capacity in the health system and also bemoan having spare capacity in the health system?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Now now... don’t expect those lads to understand that strategy Podger.

What they do is sit on the fence and try to poke holes in what people try to do.

I wouldn’t give them much heed, if I were you.

Of little consequence.....

Japers Bren, that's some amount of nothing.
Here, save you some time:

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/gobbledygook-generator.html

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Yes and I wondered when the defenders of the indefensible would wheel out that chestnut. I was expecting someone else, but still.

But it's easier to dismiss all criticism from all quarters as biased, optics wise. There are details and explanations for the opinions put forward. Awkward I know.

Aaah the attack dog Lenihan from RTE is on now, doubt if that cove has anything positive to say.

He’s gone into ‘apocalypse’ mode already and the medical punters ride into pay rise mode.

Bowie wrote: »

That's pretty much all they did aside from forgiving massive debts owed to the tax payer from certain quarters.

I did not want to say they were ****e at their jobs. I thought adding some slight whimsy might make it more palatable. Unfortunate it bothered you so much.

Yeah, you never showed how their successes outweigh their generational record breaking failures.

Taking the loan was all they did? As I said, a logical mind would have known there was more to it.

The childish name you came up with didnt bother me, just think it doesn't lend itself to discussion you desire.

I didn't show any of their successss but I'm sure you could find some if you took off the blinkers?

Podge_irl wrote: »

Do you disagree with the statement that they were taken over as spare capacity?

Do you disagree that consultants working on a cost-only basis would have incentive for private, profitable operations to start again?

Why is it indefensible? How can people simultaneously bemoan people on trolleys etc and lack of capacity in the health system and also bemoan having spare capacity in the health system?

I believe the idea was sound. It's the execution and details where FG always seem to fall down.
Yes, I'm not a fan and believe they play a major part in causing long waiting lists. However, by your logic we should dismiss anything anyone says that suits their cause, agenda. That pretty much excludes everyone.
The article shows how the deal was bad from both a financial and health perspective.
It was a bad deal. Coming out with, 'well they would say that' is a well worn FG cliche.

christy c wrote: »

...I didn't show any of their successss but I'm sure you could find some if you took off the blinkers?

Outweighing their failures? I don't believe so. It's sickening to hear FG talk up their economy while making crises worse, IMO.

Bowie wrote: »

Outweighing their failures? I don't believe so. It's sickening to hear FG talk up their economy while making crises worse, IMO.

Ok sorry I misread. Would be difficult to appropriately weight each success/failure, but as I have said multiple times this is not the bar they have to reach. All they have to be is be better than the other guys on the ballot paper, and IMO they are.

Having the other buffoons we see in the Dail is probably the only thing keeping FG in business.

RandomViewer

JeffKenna wrote: »

Good looking women in fairness. Good spot.

Something cold about her,

christy c wrote: »

Ok sorry I misread. Would be difficult to appropriately weight each success/failure, but as I have said multiple times this is not the bar they have to reach. All they have to be is be better than the other guys on the ballot paper, and IMO they are.

Having the other buffoons we see in the Dail is probably the only thing keeping FG in business.

That's true. Unless a party die hard, it's often who will make less of a hames of it.

Personally, I voted FG because I thought things were so bad FG would put aside any cronyism and they were the best suited to clean up after FF. I was disappointed. I stopped voting for them. It's that simple.
As regards housing etc. I see FG making matters worse. The crony bad deals and gaffes only add to it.

JohnnyFlash

Bowie wrote: »

Outweighing their failures? I don't believe so. It's sickening to hear FG talk up their economy while making crises worse, IMO.

If you don’t have a good economy then you don’t get nice things. That’s like politics 101, dude.

Money doesn’t grow on trees. Utopia doesn’t exist. If we didn’t spend 22 billion per annum on social welfare (pre crisis) then you could spend on infrastructure etc.

You don’t build houses with fresh air and good intentions. Needs cash, dude.

Idbatterim

christy c wrote: »

Ok sorry I misread. Would be difficult to appropriately weight each success/failure, but as I have said multiple times this is not the bar they have to reach. All they have to be is be better than the other guys on the ballot paper, and IMO they are.

Having the other buffoons we see in the Dail is probably the only thing keeping FG in business.

Many people I know who somehow still didnt think varadkar was a total joke, have changed their minds after this protest he supports and the worlds slowest lockdown unwinding. Wait till the budget and the doom and gloom weather comes back, the housing crisis has gone nowhere either. He will have the usual suspects he claimed to reward, paying for the entire farce too! Surprised he didht throw out e500 to those working a few hours before the lockdown ...

Idbatterim

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

If you don’t have a good economy then you don’t get nice things. That’s like politics 101, dude.

Money doesn’t grow on trees. Utopia doesn’t exist. If we didn’t spend 22 billion per annum on social welfare (pre crisis) then you could spend on infrastructure etc.

You don’t build houses with fresh air and good intentions. Needs cash, dude.

Fg support the outrageous welfare system, idiotic e350 blanket payment and rip off housing. I'll vote for the other party that unfortunately supports the obscene welfare state but might do something on housing. We have a fifty percent marginal rate of tax over a pittance , so domt come back to me about fg looking after withers or thinking a rate like that is anything other than economic insanity!

Idbatterim wrote: »

Many people I know who somehow still didnt think varadkar was a total joke, have changed their minds after this protest he supports and the worlds slowest lockdown unwinding. Wait till the budget and the doom and gloom weather comes back, the housing crisis has gone nowhere either. He will have the usual suspects he claimed to reward, paying for the entire farce too! Surprised he didht throw out e500 to those working a few hours before the lockdown ...

So people who are unhappy with Varadkar will be pleased by the likes of Pearse Doherty, Micheal Martin, etc? I can see why people dont like Varadkar or FG, but dont pretend it will be better by voting for idiots who think making a pension problem worse is a good idea.

efanton

christy c wrote: »

Ok sorry I misread. Would be difficult to appropriately weight each success/failure, but as I have said multiple times this is not the bar they have to reach. All they have to be is be better than the other guys on the ballot paper, and IMO they are.

Having the other buffoons we see in the Dail is probably the only thing keeping FG in business.

The problem as I see it is FG have only one measure of success and that is increased GDP.

Now if you neglect everything else, the health service, social services, education, and infrastructure, and refuse to spend anything but the bare minimum, then seriously its not that difficult a target to meet.

So to say FG have not failed because GDP and the economy is up is up is like saying a labour government that increased the minimum wage but buggered up everything else was a success as well. Both in my mind would be considered failed government, and I cant see how anyone could argue differently. The only real measure of success that a government should be measured by is how much of their program for government did they completely deliver. As far as I am aware none have come close in the last 15 years to delivering their program for government.

If FG or any other party want to make grandiose promises in their program for government then they should fulfil those promises or their government should be considered a failure. I'm not saying they must meet every target 100%, but they should certainly have deliver at least three quarters of what they promise.

efanton wrote: »

The problem as I see it is FG have only one measure of success and that is increased GDP.

No, you could also look at the number unemployed when they took over now versus now, or the fact that the IMF are no longer in town, etc.

But no need to take my word for it, FG still have >50% of their 1st preference vote since 2011. So while you may think they failed, the majority of their voters seem to disagree.

Idbatterim

christy c wrote: »

So people who are unhappy with Varadkar will be pleased by the likes of Pearse Doherty, Micheal Martin, etc? I can see why people dont like Varadkar or FG, but dont pretend it will be better by voting for idiots who think making a pension problem worse is a good idea.

I totally agree, the cynical pension move, absolute idiocy, seems to be off the agenda now though. Might just be kite flying though. While lnkwscwith spoodadkar. You may be right about Doherty, mm etc. But I want varadkar thatvweasel gone at any cost at this stage

efanton

christy c wrote: »

No, you could also look at the number unemployed when they took over now versus now, or the fact that the IMF are no longer in town, etc.

But no need to take my word for it, FG still have >50% of their 1st preference vote since 2011. So while you may think they failed, the majority of their voters seem to disagree.

Not denying some thing are better, but are you denying some things are worse?

on the very first page of the 2015 program for government FG promised this

Meet the target of building 25,000 new homes needed every year by 2020
Create 200,000 jobs by 2020, including 135,000 outside Dublin
Spend at least €6.75billion more on public services by 2021 compared to 2016
Reduce the percentage of patients waiting longer than six hours in emergency departments from 32% currently to less than 7% by 2021, and reduce average Patient Experience Times for patients attending emergency departments and average waiting times for appointments, procedures and diagnostic tests across the health service

How many of those have been delivered?

I could continue through that program for government and clearly show that not even half of what was promised was anyway close to being delivered.

Surely the only fair way to judge a government is on the targets they set for themselves. Would you not agree?

Bowie wrote: »

I believe the idea was sound. It's the execution and details where FG always seem to fall down.
Yes, I'm not a fan and believe they play a major part in causing long waiting lists. However, by your logic we should dismiss anything anyone says that suits their cause, agenda. That pretty much excludes everyone.
The article shows how the deal was bad from both a financial and health perspective.
It was a bad deal. Coming out with, 'well they would say that' is a well worn FG cliche.

If the idea was sound, what exactly would you have done differently?

The idea was to have spare capacity in case hospitals were overwhelmed. To keep spare capacity you inevitably pay for empty beds. They got these beds at cost price.

What, exactly, is so wrong with this?

StackSteevens

Bowie wrote: »

More practical than 25 year leases and hotel bills, but sure what would FG know about managing money?

I genuinely hate to highlight your ignorance but feel obliged to gently point out that those expenses are being incurred mainly by local councils - few or any of which are run by FG!

But keep trying - one of your posts may yet prove to be factually accurate.

Idbatterim wrote: »

I totally agree, the cynical pension move, absolute idiocy, seems to be off the agenda now though. Might just be kite flying though. While lnkwscwith spoodadkar. You may be right about Doherty, mm etc. But I want varadkar thatvweasel gone at any cost at this stage

Seems a bit silly to me to want someone gone at any cost. We have seen Doherty talking through his backside since he was elected, what's your own opinion of him? Mine is that if we had listened to ppl like him we would be far worse than now, so while I dont like LV, it's still an easy choice who to vote for.

efanton wrote: »

Not denying some thing are better, but are you denying some things are worse?

Surely the only fair way to judge a government is on the targets they set for themselves. Would you not agree?

Cut out some of your post, just for brevity.

1. Yes some things are worse, I would be shocked of they weren't given the colossal gap between our spending and income in 2011.

2. Judge them whatever way you like, but as I said they only need to be better than the other person on the ballot paper.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

If you don’t have a good economy then you don’t get nice things. That’s like politics 101, dude.

Money doesn’t grow on trees. Utopia doesn’t exist. If we didn’t spend 22 billion per annum on social welfare (pre crisis) then you could spend on infrastructure etc.

You don’t build houses with fresh air and good intentions. Needs cash, dude.

Hey dude, a fool and his money....

Under FG it does, depending on what it's for. Plenty for hotels and 25 year leases and bad deals.

You can't lease for 25 years, pay for hotels and finance bad deals with fresh air dude.