John Deasy TD in the news...

mad man

Van wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm reading successive posts on this and other forums and newspapers about how Waterford is underperforming economically. I'm reading about our poor infrastructure and access to the city from posters on this and other sites. I'm reading and quite rightly so about the failure to deliver to a university to this region and the consequences of that. And yet the same people who are writing about this things on this and other sites and indeed in local papers are asking us to return the same people and same government that have been in power for the last 10 years as if they had no responsibility at all for the situation we find ourselves in. Now if that isn't foolish I don't know what is:rolleyes:

It is simple Van as far as the infrastructure deficit is concerned (road access) it seems it is finally being resolved.They are at the point of no return.It is the belief that this would not be the case if Cullen wasn't at the cabinet table that is making people want to vote for him. This is one of the largest infrastructure projects in the state,It takes years to complete.You are speaking as if all Martin Cullen has to do is sign a piece of Paper and there is a 90 mile Motorway instantly between Waterford and Kilkenny.The fact is the contracts have been signed for the Bypass and most of the Motorway.By 2010 Waterford and the South East will have infrastructure equal to Cork and maybe exceeding Limerick and Galway for the first time ever.We will have the two largest bridges in the Country in Waterford and its environs (New Ross). IR are starting to Utilise the freight service between Rosslare and Limerick again.Cullens predecessor Seamus Brennan was considering closing it.The airport was on the verge of closing before Cullen.

As for the University it is still firmly on the agenda despite previous dismissals.This means Waterfords lobbyists can concentrate all their energies on obtaining a University and the IDA headquarters back in the City.I can't help thinking Van that if Martin Cullen came down and started walking on water,doing a loaves and fishes and curing people of Cancer you and others would still be calling him useless.

Perhaps instead of rolling your eyes and calling people foolish you can give us a credible alternative to Martin Cullen and a credible reason for voting for them.

Bards

Trotter wrote:

Sorry.. coming up with odd examples is what I do all day for a living.. its hard to switch it off

Having read it again I still think its fantastic.


Still dont get the C4 thing though!!

C-4 .. Plastic.. Semtex SF/IRA

Trotter

Bards wrote:

C-4 .. Plastic.. Semtex SF/IRA

Ah.. Dopey me. Christ the poor donkey...

Bards

Trotter wrote:

Ah.. Dopey me. Christ the poor donkey...

You can just imagine FF relying on different parties' votes for dail motions etc....

Lab says to FF " Give us the Univeristy or else!".....well go on strike

FG says to FF " Give us the Univeristy or else!"...... we won't play with you anymore

Greens says to FF " Give us the Univeristy or else!"......we'll plant a trillion tress and cover this entire land with forests

SF says to FF " Give us the Univeristy or else!"......well just blow everything up. (reminds me of the mob in the simpsons actually)

Van

No one has answered my post. Either I have hit the nail on the head here or people are trying to defend the indefensible. Methinks the latter.

merlante

Van wrote:

No one has answered my post. Either I have hit the nail on the head here or people are trying to defend the indefensible. Methinks the latter.

I answered your post. Your contention that the current government is bad for Waterford is wrong. Nobody said that, and nobody believes that. And therefore your contention that we are stupid or hypocritical for considering voting them in again is also wrong.

What is not clear?

Van

merlante wrote:

I answered your post. Your contention that the current government is bad for Waterford is wrong. Nobody said that, and nobody believes that. And therefore your contention that we are stupid or hypocritical for considering voting them in again is also wrong.

What is not clear?

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But please do not put it forward as fact. And I most certainly did not say anyone was stupid so please don't misquote me. I seem to have hit a nerve here.

Trotter

Van wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm reading successive posts on this and other forums and newspapers about how Waterford is underperforming economically. I'm reading about our poor infrastructure and access to the city from posters on this and other sites. I'm reading and quite rightly so about the failure to deliver to a university to this region and the consequences of that. And yet the same people who are writing about this things on this and other sites and indeed in local papers are asking us to return the same people and same government that have been in power for the last 10 years as if they had no responsibility at all for the situation we find ourselves in. Now if that isn't foolish I don't know what is:rolleyes:

Van I dont understand what answer you're looking for. We speak of returning the current government because we'd get more from them than the opposition would give us.

What answer do you want? I think you're searching for a nerve more than hitting one.

You also said an analysis of ministerial performance showed Cullen was not up to the job.

Where was this analysis done and can you point us to the results please?

mad man

Van wrote:

No one has answered my post. Either I have hit the nail on the head here or people are trying to defend the indefensible. Methinks the latter.

Van,

I have specifically answered your post in good detail and countered your arguement.Your above assertion is untrue.You have been unable or unwilling to tell us who would be a credible alternative to Martin Cullen for Waterford.It isn't that hard.There is only about ten (at the most) people to choose from.

You seem to think that using "rolling of eyes symbols" and unsubstantiating your claims is a debate.

Answer one question and one only.

If not Cullen,Then Who?

Bards

We do not trust FG or Labour.. why.. let me explain

Before the Last general election Waterford put together a straetgy Document entitled "Strategy 2020" endoresed by the then tainaiste Mary Harney.. All politicians over the S.E thought it was a good idea and endorsed it except Brendan Howlin because (I'll paraphrase here) "Even though it was good overall for the S.E, it was bad for Wexford"

FG... last time they were in power. they Decentralised the Director of the IDA S.E out of Waterford to Cork in the hope Wexford & Kilkenny would get more jobs because (and I'll paraphrase again) "All the jobs were going to Waterford and the only hope they would have is if waterford was treated the same"

what a fat lot of ggod that did.. yes Waterford is now treated the same.. I.E No Jobs of hardly any worth at all going to the S.E

FG & Labour politicians are only in it for themselves. Cullen's record on getting funding for the entire S.E is good and he doesn't over favour Waterford but sees the big S.E picture.


So the questions has to be asked... Would I vote the same lot in again considering all the facts at hand... YES is the answer.. anything to keep the S.E for infighting among itself and bring it all down to the lowest common denominator which is nothing for nobody...


I would rathe something for everyone and if someone gets more then others in the S.E that so be it.

mad man

Bards wrote:

We do not trust FG or Labour.. why.. let me explain

Before the Last general election Waterford put together a straetgy Document entitled "Strategy 2020" endoresed by the then tainaiste Mary Harney.. All politicians over the S.E thought it was a good idea and endorsed it except Brendan Howlin because (I'll paraphrase here) "Even though it was good overall for the S.E, it was bad for Wexford"

FG... last time they were in power. they Decentralised the Director of the IDA S.E out of Waterford to Cork in the hope Wexford & Kilkenny would get more jobs because (and I'll paraphrase again) "All the jobs were going to Waterford and the only hope they would have is if waterford was treated the same"

what a fat lot of ggod that did.. yes Waterford is now treated the same.. I.E No Jobs of hardly any worth at all going to the S.E

FG & Labour politicians are only in it for themselves. Cullen's record on getting funding for the entire S.E is good and he doesn't over favour Waterford but sees the big S.E picture.


So the questions has to be asked... Would I vote the same lot in again considering all the facts at hand... YES is the answer.. anything to keep the S.E for infighting among itself and bring it all down to the lowest common denominator which is nothing for nobody...


I would rathe something for everyone and if someone gets more then others in the S.E that so be it.

Brendan Howlin without doubt will do nothing for Waterford.I remeber vaguely his comments about strategy 2020.He also passed similar but more vitriolic comments about the Spatial strategy when it emerged that Waterford was the the "Gateway City" and Wexford and Kilkenny the Hubs.His comments were on the lines of "I don't want Wexford to become a dormitory town to Waterford".I would favour a FF/Labour coalition if it wasn't for Brendan Howlin.However he is the sole reason why Waterford shouldn't touch labour with a stick.It is obvious he resents Waterfords dominace as the primary urban area and he will work to minimise or reduce it.He will do this by over investing in Wexfordand under investing in Waterford.This is what they did the last time and perfected parish pump politics to a fine art.

merlante

Van wrote:

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But please do not put it forward as fact. And I most certainly did not say anyone was stupid so please don't misquote me. I seem to have hit a nerve here.

It is not an opinion, it is a fact that by any metric that I (at least) can think of, this current government has done more for Waterford than any other government in my lifetime, and it seems, in anyone's lifetime. Now that is not saying much, because quite frankly, Waterford was sorely neglected before. Most of us on here are reasonably optimistic and hope and believe that we will never return to those dark days again. But certain realities have to be acknowledged.

You implied that we were foolish for talking about voting in a government that we seemed to be complaining about. If you weren't implying that, then I understood nothing of what you were saying.

The nerve you have hit, is implying that we are somehow avoiding your question, when it has been answered comprehensively from about 7 different angles at this stage.

Now bear in mind that most of us on here will vote for anyone that will ensure that Waterford continues to progress in line with the other cities. Most of us are not dyed in the wool party men. We would vote for a Llama if it had a decent shot of getting into cabinet and keeping the Waterford ship steady.

Van

Of course it is important that we have a Minister from this area. People are completely missing the point if they think this is about FG/Lab or Brendan Howlin (how he came into the debate I dont know). Of course an area will benefit if there is a Minister from that area. Even Cullen couldnt mess that up. My point is that Cullen brought nothing or at least very little to the area that was not already on the way here prior to him being appointed to cabinet. People should not take "announcements" as proof of delivery.

Bards

Van wrote:

Of course it is important that we have a Minister from this area. People are completely missing the point if they think this is about FG/Lab or Brendan Howlin (how he came into the debate I dont know). Of course an area will benefit if there is a Minister from that area. Even Cullen couldnt mess that up. My point is that Cullen brought nothing or at least very little to the area that was not already on the way here prior to him being appointed to cabinet. People should not take "announcements" as proof of delivery.

Is that so... I think you had better have a google of motorway and senator Dardis and Mary Harney... M9 was almost ditched until Cullen got appointed to Transport and priortised it

Contracts already signed for M9 so it will be impossible to stop now unless Contractor gets compensated.

Outer Ring road wouild not have been built with Dept of Environment money under the non national roads/strategic road fund

Cullen could have easily messed it up if everytrhing went to Waterford and nothing went to the rest of the Region. At least by doing what he has done is that FF should do well in the S.E. In other words the people of the S.E have nothing to fear from a waterford cabinet minister representing them, whereas we have everything to fear if one is picked from Wexford or Kilkenny as they will want to halt the development of Waterford Completely while their respective town play cathcup to Waterford which is twice to three times as large.

When in Environment he anounced that the HQ of Environment went to Wexford and we will have a section of it here in Waterford. do you honestly believe if it was Howlin or Hogan that they would have done the same thing. I doubt it.

Trotter

I love repeating myself.. so here we go.

Van, You also said an analysis of ministerial performance showed Cullen was not up to the job.

Where was this analysis done and can you point us to the results please?


Also.. again... Who should I vote for if Im not voting Roche 1 Cullen 2.

Who do you think is our alternative to Martin Cullen?!?

Van

We will have to agree to differ on this because I have never read a more biased post than this. No body's interests is served by this kind of blind unquestioning loyalty.

Trotter

Van wrote:

We will have to agree to differ on this because I have never read a more biased post than this. No body's interests is served by this kind of blind unquestioning loyalty.

I love repeating myself.. so here we go.

Van, You also said an analysis of ministerial performance showed Cullen was not up to the job.

Where was this analysis done and can you point us to the results please?


Also.. again... Who should I vote for if Im not voting Roche 1 Cullen 2.

Who do you think is our alternative to Martin Cullen?!?

Roanmore

Bards wrote:

Did you happen to see the FF ard Fheis a few months back.. Bertie Ahern durhing his speech praised Martin Cullen in national TV and said what a great job he was doing, and not to listen to those mdeia comentators.

Now that's what I call an endorsement from your Boss

Just remember when Albert was going for President against Mary Mcalesse (for FF nomination) Bertie turned around to Albert and showed him his ballot paper and gave him thumbs up, Brian Crowley turned to Albert and said you're ****ed now. Mary got the nomination. It's like the dreaded vote of confodence.

Bards

Van wrote:

We will have to agree to differ on this because I have never read a more biased post than this. No body's interests is served by this kind of blind unquestioning loyalty.

If cullen was not delivering we would have him out on his ear so please explain by what you mean by "blind unquestioning loyalty" because I can see perfectly well thank you.

mad man

Van wrote:

Of course it is important that we have a Minister from this area. People are completely missing the point if they think this is about FG/Lab or Brendan Howlin (how he came into the debate I dont know)..

How Brendan Howlin came into the conversation is that if there is a Rainbow Coalition in the next government then Howlin is guaranteed to have a senior position and geographically represent the South East.Howlins track record for Waterford could not be worse.Any portfolio he had, he focused on his own constituency.His speeches and comments have shown a very parochial atitude to Waterford (See Bards and my own previous posts) which does not be seen on a national context.The people of Waterford should not underestimate the damage Brendan Howlin could do to progress in Waterford.I think Labour should be avoided for no other reason than Howlin.

Van how can you say people are missing the point. Your point/assertion that Cullen has delivered nothing for Waterford has been countered by myself,Bards,Merlante and Trotter with specific examples.

Your attempt to potray Martin Cullen being of negligible benefit to Waterford is stretching credulity to the point of fantasy.

The fact is there was nothing that was delivered before Cullen was a cabinet minister. Not even an "announcement".

Van wrote:

My point is that Cullen brought nothing or at least very little to the area that was not already on the way here prior to him being appointed to cabinet. People should not take "announcements" as proof of delivery.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.You are saying that a minister from the area is good and "even Cullen couldn't mess that up",yet that is exactly what you are trying to say.

Cullen has as good as delivered some of the states biggest infrastructure peojects to Waterford.Unlike Howlin he ensured Waterfords neighbouring counties were earmarked for decentralisation posts.All Cullens job here was to identify the towns which he did.It is Tom Parlons job to deliver.

Van wrote:

We will have to agree to differ on this because I have never read a more biased post than this. No body's interests is served by this kind of blind unquestioning loyalty.

.

The posters aren’t biased Van. At least people have said who and why they are voting for who they are voting for. You on the other hand have been asked at least three times who we should vote for and have not had the courage to tell us. This can only be because you are partisan and will not put your candidates up for scrutiny because you know they will not provide a credible alternative.

mad man

Roanmore wrote:

Just remember when Albert was going for President against Mary Mcalesse (for FF nomination) Bertie turned around to Albert and showed him his ballot paper and gave him thumbs up, Brian Crowley turned to Albert and said you're ****ed now. Mary got the nomination. It's like the dreaded vote of confodence.

It's well known that Bertie shafted Reynolds out of revenge for Reynolds not promoting him earlier on.However that was a case of the shaftee becoming the shafter in the end.

We have to remember that Cullen kept his job after the Monica Leech business.IMO Bertie could have sacked Cullen and given his portfolio to another constituency without risking many votes in Waterford.If Cullen had been sacked the public in Waterford by and large would not have been surprised and I don't think they would have been agrieved on grounds of it being unfair.

Compare this to Ivor Callely.He was sacked for an unpaid painting bill.

Again I am not saying Cullen will defintely retain a cabinet job in a new FF led Government.I am saying there is no reason to suspect he won't.It is in the interests of the opposition parties to try and project the message that he will lose his job because he is a lame duck due to contoversy.This is only natural so as to maximuse the chances of their own candidates.However if he was a lame duck logic would tell me he would not be Minister for Transport.This is after all one of the most sought after and important portfolios.