The real Fianna Fáil issue

Liam Byrne · 02-03-2010 11:26PM

trapsagenius wrote: »

That is why I think the FG government is worse than the current one-corruption issues notwithstanding.I'm not saying I accept or condone corruption, which is obviously completely wrong-I just am of the opinion that the FG-led government in the 80s was so bad they mask all others for incompetence.

Fair enough, and while we might disagree, I'll accept you having your view.

The problem I have is that some people are choosing to completely ignore the corruption and seem to have no desire to request their party to stop it, to the point that they'll vote for them again "as-is".

I'm not even sure if they can SEE the corruption, and if that's the case it shows just how ingrained into FF it really is.

zootroid · 03-03-2010 12:03AM

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well, its just I think the FG government in the 80s did not match FF for incompetence-they far, far exceeded the current crop.Lets not forget that the current government have had some achievements at least, most notably in NI-that government had practically zero.That is why I think the FG government is worse than the current one-corruption issues notwithstanding.I'm not saying I accept or condone corruption, which is obviously completely wrong-I just am of the opinion that the FG-led government in the 80s was so bad they mask all others for incompetence.

Ahern was Taoiseach for about 9 months at the time the Good Friday Agreement was signed, so FF can hardly take all the credit for it.

Sand · 03-03-2010 12:12AM

Dont be listening to them Fine Gaelers and their putting down Cowen and Lenny, sure their only trying to rob your vote and they'll have ye all forgotten about after the elections up.

Them blueshirts are crafty feckers, sure havent they got half the country fooled and convined at this stage? Not me now I tell you, ive seen through the smokescreen. I tell it like it is and thats all there is to it really. When we kick them greens out of the coalition the economy should be able to pick up even quicker. Sure look at all the damage those carbon and green measures done to the economy. For god sake you can't even bring a donkey down the road to cut a bit of turf for yourself anymore, carbon this carbon that, everything is feckin carbon with them boys. Just be patient, sure we'll having a tough time right now. Its what we do, and not what say that will get us all out of it.

Youre a funny guy Tommy. I'll leave this page open on my browser so you get a little more attention whilst I do other things.

@danman

I think that is the reason why I'm moving towards FF.
Joe Duffy would be proud if he could motivate the level of outrage of some posters on this site.

Well, you get the government you deserve.

Unfortunately, everyone else gets the government you deserve too.

jmayo · 03-03-2010 12:28AM

trapsagenius wrote: »

Most incompetent bunch? Ever? I'd strongly disagree with that.There has been many worse administrations in Ireland.

A point I feel I have to make is that many FGers and "floating" voters criticise allegiance to FF.Now the floating voters I don't have a problem with, but I would suggest to the FGers that were it not for party allegiances, FG would never have survived the 1980s, because surely any sane-minded floaters wouldn't have voted for FG after the disastrous administration from 1982 to 1987?It must have only been the diehard FGers that still voted for FG even after a shambolic government.

Yet another one comes out of the woodwork.

I don't recall any other government presiding over the wholesale destruction of our banking system, not through any external influences as they claim, but actually through active internal homegrown policies that were designed to funnel money to really only one sector of the economy which happened to have a lot of ff party supporters and benefactors.

Oh and here is the real kicker it will probably cost the taxpayers anything up to 30 or 40 billion to rectify this mess since they are ones that are going to inherit all the sh** from these banks.

Note: I am assuming that to bail out the banks for the lets say 70 odd billion of debts for argument sake, that through NAMA and recapitalisation we will affectively pour half of that amount down a hole that we will never see again.
I have seen or heard nothing that would give me a different opinion than what was graphically displayed in both the mcanamara and carooll/Zoe cases before the coutrts.

Banks walk away, top bankers walk away, developers walk away thanks to limited companies, declaring bankruptcy, having all assets in trust to family, spouses owning all assets or living overseas.
The only ones that can't walk away are it seems the taxpayers.

So can you name any other governments bar the last two dominated by ff, that managed to inherit a growing export orientated economy and yet turn it into a one trick unsustainable construction bubble which once deflated has resulted in massive overnight unemployment jump, huge jump in current budget deficit because increased spending was based on the bubble taxes ?

Go on give it a go, I need a laugh to see how you spin this one.

In 1997 bertie and ff inherited a growing eocnomy and he managed to keep things relatively sane until 2002.
Then he managed to blow that economy by concentrating on us flogging houses to each other (no exports there) all funded by cheap credit sourced outside the country (imports of sort me thinks).

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well, its just I think the FG government in the 80s did not match FF for incompetence-they far, far exceeded the current crop.Lets not forget that the current government have had some achievements at least, most notably in NI-that government had practically zero.That is why I think the FG government is worse than the current one-corruption issues notwithstanding.I'm not saying I accept or condone corruption, which is obviously completely wrong-I just am of the opinion that the FG-led government in the 80s was so bad they mask all others for incompetence.

Yeah whatever you say. :rolleyes:
I don't recall that FG government inheriting a thriving economy and driving it onto the rocks leaving thousands in debt up to their necks, the banks completly insolvent and the 40 odd billion bill to refloat them on the taxpayers.

Nice of you to even mention corruption, seen as it's not a very important topic in ff circles. :rolleyes:

Although if you don't agree with corruption and don't condone it, why do you vote for a party that has had most of it's top members in tribunals over the years trying to explain why they have had a propensity for dealing in cash whose existence they can't adequately explain.

Don't ff do credit cards ?

I know from dealing with ffers face to face that the level of arrogance, disregard for the general well being of the state rather than that of the party and sheer unwilingness to accept any responsibility for creating this mess is mind boggling.

jank · 03-03-2010 12:55AM

danman wrote: »

Your making a very broad assesment of Patmar.
He said that he isn't a FF'er, but a floating voter.

I'm in the same position as him. I'm not a supporter of any party. I've given my vote to many candidates from most of the parties (bar SF).

I'm also a floating voter.
Myself and Pat are the type of voters that the opposition and the government need to convince.

All I read here by certain posters, is hatred.

It no, no, no.
I read all the opposition, that every word uttered by FF generates.

I've been talking to a number of my friends, a lot of them have come to a similar conclusion.

I'm considering giving FF my number 1 for the first time.

FG would need to buck up, if they want to get into government.
The negitivity is making me sick.

There will be policies that they should oppose, but change the record.
Every day in the Dail, they simply oppose everything.

Remember, a lot of the policies of this present government are coming from the civil service. FF are directing things, as FG would do.

Tell me again how I can be a part of the 25% core FF voters.
That was a very patranising statement. For both me and Patmar.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here is example two!

I think you are mistaking that many of us who are sick to death of the usual FF politics are somehow spokesmen for other parties. We are not! We are just ordinary voters how have had enough of the current government. And we include the greens in that!

Maybe it a generational thing!

jank · 03-03-2010 01:11AM

patmar wrote: »

Suspect you are a FF supporter Tommy but at least you are different on what seems to be a full blown ABFF crowd. Was beginning to think I was some kind of weirdo. How come FF supporters are in short supply on politicaL sites ?

I think he was talking the pi$$. I think they are in short supply is because more of them look like this.

Red_Marauder · 03-03-2010 01:52AM

jmayo wrote:

Red_Marauder credits a proposal that according to almost every eminent economist/commentators and non connected vested interest is a crock of sh**, to put it bluntly

By 'bluntly', I would assume you mean inaccurately.
Many, many economists do not feel that NAMA is the best medicine. I think 46 was a number given in one Irish Times letter.
Equally many respected economics, academics and other bodies have welcomed NAMA or endorsed it. Just as I read your post, Professor Honahan was on Oireachtas Report saying that despite his initial trepidation about NAMA (concerns about the issue of cost of loans) his concerns have now been allayed as this has become a less relevant issue.

NAMA has also been given the nod by the IMF and the EU - although nobody expects NAMA to immediately increase lending. For that is not the initial point of NAMA. The point is to clear the banks' balance sheets, give back liquidity and to build capital. NAMA is only doing the groundwork for the lending phase - it is not a silver bullet. I don't even think the FFers believe that it is.

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

For god sake you can't even bring a donkey down the road to cut a bit of turf for yourself anymore, carbon this carbon that, everything is feckin carbon with them boys. Just be patient, sure we'll having a tough time right now. Its what we do, and not what say that will get us all out of it.

Were you in Ryan's Daughter?

jmayo · 03-03-2010 10:48AM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

By 'bluntly', I would assume you mean inaccurately.
Many, many economists do not feel that NAMA is the best medicine. I think 46 was a number given in one Irish Times letter.
Equally many respected economics, academics and other bodies have welcomed NAMA or endorsed it. Just as I read your post, Professor Honahan was on Oireachtas Report saying that despite his initial trepidation about NAMA (concerns about the issue of cost of loans) his concerns have now been allayed as this has become a less relevant issue.

NAMA has also been given the nod by the IMF and the EU - although nobody expects NAMA to immediately increase lending. For that is not the initial point of NAMA. The point is to clear the banks' balance sheets, give back liquidity and to build capital. NAMA is only doing the groundwork for the lending phase - it is not a silver bullet. I don't even think the FFers believe that it is.

Who does Honohan work for again, oh yes the CB.
This is CB that was in pocket of Dept. of Finance and in pockets of the banks that this will bail out.
Now I am not saying that Honohan is anything like his totally incompetent sniveling predecessor, but it marvellous how he and another former critic Alan Aherne have changed their tune once employed by the government.

I bet I know a couple of economists that would be all for it, Dan McLaughlin and Austin Hughes.
Haven't they been very quiet of late ?

Of course the IMF and the EU or rather the ECB will give it the nod.
Giving it the nod as you say doesn't mean that they think it is a good deal or good idea especially for us the Irish taxpayers.
It just means it achieves their aims, which frankly are to make sure it costs them nothing, that more banks don't go under and thus cause finanical meltdown that will destabilise the Euro and cuase them to be called in.

And NAMA won't cost them because it is us mugs, the Irish taxpayers that are footing the bill and taking the risks.

I love it when people use their agreement to it as some great endorsement.

Ehh some of the ffers actually do believe it is, or have you ever listened to frank "40 gaffs" fahy ?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Were you in Ryan's Daughter?

No I wasn't in the film either.
Now I know why I have him on ignore list.

Red_Marauder · 03-03-2010 02:46PM

jmayo wrote: »

Who does Honohan work for again, oh yes the CB [...] it marvellous how he and another former critic Alan Aherne have changed their tune once employed by the government.

Explain what you mean by "changed his tune", exactly?

Honohan, an eminently respected economist with both world bank and domestic Irish experience was actively writing and speaking on NAMA and commenting on how it ought to operate since before his appointment. He was not in opposition to it at all.

Of course the IMF and the EU or rather the ECB will give it the nod.
Giving it the nod as you say doesn't mean that they think it is a good deal or good idea especially for us the Irish taxpayers.

Actually, the EU who is going to be taking a hit if NAMA fails, Irish economic recovery is in their best interest.

And NAMA won't cost them because it is us mugs, the Irish taxpayers that are footing the bill and taking the risks.

Well you simply cannot say that without any evidence. Nobody can predict the future.
However, if we lose money, it is because this is our mess. It isn't the EU's mess and nor was it their boom. We ought to pay.

Liam Byrne · 03-03-2010 03:28PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

However, if we lose money, it is because this is our mess. It isn't the EU's mess and nor was it their boom. We ought to pay.

Those who benefitted and gambled ought to pay.

And anyway, there are separate threads about NAMA; this is about "The real Fianna Fáil issue".

Laminations · 03-03-2010 03:36PM

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well, its just I think the FG government in the 80s did not match FF for incompetence-they far, far exceeded the current crop.Lets not forget that the current government have had some achievements at least, most notably in NI-that government had practically zero.That is why I think the FG government is worse than the current one-corruption issues notwithstanding.I'm not saying I accept or condone corruption, which is obviously completely wrong-I just am of the opinion that the FG-led government in the 80s was so bad they mask all others for incompetence.

This is all well and good but the choice facing us now is not the current incompetent FF vs. the incompetent FG from the 80s, the choice facing us now is a current and incompetent FF vs. a current and more competent opposition. Its quite frankly an easy choice

scr123 · 03-03-2010 04:39PM

Have checked this Thread a few times to see if there is anything said that will persuade me to vote for the opposition come the next election. Sadly I have despaired of any enlightenment from those who oppose FF. Its the old broken record problem, bash FF and make no effort to sell policies of the alternative. Dont people realise that when the campaign starts bashing FF will only be part of the battle and the people will want to know what is going to be the replacement government. Winning an election just bashing FF is an impossibility to my way of thinking.
At this moment Kenny is a generally accepted disaster even within his own party
Bruton anytime I hear him talks in absolute riddles
Gilmore doesnt to much tv or radio for some reason but I saw him once on Frontline and it was embarrasing, he said the empty house should be given to those who need them. Whan the asked the obvious question about who will pay the rent he blabbered nonsense.
There is no issue with FF as we know all about them but my oh my knowledge of the opposition gets lesser and lesser every day

Laminations · 03-03-2010 04:47PM

scr123 wrote: »

At this moment Kenny is a generally accepted disaster even within his own party
Bruton anytime I hear him talks in absolute riddles
Gilmore doesnt to much tv or radio for some reason but I saw him once on Frontline and it was embarrasing, he said the empty house should be given to those who need them. Whan the asked the obvious question about who will pay the rent he blabbered nonsense.
There is no issue with FF as we know all about them but my oh my knowledge of the opposition gets lesser and lesser every day

And who is accusing who of 'bashing'??
Go inform yourself of their policies and stop being so lazy. We all know about FF and yet you still want to be convinced.

Liam Byrne · 03-03-2010 06:12PM

scr123 wrote: »

Have checked this Thread a few times to see if there is anything said that will persuade me to vote for the opposition come the next election.

I have no interest in "persuading you to vote for the opposition" - that's the opposition's job, not mine. As long as you just don't vote for FF, then that's fine by me.

And remember - it's not about "policies" per se; it's easy for everyone to talk about the same things.

It's about compentence, corruption and accountability.

scr123 wrote: »

There is no issue with FF as we know all about them but my oh my knowledge of the opposition gets lesser and lesser every day

If you "know all about" FF, then you'd surely see an issue!

Or are seriously suggesting that you're perfectly OK with a Government voting confidence in a disgraced former minister ?

BluntGuy · 03-03-2010 08:58PM

scr123 wrote: »

Bruton anytime I hear him talks in absolute riddles. Gilmore doesnt to much tv or radio for some reason but I saw him once on Frontline and it was embarrasing, he said the empty house should be given to those who need them. Whan the asked the obvious question about who will pay the rent he blabbered nonsense.
There is no issue with FF as we know all about them but my oh my knowledge of the opposition gets lesser and lesser every day

Actually, most of the time Bruton makes cohesive and intelligent points. And I say that as someone who would be minded to vote for Labour come the next election.

The next part I've highlighted - "blabbered nonsense" sums up the majority of FF politician's responses to questions. The one thing FF excel at often, is making themselves look like they know what they're talking about to those who are unfortunately ignorant or uninformed. Brian Lenihan is a perfect example of this.

I think many of Labour and FG's members need to get better at answering questions, but FF is the worst offender in this regard, so I don't see how you could possibly be using this as a reason to discredit the opposition parties and not FF.

patmar · 03-03-2010 10:49PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That level of ignorance and dismissive attitude is typical FF.

The REASON there's a "party bias" is BECAUSE OF FF's f**k-ups and deluded arrogance!

What part of that don't FF supporters get ?

Are ye that deluded that ye don't even see that ruining and economy and voting confidence in lying con-men is WRONG ??? :rolleyes:

Sorry but I find that post personally offensive to me. Have spotted your name on a few Threads and your style of debate doesnt appeal to me. Would you mind ignoring my posts in future. Thank you

trapsagenius · 03-03-2010 10:59PM

zootroid wrote: »

Ahern was Taoiseach for about 9 months at the time the Good Friday Agreement was signed, so FF can hardly take all the credit for it.

Actually FF can.Reynolds laid the groundwork and gave a good example of how to deal with NI.This work was completely ruined by Bruton and FG, but when FF came back in 1997 they succeeded in getting most of NI together to push for peace eventually resulting in the Good Friday Agreement.Actually I'll contradict myself and say Blair and people like Mo Mowlan also deserve credit.But FF still deserve a lion's share.

QUOTE[/BQUOTE=jmayo;64729117]Yet another one comes out of the woodwork.

I don't recall any other government presiding over the wholesale destruction of our banking system, not through any external influences as they claim, but actually through active internal homegrown policies that were designed to funnel money to really only one sector of the economy which happened to have a lot of ff party supporters and benefactors.[QUOTE]

The homegrown policies were not designed to funnel money to one sector of the economy.If you believe that you're deluded.I never argued the current government was good, I just disagreed with you that the current government is the worst government in the history of the state.I do recall governments that doubled the national debt, refused to row back on public sector wages, signed a ridiculous agreement that they hoped would bring peace to NI but instead prolonged the conflict for several more years and had unemployment in the country above 15%-all this without a banking crisis.

[QUOTE]Oh and here is the real kicker it will probably cost the taxpayers anything up to 30 or 40 billion to rectify this mess since they are ones that are going to inherit all the sh** from these banks.

Note: I am assuming that to bail out the banks for the lets say 70 odd billion of debts for argument sake, that through NAMA and recapitalisation we will affectively pour half of that amount down a hole that we will never see again.
I have seen or heard nothing that would give me a different opinion than what was graphically displayed in both the mcanamara and carooll/Zoe cases before the coutrts.

Ah, yes the "NAMA is an abomination" argument.Well this really depends on whether you think NAMA was necessary or not.I, personally, agreed with the economists who wrote into the IT and have come to the conclusion that NAMA is a necessary evil.This topic has been done on several threads before.

Banks walk away, top bankers walk away, developers walk away thanks to limited companies, declaring bankruptcy, having all assets in trust to family, spouses owning all assets or living overseas.
The only ones that can't walk away are it seems the taxpayers.[QUOTE]

Don't give me that self-pitying rubbish.People who took out loans and mortgages they couldn't afford also had a part to play in the economic crisis.The general public are not as innocent as they are portrayed.This was also done a different thread if memory serves.

[QUOTE]So can you name any other governments bar the last two dominated by ff, that managed to inherit a growing export orientated economy and yet turn it into a one trick unsustainable construction bubble which once deflated has resulted in massive overnight unemployment jump, huge jump in current budget deficit because increased spending was based on the bubble taxes ?

Go on give it a go, I need a laugh to see how you spin this one.B]QUOTE[/B

I don't have to name another a government who did this.No 2 governments are the same so how could I possibly be expected to answer such a specific question?And again, I never said the current government was good-I just pointed out there were worse ones.

B]QUOTE[/BIn 1997 bertie and ff inherited a growing eocnomy and he managed to keep things relatively sane until 2002.
Then he managed to blow that economy by concentrating on us flogging houses to each other (no exports there) all funded by cheap credit sourced outside the country (imports of sort me thinks).

"Concentrating us"?If you are so easily manipulated I feel sorry for you.No-one forced anyone to take out a loan they couldn't afford.

[QUOTE]Yeah whatever you say. :rolleyes:
I don't recall that FG government inheriting a thriving economy and driving it onto the rocks leaving thousands in debt up to their necks, the banks completly insolvent and the 40 odd billion bill to refloat them on the taxpayers.

Nice of you to even mention corruption, seen as it's not a very important topic in ff circles. :rolleyes:[QUOTE]

Here we go again with the specific comparisions.If you want to compare 2 governments, you look at the merits and demerits of each government individually-you don't highlight all the demerits of one government and see if the exact same demerits are present in another when judging.

B]QUOTE[/BAlthough if you don't agree with corruption and don't condone it, why do you vote for a party that has had most of it's top members in tribunals over the years trying to explain why they have had a propensity for dealing in cash whose existence they can't adequately explain.B]QUOTE[/B

I won't be voting for FF in the next election.I haven't made up my mind fully yet but I'm leaning towards Labour.

A final point-you really should try to get less worked up in your posts-if I disagree with you I don't mean it as a personal affront.

BTW, does putting your points in bold lend them extra credence?

Laminations wrote: »

This is all well and good but the choice facing us now is not the current incompetent FF vs. the incompetent FG from the 80s, the choice facing us now is a current and incompetent FF vs. a current and more competent opposition. Its quite frankly an easy choice

I know it isn't.And I won't be voting for FF in the next election.Its just jmayo asserted that the current government is the worst ever-I don't believe this to be true and felt I had to say it.

zootroid · 03-03-2010 11:02PM

BluntGuy wrote: »

Actually, most of the time Bruton makes cohesive and intelligent points. And I say that as someone who would be minded to vote for Labour come the next election.

The next part I've highlighted - "blabbered nonsense" sums up the majority of FF politician's responses to questions. The one thing FF excel at often, is making themselves look like they know what they're talking about to those who are unfortunately ignorant or uninformed. Brian Lenihan is a perfect example of this.

I think many of Labour and FG's members need to get better at answering questions, but FF is the worst offender in this regard, so I don't see how you could possibly be using this as a reason to discredit the opposition parties and not FF.

Or else just take a look at Mary Coughlan's recent interview with the BBC. In particular the segment about emigration.

Liam Byrne · 03-03-2010 11:41PM

I'm going to ask this as a straight question.

It seems like many are dismissing the apparently valid concerns of some posters like myself re corruption and misguided "votes of confidence" as some sort of "bias".

And the other approach appears to be simply dissing the opposition and Kenny, despite seeming to back the incompetence of the likes of Coughlan and the fact that FF stands behind the likes of O'Dea, O'Donoghue and Ahern and "votes confidence" in them.

So I'm phrasing this as a straight question this time around; are those who are dismissing the concerns perfectly OK and happy to support the above ?

And if they are not happy with the above (like the rest of us), why does pointing those out grate so much or get written off as "bias" ?

Is it not a valid - and informed - opinion to be concerned about these and to reject FF on that basis ?

paddyland · 08-03-2010 01:25PM

Seems there is no question about that last point...

The real Fianna Fáil issue

Comments