The real Fianna Fáil issue

scr123 · 25-02-2010 03:29PM

paddyland wrote: »

I am delighted to read the very eloquent responses to this thread, they dissect the very issues I hoped would be raised.

This should not be taken as just another idle anti-FF rant. It is intended to look far wider than that. It is very easy to hate Fianna Fáil for the collapse of the economy today, and the horrors visited on ordinary people through negative equity, default of mortgages, unemployment, etc. And as some posters elsewhere rightly point out, the public themselves have a lot to answer for. But there is a much wider issue.

I want to know how one political party have managed, over decades, to engineer a situation where they have gained an almost unbreachable stranglehold on politics and power for themselves. I want to know how they have used that power to infiltrate every facet of the machinery of this state to a point beyond any reasonable understanding of democracy (Where is the outstanding Donegal by-election, for example?) and how this country has suffered due to their subversion of the state into an almost oligarchical entity (to use Scofflaw's description) with the sole purpose of self preservation and self promotion. As I mentioned earlier, this economic catastrophe is one SYMPTOM of that, just one single issue, albeit a thumping great one. But the wider issue is the propensity for a pattern of unreasonable and unsustainable boom, followed by devastating bust, and all the while the corruption carries on, through good times and bad. The cycle needs to be broken. I hope now is the time to be able to demonstrate to people just how destructive this formula is, and how root and branch change is critical to get out of it.

Scr123 makes a valid point:

To answer the first three questions, look at the last three elections, to take that example. They were a charade. Each election was a shameless auction, with all sides making rash and ill considered promises that they had no hope of sustaining, nor even cared about. This party will cut taxes. That party will cut taxes a bit more. What did that ever have to do with any long term economic plan for the country? Zero tolerance was an out and out lie. But that must have bought a few votes too. Much of the general public were very apathetic about who they voted for. A prime example of that is the low overall turnout for the elections.

Why are you voting for the TD who fast tracked your passport application, for example? If you are entitled to a passport, you should get it, you shouldn't need a TD to get it for you. And if there's a queue, you shouldn't be jumping it. And if you're NOT entitled to a passport, then your TD has no business interfering. All it does is waste man hours and money better spent on schools and hospitals.

Scofflaw phrases it nicely:

But what happens when your friendly local political party tells you that you that tomorrow can be twice as good as today, and the next day ten times better, and that this time next year, you will be driving a flash new car, with a holiday home in the sun, and living off the rental income of properties bought under our tax incentives? Of course it is premium grade snake oil, and a little bit of the corner of your brain tells you so, but your friendly local political party certainly don't suggest that there is a long term economic view to take too, oh no, don't spoil the party, we're all having too much fun. Look how well off your FF voting neighbour is. You could be having that too.

Fine Gael had their own brand of snake oil as well, but Fianna Fáil had the good stuff. In fact it didn't make any difference, it didn't matter whose snake oil it was really, Fianna Fáil were just better adept at spinning yarns. They had their secret weapon. Bertie! And nobody really cared anyway. They care NOW. But the damage is done.

To answer scr123's fourth question, what would the opposition do that FF cannot do? That is not the issue. I have no idea who has the answers to the current crisis, because I don't believe any of the parties themselves have any definitive answers. And even if they had, they might as well promise the white witch and her magic beans, I would find it just as credible. If anyone gets us through this economic crisis, it will be the ordinary hard working people, the business sector, people doing it for themselves, DESPITE any of the political parties.

We need to stop this destructive cycle. We need politics to return where it belongs, to LEADERSHIP, to VISION, to TRANSPARENCY, to GOVERNMENT for the COUNTRY rather than government for one vested interest group. If you are tired, if you are spent, if you have no further ideas, MOVE THE HELL ASIDE, and learn the lesson of de Valera, who hung on for years after he was ever any good for anyone, simply out of blind(!) presumption of the right of office despite the inconvenience of democracy or the irritant of anyone else's viewpoint.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

P.S. I spent a whole hour in bed composing a response to this thread, and was very pleased with it. After a quick reread, I was almost ready to hit SUBMIT, when my computer knocked itself off in preparation for a download of Microsoft updates. I lost everything.

To the people in Microsoft who invented the idea of updates that download themselves automatically at just the wrong moment, whether I want them or not, a plague on your houses, I hope your tiny willies fall off, and may you die roaring.

Can well understand frustration when your piece disappeared. Had the same experience couple of times

I have made a few posts here and people have jumped to conclusion I am FF. I made one post and I was sent a warning about being personal so not only will I be careful but will be selective about who I engage with.
To me all issues come under three main heading, economic, social and political. On a percentage basis I would allocate them 70% economic, 20% social and 10% political. Very generous at 10% to political as I think most people at the end of the day do not give two hoots about politics. As Clinton said, " Its economics stupid ! " Politics to me is a game, albeit a serious game, and I worry more about the quality of the mandarins in the public service far more than I worry about politicians.

We operate a PR system in this country which I consider superior than the first past the post system in UK. Whether this system is responsible for how out party system operates I cannot say. What I do say is that like so many other countries we have a left to right bent on ideolgy, FG to the right, Labour, SF, SP and others to the left. I believe FF do not do ideolgy and populism and pragmatism are their hallmarks. I believe all the parties have their core vote and the people who actually decide who is to be government are the 300000 floating voters, thats my figure for illustration purposes only. Sticking with the 300000 I would say they will vote for the party who will put the bread on their table. FF work towards these people and the rest are hamstrung by their ideology. Can anyone blame us floaters ?
For me its very easy to understand why FF have ended up in government so often

Liam Byrne · 25-02-2010 03:46PM

scr123 wrote: »

To me all issues come under three main heading, economic, social and political. On a percentage basis I would allocate them 70% economic, 20% social and 10% political.

That's fair enough, but there is one addition that I would make : ethical. Each to their own in terms of how much they would allocate to it, but it is a factor.

In addition, they have failed spectacularly on the "70% economic", ignoring the warnings and driving us head-first into the crash.

Personally, I would also put social on a higher percentage. In economic terms, there's nothing to stop rampant privatisation of all sorts of things - water, roads, gardai, etc - but on a social footing that would be a disaster.

And again, FF have failed in this regard; the banks' economic gambling failed, and they have lumbered the losses onto all of us.

Laminations · 25-02-2010 04:03PM

scr123 wrote: »

Can anyone blame us floaters ?

I am also a floating voter although I have never floated near FF because I tend to vote for politicians and parties that put bread on the nations table rather than buy my vote with promises I know will be broken. I also vote based on ethics and standards and on track records so if a party has many 'corrupt' members and protects these members I tend to turn away and vote elsewhere. If a party runs the country intoi the ground, I'll vote elsewhere. Maybe you have the excuse for voting FF in 2002 and 2007 based on you not realising the effects of their running the country - now the effects are apparent, there is no longer an excuse of ignorance or self-interest. They have taken the bread off your table so if a floater votes for them, I certainly can blame them.

Oh and scoring them on your 3 headings:
Economic = FAIL
Social = FAIL
Political = FAIL

Not a great report card

UltimateMale · 25-02-2010 04:06PM

paddyland wrote: »

Jack Lynch seemed to start out well, a gentleman leader of the country, what vision he had for the future I am not too sure, but he had his particularly diverting issues to deal with during the troubles. His legacy, however, is that later in his career, he was the first Fianna Fáil leader to deliver auction house electioneering, the new idea of 'buying' an election. This idea that actual concrete deliverance on promises didn't matter so much as what looked good on the day, and what sounded well on the posters, would be the swill Fianna Fáil would come to live by day to day.

" Jack Lynch seemed to start out well, a gentleman leader of the country " Lynch a gentleman - a snake oil salesman was more like it. Lynch several times addmitted he joined FF not because he had any conviction about their political outlook, it was just because they were the most populist.

You must have been taken in by Bruce Arnold's BS book " Nice Fellow " about the crooked chancer ( Interesting how Independent Newspapers were anti FF back when Lynch and co misran the country but now are very pro FF ?? ). As you say about Lynch " His legacy....... the new idea of 'buying' an election. "

trapsagenius · 25-02-2010 05:38PM

UltimateMale wrote: »

" Jack Lynch seemed to start out well, a gentleman leader of the country " Lynch a gentleman - a snake oil salesman was more like it. Lynch several times addmitted he joined FF not because he had any conviction about their political outlook, it was just because they were the most populist.

You must have been taken in by Bruce Arnold's BS book " Nice Fellow " about the crooked chancer ( Interesting how Independent Newspapers were anti FF back when Lynch and co misran the country but now are very pro FF ?? ). As you say about Lynch " His legacy....... the new idea of 'buying' an election. "

I'm not sure if you are referring to independent newspapers as a whole or just to the Indo, but either way your claim is nonsense.Can you not remember the extremely aggressive campaign the media, almost as a whole, orchestrated against Bertie during the 07 election?

Red_Marauder · 25-02-2010 05:41PM

If someone logged onto this forum from some far flung Polynesian island, I wouldn't blame them for believing most of the users lived under a dictatorship.

I am convinced there are regular posters on here whose entire political thinking revolves around disdain for the political parties, but particularly Fianna Fáil. They simply do not seem to have any other political views. These people never produce alternative ideas, and more significantly, alternative candidates.

Where are all the alternative ideas to the ones put forward by the main parties? Where are all of your candidates at election time? (Where are you at election time?) Where are all of the voters who agree with you?

Therefore, a correction.

Dear Polynesian boards users:
Ireland is a pleasant, wealthy western European nation located in the archepleago of the British Isles. The first thing you must learn if you plan on posting, is never to mention that term or acknowledge our wealth.

The main thing you must learn, however, is that despite all of the contempt for mainstream politics and the general antipathy in which our politicians are held, we do live in a democratic society. The largest party, Fianna Fáil won over 850,000 first preference votes in the last General Election. This amounted to about 40% of first preference votes.

The second largest party, Fine Gael, led by The Real Enda Kenny, won about 30% of first preference votes and Labour won about 10%. This general trend is likely to continue indefinitely with minor fluctuations which will change the balance of power within this group.

Most Irish people vote this way therefore there is no reason to assume they are unhappy with that as a body of people.

Other things you need to know are that we have won the Eurovision more times than any other nation and our national hobbies include bank collecting and watching Property Ladder. The two are not unrelated... c'est la guerre

Liam Byrne · 25-02-2010 05:42PM

trapsagenius wrote: »

Can you not remember the extremely aggressive campaign the media, almost as a whole, orchestrated against Bertie during the 07 election?

"orchestrated" and "campaign" are emotive and prejudicial language; I'd view it as reporting the facts and questioning inconsistencies and recklessness.

Basically, if we're paying someone €300,000 a year (not including make-up!) then we're perfectly entitled to scrutinise that individual, and if his actions don't meet the standards and ethics required, then it's perfectly valid for a newspaper to highlight this, and to keep plugging away until it gets answers.

trapsagenius · 25-02-2010 05:49PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"orchestrated" and "campaign" are emotive and prejudicial language; I'd view it as reporting the facts and questioning inconsistencies and recklessness.

Basically, if we're paying someone €300,000 a year (not including make-up!) then we're perfectly entitled to scrutinise that individual, and if his actions don't meet the standards and ethics required, then it's perfectly valid for a newspaper to highlight this, and to keep plugging away until it gets answers.

And your perfectly entitled to view it that way.In fairness, I think we can both agree that we see the same things, we just interpret them differently.I personally thought the way the media treated Bertie in 07 was shameful and at times, and came purely from the fact that many in the media had gotten bored with Bertie and FF after 10 years.

Laminations · 25-02-2010 05:54PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I am convinced there are regular posters on here whose entire political thinking revolves around disdain for legitimate concerns about the political parties, but particularly Fianna Fáil.

I corrected your 'put-down'

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Dear Polynesian boards users:
Ireland is a pleasant, wealthy western European nation located in the archepleago of the British Isles. The first thing you must learn if you plan on posting, is never to mention that term or acknowledge our wealth.

Yes, a lovely comparison. Wealthy referenced to who, to what, to when? Yes we are wealthy compared to the Haitians or the Greeks, and we are wealthy compared to Ireland of the 40s or the 80s but you completely ignore the potential we had, the waste. You think like a gambler who starts with little and wins €1000 but then loses €900 of it. Yes he has €100 more then he started with, what an optimistic, glass half full way to look at things, ignoring the loses by using an old benchmark or unfair benchmark on which to measure his wealth/success.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The main thing you must learn, however, is that despite all of the contempt for mainstream politics and the general antipathy in which our politicians are held[/I], we do live in a democratic society.

I'm glad you think so because you'd swear by the way you try and muzzle and belittle those who are complaining that we lived in a dictatorship.
We are complaining because we are not happy, we are trying to change peoples opinions and make them vote for a change in government. Or do I need to run for election to prove I am unhappy with the status quo?

Liam Byrne · 25-02-2010 05:56PM

trapsagenius wrote: »

And your perfectly entitled to view it that way.In fairness, I think we can both agree that we see the same things, we just interpret them differently.I personally thought the way the media treated Bertie in 07 was shameful and at times, and came purely from the fact that many in the media had gotten bored with Bertie and FF after 10 years.

OK - fair enough.

I personally think it was fine, based on the fact that the way Ahern treated us was "shameful".

If Ahern hadn't done anything wrong, hadn't "lied 4 times" *, and hadn't defended the indefensible, and hadn't delayed the tribunal and cost us even more money, then I'd be with you.

* There's no other way of phrasing this - 5 conflicting explanations and at most one can be true.

trapsagenius · 25-02-2010 06:03PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - fair enough.

I personally think it was fine, based on the fact that the way Ahern treated us was "shameful".

If Ahern hadn't done anything wrong, hadn't "lied 4 times" *, and hadn't defended the indefensible, and hadn't delayed the tribunal and cost us even more money, then I'd be with you.

* There's no other way of phrasing this - 5 conflicting explanations and at most one can be true.

And that's your opinion, which I respect.But I haven't commented on the tribunal and don't intend to until it releases its report.

Red_Marauder · 25-02-2010 06:08PM

Laminations wrote: »

I corrected your 'put-down'

Pretty amateur stuff tbh... is this After Hours?

Yes, a lovely comparison. Wealthy referenced to who, to what, to when? Yes we are wealthy compared to the Haitians or the Greeks, and we are wealthy compared to Ireland of the 40s or the 80s but you completely ignore the potential we had, the waste.

Wow I did say 'don't mention the wealth', I should have taken my own advice.

Eh yes, I do ignore the means of how money has been spent in that paragraph... because it's a different issue. I am referring to our status as a very wealthy nation regardless of how much has been screwed up.

We are complaining because we are not happy, we are trying to change peoples opinions and make them vote for a change in government. Or do I need to run for election to prove I am unhappy with the status quo?

Why not?

I am simply saying that there are people who post here, and we all know who, who never seem to have an alternative plan.

You mention the IFSC and all you get is a tirade on Haughey and the woes of the Irish.
You mention deflation and all you hear is FF a tirade about the woes of the Irish.
You mention TS's golden handshake donation and again, a tirade about the main parties and the woes of the Irish.

To these people. Where is your alternative? Are you doing something about the political system you so vehehemently sneer at?
I have a real problem with the Nua Amhran people who post on here, but I have respect for them because they have gone to the trouble of acting on their words - they actually engage with the political process.

But this political hurler in the ditch attitude of condemning everyone and everything while not actually supprting anyone, is just extremely tiring.

Laminations · 25-02-2010 06:18PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Wow I did say 'don't mention the wealth', I should have taken my own advice.

Eh yes, I do ignore the means of how money has been spent in that paragraph... because it's a different issue. I am referring to our status as a very wealthy nation regardless of how much has been screwed up.

I can acknowledge we are a wealthy nation (although read this report). That is not how we should measure ourselves. Yes I am optimistic, I'm not wallowing in depression, I am highly educated, I can acknowledge that is down to the boom. You can refer to us as a wealthy nation but you shouldn't do it 'regardless' of the screw-ups.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I am simply saying that there are people who post here, and we all know who, who never seem to have an alternative plan.

You mention the IFSC and all you get is a tirade on Haughey and the woes of the Irish.
You mention deflation and all you hear is FF a tirade about the woes of the Irish.
You mention TS's golden handshake donation and again, a tirade about the main parties and the woes of the Irish.

To these people. Where is your alternative? Are you doing something about the political system you so vehehemently sneer at?
I have a real problem with the Nua Amhran people who post on here, but I have respect for them because they have gone to the trouble of acting on their words - they actually engage with the political process.

But this political hurler in the ditch attitude of condemning everyone and everything while not actually supprting anyone, is just extremely tiring.

Whats my alternative? I will vote FG in the next election, although I'm not a FGer. I like their New Era and Fair Care plans and I think they have a far lower tolerance for corruption. I dont subscribe to the idea that you have to have mapped out your own plan for recovery before you can criticise the obvious mistakes made by the government. I'm not condemning everyone, I'm condemning the government, although again I do recognise the weaknesses in the opposition

Scofflaw · 25-02-2010 06:18PM

Keep it polite, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Laminations · 25-02-2010 06:27PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I am referring to our status as a very wealthy nation regardless of how much has been screwed up.

Just to paraphrase from the Davy report

The stockbroker’s report acknowledges that Ireland was still ranked eighth in the Eurozone in terms of wealth at the end of 2009, but said that years of high income was not enough for a country to become wealthy. To become truly wealthy, a country must invest its money “wisely”, the report noted.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1019084.shtml
Read the above, thats my issue so you can bang on about wealth til the cows highly educated graduates come home

beereilly · 25-02-2010 07:10PM

Having read this thread it has dawned on me that there may be many people out there struggling to identify themselves politically..You may not be losing any sleep over it but non the less it is fair to say that large amount of people are dissillusioned with the current Political scene. I was previously a FF supporter having been born into it..but one only has to look at the ridiculous way in which they have conducted business and themselves over the past decades to realise that FF is only going to ruin this country (even more!!)..and yes even if the opposition have not won an election since 1982 it doesn't mean what FF is doing is correct. Infact that is the weakest argument to support FF I've heard in some time..

So this left me wondering what to do with myself. Therein followed a period of apathy when one examines the different parties and the options. and this lead me to looking at ecomonic policies so mainly focusing on Capitalism vs Socialism. And the more I read the more I felt like distancing myself from Capitalism..and this was even whilst reading pro capitalism agenda docs. It just doesn't make sense asides from delivering a system riddled with inequalities. So I came to look at Socialism, Marxism and revolutionary socialism..and I did come to this with a huge amount of inner trepidation..wondering what I was getting myself in for. But is a learning experience for sure and my opinions have been coloured and shaped by the people I have met and I really must emphasise that the people I have met through Socialism mainly in the SWP,People before Profit and Socialist Youth have been amongst interesting, intelligent, articulate and inspiring people I've ever met. -Comparing this to the red faced chuckling fools from my FF experience..who really dont even know what it is they represent.

I know that there are many people out there that will think I'm bonkers and have lost the plot but I would be interested to know if there are people who have really examined the possibilities aside from Capitalism and what conclusions they have drawn.

trapsagenius · 25-02-2010 10:00PM

beereilly wrote: »

Having read this thread it has dawned on me that there may be many people out there struggling to identify themselves politically..You may not be losing any sleep over it but non the less it is fair to say that large amount of people are dissillusioned with the current Political scene. I was previously a FF supporter having been born into it..but one only has to look at the ridiculous way in which they have conducted business and themselves over the past decades to realise that FF is only going to ruin this country (even more!!)..and yes even if the opposition have not won an election since 1982 it doesn't mean what FF is doing is correct. Infact that is the weakest argument to support FF I've heard in some time..

So this left me wondering what to do with myself. Therein followed a period of apathy when one examines the different parties and the options. and this lead me to looking at ecomonic policies so mainly focusing on Capitalism vs Socialism. And the more I read the more I felt like distancing myself from Capitalism..and this was even whilst reading pro capitalism agenda docs. It just doesn't make sense asides from delivering a system riddled with inequalities. So I came to look at Socialism, Marxism and revolutionary socialism..and I did come to this with a huge amount of inner trepidation..wondering what I was getting myself in for. But is a learning experience for sure and my opinions have been coloured and shaped by the people I have met and I really must emphasise that the people I have met through Socialism mainly in the SWP,People before Profit and Socialist Youth have been amongst interesting, intelligent, articulate and inspiring people I've ever met. -Comparing this to the red faced chuckling fools from my FF experience..who really dont even know what it is they represent.

I know that there are many people out there that will think I'm bonkers and have lost the plot but I would be interested to know if there are people who have really examined the possibilities aside from Capitalism and what conclusions they have drawn.

Seriously mate, I wouldn't get too caught up in marxism or revolutionary socialism-they're great ideas in theory but they don't work in the real world.What I think is best, and I think a lot of people would agree with me, is a mix between centre-left and centre-right policies.Generally, I'd favour centre-right policies during lean years such as now, where we need the economy to get moving, but during years of economic growth I'd be more in favour of centre-left policies, so that the disadvantaged in society are looked after. I've always felt you need a certain amount of greed among businessmen for an economy to work, but too much greed lands us in places like the place we're in today.

paddyland · 25-02-2010 11:41PM

It's not so much about whether we need to lean towards capitalism or socialism in this country. No matter what political ideology emerged in different countries over various periods of history, in too many cases, individual people or organisations came to the fore and twisted the best of those ideals towards selfish interests.

Communism as a theory wasn't too bad until people like Stalin took it and twisted it into a very unhealthy form of totalitarianism. Socialism is commendable until militant trade unionism takes it over with devastating economic results. Capitalism is probably the most realistic proposition, except for the worst elements of it who don't know when to stop raping the planet and walking on people for naked profiteering. Something that has an eye to the best ideals of all these is probably where to look, if that were possible.

So our problem in this country is not so much whether we are capitalist or socialist. It is that we have a political architecture fine tuned over eight decades, to facilitate one elite group of people take control over whatever political philosophy the people adopt, and bend it towards selfish and vested interests. You can be a corrupt socialist or a corrupt capitalist, and there isn't much in the difference. It is the political structure that allows one powerful elite such control that we need to look at first, understand how and why it developed that way, and how it needs to change.

lucernarian · 26-02-2010 12:43AM

Scofflaw, this is not meant to be a provocative question. Apologies if my intentions backfire!

Through this thread, I have seen a bit of mudslinging to say the least, and your posts interspersed within. I read some of your posts, and I was particularly interested in your point regarding single party dominance.

I could understand all of the points surrounding it except that particular idea. Between PR-STV, the continual coalitions that now shape Irish politics since the PDs jumped on board and the significant minority that is FG in the Dáil and Seanad, is it accurate to apply the idea of Single Party Dominance to either FF or FG if they were to be in power?

In other words, FG have had a reasonalbe share of the popular vote in most elections throughout its history, especially in recent local elections. Thinking of Ireland in terms of Single Party Dominance strikes me as odd.

Liam Byrne · 26-02-2010 01:16AM

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Through this thread, I have seen a bit of mudslinging to say the least, and your posts interspersed within.

How is stating facts "mudslinging" ?

That sounds like something Cowen or O'Dea might have said about the revelations the other day. :rolleyes:

lucernarian · 26-02-2010 10:54AM

What? I'm only basing that statement on the fact that Scofflaw himself has had to remind people to not make the argument personal and to keep it polite. Including at a poster who attacked you personally. I feel Scofflaw's comments in this thread were not based upon thin air. The attitude of some posters in this thread is or was excessively militant for what I'd like to read. That's my own opinion and I'm sure the moderators have thoughts of their own on that.

Have you anything constructive to add to my point, which was directed at Scofflaw?

If it makes any difference, perhaps I should have said "Through this thread, I have seen a bit of mudslinging to say the least, and also your posts interspersed within. I do not think that all those commenting on this thread were mudslinging, whatever about the aggression of the ostensibly legitimate points made here.

Liam Byrne · 26-02-2010 12:27PM

Thanks for the clarification.

I read it as Scofflaw's posts interspersed with the mudslinging (i.e. that maybe the only only non-mudslinging posts were theirs), and that the "mudslinging" referred to comments about FF, rather than the "attacks".

Apologies for misinterpreting.

Red_Marauder · 26-02-2010 04:08PM

Laminations wrote: »

I can acknowledge we are a wealthy nation (although read this report). That is not how we should measure ourselves. Yes I am optimistic, I'm not wallowing in depression, I am highly educated, I can acknowledge that is down to the boom. You can refer to us as a wealthy nation but you shouldn't do it 'regardless' of the screw-ups

Look. I simply referred to us as a wealthy nation in a passing comment. That is a factual assertion. In practice and in the best interests of the discussion it cannot always be qualified by an essay on recent expenditure when it is not the point that a poster is making.
It's fine to assert that money was spent badly, or that we aren't as structurally wealthy as our neighbours. I agree.
But you miss the point of the post entirely and latch onto one minor point to squabble over and yet again refer to this now famous Davy Report.

I dont subscribe to the idea that you have to have mapped out your own plan for recovery before you can criticise the obvious mistakes made by the government.

Nobody is asking that. The point is that constructive criticism is better than bland, repetitive anti Fianna Fáil-ism with no apparent logic behind it apart from a disdain for that party. It gets very hard to read after a while, because it never changes. It just turns into the political equivalent of elevator music.

jonsnow · 26-02-2010 04:35PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Nobody is asking that. The point is that constructive criticism is better than bland, repetitive anti Fianna Fáil-ism with no apparent logic behind it apart from a disdain for that party. It gets very hard to read after a while, because it never changes. It just turns into the political equivalent of elevator music.

When fianna fail stop acting like corrupt moronic clannish greedy disgraces i,ll stop complaining about them.and there is a logic behind it.It gets very hard to put up with them periodically destroying the economy after a while.

and british isles!!! whatever

Laminations · 26-02-2010 04:41PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The point is that constructive criticism is better than bland, repetitive anti Fianna Fáil-ism with no apparent logic behind it

Constructive criticism is a compassionate attitude towards the person qualified for criticism.

Why should I show FF compassion? I can acknowledge the few good things FF have done. We have better roads (although public transport systems would have been a wiser place to invest). We have a highly educated population (although people now seem to begrudge the younger generation this). We have a great plastic bag levy (pity FF were lobbied about chewing gum). We have a great smoking ban (but I suppose most other western countries have this). Hmmm, after that there are possibly other things but I'm stuck.

Constantly harping on about forum members deserved hypercriticism of FF makes you guilty of hypocriticism.

My criticism is aimed at highlighting the ineptitude and mismanagement of this government in the hopes that it will turn people away from voting for the YET AGAIN. In my eyes thats constructive.

And whats this slur that there is no apparent logic behind my criticism? There is no logic in thinking NAMA is wrong because it is based on the falsehood that property prices only fell by 30%?
There is no logic in asking why there are golden handshakes and parachute payments at the top while there are cuts to social welfare and special needs at the bottom?
There is no logic in expecting standards in government (some basic level...not lying to a court, would be a start)?
There is no logic in questioning the 'policy' of allowing a highly educated, recently graduated workforce to emigrate and ply their trade (our investment) in other countries?

I dont understand your 'logic' of going easy on the ever incompetent FF

Scofflaw · 26-02-2010 04:51PM

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Scofflaw, this is not meant to be a provocative question. Apologies if my intentions backfire!

Through this thread, I have seen a bit of mudslinging to say the least, and your posts interspersed within. I read some of your posts, and I was particularly interested in your point regarding single party dominance.

I could understand all of the points surrounding it except that particular idea. Between PR-STV, the continual coalitions that now shape Irish politics since the PDs jumped on board and the significant minority that is FG in the Dáil and Seanad, is it accurate to apply the idea of Single Party Dominance to either FF or FG if they were to be in power?

In other words, FG have had a reasonalbe share of the popular vote in most elections throughout its history, especially in recent local elections. Thinking of Ireland in terms of Single Party Dominance strikes me as odd.

There is certainly a problem with using the academic literature on "single party dominant" states, since most of the countries used in studies suffer from levels of vote manipulation that we don't see in Ireland. However, the broad requirement of the study I cited is that the possibility exists of using the electoral process to overturn the single party's dominance - and that in itself implies that there has to be an electorally strong opposition.

If we look at other "single party dominant" countries, there are plenty of examples of countries with sizeable opposition parties - Japan and Mexico, for example. Those countries are also those where the dominance of the historical party of government has recently been electorally eroded, which is a cheery thought in an Irish context - although, as I've pointed out before, Fianna Fáil are not by any means at their lowest ebb right now.

The way that Fine Gael have always represented a large minority, but never the majority, is actually indicative of the fact that we're looking at the kind of clientilist/patronage system that produces dominant single party systems - Fine Gael represent, not an alternative policy vehicle, but an alternative, and equally stable, patronage system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lucernarian · 26-02-2010 05:15PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

There is certainly a problem with using the academic literature on "single party dominant" states, since most of the countries used in studies suffer from levels of vote manipulation that we don't see in Ireland. However, the broad requirement of the study I cited is that the possibility exists of using the electoral process to overturn the single party's dominance - and that in itself implies that there has to be an electorally strong opposition.

If we look at other "single party dominant" countries, there are plenty of examples of countries with sizeable opposition parties - Japan and Mexico, for example. Those countries are also those where the dominance of the historical party of government has recently been electorally eroded, which is a cheery thought in an Irish context - although, as I've pointed out before, Fianna Fáil are not by any means at their lowest ebb right now.

The way that Fine Gael have always represented a large minority, but never the majority, is actually indicative of the fact that we're looking at the kind of clientilist/patronage system that produces dominant single party systems - Fine Gael represent, not an alternative policy vehicle, but an alternative, and equally stable, patronage system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What exactly counts to be "dominant" then, if the presence of Fine Gael amounts to a sort of bi-dominant party system? Is the "dominant" term more indicative of the support base and electoral outcomes more based on people than policy? The instances of populism in this country seem rather more tame when compared with Mexico. I doubt the likes of NAMA and the issues of various hospitals would have developed in such a way in places like Mexico or Japan, albeit for separate reasons.

Red_Marauder · 26-02-2010 05:16PM

Laminations wrote: »

Constructive criticism is a compassionate attitude towards the person qualified for criticism.

I have no idea where you are pulling that from but most reasonable people would not define constructive criticism as a compassionate attitude. The point of constructive criticism is not to assuage the emotions of the criticised party by having a 'compassionate attitude', it is to best inform them of how to build progress in their actions by embarking upon more productive or otherwise desirable methods.

For example, I may think your definition of constructive criticism is a load of horse manure and that you should actually reflect on the word "constructive" and how it differs to "compassionate" because therein lies a vast difference.
That would not be a particularly compassionate, polite or tactful criticism, but it certainly would be more constructive in order to reach a better understanding of the term.

You next go on to question why FF should be shown compassion, but as I've already said this has nothing to do with compassion. I'm talking about logical alternatives or more coherent proposals, not niceties or hugs.

Constantly harping on about forum members deserved hypercriticism of FF makes you guilty of hypocriticism.

I'm not. Where are you getting this from? Quote me where I said that I am critical of too much criticism? I am critical of unproductive, repetitive criticism with no alternative ideas. Just boring old mudslinging.

I dont understand your 'logic' of going easy on the ever incompetent FF

Who said anything about going easy on FF?

Rehashing the same old party assasinations is going easy on FF because people just switch off, they've heard it all before. That sort of negativity doesn't work on voters.
What works is a clear, coherent, logical alternative or a thesis on strategical improvements - and that is constructive criticism.

Laminations · 26-02-2010 05:55PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

IThe point of constructive criticism is not to assuage the emotions of the criticised party by having a 'compassionate attitude', it is to best inform them of how to build progress in their actions by embarking upon more productive or otherwise desirable methods.

So you want us all to be government advisors? Here is my constructive advice
'Hey government, see all that stuff you are doing, yeah? Try not to f*** it up like most of the stuff you do. And watch out for the usual waste.

I am not a government policy advisor, I am a voter. You say I'm to 'inform' the government, they are not so far listening to my information - they are sh!t, and I want a general election.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

....a thesis on strategical improvements

Oh yeah, just a sec, let me get my pen out, I shall have my thesis on economic recovery prepared shortly.

And your 'constructive criticism' of my understanding of the concept was neither compassionate or constructive, it was you simply ramming your view down my throat and calling my understanding horse manure.

Scofflaw · 26-02-2010 06:06PM

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

What exactly counts to be "dominant" then, if the presence of Fine Gael amounts to a sort of bi-dominant party system? Is the "dominant" term more indicative of the support base and electoral outcomes more based on people than policy? The instances of populism in this country seem rather more tame when compared with Mexico. I doubt the likes of NAMA and the issues of various hospitals would have developed in such a way in places like Mexico or Japan, albeit for separate reasons.

There's quite a good paper here: Perpetual Winners? A Reconceptualization of Single-Party Dominance in Established Parliamentary Democracies. It classifies Fianna Fáil as a "marginally dominant party", although it only just falls outside the classification for a fully dominant party.

Fine Gael doesn't really change the picture much - they've been in power a fraction of the time Fianna Fáil have (see here), which is what counts towards party dominance.

Both Mexico and Japan have had their own political scandals - and the long deflationary cycle Japan is in has contributed strongly to breaking the single party hold.

Yes, the basis for long-term dominant single parties is people, not policy - something you can see easily in Irish politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The real Fianna Fáil issue

Comments