What party would you give your No 1 if there was an election tomorrow?

Nuttzz

Would that be the same Martin ferris the convicted IRA gun runner.......?

SF have done a wonderful job on their image, Mary Lou's election showed all you have to do now is run a pop idol type contest to get elected, I pity the fools who are blinded by SF's image (while at the same time praise them for the stunt they have pulled)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

AngelofFire

Raising the reg fees has a worse affect on the working class as they have less money,The fact that abolishing fees benefits everybody doesn`t mean that bringing them back in has the same negative affect on everybody regardless of socio ecomomic background.

I think everyone is entitled to free education until they finish second level. Third level education isn't a necessity and is only becoming more of a necessity because everyone is going, a lot of the time not gaining any new skill.

So you`d be happy to tell aspiring Lawyers and Doctors from low income backgrounds to get lost just because they cant pay fees thus putting these people at a disadvantage to people from rich or middle class families.Why is 3rd level education not a necessity, it broadens the mind and increases participation in the economy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ecksor

An alternative system I'd like to see come in would be no fees in Science, Technology, Medicine, etc, where people are needed but if you want to do a hobby course like 'Ancient Irish' you should pay.

Disgusting, but at least you came out and said it.

AngelofFire

I'd like to see a system like that come in. An alternative system

what putting people in debt at the start of their career just because the exhcequer is reluctant to fund 3rd level?

ecksor

AngelofFire wrote:

what putting people in debt at the start of their career just because the exhcequer is reluctant to fund 3rd level?

A loans system such as the one exists in the UK would be a welcome addition here in my opinion. They don't require you to start paying back until you start earning above a certain level. Even if fees are paid for a student they dwarf the other expenses that students incur just through living. I think it's very hard to come up with a fair system of grants that adequately covers all the economic shapes and sizes and family situations that people come from. A good loans system empowers the student to better stand on their own feet and take responsibility for their own decisions.

Not everyone should go to university or feel as if they should go to university. The problem as things stand is that if you come from a very poor background or certain areas you may feel as if it isn't an option for you, while if you come from other more affluent backgrounds you may feel as if it's the only option available to you. A good loans scheme won't fix this discrepancy by itself (which is really a social problem) but it at least provides a way of leveling the playing field so that such prejudices can start to be tackled properly.

AngelofFire

A good loans scheme won't fix this discrepancy by itself (which is really a social problem) but it at least provides a way of leveling the playing field so that such prejudices can start to be tackled properly

I thought that free fees was already sufficent to "level the playing field". Anyway its an this debate is coming down to an ideological difference.

ecksor

How far does the grant go nowadays on paying rent and food if you're a student in Dublin? I'd say that free fees only solve part of the problem. Didn't go far when I was trying to do it anyway. A loan of a few grand a year would have meant a huge amount to me and I'd have paid it back easily in a couple of years after I started working. As things stood I ended up dropping out because I wasn't able to pay my own way.

Mighty_Mouse

A loan of a few grand a year would have meant a huge amount to me and I'd have paid it back easily in a couple of years after I started working. As things stood I ended up dropping out because I wasn't able to pay my own way.

Just curious. Why didnt you get a student loan from a bank like a major number of students on the grant have to do?

ecksor

Good question but the answer would involve a large portion of my life story that I'm not prepared to get into here

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Then why not cut out the indecision entirely, and simply get the government to supply funds to each company so that they can choose who to get educated where, in what, and to what extent, so that it better benefits business?

The answer is obvious - because the government's job is not purely to benefit business, nor to maximise return on investment.

Whether you like it or not there are skill learned in college that are useful from a commerical/industry aspect and there are skills that IMHO are 'hobby' courses.

I'm glad you qualified that its only in your opinion that these are hobby courses. For example...where do you propose we get our teachers from? Our researchers (outside the purely capitalist research frame of mind?) Our scholars? Our authors?

Why should these people be disadvantaged - not because they contribute less to society (financially or socially) - because they don't, but because someone decided that when they were setting out it was less likely that they would be financially successful, and therefore should have to suffer.

It is not the government's job to be so discriinatory, and while I wouldn't use the same terminology as Ecksor, I also find the idea abhorrent.

I'm sure if you stop and think about it, there are a myriad of other "more efficient" ways our government could use its money that you would object to. For example - lets abolish long-term unemployment benefits, and ramp-up short-term benefits and re-education spending. That would give less hardship to the temporarily unemployed, give a more flexible market force, and add an incentive to everyone not to become long-term unemployed.

No?

And why fund medical care? If someone can't afford it...so what? The loss of a single life is probably of less economic impact to the state then what they could get out of better investment of the money.

And so on and so forth....

I'm not advocating stopping people studing Film Studies, but I disagree with you that the exchequer should fund it.

Yes. God forbid we end up producing a Peter Jackson at the taxpayers expense. That would be terrible.

jc

ecksor

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You never know what sort of job a course might lead to. The career guidance teachers of ireland have a lot to answer for. Anyway, bonkey got here before me and I agree with his comments.

One other thing comes to mind though.

You seem to view third level education as useful only for getting a job (incidentally, why is that attitude so common amongst engineering students?). I disagree with that but I'll go along with it here for the sake of argument. A plan to subsidise science/engineering/professions in universities is probably going to prompt colleges to create more places. Perhaps not a bad thing from your POV, but it will also give them more incentive to pass students who previously would not have. This is already happening in institutions, standards are being watered down to keep the numbers up, often in my opinion because students were pushed or encouraged into courses they were unsuitable for "because that's where the jobs are", which your scheme also promotes. Suddenly you'll find that graduates are less employable because the standards are slipping and there's more of them around anyway. This is starting to sound a lot like your earlier comment:

"Third level education isn't a necessity and is only becoming more of a necessity because everyone is going, a lot of the time not gaining any new skill."

So, even apart from the ideological differences I have with you over third level education, I don't think that plan makes sense even from your point of view. Students already encouraged too much to do engineering and the sciences when it doesn't necessarily suit them.

deirdre dearg

Sinn Féin are evil, they're the ones behind the IRA even though they say they're not associated with each other. yeah right Gerry Adams... are people seriously considering putting these murderers into our gonvernment?
am i the only one who feels so strongly about Sinn Féin?

mycroft

I'm not advocating stopping people studing Film Studies, but I disagree with you that the exchequer should fund it.

I did film studies. I have a job in my choosen field. As do several of my class mates, successfully working here and in the US and Europe.

Many of my classmates got on the course through a Vtec allowance which allowed them to get benefits while on the course.

I generally find that people like yourself on boards who sneer at these types of courses and think college should only fund people who "are getting proper jobs" at the end of it, to be very literal and close minded people. People who think you go to college get a job earn a crust, buy a house and continue ad nauseum till retirement. I think of myself as more than just a consumer and employee and tax payer.

Many of these courses help people develop themselves to go and becoming valuable members of society who benefit society in a very really sense.

Where does it stop? Stop funding music schools? All arts?

Sinn Féin are evil, they're the ones behind the IRA even though they say they're not associated with each other. yeah right Gerry Adams... are people seriously considering putting these murderers into our gonvernment?

Deirde, welcome to boards.

I hate to break it to you, but Sinn Fein are technicallly in government sitting on many county councils.

mrhappy42

If Sinn F get in then I'm leaving the country...if you want to protest do it in a manner that shows intelligence.

PLEASE I beg on bended knees dont fck this country back into the days of yore.

Protest in another way.

ABS :-)

bonkey

mrhappy42 wrote:

If Sinn F get in then I'm leaving the country

"get in" ???

Don't they already have seats? Aren't they already in?

Interestingly, a lot of Swiss said the exact same when Blocher (Far Right)made a play to get into the Bundesrat last time round.

He made it in.
They didn't leave.
He hasn't significantly changed anything because he is still in a minoity position in the Bundesrat.

If anything, he's shooting himself in the foot twice by :
a) not living up to what he said he'd do because he's still only one vote in 7
and
b) pissing off the remaining members of the Bundesrat and undermining his own position by trying to stir up some controversy. (When the Bundesrat forms a decision, all 7 are supposed to publically support it regardless of how they voted. Blocher refuses to do this, and there was talk of kicking him out as a result).

I think its a great way to undermine groups. Give them what they want, in a manner where they are still controllable, and then watch them not do what they said they would...thus losing all the "non-extreme" support they had who only backed them cause they thought/hoped these guys could do what they promised to.


So let Sinn Fein have their little success. Odds are that they'll be able / be allowed to do so little with it that much of their support will realise these guys can't actually deliver what they promise when you take it to a national level.

...if you want to protest do it in a manner that shows intelligence.

...according to your standards.

I think its very intelligent to vote for the party which curently reflects your desires as a means to give the more established, stuck-in-a-rut parties a kick up the rear end as long as you're not putting the party you vote for into a majority position.

Again...I would refer to Switzerland in the last election. Lots of noise was made about the shift to the Right in voting patterns. What it really was, was a shift away from the Centre. So far, the Right parties who got big gains haven't done much with it, so odds are that they'll be swung away from come the next election again, as the centreist parties realise what it is they need to change their stances/approaches on (cause part of the problem was that they got lazy, IMHO.)

jc

mrhappy42

Can we bring the debate to slightly wider level again.

What makes a good party? versus a Popular party? Might help people decide on why they vote for one part over the other.

- Long term interest (v) Short term needs (as opposed to wants!)
- Balanced transparancy and access
- Competative advantage versus Social needs
- Balanced national interest (i.e defense)
- Upholding and creation of Law in transparent manner
- Balanced representation of all parties

It does not include
- Dictator ships
- Private armies
- Torture
- Resolve just around the cost of student loans, irrelevent if all active board members are students :-)
- Taking the law into your own hands
- Fundamentalism
- Nationalism as its only root
- Being popular for its own right
- knowing your name at the door as the foundation for voting
- having a better marketing team
- Single issue parties
- Number of favours done
- Local interest ahead of national interest


The questions of what happens if you get invaded, supressed, occupied or suffer genocide etc. should not be the sole reason or core to which you make a goverment.


Ps. bonkey...you know my meaning was that to vote as a protest is not a good use of your vote. It gives those protest parties street cred to raise cash etc. Use other means.

bonkey

mrhappy42 wrote:

Ps. bonkey...you know my meaning was that to vote as a protest is not a good use of your vote. It gives those protest parties street cred to raise cash etc. Use other means.

It gives them street cred in the short term. It also raises their profile during that short term which - I would say - actually makes it harder for them to retain their links with illegal activity, let alone expand them.

Like I said...I see nothing wrong with giving these parties a short-term "win" by voting for them and making them put up or shut up. I think it is a preferable strategy to voting for a "protest party" who don't have any attraction for you in terms of their policies, as well as being preferable to not voting.

If there was a "clean-cut" party which also seemed to be worth voting for, then sure....go for them.

My objection was simply that its wrong to simply say that choosing to "protest vote" for a party like Sinn Fein shows a lack of intelligence. There are valid, intelligent (from my perspective at least) reasons why one could justify voting for them....not least of which is the change it could force in the Shinners themselves once they find that they're actually expected to live up to the promises they've been making.

jc

AngelofFire

...if you want to protest do it in a manner that shows intelligence

There is no objective intelligent or unintelligent way of using your vote,the only unintelligent voter is the voter who spoils their ballot paper.

You cant just label people unintelligent because of the party that they vote for. on that logic you could say that all fianna fail voters are unintelligent because in the last general election they voted for a party who had deliberately neglected to deliver on their promises.

mrhappy42

I hear you but disagree....think of the international press, foreign direct investment, trading partners and general confusion abroad and how long it would be to get the reputation back again. Image if a company decided to let a company be run by the worst employees just to prove they where crap...they will just blame the previous goverments, oil prices, the eu, other goverments etc. etc. - you know the standard excuses from company execs that fail.

Put in the best even if a few issues exist with them and deal with the issues. Rather than putting in muppets just 'cos they think they market them selves as the natural protectors of these issues.

A good film, needs a good director...the actors are just cast.

Rock Climber

bonkey wrote:

There are valid, intelligent (from my perspective at least) reasons why one could justify voting for them....not least of which is the change it could force in the Shinners themselves once they find that they're actually expected to live up to the promises they've been making.

jc

Thats a valid perspective to take.
But do you really think that the majority of those who voted for SF at the last elections used the same perspective as that when they voted for them?
I'd actually have the hope that you are right,but on the ground my experience is that the people who vote for SF are doing so out of a recognition that SF at local level work hard for those who end up voting for them.
They get them their entitlements when people otherwise would either not know who to contact or what to do for example.

I doubt if anything more than a tiny percentage if any at all are voting for them because they think such a vote will disarm the IRA or discontinue racketeering.
Those that are concerned about that are most likely voting for anybody but SF.
That said, yes you are right (in my view) that the more power SF get ,the more difficult it is for them to live up to what they say they will do.
My concern though is, their links with the IRA are so slippery (ie deniable yet ever so perceivable) that they getting more power in the view of many will have little impact on the racketeering or any perceived links.
It's a question of trust I suppose.

The socialist party as I've mentioned here before is a good hard working clean(in terms of having no disputed links with paramilitarism) alternative but without seemingly the resources of the SF campaign unfortunately...

mrhappy42

Rock Climber wrote:

the people who vote for SF are doing so out of a recognition that SF at local level work hard for those who end up voting for them.
They get them their entitlements when people otherwise would either not know who to contact or what to do for example..

The problem is that SF dont pitch it as we helped you find the number to ring to get what you are entitled to ('cos your to lazy to use the phone book, go to any of the service centres, use the internet or just get of your arse)...but they pitch it as 'we got this for you'...i.e like if they had not contacted SF they would not be getting this entitlement.

No excuse in this day and age for not finding the information your entitled to...just 'cos sometimes it takes a bit of effort is no excuse to go to SF and then praising them...that just being lazy!...ooohhh I get it now.........entitlements.......lazy.......SF....mmmm makes sense now!

Redleslie2

AngelofFire wrote:

the only unintelligent voter is the voter who spoils their ballot paper...

....by putting a number beside the PD candidate's name.

Mighty_Mouse

Sinn Féin are evil, they're the ones behind the IRA ?

not too be a stickler. But the current Sinn Fein came after the IRA campaign in the North. So you would have to say that the IRA is behind Sinn Fein and not the other way around!

even though they say they're not associated with each other.

they don't say that there isn't links or associations. They do say that Sinn Fein doesn't control or speak for the IRA.

yeah right Gerry Adams...

a democrat who was never in the IRA

are people seriously considering putting these murderers into our gonvernment

Well the armed struggle is over and your too late anyways!! Shock, horror : Sinn Fein are in!

SF dont pitch it as we helped you find the number to ring to get what you are entitled to ('cos your to lazy to use the phone book, go to any of the service centres, use the internet or just get of your arse)...

It must be your sympathy towards the disadvantaged that has brought you to such an astute understanding of Sinn Fein social work! :rolleyes:

but they pitch it as 'we got this for you'...i.e like if they had not contacted SF they would not be getting this entitlement

Really? And you know this, how? ...................Regardless, does it not sound a little like clutching at straws to recognise the work Sinn Fein does but create some theory about the way they pitch it!!!

I get it now.........entitlements.......lazy.......SF....mmmm makes sense now

Can you expand on your theory. I've lost track of what your hinting at!

It gives them street cred in the short term. It also raises their profile during that short term which - I would say - actually makes it harder for them to retain their links with illegal activity, let alone expand them.

I look forward to seeing how your short-term/long-term theory works out Bonkey. Personally I would expect Sinn Fein to tackle any perceived shortfalls people have in terms of their economic/social policies with their natural enthusiasm. I expect them to become more and more politically astute very quickly. I.e. I don't see a point in time where their vote increase slows due to perceived political ineptness

<but naturally it will slow>

gom

If only BOards.ie was a true representation of the polity of this state it would be brilliant.

Labour could possibly form a minorty government at 21%.
PDs over take FG and great a nice hard Right in Irish Politics that will pull the present wishie-washie middle ground that FF FG and the PDs all claim to occupy.
SF would be the second largest party and going on the present party politics the only people who would form a coalition with them are those that have most to loss from their rise(FF).

Labour would probably form a minority government by themselfs or with FG or the Greens as minority members. But seen as SF is so strong in the polling Labour could just over themselfs to the Dail. FG, Greens, Most Dublin Independents would all vote for a Labour Taoiseach even if Labour was the only party in Government just to keep SF out.

All this goes on its head of FF and SF form a government with a SF Taoiseach. This would only happen if FG and the Greens refused to offer Labour support which may happen if Labour attempted to go it alone.

ANyway
None of this speculation really matters as its just a poll on a young (socially minded - obviously) male dominated message board.

The interesting thing to me is that 112 people have voted on it so far.

lucernarian

I know this sounds strange, but I think FF are less dogmatic when it comes to a manifesto. They do lots of stupid things but it's not driven by a bad manifesto. It's more of an issue of incompetency than stupid ideas. SF haven't given us comprehensive policies on how they would deal with every aspect of Government. They seem to be working off populist outrage against FF at the moment. Whether that'll change or remain that way I don't know

mrhappy42

"I would expect Sinn Fein to tackle any perceived shortfalls people have in terms of their economic/social policies with their natural enthusiasm"

Enthusiasm might be a good way to motiviate a bunch of cub guides on a long hike but enthusiasm is not the basis for a goverment. It's nice to see people involved at grass root level and I encourage that but its a long way away from understanding strategic direction and implementation of policy, Union negotiation etc. I'm not saying any other party is good at this either by the way but the difference is that they adhere to the rule of law.

Mighty_Mouse

Enthusiasm might be a good way to motiviate a bunch of cub guides on a long hike but enthusiasm is not the basis for a goverment

Two things:
a) I said "perceived"
b) don't tell me enthusiasm has no place in politics! :eek: