nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Labour are 7% in the polls - So who here is voting for them &why

bpb101

Nearly 1 in every 10 people are saying they are support labour. (going by the polls)

So , Why would you vote for labour. What have they accomplished in the last 4 years that wants you to say hey, I want them for the next 6.

Just what to hear people thoughts on the matter

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Steppenwolfe

valor rorghulis wrote: »

Didn't vote for them last time but I think they have been extremely brave in backing Fine Gael on decisions which needed to be made.

Will transfer to them in the next election so long as they don't promise anything too mental

Why would you worry about what they promise? They are liars and bare faced about it too. Trying to rationalise it by saying "Sure isn't that what you do in an election" isn't going to cut it. They wooed certain sections of the electorate with their lies. I very much doubt the same sections are going to be fooled twice. The fact that a self confessed FG voter is going to vote for them next time is proof of the pudding.

ps. I didn't vote for them and never will. I was fooled once in the 90's by that shower of self serving liars. Never again.

oscarBravo

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I was fooled once in the 90's by that shower of self serving liars. Never again.

I wouldn't worry about it - come the next election, I'm sure there will be a long and varied list of candidates who can be trusted not to tell people what they want to hear in return for votes.

Long and varied.

conorh91

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/opinion-poll-politics-sunday-business-post-1952546-Feb2015/

Not sure I'd believe that.

I'd say many of us who voted in the last election would have to pause and try to remember whether we gave our first preference vote to X or to Y, especially if we are non-rigidly aligned.

Tbh, I can't even remember who I gave my first vote to in the local/ Euro elections.

People are aware they are talking to polling agencies, and so they are capable of answering the call in a tactical way, i.e. attempting to accentuate the anti-Govt 'outrage'.

Many of the people who say they voted FG/ Lab in the last election and 'never again' have probably never voted FG/ Lab.

If I were a lifelong Shinner, I'd tell a pollster I was a covert from FG.

Sure why not?

BoJack Horseman

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Why would you worry about what they promise? They are liars and bare faced about it too. Trying to rationalise it by saying "Sure isn't that what you do in an election" isn't going to cut it. They wooed certain sections of the electorate with their lies.

If a left-wing voter wants to find a home where no one lies, they will never vote.

One has to look to them self if they are naive enough to think the budgetary crisis of the last 5 years could have disappeared without pain.

Chips Lovell

I don't think Labour, or many of the other parties, lied as such. The main thing I thought Labour were guilty of last time out is over-egging the pudding, giving a misleading impression of how much better a deal they could achieve.

It takes two to tango though and voters are often equally as responsible. People tend to seize on soundbites without paying any attention to the nuances or qualifications that come with them. And there's a sizeable constituency of people who seem to vote on the basis of what they think a party's policy is rather than what it actually is.

There's an amount of people who seemed to genuinely believe FG policy was to give a Syriza-style two fingers to the troika.

happy_knome

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think Labour, or many of the other parties, lied as such. The main thing I thought Labour were guilty of last time out is over-egging the pudding, giving a misleading impression of how much better a deal they could achieve.

It takes two to tango though and voters are often equally as responsible. People tend to seize on soundbites without paying any attention to the nuances or qualifications that come with them. And there's a sizeable constituency of people who seem to vote on the basis of what they think a party's policy is rather than what it actually is.

There's an amount of people who seemed to genuinely believe FG policy was to give a Syriza-style two fingers to the troika.

a study not so long ago revealed that 30% of voters believed SF were a low tax party

BoJack Horseman

happy_knome wrote: »

a study not so long ago revealed that 30% of voters believed SF were a low tax party

Well, at least the majority were savvy enough!

tayto lover

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think Labour, or many of the other parties, lied as such. The main thing I thought Labour were guilty of last time out is over-egging the pudding, giving a misleading impression of how much better a deal they could achieve.

It takes two to tango though and voters are often equally as responsible. People tend to seize on soundbites without paying any attention to the nuances or qualifications that come with them. And there's a sizeable constituency of people who seem to vote on the basis of what they think a party's policy is rather than what it actually is.

There's an amount of people who seemed to genuinely believe FG policy was to give a Syriza-style two fingers to the troika.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/shaun-connolly/cloak-of-invisibility-hides-labours-broken-promises-190486.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/colette-browne/coalition-let-down-by-broken-promises-and-campaign-lies-174699.html

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-labour-faces-the-same-fate-as-the-greens-after-reneging-on-promises-774122-Feb2013/

http://www.thejournal.ie/labour-councillors-resign-quit-coalition-1152524-Jan2014/

Icepick

Regarding pre-election promises, they refer to a programme a party can follow if it's able to form the government alone.
Blaming a minority partner for not fulfilling all their pre-election promises is rather silly.

Having said that, they promised more that they were ever going to be able to achieve. But what else does anyone expect from a socialist party?

tayto lover

Icepick wrote: »

Regarding pre-election promises, they refer to a programme a party can follow if it's able to form the government alone.
Blaming a minority partner for not fulfilling all their pre-election promises is rather silly.

Having said that, they promised more that they were ever going to be able to achieve. But what else does anyone expect from a socialist party?

It wasn't just the socialists.
Some other party promised to clean up politics and end cronyism.

Steppenwolfe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If a left-wing voter wants to find a home where no one lies, they will never vote.

One has to look to them self if they are naive enough to think the budgetary crisis of the last 5 years could have disappeared without pain.

It's more about who pays the price or suffers the most pain. Labour profess to be protecting the average worker and less well off. In reality they are no better than FG.

View

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

It's more about who pays the price or suffers the most pain. Labour profess to be protecting the average worker and less well off. In reality they are no better than FG.

The depends on whether you take a short or medium term view.

Bankrupting a financially-troubled state may appease voters in the short term but when the state can no longer provide basic services such as education, health etc, the "average worker" will be much worse off.

Conversely, sorting the state's finances out so it can continue over the medium term to provide such services for the "average worker" is "protecting the average worker" even if Labour gets little credit for doing so from the voters.

Steppenwolfe

View wrote: »

The depends on whether you take a short or medium term view.

Bankrupting a financially-troubled state may appease voters in the short term but when the state can no longer provide basic services such as education, health etc, the "average worker" will be much worse off.

Conversely, sorting the state's finances out so it can continue over the medium term to provide such services for the "average worker" is "protecting the average worker" even if Labour gets little credit for doing so from the voters.

We're far from bankrupt if the government is flagging up tax cuts for the better off in the next budget. It's always about who pays. Always.

BoJack Horseman

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

We're far from bankrupt if the government is flagging up tax cuts for the better off in the next budget. It's always about who pays. Always.

So what makes the likes of the SP's promise to make working people pay far more tax superior to the LP?

Steppenwolfe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So what makes the likes of the SP's promise to make working people pay far more tax superior to the LP?

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay. So of course some working people would pay more than they do now. Seems a fairer system and reasonable enough to me. Not sure why anybody would object to that. Well, actually I do. It's the same people saying services and pay has to be cut for the sake of the economy. They favour more indiscriminate direct taxes as it doesn't affect them as much. The same ones who will cry blue murder if asked to pay more tax on their higeher incomes. There's a party for that class of electorate. It's called FG. They will survive after the election as they are looking after their own. Labour will be destroyed as they are doing the opposite.

Icepick

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay.

What a novelty idea.

Oh wait our income tax system is already one of thee most progressive ones in the world.

BoJack Horseman

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay.

No, they have said 'higher' tax.
Luckily, the income tax system is already exactly as you described....

It's the same people saying services and pay has to be cut for the sake of the economy. They favour more indiscriminate direct taxes as it doesn't affect them as much. The same ones who will cry blue murder if asked to pay more tax on their higeher incomes. There's a party for that class of electorate. It's called FG. They will survive after the election as they are looking after their own. Labour will be destroyed as they are doing the opposite.

Yeah......that's just a rant.

You didn't answer the question.

What is it about the SP's much much higher taxation demands (no just income tax) that makes them a better choice than labour?

Idbatterim

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay. So of course some working people would pay more than they do now. Seems a fairer system and reasonable enough to me. Not sure why anybody would object to that. Well, actually I do. It's the same people saying services and pay has to be cut for the sake of the economy. They favour more indiscriminate direct taxes as it doesn't affect them as much. The same ones who will cry blue murder if asked to pay more tax on their higeher incomes. There's a party for that class of electorate. It's called FG. They will survive after the election as they are looking after their own. Labour will be destroyed as they are doing the opposite.

Even if we had a flat rate 20% system, the more you earn the more you pay, that isnt enough here though, Ie. earn another 10,000 pay 2,000 extra in tax, no here, they want over half of YOUR income at the marginal rate. I will tell you one of the main problems, hundreds of thousands of low income workers contributing virtually nothing in direct taxes.... I absolutely agree with that those who earn more pay more, nobody doesnt, but "progressive" taxes here at the rate they kick in at and at the marginal rate, are unfair, anti competitive, anti work and jobs, straight up they are simply a disgrace...

Thats is what years of "right wing" FF and FG has gotten us folks, a marginal tax rate of over half your income on a relative pittance...:rolleyes:

Steppenwolfe

Icepick wrote: »

What a novelty idea.

Oh wait our income tax system is already one of thee most progressive ones in the world.

I've no idea about the rest of the world. I do know there is room for improvement here. The USC and water taxes are certainly not progressive.

FreudianSlippers

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I've no idea about the rest of the world. I do know there is room for improvement here. The USC and water taxes are certainly not progressive.

Commodity consumptions should not be progressive. Should people pay different rates for clothing, fuel, electricity, food, etc. based on their income?

Steppenwolfe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Commodity consumptions should not be progressive. Should people pay different rates for clothing, fuel, electricity, food, etc. based on their income?

I wouldn't object if electricity/gas was subsidized to some extent. I think they already are for some people.

Chips Lovell

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

The USC and water taxes are certainly not progressive.

USC is progressive.

Water charges aren't a tax, per se.

Idbatterim

what do you make of this Steppenwolfe?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/squeezed-workers-here-hit-top-tax-rate-earlier-than-in-other-countries-29611581.html

FreudianSlippers

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I wouldn't object if electricity/gas was subsidized to some extent. I think they already are for some people.

Water was also going to be heavily subsidised for everyone in the state, plus extra for the poor and elderly.

Now it's totally unfair to everyone (thanks protesters!) in that you pay the same regardless of income and usage. The proposed system that the protesters overturned was more progressive.

Idbatterim

Now it's totally unfair to everyone (thanks protesters!) in that you pay the same regardless of income and usage. The proposed system that the protesters overturned was more progressive.

this always makes me laugh, as if anything here is actually based on fairness, everything has been pretty much decided upon by your leverage of vested interest groups on government and buying elections for decades...

In relation to the water, take a read of the below and yet a 1 billion euro plus scheme to take water from the shannon to serve dublin is being proposed :rolleyes:

Last October, when Dubliners thought they were being charged for water on the basis of how much they used it appears to have given them pause for thought. Water usage dropped to its lowest for the year.
The previous month, which was to be the last month of “free” water, consumption was at its highest.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/water-usage-in-dublin-area-fell-sharply-as-users-considered-charge-1.2120744

Steppenwolfe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, they have said 'higher' tax.
Luckily, the income tax system is already exactly as you described....

Not exactly. USC and water taxes need to be adressed and incorporated in to the regular income tax system.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yeah......that's just a rant.

You didn't answer the question.

What is it about the SP's much much higher taxation demands (no just income tax) that makes them a better choice than labour?

It's a thread about Labour still having a 7% folowing. I'm not here to defend SF. I have no idea what their specific taxation policy is. As they profess to being left wing I presume they want a fairer taxation system than present under FG/Labour.

There must be plenty of SF threads around if you want to bash the shinners. I'm sure the posters there could better answer your loaded questions.

Steppenwolfe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Water was also going to be heavily subsidised for everyone in the state, plus extra for the poor and elderly.

Now it's totally unfair to everyone (thanks protesters!) in that you pay the same regardless of income and usage. The proposed system that the protesters overturned was more progressive.

I'd agree with you to some extent on that.

Steppenwolfe

Idbatterim wrote: »

what do you make of this Steppenwolfe?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/squeezed-workers-here-hit-top-tax-rate-earlier-than-in-other-countries-29611581.html

It doesn't surprise me. If I was still young with skills I'd be outta here like a hot snot. I don't blame the young people and skilled for leaving in droves. I did it in the 80's, but I weathered that storm and learned from experience. Thank **** I'm not dependant on the bastards anymore. The country was always a kip for most people and no matter who gets in to power it always will be.

Chips Lovell

As someone who favours a welfare state and progressive taxation, one aspect of Labour policy doesn't sit well with me and that's this thing about taking x-amount of people "out of the tax net". FF and FG are fond of it too.

I think everyone who works should pay some amount of income tax, even a token amount. You feel like more of a stakeholder in a system that you're a contributor to it.

Godge

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay.

Isn't our system the most progressive in the world already?

Don't we have the lowest income taxes in the OECD on those earning below the average income?

How can our income tax system be made more progressive without overtaxing at the top?