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

Forming the next Irish Government - policies and personalities

189111314103

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,972 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I keep hearing this rubbish about blowing up the economy repeatedly. It is silly nonsense. We are not Argentina.

    Ireland is one of the best places in the world to live. That is a fact, and the reason is the governments that we have had over the years. Yes, some were better than others, yes, there were mistakes made (and 2008 is probably the one when we made it worse for ourselves), but, overall, considering we had the situation of a terrorist campaign next door for 30 years, we have done very well, and you are right, it is down to the people, who have elected the governments that have guided our prosperity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Caquas


    You mean FF didn't blow up the economy in 2008? And in 1979? Just "mistakes were made".

    Or do you mean that you can't believe it could happen again?

    We came close to being Argentina twice in recent history.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Caquas


    Strawmen running wild!

    I never said the politicians are to blame for everything. Or that everything is wrong. I did say "I credit the Irish people in general with making our society what it is". But obviously that includes the bad stuff - of which there are many examples. And I blamed the banks and the developers as much as the politicians for the Crash of 2008.

    My criticism of the two main parties - that they lack any vision or political philosophy - does involve an indirect criticism of their voters for not demanding clarity or even for lacking any vision of their own. Of course people have a democratic right to make these choices and I have a right to criticise them for failing - as you and others do -to even recognise the problem .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,940 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    All gone quiet in the media re this this process over recent days. Lots of lengthy, ruminative phone conversations between the main players away from the Leinster House over the holiday period I'd imagine…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,709 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    They publicly said they were pausing things until after christmas I believe?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,419 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    The economic crash is still fresh in the minds but apparently some think this is the best place to live in the world. And I haven't even mentioned our terrible weather. Ireland is a great country and a good place to live but it still has many gaps, huge areas of deprivation, very slow civil service and poor infrastructure. Most of the people immigrating to Ireland are coming from low income countries. People from higher income countries are less likely to come here. So that sort of indicates how good or bad we are as a place to live.

    I agree that there is a consensus now in Irish politics and very little ideology. I would extend that beyond FF and FG and include pretty much every party in the Dail with the exception of the People Before Profit crowd who want an end of capitalism. They are considered a fringe lunatic party that nobody takes seriously.

    The consensus has led to problems and laziness. Look at how they couldn't even be bothered to form a government before Christmas because they were tired after the election.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,940 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    You think Simon Harris is just going to switch off and spend the Xmas pigging out on Roses and watching James Bond flicks? He'll be plotting and scheming with his handlers away from prying media eyes, finessing the deals for the independents, trying to see round the corners coming up over the next five years. Okay he won't be constantly on the blower to Martin but I'm sure they'll have a couple of long chats…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭rock22


    I think the ball is very much in FF and FG hands, FF in particular as FG choice is either agree to support FF, when asked, or go into opposition.

    FF & FG together have considerable options. They can initially rely on no independent wanting another election. Even without a formal agreement they would be sure of some of the independents. And, ultimately, if the demands are too high they can always turn back to Labour or SD.

    I would think that neither Martin nor Harris are working on detailed policy matters, that is surely the business of the background staff. All they need is a document that they can parade as the 'program for government'. As they both stood on a platform of 'more of the same' it should be a trivial task to copy and paste a suitable document.

    The future problem for FF and FG will be keeping their own backbenchers happy. Giving either cabinet or junior ministries to the independents means there is less to go around for the the backbenchers. Those benches can become very restless over a five year period.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Caquas


    There'll be no blood spilt over the next Programme for Government except as it affects the divvy-up of the spoils i.e. each party will try to dictate the Programme in respect of the Departments which its Ministers will lead. Taoiseach and Finance will be split again to give both sides a general veto. FF will get a fraction more than FG and both will try to minimise the imprint of Independents who will be far less troublesome to FF/FG than the Greens.

    There may be a few surprising inclusions in the Programme for Government e.g. FF's idea of a Domestic Affairs Department, but neither side will sacrifice a top job to get any particular policy in the Programme. Bertie Ahern led FF's first coalition negotiations in 1989 and his biography gives an insight into FF's approach. He says FF TDs were furious with any concessions he made to the PDs, their arch-enemies/new besties, but Haughey knew there was only one real question - do you want another election? Bertie kept the PDs negotiating into the night so that they felt they had won big. That's when Haughey told the Pol. Corr.s that Bertie was the "most cunning, most devious of them all". What a backhanded compliment and who better than Haughey to recognise these !

    Barring some extraordinary domestic crisis on the scale of the Banking collapse (not just a maker-up crisis like Brendan Smyth), the next government will last almost the full Dáil term i.e. until 2029 when we will again have Local and EP elections occupying the ideal electoral season. Will we ever have mid-term elections again?. At least we won't ever again have a pointless referendum unless a government has delusions of popularity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,419 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    The closest thing we'll get to a mid term election is the Presidential Election next year, which many people choose to ignore.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,065 ✭✭✭pureza


    I think the domestic affairs department is an awesome idea and hope it is included



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Caquas


    The Sindo says the government formation talks are on track. Many key areas of the Programme are practically agreed.

    Policies in the areas of agriculture, defence, foreign affairs and the Shared Island initiative are mostly finished, while there also has been a “good whack” of housing, education and special education proposals agreed.

    There are problems on Energy, Climate and Transport because these were Eamon Ryan's remit and FF/FG don't have anyone with insider knowledge. This will slow the process but won't block a deal.

    Health, justice and finance negotiations are not completed. As talks resume tomorrow, climate will be the area of focus. However, the two Civil War parties may be already starting to miss the Greens, as one negotiator expects this to be a difficult area.

    Au contraire - FF/FG will be mightily relieved not to have the Greens putting the squeeze on CO2 - the election reminded everyone that this is a vote-loser (OK, so the planet will burn but not before the next election).

    Justice will be tricky because FF is sticking with its Department of Domestic Affairs proposal. FG are sticking with the 11% VAT idea for hospitality but they won't die in a ditch for a tweak like that.

    Finance is always crucial but the key issue now is whether Dept. of Public Expenditure survives. A last remnant of our Troika days, but my guess is it will survive to satisfy Jack/Paschal (but they might switch roles).

    But don't get too excited about this Programme.

    proposals in the Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael programme for government are more broad and while some of them have action points, they focus on the principal.

    Read - neither side wants to give hostages to fortune so any commitments or targets will be as vague as decently possible, especially on housing and health.

    One area that will get a boost is disabilities (Kanturk!)

    There is now expectation that a senior minister for disabilities — most likely in the form of a “super junior” minister who attends cabinet — is on the table.

    That will be a bottomless pit of mandatory expenditure needing a limitless commitment of human resources.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,940 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Au contraire - FF/FG will be mightily relieved not to have the Greens putting the squeeze on CO2 - the election reminded everyone that this is a vote-loser (OK, so the planet will burn but not before the next election).

    the state will also face massive fines if our carbon emmi9sions are not tackled, but again beyond the lifetime of the incoming government (albeit just about in this case)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Caquas


    Our politics seem to be incapable of imposing on its citizens the changes needed to meet out 2030 targets. The Greens were the only party to level with people about this and we saw the result. I expect the new Programme for Government will express an absolute determination to achieve the 2030 targets and a complete absence of any new measures towards that end.

    In any event, we shouldn't pay this fine until the Germans and Italians pay theirs.

    Ultimately, we can give the Commission the Apple tax money they fought for and which we neither wanted nor needed 😏

    https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/12-eu-countries-fail-to-comply-with-2030-national-climate-targets-new-study#:~:text=For%20its%20part%2C%20Italy%20is,%2C%20insulate%20buildings%2C%20and%20more.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,361 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    What does imposing mean in that post? We've probably one of the highest fuel taxes in the eu here. I can tip across the border from here and bring home my solid fuels and fertiliser for a little more than half price.

    You need action from govt on providing the services and the technology to go greener. Imposing taxes and trying to price fossils out of the market isn't the answer, you've got to provide them with alternatives that won't bankrupt them.

    Anyone looking at the state of our health system alone and then says we don't want or need the apple tax money is imo a bit deluded and frankly not in touch with reality. Govts need to up their anti on this problem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,178 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    completely agree, increasing taxes alone will not solve our environmental issues, but taxation does need to be a part of this process, but not be the ultimate 'incentive', the state does in fact need to step up and start heavily investing in our long term infrastructure needs, which means heavily borrowing!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,972 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The one thing we don't need to spend the Apple tax money on is current expenditure in Health.

    If we could add 1,000 beds in a cost-efficient way through capital expenditure that didn't need more nurses (we already have one of the largest per capita nurses) and support staff, that would be the only way to spend the Apple tax money on Health.

    Otherwise, it needs to go on water infrastructure, public transport, high-density housing and energy infrastructure to change the way we live our lives.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,178 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …with an aging population ,we ve no choice but to continually keep increasing health spending, not doing so will just produce worsening results!

    …noting, as we age, we all need a functioning health system, which includes you!

    …i.e. the last thing you personally need is an even more dysfunctional health system when you get into your 70's and 80's!

    …so careful what you wish for!

    …oh and we also need to keep increasing spending on all the other stuff you mentioned to!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,972 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    We spend more per capita on health than most countries, and we don't have their aging population. There must be ways to do it better.

    Capital expenditure that will increase productivity, making it more efficient to manage the health system, whether that is IT systems, rearranging bed space, adding bed space, more nursing homes to move on bed blockers etc., that is what we need to do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,361 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    I used health as an example. I don't disagree with your assessment on health, but unfortunately as we all know there will be little change without capital outlay somewhere along the way. And absolutely on the other points you make re needed expenditure. I was just pointing out that contrary to the post I replied to, we really do need the apple money for so many things.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Caquas


    Our carbon-related taxes are high but not, it seems, high enough to meet our 2030 targets.

    Now that the Greens are out, FF/FG will give the people what they want - roads!

    https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/01/06/transport-will-be-different-under-new-government-with-expanded-roads-spending-likely/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,972 ✭✭✭✭blanch152




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,410 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    We would get more from our hospitals if they worked 7 days, with 2 shifts per day for six days and one shift on Sundays. Now that would require more staff, but so be it. This would increase the capacity of the main hospitals. It would allow discharges to occur 7 days per week, which would improve flow of patients.

    Anyone in A&E that is likely to be waiting more than 12 hours, say, would be given an out-patient appointment for the following day. The fact that this does not happen now is a sign the triage system is not working. Many GPs send patients directly to A& E rather than treat them. Also, many self diagnose themselves by going directly to A& E rather than go to a GP because they cannot get an appointment within a reasonable time.

    This suggests that A &E needs a rethink. Perhaps, divide A& E into three divisions. One for over 70s, one for minor issues, and one for the others (presumably the serious cases). The over 70s would have more than one issue, and would need to be seen quickly, and so would benefit from a priority queue. Minor issues could be seen quickly, with the likely result of a next day outpatient appointment. This would reduce the trolley count that is a major issue in reducing the efficient running of any A&E dept.

    Another track to improve the HSE is to look for methods that allow other EU countries that have a similar population to be more efficient at lower cost. I would look at Denmark, or Finland to see how they do it - hospitals, IT, patient procedures, staffing, training, and structures. It would be simpler than reinventing everything.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,361 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    But higher taxes won't help us reach our targets either. What you're suggesting is let the citizens pay for governmental failure.

    But what's new I suppose?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭Caquas


    I wasn't proposing anything, just reflecting on the difference between a government with or without the Greens.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-and-fianna-fail-join-forces-to-block-green-partys-ridiculous-pollution-tax-on-drivers-before-election/a550272342.html

    By definition, higher taxes on CO2 consumption tend to discourage CO2 emissions (and economic activity in general, at least until renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels).

    The citizens always pay for government activity, though in vastly differing amounts, but Irish people love "free" education/healthcare/childcare…. . Voters here, as elsewhere, are reluctant to put their hands in their own pockets to reduce CO2 emissions. Are we at the limits of liberal democracy?

    https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-carbon-tax-ireland-carbon-emissions-reduction-6541256-Nov2024/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,972 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    https://www2.hse.ie/services/find-urgent-emergency-care/

    We already have that, with a range of minor injury clinics and out-of-hours GP services.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,972 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Governments don't drive diesel cars instead of electric cars.

    Governments don't pollute our waters with excess fertiliser and slurry overflows.

    Governments don't decide to live at the end of boreens instead of environmentally efficient locations in villages and towns.

    Governments don't decide to go on holidays instead of installing solar panels.

    Lots and lots of environmentally bad personal decisions are contributing to us failing to meet the 2030 targets. Can't blame the government for those. And when the government does act by imposing carbon taxes, the likes of you then complain.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,410 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Have you been in a busy A&E recently?

    Once trolleys go above a certain number, they block corridors, the privacy of patients disappears, the staff become stressed such they cannot function, and patient care evaporates.

    Anything that reduces that should be paramount.

    Having 80 year olds lying on a trolley for 24 hours without care is likely to cause their demise. In fact anyone waiting for treatment over 24 hours is not being treated properly and some other system is essential.

    Next day appointments might be a solution.

    Money will not solve the HSE problems.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,178 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    our governments have been unwilling to invest heavily in creating viable alternatives for our population such as creating a modernised rail network, opting for the less state risky approach of encouraging the population to taking on the risks such as ev's, property insulation, purchasing of higher rated homes, alternative property heating methods etc etc, these have all been backed by government policies, so thats the government!

    …ireland is not the only country attempting this approach in order to resolve our environmental issues, it wont work, taxation alone will not resolve these issues, state investment must be significantly increased, in order to attempt to do so, or else!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,972 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Yes, anything that reduces that should be paramount, but if some people don't use minor injury clinics and out-of-hours GPs and still turn up at A&E out of a sense of entitlement or a false belief that care will be better, then that is where we should start, using existing resources more effectively and efficiently rather than spending more money, especially when, with the youngest population in the OECD, we are spending more per capita on health than most.

    Educating people on what is the best solution (effective and efficient) for health needs is most important. That will be a struggle while there are still politicians and lobby groups looking for full A&E and cardiac and maternity and specialists in every small town in Ireland.



Advertisement