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
FF and FG, what's the difference?
Options
Comments
-
Maybe its just pragmatic?
One can hold all the highest ideals and morals they want, but at the end of the day, if you want to enact change, you will have to get stuck in and be in government.
You have a very idealistic notion about the current situation regarding FG and FF.
You bemoan the fact that FG has propped up FF, even though its actually FG in government.
A history lesson. The election occurred on the 26th of February.
Enda Kenny was elected on the 4th go on the 6th of May. We did not have a functioning government for well over two months, ten weeks in fact.
How many times should the Dail have voted for a Taoiseach before we had another general election? Five? Ten?
If there was another election, the polls indicated we pretty much would have been back at the same place numbers-wise, with FF and FG having to do some deal in order to form a government.
In your ideal world, they shouldn't have done any deal whatsoever. OK fine. So please tell us what then should they or other parties should have done to form a government?
I have asked this question a few times now but it's been ignored, so perhaps this time you can enlighten us on the intractable and real problem the 2016 election brought us, rather than your idealised version of events and outcomes.
I find your comments confrontational and bizarre.
The only point is it's not healthy for us to have a faux opposition propping up government, especially when we are in crises and the faux opposition sells it like they disagree with the policies they back anyway.
I'm not going to create a fantasy so you can criticise said fantasy with a series of unprovable 'that wouldn't happen because' etc.. I don't see the point. We could have done better with a FF that took a hard line on some things they show disagreement with.
I wonder do FG realise they've made FF the more likable of the two? I guess it's FF's turn on top next government.I have asked this question many times since the election of Enda Kenny in 2016 and I have yet to see a single coherent answer on these threads.
The essence of protest politics is to object to everything and to offer no practical solutions. Complaints about the election of Enda Kenny in 2016 fall into that category, as there was no other possibility.
That's your problem. It's been debated and you've not found anything you will accept.
You cannot ignore threads and numerous pages of debate and expect to be taken seriously. More social housing, no cronyism, no quango and on and on....Not seen any of these discussed? You can disagree but don't attempt to say you've heard/seen nothing.
Again, FF with a backbone on the side of the public, in the face of FG policy exacerbating the myriad crises would be nice. You've obviously missed it but we've had threads on weak opposition in the past, hurlers from the ditch etc., it seems weak 'opposition' is fine if they support FG in keeping power.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I find your comments confrontational and bizarre.
That is an odd response. I have asked that question a few times before, yet you have repeatedly ignored it and rather you preferred to soapbox about the current sad state of affairs instead.
It is a perfectly valid question to ask by the way.The only point is it's not healthy for us to have a faux opposition propping up government, especially when we are in crises and the faux opposition sells it like they disagree with the policies they back anyway.
All well and good, so tell us what type of government should we have formed instead in 2016?I'm not going to create a fantasy so you can criticise said fantasy with a series of unprovable 'that wouldn't happen because' etc.. I don't see the point.
Fantasy? I am asking pretty straight forward questions about forming a government after a general election. This is politics 101. People vote, TD's take their seats, the vote for a Taoiseach...We could have done better with a FF that took a hard line on some things they show disagreement with.
So you wanted them to bring down the government and have an election. Fine. What exact problem would that have fixed?
Politics is not an episode of the West Wing. It's usually dull, boring and a bearpit full of possible deals and endless negotiations to get things done.
I think it's pretty clear that you have no clear answer to the question I posted regarding the outcome of the 2016 GE. Hence why refuse to answer it. You bemoan the fact that there is a deal between FG and FF, and the thing is you don't even realise that that is what we voted for. THAT is a democracy.
I find this attitude you exhibit to be a great example as to why FG and FF dominate Irish politics currently.0 -
That is an odd response. I have asked that question a few times before, yet you have repeatedly ignored it and rather you preferred to soapbox about the current sad state of affairs instead.
It is a perfectly valid question to ask by the way.
If by that you mean comment on FF and FG being similar as a bad thing for the current government, yes I have.All well and good, so tell us what type of government should we have formed instead in 2016?
Fantasy? I am asking pretty straight forward questions about forming a government after a general election. This is politics 101. People vote, TD's take their seats, the vote for a Taoiseach...
People didn't vote for a FF/FG coalition, it's a consequence not a choice.So you wanted them to bring down the government and have an election. Fine. What exact problem would that have fixed?
Not at all what I said. FF might push for more social housing and accountability in issues such as the childrens hospital shenanigans?Politics is not an episode of the West Wing. It's usually dull, boring and a bearpit full of possible deals and endless negotiations to get things done.
This would be a bizarre portion for me.I think it's pretty clear that you have no clear answer to the question I posted regarding the outcome of the 2016 GE. Hence why refuse to answer it. You bemoan the fact that there is a deal between FG and FF, and the thing is you don't even realise that that is what we voted for. THAT is a democracy.
This makes no sense in regard of what I've posted anyway.
What answer do you expect? It fell the way it did, I could give an opinion of what a different outcome might look like and you can say why it didn't pan out that way. Just saving time really. The idea that you can't be critical of bad governing because that's the government we got is nonsense IMO. It's tired, it's used a lot. It's about looking for better from what we have. I'd be happy for this power sharing combo to continue if they did a better job of it. I don't much care who wins.I find this attitude you exhibit to be a great example as to why FG and FF dominate Irish politics currently.
Can you make sense of this comment? I can't.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »
People didn't vote for a FF/FG coalition, it's a consequence not a choice.
People didn't get a FF/FG coalition, they got a Confidence and Supply Arrangement.
You have been asked many times before, what was the alternative?0 -
People didn't get a FF/FG coalition, they got a Confidence and Supply Arrangement.
You have been asked many times before, what was the alternative?
A FF who hold FG to account, a FF who push for amendments to policies they don't like? That's the alternative.
My saying a weak coalition (unofficially but in actuality) is a bad thing is just that. If you disagree that's great, I think an opposition, even a pretend one, should be pushing for things as they see them otherwise they are pointless and FF/FG should just merge.
I suppose FF and FG partnering up is at least showing the public there's little to no difference and gives the electorate the information to do with that what they will.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »A FF who hold FG to account, a FF who push for amendments to policies they don't like? That's the alternative.
My saying a weak coalition (unofficially but in actuality) is a bad thing is just that. If you disagree that's great, I think an opposition, even a pretend one, should be pushing for things as they see them otherwise they are pointless and FF/FG should just merge.
I suppose FF and FG partnering up is at least showing the public there's little to no difference and gives the electorate the information to do with that what they will.
You don't get it. FG are in government as the largest party.
If FF, SF, I4C, Greens and the rest don't like what FG do, the answer is to form a coalition and go into government themselves. Sniping from the sidelines is the cowardly option.0 -
You don't get it. FG are in government as the largest party.
If FF, SF, I4C, Greens and the rest don't like what FG do, the answer is to form a coalition and go into government themselves. Sniping from the sidelines is the cowardly option.
You seem to be arguing on why we have FG in government supported by FF. I'm not disputing the election results nor the resultant confidence and supply deal.
I'm repeatedly speaking on the disadvantage to society in having an opposition supporting a government they claim to disagree with on issues, but not standing up on points. They could stand up on issues without taking down government. They could push for things to be done differently. Again having them both so similar is not healthy for our democracy IMO.
Sniping from the sidelines is very admirable when compared to turning a blind eye so you get a taste of power like FF, Labour and the Greens before them.
Are you suggesting, should the opportunity have presented itself Enda's FG should have gone in with Bertie, or again is it just that whatever keeps FG in power that's okay?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »You seem to be arguing on why we have FG in government supported by FF. I'm not disputing the election results nor the resultant confidence and supply deal.
I'm repeatedly speaking on the disadvantage to society in having an opposition supporting a government they claim to disagree with on issues, but not standing up on points. They could stand up on issues without taking down government. They could push for things to be done differently. Again having them both so similar is not healthy for our democracy IMO.
It is only a disadvantage to society if the majority of voters disagree with the policies being pursued.
From the results of the local and European elections, it would appear that this is not the case, with FG, FF and the independents who work with them, still appearing to have majority support. So where FF and FG agree, we can conclude that is what society wants, because they is what society has voted for, whether or not you or I want the particular measure.
This is different to the UK where clearly the governing party only ever has a minority of support for what they do.Matt Barrett wrote: »Sniping from the sidelines is very admirable when compared to turning a blind eye so you get a taste of power like FF, Labour and the Greens before them.
Are you suggesting, should the opportunity have presented itself Enda's FG should have gone in with Bertie, or again is it just that whatever keeps FG in power that's okay?
I am speaking to the situation that pertained after the last election. We elect TDs to the Dail and we task them and their parties with the responsibility of forming a government.
Sometimes the answer is obvious - as when FF got a majority or some decades ago when a pre-election pact between Labour and FG got a majority outcome. Much of the time, especially in recent decades, the answer is not so obvious and the political parties have the responsibility to deal with that. Some take their responsibility seriously, some do not. As to whether FG should have gone in with Bertie, I can't recall all of those post-election scenarios, but I don't think the numbers ever made it necessary. What was different about the last election was the relative success of Sinn Fein who were determined to sit on their hands, and a mish-mash of left-wing parties who just weren't interested in government. I think the focus the next time will be much more clearly on government options as people will want to know intentions clearly.
Your last half-sentence is pejorative personalisation, and I won't reply.0 -
It is only a disadvantage to society if the majority of voters disagree with the policies being pursued....
That's true to a point, but if you're a FF voter and you get FG for your troubles, you might feel differently. Not to mention a healthy alternative of differing policies being a good thing in politics, especially during a time of worsening crises.I am speaking to the situation that pertained after the last election. We elect TDs to the Dail and we task them and their parties with the responsibility of forming a government.
The FF/FG alliance is a consequence of how the chips fell. I don't believe for a minute this FF/FG creation is about stability or civic responsibility, based on who these parties have shown themselves to be.Sometimes the answer is obvious - as when FF got a majority or some decades ago when a pre-election pact between Labour and FG got a majority outcome. Much of the time, especially in recent decades, the answer is not so obvious and the political parties have the responsibility to deal with that. Some take their responsibility seriously, some do not. As to whether FG should have gone in with Bertie, I can't recall all of those post-election scenarios, but I don't think the numbers ever made it necessary. What was different about the last election was the relative success of Sinn Fein who were determined to sit on their hands, and a mish-mash of left-wing parties who just weren't interested in government. I think the focus the next time will be much more clearly on government options as people will want to know intentions clearly.
The question was should Enda's FG have gone in with Bertie if the opportunity had presented itself? Should FG have supported the Bertie FF government, for stability, in a confidence and supply agreement, or been cowardly and continued to snipe from opposition? Where should one political entity draw the line or should everyone go in with anyone in the name of 'responsibility'?Your last half-sentence is pejorative personalisation, and I won't reply.
Okeydoke. Just trying to understand why being weak in opposition is bad, favouring opposition over confidence and supply is cowardly or that keeping a stable government trumps any particular political ethos a party may make claim to. Seems contradictory to me.
Be interesting to see what FG's attitude is on the day they've a chance at being all responsible by having a confidence and supply agreement with a party other than FF.0 -
It's quite simple really - there is more power in the confidence and supply arrangement for FF than if they were in opposition. I didn't think this was an exceptionally difficult thought exercise?0
-
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »If by that you mean comment on FF and FG being similar as a bad thing for the current government, yes I have.
And as I asked before, what kind of government would you like to see?People didn't vote for a FF/FG coalition, it's a consequence not a choice.
Sorry, but that is exactly what people voted for. The people were not happy with the FG and Labour supermajority of the previous government, so delivered us a minority government.Not at all what I said. FF might push for more social housing and accountability in issues such as the childrens hospital shenanigans?
They can push all they want, but if FG says, we will do this our way, what can FF do? Well, they do have the power to bring down the government, but with great power comes responsibility. With that type of power, you have to look at the bigger picture.
We see the debacle of the North where there has been no government there for over two years, yes two years, because of posturing over the Irish Language and other issues, that really do not matter to most people. That is a consequence of what you are calling for. Endless elections and posturing. Do you want Ireland to be like Italy?What answer do you expect?
How about some honesty and realism? You avoid the harder questions all the time, instead engage in some philosophical overtures about how things should be.It fell the way it did, I could give an opinion of what a different outcome might look like and you can say why it didn't pan out that way.
Well, go on then....Just saving time really. The idea that you can't be critical of bad governing because that's the government we got is nonsense IMO. It's tired, it's used a lot. It's about looking for better from what we have. I'd be happy for this power sharing combo to continue if they did a better job of it. I don't much care who wins.
Ah, thought not.
Classic hurling on the ditch.Can you make sense of this comment? I can't.
As mentioned, FF and FG are in power because they are the most pragmatic parties we have. They don't really do ideology, while other parties do, to various extents.
A party has a choice, it can drop the high idealism and compromise to get into government or you can be ideologically pure without ever doing anything of note.
It's quite simple really. Voters who vote for the likes of SF, PBP or even Labour in 2011 bought into the false idea that a party can be a minority member of a government while maintaining this pure ideal. Only when it comes to power, hard choices have to be made. That is the price of it.
FF and FG voters are generally much more pragmatic. They know that compromises will be made on some issues but in the main will be happy enough to stick with their lads. This is why these parties dominate Irish politics and the rest come and go.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »It's quite simple really - there is more power in the confidence and supply arrangement for FF than if they were in opposition. I didn't think this was an exceptionally difficult thought exercise?
Great point if completely off the topic of discussion, well the one I'm having anyway. Parties want power shocker. I'd say that's a disservice to a party to suggest they are only about power above and beyond political ethos, but it is FF/FG we're talking about.
A poor 'opposition' supporting a poor government is not healthy. I would have thought arriving at that several posts in wasn't an exceptionally difficult thought exercise?0 -
I'd like to see a working partnership where FF play a more active role in policy, (that's right FG, looking to FF of all parties to take you to task, well done)...
FF and FG voters are generally much more pragmatic. They know that compromises will be made on some issues but in the main will be happy enough to stick with their lads. This is why these parties dominate Irish politics and the rest come and go.
So you're saying these parties go with the tide and have little if any difference between them? I agree. Do you think that's healthy for a society for the 'opposition' to be so alike or have the same self serving interests as the government while outwardly pretending they don't? Do you think FF/FG voters vote blindfolded and stick a pin in either or?
You can still love or loathe either, imagine it's PBP and they have a confidence and supply deal with Indies for change?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I'd like to see a working partnership where FF play a more active role in policy, (that's right FG, looking to FF of all parties to take you to task, well done).
I am surprised, I hadn't seen you as a FF supporter.0 -
-
I think one good thing about Irish politics is having a referendum on things that can divide people. So instead of having a pro or anti abortion or gay marriage party split. The people decide and whoever is in government implement the will of the people.
I hope the same happens for weed criminalisation and terminal illness euthanasia.
All the main parties come from a soft to hard Irish nationalist background. Maybe Renua wouldn't have fallen into that category but they dead.
The geographical spread of all the parties are fairly well ingrained as well. Like there's no south west type movement with Cork/Kerry/Limerick wanting to identify as a separate group.
So having somewhat homogenous political parties has kept politics from ever going extreme. I think it has always been pragmatism over strong ideology.
The PR voting system I think also keeps the voting public feeling enfranchised enough.
An Irexit vote would never wash here. Because be you an independent voter or a party political voter everyone has skin in the game. And everyone seems to moderate one another to varying degrees.
The main difference between FF and FG to me entirely depends on the actual personalities who sit at the cabinet table making decisions. So they are more driven by the people than ideology.0 -
There doesn't seem to be a coherent topic of discussion though. I'm still not clear what point you're actually trying to make.Matt Barrett wrote: »Great point if completely off the topic of discussion, well the one I'm having anyway.
So, if I'm understanding your point here: all parties want power; only FF/FG wants power.Parties want power shocker. I'd say that's a disservice to a party to suggest they are only about power above and beyond political ethos, but it is FF/FG we're talking about.
Without the C&S there is no government. So I'm not sure what you want exactly? Endless elections and no government for months isn't a great look - ask some of our crackpot European neighbours.A poor 'opposition' supporting a poor government is not healthy. I would have thought arriving at that several posts in wasn't an exceptionally difficult thought exercise?0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »There doesn't seem to be a coherent topic of discussion though. I'm still not clear what point you're actually trying to make.
So, if I'm understanding your point here: all parties want power; only FF/FG wants power.
It seems you're choosing not to.FreudianSlippers wrote: »Without the C&S there is no government. So I'm not sure what you want exactly? Endless elections and no government for months isn't a great look - ask some of our crackpot European neighbours.Matt Barrett wrote: »I'd like to see a working partnership where FF play a more active role in policy, (that's right FG, looking to FF of all parties to take you to task, well done)...Matt Barrett wrote: »...
A poor 'opposition' supporting a poor government is not healthy. I would have thought arriving at that several posts in wasn't an exceptionally difficult thought exercise?
It's all been explained quite clearly, I suggest you read posts before commenting.0 -
I think one good thing about Irish politics is having a referendum on things that can divide people. So instead of having a pro or anti abortion or gay marriage party split. The people decide and whoever is in government implement the will of the people.
I hope the same happens for weed criminalisation and terminal illness euthanasia.
All the main parties come from a soft to hard Irish nationalist background. Maybe Renua wouldn't have fallen into that category but they dead.
The geographical spread of all the parties are fairly well ingrained as well. Like there's no south west type movement with Cork/Kerry/Limerick wanting to identify as a separate group.
So having somewhat homogenous political parties has kept politics from ever going extreme. I think it has always been pragmatism over strong ideology.
The PR voting system I think also keeps the voting public feeling enfranchised enough.
An Irexit vote would never wash here. Because be you an independent voter or a party political voter everyone has skin in the game. And everyone seems to moderate one another to varying degrees.
The main difference between FF and FG to me entirely depends on the actual personalities who sit at the cabinet table making decisions. So they are more driven by the people than ideology.
The idea is sound and partners, not pretending to also be in opposition should work together, however they should also try keep the senior partner on the right track in the face of waste and cronyism otherwise there's no point in them considering themselves separate at all IMO. Also the above falls flat when the government of the day are doing a (record breaking in some areas) poor job and the 'opposition' are happy to support it.
You can criticise and hope for better without giving a rallying call for another team. We have what we have, it could be better.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Also the above falls flat when the government of the day are doing a (record breaking in some areas) poor job and the 'opposition' are happy to support it.
The opposition parties Labour/SF/PBP/Soc-Dems all went out of their way to stay in opposition after the last election.
They are happy enough to allow FG run the show. It avoids them actually having to make any decisions and lets them showboat ever onward.0 -
Advertisement
-
One has bankrupted the country twice. The other hasn't.0
-
Topgear on Dave wrote: »The opposition parties Labour/SF/PBP/Soc-Dems all went out of their way to stay in opposition after the last election.
They are happy enough to allow FG run the show. It avoids them actually having to make any decisions and lets them showboat ever onward.
Possibly I'm sure. I'm not commenting on Labour/SF/PBP/Soc-Dems. We have what we have, it could be better if FG were held to account by FF IMO, or FG changed the way they do business.John DoeReMi wrote: »One has bankrupted the country twice. The other hasn't.
Yet they are good enough to partner with.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Possibly I'm sure. I'm not commenting on Labour/SF/PBP/Soc-Dems. We have what we have, it could be better if FG were held to account by FF IMO, or FG changed the way they do business.
They would have to change the way they do business if the other parties put together a government. Easily done surely if FG are so bad?0 -
FG is in power now, FF will be in power in 2 years.
About all there is in difference.0 -
Topgear on Dave wrote: »They would have to change the way they do business if the other parties put together a government. Easily done surely if FG are so bad?
You have to accept that we have FG/FF in government. The pros or cons of the what ifs won't help us today. I've no interest in creating a fantasy league government. I don't care who's in if they do a good job. We'll see where we are next election.
Just because FG aren't doing well now regarding the crises doesn't mean they can't change things and shouldn't be encouraged to do so by FF.
They are too alike and doing a poor job. FF can bluster about it but they are complicit.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Possibly I'm sure. I'm not commenting on Labour/SF/PBP/Soc-Dems. We have what we have, it could be better if FG were held to account by FF IMO, or FG changed the way they do business.
Yet they are good enough to partner with.
Unfortunately, when looking at FF supporting FG, if you want to criticise it (and you do ad nauseum), it is important that you explain what the alternative is.
Looking at the list of parties you reference - Labour/SF/PBP/Soc-Dems - there hasn't been a single thing they have done or proposed in the last few years that would even make you pause to think that they might do a better job. They mostly end up making FG look half-decent in policy terms.0
Advertisement