SF economic policy

nollaig

I vote for SF.

Why?

Not because of their economic policies, I dont understand economics very well and am not an expert in this area. But because they are the only party who have continuously campaigned for the unification of Ireland. Other parties (ie whichever ones are in government at the time) like to divert attention away from their own failings in the south and yap on about the north without achieving anything.

But then aagain, I'm not exactly up on my polictics!

fightin irish

nollaig wrote:

I vote for SF.

Why?

Not because of their economic policies, I dont understand economics very well and am not an expert in this area. But because they are the only party who have continuously campaigned for the unification of Ireland. Other parties (ie whichever ones are in government at the time) like to divert attention away from their own failings in the south and yap on about the north without achieving anything.

But then aagain, I'm not exactly up on my polictics!

I will try find a link to how much the British government spend (in the billions) to keep Northern Ireland running etc. Now i don't think any rational thinking person would be pushing to gain that massive debt, besides all the other complexitys of Northern Ireland.

Why do you think goverments are tryin to deflect attention away from thier own failings on Northern Ireland. Maybe if it was the early eighties i'd agree but there has been MASSIVE, absoulte MASSIVE political policys and will to get Northern Ireland where it is today. The good friday agreeement for example.

Hobbes

nollaig wrote:

But because they are the only party who have continuously campaigned for the unification of Ireland.

Which is the core problem with politics in general. Everyone has 1-2 ideas of what they want personally and vote based on that but ignore anything else that party may do.

For example would you want a united Ireland if it meant paying over 50% taxes, massive unemployment and being fined for not filling out any government document in Ireland?

Not saying thats SF policies, but how would you know without checking?

The Corinthian

nollaig wrote:

I vote for SF.

Why?

Not because of their economic policies, I dont understand economics very well and am not an expert in this area. But because they are the only party who have continuously campaigned for the unification of Ireland. Other parties (ie whichever ones are in government at the time) like to divert attention away from their own failings in the south and yap on about the north without achieving anything.

But then aagain, I'm not exactly up on my polictics!

Well at least you're honest enough to admit that you vote for them because you're clueless.

Genuine compliment. Really.

ISAW

nollaig wrote:

I vote for SF.

Why?

Not because of their economic policies, I dont understand economics very well and am not an expert in this area. But because they are the only party who have continuously campaigned for the unification of Ireland. Other parties (ie whichever ones are in government at the time) like to divert attention away from their own failings in the south and yap on about the north without achieving anything.

But then aagain, I'm not exactly up on my polictics!

so it would seem. Care to mention all these other parties who are opposed to re unification and did nothing for re unification? As far as I know all the other parties are for reunification. FG and the Greens may be luke warm on it but FF and elements of Lab and independents are strongly for it. FF is called The Republican Party by the way and represents far far more Republicans than SF does.

Sand

I heard on the radio the other day about SF policy regarding the health service. It went something along the lines of ... (and feel free to correct me).

"Everyone will be given free medical and we will do away with private care completly. We have no idea how much this is going to cost or how to fund it but this is something we plan to do".

Yeah, I read a small article on that. Apparently Big Mac came out with a speech that went something along the lines of "I have a dream", promised everything to everyone and then right at the end it was quietly noted that Big Mac and her party didnt present any costings or detail beyond hype. Laughable, they invent a policy without ever considering testing it against reality. Whats next? Salvaging Homer's "Cant someone else do it?" policy?

Its hard to decide whats sadder - the sheer contempt that SFIRA display by thinking people are so stupid theyll buy this crap, or the fact that people are that stupid.

I vote for SF.

Why?

Not because of their economic policies, I dont understand economics very well and am not an expert in this area. But because they are the only party who have continuously campaigned for the unification of Ireland. Other parties (ie whichever ones are in government at the time) like to divert attention away from their own failings in the south and yap on about the north without achieving anything.

But then aagain, I'm not exactly up on my polictics!

Dont worry about it, who needs to know anything about politics or economics when voting?

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

. FF is called The Republican Party by the way and represents far far more Republicans than SF does.

Addendum: FG have just renamed themselves to "Fine Gael the 32 county all Ireland party" or such like

Cork

nollaig wrote:

I vote for SF.

Why?

Not because of their economic policies, I dont understand economics very well and am not an expert in this area. But because they are the only party who have continuously campaigned for the unification of Ireland. Other parties (ie whichever ones are in government at the time) like to divert attention away from their own failings in the south and yap on about the north without achieving anything.

But then aagain, I'm not exactly up on my polictics!

Good point. Politics and Economics are not central planks of SF's electoral platform.

SF's main focus is NI.

Just as the Greens main focus is environment.

That is their choice and that is the basis they go before the electorate.

The whole United Ireland thing wears a little thin as SF supporters should know it is the people of NI that will decide on NI.

nollaig

Which is the core problem with politics in general. Everyone has 1-2 ideas of what they want personally and vote based on that but ignore anything else that party may do.

Well, the way I look at it is what would be my no.1 priority. For me, that would be the unification of Ireland and not economics. But thats just the way I feel. Maybe after that was achieved, a few years down the line, I would vote for somebody else as my priortioes would have changed.

As far as I know all the other parties are for reunification

As I said I know very very little about polictics but am interested in Irish History and in my view, while most of the other parties had the unification of Ireland as one of their very original aims, I believe that they have done nothing worthwhile to achieve it. I truly belive that Sinn Fein are the party who has done most to bring it about. Most use the Northern Ireland issue to deflect attention away from their shortcomings in the south

Fionnanc

The main aim of Sinn Fein is to gain control over Southern Ireland-ie a dictatorship/fascist state.. Reunifcation is only a cover-a publcity stunt to gain support. In Sinn Fein's view the Irish Civil War 1921-22 never ended and they still hope to defeat the "free state". This is the primary goal of Sinn Fein
Now if Sinn Fein gain control of the Republic of Ireland, they will use northern Ireland for propaganda purposes but will do no more for Irish Unification than any other of the parties(excluding murdering English people for no reason-though this has never contributed to IRish reunification)

Sand

For me, that would be the unification of Ireland and not economics. But thats just the way I feel. Maybe after that was achieved, a few years down the line, I would vote for somebody else as my priortioes would have changed.

Yup, a few years after unification was "achieved" youd be voting based on which party will pay you 3 cows and 2 chickens whilst on the dole, as Irelands nosedived right back to a barter economy - and record unemployment. The only positive benefit is wed stop hearing every single union activist and Fintan OToole whinging about sharing the benefits of the Celtic Tiger.

I think Plato said something along the lines that those too smart to engage in politics are punished by being ruled by those who are dumber...

As I said I know very very little about polictics but am interested in Irish History and in my view, while most of the other parties had the unification of Ireland as one of their very original aims

History is one thing. Its happened. It will swirl about as present concerns demand a new past to fit it, but the objective truth is fixed. How you cast your vote affects the future, of you, your family and everyone else in this country. Pleading ignorance of basic politics to excuse supporting scumbags murderers, thugs and twits like SFIRA is...well, I dont expect much better of SFIRA voters tbh. A reader of history should be well versed on the dangers "parties" like SFIRA pose to liberal democracy and society though.

Dirk Gently

Fionnanc wrote:

The main aim of Sinn Fein is to gain control over Southern Ireland-ie a dictatorship/fascist state.. Reunifcation is only a cover-a publcity stunt to gain support.

I'm not in any way a Sinn Fein supporter but in the interests of fairness I have to point out that the above statement is a shocking inaccuracy.
Contrary to fascist policies, Sinn Fein would be the polar opposite to this. There’s plenty of mud to throw at SF without resorting to poorly informed slander. Statements like the one above only take away from those who raise serious points about SF contradictory policies.

The Corinthian

clown bag wrote:

Contrary to fascist policies, Sinn Fein would be the polar opposite to this. There’s plenty of mud to throw at SF without resorting to poorly informed slander.

Well, not polar opposite. Sinn Fein do favour nationalism as a binding defining force for the State as does Fascism and the tendency towards centralised economic planning, while not purely fascistic, is consistent with Fascism. The use of paramilitaries is another glaring similarity. Where Sinn Fein do differ principally is that they also use the old Marxist concept of class struggle as a compliment to nationalism. However, this does not make them polar opposites, just an interesting hybrid.

Statements like the one above only take away from those who raise serious points about SF contradictory policies.

It’s a cliché, however given this discussion is all a non-event it makes little difference, as even the supporters of Sinn Fein here have not made any real attempt to defend these policies. It’s even unlikely any of them are qualified to speak on the subject, TBH.

finnpark

We all know that politics is one big joke:

Do fcuk all for 5 years, then put a suit and some makeup and go around letting on you love everyone and getting your pic in a few of the local rags. Put some posters up, big bright ones:D , stand outside Mass and then hibernate for 5 years saying: "What a cushy job, I get a 100 grand a year for doing nothing plus loads of back handers. "

I cannot beleive people are actually discussing ecomic policies on here - what the hell would anyone on here know about economics - no more than myself. You read a load of rubbish in the papers and spin out here, the truth is you don't have a clue and neither do our politicians. Some of them have never been to college for fcuk sake and you think our "celtic tiger" economy is down to them. The Celtic Tiger is down to the fact that we have 15% of people in construction - once this goes belly up we are all fcuked, not that I have a clue . Anyway stop talking rubbish and get yourselfs a better hobby, unless your related to a politician you have no hope of ever becoming any1 in the political world.

BTW: Its laughable that FFs and FGs mock SF for terrorism when it was De Valera and Collins who started off the bloodbath and its just as laughable than SFs accuse FFs of criminality/backhanders since that is what they do and that is what politics is all about.

This thread is going nowhere fast because theres no such thing as politics - no1 is right no1 is wrong, its just one big show!;)

The Corinthian

finnpark wrote:

I cannot beleive people are actually discussing ecomic policies on here - what the hell would anyone on here know about economics - no more than myself.

Speak for yourself. I have a degree in it.

darkman2

finnpark wrote:

We all know that politics is one big joke:

Do fcuk all for 5 years, then put a suit and some makeup and go around letting on you love everyone and getting your pic in a few of the local rags. Put some posters up, big bright ones:D , stand outside Mass and then hibernate for 5 years saying: "What a cushy job, I get a 100 grand a year for doing nothing plus loads of back handers. "

I cannot beleive people are actually discussing ecomic policies on here - what the hell would anyone on here know about economics - no more than myself. You read a load of rubbish in the papers and spin out here, the truth is you don't have a clue and neither do our politicians. Some of them have never been to college for fcuk sake and you think our "celtic tiger" economy is down to them. The Celtic Tiger is down to the fact that we have 15% of people in construction - once this goes belly up we are all fcuked, not that I have a clue . Anyway stop talking rubbish and get yourselfs a better hobby, unless your related to a politician you have no hope of ever becoming any1 in the political world.

BTW: Its laughable that FFs and FGs mock SF for terrorism when it was De Valera and Collins who started off the bloodbath and its just as laughable than SFs accuse FFs of criminality/backhanders since that is what they do and that is what politics is all about.

This thread is going nowhere fast because theres no such thing as politics - no1 is right no1 is wrong, its just one big show!;)

The only valid point here was when you mentioned the construction sector. Its not going 'belly up' anytime soon thats for sure. The infrastructure of the country as well as 1000s of new developments throughout the country have yet to start construction (a scale this country will have never seen before) so ive no worries as long as the economic indicators remain bouyant which, trust me they are very good compared to anywhere in Europe and practically all OECD countries. SF is a threat to the Celtic tiger and anyone who has reason to be thankful it exists. They dont even believe in private property ffs. Back to the stone age. They will never get into government of course as long as ppl see through this marxist and DANGEROUS agenda.

nollaig

Strange, this thread is about SF economic policies. Yet the only posters who have actually posted examples of their policies are darkman & isaw. Looks like I'm not the only 1 who hasnt a clue.

The Corinthian

nollaig wrote:

Strange, this thread is about SF economic policies. Yet the only posters who have actually posted examples of their policies are darkman & isaw. Looks like I'm not the only 1 who hasnt a clue.

The reality is that they don’t really have economic policies (well, they have a few concrete policies they wish to implement, but not many). What they do have tends to be fairly vague in terms of a return to the heavily State and semi-state controlled system of the past, but most of their policies tend to come from their nationalistic bent (hence their general dislike for foreign investment) and favouring their principle electoral constituency; the lower-lower to lower-middle classes (typically geared towards helping the low paid and unemployed at the expense of the more wealthy).

The latter means they don’t really have to explain their economic policies as the only people who would want them explained won’t vote for them anyway. Which is probably as well because I suspect they’re not fully agreed upon them amongst themselves.

Certainly the policies they’re hinting at, if implemented, would result in a very negative shock to the system, with investment rapidly flowing out of the country. Their answer to this is local enterprise, in particular SME’s, but it’s unlikely that any such enterprise would be able to offset the loss in multinational employment - especially if you consider how many local enterprises are dependant on the business they get from the same multinationals.

On the plus side, if you don’t already own a house, you’ll probably do very well out of them. Such will be the negative equity from the newly unemployed homeowners, combined with some form of incentive or subsidy that SF are likely to introduce for first time buyers, that you’ll probably get a real bargain.

Of course, once you have the house, that’s another story...

Fionnanc

Fascism and Communism are very similar. Both subscribe that the individual is u****ortant, the state is the most important entity. Therefore, according to fascism and communism, in order for the individual to reach their full potential they must be part of the state, to everything for the state, be subservient to the state. ie: the common good automatically overides the rights of the individual. Thus in order to make progress totalitarian movements have murdered millions of individuals in gulags, war, prison, extermination camps, have murdered political rivals and even murdered people who show some decency and compassion to enemies- ie:Supposed informers murdered by the IRA. In power and in order to gain power Sinn Fein will attempt to gain control over all arms of the state, all NGOs and over peoples daily business which should be none of the governments business. Can anybody picturing the IRA playing the same role in "policing" as the Gestapo and SS in Germany and later occupied Europe?

Dirk Gently

Fionnanc wrote:

Fascism and Communism are very similar. Both subscribe that the individual is u****ortant, the state is the most important entity. Therefore, according to fascism and communism, in order for the individual to reach their full potential they must be part of the state, to everything for the state, be subservient to the state. ie: the common good automatically overides the rights of the individual. Thus in order to make progress totalitarian movements have murdered millions of individuals in gulags, war, prison, extermination camps, have murdered political rivals and even murdered people who show some decency and compassion to enemies- ie:Supposed informers murdered by the IRA. In power and in order to gain power Sinn Fein will attempt to gain control over all arms of the state, all NGOs and over peoples daily business which should be none of the governments business. Can anybody picturing the IRA playing the same role in "policing" as the Gestapo and SS in Germany and later occupied Europe?

There is no such thing as a "communist state". It’s a contradiction in terms. True communism means there is no state to control anyone. Day to day decisions are carried out democratically by local elected councils made up of people elected from each community. Communism and fascism are nothing alike. You may be getting confused with the Soviet Union and Hitlers Germany being alike with state control over everything and secret police forces but Stalinism is not communism.
I agree that Sinn Fein are a very dangerous party and I wont be voting for them but just don't like seeing wild statements like communism and fascism are the same thing and Sinn Fein are fascists being thrown around the place.

Fionnanc

Your definition of a communist state is much akin to how an ideal anarchist state(contradiction) would run.
In practice both Communism and Fascism were/are Totalitarian ideologies in practice.

Running Bing

darkman2 wrote:

To nationalise the banks and renationalise many companies.

To increase corporate taxes and Capital gains tax which the economy depends on to rediculously high levels which would suggest the party is economically illiterate.

Equality - we all want equality but not the type they envisage, rather most wont equal opportunity to better themselves. The equality they asspire to would leave most equal, but equal in poverty. Communist type policies.

In essence these three policies alone would devestate the economy.

I dont agree with SF economic policy but I would question how qualified you are to assess wether they would devestate the economy and how "economically literate" you are yourself. Believe it or not there are thousands of people in Ireland who have bought into this crazy idea of "socialism" and the idea of equality of outcome, mainly, although not exclusively, amongst working class communities. Do you feel these people should not have representation.

Dirk Gently

Fionnanc wrote:

Your definition of a communist state is much akin to how an ideal anarchist state(contradiction) would run.
In practice both Communism and Fascism were/are Totalitarian ideologies in practice.

An anarchist society is a communist society; the anarchist just doesn’t see the need for the socialist stage on the way to communism.

It is this socialist stage I feel you have an issue with, pointing to totalitarian regimes who claimed to be socialist as your reason. We have never seen a practical example of communism is modern times, only dysfunctional state run economies such as china and the Soviet Union which were neither communist nor socialist as they were top down regimes as opposed to mass democratic control by the people. Communism is completely democratic were the people having the power and not a state imposing its will on the people. The overall aim of communists and anarchists is a stateless society, but with different approaches to achieving this.
Fascism is a state controlling the people but communism dissolves the state in favour of democracy. They are quite opposite ideologically. As long as a state exists you cannot point to that state and call it communist.

The Corinthian

clown bag wrote:

An anarchist society is a communist society; the anarchist just doesn’t see the need for the socialist stage on the way to communism.

It is this socialist stage I feel you have an issue with, pointing to totalitarian regimes who claimed to be socialist as your reason. We have never seen a practical example of communism is modern times, only dysfunctional state run economies such as china and the Soviet Union which were neither communist nor socialist as they were top down regimes as opposed to mass democratic control by the people. Communism is completely democratic were the people having the power and not a state imposing its will on the people. The overall aim of communists and anarchists is a stateless society, but with different approaches to achieving this.

The “it’s totally different because it’s never been tried” defence. Dreadful rubbish.

Of course, as with most distopias, anarchists never bother to ask why anarchist states have never managed to get off the starting blocks, or that the reasons may be inherent to the system they espouse.

Hell, it’d be a start if you guys had actually bothered coming up with any significantly new ideas in the last century, but you’re still convinced that you’ve got a perfect ideology because ‘it’s never been tried’.

Fascism is a state controlling the people but communism dissolves the state in favour of democracy. They are quite opposite ideologically. As long as a state exists you cannot point to that state and call it communist.

Historically, we’re talking about facts here as opposed to how you wish it were, this is not the case. Communism, like Fascism, as always tended towards totalitarianism. Just because their version of Communism doesn’t sit well with you does not mean it didn’t happen.

After all, as with all ideologies that seek to promote such lofty goals, coercion of the masses is often necessary when they disagree with your vision of utopia.

Dirk Gently

The Corinthian wrote:

The “it’s totally different because it’s never been tried” defence. Dreadful rubbish.

Of course, as with most distopias, anarchists never bother to ask why anarchist states have never managed to get off the starting blocks, or that the reasons may be inherent to the system they espouse.

Hell, it’d be a start if you guys had actually bothered coming up with any significantly new ideas in the last century, but you’re still convinced that you’ve got a perfect ideology because ‘it’s never been tried’.

Historically, we’re talking about facts here as opposed to how you wish it were, this is not the case. Communism, like Fascism, as always tended towards totalitarianism. Just because their version of Communism doesn’t sit well with you does not mean it didn’t happen.

After all, as with all ideologies that seek to promote such lofty goals, coercion of the masses is often necessary when they disagree with your vision of utopia.

First of all I'm not an anarchist, I was just pointing out the differences in fascism / communism / anarchism. All too often people throw around accusations at people calling them one of the above which distorts the true meaning of the political reality of these different ideologies.

I don't think the “it's never being tried argument is incorrect”. In places where it has been tried the regimes that seized power had their own agendas (Stalin) which most communists and anarchists would not agree with, resulting in state controlled economies and dictatorships. You can't say something doesn't work by using an example which is not communist or anarchist. I personally think the anarchist approach will never work as a democratic communal society will never be allowed to exist by external capitalist states. Without a state to defend against aggressive external interests the anarchist society will always be defeated. Just look at Venezuela today and wider Latin America where there is an attempt to follow a socialist path, they are attempting to do so, but under huge pressure from the United States who is very active in opposing any leaning towards socialist economics. If there was no state in Venezuela as in an anarchist society, America would simply roll in an install right wing economics.

The point of my posts in this forum were simply to point out the differences in ideologies as the word fascist and communist get thrown around alot to describe anyone you disagree with, much like anti-American and un-American are thrown around to describe anyone who disagrees with the republican party in America.

ISAW

Babybing wrote:

I dont agree with SF economic policy but I would question how qualified you [darkman2] are to assess wether they would devestate the economy and how "economically literate" you are yourself.

This is entirely beside the point! In the current discussion. It is for SF to propose policies and those that oppose them to show where they err. It is not for the opposition to show how their policies are better. However, in the current state the economic policy of FG and Lab havent really been outlined. Maybe they are holding them back for the election. You dont need to ask FF or the PDs about their policy since they are in government and what they do is by definition implementation of policy. All the above differ starkly from SF who fail to produce costed policy. So it is no good asking others what their qualifications are when SF dont provide the detail to begin with.

Furthermore, asking anyone what their qualifications are is accepting argument from authority. their point should be based on evidence and not because they say so and they are economists, MBAs or whatever.

Believe it or not there are thousands of people in Ireland who have bought into this crazy idea of "socialism" and the idea of equality of outcome, mainly, although not exclusively, amongst working class communities. Do you feel these people should not have representation.

people should have what they vote for! Also, people are quite capable of representing their own opinion. We dont need the Oireachtas just to speak for us, although it provides one forum (of many fora) ihn which some debate can be raised.

The Corinthian

clown bag wrote:

First of all I'm not an anarchist, I was just pointing out the differences in fascism / communism / anarchism. All too often people throw around accusations at people calling them one of the above which distorts the true meaning of the political reality of these different ideologies.

Unfortunately this is what you are doing in this case.

I don't think the “it's never being tried argument is incorrect”. In places where it has been tried the regimes that seized power had their own agendas (Stalin) which most communists and anarchists would not agree with, resulting in state controlled economies and dictatorships.

Except most Communists did not disagree with it until after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

You can't say something doesn't work by using an example which is not communist or anarchist.

Except you’ve certainly not demonstrated that.

I personally think the anarchist approach will never work as a democratic communal society will never be allowed to exist by external capitalist states.

Supposition upon your part designed to negate even the slightest possibility that it may fail all on its own.

The point of my posts in this forum were simply to point out the differences in ideologies as the word fascist and communist get thrown around alot to describe anyone you disagree with, much like anti-American and un-American are thrown around to describe anyone who disagrees with the republican party in America.

Certainly Fascism does get thrown around a lot as a term, however what you objected to was not that but a comparison between Communism and Fascism. This historically and in actuality exists, and you simply standing there and claiming “but that’s different” is simply not going to fool anyone.

Dirk Gently

I originally posted on this forum when I seen Sinn Fein being called fascists with a secret plan to install a dictatorship and the whole united Ireland thing just being a smokescreen. All I wanted to do was point out that such wild statements were unhelpful and that Sinn Feins policies (or lack of) can be countered with logic as opposed to wild speculation. I didn’t even comment on the original topic of the thread as Sinn Fein haven’t given me anything to go on. They are very vague and I don't think they themselves know what they are doing, so until they do I can’t comment except to say they need to work on it a bit and come out with a definite economic policy which I can then criticise.

Does The Corinthian agree that communism is a theory of a stateless and classless society democratically run by local elected councils where labour is a means of benefiting society as opposed to profit?

If you do agree, how can you point to historical actual events such as the Soviet Union and say that "communist states" tend to be totalitarian. You have no way of proving that just as I cannot say as fact that this kind of society will work. What we can say as fact is that capitalism does not work, and that the needs of all the people of the planet cannot be achieved with capitalism. Capitalism benefits the few at the expense of the many. As for my supposition about the anarchist society failing, you’re right, it could collapse on its own but we will never know if it is not given a chance. It will definitely fail however without a state to defend against external threat. What are the chances of people following an anarchist model, dissolving the state and bringing about a communal society while all the time their capitalist neighbours sit by and wish them the best of luck?
It was not my intention to get into a communist / anarchist did it happen or did it not happen debate. I only wanted people think twice about throwing around the fascist word.

The Corinthian

clown bag wrote:

Does The Corinthian agree that communism is a theory of a stateless and classless society democratically run by local elected councils where labour is a means of benefiting society as opposed to profit?

What Communism seeks to be in theory is irrelevant, what it is in actuality is what matters. The same could be said for organised religions; in theory they all tend towards pure and altruistic goals, in practice they are all less than pure - yet are you suggesting that we judge them simply on the basis of what they should be rather than what they are? I doubt that, yet that’s what you’re suggesting we do with Communism.

Communism favours totalitarianism, as does Fascism. Neither in theory favour it - even Fascism believes that it should be unnecessary on the basis that the State is no more the embodiment of the will of the people - yet in practice both do.

So simply claiming that it never managed to get past the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ stage of revolution does not imply that it’s not totalitarian in nature, it implies that it cannot get past the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ stage of revolution precisely because it is totalitarian in nature.

It was not my intention to get into a communist / anarchist did it happen or did it not happen debate.

No, it was your intention to give your definition and expect us not to challenge you on it.

darkman2

Babybing wrote:

I dont agree with SF economic policy but I would question how qualified you are to assess wether they would devestate the economy and how "economically literate" you are yourself. Believe it or not there are thousands of people in Ireland who have bought into this crazy idea of "socialism" and the idea of equality of outcome, mainly, although not exclusively, amongst working class communities. Do you feel these people should not have representation.

I can tell you this much. 100s of 1000s of jobs depend directly or indirectly on FDI. You increase corporate tax they will leave, its as simple as that. They are not here because they like the Irish or our weather. Their here to make money, something SF has a problem with. SF, for me embody the worst of 1940s style socialism something that as I said will bring equality in poverty. PPL arent stupid, they know this but some are disillusioned. I believe the tax structure and policies being implemented in this country are right for this country. As Bertie said, we have come a long way from a country no one gave a toss about in the 80s to one that has continental countries fuming with rage (and envy) at our success at their expense. Were doing something right when we attract this attention.