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

What Enda Says is Best

135

Comments

  • #62
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Thats political capture you mean. There's nothing democratic about having only two main parties to vote for, one as bad as the other.
    You have Labour and FG. One conventionally centre-left, one centre-right. Although I suppose you could argue that SF is now the second biggest party, which gives you a Nationalist/Socialist/Populist option too.

    I'm not sure exactly how they are each 'one as bad as the other' though. I'd strongly disagree that Labour and FG are as bad as FFail and SF/ULA.


  • #63
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm not sure exactly how they are each 'one as bad as the other' though. I'd strongly disagree that Labour and FG are as bad as FFail and SF/ULA.
    FG was supporting the same policies as FF throughout the bubble and are basically seeing through many of their policies now they are gone. These are two sides of the one coin, that's not a political choice.


  • #64
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    FG was supporting the same policies as FF throughout the bubble and are basically seeing through many of their policies now they are gone. These are two sides of the one coin, that's not a political choice.
    That argument is trotted out a lot. The reality is that if they didn't, their vote would have collapsed and they'd have died out as a political entity. Who is going to vote for FG in 2005 when they argue for tax rises, property taxes and other measures to curtail the bubble?

    That's what they should have done - but our electorate would have crucified them. That's democracy for you.


  • #65
    forfuxsake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 829 ✭✭✭forfuxsake


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    That argument is trotted out a lot. The reality is that if they didn't, their vote would have collapsed and they'd have died out as a political entity. Who is going to vote for FG in 2005 when they argue for tax rises, property taxes and other measures to curtail the bubble?

    That's what they should have done - but our electorate would have crucified them. That's democracy for you.

    So they will say whatever it takes to get elected.


  • #66
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    That argument is trotted out a lot. The reality is that if they didn't, their vote would have collapsed and they'd have died out as a political entity.
    Right up until 2009 or so when they'd have been exonerated with a vengeance. Even if they had fallen to FF's current levels, which would be pretty unlikely, they wouldn't be sharing power at the moment. The value of truth is one often underappreciated by political hacks.

    There's nothing which contradicts what I said, a party that puts its own popularity before the well being of the country.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    forfuxsake wrote: »
    So they will say whatever it takes to get elected.
    This puts them in stark contrast to SF and the ULA who reckon the voters are too stupid to realise that their 'economic policies' would see the country properly collapse... :rolleyes:

    Of course, SF only have to keep banging on the populist drum until they get into power, at which point they will (hopefully) do what LAB/FG are doing anyway - playing a low-risk, sensible game.

    SF are just as much in government in the North as FG or Labour are here: what radical changes have they made there? :confused:


  • #68
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Right up until 2009 or so when they'd have been exonerated with a vengeance. Even if they had fallen to FF's current levels, which would be pretty unlikely, they wouldn't be sharing power at the moment. The value of truth is one often underappreciated by political hacks.
    Assuming they still existed by 2009. What if the bubble lasted another 5 years? You want them to cut their own throats?
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    There's nothing which contradicts what I said, a party that puts its own popularity before the well being of the country.
    Again, like SF/ULA? They aren't telling the truth now either. If the parties don't tell the truth, that's ultimately the fault of the voter who wants to be lied to and punishes honesty. FG and especially Labour are being kicked around now for telling the truth, and SF are profiting from populist lies - the parties' fault, or the voters'?


  • #69
    plasmaguy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Sinn Fein and ULA don't want us to pay any tax.

    They don't want public sector workers to pay for their pensions and perks.

    They want to tell the IMF to clear off. And they want to tell the people who loan us money to clear off as well.

    Now to do the maths, pretty damn soon this country would be like North Korea or worse under Sinn Fein/ULA.

    (Just waiting for someone from Sinn Fein/ULA to say something like, "yeh but we are worse already").


  • #70
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Assuming they still existed by 2009. What if the bubble lasted another 5 years? You want them to cut their own throats?
    Regardless of how long it would have taken, the eventual reward would have been well worth it.

    Let me ask you a question - when was the last time you put a check in a box next to a choice between FF or FG or any of the other parties on a ballot?
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Again, like SF/ULA? They aren't telling the truth now either. If the parties don't tell the truth, that's ultimately the fault of the voter who wants to be lied to and punishes honesty. FG and especially Labour are being kicked around now for telling the truth, and SF are profiting from populist lies - the parties' fault, or the voters'?
    Actually I think SF really do believe their own nonsense.


  • #71
    forfuxsake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 829 ✭✭✭forfuxsake


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This puts them in stark contrast to SF and the ULA who reckon the voters are too stupid to realise that their 'economic policies' would see the country properly collapse... :rolleyes:

    Of course, SF only have to keep banging on the populist drum until they get into power, at which point they will (hopefully) do what LAB/FG are doing anyway - playing a low-risk, sensible game.

    SF are just as much in government in the North as FG or Labour are here: what radical changes have they made there? :confused:

    You cannot compare a minor region of the UK (political reality re: status quo) with the national government of Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    TreesAreCrowd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 137 ✭✭TreesAreCrowd


    forfuxsake wrote: »
    You cannot compare a minor region of the UK (political reality re: status quo) with the national government of Ireland.
    How convenient.


  • #73
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Regardless of how long it would have taken, the eventual reward would have been well worth it.
    Perhaps, but almost certainly not. Would you risk the future of your organisation on it? An unknown pay-off at an unknowable future date?

    Back in 2007 I actually put that exact point to a friend who is a senior national political correspondent, much as you are asking me now. 'Why don't FG tell the truth about the bubble, and how f*cked we are?' 'Because they will be wiped out in the election if they do'. I was thinking along the exact same lines as you, disgusted with FG for not telling us that we were in for a horrible time as the bubble collapsed. But again I'll ask, is that ultimately a failure of the parties or the of the people?
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Let me ask you a question - when was the last time you put a check in a box next to a choice between FF or FG or any of the other parties on a ballot?
    I last voted in 2007 I think, but I'm not certain - I've been in and out of the country a lot in the last decade.


  • #74
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    forfuxsake wrote: »
    You cannot compare a minor region of the UK (political reality re: status quo) with the national government of Ireland.
    Because? :confused:


  • #75
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I last voted in 2007 I think, but I'm not certain - I've been in and out of the country a lot in the last decade.
    You missed what I'm saying - people don't vote for parties, they vote for politicians. Which is why I don't think that FG would have been half as decimated as you think, once their representatives looked after the local area.

    Which by the by makes FF's clinical demolition even more remarkable. So much for the electorate wanting to be lied to.


  • #76
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    You missed what I'm saying - people don't vote for parties, they vote for politicians. Which is why I don't think that FG would have been half as decimated as you think, once their representatives looked after the local area.
    But if that's true, then it comes back to clientelist notions of what a TD is supposed to do - sort out your social welfare, get you a grant, sort out your passport application (!?), go to funerals and so on and so forth. Jackie Healy-Rae stuff. Do we really need the national legislature populated with gombeen men?
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Which by the by makes FF's clinical demolition even more remarkable. So much for the electorate wanting to be lied to.
    They do want to be lied to - until the truth is undeniable. If the SF/ULA get into power and actually DO something radical, then you'll see the electorate boot them out again at the first opportunity - they are only gathering support because they are offering easy answers.

    But you haven't addressed my question: is the behaviour of our parties (I'm including them all here - FFail, SF, FG, Lab) ultimately an indictment of our politicians or of our electorate? I used to think the former, now I blame the public. :(


  • #77
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Like Iceland, who have their own currency - which collapsed in value by more than half, which renders any comparison with Ireland completely invalid?

    (Unless we quit the Euro and see our real incomes and savings wiped out, of course)

    And yet you make the comparison to Argentina. Who have their own currency, so was that an invalid comparison too?


  • #78
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    And yet you make the comparison to Argentina. Who have their own currency, so was that an invalid comparison too?
    Invalid in that Argentina's crash would have been even worse if they weren't able to break their dollar peg, yes. The peso fell to less than a quarter of its previous value, which made Argentine exports a lot more competitive.


  • #79
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    But if that's true, then it comes back to clientelist notions of what a TD is supposed to do
    No it comes back to the way the local politicians have little real power. You literally cannot vote for a party in this country, only politicians, and thank DeValera for setting that up.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    They do want to be lied to - until the truth is undeniable.
    All that means is they have been lied to until the politicians couldn't hide it anymore.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    they are only gathering support because they are offering easy answers.
    I'd say they are only gathering support because people are so revolted at the two big parties.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    But you haven't addressed my question: is the behaviour of our parties (I'm including them all here - FFail, SF, FG, Lab) ultimately an indictment of our politicians or of our electorate? I used to think the former, now I blame the public. :(
    The two big ones are or were entrenched on the basis of their clientelism. I think there's a sudden and growing awareness of the importance of national party policies among the electorate now they've seen how bad it can get, again look what happened to FF. Maybe its because younger voters are turning out more. Once the grandparents of today shuffle off this country will change beyond recognition, both in terms of religion and politics.

    I genuinely would give SF a vote myself if only they weren't way off the deep end, they have passion and conviction. You get the feeling its not all about the party.


  • #80
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Invalid in that Argentina's crash would have been even worse if they weren't able to break their dollar peg, yes. The peso fell to less than a quarter of its previous value, which made Argentine exports a lot more competitive.

    Oh, I get that currency control has a direct effect on the whole situation. I'm just unclear as to why showing Iceland up as a positive example of a country that has taken a different route is invalid due to differences in currency control while citing Argentina as a negative example is okay.


  • #81
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    I am amazed Enda Kenny actually entertains Gerry Adams with a response. What does Gerry Adams know about running a country? It seems to me Gerry Adams is just in the Dail to rant and rave for the sake of being in opposition but not actually saying anything worth of note.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    I am amazed Enda Kenny actually entertains Gerry Adams with a response. What does Gerry Adams know about running a country? It seems to me Gerry Adams is just in the Dail to rant and rave for the sake of being in opposition but not actually saying anything worth of note.

    Wasn't he co-running the 'country' north of the border?


  • #83
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    Oh, I get that currency control has a direct effect on the whole situation. I'm just unclear as to why showing Iceland up as a positive example of a country that has taken a different route is invalid due to differences in currency control while citing Argentina as a negative example is okay.
    Because Iceland is trotted out to show that default doesn't have to be a total disaster without taking note that its situation was massively ameliorated by the ability to devalue the currency.

    A bit of intellectual honesty is necessary when discussing this stuff, it's pretty serious. Point-scoring is fine on the soccer forum or whatever, but it's important that people know the full story before they start agitating for a default that would be very messy indeed (in the short to medium term).


  • #84
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    Wasn't he co-running the 'country' north of the border?
    That's exactly what I thought, but this guy disagrees:
    forfuxsake wrote: »
    You cannot compare a minor region of the UK (political reality re: status quo) with the national government of Ireland.
    Mind you, you'd never know that they were in power - nothing there seems to have changed (aside from the fact that SF are in power).


  • #85
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    The two big ones are or were entrenched on the basis of their clientelism.
    If you think SF aren't involved in clientelism, I think you have a big surprise in store. :eek:
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    I think there's a sudden and growing awareness of the importance of national party policies among the electorate now they've seen how bad it can get
    Until things look less scary, and then we'll be back to the mé féin clientelism. Are you old enough to remember the Tallaght Strategy? The only serious example of putting the country first that I can think of in the last 50 years, and it nearly wiped out FG. The voters didn't remember FG making a self-sacrificing principled stance to support in opposition the changes that allowed the country to boom in the '90s. FG got crucified by the electorate for doing the right thing, for trusting that the voters would remember this and reward them. They would be pretty stupid not to learn from that experience.
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    again look what happened to FF. Maybe its because younger voters are turning out more. Once the grandparents of today shuffle off this country will change beyond recognition, both in terms of religion and politics.
    I'd love to think you are right, but I'm not confident. You are right that the way politics is structured in this country predisposes us to Jackie Healy-Rae/gombeen TDs.
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    I genuinely would give SF a vote myself if only they weren't way off the deep end, they have passion and conviction. You get the feeling its not all about the party.
    I'd vote for anybody with integrity and sense. SF and ULA have absolutely no economic sense. SF may ditch the hard left stuff in future, but presumably the ULA will always be the lunatic fringe.


  • #86
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,094 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    plasmaguy wrote: »
    Sinn Fein and ULA don't want us to pay any tax.

    Really?

    Have you got a link to back up that bs? :rolleyes:


  • #87
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Really?

    Have you got a link to back up that bs? :rolleyes:
    Without putting words in another poster's mouth, SF and ULA campaigning against a property tax* (:eek:) and any taxes for local services/bins/water etc. gives the impression that they think that these things should be 'free'. Of course what they don't tell you is that they will be paid for out of higher income tax, which I suppose isn't the worst thing in the world because at least income tax is progressive.

    But they do also go on about their fantasy plan about taxing the assets of the rich - which if implemented, would just see the rich folks selling up in Ireland and taking their money and jobs with them.

    *The Irish far left appear to be the only socialists in the world who don't believe in property tax :confused: I guess we are special...


  • #88
    Bababa2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Bababa2012


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Really?

    Have you got a link to back up that bs? :rolleyes:
    Without putting words in another poster's mouth, SF and ULA campaigning against a property tax* (:eek:) and any taxes for local services/bins/water etc. gives the impression that they think that these things should be 'free'. Of course what they don't tell you is that they will be paid for out of higher income tax, which I suppose isn't the worst thing in the world because at least income tax is progressive.

    But they do also go on about their fantasy plan about taxing the assets of the rich - which if implemented, would just see the rich folks selling up in Ireland and taking their money and jobs with them.

    [SIZE="2"]*The Irish far left appear to be the only socialists in the world who don't believe in property tax :confused: I guess we are special...[/SIZE]

    Water tax...will that mean we will be supplied with guaranteed good quality water(e-coli and cow shïte etc free)??? Will it mean that you can sue the water company if they supply u with a product that makes u sick? Will u be able to choose between fluoridated water and non-fluoridated water?

    Local services? Will that mean that council workers will stop standing around in groups watching one lad dig a hole? Will it mean that these people actually work hard instead of taking the piss because they have handy numbers? And that includes the desk jobbers!!

    We already pay for bins!! Do u recommend that we pay bin charges twice? That would be a new one. Double charges...and tough shît if u don't like it!!


  • #89
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Bababa2012 wrote: »
    Water tax...will that mean we will be supplied with guaranteed good quality water(e-coli and cow shïte etc free)??? Will it mean that you can sue the water company if they supply u with a product that makes u sick? Will u be able to choose between fluoridated water and non-fluoridated water?
    Does paying for it from central funds do that? Nope.
    Bababa2012 wrote: »
    Local services? Will that mean that council workers will stop standing around in groups watching one lad dig a hole? Will it mean that these people actually work hard instead of taking the piss because they have handy numbers? And that includes the desk jobbers!!
    Does paying for it from central funds do that? Nope.
    Bababa2012 wrote: »
    We already pay for bins!! Do u recommend that we pay bin charges twice? That would be a new one. Double charges...and tough shît if u don't like it!!
    I don't know what you mean - ULA/SF are opposed to the current system and want it to come from central funds.


  • #90
    Bababa2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭Bababa2012


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Bababa2012 wrote: »
    Water tax...will that mean we will be supplied with guaranteed good quality water(e-coli and cow shïte etc free)??? Will it mean that you can sue the water company if they supply u with a product that makes u sick? Will u be able to choose between fluoridated water and non-fluoridated water?
    Does paying for it from central funds do that? Nope.
    Bababa2012 wrote: »
    Local services? Will that mean that council workers will stop standing around in groups watching one lad dig a hole? Will it mean that these people actually work hard instead of taking the piss because they have handy numbers? And that includes the desk jobbers!!
    Does paying for it from central funds do that? Nope.
    Bababa2012 wrote: »
    We already pay for bins!! Do u recommend that we pay bin charges twice? That would be a new one. Double charges...and tough shît if u don't like it!!
    I don't know what you mean - ULA/SF are opposed to the current system and want it to come from central funds.

    If u privatise water..and force people to pay for the undrinkable rubbish that they currently supply.. Then they will be open to legal action should a problem arise. They get away with poisoning people at the moment because it's free!!

    If we have to pay for local services directly.. Then do we get a say in how local services are managed? Can we weed out the pisstakers and make local services efficient? And cost effective?

    Where will the money from central funds go if people are forced to pay all these charges???.....straight to Brussels to pay off bank debt etc.. An absolute sham!! They are pissing on us with a smile on their faces.. And people like u.. "Gay Mitchell"..are trying to fool us into believing that it has to be done and that we must pay our way.
    Don't insult us any more..u really do think the Irish people are a bunch of fücking fools don't ya.. Shame on u!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Bababa2012 wrote: »
    If u privatise water..and force people to pay for the undrinkable rubbish that they currently supply.. Then they will be open to legal action should a problem arise. They get away with poisoning people at the moment because it's free!!

    If we have to pay for local services directly.. Then do we get a say in how local services are managed? Can we weed out the pisstakers and make local services efficient? And cost effective?
    I think this is the idea of devolving these things to local councils, and then paying local councils for their use - to make them more accountable to local people. You wouldn't have to go as far as privatising them, but they have done in other countries.
    Bababa2012 wrote: »
    Where will the money from central funds go if people are forced to pay all these charges???.....straight to Brussels to pay off bank debt etc.. An absolute sham!! They are pissing on us with a smile on their faces.. And people like u.. "Gay Mitchell"..are trying to fool us into believing that it has to be done and that we must pay our way.
    Don't insult us any more..u really do think the Irish people are a bunch of fücking fools don't ya.. Shame on u!!!
    Ok, so you are opposed to the SF/ULA policies? You are in favour of the household charge (which goes to your local council) and water metering etc.? (Incidentally, I'm not Gay Mitchell)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement