Why would you give Labor your vote ?

Eliot Rosewater · 17-06-2010 3:54pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I'm not agreeing with Pride Fighters list of reasons.

I didn't say you did. I was using it to illustrate that many of the reasons given to vote Labour are only reasons to not vote FF.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

As said already without the figures to hand no party outside of the coalition can accurately say what they will to do.

They can make a rough guess at the figures and outline their broad approach.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If you had read through all the thread like i suggested in my last reply to you then you would have seen for yourself that the poster has been exposed as someone vehemently anti-Labour.

Firstly, I have read the thread. Why should the OP's stance matter? Does that make what he's saying somehow wrong? Are you saying we should only accept criticism from those that agree with us?

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Not a LP member or supporter, again if you had read through the thread you would know this.

With respect, your constant supporting of them here along with this

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Labour have for decades championed the causes of electoral reform, universal healthcare, reinvention of the public services and making Ireland internationally competitive, Ruari Quinn is the only man with the necessary experience to guide the economy back to growth as a MoF.

would seem to indicate otherwise. But if you say you don't support them then that's enough for me. Unfortunately no one addressed my post, I'll stick a link to it in my sig or something.

OxfordComma · 17-06-2010 4:03pm

There seems to be a lot of anti-Labour sentiment on this forum!

I have no real affiliation to any political party, and I'm not particularly politics-savvy at all so please excuse my ignorance, but it seems to me that quite a lot of people see Labour as the only real alternative to the current government, which might explain why people would be willing to vote for them. I'd never vote for FF and I'm sure a lot of people would be of the same viewpoint, FG currently seem to be a complete mess in the light of recent developments, and the less said about SF the better, so there's not a lot left to work with! Labour basically seem like the "least bad" Irish political party right now. I know that's not a valid reason to vote for them, but what other choice do we have? Plus, they seem, on the face of it, to have quite good social policies on things like education, equality, children's rights etc. I've been trying to do some research on their website but it's very difficult to figure out what exactly their economic policies are, and as far as I can tell that's the main reason people here are against Labour.

If Bruton comes out successfully from this leadership battle I'd possibly consider voting FG, because he at least seems to be quite a capable politican/economist. I think I'll have to continue my research first before making my mind up though...

invinciblePRSTV · 17-06-2010 4:13pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I didn't say you did. I was using it to illustrate that many of the reasons given to vote Labour are only reasons to not vote FF.

Fair enough.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

They can make a rough guess at the figures and outline their broad approach.

Guess? kinda pointless tbh.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Firstly, I have read the thread. Why should the OP's stance matter? Does that make what he's saying somehow wrong? Are you saying we should only accept criticism from those that agree with us?

Again, and this is the last time i'm going to reference this because clearly you seem unable or unwilling to read through the thread, the OP maintained a dual position of extreme criticism of LP policies on the one hand whilst claiming ignorance of LP policies on the other hand.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

With respect, your constant supporting of them here along with this

I'm au fait with most parties electoral promises going back a couple of decades, if you can find the time away from posting on here you can reference my claims of Labours electoral promises, it goes with the territory when you study Irish politics in detail so please don't make assumptions like that.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

would seem to indicate otherwise. But if you say you don't support them then that's enough for me. Unfortunately no one addressed my post, I'll stick a link to it in my sig or something.

As i said don't make assumptions unless you can back it up.

Drumpot · 17-06-2010 4:19pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Again, and this is the last time i'm going to reference this because clearly you seem unable or unwilling to read through the thread, the OP maintained a dual position of extreme criticism of LP policies on the one hand whilst claiming ignorance of LP policies on the other thread.
.

Actually, my main problem was with their policies on the most important problems that this country faces which they have been unclear on throughout the crisis . .

I outlined them, I was refferred to their website which dont actually answer my questions . . Croke park agreement and dealing with the banks going forward on not clearly defined, nor is how they intend to make the cuts and fund their socialist measures . . When Howlin was pushed (on frontline) to discuss their 3bil in cuts in more debth he simply couldnt . . If one of their TDs cant expand on their plans, how should I be expected to have confidence in their proposed policys ?

Drumpot · 17-06-2010 4:30pm

1fahy4 wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of anti-Labour sentiment on this forum!
..

Do a search on this forum for FF and you will see all the threads going through their policies and their mistakes . .

Do the same for FG and you will see less, but a decent amount of people scrutinising the party. .

Do the same for labour and you will see much fewer . .

If labour are going to be a major party, they need to be scrutinised like a major party . . Its not anti labour to ask the party (and their supporters) to expand on their plans . . Many people cant engage in open debates here, instead of saying nothing, they are just compelled to try to ruin this thread by attacking the motivation of its origin.

Apart from Trolls, the only people who would want there to be little or no debate on labours policys are their supporters who feel that they are truthfully lacking in substance and wont hold up under scrutiny . . If they have nothing to hide and are confident in their approach to the economy, it should not be a problem discussing it. .

Some people have taken the stance that I am anti labour . . While ill informed, it doesnt make a differance because nobody has actually addressed my concerns . . I was reffered to their 9 principles which dont actually address the major immediate problems of the country and they are very vague in how they will make cuts and savings . . Since this is apparantly a strategy used by every other party, why was I pointed to their website? (if I would see the same waffle I will get on other party websites). .

invinciblePRSTV · 17-06-2010 4:36pm

Drumpot wrote: »

Actually, my main problem was with their policies on the most important problems that this country faces which they have been unclear on throughout the crisis . .

I outlined them, I was refferred to their website which dont actually answer my questions . . Croke park agreement and dealing with the banks going forward on not clearly defined, nor is how they intend to make the cuts and fund their socialist measures . . When Howlin was pushed (on frontline) to discuss their 3bil in cuts in more debth he simply couldnt . . If one of their TDs cant expand on their plans, how should I be expected to have confidence in their proposed policys ?

Then why did you previously say that a Labour Government in power would lead to a 'collapse' in the economy and lead to an 'anarchic' society? What are you basing this on seeing as you claim ignorance to LP policy?

Permabear · 17-06-2010 4:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Drumpot · 17-06-2010 4:39pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Then why did you previously say that a Labour Government in power would lead to a 'collapse' in the economy and lead to an 'anarchic' society? What are you basing this on seeing as you claim ignorance to LP policy?

I was basing this on the reason why they have become popular . . Its mainly been because of the poor performance of the opposition, not because of their rise in competency. .

I was on the frontline when Howlin stuttered over how exactly he would make the savings required and fund the deficit . . How else can we judge a potential government if they cannot even articulate their own economic policies!

A government built on the anger of electorate at the alternative is asking for trouble . . Nothing is guaranteed but if people do not ask serious questions of very flimsy but stylish economic policy's , we will collapse . . We cannot afford a procrastinating government , let alone one that cant actually discuss their policies. .

oppenheimer1 · 17-06-2010 4:40pm

gandalf wrote: »

That is a councillors job and that is what's wrong with National Politics in this country.

All the money and thus power comes from central government, so further devolvement of powers to Local authorities is necessary. Some way in which they could manage their own budgets would be good. If this new property tax is to be introduced I would like to see it be in hands of the Local authorities to fund their work. Rates at the moment do this to a certain extent as do other revenue raising operations but its not enough.

Its only when councillors really have the ability to change the numbers on both sides of the balance sheet will remove the parish pump from the dáil. When the answer to a constituent question from all parties is you'd be better talking to the councillor I cannot help with that, legislators will be free to legislate.

me_right_one · 17-06-2010 4:44pm

If Bruton wins this, I'll vote FG next time

me_right_one · 17-06-2010 4:49pm

Ah well

Eliot Rosewater · 17-06-2010 5:01pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Guess? kinda pointless tbh.

So you're saying parties should make no effort to offer an alternative?

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Again, and this is the last time i'm going to reference this because clearly you seem unable or unwilling to read through the thread, the OP maintained a dual position of extreme criticism of LP policies on the one hand whilst claiming ignorance of LP policies on the other hand.

Fair enough.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I'm au fait with most parties electoral promises going back a couple of decades, if you can find the time away from posting on here you can reference my claims of Labours electoral promises, it goes with the territory when you study Irish politics in detail so please don't make assumptions like that.

I don't get what you mean here. I quoted you saying that Ruari Quinn should become MoF. Perhaps you wrote it in the wrong tense.

I fail to see what the assumption is either.

Anyway, I don't see what the past has to do with anything. People are constantly saying "look what Labour did in 1994". I'm not interested in 1994. I'm interested in what they're going to do now.

Dob74 · 17-06-2010 5:47pm

Drumpot wrote: »

Thanks for that Dob74 . . It gave me a good laugh . .

Disclaimer: For the people who struggle with analogies, I used below one for simplistic reference as to why I believe most people will follow populist rhetoric that they relate to. I am not looking to compare anything to the actual holocost, more trying to show an example of how people can be irrational in giving power to those who may not be the best choice, but whom are offering things that sound better. . Try to stick with me . . If you refer to the holocost in disgust/dismay, chances are the point went way way over your head and I suggest you save yourself the embarrasment by just staying grumpily silent while you google it. .

I Was thinking about the theory 10-80-10 . . (pareto principle in economics)

Its used in finance but was also used (in some form) to explain why the German people followed Hitler into the holocost. . I heard a historian of German culture discuss it (missed bits but got the idea).

10% of people will think one way (always look for change/progression)
10% of People will think another way (alwasy opposed to change)
80% of people will follow one way or another

This 80% of people need to be convinced to follow one of the 10% "leaders" . .

In this case the percentage figures are differant as there are several parties, but the principles are similar . .

You have a small percentage of people who feel passionatly about the principles of their parties and they will try to convince others to follow them.

You also have a small percentage of people who dont follow parties, but feel passionatly about politics and how our country is governed. These will try to get people to think about why they vote and consider it carefully. They will question conventional wisdom and look for society to progress through constructive change.

Then we have the masses who love to see a leader that they can relate to or hear things from the media that appeal to them . . They like to follow common consensus. . Somebody questioned why I would trust an FF PR for education on how the electorate make up their minds . . Well the fact that we had Bertie for years and corrupt TDs still got re-elected for them tells me they know a fair bit about getting the electorate to follow them (or what pushes the electorates buttons).

Even in boards.ie to many, if you dont say something bad about FF, you must be Brian Cowans lovechild or work for them . . Its inconcievable that people should try to objectively discuss politics in Ireland without speaking about everything that represents FF being corrupt . . Its also not cool to blame the electorate and anyways nobody ever voted FF and everybody who takes the moral highground did whatever they could to get FF out of power (strikes, marches, but none of us actually saw or heard of them so we will just have to take their word for it!). . .

Right now we have a similar situation with Labour. They relate to the majority of people who are simply so disillusioned with FF and FG, they are following the party that appears to be offering the least painful alternative without considering how taking less pain now can lead the country into a prolonged depression . .

One of the most important point is looking at why Gilemores popularity has risen and asking serious questions of his ability to lead Ireland 2010 forward with the crippling debt he would inherit . . His popularity has risen, not because he has been super popular and creates confidence in everybody. Not because his economic strategy is clearly in the best interests of our COUNTRY for the longer term.

No, its mainly because the Opposition is weak and lacking in publics confidence and more importantly because our economy is in the sh*ts and its always popular to hate the government in these times . . By constantly pointing it out (that people are fed up with FF), while it may be the truth, its simply saying that Gilemores popularity is mainly down to the letdown of FF & FG and deflects attention from proper discussion on his own competency.

Gilemore getting angry to mirror us all . . Gilemore telling a majority of us what we like to hear (hell I love alot of the stuff he says) . . But nobody asking him exactly how he intends to do it. Not only that he wont actually commit to important issues that have to be sorted immediatly and his followers appear to feel that FF bashing resolves all important questions . . This is a simple case of the Irish Electorate failing very basic due diligence in favour of throwing a hail mary vote for Labour . .

Its funny how we, as a nation, didnt care much for banking overcharging, TDs expenses and how our nations money was being spent until it all crashed down . . Its a very similar thing to not care much for what labour will do to fix our country, but make "not being FF" one of your biggest reasons for voting for them, in truth its learning nothing from our mistakes. Ah yes, we didnt care much for labours policies during the boom because we all wanted more , otherwise how are they so popular now ? But wait ! This is what happens in these economic times - but why is that acceptable ? Thats an inhibiting way of encouraging progression . . "Its the norm, so lets just run with it"!

Ah but sure what else can we do eh ? Not Voting in an FF candidate (even if they would be a brilliant TD) is the correct course of action because we are angry and voting for Anybody but FF means we show FF we are angry and they learn a lesson (but opposition party that was lame duck enough during the boom to actually demand more spending learns that no matter how sh*t you are , even in opposition, will learn that if the other guy makes a huge cock up, chances are you will be voted in anger/dismay at the other guy) . .

Yes, being angry at our government for their part in the ruining of our countrys economy will be solved by voting for anybody but them . . Or at least it will give us some satisfaction that our very mistake has been rectified by getting rid of them for any alternative offering anything but a FF flyer . .

All balance is restored as the right party is voted in for the right reasons . .

?????

I think the question was why do you vote for the Labour Party.
In my response I did not mention Gilmore once. Personally I dont think Gilmore is that great a leader. He is steady like Enda Kenny.

FF and FG have gone for a neo-liberal economy model. I think they have swung to far to the right, therefore I wil not vote for them.

What are there populist policies?
After Labour opposed the bank bail out, Joan Bruton was attacked by nearly everyone. FF stacked a Q&A audience with there supporters the week after the bail out to attack labour policy. Everyone else on the panel joined in. So do you support an unlimited bailout? Vote for FF&FG. I dont so I will vote Labour.

Do you have any examples of Gilmore's Hitler like tendencies or are you just echoing FF/FG spin in the media, since the times poll showed Labour as number one. Labour made the tough chioce in opposing the bailout. Everyone else was prepared to let them off and not bring things to a head.

Drumpot · 17-06-2010 7:55pm

Dob74 wrote: »

?????

I think the question was why do you vote for the Labour Party.
In my response I did not mention Gilmore once. Personally I dont think Gilmore is that great a leader. He is steady like Enda Kenny.

FF and FG have gone for a neo-liberal economy model. I think they have swung to far to the right, therefore I wil not vote for them.

What are there populist policies?
After Labour opposed the bank bail out, Joan Bruton was attacked by nearly everyone. FF stacked a Q&A audience with there supporters the week after the bail out to attack labour policy. Everyone else on the panel joined in. So do you support an unlimited bailout? Vote for FF&FG. I dont so I will vote Labour.

Do you have any examples of Gilmore's Hitler like tendencies or are you just echoing FF/FG spin in the media, since the times poll showed Labour as number one. Labour made the tough chioce in opposing the bailout. Everyone else was prepared to let them off and not bring things to a head.

Firstly, I genuinley thought your post was a piss take . . I wasnt being condescending, obviously I gave you more credit then you deserved.

Secondly, the rest of my post was not directed at you. . As per above, I thought you were having a laugh and felt it did not require a reply.

Thirdly the very fact you think I compared Hitler and Gilemore shows you just didnt get my point . . Where did I mention Hitler ? Try to read my disclaimer properly, I think it explains my point quite clearly that the point is about the masses following a leader without question, even when questions should be asked.

I am asking fair questions on labour before we make a mistake and make them leaders without a challenge and people here seem to resent it . . They have decided that labour deserve a "free run" to power without question, simply because they are viewed as being the most palatable of what is widely regarded as sub standard party's . .

I dont think that this stuff is rocket science . . Its a basic assessment of how people come to make decisions (in this case who they will follow) . . There is a very "you are either with or against" approach to discussions on boards.ie . . People just cant comprehend those who like to debate the merits of a topic on all sides. .

invinciblePRSTV · 17-06-2010 11:35pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So you're saying parties should make no effort to offer an alternative?

They do offer an alternative, a published manifesto at Dail election time.

When elections aren't on its the trudge of day to day politics Irish style with some occasional policy documents accompanied with minor media blitz (like examples mentioned previously), generally these occur as issues arise like head shops or health disasters.

If anything, policy formulation is way down the list of priorities of all Irish parties. First and foremost is individual politicians electoral machine have to be maintained. This means constituency work, then Dail work, then of course there's all the important media operations/black ops machines of the party, then maybe party organisation. I've always found that despite numerous 'commissions' & 'committees' mentioned by partys over the years, most party policies tend to be the preserve of TDs going on a solo run and get a little media coverage, or the previously mentioned PR stunts.

Until a general election is called that is, then the Manifestos emerge.

*edit and of course party conventions, although i find most motions passed at party conventions are really ever serious, more aspirations and reaffirming of principles.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't get what you mean here. I quoted you saying that Ruari Quinn should become MoF. Perhaps you wrote it in the wrong tense. I fail to see what the assumption is either.

I read it as you allege I'm a LP supporter because i said Ruari Quinn was the best finance minister Ireland has had in the past 2 decades, considering the competition (Ahern, McCreevy, Cowen,) i don't think thats fair to say.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Anyway, I don't see what the past has to do with anything. People are constantly saying "look what Labour did in 1994". I'm not interested in 1994. I'm interested in what they're going to do now.

I disagree. I do look at the past. I could have told you 8 years ago FF were going to balls up the economy, still people voted for them in their droves. I'll even wager that if a Coalition of LAB/FG do somehow save the economy the voters will still kick them out and return FF at some point.

the electorate tend to vote more for left parties when the economy is gone to pot, just like when Dick Spring rode into power on a record vote for Labour in 1992 after the Tallaght Strategy. The free market zealots on here somehow can't grasp that the electorate, the people who don't have Hayek, Von Mises & Friedman on their to-read-list, don't tend to respond well at the polling booths when savage cuts to the public services are a partys main USP.

So for Labour, their policy documents will come as will their manifesto. I sincerely doubt this will satisfy their critics on the right, but if the LP are riding high in the polls then i don't think they'll care what individuals like you or i think. They'll still make the cuts if in power i imagine, they are not that left wing. Ruari Quinn TD certainly isn't!.

killbillvol2 · 18-06-2010 1:35am

Drumpot wrote: »

I said it to prevent the Joe Duffy brigade (those of a sensitive nature) having a go at me for using the term "holocost", not to be condescending. Its only condescending to those who didnt get it - "google the holocost"? :P

You say you dont understand what I said, but yet confidently call it "schoolboy ramblings" ? Ah we mock what we do not understand . .

And my spelling is poor . . I find people bring this up when they actually have nothing to contribute to the debate and try to get some sort of dig to deflect attention away from their own inability to confidently get any points across . .

Drumpot wrote: »

Firstly, I genuinley thought your post was a piss take . . I wasnt being condescending, obviously I gave you more credit then you deserved.

Secondly, the rest of my post was not directed at you. . As per above, I thought you were having a laugh and felt it did not require a reply.

Thirdly the very fact you think I compared Hitler and Gilemore shows you just didnt get my point . . Where did I mention Hitler ? Try to read my disclaimer properly, I think it explains my point quite clearly that the point is about the masses following a leader without question, even when questions should be asked.

I am asking fair questions on labour before we make a mistake and make them leaders without a challenge and people here seem to resent it . . They have decided that labour deserve a "free run" to power without question, simply because they are viewed as being the most palatable of what is widely regarded as sub standard party's . .

I dont think that this stuff is rocket science . . Its a basic assessment of how people come to make decisions (in this case who they will follow) . . There is a very "you are either with or against" approach to discussions on boards.ie . . People just cant comprehend those who like to debate the merits of a topic on all sides. .

I should have made myself a bit clearer yesterday. If you're going to talk down to people you need to have the intellectual capacity to do it.

And ffs the man's name is Gilmore.

limklad · 18-06-2010 9:51am

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Are you intentionally ignoring what sceptre said? The level of income tax does affect businesses profit. I'll illustrate with an example.

Suppose a business wants to hire some high skilled worker. Said worker demands $100,000 take home pay (his gross doesn't really matter, it's what he actually gets that counts). In Country A there is a 20% rate, in Country B there is a 40% rate.

Business A in Country A would have to pay the worker $125,000 gross so that he'd get $100,000 net.

Business B in Country B would have to pay the worker $166,000 gross so that he'd get $100,000 net.

So there's a difference in the cost by $41,000 that the employer will have to pay.
Hence, income tax is a cost for employers.

You have completely ignore what media, reports etc, which have said about this recession that very high skilled people in most professions are out of work, not just here in Ireland but throughout the world. Some area have a very modest recovery from the free fall crash, but no where near the levels of the boom.

This is not Traditional Recession by any standards, where normal low to medium skill workers normally lose Jobs. In this non-traditional recession, there are many highly qualified professional people of all kinds from Engineers of all kind, accountant, solicitors, Architects, etc, are all effected . Now workers from Health Industries are letting go people and as well as Pharmaceutical and chemicals Industries, which is very worrying, which suggest that our recovery is not under way.

I have talk to alot of people from different backgrounds and no one seem to know the best area to train in except for Energy renewable sector, biology research and environment waste and recycling solutions, because that where there is grants and investments are been put into. Those sectors cannot sustain us long term. That is also a very small group of people of Highly skill people who also competes with the world for that Money.
When we done with the research to make the product they come up with, The Far east and eastern Europe does the manufacturing. Manufacturing is where the main driver of economy as it gives low skill job to people who are not qualified for high skill jobs.
The reason we are losing manufacturing jobs is that we are still way too expensive in running cost to do business. From services costs such as electricity, rates, Insurance, contractors to wages are higher than other countries.

We need a far wider range of Jobs including more manufacturing jobs to secure our economy. I have to be fair in saying this but not all people can do research in smart economy. We need a wide range of Jobs from low skills to highly skilled people and Have a look at the School system, not everybody is smart enough or able to go to college and others cannot afford to go, and when the Government are going to cut back on Grants for Third Level Tuition, they will be far more drop outs.

The first time in decades out Graduates are out of Jobs from across the spectrum of courses that comes out of our collages and universities.
Normally they emigrate now as in the past in previous recession, but today there is not mass exodus leaving the country as seen in the past that is because they can't, due to shortages of Jobs out in the usual places such as the US, Canada, England, Europe, Australia, etc. Australia while have not gone into a recession they are now a huge surplus of workers to fill their jobs. The only exodus leaving our Shores are foreigners going back home or elsewhere and that small numbers.

It is an employer Market, not employees/workers. There are few new Jobs out there and Wages are not rising, if they did you will see that in Tax returns in the government coffers. Wages did not increase since the "Income Levy" increase for all intended purposes that is in all but name which is an "Income Tax" increase. "They call it an "Income Levy" because of some law that they cannot increase Income Tax within the financial year.
The Government did say they will increase this Levy again before the term of their office is finish so you don;t nee Labour for that, just keep the present incumbent in Power for that. Wages have not risen since the "Income Levy" was Introduced, wages bills have done the opposite, they have fallen in many areas of the economy. Many people have taken pay cuts to keep their business alive. They are many business across the country that are still struggling to survive.

Wages are Falling because of the Lack of Work and people willing to work for less rather than be out of a job!! It is naive to believe otherwise.

Eliot Rosewater · 18-06-2010 10:15am

How does that have anything to do with what I said? Unless you think that the income tax rate doesn't matter because people don't have alternatives? Well, it looks like Ireland's going to be pretty slow in recovering, and in a few years alternatives will re-emerge.

limklad · 18-06-2010 10:28am

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

How does that have anything to do with what I said? Unless you think that the income tax rate doesn't matter because people don't have alternatives?

This is what you stated on previous Post.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Labour's policy contains, unsurprisingly, an increase in income tax. Income tax directly erodes the profits of those doing business here. In our modern world, people aren't afraid to up sticks and leave. And if you raise tax, this is exactly what employers and high skilled workers will begin to do.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, it looks like Ireland's going to be pretty slow in recovering, and in a few years alternatives will re-emerge.

What Alternatives? There is no foresight in the Government plan on Alternatives. They been banging the drum on Smart Economy and jobs in services Industries for many many years now since we started hemogering Manufacturing Jobs in larger scale 6 years ago. It is recent times we lost Jobs in Services and construction which hit us the most this time, with the exception of companies like Dell, Intel, Pfizer, Wyeth, etc who provide manufacturing Jobs and support job via third party companies.

While I don't like all of Labour Policies, they have far more creditability than what remains.

Deise Tom · 18-06-2010 11:39am

Fuhrer wrote: »

Labour

They are a bit like Tiger Woods. They have a load of Clubs.

You have Labour that was formed was it in 1912, then you have Democratic Left who joined up with them in 1999 who in turn broke away from The Workers Party seven years earlier, and they broke away from Sinn Fein at some stage, therefore there claim to be the only party in Ireland who have had no connection with the Civil War does not stand up.

thebigcheese22 · 18-06-2010 12:15pm

Deise Tom wrote: »

They are a bit like Tiger Woods. They have a load of Clubs.

You have Labour that was formed was it in 1912, then you have Democratic Left who joined up with them in 1999 who in turn broke away from The Workers Party seven years earlier, and they broke away from Sinn Fein at some stage, therefore there claim to be the only party in Ireland who have had no connection with the Civil War does not stand up.

In fairness, both FF and FG both split away from Sinn Féin. And DL were in government in the Rainbow Coalition of 94-97 so it's not like they were some crazy fringe group (as the Blueshirts were when they merged with Cumman na Gael to form Fine Gael)

Deise Tom · 18-06-2010 12:27pm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

In fairness, both FF and FG both split away from Sinn Féin. And DL were in government in the Rainbow Coalition of 94-97 so it's not like they were some crazy fringe group (as the Blueshirts were when they merged with Cumman na Gael to form Fine Gael)

Never said that FG and FF were not splits from SF, but when you hear labour people claim that the civil war should be taken out of irish politics, and they are the only party with no link to it, it makes me sick.

Eliot Rosewater · 18-06-2010 12:42pm

limklad wrote: »

This is what you stated on previous Post.

Do you still deny the impact of income tax upon doing business?

limklad wrote: »

What Alternatives?

Any one of the other countries in the world.

limklad wrote: »

While I don't like all of Labour Policies, they have far more creditability than what remains.

How so? You alluded to the importance of manufacturing jobs, for which Ireland is totally uncompetitive. We sorely need to reduce the cost of doing business in this country. However Labour are against reducing the costs of government, are against reduced/rationalized wages in line with economic reality, are against reducing welfare, are against reducing the minimum wage and are for raising tax. Is this the credible way forward?

Eliot Rosewater · 18-06-2010 12:46pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

They do offer an alternative, a published manifesto at Dail election time.

So you don't think they should offer an alternative in the normal times? The major problem with this is that the Labour party can criticise everything being done even if it needs to be done. In the absence of a spelt-out alternative, people will be led to believe that harsh measures are not needed.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I read it as you allege I'm a LP supporter because i said Ruari Quinn was the best finance minister Ireland has had in the past 2 decades, considering the competition (Ahern, McCreevy, Cowen,) i don't think thats fair to say.

Firstly, you used the present tense indicating you think he should be MoF now.

Secondly, I said that your word that you aren't a Labour supporter was good enough for me.

Finally, I fail to see why your allegiance or my allegiance is in anyway relevant.

randombar · 18-06-2010 1:24pm

Pride Fighter wrote: »

There are many reasons to vote for Labour. I'll say what I think they are.

1) Labour are not Fianna Fail or Fine Gael or the PD's, as a result people realise that if centre-left, strong regulation economic policy was introduced earlier we'd not be in the mess we are in now.

2) Fianna Fail are incompetent and Labour are not.

3) Labour's leader is the only viable Taoiseach.

4) Labour's policies would have dealt with the banking crisis at less expense to the tax payer. If the banks were nationalised in late 08 early 09 it could have been done for less than 2 billion. Also opposing the guarantee would have meant that moribund bank Anglo-Irish would have hit the wall, which we all want to see.

5) Labour have good policies, 9 policy documents have been written in the last 6 months http://www.labour.ie/policy/

6) Labour are a strong united party. As a result only Labour can offer stable government needed to solve our current mess. If any other party is the largest in the state after the next election, there will be knives stuck in the backs of the various other parties. Not with Labour. Only a Labour led government can last 5 years. Unstable government will see credit downgradings, making borrowings more expensive.

7) Brian Cowen and the architects of the mess are not in our party.

8) Fianna Fail created this mess.

and many more.....

Pride a lot of your points are why you wouldn't vote for FF rather than why you would vote for Labour??

Also "If the banks were nationalised in late 08 early 09 it could have been done for less than 2 billion." where in gods name did you get those figures from????

invinciblePRSTV · 18-06-2010 2:22pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So you don't think they should offer an alternative in the normal times? The major problem with this is that the Labour party can criticise everything being done even if it needs to be done. In the absence of a spelt-out alternative, people will be led to believe that harsh measures are not needed.

Show me a party who is offering an alternative right now.

I also believe that people know full well that cuts are required, but it doesn't mean they'll happily vote for parties, like FG, whose base is traditonally found in middle & upper income earners who tend to respond well to ideologues like Varadkar using inflammatory language when calling for huge cuts to public services.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Firstly, you used the present tense indicating you think he should be MoF now.

Well out of all current TDs in Dail Eireann i believe Quinn has the best CV to be the next MoF. Can you suggest better?

sceptre · 18-06-2010 2:32pm

People, kindly stop personalising the discussion. It's rude, unproductive and not permitted by the forum charter...

Handbagging isn't all that either.

/mod

Eliot Rosewater · 18-06-2010 3:40pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Show me a party who is offering an alternative right now.

True, but that's not really an argument for Labour. All that's saying is that we've a pretty poor political class overall.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Well out of all current TDs in Dail Eireann i believe Quinn has the best CV to be the next MoF. Can you suggest better?

Richard Bruton: Masters in Economics from Oxford.

Anyway, to close off this part of the discussion, which sceptre correctly described as hand-bagging (sorry for that). It shouldn't matter what one's allegiances are. Even if I was a xenophobic zionist facist (?), that wouldn't make my criticisms of the Labour Paarty any better or any worse than they are with me as a liberal (though in some peoples' books, that's just as bad

). I think one should separate the criticism from the criticiser because undermining the criticiser does nothing to undermine the criticism.

limklad · 18-06-2010 4:04pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Do you still deny the impact of income tax upon doing business?

Not when it an Employers market and that if they can afford to hire people. It cut throat business in this recession and many managers are trying to keep staff while they hands are tied when it comes to costs. Most workers who leave jobs these days are not been replaced.
The only sectors where workers have certain skill set/specialised training in a particular area that is in high demand, which is rare in Ireland in this recession. Only those people can demand a higher wage.

There are many companies that cannot afford a wage increase like they used to. It will be several years before we can afford a wage increase for most of the working population.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Well, it looks like Ireland's going to be pretty slow in recovering, and in a few years alternatives will re-emerge.

Limklad wrote:

What Alternatives?

Any one of the other countries in the world.

That's your Solution!!!! It an easy Cop out. your solution is "To export our problem" and return us back to the old days of Immigration as per the depressing 80's.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

How so? You alluded to the importance of manufacturing jobs, for which Ireland is totally uncompetitive. We sorely need to reduce the cost of doing business in this country. However Labour are against reducing the costs of government, are against reduced/rationalized wages in line with economic reality, are against reducing welfare, are against reducing the minimum wage and are for raising tax. Is this the credible way forward?

I never disagree with Manufacturing is uncompetitive and I explained the reasons why. The Government need to address them. Manufacturing are the only method of gaining income to most low skill people. You continue to fail to read or understand my posts on this Thread on this subject.

Deise Tom · 18-06-2010 4:43pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

True, but that's not really an argument for Labour.

.

Labour are a party who are only saying what is popular to say right now. Having to carry out what need to be done is a total different kettle of fish.

Why would you give Labor your vote ?

Comments