Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The will of the people, or the greater good?

  • 13-02-2012 4:13pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭


    Some have suggested that since the public is opposed to austerity measures, that legislators should respect that and vote against these policies, regardless of what financial markets will do. Some have even offered that these kinds of decisions be put to a public vote, rather than decided in national legislatures.

    For me this raises the issue: what does representation mean then in a liberal democracy? Is it the role of politicians to only do what voters want, damn the consequences? If so, given the popularity of government spending - especially in good economic times - is there any way to prevent governments from spending countries into bankruptcy at the behest of the population? Or, should politicians vote in what they see as 'the national interest', even if this may go against popular opinion?

    I am not a fan of direct democracy, or populist governing. While I vote for people who broadly share my political views, I also expect them to sometimes set aside party politics or the 'popular' thing to do the 'right' thing (as amorphous as these principles may be!). In the case of austerity measures, I think it is appropriate that the same legislative bodies who approved past spending now have to approve present austerity measures (or at least negotiate the terms of them). In a representative democracy, I think we need to let the representatives do their jobs - our job as citizens is to hold them accountable for their decisions. Unfortunately, I think in a lot of cases - Ireland in particular - voter failure to do the latter in the past has helped lead to a crisis in the present.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,125 ✭✭✭SeanW


    But what if we had been given the chance to vote for the bank bailouts? We definitely would NOT have voted to piss ~€40bn up against Anglos wall!

    And what's more, it was not in the national interest to do so.

    Hence I think it's somewhat inaccurate to suggest that there's a simple choice between direct democracy and allowing us to be totally government by the political class "in the national interest," given the "no-billionaire-gambler left behind" approach that our current political class, at the insistence of our "friends" in Europe, that has been pursued at the moment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    I don't think it's true that the general public are against austerity measures. Despite what the ULA and the Occupied movement would have us believe, FG especially, and Labour too, were upfront about the cutbacks that would have to be implemented should they get elected. SF, the ULA and others, advocated a different approach, and they were roundly defeated at the polls. Furthermore, despite all the noise that the hard left is generating about the issue, a large plurality of people intend to pay the propery charge according to a Red C poll out last month.

    I think most people realise that austerity measures are necessary, and I think that's been reflected consistently in the support for the political parties proposing them- FG, Labour, and FF.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    SeanW wrote: »
    But what if we had been given the chance to vote for the bank bailouts? We definitely would NOT have voted to piss ~€40bn up against Anglos wall!

    And what's more, it was not in the national interest to do so.

    Hence I think it's somewhat inaccurate to suggest that there's a simple choice between direct democracy and allowing us to be totally government by the political class "in the national interest," given the "no-billionaire-gambler left behind" approach that our current political class, at the insistence of our "friends" in Europe, that has been pursued at the moment.

    But how did the "political class" get there in the first place? They were elected by the people.

    What, then, would you propose? Because I don't really see a middle ground between direct democracy and representative democracy. In addition, most countries allow for public referendums on constitutional issues.

    I don't think the current problems are due to a deficit of democracy, but rather a deficit of common sense and understanding of basic economics - among both elected officials and voters.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    When it was more than obvious that Ireland needed a government of national unity,our parties could not see that.
    i do not see why you say Ireland in particular ssr?
    the finance minister had a gun put to his head the night before the sweeping bank guarantee,until then the banks had being playing smoke and mirrors.
    Anglo was the mistake imo,but with such little notice and nobody fessing up,what was he to do?

    the EU for all its patronising pats on the back for Ireland are using us until they might see an alternative to bailouts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    SeanW wrote: »
    But what if we had been given the chance to vote for the bank bailouts? We definitely would NOT have voted to piss ~€40bn up against Anglos wall!

    And what's more, it was not in the national interest to do so.

    Hence I think it's somewhat inaccurate to suggest that there's a simple choice between direct democracy and allowing us to be totally government by the political class "in the national interest," given the "no-billionaire-gambler left behind" approach that our current political class, at the insistence of our "friends" in Europe, that has been pursued at the moment.

    We had a chance in 2007 to vote for someone to govern this country. We had in front of us an outgoing government when over the previous ten years when presented with any problem from grumbling old-age pensioners (free medical cards) to striking nurses and teachers (benchmarking) to expectant middle-class voters (SSIAs) just threw money at the problem. What did we do? We re-elected them. So what did they do when the problem of Anglo came along. They threw money at it. So why was anyone surprised. The Irish electorate had voted for a party whose clear record was to throw money at problems and that is what they did. Except this time, they didn't have enough money to throw at the problem.

    So like it or not, while we didn't vote for the specific issue of giving €40 bn to Anglo, we voted for a crowd who knew no other way of dealing with problems, so we voted for it. How people continue to forget that we elected that stupid FF government is beyond me.

    The OP makes a good point. We elect people to do the right thing because we can't trust ourselves and we should vote them out if they get it wrong. Look at us, we change our mind on Europe every 18 months if you think about our referenda results. We actually might have voted for the bank guarantee if given the chance in September 2008 - remember the idiots who told us it would be the cheapest bank bailout in the world, who wouldn't have wanted that deal?

    Arguably, the last election, by overseeing the demise of FF shows that representative democracy works (except in Cork South-Central, Limerick East and Galway West where we re-elected three of the biggest culprits).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Godge wrote: »
    We had a chance in 2007 to vote for someone to govern this country. We had in front of us an outgoing government when over the previous ten years when presented with any problem from grumbling old-age pensioners (free medical cards) to striking nurses and teachers (benchmarking) to expectant middle-class voters (SSIAs) just threw money at the problem. What did we do? We re-elected them. So what did they do when the problem of Anglo came along. They threw money at it. So why was anyone surprised. The Irish electorate had voted for a party whose clear record was to throw money at problems and that is what they did. Except this time, they didn't have enough money to throw at the problem.

    So like it or not, while we didn't vote for the specific issue of giving €40 bn to Anglo, we voted for a crowd who knew no other way of dealing with problems, so we voted for it. How people continue to forget that we elected that stupid FF government is beyond me.

    The OP makes a good point. We elect people to do the right thing because we can't trust ourselves and we should vote them out if they get it wrong. Look at us, we change our mind on Europe every 18 months if you think about our referenda results. We actually might have voted for the bank guarantee if given the chance in September 2008 - remember the idiots who told us it would be the cheapest bank bailout in the world, who wouldn't have wanted that deal?

    Arguably, the last election, by overseeing the demise of FF shows that representative democracy works (except in Cork South-Central, Limerick East and Galway West where we re-elected three of the biggest culprits).

    I never actually twigged the relationship between FF's throwing money at problems in order to make them go away, and the approach to the banking crisis. It's an interesting analogy. I might use it sometime! ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    The only answer IMO is to limit government so that it can't put such a burden on people who did nothing to deserve it. Under any kind of socialist (very broad obviously) system there's a "collective responsibility" that rests on the entire public which I think is wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    Godge, of course people will vote for a party that does not tax too much, is willing to borrow too much, and bury its head in the sand.
    hands up by any country that did not do it better times?
    that includes America where the OP comes from.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    amacachi wrote: »
    The only answer IMO is to limit government so that it can't put such a burden on people who did nothing to deserve it. Under any kind of socialist (very broad obviously) system there's a "collective responsibility" that rests on the entire public which I think is wrong.


    Do you understand the implications of that?

    You are saying that we shouldn't have to bear the burden of the bank bailout because it was people in the banks who made the stupid decisions.

    So we shouldn't have given compensation to the Hepatitis C victims because it was donors who had given us contaminated blood?
    So we shouldn't have given any compensation to victims of child abuse either?
    What about the nursing homes compensation? I am a taxpayers and I had nothing to do with how those people were treated, why should I pay for their compensation?
    What about the Stardust compensation tribunal? Small money but why should the state pay for it.

    All of the above are things that the government paid out on our behalf that would be outlawed by your proposal. Is that what you really want?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    As Godge said, the people of Ireland have answered time and again what they want from their Government. In 2002 this was some of the stuff contained in the Fine Gael manifesto under Michael Noonan
    This general election is not just about choosing a government. Far more impor tantly,
    it is about choosing the kind of Ireland we want for the future. The people now have the
    oppor tunity to choose between two kinds of Ireland.
    In this election, Fine Gael offers the people a radically different vision to that of Fianna
    Fáil and the PDs.
    For the past five years we have suffered from a government that has no par ticular vision
    at all – other than to cling on to power for as long as it possibly can.
    They have no coherent view of the future they want to create for Ireland -- except to wish
    for more of the same, to hope against hope that the good times will keep on rolling.
    Their approach is driven by a fixation of looking after their friends among the rich and
    power ful – hoping that some of the wealth and privilege they lavish on the top of our
    society will somehow, willy-nilly, trickle downwards and solve all our problem

    Fine Gael’s vision is of a forward-looking Ireland, that plans its future with care

    FF and Pds have let public spending get totally out of control. Compared to a promise to keep growth to
    4% a year, their actual annual spending growth averaged 15%. Then, as the boom slackened, they
    went on spending even faster last year, the growth hit a completely unsustainable 23%.
    This demolished an Exchequer surplus of €3bn in 2000, and public finances are now on course for a €6bn deficit in 2004
    Hold current spending growth to nominal growth in GDP plus 2%, subject to a current budget surplus of at least €2bn. Major spending to be only in the context of far-reaching reform.
    Appoint a cabinet Minister to lead a value-for-money drive. Reform the public sector to embrace reorganisation, per formance related pay, merit-based promotion and quality benchmarking


    Fine Gael got hammered in that election and Noonan had to step down. It's no wonder political parties in Ireland need to lie to get into office.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Godge wrote: »
    Do you understand the implications of that?

    You are saying that we shouldn't have to bear the burden of the bank bailout because it was people in the banks who made the stupid decisions.

    So we shouldn't have given compensation to the Hepatitis C victims because it was donors who had given us contaminated blood?
    So we shouldn't have given any compensation to victims of child abuse either?
    What about the nursing homes compensation? I am a taxpayers and I had nothing to do with how those people were treated, why should I pay for their compensation?
    What about the Stardust compensation tribunal? Small money but why should the state pay for it.

    All of the above are things that the government paid out on our behalf that would be outlawed by your proposal. Is that what you really want?

    I understand the implications perfectly. The state wouldn't be on the hook for such things because they wouldn't have been responsible to begin with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    amacachi wrote: »
    I understand the implications perfectly. The state wouldn't be on the hook for such things because they wouldn't have been responsible to begin with.

    Thanks for the clarification. While I don't agree with your views I am glad to see that someone has thought through things a bit more than just burn the bondholders etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
    countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

    most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.
    the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

    Democracy is becoming just another word for nothing left to lose.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    timesnap wrote: »
    I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
    countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

    most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.
    the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

    Democracy is becoming just another word for nothing left to lose.

    Tell me who are the people who didn't benefit from the good times?

    Who are the pensioners who didn't get the highest pensions in the Western World?
    Who are the parents who didn't get the highest child benefit in the world?
    Who are the public servants who didn't get the highest public service pay in the world?
    Who are the construction workers who didn't benefit from the biggest building boom in the world?
    Who are the unemployed who managed to avoid getting a job during the boom while picking up the highest social welfare rates in the world?
    Which country had the most special needs assistants per pupil in the world?
    Who are the private sector workers whose businesses didn't rip off all of the above and pay their workers more than anywhere else?
    Who are the people who didn't get the opportunity to build their dream home in the middle of nowhere thanks to the generosity of the banks and the planners?
    Who didn't get the opportunity to buy a computer and get an internet connection?

    Well, if you didn't benefit from any of the above it was because

    (1) You hid under a bush for ten years
    (2) You didn't make the most of your opportunities
    or (3) You behaved sensibly.

    There should be another 99% and 1%. The 1% are those that fall into (1) to (3), the 99% are those that benefitted from the boom.


    If you are in the case of (3) you didn't go overboard so you must be all right now. In the case of (2) you have only yourself to blame.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    Politicians are in the business of getting votes. That's why they follow 'the will of the people' rather than some democratic principles.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    Godge wrote: »
    Tell me who are the people who didn't benefit from the good times?
    Who are the pensioners who didn't get the highest pensions in the Western World?
    Is that not something to be proud of in the case of those who did not abuse it?
    Who are the parents who didn't get the highest child benefit in the world?
    too much was paid in cash to the parents rather than free crechs
    Who are the public servants who didn't get the highest public service pay in the world?
    who are the people who did not care at the time because they themselves were doing just nicely?
    Who are the construction workers who didn't benefit from the biggest building boom in the world?
    The people who worked hard when they could find work, but now are on the dole
    Who are the unemployed who managed to avoid getting a job during the boom while picking up the highest social welfare rates in the world?
    Why had the state neglected the genuine ones before the boom to the point were many had became unemployable.?
    why did Harney have to go on job fairs around the world when the tiger needed more feeding?
    Which country had the most special needs assistants per pupil in the world?
    again do you not feel proud of that?
    Who are the private sector workers whose businesses didn't rip off all of the above and pay their workers more than anywhere else?
    mostly left without private pensions because the funds collapsed.
    Who are the people who didn't get the opportunity to build their dream home in the middle of nowhere thanks to the generosity of the banks and the planners?
    Living in dangerous ghost estates in negative equity for the most part.
    Who didn't get the opportunity to buy a computer and get an internet connection?
    Check out the Ireland offline forum to see how much of ireland has no BB[/QUOTE]

    The rest of your post i did not consider worthy of a response other than to travel around ireland and meet the people instead of just going on statistics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    timesnap wrote: »
    I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
    countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

    most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.
    the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

    Democracy is becoming just another word for nothing left to lose.

    the vast majority of people most certainly did benefit from the boom , wages went up substantially , so too wellfare , the tax payer is indeed picking up the tab for reckless banks but its a lie to say only a handfull of people done well out of the boom


  • Site Banned Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭paddyandy


    Most people like myself do not understand the finer points and i dislike politicians trying to flatter us that we do . This "Let the people decide " idea is quite scary .The Parties should unite at a time like this and show solidarity for everyone's sake .It's too serious .We don't know where we're going anymore and it's no time for Dail Punch-ups .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    timesnap wrote: »
    Godge, of course people will vote for a party that does not tax too much, is willing to borrow too much, and bury its head in the sand.
    hands up by any country that did not do it better times?
    that includes America where the OP comes from.

    Chile. Its government came under huge pressure to spend the windfall profits from high copper prices, and it refused.

    Also, not all Western democracies are facing meltdown right now - Germany has been doing relatively well the last few years, and Canada and Australia have been doing great. The countries that are in trouble are the countries that went crazy with public spending and/or experienced huge construction boom and busts. I would also add that countries like Spain, Ireland and Greece need to make serious labor & welfare market reforms; Germany did this a decade ago, and it was painful, but it has helped them in the long run.

    tl/dr version - the countries which didn't spend the last decade kicking the can down the road and spending bubble-generated revenues are doing ok today. The ones that didn't, aren't. It's quite simple really.
    timesnap wrote: »
    I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
    countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.

    most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.
    the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

    Democracy is becoming just another word for nothing left to lose.

    Again, then what is the nature of a representative democracy?

    I voted against George Bush in 2000. I protested against the Iraq war. I actively campaigned against Bush in 2004. By virtue of the fact that I did not agree with his policies, did not benefit from the housing boom, and did not benefit from his fiscally ruinous tax cuts, am I now somehow exempt from paying the cost of what the majority of my fellow citizens supported? I hate what has happened in the US over the last decade, but i also know that this is what people voted for - we live in a free country, and we don't have the excuse of 'we didn't know'.

    Governments in democratic societies aren't some independent, hegemonic force - they are in place because of elections, and elections have consequences. I guess in a democracy we get the government we deserve, but I have to wonder what we did to deserve this. :(


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭texidub


    Australia is not doing 'great.' It's in the middle of a boom and is facing the same prospect of collapse as economies like Ireland.

    'The will of the people' Vs. 'the greater good'.. what a dangerously anti-democratic distinction to draw. But typical of certain strands of leftist thinking.

    In a democracy, the will of the people *is* the greater good --for better or worse (yes I am aware of how that sounds to corporatist and leftist minds)-- and no amount of godwottery, wisdom, or insight dispensed from on high by our great and good rulers changes that fact.

    Direct democracy FTW.

    EDIT: And this nonsense about deserving what we get is just that.. nonsense. A proportion of the population votes once every 4/5 years and yet everyone is somehow responsible or to blame for everything --good or bad-- that happens in that period. Really?!

    Democracy as we know it here is a huge psychological swindle: you are given a vote once every 4/5 years --that is, you are allowed to pick from the same or similar candidates from the same political and social class-- and then made culpable for everything that results... nonsense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    texidub wrote: »
    Australia is not doing 'great.' It's in the middle of a boom and is facing the same prospect of collapse as economies like Ireland.

    'The will of the people' Vs. 'the greater good'.. what a dangerously anti-democratic distinction to draw. But typical of certain strands of leftist thinking.

    In a democracy, the will of the people *is* the greater good --for better or worse (yes I am aware of how that sounds to corporatist and leftist minds)-- and no amount of godwottery, wisdom, or insight dispensed from on high by our great and good rulers changes that fact.

    Direct democracy FTW.

    EDIT: And this nonsense about deserving what we get is just that.. nonsense. A proportion of the population votes once every 4/5 years and yet everyone is somehow responsible or to blame for everything --good or bad-- that happens in that period. Really?!

    Democracy as we know it here is a huge psychological swindle: you are given a vote once every 4/5 years --that is, you are allowed to pick from the same or similar candidates from the same political and social class-- and then made culpable for everything that results... nonsense.

    Why do you think that direct democracy in any way would break existing power structures?

    So the will of the people to maintain policies like segregation were 'the greater good'?

    The will of the people to consistently demand more government programs while demanding lower taxes is for 'the greater good'?

    Pretty much every democracy endows its legislature with the 'power of the purse' - it, and only it, has responsibility for public spending. The legislature is also responsible for upholding the constitution - in practice, this has meant that at times protecting the rights of the minority means voting against the will of the majority. Should politicians entrusted with such responsibility cater to every public whim, or should they look at the bigger picture and use their discretion? If voters don't like it, they can get rid of them. It's pretty simple.


  • Registered Users Posts: 280 ✭✭texidub


    Why do you think that direct democracy in any way would break existing power structures?

    So the will of the people to maintain policies like segregation were 'the greater good'?

    The will of the people to consistently demand more government programs while demanding lower taxes is for 'the greater good'?

    Should politicians entrusted with such responsibility cater to every public whim, or should they look at the bigger picture and use their discretion? If voters don't like it, they can get rid of them. It's pretty simple.

    If voters don't like it.. they can get rid of them IN 4/5 YEARS TIME, you mean.

    You don't like segregation? I don't either. But just because YOU or I don't like it, doesn't mean that it's an inherently invalid choice for a people to make.

    This is where the leftists and corporatists come together --both sides are ideologues who want to subject the rest of society to their vision. And both can disappear off up their own philosophical lacunae as far as I am concerned. I'm perfectly capable of living a fulfilling life without them.

    EDIT: Can I just add that in so-called advanced democracies where there is no segregation (by law) there is segregation by choice. From London to Mexico to Perth.. vast swathes of people choose to live in communities populated mostly by people of the same skin colour/religion/language etc. Personally, I find that to be a little pathetic, but there you go.. so maybe it's not the best example for you to choose.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    texidub wrote: »
    If voters don't like it.. they can get rid of them IN 4/5 YEARS TIME, you mean.

    You don't like segregation? I don't either. But just because YOU or I don't like it, doesn't mean that it's an inherently invalid choice for a people to make.

    This is where the leftists and corporatists come together --both sides are ideologues who want to subject the rest of society to their vision. And both can disappear off up their own philosophical lacunae as far as I am concerned. I'm perfectly capable of living a fulfilling life without them.

    EDIT: Can I just add that in so-called advanced democracies where there is no segregation (by law) there is segregation by choice. From London to Mexico to Perth.. vast swathes of people choose to live in communities populated mostly by people of the same skin colour/religion/language etc. Personally, I find that to be a little pathetic, but there you go.. so maybe it's not the best example for you to choose.

    I'm not talking about self-segregation - people can live wherever they want. I'm talking about state-sanctioned segregation a la Jim Crow laws in the American South. While these may have been popular with the majority in some places, and many of the Congressmen who voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act lost their seat for their troubles, ultimately it was in the national interest for all citizens to have the same rights under the constitution.

    I would also add that is telling that the judiciary, which is relatively shielded from the whims of the public, is usually the more reliable defender of minority rights against the wishes of the majority - their job is to uphold the constitution, not follow the winds of public opinion.

    Finally, as for voters getting rid of people, in parliamentary democracies, parties can withdraw their support from the government forcing early elections - and this usually happens when there is massive public pressure to do so. In the US, Congress is elected every two years. So I don't think that voters in most democracies are as stuck in as you make them out to be.

    And I will ask again (since you ignored it the last time): why do you think that direct democracy would in any way break existing power structures?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    timesnap wrote: »
    Is that not something to be proud of in the case of those who did not abuse it?


    too much was paid in cash to the parents rather than free crechs


    who are the people who did not care at the time because they themselves were doing just nicely?


    The people who worked hard when they could find work, but now are on the dole


    Why had the state neglected the genuine ones before the boom to the point were many had became unemployable.?
    why did Harney have to go on job fairs around the world when the tiger needed more feeding?


    again do you not feel proud of that?


    mostly left without private pensions because the funds collapsed.


    Living in dangerous ghost estates in negative equity for the most part.


    Check out the Ireland offline forum to see how much of ireland has no BB
    The rest of your post i did not consider worthy of a response other than to travel around ireland and meet the people instead of just going on statistics.


    All you have done there is agree with me that all those people benefitted from the boom. Yes, some of them suffered more than others when the boom ended but they did well during the boom. Those construction workers that lost their jobs still have their 09 jeeps and land-rovers though they may not be able to insure them now. If they had bought Nissan Micras at the time they would have been better off.

    Nobody told anyone to buy a house in the middle of nowhere. People should always consider the long-term in those situations, they didn't but they did benefit during the boom.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    texidub wrote: »
    Democracy as we know it here is a huge psychological swindle: you are given a vote once every 4/5 years --that is, you are allowed to pick from the same or similar candidates from the same political and social class-- and then made culpable for everything that results... nonsense.

    Would agree with this. The U.S. system is in effect a Plutocracy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    Whew!too many individual points raised for this two fingered typist to respond to line by line,but appreciate those who have responded to me.
    let me say that when i said the vast majority i should also have added that in retrospect it was a false benefit which they will pay the price for the rest of their lives.
    i would split into three groups though:
    those who benefited to a hugh extent.
    those who mostly only held their own(in the main these were people who acted as totally responsible citizens)
    the underclass who mostly remained an underclass,for some reason most societies seem to need an underclass to reassure themselves in some perverse way.

    i DO believe in personal responsibility and people were reckless or stupid in many ways.
    what i don't like is the tone of pleasure some people seem to display at the dire situation many people are now in.
    even if some people feel they deserve everything they are getting,do their children deserve to be punished as well?
    i have no idea why Irish people have an obsession with owning their own home,i would hazard a guess that it is almost a genetic memory of the days when landlords kicked people off their land.
    Germans have no such hang up and very many of them are quite content to rent all their lives,it makes it so much easier to follow the jobs as they can move hundreds of miles at minimal cost.

    there have been many cutbacks in welfare SSR,many of them hidden from the headline news on our budget days,and many more to come.
    we are heading towards something that was unthinkable in Ireland, i.e there will be a tapering off of benefits until people will be entitled to nothing from the state.
    some people will jump for joy at this,but think twice because the crime rate will shoot through the roof.

    Direct democracy is not something i have given much thought to,is it in effect in any country?
    i think in California if you can get 500,000 signatures on a petition you can propose anything be put to referendum.
    from the little i know about it i don't think it is working out very well though?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I would vote in favour of austerity.
    Provided I could also vote in favour of SEVERELY punishing those who, through corruption and dishonesty, ran our banks into the ground.

    Seriously, I think you'll find that a lot of people would be less hostile to austerity if there was seen to be ANY justice or ANY accountability for what happened.
    White collar crime should be treated as crime, simple as. If what Seanie Fitz did was illegal he should be in court and possibly in prison, and if it wasn't illegal, then it should be, and the government should be legislating for it at this very moment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    For me this raises the issue: what does representation mean then in a liberal democracy? Is it the role of politicians to only do what voters want, damn the consequences? If so, given the popularity of government spending - especially in good economic times - is there any way to prevent governments from spending countries into bankruptcy at the behest of the population? Or, should politicians vote in what they see as 'the national interest', even if this may go against popular opinion?
    ...
    In a representative democracy, I think we need to let the representatives do their jobs - our job as citizens is to hold them accountable for their decisions. Unfortunately, I think in a lot of cases - Ireland in particular - voter failure to do the latter in the past has helped lead to a crisis in the present.

    You see the problem with the voting public is they want austerity, but just for someone else.
    A fair chunk of the of voters and particularly the recipients of increased spending were quiet happy with the ridiculous spending and would have immediately tried to remove the people from power that stopped it.

    The problem particularly with Ireland is that a lot of the people still think the place is run by some mythical group that they should get one up on.
    They never think that it is all of us that live here that actually makes up the system.
    And what may benefit one of us today may adversely affect even more of us tomorrow.

    Of course now it really is run by foreigners so they will claim they were right all along.
    I don't know if it is a hangup from our past colonial history, but it is even practiced by the political class who like to take the system for all they can.
    timesnap wrote: »
    When it was more than obvious that Ireland needed a government of national unity,our parties could not see that.
    i do not see why you say Ireland in particular ssr?
    the finance minister had a gun put to his head the night before the sweeping bank guarantee,until then the banks had being playing smoke and mirrors.
    Anglo was the mistake imo,but with such little notice and nobody fessing up,what was he to do?

    Hell mr fianna fail.
    Yeah a national government that should include the thieves, liars, fraudsters and papist lackies of fianna fail. :mad:
    Yeah the former minister of finance and taoiseach of the day had no knowledge of Anglo even though he played golf with the chairman and had dinner with the board in the months during and leading up to the meltdown. :rolleyes:
    Would you ever feck off with the bullsh**.
    Godge wrote: »
    ... So what did they do when the problem of Anglo came along. They threw money at it. So why was anyone surprised. The Irish electorate had voted for a party whose clear record was to throw money at problems and that is what they did. Except this time, they didn't have enough money to throw at the problem.

    Actually never thought of it that way. :(
    timesnap wrote: »
    Godge, of course people will vote for a party that does not tax too much, is willing to borrow too much, and bury its head in the sand.
    hands up by any country that did not do it better times?
    that includes America where the OP comes from.

    Ah ffs resorting to the everyone is as bad mullarkey now. :rolleyes:
    Check out how some other western governments did not go all out, creating a property bubble, allow their banks go apesh** and increase public spending based on the resultant bubble.

    Nah that might show the holes in your assertion.
    timesnap wrote: »
    I love the blame game,people talk about countries in the abstract.
    countries consist of people,the vast majority of people did not benefit from the 'good times' but are paying the price of their governments folly and the lending institutions greed.
    True to an extent.
    timesnap wrote: »
    most of what i read on boards blames the people who through no fault of their own are in difficulty,sure make cuts to the weakest and poorest in society in order to placate the handful of people who really rule the world....the lenders.

    But who are really the weakest and poorest in society ?
    Is the ones who have been on the dole for the last ten years, get their rent paid for, get allowances for Christmas, for christening, confirmations, get allowances for not having a spouse to help take care of their kids, etc... ?

    Or is the ones who work in one of the cushiest sectors of the economy that up until recently guaranteed defined benefit pensions, lumpsums on retirement and 40 days annual leave a year ?
    timesnap wrote: »
    the whole thing is amoral to those who are willing to see the big picture.

    It is amoral when you think that some work very hard for everything they have whilst others live off their hard work.
    I would vote in favour of austerity.
    Provided I could also vote in favour of SEVERELY punishing those who, through corruption and dishonesty, ran our banks into the ground.

    Seriously, I think you'll find that a lot of people would be less hostile to austerity if there was seen to be ANY justice or ANY accountability for what happened.
    White collar crime should be treated as crime, simple as. If what Seanie Fitz did was illegal he should be in court and possibly in prison, and if it wasn't illegal, then it should be, and the government should be legislating for it at this very moment.

    This is very true.
    bernie madoff went to jail in 90 odd days.
    There have been two instances of ponzi schemes (breffni o'brien being one) in this country and as yet after a couple of years neither primary beneficiary has even faced trial.
    What about the lawyers who ripped off customers and banks ?
    Have either of the three multi year high profile cases reached court yet ?

    Now that is not even going into the dodgy insider deals, share support schemes, breaches of normal company law with regard to director loans, etc that was practiced by some of our bankers.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭RubyRoss


    Direct democracy would be a disaster, in my view, as it would entail perpetual campaigning inviting more input from interest groups and opportunities for opposition parties to score points.

    Only a minority of citizens have the time and the capacity to assess complex issues; that’s the whole point of electing a government to run the country for 4/5 years. The problem arises because that election contract has been destroyed; the elections are a nonsense driven by the media, political PR, and vested interests.

    The parties don’t present genuine policies; they present PR friendly policies which hardly anyone expects will be implemented so the democratic contract is a farce.

    Texidub is right to observe a tendency for corporatists and leftists to assume a fundamental deficiency with the people. This kind of thinking, rife in political media, implies that the public need to be manipulated for their own good. Now, there’s nothing wrong with holding that few but it doesn’t sit easily with the view that democracy should be about the will of the people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    It's not really democracy anymore when faceless investors are put before everyone else.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    I'll be the first to admit I'm no economist (nor do I accept it's a science) but how is pulling money out of the economy going to fix anything?

    It makes consumers sheepish about spending. that means less buying..

    If we are to do everything as these self describes "scientists" want there will be only money in crazy finance that does nothing for bob or paul down the street.

    I don't believe "austerity" works.


  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭RubyRoss


    I'll be the first to admit I'm no economist (nor do I accept it's a science)

    That's part of the problem; economics was presented as a rational scientific subject and most of us didn't question it. Part of the problem too is that those who have been most vocal in opposing ecomonic policies were espoucing Marxist politics which has never been updated for the modern world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    RubyRoss wrote: »
    That's part of the problem; economics was presented as a rational scientific subject and most of us didn't question it. Part of the problem too is that those who have been most vocal in opposing ecomonic policies were espoucing Marxist politics which has never been updated for the modern world.

    The easy way of telling it's not science is that it involves an ideology.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Can everyone take a deep breath? Let's keep things civil.

    If there is a problem, report a post or PM a moderator, but keep it off thread.

    Cheers,

    SSR


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I am not a country of millions of people.

    cutting back on expenses as we are is and will continue to create more crime. more crime means more money spent on crime fighting. now, to me I'd rather see that money go to help families feed their children than see it going towards a more robust police force.

    As far as I'm concerned either way you're going to pay.

    It's not just about cutting back on spending with these people either. it is about moulding the country to their ideology. Cut the minimum wage! privatise your assets, open up your natural resources to our buddies.

    I cannot understand how people can look at the IMF without taking into account their history! the Indonesians are still paying off the loans they got even though Suharto and his family made off with the lions share like bandits. It's a disgrace. The same thing will happen here. the prosperous will remain prosperous while the middle and lower classes will take the burden of these loans. The least we can do is ensure that the most vulnerable are covered as much as we can. plenty who will burden these increased taxes are at most risk of needing the safety net at some stage. It's easy to vilify the "scroungers" to help you're business friendly agenda along.

    Like I said, though. I'm not an economist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    RichieC wrote: »
    I am not a country of millions of people.

    Do simple economics change whether it's one person or a million?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    There are in fact vulnerable people in this world, Permabear. It's not like the well off who are having to forgo a new jag this year because business is down 4% more than projected. It cutting these people off means having to choose between heating their home in winter and properly feeding their kids.

    I know the argument.. there's no poor in Ireland! sure theyre all out drinking!

    Without people using this rhetoric as you call it, people in the country clubs would be sitting around talking social engineering while the lower classes starve to death on the streets. Someone has to stand up for them.

    There's no talk of NIMBYism when the rich are crying about the thought of capital gains taxes being raised. It's all trickle down economics then.

    edited out the points directed at Pb.. not helping. Richie


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭timesnap


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Ah now Permabear most people can see who the most vulnerable in society are if they choose to.
    that would be my worry about Libertarians,i could be wrong but it seems the message it is not addressing is it appears to support only the survival of the fittest.
    let the rest rot.?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Just to be clear: this thread isn't about the austerity per se (and definitely not the usual libertarian/anti-libertarian debate), but rather the political process itself. Please feel free to start a thread on the relative economic merits of austerity in the Irish economy forum, but for now, can everyone get back on topic, please?

    If you have questions, PM me, don't post on thread.

    Cheers,

    SSR


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    RichieC wrote: »
    There are in fact vulnerable people in this world, Permabear. It's not like the well off who are having to forgo a new jag this year because business is down 4% more than projected. It cutting these people off means having to choose between heating their home in winter and properly feeding their kids.

    I know the argument.. there's no poor in Ireland! sure theyre all out drinking!

    Without people using this rhetoric as you call it, people in the country clubs would be sitting around talking social engineering while the lower classes starve to death on the streets. Someone has to stand up for them.

    There's no talk of NIMBYism when the rich are crying about the thought of capital gains taxes being raised. It's all trickle down economics then.

    edited out the points directed at Pb.. not helping. Richie

    the trouble with the " most vulnerable " term is that it covers such a wide spectrum and usually includes groups for whoom the general wisdom is that they are inherently weak and poverty stricken , as such you end up in a redicolous situation where someone seventy years old and over can visit thier doctor for free despite having a weekly income of 700 euro per week , try and oppose this and you accused of attacking the vulnerable


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    RichieC wrote: »
    I'll be the first to admit I'm no economist (nor do I accept it's a science) but how is pulling money out of the economy going to fix anything?

    It makes consumers sheepish about spending. that means less buying..

    If we are to do everything as these self describes "scientists" want there will be only money in crazy finance that does nothing for bob or paul down the street.

    I don't believe "austerity" works.

    Nail on head, it's probably the only thing the left and right wing agree on, taking money out of an economy doesn't work. The tax or austerity bit is where they go all astray! ;)

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    K-9 wrote: »
    Nail on head, it's probably the only thing the left and right wing agree on, taking money out of an economy doesn't work. The tax or austerity bit is where they go all astray! ;)

    I think that most of us would agree in principal that taking money out of the economy won't help. However we really are spending massively more than we take in. So there's a balancing act between really bankrupting ourselves and cutting back... and we are going to have to cut back even more.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    There seems to be a misconception about austerity in countries like Ireland and Greece, especially among the left wing in Ireland, that it's somehow supposed to jumpstart the economy of a reckless countries.

    The point of austerity is to try re-balance an economy which is completely unbalanced, to the extent that makes it possible for broken countries to return to the bondmarkets.

    The fact that the austerity has been 'so painful' in Ireland and Greece is unfortunately a measure of just had badly our countries were run.
    But how is austerity supposed to 'work' when we haven't even implemented austerity properly?

    We have corrupted the austerity process;
    in Greece, they still have that railway that consumes 5% of GDP
    in Ireland, we still have the CPA and our public spending is still multiples of what it sustainably can be.

    If you want to lose weight, but eat to excess by 1000 cals per day -> you're doing it wrong.
    If you want to implement austerity, but don't fix your own corrupt spending -> you're doing it wrong.

    This is where the political process falls flat on it's ass.
    In Greece, the government go to the people and say, the Troika are forcing us to do A,B,C.
    In Ireland, we are lucky that the government go to the people and say, we have to do A,B,C because Fianna Fail broke the economy.

    If you look at what is happening in Greece, I think direct democracy would be an improvement.
    The Greek government do not have the spine to take on their unions, so they strangle the private sector.
    They do not have the spine to tax the rich, who are evading tax to the tune of €40 billion, so they strangle the private sector.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Some have suggested that since the public is opposed to austerity measures, that legislators should respect that and vote against these policies, regardless of what financial markets will do. Some have even offered that these kinds of decisions be put to a public vote, rather than decided in national legislatures.

    For me this raises the issue: what does representation mean then in a liberal democracy? Is it the role of politicians to only do what voters want, damn the consequences? If so, given the popularity of government spending - especially in good economic times - is there any way to prevent governments from spending countries into bankruptcy at the behest of the population? Or, should politicians vote in what they see as 'the national interest', even if this may go against popular opinion?

    I am not a fan of direct democracy, or populist governing. While I vote for people who broadly share my political views, I also expect them to sometimes set aside party politics or the 'popular' thing to do the 'right' thing (as amorphous as these principles may be!). In the case of austerity measures, I think it is appropriate that the same legislative bodies who approved past spending now have to approve present austerity measures (or at least negotiate the terms of them). In a representative democracy, I think we need to let the representatives do their jobs - our job as citizens is to hold them accountable for their decisions. Unfortunately, I think in a lot of cases - Ireland in particular - voter failure to do the latter in the past has helped lead to a crisis in the present.

    I've come to the conclusion that representative democracy has failed, or at least it has taken us as far as we can go.

    I think it can be beefed up to an extent if we implement rigorous campaign finance reforms and do our best to limit the effect of money in politics. We will never be able to eliminate this entirely but the system we have now is far too easily corruptable and manipulable.

    I think, ultimately, the next evolution of the democratic process is for a kind of mixture between direct and representative democracy. A lot of people consider direct democracy to be DOA, and that's because I think no one has really given it serious thought or even sat down to TRY and think of how it could be implemented in a workable way.

    People keep pointing out how in a direct democracy spending would go out of control. What if you changed that? What if you made it so that people couldn't simply vote for spending in isolation. Rather than having a simple yes/no vote you could have a balanced form. So when you vote you cannot vote for an individual item of a budget. You have to vote for a budget as a whole.

    A simplistic example of this would be, that I as a voter will have my unique online voting PIN. I log into my direct democracy website with this and have access to my vote for the 2013 budget. Now I can chose to lower taxes in some area but I have to make it deficit neutral so any spending increases tax cuts must be ofset by cuts elsewhere. Voting has been virtually a binary system up till now, but with the internet and modern technology it need not continue to be so.

    So I could decide to allocate the budget as 20% health, 20% education, 20% defence/security, 20% environment, 20% social entitlements. Another person might want 40% on health. So what you end up with when the votes are tallied is an aggregate of the populations spending priorities.

    Of course this has its own problems such as how do you decide to raise the deficit in order to borrow. Perhaps rather than a simple majority, raising the deficit should require 70-80% of the voting population to be onboard.

    You'd still have representatives, whose primary jobs would be to implement what the public decide. So the health minister would then manage whatever budget we allocated to her. They would also be responsible for introducing new bills/laws.

    There would be fixed terms, maybe one month in a year where major laws could be voted on to prevent chaos.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe the hurdles to direct democracy are insurmountable and I believe it is something worth pursuing simply because representative democracy places too much power in the hands of too few individuals who are too easily corrupted.

    Perhaps a greater challenge than the issue of direct or representative democracy is the diminishing power of national democracies around the world due to globalisation and the growth of powerful multi-national megacorporations.

    The idea behind democracy is to stop the ordinary person from being oppressed by a few powerful and wealthy elites. United we stand etc. As well as banding and pooling resources together in order to reduce the cost of goods and services they allow us to have things like fighter jets and expensive research.

    But now we have a situation where megacrops can bully smaller and even greater democracies. By threatening to take their business elsewhere where there are lower tax rates. By moving jobs to places where there are no employee protections and they can utilise virtual slave labour. Using off shore accounts like Switzerland and the cayman's to bypass paying taxes entirely. So what we really need is revolution towards a more global democracy. And while the idea of sharing with third world countries might not seem palatable I believe, in the long term, we would all benefit from it. (Edit: Or for example, bullying countries like Ireland into taking on the debts of private institutions by threatening financial armageddon if we don't comply.)

    Edit: Right now we have various national interests competing against each other. We are like dogs, fighting for scraps that our corporate masters decide to toss our way, while they feast on the majority of the world's wealth. I say its time to overthrow the status quo.

    Of course, we are much more likely to continue down the road we are on now, which is the road to greater corporate despotism, with only the illusion of freedom and democracy. Because people are short-sighted and selfish and because those with vested interests have corrupted every level of society to shape it to their limited agenda.


  • Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭RubyRoss


    Memnoch wrote: »
    Right now we have various national interests competing against each other. We are like dogs, fighting for scraps that our corporate masters decide to toss our way, while they feast on the majority of the world's wealth. I say its time to overthrow the status quo.

    But how would you stop vested interest groups from influencing the direct-democracy voting process? If anything, that process would encourage people to think and vote in terms of their own interest rather than the nation as a whole. Of course, people already vote in self-interest but I think direct democracy would intensify group-think and be biased towards the most powerful groups.

    Regarding the budget, the majority are tax-payers encouraging them to support favourable measures at the expense of minority measures. Also, in times of crisis, the majority sentiment can become explosive. E.G. after the Hunger Strikes the level of popular hatred towards Britain was tempered somewhat by government.

    Maybe, I’m just nit-picking but there would need to be a lot of safety-nets in a direct process.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement