Election time

nesf

InFront wrote:

Is that a joke?

No. How much of our economic history pre-1990 are you aware of from a non-party propoganda point of view? Plus, note I didn't say that FF did it better than any other hypothetical government would have, I only said that whoever we had they would be playing catch up. It wasn't a pro-FF point it was a 'the reality is that any goverment would suffer from these issues' point. There is a difference.

gandalf wrote:

In the 10 years this current government have been in power how have they tried to get the number of Civil Servants under control given they have had resources that previous governments would have killed for?

You could say that they were indirectly trying to deal with it with their attempt at decentralisation. I wasn't clear enough in my present post, I was saying that I thought it was an issue that they hadn't dealt with well (or at all depending on how you define dealt with) but I was trying to clarify that it was yet another hangover from the 80s.

InFront

nesf wrote:

No. How much of our economic history pre-1990 are you aware of from a non-party propoganda point of view?

Is that a suggestion that my history teacher must have been a FG/ Lab/ Other supporter? I don't think so, I don't really know.
I'm well aware of the economic history of this country prior to the mid 1990s, and you're right that is not a pro-FF argument because they were the guys sitting in the government departments for most of the time.
The issue is how FF managed their money when it did come their way. We can ponder the health system, garda resources and prisoner overcrowding another time perhaps, the point is that the government are clinging to the economy to get them through the election.
That certainly worked for FF/PDs in 2002 - "More to do" was probably taken to mean "more money for you" by most people. It's now gotten to the stage where a very significant proportion of voters just wouldn't tolerate a silly promise like that, the economy just wont swing it for them again imo.

nesf

InFront wrote:

Is that a suggestion that my history teacher must have been a FG/ Lab/ Other supporter? I don't think so, I don't really know.

I wouldn't trust your history teacher for an education on the economic realities of the country pre-1990 (in that it's not within the scope of history at second level to any substantial degree).

As a side note my history teacher was vocally FG, and yeah she did put a spin on things. She was upfront about it though in fairness to her. Around elections the snide comments from teachers about each other's political affiliations were amusing.

InFront wrote:

I'm well aware of the economic history of this country prior to the mid 1990s, and you're right that is not a pro-FF argument because they were the guys sitting in the government departments for most of the time.

Implying that they were responsible/culpable for what went wrong in the 80s?

InFront wrote:

The issue is how FF managed their money when it did come their way. We can ponder the health system, garda resources and prisoner overcrowding another time perhaps, the point is that the government are clinging to the economy to get them through the election.
That certainly worked for FF/PDs in 2002 - "More to do" was probably taken to mean "more money for you" by most people. It's now gotten to the stage where a very significant proportion of voters just wouldn't tolerate a silly promise like that, the economy just wont swing it for them again imo.

Sure, I'll not argue over the specifics of the above because frankly I don't really care to argue over it. But can I ask, what exactly do you know about economics/voter tendencies that makes you believe that the economy just won't swing it for them again? That actually does interest me a fair bit, outside of the rhetoric from either side.

InFront

nesf wrote:

what exactly do you know about economics/voter tendencies that makes you believe that the economy just won't swing it for them again? That actually does interest me a fair bit, outside of the rhetoric from either side.

Well if you look at the local election results in 2004, it shows that the government lost 86 seats and the Coalition including the greens were up 44 seats. That was a big shift away from what happened to the opposition in 1999. The economy was doing well, so what was the departure halfway into the the government's second term? Why the falling popularity?
It's very clear, and you already know: ineffective, pathetic government policies - throwing money around like mud to a wall. The high voter turnout in 2004 gave that theory even more credit. And that was over 2 years ago, we've had worseining crises in health and justice - two huge issues that FG are strong on - since then.
The government will not be able to sail through this election on the economic yacht.

Thus the recent, frantic attempts to clean up their mess: new consultants announced a few days ago, new judges announced yesterday, it shows what frame of mind the government, just back in the Dail for the last session, are in. In my opinion, it's getting too late.

Jonny Arson

Provisionally I shall be voting in my first GE 1) Labour 2) Green Party 3) Fine Gael. No Socialist candidate in my constituency unfortunately, I would like to see another Comrade Joe to keep Bertie and boys on their toes

Labour are the party my personal ideology comes closest to and the fact that their candidate in my constituency (Dublin NE) Tommy Broughan is a man who has done a fine job and is a talented politician who I've the upmost respect for, this is why I'm voting them no.1. That's not to say I'm happy with them in their current form. I'm no fan of Pat Rabbitte and I'm unhappy with Labour's ever increasing shift to the the centre. The alliance with Fine Gael isn't working out how I hoped but there is absolutely no shadow of a doubt in my eyes that overall they are better alternative than our current bunch of incompetent fcukwits clowning around with our country.

No vote for the PD's from me as I despise their pro-business right-wing economic policies and pretty much everything else they stand for.
No vote for Fianna Failures from me as I believe in political honesty, integrity, talent and competance all which FF have none of. Funny thing is I agree with many of their policies, pity for them they're a bunch of assclowns and not getting my vote.
No vote for the IRA from me.... sorry I mean Sinn Fein.... nuff said really


Roll on the summer and if us Irish people have any brain cells left we'll have a new government minus FF and the PD's that have the ability to run a country and sort out the mess what our current administation have made and are in the process of making.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The_Minister wrote:

They have connections. They came out against cafe bars, due to pressure from publicans, straight away, its only their lack of power that has stopped them acting on their connections. In fairness though, all parties have connections. Some from business, some from publicans, some from unions, some from individuals.

Sorry that was a mistake - it should have been just "like Fianna Fail without connections"

He was right though. Even if you only use occasionally, you do keep drug dealers in business, and contribute to one of the biggest problems in Irish society.

That is true, but it's not what I was quoting.

The quote I was referring to was "If you do a line of cocaine in Foxrock, you are personally responsible for the murder of somebody in Clondalkin or Coolock"

Now this first of all IMO is nonsense. You may be "somewhat" or even "indirectly" responsible. The way he put it implies Kate Moss is a serial killer. - I'm not saying he was wrong when he said:

"If you take E tabs you are breaking the law and you are personally responsible in part for the industry that is satisfying your habit. The same applies to cannabis"

Even if you agree with the first statement it's completely hypocritical. Is everyone who uses oil personally responsible for the deaths of 600,000 Iraqis in the past few years?

This is why I lost respect over it.

nesf

InFront wrote:

Well if you look at the local election results in 2004, it shows that the government lost 86 seats and the Coalition including the greens were up 44 seats. That was a big shift away from what happened to the opposition in 1999. The economy was doing well, so what was the departure halfway into the the government's second term? Why the falling popularity?
It's very clear, and you already know: ineffective, pathetic government policies - throwing money around like mud to a wall. The high voter turnout in 2004 gave that theory even more credit. And that was over 2 years ago, we've had worseining crises in health and justice - two huge issues that FG are strong on - since then.
The government will not be able to sail through this election on the economic yacht.

Thus the recent, frantic attempts to clean up their mess: new consultants announced a few days ago, new judges announced yesterday, it shows what frame of mind the government, just back in the Dail for the last session, are in. In my opinion, it's getting too late.

I meant in that what do you think about the economy at present combined with voter tendencies that would swing the vote away from them. I thought you were making a point that the economy was no longer in a condition to sway a lot of the centre voters rather than equating the 2004 elections to national elections and pointing to them as proof that X/Y is true, which smacks a bit of 'up/down' politics.

InFront

nesf wrote:

I thought you were making a point that the economy was no longer in a condition to sway a lot of the centre voters rather than equating the 2004 elections to national elections

Then you were misreading it, the economy is doing well right now. Unfortunately for the government though, there seems to be a change in voter attitudes. The point is that the monetary wealth of this country is no longer good enough to secure their position. This was spelled out in the local elections, and pretty clearly also in an RTE documentary at the beginning of last December by Dr Frank Luntz, the US election strategist and Republican advisor. It was commissioned by The Week In Politics.

Although the opposition are offering very positive economic policy such as attracting sustainable employment in the services sector or supporting small industry initiatives for example, and not just smiling blankly at the growth of the construction industry and insisting that it won't slow down - they are also offering more. Specifically in terms of justice and health.

FF/PDs have a proven track record on inability to improve voter quality of living in line with the economy. I've already mentioned crime and the health services, and you probably don't like debating them.
Neither would I if I were planning on voting for this government to come back and do the same damage again.

nesf

InFront wrote:

Then you were misreading it, the economy is doing well right now. Unfortunately for the government though, there seems to be a change in voter attitudes. The point is that the monetary wealth of this country is no longer good enough to secure their position. This was spelled out in the local elections, and pretty clearly also in an RTE documentary at the beginning of last December by Dr Frank Luntz, the US election strategist and Republican advisor. It was commissioned by The Week In Politics.

I missed it actually and was kicking myself. When I heard about it I was looking forward to watching it. Voter attitudes I'd be quite cynical about, I still hold that your average person votes on a mé féin rather than tú féin basis. They might list Health etc as their top concerns in polls but they don't seem to vote that way.

InFront wrote:

Specifically in terms of justice and health. FF/PDs have a proven track record on inability to improve voter quality of living in line with the economy. I've already mentioned crime and the health services, and you probably don't like debating them.
Neither would I if I were planning on voting for this government to come back and do the same damage again.

I like debating about them actually, I just prefer to debate about them outside the party politic rhetoric. I find the the FF/PD bull**** as annoying as the FG/Lab bull****, and it tends to get dragged up a lot by people, so I tend to do it with away from the earshot of 'card carrying party members' if you know what I mean.

oscarBravo

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

No vote for the PD's from me as I despise their pro-business right-wing economic policies...

Yeah, pro-business policies are pure evil. That's what's wrong with this country: too many businesses. If only we could close down every business in the country... ah, Utopia.

nesf

oscarBravo wrote:

Yeah, pro-business policies are pure evil. That's what's wrong with this country: too many businesses. If only we could close down every business in the country... ah, Utopia.

It's well established that the increase in employment is directly linked to the degredation of moral fibre in this country (read: move to the centre).

Dontico

Chakar wrote:

Equality Act 2004.

i'm against this cause holds travelers to above a level as me. i find that insulting.

no extra rights for travelers.

Dontico

nesf wrote:

It's well established that the increase in employment is directly linked to the degredation of moral fibre in this country (read: move to the centre).

hmmm.... moral fibre or fibre as in the food.

cause all those underdeveloped countries have amazing human rights records!:rolleyes: i wish i lived in africa.

dato_007

I’m a floating voter too, But I do feel its time for a change of Government. I wanted to vote FF out the last time but I didn’t because I didn’t feel there was a strong enough alternative. Now I think FG/Lab and maybe the greens are a very strong alternative. Im not a huge Enda K fan, but the Bertie charm factor has worn off for me at this stage.

I think FF has done an adequate job over the last 4 years. But I don’t feel they have done enough to earn my vote . . .e.g. Health / Transport / Why don’t I feel 100% safe walking our city streets / Crime etc. . . All huge problems for any Government to sort out, but FF have simply not done enough and any of these areas. I still don’t know would FG/Lab do any better, but I don’t think they will do any worse, so they deserve a chance to show us what they are made of.

nesf

dato_007 wrote:

All huge problems for any Government to sort out, but FF have simply not done enough and any of these areas. I still don’t know would FG/Lab do any better, but I don’t think they will do any worse, so they deserve a chance to show us what they are made of.

That's what makes the upcoming elections so interesting in my mind, there really isn't a whole lot for swing voters to choose between imho. It's a bit like how the British elections are shaping up, a big race to the centre.

dato_007

nesf wrote:

That's what makes the upcoming elections so interesting in my mind, there really isn't a whole lot for swing voters to choose between imho. It's a bit like how the British elections are shaping up, a big race to the centre.

Yea I definitely agree, its going to be very interesting this time around. I hope there will be a big voter turn out on the day also…

mewso

I'll probably sigh and vote labour again as I always do when in fact I find it difficult to approach an election with anything other than apathy. Bonzodog you are right when you ask people what the big difference is between the major parties. I for one struggle to see any huge difference. My knowledge of politics is hardly expert but I was very active in Labour Youth in the early 90s and all I learnt were some of the cold hard realities of Politics in that getting elected by any means necessary takes a first place before getting your cronies elected and somewhere down the line actually caring about who you represent.

I believed in the idea of Socialism, the fundemental idea of looking after your fellow man. To call the Labour party a socialist party is basically laugh out loud funny these days but in relative terms they might still claim to be the most socially conscious.

Somewhere along the line many years ago political parties decided it was best to evolve constantly to reflect the majority views of the people they represent instead of providing a political option. My earliest memory from my politically involved days would be Kinnock backing down on nuclear disarmament in a last ditch effort to get the vote. It was all downhill from there. Blair is the epitome of "what takes your fancy" so much so his cooperation on Iraq with Bush surprised me because surely his Producers (advisors) would see that as unpopular. Must have had better market research than I did.

Same happened here imo. As to FF and what they have/haven't done. Here is a party that is proven to be corrupt and it makes no difference. Ireland's people are very much of the "ah sure wouldn't you do it yourself if you had the chance. Fair play to them" ilk. Someone said above that people had said they voted FF last time because they had a few bob in their pockets. I remember people saying exactly the same thing. Sums up Ireland really. The "Celtic Tiger" has turned us in to a bunch of selfish gits. The traffic situation is simply scary at this stage. Does every living soul have a car and insist on driving it alone to work every day? Up our own arses.

You see I don't really blame FF. As someone said to me leading up to the last election. FF are corrupt. Fact. And if the Irish people vote them into government then they get exactly what they deserve and sadly probably whay they want. Just keep the poor, ill of health and festering racism out of sight, give them their few bob every budget, put stealth taxes on everything and then safely retire to a cushy number on the board of whatever private company you last helped out. Who wouldn't?

InFront

I think that's unnecessarily negative tbh. You're right about FF screwing up, and equally correct that voters were ultimately responsible (or very responsible in the 2002 case) but I don't understand why you portray the opposition in such a bad light. New leaderships, new front benches, a lot of time spent simmering on the sidelines - many of them have never sat in government.

That could be the makings of a very energetic, enthusiastic and effective leadership, which is what ireland desperately needs.

ballooba

musician wrote:

Ireland's people are very much of the "ah sure wouldn't you do it yourself if you had the chance. Fair play to them" ilk.

I agree that is the attitude a lot of people have.

"Sure isn't that bertie chap some character, pair of balls like a rhinocerous."

The fact is that they aren't in his position and it's their money he's abusing.

Ardent

musician wrote:

I'll probably sigh and vote labour again as I always do when in fact I find it difficult to approach an election with anything other than apathy. Bonzodog you are right when you ask people what the big difference is between the major parties. I for one struggle to see any huge difference. My knowledge of politics is hardly expert but I was very active in Labour Youth in the early 90s and all I learnt were some of the cold hard realities of Politics in that getting elected by any means necessary takes a first place before getting your cronies elected and somewhere down the line actually caring about who you represent.

I believed in the idea of Socialism, the fundemental idea of looking after your fellow man. To call the Labour party a socialist party is basically laugh out loud funny these days but in relative terms they might still claim to be the most socially conscious.

Somewhere along the line many years ago political parties decided it was best to evolve constantly to reflect the majority views of the people they represent instead of providing a political option. My earliest memory from my politically involved days would be Kinnock backing down on nuclear disarmament in a last ditch effort to get the vote. It was all downhill from there. Blair is the epitome of "what takes your fancy" so much so his cooperation on Iraq with Bush surprised me because surely his Producers (advisors) would see that as unpopular. Must have had better market research than I did.

Same happened here imo. As to FF and what they have/haven't done. Here is a party that is proven to be corrupt and it makes no difference. Ireland's people are very much of the "ah sure wouldn't you do it yourself if you had the chance. Fair play to them" ilk. Someone said above that people had said they voted FF last time because they had a few bob in their pockets. I remember people saying exactly the same thing. Sums up Ireland really. The "Celtic Tiger" has turned us in to a bunch of selfish gits. The traffic situation is simply scary at this stage. Does every living soul have a car and insist on driving it alone to work every day? Up our own arses.

You see I don't really blame FF. As someone said to me leading up to the last election. FF are corrupt. Fact. And if the Irish people vote them into government then they get exactly what they deserve and sadly probably whay they want. Just keep the poor, ill of health and festering racism out of sight, give them their few bob every budget, put stealth taxes on everything and then safely retire to a cushy number on the board of whatever private company you last helped out. Who wouldn't?

Top post. Agree 100%.

oscarBravo

musician wrote:

FF are corrupt. Fact.

I always get nervous when I see an abstract noun used as a complete sentence - particularly that one.

If you're going to emphatically state something as a fact, you'd better be clear on what you mean by it. Do you mean that all members of Fianna Fáil are corrupt? Or do you mean that a majority of them are? In either case, I hope you have solid evidence to that effect, including a useful definition of corruption.

Or perhaps you meant that the party itself is intrinsically corrupt? I'd still be looking for a useful definition, and evidence to back it up.

Then again, perhaps it's just another example of the modern corruption¹ of language, akin to "literally" which apparently means "figuratively" these days: "fact" is just another way of saying "in my under-informed opinion".






¹ ...pardon the pun, innit.

mewso

oscarBravo wrote:

"fact" is just another way of saying "in my under-informed opinion".

My mistake. I mistyped. I actually meant to say in my under-informed / uninformed opinion. Tricky posting here, fact. Thats why I hardly ever do. Apologies.

walrusgumble

all party allegiance aside, and considering that bertie and mary is not in everyone's constituency, would people not vote for the person who has a good track record of represnting their county regardless of the party they are from?. (of course their personal manifesto and their parties manifesto for the next 5 years would have to be taken into account)

after all someone like mcdaid (as a minister) hardly done anything worthwhile nationally in recent years, but his work for the donegal people got him his seat (last elections). considering the embarrasements recently and his private life being splashed all over the late late show years ago, many in donegal have alot of time for him.

gandalf

walrusgumble wrote:

all party allegiance aside, and considering that bertie and mary is not in everyone's constituency, would people not vote for the person who has a good track record of represnting their county regardless of the party they are from?. (of course their personal manifesto and their parties manifesto for the next 5 years would have to be taken into account)

after all someone like mcdaid (as a minister) hardly done anything worthwhile nationally in recent years, but his work for the donegal people got him his seat (last elections). considering the embarrasements recently and his private life being splashed all over the late late show years ago, many in donegal have alot of time for him.

Thats exactly the problem with Politics in Ireland. If you are elected as a TD you should be making decisions for the whole country. Local decisions should be the domain of councillors.

nesf

gandalf wrote:

Thats exactly the problem with Politics in Ireland. If you are elected as a TD you should be making decisions for the whole country. Local decisions should be the domain of councillors.

And there have been TDs who did a lot of good work nationally which had left little time for them to deal with local 'issues' and surprise, surprise they weren't returned in the following election. It's a tricky balancing act for politicians here with having to court both the local and national electorate. Unless you go independent and hope for a hung Dáil.

ballooba

gandalf wrote:

Thats exactly the problem with Politics in Ireland. If you are elected as a TD you should be making decisions for the whole country. Local decisions should be the domain of councillors.

Nice idea. If it really worked like that then we wouldn't have problems like Brennan, Roche and Cullen. That would be a great day.

In my own constituency the incinerator at Ringsend is causing huge problems for the local politicians at the moment. Effectively the local councillors are impotent to deal with it. The national government won't budge on it. They have lodged planning objections etc. Chris Andrews, the local FF candiate (a muppet by all accounts, even a stopped clock is right twice a day) has had to go to European level to try and stop it. This despite the fact that his own party leader could stop it tomorrow.

The incinerator is not a big issue for me, it significantly far from my house not to make a difference to me. There is another one being built the same distance from my family home in Meath. This is a huge issue for the people of Ringsend however.

The_Minister

ballooba wrote:

Chris Andrews, the local FF candiate (a muppet by all accounts, even a stopped clock is right twice a day) .

That's not fair. I've only met him briefly a couple of times (in a hospital), but, by all accounts, he isn't dumb and he isn't a muppet. He is well-liked, and well-spoken.

InFront

The_Minister wrote:

he isn't dumb and he isn't a muppet.

Running for FF against FF policy (the incinerator) isn't great for his credibility tbh. It comes across as hypocritical.

The_Minister

InFront wrote:

Running for FF against FF policy (the incinerator) isn't great for his credibility tbh. It comes across as hypocritical.

One policy. You can disagree with your party.

InFront

It's a pretty major policy with regards to the impact it will have on that area of his constituency, it certainly makes him appear like he's trying to minimise the damage to his campaign.
In politics you do what you have to do to get elected. I'm not sure exactly what the point is of electing an anti-incinerator candidate to a party who isn't entertaining a change of mind on the issue, I'm sure many locals are wondering the same thing.
Surely the sensible thing might be to vote for the other guys instead, anyway we'll see what the voters think.