# Who are these FF supporters?



## z107 (30 Jan 2010)

A recent opinion poll shows an increase in Fianna Fáil. They're on 27% apparently!
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/poll-shows-increase-in-ff-support-444230.html

Someone must be supporting them, and I'm curious as to whether anyone here would vote FF, in light of everything that has happened?

Is it because there is no other party worth supporting?


----------



## WaterSprite (30 Jan 2010)

I think there's also a reverse Bradley Effect in operation in this country.  There are many who say they will not vote FF and yet will do so when push comes to shove.

It's unspeakably depressing.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (30 Jan 2010)

All politics are local. FF are quite popular at local level. Just watch Wille O' Dea and Martin Cullen pull in thousands of No 1s in the next General Election!!!


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Jan 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> All politics are local. FF are quite popular at local level. Just watch Wille O' Dea and Martin Cullen pull in thousands of No 1s in the next General Election!!!


No chance of Martin Cullen being elected in Waterford in the next election.


----------



## UFC (30 Jan 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> Wille O' Dea


 
He must be magic. There's no other explanation for this man and his success.


----------



## Mucker Man (31 Jan 2010)

I'm originally from south Kerry and the support for FF is unbelievably strong still, wait for the next election when John O'Donoghue gets re elected.
Personally I believe that young people don't think for themselves politically, they just vote for the same muppets their parents vote for.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (31 Jan 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> No chance of Martin Cullen being elected in Waterford in the next election.



I really would like to think he won't. After calamity coughlan he is the least able minister in the cabinet.



UFC said:


> He must be magic. There's no other explanation for  this man and his success.



When asked to do something for his constituents he goes all out to get  it done. 'Get onto Wille O' Dea' is as popular a saying as 'yella jam'!!  (No offence intended to anyone from limerick)

He lives in a very modest house and goes around Limerick popping into  pubs chatting away, shaking hands and kissing babies. 



Mucker Man said:


> I'm originally from south Kerry and the support  for FF is unbelievably strong still, wait for the next election when  John O'Donoghue gets re elected.
> Personally I believe that young people don't think for themselves  politically, they just vote for the same muppets their parents vote  for.



JOD will be re-elected on the 'don't let those jackineens in dublin tell  us what to do here in kerry' platform.

I think the civil war is still a major factor in party loyality,  especially in rural Ireland. Plus, a-nod-and-a-wink politics was the way  things were done in this country for a long time and no party perfected  it like FF. Irish people like a bit of a-nod-and-a-wink politics when  it suits them. Its only when it goes so badly wrong like the situation  that we find ourselves in now that we put on our moral hat and start  tut-tutting.


----------



## Odea (31 Jan 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> No chance of Martin Cullen being elected in Waterford in the next election.


 
If he were big in to supporting trade unions I would say that you would be one of the first to support him. Different strokes etc....


----------



## Deiseblue (31 Jan 2010)

Odea said:


> If he were big in to supporting trade unions I would say that you would be one of the first to support him. Different strokes etc....



And if my Auntie had balls .........


----------



## Yorrick (31 Jan 2010)

Clearly a lot of the voters are not covinced about the Opposition. There is too much of a difference in the policies of FG and Labour. 
Also look at the way FG are treating their "GOLDEN BOY" George Lee.
Despite his popularity and credibility with the public he is not being given any position of worth and is sidelined in economic matters.
Kenny claims that he will make the hard decisions. But he doesn't want to offend Bruton or Varadakar by giving George Lee a prominent position in the economic/finance area.
He justs wheels Lee around the country like a circus showpiece.

And as for Joan Burton. Absolutely no financial credibility in my opinion.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (31 Jan 2010)

Yorrick said:


> Clearly a lot of the voters are not covinced about the Opposition. There is too much of a difference in the policies of FG and Labour.
> Also look at the way FG are treating their "GOLDEN BOY" George Lee.
> Despite his popularity and credibility with the public he is not being given any position of worth and is sidelined in economic matters.
> Kenny claims that he will make the hard decisions. But *he doesn't want to offend Bruton or Varadakar by giving George Lee a prominent position in the economic/finance area.*
> ...



What position would you suggest that he be given?

You can't just take someone of the streets with no political experience and put them on the front bench. George Lee will definately have his time and probabely will get a portfolio in the next government. As good as he is (and he is very good) I honestly do not think he would be better than Bruton in Finance or Varadkar in Enterprise.


----------



## UFC (31 Jan 2010)

I agree that part of the problem is that FG are led by Enda Kenny. The guy comes across as spineless a bit of an eijet/dope.

I despise FF and the Greens, but I can't bring myself to vote for FG, and I don't like Labours connection with the trade unions.

If a new party launched - really tough on crime and economics - they'd get my vote.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (31 Jan 2010)

The major downfall of Enda Kenny is that he is a poor public speaker. I think he is pretty good as a leader behind closed doors but no amount of spin doctoring and lessons in public speaking will make him able to deliver to the public.

A new party would definately shake the whole political arena up. And while we are at it... I wouldn't say no to a new constitution!! The system we have has failed. Lets start with a blank page and the lessons we have learned!!


----------



## z104 (31 Jan 2010)

UFC said:


> I agree that part of the problem is that FG are led by Enda Kenny. The guy comes across as spineless a bit of an eijet/dope.
> 
> I despise FF and the Greens, but I can't bring myself to vote for FG, and I don't like Labours connection with the trade unions.
> 
> If a new party launched - really tough on crime and economics - they'd get my vote.


 

We had one like this it was called the Progressive Democrats


----------



## bogle (31 Jan 2010)

UFC said:


> ...
> If a new party launched - really tough on crime and economics - they'd get my vote.



Indeed there was such a party, I believe they were called the Progessive Democrats!

Where are they now though??


----------



## D8Lady (31 Jan 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> You can't just take someone of the streets with no political experience and put them on the front bench.



Noel Browne? Alan Dukes?

We are in deep, deep trouble. We need to get all the talent we can. 

As for the 27% supporting FF  - how many relatives have they got? All those grateful appointees on state boards? All the pensioners who remember Charlies £5 top up per week. (I kid you not - neighbours 90 yr old mother still going on about it!).
And young people who just don't vote because they have been brought up in a one party state.
Depressing.


----------



## UFC (31 Jan 2010)

Niallers said:


> We had one like this it was called the Progressive Democrats


 


bogle said:


> Indeed there was such a party, I believe they were called the Progessive Democrats!
> 
> Where are they now though??


 
They made the same mistake as the Greens... going into Government with FF.

Also, Michael McDowell's hard talk but soft policies made the party a joke.


----------



## Complainer (31 Jan 2010)

UFC said:


> They made the same mistake as the Greens... going into Government with FF.


Would you rather they sit on the opposition benches for ever impotent?


----------



## UFC (31 Jan 2010)

Complainer said:


> Would you rather they sit on the opposition benches for ever impotent?


 
The Greens? Yes. I think we can all agree they have been absolutely useless in Government.

At least if they're on the opposition bench they can complain about and point out the stupid/corrupt things FF do.


----------



## ajapale (31 Jan 2010)

Topic Reminder: *Who are these FF supporters?

*Does anyone know what the exact question and its context as asked in the survey?


----------



## Complainer (31 Jan 2010)

UFC said:


> The Greens? Yes. I think we can all agree they have been absolutely useless in Government.
> 
> At least if they're on the opposition bench they can complain about and point out the stupid/corrupt things FF do.


I was really making a general point, rather than hitting the Greens in the particular. It is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for smaller parties. 

After the next election, if Labour go in with FG, they'll be damned for selling out their socialist routes. If they go in with FF, they'll be damned for dancing with the devil. If they sit it out in principled opposition, they will fade away and die. From their POV, small parties have to bit the bullet, and be prepared to go for best policy-based Govt they can find.


----------



## bogle (31 Jan 2010)

ajapale said:


> Topic Reminder: *Who are these FF supporters?
> 
> *



Who knows? But I'm guessing there probably wouldn't be many CS/PS who would fall into that 27% at the moment and I think it will be a very major uphill task for FF to win them back in time for the next general election whenever it comes!


----------



## gunnerfitzy (31 Jan 2010)

bogle said:


> Who knows? But I'm guessing there probably wouldn't be many CS/PS who would fall into that 27% at the moment and I think it will be a very major uphill task for FF to win them back in time for the next general election whenever it comes!



They will probably row back on some of the SW cuts and pay cuts to lower paid Civil/Public servants in the budget immediately prior to the General Election saying something like 'they were necessary at time but the country has now turned the corner..... '. Just wait for all the schemes and reliefs that will announced!


----------



## DerKaiser (31 Jan 2010)

A lot of what's been said here about people's motivations for voting is quite condescending.

Eamonn Gilmore, Enda Kenny, Joan Burton and Richard Bruton  are going to have to go out and win votes with their policies.  They can't expect that the votes of people with different ideologies to theirs will simply switch away from FF en masse.

Labour and FG said nothing during the boom that would leave me to believe they would have prevented the bust and they are not saying much now that would lead me to believe they would manage us out of the mess any better.  

People can argue all they want that this is not the case, but I think everyone is entitled to vote according to who they believe would provide better government.  

To be honest I'd be more concerned at the people who supported FF during the boom but now have switched away from them simply because the policies they followed (one that were widely accepted by their voters) turned out to be foolish


----------



## Purple (31 Jan 2010)

Excellent post Der Kaiser


----------



## z107 (31 Jan 2010)

In this thread, no one has yet admitted to supporting FF. Is there anyone out there brave enough to declare that they would vote FF?

at 27%, there must be someone reading this that would.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (31 Jan 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> A lot of what's been said here about people's motivations for voting is quite condescending.
> 
> Eamonn Gilmore, Enda Kenny, Joan Burton and Richard Bruton  are going to have to go out and win votes with their policies.  They can't expect that the votes of people with different ideologies to theirs will simply switch away from FF en masse.
> 
> ...



In an ideal world people would indeed vote according to who they believe would provide better government. But many people in Ireland do not vote according to who will govern the country the best, a lot of the time they vote on family tradition, who got the sister their planning permission etc.

You might call it condescending... I call it fact.


----------



## Teatime (31 Jan 2010)

purple said:


> excellent post der kaiser


 
+1


----------



## DerKaiser (31 Jan 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> In this thread, no one has yet admitted to supporting FF. Is there anyone out there brave enough to declare that they would vote FF?
> 
> at 27%, there must be someone reading this that would.



A lot people would be guarded about revealing their voting preferences.  

Even with the relative anonymity of user names people might prefer not to comment.  

This is particularly going to be the case on this thread in specific.  The phrasing and tone of the of the title question "Who are these FF supporters?" appears to be throwing down the guantlet to anyone who intends voting for FF to come on an justify themselves.

You have also attempted to pre-stigmatise FF voters by asking if they would be "Brave" enough to admit it.  The general tone I'm picking up is that you think FF voters should be ashamed somehow and you're looking to have a go at them. 

So to address the issue, in the absence of people coming forth and revealing their voting preference and their reasons at your whim, my guess is that many people still vote FF for historic reasons and many people who would favour capitalism over socialism (e.g. business people) would favour FF for ideological reasons


----------



## Complainer (31 Jan 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> In an ideal world people would indeed vote according to who they believe would provide better government. But many people in Ireland do not vote according to who will govern the country the best, a lot of the time they vote on family tradition, who got the sister their planning permission etc.


Very true, sadly.


----------



## bogle (31 Jan 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> A lot of what's been said here about people's motivations for voting is quite condescending.



Given the unprecedented events of the last 12 to 24 to 36 months I disagree.
Of course people should support as they see fit.
A wise person might conduct a tour de force review of these events before deciding who to support!


----------



## z107 (31 Jan 2010)

> A lot people would be guarded about revealing their voting preferences.
> 
> Even with the relative anonymity of user names people might prefer not to comment.
> 
> ...



I would believe that there certainly is a stigma with voting for FF, and it  wasn't created by me. FF's own actions over the last few years have created this stigma. I'm not asking for people to justify themselves either, I just have a morbid curiosity. I created this thread simply to see who these people are, not to enter into political dialogue with them.

This thread has only been active for just over a day, but so far it appears that no one will admit to voting for FF. I ask myself why? I spoiled my last vote, and don't mind admitting it. I will wait a while longer and see what happens.

With regards your 'capitalism' comments, I completely disagree. FF's brand of capitalism is about gross market distortion and cronyism. Certainly not conducive for honest business people trying to set up (unless property related, or a protected profession)

I'm just looking for people to post 'I would vote for FF'


----------



## UFC (31 Jan 2010)

I've never voted for FF. Don't know anyone who has. Know plenty of people who used to vote for the PDs though.

I've always voted Greens (Gormley), but that'll never be happening again...!


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2010)

From a policy and philosophy perspective I would be closest to FG but I find the calibre of their elected members to be shockingly bad. If Brian Lenahan was leader of FF I would vote for them in the morning since he is the only  government of opposition figure who has shown any clear leadership. 
Labour are the political wing of the unions and their economic policies are nuts (their social policies are, however, very good). On the basis of their policies, and the total lack of anybody capable of pragmatic think on their front bench, I could not vote for them.

So, like many people, I am in a position where I feel I should vote but find myself in a position where there’s nobody I want to see in power.


----------



## Sunny (1 Feb 2010)

I would vote FF for two main reasons. Brian Lenihan who I thought was useless at the beginning but who has shown real ability since. 

Also the fact that they now have such little support and the chances of them winning the next election are so slim that they have nothing to lose by making the tough decisons that this Country needs. If FG or Labour came into power tomorrow, we would be back to the days of opinion polls driving policy because they be so afraid to go the same way as FF. We would end up in a state of political paralysis like FF was in when they did the first budget and then made all the u-turns. (I know that doesn't make sense. I mean that I would prefer FF to stay in power rather than to have a general election)


----------



## Caveat (1 Feb 2010)

Feel pretty much the same as Purple.

Personally, I don't know any FF supporters under the age of 60. Not one.


----------



## DerKaiser (1 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I would believe that there certainly is a stigma with voting for FF, and it wasn't created by me. FF's own actions over the last few years have created this stigma. I'm not asking for people to justify themselves either, I just have a morbid curiosity. I created this thread simply to see who these people are, not to enter into political dialogue with them.
> 
> This thread has only been active for just over a day, but so far it appears that no one will admit to voting for FF. I ask myself why? I spoiled my last vote, and don't mind admitting it. I will wait a while longer and see what happens.
> 
> ...


 
If I liked the policies they set out better than FG's or Labour's, I would vote FF. Of course I'll need to wait and weigh up each campaign ahead of the next election to make that decision.

Again, I have to say your constant use of the phrase "these people" is bordering on being incitement.

And to tell you the truth, I think they've done a fine job over the last two years. 

The problem was in not regulating the inflationary spiral that begun towards the start of the decade, and that's something most people did not realise until it was too late (FG and Labour included).

So I do think it's condescending that someone would engage in stigmatising a large chunk of the electorate when they still don't actually understand what it was that FF really dropped the ball on in the first place, even in hinsight.


----------



## Complainer (1 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> Also the fact that they now have such little support and the chances of them winning the next election are so slim that they have nothing to lose by making the tough decisons that this Country needs. If FG or Labour came into power tomorrow, we would be back to the days of opinion polls driving policy because they be so afraid to go the same way as FF. We would end up in a state of political paralysis like FF was in when they did the first budget and then made all the u-turns. (I know that doesn't make sense. I mean that I would prefer FF to stay in power rather than to have a general election)


Don't kid yourself that FF aren't driven by opinion polling in everything that they do. They are just a bit more selective about who's opinion they poll than others. They poll those people who have and who will support them financially.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> Don't kid yourself that FF aren't driven by opinion polling in everything that they do. They are just a bit more selective about who's opinion they poll than others. They poll those people who have and who will support them financially.


Is that opinion based on fact or just more tired ideological dogma?


----------



## csirl (1 Feb 2010)

With the state of the electoral registers in Ireland, you cannot really say that the votes parties receive in the elections reflect their real support. How do you explain constituencies where there are significantly more people on the voters register than the number of adults in the constituency? Its clear than voter fraud is rampant in many parts of Ireland with people voting multiple times, in constituencies they dont line in and people who are dead or dont exist voting.


----------



## Latrade (1 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> From a policy and philosophy perspective I would be closest to FG but I find the calibre of their elected members to be shockingly bad. If Brian Lenahan was leader of FF I would vote for them in the morning since he is the only government of opposition figure who has shown any clear leadership.
> Labour are the political wing of the unions and their economic policies are nuts (their social policies are, however, very good). On the basis of their policies, and the total lack of anybody capable of pragmatic think on their front bench, I could not vote for them.
> 
> So, like many people, I am in a position where I feel I should vote but find myself in a position where there’s nobody I want to see in power.


 
+1 to some extent. 

The last 18 months should have been Manna from Heaven for even a partially astute opposition. All we've had is vague promises of "we'd do it better" but without substance. And when we do get some substance, they're scatter gun policies that could never be implemented, but with enough sound bites to be trotted out occasionally to claim credit for when the government eventual bring out their own policy.

I'm actually swining towards an FF vote for a number of reasons, but it's still tenuous based upon where and how we got to where we were. The first shift was during the local and European elections. I had numerous opposition parties call and not one was willing to engage in discussions on local or European matters. Their only interest was in anti-FF sentiment. While I was as angry as everyone else, I refuse to elect someone on into an office for a fixed period where there only mandate is "that other lot are rubbish".

The other significant factor is the slow progress being made towards economic recovery. It's churlish to expect something to happen over night and it has to be one step at a time. But in comparisson to how the UK went about things, and I need to wash my tongue out here, but Cowen might have actually made largely the right choices. 

Sceptics could say that their ratings were so low that it didn't they didn't have anything to lose by taking hard choices, but every politician has an eye on opinion polls. The UK government's method would have been the easy choice, a few public inquiries, lowered taxes and retail supports. for all that they've had growth of 0.1%. For all their incentives over hard action, they only managed 0.1% growth. 

We've taken the pain early. It's fair to say that if it hadn't been done as soon as it was we'd be taking a lot more pain. 

And at every stage the opposition has used the "we'd do it better" without one indication of how or what they'd actually do. It's easy to sit at the side lines and snipe as to how you'd do things, it's harder to come up with a quantifiable plan to back up the back seat politics.

I don't have specific political leanings, so I can't say for definite I'm one of those who will vote FF. But unless there's a shift from the opposition acting as the Mother-in-Law in the back seat, and as long as the actions taken continue to have some effect, I can't see there's any other choice.


----------



## Bronte (1 Feb 2010)

I'm not and never have been a fan of FF. I think a one party state is not democracy. I think FF have wasted the Celtic Tiger. I would vote for Brian Lenihan if he was in my constituency. I thought Albert was ok, but Bertie and Haughey, argh. I've voted, Labour, PD and Fine Gael. I like what the Greens say most of the time, but they are suffering the fate of all parties that go with FF. Don't understand the hatred Green members have for their own party, how can they expect a tiny party to deliver all policies, that's not realistic. My parents have and will always, no matter what vote for FF. 

Fine Gael are idiots in relation to George Lee. Why would you not use your best asset.

Politicians I've admired off the top of my head are Noel Brown, Mary O' Rourke, Michael D, Dick Spring, Dessie O' Malley, Willie O' Dea is good for Limerick, Ruairi Quinn, Garret F, Ivan Yates, Tony Gregory.
Those who make my skin crawl are Haughey, Bertie and Padraic Flynn and Bev, which for some reason reminds me of Jackie Healy Rae.


----------



## TarfHead (1 Feb 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Labour and FG said nothing during the boom that would leave me to believe they would have prevented the bust


 
I lost respect for my constituency's Labour TD at the last general election when his 'manifesto' promised delivery of the LUAS & a 3rd level college to the constituency


----------



## DB74 (1 Feb 2010)

TarfHead said:


> I lost respect for my constituency's Labour TD at the last general election when his 'manifesto' promised delivery of the LUAS & a 3rd level college to the constituency


 
Dead right too

Everybody knows only Independents who are propping up the government can get those sort of deals!


----------



## csirl (1 Feb 2010)

FG are not acting like they think they can be in Government. Contrast their behaviour with that of the Conservative Party in the UK who have been preparing to take up the reins and so have given the voters the impression that they are ready and capable of being in Government.

With FF sinking so low in recent months, you would think that FG would be very vocal in letting the voters know that they are ready to govern? Saying, with a sort of apologetic tone, that they might go into coalition with a party that has very different policies to try and oust FF is not the way to go - it does not inspire confidence and does not entice people to vote for them. If FG were serious about governing, they would have grasps the nettle and replaced Kenny and the couple of other senior figures who give the impression that they lack confidence and replaced them with a more dynamic confidence inspiring front bench.


----------



## Firefly (1 Feb 2010)

I honestly believe that FG are happier in opposition.


----------



## z107 (1 Feb 2010)

If you think about it, which party, in their right minds, would want to be in power now?
The pain has only just started. The next few months are going to particularly bad. Interest rate rises, increasing unemployment, industrial unrest, loss of competitiveness, huge debt, repossessions and the banks are far from safe.
I wouldn't fancy being in power with all that going on. You'd never get elected again.


----------



## UFC (1 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> I would vote FF for two main reasons. Brian Lenihan who I thought was useless at the beginning but who has shown real ability since.


 
How has Lenihan shown real ability? Please don't mention the fact that he has cancer as it's irrelevant.


----------



## DerKaiser (1 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> If you think about it, which party, in their right minds, would want to be in power now?
> The pain has only just started. The next few months are going to particularly bad. Interest rate rises, increasing unemployment, industrial unrest, loss of competitiveness, huge debt, repossessions and the banks are far from safe.
> I wouldn't fancy being in power with all that going on. You'd never get elected again.


 
Most people wouldn't but politicians aren't the same as most people! 

Listening to Ivan Yeats on Newstalk gives a good insight occasionally.  One of the reasons he quit was frustration at not being able to have any influence.

I would think that FG and Labour politicians in their 40s and 50s must be supremely frustrated not to have had a go since 1997.

I think it's a shame that people would only turn on the government in place when the past mismanagement is recognised.  If FG (or anyone else)got in and did the right things gradually over 5 years I'd hope they'd be judged on their own merits rather than the inherited state of the economy.


----------



## DerKaiser (1 Feb 2010)

UFC said:


> How has Lenihan shown real ability? Please don't mention the fact that he has cancer as it's irrelevant.


 
Well he has run rings around everyone I've seen him debate with in the past 12 months.  He is bring an enormous amount of understanding and common sense to the role through his sheer work ethic


----------



## liaconn (1 Feb 2010)

In fairness, though, any half intelligent reasonably competent person would stand out like a big shiny star amongst the other idiots, gombeens and crooks in FF.


----------



## UFC (1 Feb 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Well he has run rings around everyone I've seen him debate with in the past 12 months. He is bring an enormous amount of understanding and common sense to the role through his sheer work ethic


 
I agree he is tough as nails, can handle a debate, and is reasonably intelligent, but these are the bare basics and have nothing to do with showing real ability.

What good decisions has he made?

Sort out the PS? No.
Sort out the banks? No.
Sort out Ireland's over expenditure? No.
Sort out Ireland's excessive welfare payments? No.
Sort out Ireland's excessive minimum wage? No.

Eh...

Has he got anything right?


----------



## Sunny (1 Feb 2010)

UFC said:


> How has Lenihan shown real ability? Please don't mention the fact that he has cancer as it's irrelevant.


 
So why did you bring the cancer into it? Nobody else mentioned it. 

Lenihan really struggled at the beginning of his brief but if you want to know why Lenihan is doing such a good job, look at Greece and see where they are at the moment. 12 months ago Ireland was in the same place as them. I know of foreign investors who were piling out of Irish Soverign Debt. Having spoken to these guys recently at a conference and hearing people talk, people should not underestimate the regard that Lenihan (and the government) is held in internationally for the budgets he introduced, NAMA and in the way he dealt with foreign investors at the height of the crisis by going around Europe and meeting with these guys and putting Ireland's case forward.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2010)

UFC said:


> I agree he is tough as nails, can handle a debate, and is reasonably intelligent, but these are the bare basics and have nothing to do with showing real ability.
> 
> What good decisions has he made?
> 
> ...



With respect, that post typifies what’s wrong with the Irish electorate.

Do you seriously expect any politician in any democracy to sort out major systemic economic problems in a matter of months?
Given that our stupid and undemocratic system makes it so hard for any government to make hard decisions it’s nothing short of miraculous that anything gets done. What we can see is a plan, based on a medium term policy, formulated by someone who understands their brief. It’s a long time since we had that in this country.


----------



## Complainer (1 Feb 2010)

liaconn said:


> In fairness, though, any half intelligent reasonably competent person would stand out like a big shiny star amongst the other idiots, gombeens and crooks in FF.


While it goes against all my instincts, I really don't think the majority of them are idiots. I could exclude Mssrs Cullen and Coughlan from my defence, but for all of the others, to have even reached the level of winning and keeping a seat requires considerable street-smarts.


----------



## DB74 (1 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> While it goes against all my instincts, I really don't think the majority of them are idiots. I could exclude Mssrs Cullen and Coughlan from my defence, but for all of the others, to have even reached the level of winning and keeping a seat requires considerable street-smarts.


 
Maybe they fall into the "gombeens and crooks" category!


----------



## z107 (1 Feb 2010)

The only proven skill that all TDs have is the ability to get elected.
They don't have to have any other skills, and many (most?) do not appear to have any other skills.

When 'Gobeens and crooks' is mentioned, I have to largely agree.


----------



## liaconn (1 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> While it goes against all my instincts, I really don't think the majority of them are idiots. I could exclude Mssrs Cullen and Coughlan from my defence, but for all of the others, to have even reached the level of winning and keeping a seat requires considerable street-smarts.


 
Conor Lenihan?


----------



## Complainer (1 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> Maybe they fall into the "gombeens and crooks" category!


I think you are half-right there.



liaconn said:


> Conor Lenihan?


Or 'Bungle' as he used to be known in the Overseas Development sector.


----------



## DerKaiser (1 Feb 2010)

UFC said:


> I agree he is tough as nails, can handle a debate, and is reasonably intelligent, but these are the bare basics and have nothing to do with showing real ability.
> 
> What good decisions has he made?
> 
> ...


 
With the exception of the banks issue (on which I'm certain nobody truly knows what will turn out to be the best solution), Brian Lenihan would be the closest option you have to achieving what you see as objectives for the country. Would Joan Burton and Richard Bruton be quicker to reduce the PS wage bill, the minimum wage and social welfare?

Going back to an earlier issue, the best thing you can do is vote for the guy who goes closest to what you believe should be done. Spoiling your vote or not voting is a ridiculous choice. You need to vote for the best available (or least unpalatable) option


----------



## Kine (1 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> look at Greece and see where they are at the moment. 12 months ago Ireland was in the same place as them. I know of foreign investors who were piling out of Irish Soverign Debt. Having spoken to these guys recently at a conference and hearing people talk, people should not underestimate the regard that Lenihan (and the government) is held in internationally for the budgets he introduced, NAMA and in the way he dealt with foreign investors at the height of the crisis by going around Europe and meeting with these guys and putting Ireland's case forward.


 
+1 as foreign investors are where the buck stops. If we didn't do things right, they would buy the debt we need to issue to run the country. 

And anyone who thinks we can cut out Ireland's over expenditure overnight is missing the big picture...look at the "hassle" the last budget, which is only the tip of the iceberg, has caused!

I'll vote for whoever comes up with the best policies, if it's FF then so be it.


----------



## UFC (1 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> Lenihan really struggled at the beginning of his brief but if you want to know why Lenihan is doing such a good job, look at Greece and see where they are at the moment. 12 months ago Ireland was in the same place as them. I know of foreign investors who were piling out of Irish Soverign Debt. Having spoken to these guys recently at a conference and hearing people talk, people should not underestimate the regard that Lenihan (and the government) is held in internationally for the budgets he introduced, NAMA and in the way he dealt with foreign investors at the height of the crisis by going around Europe and meeting with these guys and putting Ireland's case forward.


 
Personally I would rather he put the citizens of Ireland first, not the foreign investors.

I don't think you understand why the foreign investors really like him.

Hint: It has nothing to do with him doing what's best for Ireland.




Purple said:


> Do you seriously expect any politician in any democracy to sort out major systemic economic problems in a matter of months?
> Given that our stupid and undemocratic system makes it so hard for any government to make hard decisions it’s nothing short of miraculous that anything gets done. What we can see is a plan, based on a medium term policy, formulated by someone who understands their brief. It’s a long time since we had that in this country.


 
I don't expect him to sort things out within a few months, but he's been in the job nearly two years and he still hasn't made the hard but necessary decisions.

What's going to happening in a few months when the ECB stop throwing money at us? How will we continue to overpay our PS workers and unemployed?




DerKaiser said:


> With the exception of the banks issue (on which I'm certain nobody truly knows what will turn out to be the best solution), Brian Lenihan would be the closest option you have to achieving what you see as objectives for the country. Would Joan Burton and Richard Bruton be quicker to reduce the PS wage bill, the minimum wage and social welfare?


 
I do not know what anyone else would have done, but at least Bruton is an Oxford educated Economist. Lenihan is a solicitor.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2010)

UFC said:


> I do not know what anyone else would have done, but at least Bruton is an Oxford educated Economist. Lenihan is a solicitor.



Garret Fitzgerald is an economist with a PhD and is great on the theory but he screwed the economy up completely when he was in charge. Ruari Quinn is an architect and he did a great job as minister for finance. Ray McSharry was a haulier and he did a great job as well. The fact that Richard Bruton did a PhD in Oxford doesn’t outweigh his inability to construct a sound economic policy for his party.


----------



## Mpsox (1 Feb 2010)

I'm 40 years old and voted FF in the last election. I'm not sure if I would vote for them in the next election, but I wouldn't rule it out. 

So why did I vote for FF. There were a number of reasons

Partially history, I came from a FF family, grew up listening to stories from my grand parents and grand uncle of how so and so's father over the road in the big farm was a blue shirt and how his father tried to burn us out in the war etc etc. I know some of the "suave sophisticated" posters on here will sneer at that and I accept that it may not be a logical reason for voting FF, but how we are brought up has an impact on the rest of our lives, for better or for worst. 

Partially because we know our local TD at home very well. He is a decent local man, doesn't own rental properties and has an ordinary enough bungalow, is a qualified accountant and has helped my family on a number of issues. Damm good clean hurler as well in his day and where I come from, that's as good a way as any of taking a measure of a man. 

Partially because in some areas, FF delivered a lot of positive things over the last 10 years, the reduction in income taxes, the improved infrastructure and the peace process in Northern Ireland for example. The latter to me is a key thing that has changed the face of Ireland and whilst FF didn't deliver it, I also believe that if it had not been for the efforts of people like Albert Reynolds and Bertie that it would not have happened. I've heard bombs go off, I lived in London for 10 years and I've felt my house shake when the Canary Wharf bomb went off, I've had my desk blown to pieces when the Bishopgate bomb went off and had to turn up at another one of my companys offices in London on the following Monday with my broad Irish accent. I've walked down a street in London when a litter bin bomb went off on the street running parallel to it. The peace process is the most important thing to happen in Ireland in the last 40 years and we should never forget that or be thankful for those who made a big leap of faith to try and make it work. 

Having said all of that, I'm also intelligent enough to know that FF have, at the end of the day, made a complete and utter horses rear end of things. Some of it was not their fault (eg the global crisis), but the lack of control and squandermania that existed in Ireland has to be largely attributed to them. 

So, would I vote for FF again? I honestly don't know and if I was surveyed, I'd put myself into the don't know category. I do have a major issue with Brian Cowen, to me he is completly out of his depth, provides no guidance, leadership or inspiration and is letting the Green Party and independent tails wag the dog. Certainly if he was leader of FF in 3 years time, I'd have to consider not voting for them. Part of me says 5 years in opposition could be good for FF to allow it to clear out people like Cowan, the O'Keefes and that eejit in Kildare who tried to delay the opening of the M8 late last year. I do have a lot of respect for the likes of Brian Lenihan, I don't agree with everything he has done (eg I think he moved far too slow on the banks) but at least he is trying to do something and has clearly learnt an awful lot in 12 months. Perhaps most importantly of all, he has realised that a lot of what happened in the past was wrong and is trying to unravel it. Problem is, it'll take a long time and it's a difficult and thankless road.

My main problem is if I don't vote FF, who do I vote for?. Not in a million years would I vote for Labour since they are funded by the public sector trade unions and therefore won't make the tough decisions that need to be made in regards to public sector finances. Plus Joan Burton's voice gives me a headache. 

Sinn Fein?, please, let's get serious here. 

Greens?, I actually have some time for them in that at least they've made a better effort at trying to control the worst FF excesses then the PDs ever did, but God love em, they're a bit out of their depth

Which leaves FG. Aside from the fact that my ancestors would haunt me, Enda K sends me to sleep, I actually think he could get away with doing anything in power because the whole country would be bored senseless. All joking asside, my issue with FG is that they are fast to criticise and slow to come up with some imaginative ideas. They don't have the courage to come out and outline the tough decisions they would need to make were they in power. Let's remember that whoever is in power, the cuts will still need to be made and the taxes risen or we are going to be in a worse position then we now are
I also remain to be convinced that George Lee can walk the walk. Throw in the thought of the likes of Varadker being at the cabinet and a coalition with Labour and suddenly I'm actually a bit scared.

There's a lot of people on here won't agree with what I have posted, that's fine, that's their perogitive in a free and open democracy, in the same way I may well disagree with their views. However whilst I can actually think of a lot of reasons not to vote FF, I also at the minute can't find one reason to vote for someone else. There's the dilema


----------



## UFC (1 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Garret Fitzgerald is an economist with a PhD and is great on the theory but he screwed the economy up completely when he was in charge. Ruari Quinn is an architect and he did a great job as minister for finance. Ray McSharry was a haulier and he did a great job as well. The fact that Richard Bruton did a PhD in Oxford doesn’t outweigh his inability to construct a sound economic policy for his party.


 
I agree you never know how good someone will be until they're in the job. Bruton could be brutal.


----------



## Romulan (1 Feb 2010)

I'd second MPSOX on his analysis.

I had serious doubts about FF at the last election but the alternatives were just not there.  I suspect many people, myself included, voted in part based on the devil you know.

What we need are some good independents, enough perhaps to constitute a tactical voting block in the Dail.


----------



## Purple (1 Feb 2010)

Excellent post Mpsox. I bet most of those who will pick at your post will not be anywhere near as open about their own views.


----------



## DonKing (1 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Excellent post Mpsox. I bet most of those who will pick at your post will not be anywhere near as open about their own views.



+1

Under no circumstances would I vote Labour or Sinn Fein. Can't stand varadkar or kenny. Dr.O'Reilly makes my skin curl as he was the one who negotiated the contract for consultants. Wouldn't be too impressed with the local FG candidtates. Can't see how FG can tackle the PS if they are in coalition with labour

So lets see who does that leave to vote for?


----------



## Deiseblue (1 Feb 2010)

Mpsox , hugely interesting and honest post
I must point out however that the labour party is not funded by Trade unions
Sure they make a donation but that donation is a mere drop in the ocean in terms of what is required to run a major political party.


----------



## Romulan (1 Feb 2010)

So, the key questions for me are?

1.  Would I be happier voting for FF if they had a different leader - I do not rate BC.
2.  Would I be more inclined to vote for FG if they had a different leader?  

And in both cases, who?


----------



## Caveat (1 Feb 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> I must point out however that the labour party is not funded by Trade unions
> Sure they make a donation but that donation is a mere drop in the ocean in terms of what is required to run a major political party.



Depends what you mean by 'a drop in the ocean'.

Either way do you honestly think Labour would risk offending the unions and potentially lose this contribution?


----------



## z107 (1 Feb 2010)

Thanks for that post Mpsox - most enlightening. I find much of your analysis contradictory, but I too appreciate your honesty.

I also find it interesting that there are still no outright, 'I would vote for FF' posts.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (1 Feb 2010)

Romulan said:


> I had serious doubts about FF at the last election but the alternatives were just not there.  I suspect many people, myself included, voted in part based on the devil you know.



You see, I could never understand this 'better the devil you know' reason for voting FF in the last election. For some strange reason in this country we seem to thing that keeping the corrupt, economy wrecking party in power is better than taking a chance on someone new. The phrase 'better the devil you know' is meant for a situation where given two or more options, it is more advantagous to go with the option that poor but familiar rather than risk an unknown. Why was that a good decision?



Romulan said:


> What we need are some good independents, enough perhaps to constitute a tactical voting block in the Dail.



The very very last thing we need is more independants. In fact lets get rid of the single transferable vote and get rid of some independants in the next election. In the past number of governments many have ended up siding with FF and are only worried about acheiving a disporportionate amount of funding and services for their own constituencies while supporting a government that they know have brought the country almost to its knees.


----------



## Purple (2 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Thanks for that post Mpsox - most enlightening. I find much of your analysis contradictory, but I too appreciate your honesty.


 What do you find contradictory?



umop3p!sdn said:


> I also find it interesting that there are still no outright, 'I would vote for FF' posts.


 Only people who are blind ideologues will nail their colours to the mast of one party and vote for them no matter what. That used to be the case with FF and FG but it seems to be mainly a left wing thing these days; Shinners who are die-hard nationalists and Labour voters for whom socialist dogma is an article of faith. 
An electorate who bases their voting choices on policy is a good thing.


----------



## Bronte (2 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I also find it interesting that there are still no outright, 'I would vote for FF' posts.


 
I said both my parents would vote FF no matter what, and one sibling as well.  From now to doomsday.


----------



## Mpsox (2 Feb 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Mpsox , hugely interesting and honest post
> I must point out however that the labour party is not funded by Trade unions
> Sure they make a donation but that donation is a mere drop in the ocean in terms of what is required to run a major political party.


 
In 2007 the affiliation fee paid by trade unions to the Labour party was approx €60k. That would be seperate to the donations individual TDS received from trade unions + use of office space in some cases which would be governed by the rules on donations to politicians. You are correct in saying that it is a mere drop in the ocean (about 2.5% of a drop to be exact)

However, in the same way we criticise (and rightly so I might add) FF for kow-towing to vested interest groups, in the interest of fairness, I believe we should also recognise trade unions as a vested interest group when it comes to the Labour Party

Bear in mind as well that the trade union influence goes further then pure financial donations.  Unions also have a vote at Party conferenaces via their ability to elect delegates to it


----------



## Sunny (2 Feb 2010)

UFC said:


> Personally I would rather he put the citizens of Ireland first, not the foreign investors.
> 
> I don't think you understand why the foreign investors really like him.
> 
> Hint: It has nothing to do with him doing what's best for Ireland.


 
Here is a reality check for you. Foreign investors are what is keeping this Country going so what is best for them is best for Ireland and its citizens. We are running a massive budget deficit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for everyday health services, education, salaries etc?

The ECB are throwing money at the banks for funding. They are not throwing money at the Irish Government to fund the deficit. It is the bondholders who are paying our bills. As I say, look at Greece if you want to see the consequences of not having International Credibility. Richard Bruton is a very capable person as well but is dragged down by the his party. He seems to have lost his mojo since George Lee (big disappointment) was catapulted in.


----------



## Firefly (2 Feb 2010)

sunny said:


> foreign investors is what is keeping this country going so what is best for them is best for ireland and its citizens. We are running a massive budget deficit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for everyday health services, education, salaries etc?
> 
> The ecb are throwing money at the banks for funding. They are not throwing money at the irish government to fund the deficit. It the bondholders who are paying our bills. As i say, look at greece if you want to see the consequences of not having international credibility.


 
+1


----------



## DerKaiser (2 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> Here is a reality check for you. Foreign investors is what is keeping this Country going so what is best for them is best for Ireland and its citizens. We are running a massive budget deficit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for everyday health services, education, salaries etc?
> 
> The ECB are throwing money at the banks for funding. They are not throwing money at the Irish Government to fund the deficit. It the bondholders who are paying our bills. As I say, look at Greece if you want to see the consequences of not having International Credibility. Richard Bruton is a very capable person as well but is dragged down by the his party. He seems to have lost his mojo since George Lee (big disappointment) was catapulted in.


 
Good points.

I don't know why George Lee joined FG rather than labour. From what I can make out he is a socialist. 

Did anyone notice Leo Varadker calling for a guarantee of no further cuts in PS pay? Not a great point from which to start negotiation on reform I would have thought. He could have at least set out a stall of promising no cuts _provided_ certain reform targets were met


----------



## Complainer (2 Feb 2010)

Caveat said:


> Either way do you honestly think Labour would risk offending the unions and potentially lose this contribution?


No - Labour would never risk any offence to the unions 
[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (2 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> No - Labour would never risk any offence to the unions
> [broken link removed]



If that's offending them then I think we're all in agreement, you just have a different definition of "offending" to most people.


----------



## Caveat (2 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> No - Labour would never risk any offence to the unions
> [broken link removed]


 
 Well your post speaks volumes if you regard this as an offence.


----------



## Deiseblue (2 Feb 2010)

Calm down.
I corrected a factual error , the Labour party are not funded by the Trade Unions as stated by Mpsox - agreed ?
Of course historically unions and the labour party have been closely alligned rather like the developers and FF !


----------



## Purple (2 Feb 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Calm down.
> I corrected a factual error , the Labour party are not funded by the Trade Unions as stated by Mpsox - agreed ?



No, they are partially funded by the trade unions. It’s not unreasonable to point this out.


----------



## Deiseblue (2 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> No, they are partially funded by the trade unions. It’s not unreasonable to point this out.



I quite agree , but Mpsox never used the word " partially ".


----------



## Caveat (2 Feb 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> I quite agree , but Mpsox never used the word " partially ".


 
Does it matter? "Labour are funded by trade unions" is still a true statement.  I really don't think anyone actually thought that was the only source of funding.


----------



## Bronte (2 Feb 2010)

Mpsox said:


> doesn't own rental properties and has an ordinary enough bungalow,.
> 
> the reduction in income taxes, the improved infrastructure
> 
> ...


 
Mpsox, I really like your post, very well thought out.  Showing the contradictions in Irish voting patterns.

Just a few comments, why is the fact that your local TD doesn't have rental property a good thing?  Also so what if he lives in a large bungalow or mansion?

You admire the tax cuts, but they were surely no good if the money was squandered and the only reason for them was to ensure FF in power.  

Infrastructure?  We now have one, one single solitary motorway.  There is no reliable drinking water in many parts of the country, a bit of snow the country comes to a standstill.  No proper flood defenses.  And a Luas that does not meet up.  Overcrowded classrooms still in prefabs.  What about the planning of the ghost estates. 

In relation to unions.  I do believe that benchmarking and the bloated and overpaid civil service is because the unions dictated to FF?  So I wouldn't be too worried about what Labour may or may not do.  They (the unions) have received more than Labour would ever have given them.


----------



## z107 (2 Feb 2010)

> The latter to me is a key thing that has changed the face of Ireland and whilst FF didn't deliver it, I also believe that if it had not been for the efforts of people like Albert Reynolds and Bertie that it would not have happened. I've heard bombs go off, I lived in London for 10 years and I've felt my house shake when the Canary Wharf bomb went off, I've had my desk blown to pieces when the Bishopgate bomb went off and had to turn up at another one of my companys offices in London on the following Monday with my broad Irish accent. I've walked down a street in London when a litter bin bomb went off on the street running parallel to it. The peace process is the most important thing to happen in Ireland in the last 40 years and we should never forget that or be thankful for those who made a big leap of faith to try and make it work.


Do you think the £1bn Bishopsgate bombing would have helped or hindered the peace process? How many £1bns do you think the UK government could afford?


----------



## Mpsox (2 Feb 2010)

Bronte said:


> Mpsox, I really like your post, very well thought out. Showing the contradictions in Irish voting patterns.
> 
> Just a few comments, why is the fact that your local TD doesn't have rental property a good thing? Also so what if he lives in a large bungalow or mansion?
> 
> ...


 
I've read plenty of general comments on here and elsewhere about FF being in thrall to the property sector, living in big trophy houses and about some TDs having loads of property. My comment on this TD was that here was someone who does not seems to have got carried away by the Celtic Tiger

On the tax cuts, I remember moving back from London in 2000 to a payrise before tax and a pay cut after tax. I'm a firm believer that taxes should be kept to a minimum, the regret is not that the tax cuts were squandered, it's that state spending was not kept under control. 

As for Labour and unions, at least Brian Lenihan is trying to do something about it. Does anyone on here really believe if Labour had the Minister for Finance portfolio that they would reduce public sector pay or would it be more wishy washy "reform" stuff

As for infrastructure, the Luas is great, ok, it doesn't meet up but 10 years ago it never even existed. As for Motorways, I suppose it depends on your definition of Motorways, personally speaking as someone who lives in Carlow and works in Tallaght, I love my new "Motorway" and am delighted that I will never ever ever have to drive through Castledermot again. 

Planning was not always down to FF, plenty of local councilers across the political parties voted for some of the crazy building on flood plains that have occured in Ireland. Another one of those weird and wacky contradictions of Irish politics !!!


----------



## Mpsox (2 Feb 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Calm down.
> I corrected a factual error , the Labour party are not funded by the Trade Unions as stated by Mpsox - agreed ?
> Of course historically unions and the labour party have been closely alligned rather like the developers and FF !


 
It's fair and correct comment that Labour are only partially funded by unions, however I do believe that the thrust of my comment about vested interests still holds


----------



## Deiseblue (2 Feb 2010)

Mpsox said:


> It's fair and correct comment that Labour are only partially funded by unions, however I do believe that the thrust of my comment about vested interests still holds


I agree , the Labour Party has strong ties with the Unions and FF have strong ties with builders , developers and Banks.


----------



## Sunny (2 Feb 2010)

Isn't the problem that nobody knows where the political parties get their money from. What they declare is a fraction of what they spend on elcection campaigns so maybe we should try and get those facts before we start putting the parties into various brackets. Its a bit of a cliche to say Labour is all trade unions and FF are all greedy developers and bankers.


----------



## UFC (2 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> Here is a reality check for you. Foreign investors are what is keeping this Country going so what is best for them is best for Ireland and its citizens. We are running a massive budget deficit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for everyday health services, education, salaries etc?


 
You are confusing the issues.

We would still be able to get money on the international markets without being gentle on the PS, without a high minimum wage, without high welfare payments, and without NAMA.

All you have to do is look at Greece. There is high demand for their bonds.




Sunny said:


> The ECB are throwing money at the banks for funding. They are not throwing money at the Irish Government to fund the deficit. It is the bondholders who are paying our bills. As I say, look at Greece if you want to see the consequences of not having International Credibility.


 
Again, you are confused. Greece has no problems attracting money.

I'm not sure you fully understand what you are talkng about, and you are mistakenly giving Lenihan praise for things which would have happened anyway, and are refusing to analyse his myriad of poor decisions/indecision.


----------



## z107 (2 Feb 2010)

> As for Labour and unions, at least Brian Lenihan is trying to do something about it. Does anyone on here really believe if Labour had the Minister for Finance portfolio that they would reduce public sector pay or would it be more wishy washy "reform" stuff


I'd like to draw your attention to these two articles:
*12 Jan 2009 Cowen rules out U-turn on pay for top officials*
And
*2 Feb 2010 [broken link removed]*


> As for infrastructure, the Luas is great, ok, it doesn't meet up but 10 years ago it never even existed. As for Motorways, I suppose it depends on your definition of Motorways, personally speaking as someone who lives in Carlow and works in Tallaght, I love my new "Motorway" and am delighted that I will never ever ever have to drive through Castledermot again.


Over a hundred years ago, Dublin had an electrified tram system, far more extensive than the current luas. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_tramways


> At its peak the system was known as technically innovative and was described in 1904 as "one of the most impressive in the world"[1] and other cities from around the world would come to inspect it and its electric operatio


However, this, and a huge chunk of Ireland's rail system has been ripped up by successive governments.
Oh, and what's the story with broadband?


----------



## Sunny (2 Feb 2010)

UFC said:


> You are confusing the issues.
> 
> We would still be able to get money on the international markets without being gentle on the PS, without a high minimum wage, without high welfare payments, and without NAMA.
> 
> ...


 
Mate, I do it for a living so I understand perfectly.  Look at the price Greece is paying for it's debt. Yes, there was demand for its last issue when it offered huge yields. The day after this so called 'successful' issue, the bonds tanked. 
The EU are now stepping in and telling Greece what steps they need to be taken to solve the problem and laying the groundwork for a bailout. Ireland would be in exactly the same boat if the Government hadn't done what it had done.


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> The EU are now stepping in and telling Greece what steps they need to be taken to solve the problem and laying the groundwork for a bailout. Ireland would be in exactly the same boat if the Government hadn't done what it had done.


 Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?


----------



## csirl (4 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?


 
I'm not sure that you can say that they would have preformed worse - it would be very difficult to perform worse than Brian Cowen, though Gordan Brown is doing his best to beat Cowen in the lack of leadership stakes. The Government did it out of pure necessity and did seem paralysed for a few months before making the hard decisions. They fudged hard decisions such as welfare, taxation and public sector reform which may have delivered much more savings that what they did do. They also fudged badly on the issue of holding bank executives responsible for their actions.


----------



## Sunny (4 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?


 
Hard to say. I guess all the parties recognised the need for action. Whether they would have had the political courage to carry out the cuts, I am not so sure. 

I suppose it took FF months to even admit there was a problem and then look at all the U-turns after the first tough budget so they didn't exactly cover themselves in glory.

Sometimes, I wish we could take the best people from each party and let them run the Country!


----------



## DerKaiser (4 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?


 
Part of me is sorry that we'll never know. It would have been (and will be) interesting to see how Gilmore and Kenny make the transition from perennial 'Hurlers on the ditch' to actually running the country.

If the green party represent anything it is a taste of what will become of labour and FG. 

Gilmore will have to switch from theatrical apoplexy (something he overindulges in solely as a result of extended time in opposition) to the resigned pragmatism of Gormley pretty quickly.

Come to think of it, now would be a great time for them to get in. At least they would have a 10 month reality check before delivering the same €3bn in budget cuts this december that FF are going to.


----------



## Shawady (4 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?


 
I don't think they would have any choice. I don't understand exactly how borrowing money from ECB works, but from what I can gather the EU are loaning us the money and it is my belief that behind the scenes they have told the government what they have to do in order to keep receiving this money for the next few years. If the government (regardless of which party was in) ignored the EU, it would make it more difficult to borrow.

I aggree with Sunny's post about the government being slow to recognise the problem. You must remember that as recently as Sep 2008, Cowen personally got involved to sign off on a 6% pay increase yet 4 months later it was decied they needed to public pay. And in Oct 2008 budget they increased social welfare payments by 3% when agian by the beginning of 2009 it was obvious these rates would need to be cut.


----------



## TarfHead (4 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?


 
One thing that FF have done, considerably better, than FG/LAB is to be an effective opposition.

When FG/LAB were last in power together, FF battered them from the Opposition benches, specifically the then Minister for Justice Nora Owen. Compare then to now, when the Opposition have much more ammunition, and the contrast is stark.


----------



## csirl (4 Feb 2010)

TarfHead said:


> One thing that FF have done, considerably better, than FG/LAB is to be an effective opposition.
> 
> When FG/LAB were last in power together, FF battered them from the Opposition benches, specifically the then Minister for Justice Nora Owen. Compare then to now, when the Opposition have much more ammunition, and the contrast is stark.


 
If there were an election, the FF benches would be seriously depleted. They also would look bad for criticising whoever is trying to sort out their mess - no doubt that whoever is in Government next will use the "you created this mess" mantra in all their replies to FF questions and the public would have little tolerance for mud sligging from FF politicians. Its even possible that FF may not even be the biggest opposition party [nobody has considered that, with their current poll figures, if FG did some effective vote managent, they may be in a position to go into coalition with some of the lesser parties/independents rather than Labour].


----------



## Mpsox (4 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?


 
I'm not convinced they would have because of the idealogical differences between the parties. 

Would the banks still need billions from the taxpayer?, absolutely. Would FG and Labour have agreed how to do it,? questionable. Even if they did, hard to see how they would agree to increase taxes enought to allow the country to avoid the cutbacks in public sector spending required. I could never see Labour standing up and voting for swinging pay cuts in the public sector. I could never see FG standing up and voting for massive (and I mean massive, not just 1% on income tax or a tweak to VAT) tax rises in order to avoid such cuts. I believe such a govt would have ripped itself apart by now


----------



## cork (4 Feb 2010)

Labour (apart from Sean Sherlock) lack the bottle to stand up againt public sector unions.

The offer nothing but glib comment.

Armchair generals


----------



## gunnerfitzy (4 Feb 2010)

Were FG/Lab in power I would imagine we would have got at the very least:

1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners.
2. Anglo wound up.
3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off.


----------



## Purple (4 Feb 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> Were FG/Lab in power I would imagine we would have got at the very least:
> 
> 1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners.
> 2. Anglo wound up.
> 3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off.



Why do you think so?


----------



## z107 (4 Feb 2010)

FG = FF.
At best I would call FG, 'FF lite'


----------



## Arabella (4 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> FG = FF.
> At best I would call FG, 'FF lite'


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (4 Feb 2010)

Why?

My personal views...

1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners = Its pretty obvious that FF have a 'special' relationship with senior civil servants. Of the top CS/PS earners who were in receipt of the performance related pay bonus that apparently now was an integral part of salary, how many would have been promoted by FF? No such relationship with FG/Lab. Lab more conscious of those on low pay.

2. Anglo wound up = again we seem to have a 'special' relationship with FF. loans contarty to leading policy given to senior FF officials. Would FG/Lab have formed the view that this bank was of 'systemic importance'? Does anyone else in the country other than FF believe this?

3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off. = I do believe FG would fire incompetent, negligent or dishonest ministers or public servants far quicker than FF. I remember some FG ministers getting the boot the last time they were in power. Last FF minister to get the sack?


----------



## Lex Foutish (5 Feb 2010)

Not sure I'd agree, Fitzy. FG are the very same as FF, in many ways. I remember John Bruton, as Taoiseach, twisting the truth one time and his way out of it was claiming that he didn't give the full story because he hadn't been asked the right questions.

Mpsox made a great post on Page 4 of this thread. I also voted FF last time round but who can I vote for next time? I'm in Cork South Central. Should I vote for FG? Deirdre Clune is an embarrassment and is only there because her father, Peter Barry, was a TD. Simon Coveney is also the son of a former TD, though he inspires a little more confidence. Ciarán Lynch of Labour comes across well but a vote for him is, ultimately, a vote to put Enda Kenny in as Taoiseach. Enda is a nice guy, I'm sure, though he's proven he's capable of of speaking out of both sides of his mouth also. I think he'd be a wishy washy Taoiseach and, to quote Jim Kemmy, If Enda attacked you, you'd probably feel like you'd been savaged by a dead sheep!

I went to see the Four Angry Men in The Opera House last week and the four of them were scathing in their criticism of the Opposition. 

People are queueing up to vote FG and Labour next time round. Does anyone seriously think they'd be much different to the present shower? 

What is understood doesn't need to be discussed!


----------



## gunnerfitzy (5 Feb 2010)

I do agree Lex that FG/Lab appear shaky. Is this caused by such a long time in opposition? I don't know. TarfHead made an excellent point that FF are much better in opposition than FG/Lab.  I think there may be a mind set in the parties. FF view themselves as the natural party of power and any time in opposition is a failure and nothing must be spared in the effort to return to power. FG/Lab I feel view themselves as the natural parties of opposition who come to power occasionally when FF slip up but don't really seem that pushed about it.


----------



## Caveat (5 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> FG = FF.
> At best I would call FG, 'FF lite'


 
 Can't remember who right now, but there was a comedian who had a routine where the main political parties were compared to breakfasts.  Something like: FF are 'the full Irish fry' - traditional, familiar, you've got everything there in the mix...but it's all a bit _greasy. _

FG - well, they're the same really except maybe grilled instead of fried?

Greens were meusli I think - all very modern and continental & you know it's good for you - but could you be bothered?

Etc - very good I thought.





gunnerfitzy said:


> I think there may be a mind set in the parties. FF view themselves as the natural party of power and any time in opposition is a failure and nothing must be spared in the effort to return to power. FG/Lab I feel view themselves as the natural parties of opposition who come to power occasionally when FF slip up but don't really seem that pushed about it.


 
I agree.


----------



## csirl (5 Feb 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> FG = FF.
> At best I would call FG, 'FF lite'


 
I'm not sure I would agree with this. FG are clearly a conservative centre right party and their policies consistently sit in this area. FF are just a populist party. They have no consistency in their policies. FF promotes a gombeenman mentality which is bad for the country.


----------



## Latrade (5 Feb 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> Why?
> 
> My personal views...
> 
> ...


 
I think the only one I'd say was a possibility is the 2nd, however I have my doubts as to whether if in power and faced with the sudden situation, they would have. Let's not forget that most of their rhetoric is coming from a position of Government says or does one thing so we immediately say the opposite. I'm sceptical that their posturing on Anglo is only because it wasn't wound down. If the government had, I'm 100% sure the same people within FG and Labour would be putting forward economic experts to say why Anglo should have been saved and the government were wrong.

I'm not knocking you or your points directly, you at least put forward some examples. But...

As for 1 and 3, I'd say with some confidence they definitely wouldn't. 3 was out of anyone's hands given the pay offs, no matter how despicable, came from contracts of employment. The government couldn't do much about it.

As for 1, I think Gilmore's statements last week defending the higher paid Civil Servants and their salaries show that Labour aren't exactly the voice of the lower paid.

Having said that, there are things I think FG would have done differently and better. 

While I think there would have been little difference in how the immediate storm of the banks would have been handled, I do think there would have been a more speedy process of establishing the whys and hows and dealing with that. It would have been in their interest as a newish government to show the blame lay with the FF governments. I also think they wouldn't have buckled so easily to the senior bankers and appointments of CEOs and CEO pay. 

They're little things, but would have made a big difference. 

I think we'd have had very little in the management of the crisis at a policy level and I don't think we'd have too much difference in how the PS pay had to be tackled. Again, it's fine to talk about reform and lengthy processes when you don't have the EU and IMF breathing down your necks looking for their money back.


----------



## Complainer (5 Feb 2010)

csirl said:


> I'm not sure I would agree with this. FG are clearly a conservative centre right party and their policies consistently sit in this area. FF are just a populist party. They have no consistency in their policies. FF promotes a gombeenman mentality which is bad for the country.


Very true. I spoke to one Labour minister of the 92-97 who found that FF were pussycats to deal with on any policy issue, because they basically had none of their own. They were quite happy to let Labour get on with the policy stuff while they looked after their constituents. Dealing with FG ministers was another matter, though they did manage to work together successfully. 



Latrade said:


> As for 1, I think Gilmore's statements last week defending the higher paid Civil Servants and their salaries show that Labour aren't exactly the voice of the lower paid.


So referring to it as a 'sweetheart deal' is now considered to be a defence?
[broken link removed]


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2010)

Latrade said:


> As for 1, I think Gilmore's statements last week defending the higher paid Civil Servants and their salaries show that Labour aren't exactly the voice of the lower paid.
> 
> .


 
What do politicians have to fear from higher paid civil servants?  What power or knowledge do the civil servants have?


----------



## Latrade (5 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> So referring to it as a 'sweetheart deal' is now considered to be a defence?
> [broken link removed]


 
Cheers. You're correct, I was way off with that statement, corrected in original. I can't even blame the media, I had completely mixed up my own interpretation of what he'd said and didn't bother to look over the text.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (5 Feb 2010)

Bronte said:


> What do politicians have to fear from higher paid civil servants?  What power or knowledge do the civil servants have?



Please tell me there is scarcasm in there?

While idealists may think that the Government run the country the fact is that it is being run by the civil service. Governments come and go but the CS carry on running the country based on policy decisions from Government.

The government gets the information it requires to make policy decisions from the civil service. Ministers get information to answer parlimentary questions from the civil service. Civil servants are expected to advise an individual Minister on matters so he/she can make an informed decision. What happens if they 'forget' to include some information? Would it be hard to 'lead' a Minister a certain direction?


----------



## cork (5 Feb 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> Were FG/Lab in power I would imagine we would have got at the very least:
> 
> 1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners.
> 2. Anglo wound up.
> 3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off.



Did Fg/Labour not over see the 2nd mobile phone licence?
How much would it have cost the state if Anglo was wound up?

Labour are typical armchair generals - always the glib comment.

No wonder they were rejected at the last election.


----------



## Complainer (5 Feb 2010)

cork said:


> How much would it have cost the state if Anglo was wound up?


Now that's a really great question - I guess you are implying that it would have cost the State more to let Anglo go bust? If so, perhaps you can clarify what costs would have arisen for the State in letting it fail, by comparison to the €4 billion to date pumped in to keep it alive?


----------



## Firefly (5 Feb 2010)

cork said:


> How much would it have cost the state if Anglo was wound up?


 
The $4bn question . 
Seriously though, this deserves a thread on its own in the GF Debates. I presume everyone with deposits at the bank would have lost them to pay the bank's creditors? There would have been a run on the other banks with people forming nice, orderly queues at every branch . Plenty trips North to go bank shopping I'd imagine. ATMs would be empty, people wouldn't get paid. The IMF would probably be in by now which may not be a bad thing...


----------



## z107 (5 Feb 2010)

> Seriously though, this deserves a thread on its own in the GF Debates. I presume everyone with deposits at the bank would have lost them to pay the bank's creditors? There would have been a run on the other banks with people forming nice, orderly queues at every branch . Plenty trips North to go bank shopping I'd imagine. ATMs would be empty, people wouldn't get paid. The IMF would probably be in by now which may not be a bad thing...


That would have all happened Oct/Nov of 2008. The collapse of the country's banks would have caused social unrest etc, etc...
However, would we be in a better position now, in Feb 2010, if that had happened? Right now, the banks are still far from safe, except now the tax payer is directly liable.
How much worse is this going to get? How long will the recovery be now?


----------



## Complainer (5 Feb 2010)

Hold your horses, guys. Letting Anglo go to the wall is a very different issue from letting the banking system collapse. Lenihan claimed that Anglo and INBS were 'of systemic importance', but I'm not so sure at all, given the deposit protection schemes that were already in place (albeit with limited thresholds). If Anglo had been let go in Sept 2008, with the deposit protection scheme in place up to a threshold of 100k (iirc), what would have been the cost to the State?


----------



## Firefly (5 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> Hold your horses, guys. Letting Anglo go to the wall is a very different issue from letting the banking system collapse. Lenihan claimed that Anglo and INBS were 'of systemic importance', but I'm not so sure at all, given the deposit protection schemes that were already in place (albeit with limited thresholds). If Anglo had been let go in Sept 2008, with the deposit protection scheme in place up to a threshold of 100k (iirc), what would have been the cost to the State?


 
Presumably Anglo would have had to pay it's debts from assets (mainly deposits). The government would then have to pay the depositors the shortfall under the deposit guarantee?


----------



## Latrade (5 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> Hold your horses, guys. Letting Anglo go to the wall is a very different issue from letting the banking system collapse. Lenihan claimed that Anglo and INBS were 'of systemic importance', but I'm not so sure at all, given the deposit protection schemes that were already in place (albeit with limited thresholds). If Anglo had been let go in Sept 2008, with the deposit protection scheme in place up to a threshold of 100k (iirc), *what would have been the cost to the State?*


 
The problem is we don't know and any attempt (either the figures Cowen came up with or the opposition) is pure speculation.


----------



## Firefly (5 Feb 2010)

As I said, the $4bn question


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2010)

What I don't get is why the people voted for FF for the last 10 years, when "Buy everyone Bertie" was in charge and their policies were clearly damaging the country, are now saying they won't vote for them again, when their current policies are much better than what is being offered by the opposition. 

If you were stupid enough to think Bertie was great then blame yourself but cast you vote in the next election based on policies, not deflected anger at your own stupidity.


----------



## Caveat (9 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> What I don't get is why the people voted for FF for the last 10 years, when "Buy everyone Bertie" was in charge and their policies were clearly damaging the country, are now saying they won't vote for them again when their current policies are much better than that is being offered by the opposition.
> 
> If you were stupid enough to think Bertie was great then blame yourself but cast you vote in the next election based on policies, not deflected anger at your own stupidity.


 
Well said.


----------



## cork (9 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> If you were stupid enough to think Bertie was great then blame yourself but cast you vote in the next election based on policies, not deflected anger at your own stupidity.







Bertie at least played a significant role in the Peace Process.

The manifestos of other political partys at the last election were worse.

Niether FG or Labour were any better.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> What I don't get is why the people voted for FF for the last 10 years, when "Buy everyone Bertie" was in charge and their policies were clearly damaging the country, are now saying they won't vote for them again, when their current policies are much better than what is being offered by the opposition.
> 
> If you were stupid enough to think Bertie was great then blame yourself but cast you vote in the next election based on policies, not deflected anger at your own stupidity.


 
I'm certainly with you on that.  

People voting in that manner need to realise that:

A) They were too stupid to spot poor policy at the time

B) Are probably too stupid still


----------



## Complainer (9 Feb 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> I'm certainly with you on that.
> 
> People voting in that manner need to realise that:
> 
> ...


I think that few people use policy as their basis for voting.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2010)

Complainer said:


> I think that few people use policy as their basis for voting.


 That's the point I was making


----------



## Lex Foutish (10 Feb 2010)

Purple and Complainer agree on something!!! Brendan, is there anywhere on the new system where we can click *to thank God*?


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2010)

Lex Foutish said:


> Purple and Complainer agree on something!!! Brendan, is there anywhere on the new system where we can click *to thank God*?



...it's not the first time that's happened you know!
The shame of it is that I'm on his ignore list (I won't bore you with the details) so he won't see it!


----------



## Lex Foutish (10 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> ...it's not the first time that's happened you know!
> The shame of it is that I'm on his ignore list (I won't bore you with the details) so he won't see it!


 
Next time you're in Cork, I'll take you to The Long Valley and you can tell me all about him.


----------



## Purple (10 Feb 2010)

cork said:


> Bertie at least played a significant role in the Peace Process.
> 
> The manifestos of other political partys at the last election were worse.
> 
> Niether FG or Labour were any better.



Parties in opposition promise the sun, moon and stars to get into power so I wouldn’t treat their manifestos while in opposition as being carved in stone. What can be said is that the last Labour party minister of finance (and the last non-FF one) did a good job, far better that Bertie or Brian, or Charlie in his later budgets. I do think that it would have been very hard for any government containing Labour to break Berties consensus/social partnership political model that has eaten into the core of the institutions of state like a debilitating cancer.  

What we are getting now is economic and political chemo-therapy; it might make us sicker in the short term but it will stop us dying in the longer term. The problem is that the government knew what the prognosis was 5 years ago but didn’t have the balls to start the treatment.


----------

