FF Satisfaction rate up 11%

LFCFan

Can someone tell me please how people could be satisfied with the current government? Are people starting to forget already what a mess they have the country in? They should be taking a massive hit in the local elections but knowing this country they'll probably increase their grip on the reigns!

ReefBreak

Note that disatisfation is still at 52% - the 11% increase is due to one factor: the economy. People realise it's improving and Ireland came through the worst of the global recession fairly unscathed with consistently low unemployment, a dropping rate of inflation, and decent enough prospects ahead of us. It's not very complicated. People know they're a shower of bástards, but they'd rather have a shower of bástards run a good ship and keep everyone in work than vote for a party who would only increase taxation and government spending, e.g. Labour.

What's really worrying to me is how a bunch of nazi-supporting criminal thugs in Sinn Féin, with absolutely no alternatives or ideas to offer anyone (bar saying how they'll somehow magically make it all better), can get such an increase in popularity, especially in Dublin. I guess if you want to increase your vote in Ireland, the easiest way to do so is to get your party leader photographed smiling with a bunch of Garda-murdering, armed-bank-robbing scumbags.

LFCFan

Originally posted by ReefBreak
What's really worrying to me is how a bunch of nazi-supporting criminal thugs in Sinn Féin, with absolutely no alternatives or ideas to offer anyone (bar saying how you'll somehow magically make it all better), can get such an increase in popularity, especially in Dublin. I guess if you want to increase your vote in Ireland, the easiest way to do so is to get your party leader photographed smiling with a bunch of Garda-murdering, armed-bank-robbing scumbags.

T'is very worrying indeed.

Ok, the economy isn't too bad but with all this properity the government is failing to improve infrastructure, health, crime etc etc etc. What about the ripoff culture? Being in a job is one thing, being able to afford to live here is another.

Sparks

Thing is reef, your reason why FF are up and your concern for SF also being up are in fact two sides of the same coin.
In truth neither party ought to be up - FF after all, hardly took decisive measures to stabilise our economy. They, in effect, caught another break - the economy didn't drop dead on it's feet. No thanks to their policies, which lead to the house price bubble getting so out of hand along with various other economic kicks in the teeth. Likewise, SF haven't done anything to merit the rewards they're reaping.

The actual problem is that people don't understand what politicians should get credit for, and what is someone else's work. You don't see Bertie being forced to appear in a difficult interview during prime-time news programming with an interviewer who isn't interested in doing a Dunphy (ie. getting both ears inside Bertie's colon while discussing GAA matches with him), and who knows the particular details of the topic in question (knowing that much stuff in that much detail isn't a quality too many journalists have these days ). Likewise for most of the other ministers. It's a rare sight to see an actual Minister on Questions and Answers and usually they're not given as hard a time as they deserve. And even at that, most people don't know enough about the political system, the history involved, or the economics to be able to competently judge their actions.

The good news is that it can be solved - you just need to bring those topics in as a L.Cert mandatory subject. Hell, it's even a topic that teenagers would embrace since it means criticising "the establishment", which tended to be a favorite topic even for the slack-jawed knucle-draggers I went to school with. The bad news is that you'll find few politicians who'll push for a politically educated public....

star gazer

3% is the margin for error, so none of the parties' movements was outside that. The trend for Fianna Fail is unsure, the trend for sinn fein does appear to be upward with other parties basically stagnating. Opinion polls are a useful tool but are only a snapshot in time and the various issues of the day tend to have a disproportionate effect on preferences, Some of Bertie's strongest supporters in fianna fail would have had a problem with his trip to france for the wedding, even though it's not really relevant where his daughter gets married.

Originally posted by Sparks
And even at that, most people don't know enough about the political system, the history involved, or the economics to be able to competently judge their actions.

Thats an opinion best described in my view as elitist .
Most people aren't thick, they know and care about what is happening to them.
On the contrary, I put what Reefbreak complains about down to the opposition parties and their inability to get their message across.
They've had ample opportunity.

Regarding Sinn Féin, they are experts at grassroots harvesting.
They go out to the small man or woman who has a problem, they fix it, and on election day , they hound those that otherwise probably wouldn't bother voting , into voting.
Thats their sucess, but theres only so far they can go with that , imho, ie theres only so much of that vote they can get out.
They won't be able to get a sympathy vote from the majority of the electorate, who will want to see their policies and will take a dim view of their associations .

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Thats an opinion best described in my view as elitist .

No, it's an opinion backed up by such things as polls which show Bertie's approval rating going up in the same month that he's linked to Gilmartin's tribunal fun by his party members, and other polls which show that the majority of people don't know what the seanad is, and more polls which show the level of voter apathy....

Again you are hinting Sparks that people aren't educated enough to form an opinion on whether or not they want someone in Government.
We had a long discussion on that before which ended here

Regarding Apathy as I said, SF are hoovering up that vote and will continue to do so unless some more mainstream party take them on at that game.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Again you are hinting Sparks that people aren't educated enough to form an opinion on whether or not they want someone in Government.

Actually, that's not what I'm doing. I'm stating that many people aren't educated enough about the government and it's history and it's duties and how it's structured to be able to form a competent opinion on who they want to elect.

We had a long discussion on that before which ended here

Actually, that discussion was on whether or not Ministers should be required to have a basic level of competency in the area of government they would be responsible for - an opinion I still hold.
It's not the same thing however.

Originally posted by Sparks

It's not the same thing however.

But it is because you are argue-ing that some people are better than others and that some people in your opinion need some more education to be able to competantly judge politics.

By definition that is elitism.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
FF after all, hardly took decisive measures to stabilise our economy. They, in effect, caught another break - the economy didn't drop dead on it's feet. No thanks to their policies, which lead to the house price bubble getting so out of hand along with various other economic kicks in the teeth.

I find it incredibly amusing that you say most people don't understand the system, whilst blaming the government policy for things going wrong, and then saying that policy doesn't really make much of a difference when it comes to things going right.

Clearly, the govenrment must - by your very own argument - at the very least have stopped breaking things if they were responsible for helping screw it up.

If not, then the economy would still be screwed and getting screweder (yes, I know thats not a word. Its Friday. Cope). But it isn't. You admit its getting better. So the government must have stopped breaking it. Even if their policy hasn't changed, their policy may be a better fit to today's reality than (say) last years....so they have still stopped breaking it at the very least by having the basic intelligence to leave their policies in place now that they are working better.

So anyway....you argue that the man in the street clearly doesn't know enough about government because he is more happy with a government now it is screwing things up less than it was some months ago.

So exactly what should the educated opinion be? That anything less than perfection is unacceptable? That improvements should not be appreciated? That we should prefer a government who screws things up more, rather than less?

If we can't appreciate improvement, then these seem to be the only options.....and you are arguing that the man in the street is wrong to appreciate the improvement.

All you ever seem to want to do is lump criticism on the government no matter what....and now it would appear that anyone who doesn't agree with that must suffer from a lack of education or understanding.

So tell me...which bit am I uneducated about or misunderstanding?

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
But it is because you are argue-ing that some people are better than others and that some people in your opinion need some more education to be able to competantly judge politics.
By definition that is elitism.

Actually, I'm arguing that some opinions are more correct than others because the people with the opinions have more education about the topic the opinion is held on. Last time I checked, this wasn't so much elitism as it was meritocracy. It works quite well for the scientific community....

dahamsta

Calling it elitism is ridiculous. If we go with that logic, people that change the oil in their own car are better than people that take their car to a mechanic.

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
It works quite well for the scientific community....

...who don't have to consider social issues when it comes to the way their community is run, especially with respect to what the meritocracy is used for.

Also, by that token, one could say that shareholding appears to work quite well for large business, so maybe we should found our political system on that....and let money be the factor we drive things by.

The point is that such systems are not applicable for a social system which enshrines the concept of equality as a basic human right.

But maybe I'm just not educated enough to understand why they are applicable, and why a meritocracy or "ca****ocracy"** doesn't immediately conflict with the concept of equality.

jc

** what the hell do you call a system where wealth is the driving factor?

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, I'm arguing that some opinions are more correct than others because the people with the opinions have more education about the topic the opinion is held on. Last time I checked, this wasn't so much elitism as it was meritocracy. It works quite well for the scientific community....

You are advocating elitism by saying that there should be a basic educational standard for voting.

I doubt that you would get a good reception at the doorstep with that revision of peoples human rights Sparks;)

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Clearly, the govenrment must - by your very own argument - at the very least have stopped breaking things if they were responsible for helping screw it up.

Or other people must have worked harder than normal to prevent everything going into the crapper.

So anyway....you argue that the man in the street clearly doesn't know enough about government because he is more happy with a government now it is screwing things up less than it was some months ago.

Nope, see above.

So exactly what should the educated opinion be? That anything less than perfection is unacceptable?

Ideally, yes. In practical terms, of course not. However, there's a difference between being human in your distance from perfection, and actively moving away from perfection to suit your own ends.

All you ever seem to want to do is lump criticism on the government no matter what.

And of course, it's not possible that they might deserve it, is it?
:rolleyes:

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
You are advocating elitism by saying that there should be a basic educational standard for voting.

Nope, I'm advocating that basic educational standards (which we have in this country in the Leaving and Junior Certs) should include civics and current politics.

I doubt that you would get a good reception at the doorstep with that revision of peoples human rights Sparks;)

I guess it depends on whether they listen to me or you saying I said something else....

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
...who don't have to consider social issues when it comes to the way their community is run, especially with respect to what the meritocracy is used for.

Really? We've never had debates on peer review or research funding or anything of that nature?
Just because the scientific community has different social issues, doesn't mean that there aren't any...

Also, by that token, one could say that shareholding appears to work quite well for large business, so maybe we should found our political system on that....and let money be the factor we drive things by.

I thought that was pretty close to the current system anyway, we just called it political donations instead of shares....

The point is that such systems are not applicable for a social system which enshrines the concept of equality as a basic human right.

And once again, I'm advocating a change in educational standards, not voting requirements. As to the debate on ministerial qualifications, that's a different thread, isn't it?

** what the hell do you call a system where wealth is the driving factor?

A plutocracy.
Or America

ReefBreak

Sparks, I wonder if you consider everyone that voted FF/PD in the last election to be uneducated and misinformed - do you consider me to be in the same boat. Well, before the election I looked at the facts, then I looked at the various political parties and made my choice from there. Despite all the allegations of corruption, I still voted for FF in the last election (although not 1st preference - that went to the PDs). I did this because I knew a recession was on the way, and I considered FF/PD to be the only crowd that would stand up and make the tough decisions.

Thing is reef, your reason why FF are up and your concern for SF also being up are in fact two sides of the same coin.
In truth neither party ought to be up - FF after all, hardly took decisive measures to stabilise our economy. They, in effect, caught another break - the economy didn't drop dead on it's feet. No thanks to their policies, which lead to the house price bubble getting so out of hand along with various other economic kicks in the teeth. Likewise, SF haven't done anything to merit the rewards they're reaping.

In fact, I disagree with your allegation that FF did nothing to stabilise the economy. They took action in the only section of the monetary (as opposed to social) economy that they could take action in, i.e. spending and taxation. The cut back on spending and stopped making any more tax cuts. The spending cuts had the anti-FF people (including, I presume, yourself Sparks) apoplectic with rage. Liars! Broken Promises! Etc, etc. But they did exactly what I'd hope they'd do, which was to stand firm when the going in the Global and Irish economy got tough.

They're still a shower of arrogant bástards of course, but at least the economy is looking better.

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, I'm advocating that basic educational standards (which we have in this country in the Leaving and Junior Certs) should include civics and current politics.

...and unless they do - the people who don't have what you believe to be a basic qualification for voting shouldn't vote.
Each time you reply sparks so far, you are underlining your position as being that some have better opinions than others- which is by my and most standards elitism.
It won't ever wash.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Sparks
. I'm stating that many people aren't educated enough about the government and it's history and it's duties and how it's structured to be able to form a competent opinion on who they want to elect.

I think as a nation we are quite well educated, and very 'political' savvy. It actually comes naturally to the Irish, see all the astute politicians we have produced over the years, and how well we always came out of EU negotiations.(Alberts Billions etc.)

To claim the masses are ignorant of what a good government constutes is farsical.
EG. we are rated as 5th in the entire for reading literacy by OECD statisitics? source
And if a person can read, then they are able to keep abreast of the situation, neh?

No, i believe it is you who are out of touch.

JC hit the nail on the head, when he pointed out that you criticise when the governmet fecks up, but give no credit to their achievements.

I think the recent prudent budgets helped Ireland to mimimise the effects of the worldwide depression, and be in a good position to take advantage of the current recovery. Going back further, they positioned ireland well, especially in europe, managed to attact the inward investment we needed, achived record growth etc.

Now 6 months ago, i would have bet my last euro, that this government would be thrown out in the next election. However given todays poll, perhaps teflon Bertie is going to pull off a recovery worthy of Houdini!

X

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Or other people must have worked harder than normal to prevent everything going into the crapper.

Even were that the case, the government still must have - at the very least - not changed policy to abuse the improvements and screw everyone over even more once we could afford it.

They haven't. They have - at the very least - allowed people to reap the benefits of what has been sown.

Now you are saying that this should not be more acceptable to people than a government who was - in your view - actively screwing the people over and fscking up a good economy to its own benefit.

So you're still saying that a government which isn't screwing an economy for all its worth is not more acceptable than one which is.

And of course, it's not possible that they might deserve it, is it?

What? Is it possible that our government are indellibly corrupt and have never taken as much as a single action worthy of praise and/or agreement? Yes, of course it is possible.

Is it probable? No, not very.

I'd say its definitely less probable than...say...you having a one-sided view of government which makes it impossible for you to offer any sort of balanced view regarding it.

Lets not forget that you have previously argued that you would provide no better a government than those who are currently there, because the system would corrupt you as much as them. You have argued that the system cannot be changed, or improved, because of this. You have admitted to knowing that all of your complaining is in an attempt to possibly stir up some more anti-government sentiment in others, and I do believe you used the term "spite" to describe this.

So, you tell me which is more probable - that the government is indeed 100% unworthy of any sort of credit whenever something goes right, but 100% worthy of criticism regardless of whether things are going right or wrong....or that you are simply engaging in more spreading of spiteful anti-government sentiment based on your own admissions that this is the reason that you do this?

I'd go with the latter....but maybe thats still because I'm just not properly educated about the government.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
And once again, I'm advocating a change in educational standards, not voting requirements.

My apologies...indeed you are.

So you're saying that you believe those who aren't educated about the system should have a vote?

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
..and unless they do - the people who don't have what you believe to be a basic qualification for voting shouldn't vote.

I didn't say that. I said that the problem was that most people didn't have education on the topic to form a cogent opinion. Voting restirctions weren't even mentioned until other people brought them up as an accusation.

Each time you reply sparks so far, you are underlining your position as being that some have better opinions than others- which is by my and most standards elitism.

That's not actually my position as such, it's just reality.
Some people are smarter than others. Some people know more about a particular topic than others. And our entire society is based on this - that's why we have qualified doctors and control medical treatment through them rather than letting anyone who wanted to diagnose and treat themselves do so. That's why we have driving tests. That's why we have degrees and leaving cert exams and resumes and careers, instead of just letting anyone that felt like it wander in off the street and design a car's brakes or run a nuclear power plant or whatever.

Thing is, and this is the counter-intuitive bit, none of that implies legal inequality. And I never said it did. I said we had an educational inequality - and a mandatory course in civics and modern politics would address that.
It's got sod all to do with legal inequalities and I never said it had.

T'would be nice if I only had to defend my ideas, instead of my ideas and other people's...

bdiddy

first of all, i'll admit i didnt read all the text of all the posts cos most of it is repitive and uninteresting. what is interesting tho is the opinion that some people are not educated enough to vote or to be voted for. This i find very discriminatory and insulting to people without full formal education for one reason or another. One example is someone from the country growing up in the 60's and 70's. Very few of these people got a right chance at education and had to go and work to earn thier livings while the rich kids stayed on in school. I know its different now but these people are only in thier 40's and 50's now and are at thier prime. They should not be made sit an exam to be able take up a position the people of Ireland elected them to take.


Another question which probably should be set up as another thread but it links with my point is whether Martin McGuinness is(was) a fit minister for education.

Sparks

Originally posted by Xterminator
I think as a nation we are quite well educated, and very 'political' savvy.

So why do we see those fun little polls taken on the street where noone asked knows what the Seanad is or how it works or what it's meant to do?

It actually comes naturally to the Irish, see all the astute politicians we have produced over the years, and how well we always came out of EU negotiations.(Alberts Billions etc.)

There's a difference in an educated public and a few cute hoors....
(Sorry, I realise it's not a flattering term, but it's a bit more honest than "astute politician", given what those "astute politicians" were doing to line their own pockets over the years...)

To claim the masses are ignorant of what a good government constutes is farsical.

And how many people, if asked on the street right now what the Flood Tribunal was about and what it's significance was, how many would get it right? Or how many forms of democratic government would they know of? Or how many could explain how PR voting works in Ireland?

EG. we are rated as 5th in the entire for reading literacy by OECD statisitics? source
And if a person can read, then they are able to keep abreast of the situation, neh?

It depends on what they read I would imagine. I wouldn't consider someone who depended on the Sun for their news to be well-informed, for example.

JC hit the nail on the head, when he pointed out that you criticise when the governmet fecks up, but give no credit to their achievements.

Because their achievements are few and far between and not usually all that spectacular. And in fact, most of what you've listed below as achievements were in fact just what they're meant to do as part of their jobs. I may thank a doctor for patching me up if I'm in an A&E department - I won't thank him for managing to carry out an injection without killing me, because he's meant to know how to do it. Similarly if the government needs to cut back spending I expect them to tell us first. Not lie during the election and get elected on the basis of those lies, then implement cutbacks left, right and center, but at the same time waste millions on racecourses that can't hold international races, private jets we don't need, the bertiebowl and other such things.

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Even were that the case, the government still must have - at the very least - not changed policy to abuse the improvements and screw everyone over even more once we could afford it.

Not yet.

They haven't. They have - at the very least - allowed people to reap the benefits of what has been sown.

Nope. If you have to work harder to achieve parity with the old standard, you're not being allowed to reap the benefits of your work.

What? Is it possible that our government are indellibly corrupt and have never taken as much as a single action worthy of praise and/or agreement? Yes, of course it is possible.

Who said never? Read my last post.

I'd say its definitely less probable than...say...you having a one-sided view of government which makes it impossible for you to offer any sort of balanced view regarding it.

Firstly this government's bad actions are not only more numerous than it's good ones by a large margin, the seriousness of those bad actions is far greater.
Secondly, I've yet to see proof that criticising bad actions is an indicator of an unbalanced viewpoint.

Lets not forget that you have previously argued that you would provide no better a government than those who are currently there, because the system would corrupt you as much as them. You have argued that the system cannot be changed, or improved, because of this.

Actually, I said that it couldn't be changed because it requires the consent of those in power to change it though legitimate means. I didn't say I couldn't change it. In fact I spelt out how I would change it - massive amounts of bribery.

You have admitted to knowing that all of your complaining is in an attempt to possibly stir up some more anti-government sentiment in others, and I do believe you used the term "spite" to describe this.

Yes, I used that word. No, I didn't mean what you described.
A decent description of what I'm doing might be "venting" or "catharsis", but neither of those convey the fact that what I'm complaining about are real and serious problems.

I'd go with the latter....but maybe thats still because I'm just not properly educated about the government.

JC, it couldn't be that you feel some sort of personal ire here, could it? :rolleyes:

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
My apologies...indeed you are.

That's okay, perhaps I could have phrased it better.

So you're saying that you believe those who aren't educated about the system should have a vote?

Actually I wasn't even talking about voting at all. I was talking about how the electorate perceive the government, as shown by monday's poll.
If you want to start another thread on voting restrictions, I'll chip in there.

Sparks

Originally posted by bdiddy
first of all, i'll admit i didnt read all the text of all the posts cos most of it is repitive and uninteresting. what is interesting tho is the opinion that some people are not educated enough to vote or to be voted for.

There's just so much irony here....

Another question which probably should be set up as another thread but it links with my point is whether Martin McGuinness is(was) a fit minister for education.

No probably about it, definitely needs a new thread.

Originally posted by Sparks
I didn't say that. I said that the problem was that most people didn't have education on the topic to form a cogent opinion.

And you by extension devalue their opinion and their right to express an opinion.
If you are not explicitly saying this what are you saying?

I'm not a medical doctor you know, I doubt if I'd have the energy, patience or the ability.
I still consider myself to be inteligent.
I certainly wouldn't devalue the opinion of someone less inteligent or imply that they have no right to be having as equal a say in their governence as I have.

Again you are dancing round the notion of elitism. regardless of how you want to dress it up, I see through it and doubless most others do too.
It doesn't wash.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
And you by extension devalue their opinion and their right to express an opinion.

No, I expressly stated that their opinions were worth less - and I said nothing about legal inequality or civil rights. That's your implication, not mine.

If you are not explicitly saying this what are you saying?

I am explicitly saying that some people have opinions that are worth more than others, and that an educational programme would help raise the average worth of opinions. Akward language, I know, but there it is.

I'm not a medical doctor you know, I doubt if I'd have the energy, patience or the ability.

And does this mean that you're less intelligent or have less civil rights?
No.
But it does mean I won't ask you to treat me if I get cancer, doesn't it? In other words, your medical opinion is of little worth to me.

Again you are dancing round the notion of elitism. regardless of how you want to dress it up, I see through it and doubless most others do too.
It doesn't wash.

You can think it's elitism if you want - it doesn't make it so. It's just reality.