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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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
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
FF and FG, what's the difference?
Comments
-
Irish water is not a quango anymore than the ESB is one. It delivers clean potable water to 4 million people daily and takes their waste away. The fact you and a group of people reject a reasonable usage charge that every other modern country supports (as an aside true left wingers support well funded public services) is a reflection that perhaps you are part of this problem you describe (housing). Creating no funding flow for IW is having real consequences in terms of investment and yes, creating one of the real reasons that we have a housing crisis in Dublin - lack of serviced land.
Just for clarity, because you might have missed it.
FG created an "Expert Comission" to examine our water services, and how they're funded etc.
They (hand picked by Simon Coveney) came to the conclusion thatThe final report says normal water usage for households should be paid through general taxation, with a charge being levied for “wasteful” usage.
An expert group established by FG, looked at the system FG tried to foist on the public and determined that they got many things completely wrong, including raised eyebrows over the meters that DOB benefited from.The commission questions the rollout of water meters, which cost more than €500 million to install,and says that a referendum enshrining Irish Water in public ownership should be considered.
You can read more about it here
In hindsight, it looks like the people objecting to the way FG tried to implement the charges were correct in what they were saying.
That's not coming from me, that's coming from the FG hand picked expert commission.
The pros and cons of Enda are for another days chuckle.0 -
Has anyone worked out any real difference yet between any of them ? They all do the same thing when they get in power . . look after themselves and their fat ministerial pension for life.0
-
The commission on Irish Water was a request by FF to try and put water charges to bed by 'bureaucratic means' as in, if a report is responsible for dumping water charges than no one is responsible. Let's not try and redraw history here.
Every.single.OECD.country.has.a.water.charge.
Apart from Ireland. You think we are behind the curve here or ahead of it.
That is actually a good indication on why we still have FF and FG dominating politics. We do not really do ideology. We do populism and whoever can deliver the goodies, will get the vote. We vote people in on perceived competence, not on ideology per say.
Sure, Irish socialists are against property tax. The only Socialists in the world who would say such a thing. Madness to be honest, but that is Irish politics.0 -
Do you have a link showing that FF specifically requested the expert commission established by FG?
Regardless of who requested it to be set up, their findings still flew in the face of the people who established them to begin with.
That wasn't Brendan ogle, Paul Murphy, Gerry Adams or any other bogeyman, it was the very commission of experts that FG handpicked.
Some kick in the face.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »Do you have a link showing that FF specifically requested the expert commission established by FG?
It was part of the program for government agreed by FF and FG in 2016. It was the political equivalent of kicking the can down the road.
Regardless, again, the fact that we are the only OECD country that does not charge for water is a good indication of why FF and FG have dominated politics and the rest are has-beens.0 -
So not a FF requirement?It was part of the program for government agreed by FF and FG in 2016. It was the political equivalent of kicking the can down the road.
Why the lie?Regardless, again, the fact that we are the only OECD country that does not charge for water is a good indication of why FF and FG have dominated politics and the rest are has-beens.
The expert commission reached the conclusion that we fund our water services the way we're currently funding them (same as before Irish water rode into town)
Maybe if the rest of the OECD gets FG to appoint expert commissions to their respective countries, they'll conclude alternative funding methods there too.
Next they can start debating on Ireland and the UK driving on the left hand side. Maybe we're ahead of the curve in that regards too.0 -
Wheeliebin30 wrote:The most social houses were built last year than any in the last 11 years.
Isn't it a shame it took 7 years of warnings and the biggest housing /homeless crisis in the history of the state for the government to get this many homes built.
Another side of your above comment is that the amount of social housing build 12 years ago, in proportion to the amount on the housing list, must be 100s of times more than last year. Proportionally the amount of social housing built last year is a tiny fraction of that 12 years ago.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »Just for clarity, because you might have missed it.
FG created an "Expert Comission" to examine our water services, and how they're funded etc.
They (hand picked by Simon Coveney) came to the conclusion that
An expert group established by FG, looked at the system FG tried to foist on the public and determined that they got many things completely wrong, including raised eyebrows over the meters that DOB benefited from.
You can read more about it here
In hindsight, it looks like the people objecting to the way FG tried to implement the charges were correct in what they were saying.
That's not coming from me, that's coming from the FG hand picked expert commission.
The pros and cons of Enda are for another days chuckle.
Oh. I've read it. And I disagree with it as well as FG backing off of Water charges in the end. The report is a fudge that does not answer basic questions around the sustainability of water services or the impact on commercial charges. Plenty of critical analysis of it and of course, the mandate given to it which led to the outcome. There is plenty to critique those against the way water charges were introduced who still don't have any answers other than general taxation. And lets no forget this is an analysis not shared by any other developed country on the planet.
Fine Gael does not exist in a vacuum and after FF won it's third GE based on a populist McCreeynomincs, FG shifted to those same populist policies into the 2007 election. Likewise populists latching onto water charges and the civic disruption that caused it led to backing out and the escape route of "an independent commission". Not a proud day for Irish politics.
But IW remains (and delivering a far better programme of improvements than the councils ever did) and the meters installed remain. Charges will happen eventually. But by boiling the frog. Which goes back to the electorate.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »So not a FF requirement?
Educate yourself. Read the program for government.The expert commission reached the conclusion that we fund our water services the way we're currently funding them (same as before Irish water rode into town)
Yeap, that is why we have one of the worst water quality in the EU, with all those boil notices. Nevermind that a third of the country already pay for water....
But don't tell that to urban Ireland.Maybe if the rest of the OECD gets FG to appoint expert commissions to their respective countries, they'll conclude alternative funding methods there too.
Next they can start debating on Ireland and the UK driving on the left hand side. Maybe we're ahead of the curve in that regards too.
Faux humor used as a defensive mechanism to try and scurry away from actually debating the points raised. You get an A for effort, but alas your methods of running away from the debate is clear to all you follow.
If you are actually engaged in the point I raised, you do not think it's odd that we, Ireland are the only country in the OECD that does not pay for water. Is this Irish exceptionalism or are we special in another way.0 -
Advertisement
-
Educate yourself. Read the program for government.
I'm asking you for a link, you're obviously not -
Actually you know what? Forget it, we know one isn't forthcoming because you told a lie and got called out on it.
This forum used to be fairly strict on making false statements and peddling them as fact.
Take that up with FGs (that they came up with entirely by themselves) expert commission, it was they that reached their conclusions not I.Yeap, that is why we have one of the worst water quality in the EU, with all those boil notices. Nevermind that a third of the country already pay for water....
But don't tell that to urban Ireland.
As for the ⅓ already paying for water, presumably these are people not connected to the mains, they're enjoying lower LPT than urban dwellers, and also entitled to annual subsidies for the upkeep and maintenance.
Swings and roundabouts.Faux humor used as a defensive mechanism to try and scurry away from actually debating the points raised. You get an A for effort, but alas your methods of running away from the debate is clear to all you follow.
If you are actually engaged in the point I raised, you do not think it's odd that we, Ireland are the only country in the OECD that does not pay for water. Is this Irish exceptionalism or are we special in another way.
Faux humour?
I'm pointing out to you that just because everyone else does something is a crap argument for a govt to subscribe to.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »
Faux humour?
It drips from your posts. Your attempt at humor to either escalate a situation or sidestep a question is par of the course.
Swings and roundabouts we have the worst drinking water quality in the EU I suppose. In your zealot fanatical zeal to blame FG for the matter you cannot tell the bark from the trees.
Which brings me full circle to the OP. THIS is why we have FF and FG in power all this time.0 -
It drips from your posts. Your attempt at humor to either escalate a situation or sidestep a question is par of the course.
Swings and roundabouts we have the worst drinking water quality in the EU I suppose. In your zealot fanatical zeal to blame FG for the matter you cannot tell the bark from the trees.
Which brings me full circle to the OP. THIS is why we have FF and FG in power all this time.
Walt a goddam minute here, you seem to think I'm debating the standard of our drinking water?
I've not once commented on it, I pointed out that water charges are no more, due to the findings of a commission of experts that were handpicked by FG.
You claimed that the commission was an answer to a FF request, I've been looking into this, and I can't see any evidence of FF ever requesting this commission - ever.
That's what I'm discussing with you, stop trying to claim I'm "sidestepping an issue" - that's your own downfall here, own it.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »An opposition that supports the government for favours is pointless, no?
This is not a meeting of social policy. It would be great if government and opposition worked in such a manner. The role of the opposition is to call out bad policy, not call out bad policy and then support it.
When FF can still muster 20 seats after the meltdown and IMF etc., we're in trouble IMO. FG taking them on for 'stability' after castigating them for votes in the run up to the election is disgraceful.
I am not sure that you understand the role of an opposition political party.
Let’s see what some people have said about opposition parties:
‘I'm saying (quite clearly) that opposition parties all claim to have the answers to our problems, it's only when that get in that you'll find out whether their claims turn out to be complete fluff or not.’
I can only conclude from that that it is not healthy to have an opposition party that never gets into power, or in fact to pay too much attention to an opposition party who disagree for the sake of disagreeing.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »Do you have a link showing that FF specifically requested the expert commission established by FG?
Regardless of who requested it to be set up, their findings still flew in the face of the people who established them to begin with.
That wasn't Brendan ogle, Paul Murphy, Gerry Adams or any other bogeyman, it was the very commission of experts that FG handpicked.
Some kick in the face.
Except that the Commission didn't get rid of water charges, just changed the nature of them.
The legislation providing for water charges is still in place.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I was very happy with the make up of government in 2011, what do I know?
That's not the case. FG weren't forced to look to FF. They chose to.
People didn't vote for a FF/FG coalition which is essentially what we have. If they ran on that, don't you think the votes may have landed differently?
You don't seemed to have grasped the politics behind coalition governments as they function across democracies.
Parties run for election on their policies. After the election, they bargain with other parties to see how much (or how little) of their policies can be implemented. That is a compromise. Only those who are prepared to bargain will get into government, unless they get an overall majority.
FG didn't have any options other than FF, because the other parties refused to play ball. FG talked to Labour and the Greens, but were unable to do deals with them.
If you think FG shouldn't have got support from FF, explain to us what else they could have done.0 -
Advertisement
-
Having been our of the country for a while it becomes clear that there's absolutely no difference between. FF Nd FG. I'm absolutely certain that whichever party was in power over the last decade, the policies implemented would be almost exactly the same.
Whichever party was In Opposition would have pretended they were completely opposed to the government's decision. And if they were in government they would have done exactly the same.
I expect FF to be a bit more tolerant of corruption. Brown envelopes etc. Enda had a couple of corruption accusations, but nothing Compared to what Bertie was Into. Between dig-outs and failure to recall where money came from etc. Enda wasn't in the same league.
But policy wise, I expect them to look after the old and wealthy, big business and tax earnings but not wealth. Two cheeks of the same arse.0 -
I used to support water charges but had a change of heart. Why? Because the workers would end up paying for everything as usual and everyone else ,” de vunerabble” , would get it for nothing... as usual ...
It would be interesting to take fg out , when the economy is “ booming “ that might signal that if they think they can fail on everything other than a booming economy, they’ll be out on their ear ...0 -
-
Johnny Dogs wrote: »
That's what I'm discussing with you, stop trying to claim I'm "sidestepping an issue" - that's your own downfall here, own it.
Yet, here you are debating water charges as if it's a new debate. Its old and tiresome and weird to be honest. Water changes have nothing to do with the OP.
The OP is wondering if FF and FG are the same and I am giving an example of why these two parties are always in government. We do not to standard politics here at all. We are an outlier in many aspects. For example water charges.
If you want to give out and bemoan the fact that FG and FF are always in government and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, you have to examine why.0 -
You don't seemed to have grasped the politics behind coalition governments as they function across democracies.
.
.
.
If you think FG shouldn't have got support from FF, explain to us what else they could have done.
Matt seems to forget that there was not one but FOUR votes for Taoiseach in the Dail after the 2016 election.
The numbers fell where they fell, if FG and FF didn't agree to some form of government, what else exactly should have happened. Another election or some other magical outcome?0 -
Advertisement
-
Yet, here you are debating water charges as if it's a new debate. Its old and tiresome and weird to be honest. Water changes have nothing to do with the OP.
The OP is wondering if FF and FG are the same and I am giving an example of why these two parties are always in government. We do not to standard politics here at all. We are an outlier in many aspects. For example water charges.
If you want to give out and bemoan the fact that FG and FF are always in government and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, you have to examine why.
I'm not "debating" water charges - they were introduced to the thread by another poster, I just reminded/corrected a poster as to why water charges are no more - finished because of the expert commission.
The same way you had to be corrected as to whom came up with the expert commission to begin with - you have kept it up for a few days now, doubling down on the lie that it was an FF idea/request - which is a downright lie.
Own it.0 -
“Expert commission” in an Irish context, has given me the best laugh since the Maria Bailey thread in after hours ...0
-
Idbatterim wrote: »“Expert commission” in an Irish context, has given me the best laugh since the Maria Bailey thread in after hours ...
Hang around for a while, next thing you know Maria Bailey will have been pushed off a swing by a FF TD, and given legal advice to seek compensation by an FF minister.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Mod Note
The charter states:When offering an opinion, please state so. Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flaming and a poster/moderator may demand further evidence. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.
Allegations of lying are taken very seriously. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable without proof, the onus is on you to provide the proof that they are deliberately and intentionally trying to deceive.
There have been some reported posts on this two points.
The mods have reviewed recent posts and concluded that nobody was lying in this respect. It was a reasonable assertion to make.
So let's drop the accusations of lying.
However, this is the second time in a week that I've had to intervene with posters bickering on thread. Let's be more polite with one another.
Thanks0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »I'm not "debating" water charges - they were introduced to the thread by another poster, I just reminded/corrected a poster as to why water charges are no more - finished because of the expert commission.
...
Which was agreed upon by the most recent program for the government.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/the-full-document-fine-gael-fianna-f%C3%A1il-deal-for-government-1.2633572
The 'expert commission' was at the behest of FF, which was agreed to by FG.
You are the only person here trying to re-write history.0 -
If all of the parties had ran with their coalition partnerships on offer, we would still end up with FG and FF, because, as you'll recall, after the last election all of the other parties declined to do a deal.
And that included the parties that campaigned together under the common 'right2change' platform. They set out their stall and then dismantled it after the election.
Clearly pointing out we didnt vote for it. We got unforeseen consequences of our votes, sure.
IMO an opposition has a duty to oppose any bad policies they see and agree or back any good.
Complaining but nodding along anyway is not good enough frankly.0 -
That's the thing with a multi-party, proportional system ; it's common for no manifesto presented at an election to secure a mandate by attracting a majority of votes.Matt Barrett wrote: »Clearly pointing out we didnt vote for it. We got unforeseen consequences of our votes, sure.
In the UK's charmingly quaint system they avoid any problems by deeming the manifesto that has attracted the most support to have secured a mandate, even though a clear majority of the electorate may have rejected it.
More sophisticated systems such as ours take the view that what a party secures is not a mandate to implement its manifesto, but a mandate to enter negotiations to form a government, using its manifesto as the basis for its negotiating position and aiming to get some of it reflected in the programme for government. The resulting programme for government is considered to have a mandate not directly, from the votes of the people, but indirectly, from the approval of a majority of the elected representatives of the people.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »That's the thing with a multi-party, proportional system ; it's common for no manifesto presented at an election to secure a mandate by attracting a majority of votes.
In the UK's charmingly quaint system they avoid any problems by deeming the manifesto that has attracted the most support to have secured a mandate, even though a clear majority of the electorate may have rejected it.
More sophisticated systems such as ours take the view that what a party secures is not a mandate to implement its manifesto, but a mandate to enter negotiations to form a government, using its manifesto as the basis for its negotiating position and aiming to get some of it reflected in the programme for government. The resulting programme for government is considered to have a mandate not directly, from the votes of the people, but indirectly, from the approval of a majority of the elected representatives of the people.
As pointed out FG ran on demonising FF, not to mention the faux manifesto. FF or FG getting in on promises that turn into wishes and evaporate is nothing new, the difference here is we've supposed political rivals who to me obviously are more interested in being in power than anything else, like exacerbating crises, is at least 'stable' like it's a good thing.0 -
And that's basically what the opposition parties did after the last election.Matt Barrett wrote: »Complaining but nodding along anyway is not good enough frankly.
They complained about FG and FF but then nodded them into power by not being willing to make the compromises that are always going to be necessary to gain power themselves.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »That's the thing with a multi-party, proportional system ; it's common for no manifesto presented at an election to secure a mandate by attracting a majority of votes.
In the UK's charmingly quaint system they avoid any problems by deeming the manifesto that has attracted the most support to have secured a mandate, even though a clear majority of the electorate may have rejected it.
More sophisticated systems such as ours take the view that what a party secures is not a mandate to implement its manifesto, but a mandate to enter negotiations to form a government, using its manifesto as the basis for its negotiating position and aiming to get some of it reflected in the programme for government. The resulting programme for government is considered to have a mandate not directly, from the votes of the people, but indirectly, from the approval of a majority of the elected representatives of the people.
It has taken a while for our political system to reach this understanding. For a long time, not entering a coalition was a core value of Fianna Fail. Some of the political parties still do not understand this, adopting an all or nothing position.
It is not surprising therefore that the electorate do not fully understand this. It can be difficult to understand why the party you support does not fully implement all of its promises. Understanding that some of its promises were incompatible with its coalition partner(s) is difficult, especially when the particular promises dropped were those that the individual voter was most attached to.
However, if there is one thing that is a wasted vote, it is a vote for a party that has minority support but is unprepared to go into coalition government.0 -
Advertisement
-
And that's basically what the opposition parties did after the last election.
They complained about FG and FF but then nodded them into power by not being willing to make the compromises that are always going to be necessary to gain power themselves.
I was talking about FF as an opposition party, (FF are opposition) I can see the confusion, which is my whole point.0 -
It has taken a while for our political system to reach this understanding. For a long time, not entering a coalition was a core value of Fianna Fail. Some of the political parties still do not understand this, adopting an all or nothing position.
It is not surprising therefore that the electorate do not fully understand this. It can be difficult to understand why the party you support does not fully implement all of its promises. Understanding that some of its promises were incompatible with its coalition partner(s) is difficult, especially when the particular promises dropped were those that the individual voter was most attached to.
However, if there is one thing that is a wasted vote, it is a vote for a party that has minority support but is unprepared to go into coalition government.
As with Labour before them, they should really find some ethics and take a stand on issues with their partner. Like the Greens with FF, not taking a stand is what destroyed them but I guess these parties want to remain in power as long as possible over and above any political ideology. Which goes back to FF being a disaster that ruined the country but good enough if keeping FG in power.
No it's not that at all. It's being in 'opposition' or being a junior partner and not speaking out on policies you supposedly disagree with or turning a blind eye to cronyism. It gets to the stage that your role has no point.
There's having to change or drop policy and reneging on 'changing the way we do business' which as you know FG were more than eager to continue with the same cronyism that had gone before.
I disagree. Voting for a party you don't agree with or one you can't trust is wasting your vote and worse if you are empowering proven incompetent crony mongers. How do we expect to ever have viable options if we vote in such a manner?0 -
It has taken a while for our political system to reach this understanding. For a long time, not entering a coalition was a core value of Fianna Fail. Some of the political parties still do not understand this, adopting an all or nothing position.
It is not surprising therefore that the electorate do not fully understand this. It can be difficult to understand why the party you support does not fully implement all of its promises. Understanding that some of its promises were incompatible with its coalition partner(s) is difficult, especially when the particular promises dropped were those that the individual voter was most attached to.
However, if there is one thing that is a wasted vote, it is a vote for a party that has minority support but is unprepared to go into coalition government.
I don't agree with that, a minority party will always be limited in what they can achieve, but they may have more influence from the opposition benches than as part of a government where ultimately collective responsibility applies.
Holding a government to account is an important function and not without influence.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »No it's not that at all. It's being in 'opposition' or being a junior partner and not speaking out on policies you supposedly disagree with or turning a blind eye to cronyism. It gets to the stage that your role has no point.
A coalition partner that constantly speaks out against policies they disagree with that are in the program for government is not a proper coalition partner. All your philosophy would lead to is a great increase in general elections and unstable governments.
As to attempted slurs that some parties are only interested in being in power - that is essentially their raison d'etre. It is a nonsensical criticism.0 -
A coalition partner that constantly speaks out against policies they disagree with that are in the program for government is not a proper coalition partner. All your philosophy would lead to is a great increase in general elections and unstable governments.
As to attempted slurs that some parties are only interested in being in power - that is essentially their raison d'etre. It is a nonsensical criticism.
Agreed.
I disagree, how is calling out crony behaviour or policies that damage society ever a bad thing?
No slur, pointing out my opinion based on form. Labour should have walked with Shortall IMO. Staying on to remain in power didn't work for them or the Greens before them.
I think your idea that the whole point is to stay in power is very cynical. I can see how that's what we've become accustomed to but it shouldn't be acceptable in a party we support IMO. As we've seen from both FF and FG. However it seems FF/FG voters are far more forgiving than the supporters, (former supporters) of Labour or the Greens.0 -
Amazingly, people's definition or judgement of what constitutes a policy that damages society is not consistent. I find it highly unlikely that anyone in government is regularly wilfully doing so and exceptions are very rare. You don't agree with them, but neither you nor clearly the parties you have voted for have entered government.
Minority parties in coalition have indeed suffered greatly over the years. No doubt that has helped contribute to the fracturing of the Dail and that will quite possibly help you get your apparent wish of a massive increase in the number of general elections.0 -
Amazingly, people's definition or judgement of what constitutes a policy that damages society is not consistent. I find it highly unlikely that anyone in government is regularly wilfully doing so and exceptions are very rare. You don't agree with them, but neither you nor clearly the parties you have voted for have entered government.
Minority parties in coalition have indeed suffered greatly over the years. No doubt that has helped contribute to the fracturing of the Dail and that will quite possibly help you get your apparent wish of a massive increase in the number of general elections.
My apologies, I assumed by 'program for government' you meant stated intentions and proposed policies, not anything made up as they went along after taking office or turning a blind eye to cronyism.
FF are doing it today. They complain about policy but vote along with it anyway to keep the 'stability'. Labour turned a blind eye to Reilly's clinic allocation, plenty of examples in every government including the current one.
That's your surmising of my points, meaning you missed them.
A poor or ineffective opposition is not good. Same being in a power sharing situation is worse. If you are okay with incompetence and cronyism for however you may justify it in the polling booth, that's your right.
FG are playing the role we've seen FF play time and again, doing pretty much what they like, poorly and FF nodding along after a bit of a quiet protest.0 -
I don't agree with that, a minority party will always be limited in what they can achieve, but they may have more influence from the opposition benches than as part of a government where ultimately collective responsibility applies.
Holding a government to account is an important function and not without influence.
Then why be part of a government?
That statement belies all we know about Irish politics. Every serious party wants to be in power. Those that don't are not serious and prefer protest and megaphone politics.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I think your idea that the whole point is to stay in power is very cynical. I can see how that's what we've become accustomed to but it shouldn't be acceptable in a party we support IMO. As we've seen from both FF and FG. However it seems FF/FG voters are far more forgiving than the supporters, (former supporters) of Labour or the Greens.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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 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.0 -
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
Advertisement