FF vs FG?

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

Fine in theory,impossible/unworkable/unwieldy in practice.
You'd get no decisions made,nothing done.

Don't be silly, there are mechanisms in many countries to recall governments or representatives if they are seen to be acting against the wishes of their electorate. Venezuela is one example, Chavez fought and won a recall referendum a few years ago and you can not possibly say that no decusions are ever made in Caracas

Wishy washy idealism and unworkable

Your opinion, not fact

as circumstances can change many times within a 5 year term.
That and when a "new" party enters government and look at the figures properly they often have to prioritise their wishes in order of feasibility
Manifesto's are never presented as fait complit's in a STV system where no party can get a majority.At best they are a list of desires parties agree with.

Well let them have their pdesires and goals, but let them express them in realistic terms that take into account of changing circumstances.

What we have now is anything goes auction politics. Individuals are subordinate to the party whip. FF representatives can claim they will fight for shannon, and then vote with the governemnt against their constituents. If manifestos were a legally binding contract then FF TDs in Clare for example, would be legally obligated to vote in favour of Shannon Airport and against threats to Ennis hospital. This would improve democracy because it would give opposition parties leeway to call for votes that would otherwise fail because of the government whip. It would force representatives to actually represent their communities.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Don't be silly, there are mechanisms in many countries to recall governments or representatives if they are seen to be acting against the wishes of their electorate. Venezuela is one example, Chavez fought and won a recall referendum a few years ago and you can not possibly say that no decusions are ever made in Caracas
Your opinion, not fact

You have to go that far and take that extreme example of a country to hold up this "ideal" you are espousing ?
Any other examples in the western world besides Venezuala.
Who are the many?

Well let them have their pdesires and goals, but let them express them in realistic terms that take into account of changing circumstances.

I'm afraid life doesn't work like that in the real world.
theres a thing called negotiation-you know where a union wants a 10% hike and eventually settles for.

What we have now is anything goes auction politics. Individuals are subordinate to the party whip. FF representatives can claim they will fight for shannon, and then vote with the governemnt against their constituents.

Remember what I said in my last post regarding 1 county out of 26 and the reasonable sharing out of whats available?

If manifestos were a legally binding contract then FF TDs in Clare for example, would be legally obligated to vote in favour of Shannon Airport and against threats to Ennis hospital.

You know we don't have oil don't you?Revenue hasn't found a bottomless purse.

This would improve democracy because it would give opposition parties leeway to call for votes that would otherwise fail because of the government whip. It would force representatives to actually represent their communities.

Again,you'd have nothing done in that sort of a set up as the money would run out fast.
Replace it with higher taxes? Yes that would get you elected alright (I don't think...)

Your opinion, not fact

It is a fact that you are espousing an idealism here.It is my opinion that your idealism is advocating a wishy washy,unrealistic,unworkable solution.
It's effectively a dressed up version of this - Fine in a book but not so fine when you make the mess that would ensue a reality,every county local community for itself,peace,harmony and no selfishness and flowers in everyones hair.
Now theres an unlikely reality.
Yes thats my opinion.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

bonus question: what percentage of that electorat hold an educated opinion?

Define educated. Normally when people use it it's a synonym for "an opinion like mine".

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote: »

You have to go that far and take that extreme example of a country to hold up this "ideal" you are espousing ?
Any other examples in the western world besides Venezuala.

What makes venezuela an extreme country? That's a pretty biased view. But if you must know, Several U.S. states have a facility for recall elections (it's been blocked at federal level because, well, its not in their interest to allow true democracy)

I'm afraid life doesn't work like that in the real world.
theres a thing called negotiation-you know where a union wants a 10% hike and eventually settles for.
Remember what I said in my last post regarding 1 county out of 26 and the reasonable sharing out of whats available? You know we don't have oil don't you?Revenue hasn't found a bottomless purse.Again,you'd have nothing done in that sort of a set up as the money would run out fast.

I know we don't have oil, but the FF government in the last election seemed to think we had something better, a magical economy based on selling each other property at ever increasing prices, that would never collapse and allow us to provide for our wildest dreams and still cut taxes. They cheated the public by ramping up expenditure before the election to make it seem as though we were doing better than we were, and followed the election with immediate cut backs. That is the current system.

Replace it with higher taxes? Yes that would get you elected alright (I don't think...)

It might if you were campaigning for better services including a tax increase against opponents who campaigned for lower taxes and cuts in public services.

Currently we have a ludicrous situation where it is impossible to get elected if you tell the truth, because your opponents will promise the same things you promise plus 10% and with a pledge to cut taxes. If manifestos were binding, the first election might be full of lies and deceipt, but as soon as people are removed from office for deception, the next election would be more honest and realistic. (as opposed to the current system that encourages more and more wild promises and more dirty tricks and negative campaigning)

It is a fact that you are espousing an idealism here.It is my opinion that your idealism is advocating a wishy washy,unrealistic,unworkable solution.

Excuse me, I put forward two very simple and concrete proposals. It is far from idealism. It is your opinion that it is idealism In my opinion it is minimal reform. Perhaps your imagination is so limited that recall elections and forbidding politicans from lying to us at elections seems totally fantastic to you. It would be idealism to hope that politicians will just tell the truth on their own, but I'm not that naive.

It's effectively a dressed up version of this - Fine in a book but not so fine when you make the mess that would ensue a reality,every county local community for itself,peace,harmony and no selfishness and flowers in everyones hair.
Now theres an unlikely reality.
Yes thats my opinion.

no its not. Its nothing like anarchism. It is a simple reform that should be common sense to anyone who believes that politicians should represent the people and not themselves.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Cynicism is considered cool right now. It ought to be ruthlessly challenged.

How are Labour "ruthlessly challenging" cynicism. Whether or not you like to admit it there is not a whole lot to choose between the big parties, even labour jumped on the unrealistic tax cut fiasco last election. Populist politics at its best as any casual observor knew we would be entering a new economic phase (downturn) and the tax cut was sheer headline grabbing on everyones part. I see Joan Bruton recently had a go at cowan as he pulled back from cutting the tax rate but it would have been FG/LAB pulling back had they been in government. All the parties based their policy on unrealistic economic projections.

The only clear point of differance was the co-location issue something which I'm sure was labour pushed as opposed to FG pushed. On that point fair play but I don't see a whole lot of other differances. Perhaps you could list a few?

Your dismissal of the point as simply being Cynicism is a kop out and smacks of someone on the inside of a party machine rathar than a view from the outside. If there is a differance perhaps the partys involved should clearly outline them so as to educate people like me. Another fear I have is that even the luke warm differances will evaporate should labour ever leave the security of the opposition bench.

Either there is only one way forward, on which all major partys agree or there is a differance in approach. which is it? How sure are you a labour lead government would counter neo liberalism despite what you may wish yourself.

apologies to the OP but if there is a mainstream choice out there I think Labour might be the only of the 3 candidates slightly different to FF / FG. I don't see enough differance between FF/FG to merit two seperate parties except for family tribalism and FF sleaze. FG courted to the left a little recently but only to compromise with a labour pact IMO.

nesf

Akrasia wrote: »

It might if you were campaigning for better services including a tax increase against opponents who campaigned for lower taxes and cuts in public services.

No party who has gone down that road in recent years has done well to be fair. There just hasn't been a left wing in the Irish electorate recently tbh. Whether it's down to a lack of a viable left wing party or whatever is open to debate.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

What makes venezuela an extreme country? That's a pretty biased view.

Ireland and Venuezala are like chalk and cheese.There are lots of extremes there you wouldn't find here.

But if you must know, Several U.S. states have a facility for recall elections (it's been blocked at federal level because, well, its not in their interest to allow true democracy)

Thats mostly for representatives that commit felonies.Though I must admit I had forgotten the California case that led to Arnies election.It's very very rare that a desire like that has been realised there.The reason I'd be against that and the swiss model,I've already expressed in the other thread.
Any T.D convicted of a crime here that involves 6 months or more afaik loses their seat automatically.

I know we don't have oil, but the FF government in the last election seemed to think we had something better, a magical economy based on selling each other property at ever increasing prices, that would never collapse and allow us to provide for our wildest dreams and still cut taxes. They cheated the public by ramping up expenditure before the election to make it seem as though we were doing better than we were, and followed the election with immediate cut backs. That is the current system.

Thats a bit presumptious again I think.Housing was what 10-15% of the employment force at it's height.Secondly it assumes again that people are too thick to analyise things for themselves properly.

It might if you were campaigning for better services including a tax increase against opponents who campaigned for lower taxes and cuts in public services.

Doubt it to be honest.

Currently we have a ludicrous situation where it is impossible to get elected if you tell the truth, because your opponents will promise the same things you promise plus 10% and with a pledge to cut taxes. If manifestos were binding, the first election might be full of lies and deceipt, but as soon as people are removed from office for deception, the next election would be more honest and realistic. (as opposed to the current system that encourages more and more wild promises and more dirty tricks and negative campaigning)

I think you've a grave misunderstanding of the human pyschic.
People are selfish,they always want more,thats why politicians pander to their needs.
It goes back to the wages bargaining point,the people usually pick what will they think end up best for them

Excuse me, I put forward two very simple and concrete proposals. It is far from idealism. It is your opinion that it is idealism In my opinion it is minimal reform. Perhaps your imagination is so limited that recall elections and forbidding politicans from lying to us at elections seems totally fantastic to you. It would be idealism to hope that politicians will just tell the truth on their own, but I'm not that naive.

Firstly,it's not a lie to state something in a manifesto and not impliment it in government,lets get that bit straight.
A manifesto is a statement of platform,it's a to do list or rather a like to do list at best.
Secondly,what you are proposing is the very essence of idealism as you are espousing something that assumes people will always agree to perfection for everybody.
Thats impossible as everybodies idea of perfect is different.
Hence I predict a logjam.

no its not. Its nothing like anarchism. It is a simple reform that should be common sense to anyone who believes that politicians should represent the people and not themselves.

It's not your full blown anarchy model,I'll grant you but the recall idea rests on a manifesto not being what it actually is .
Your supposition that T.D's are elected to do XY and Z for their constituency falls due to this being a collective nation of many constituencies where a compromise evolves due to the share out of resources across the whole nation and prioritisation ie the lack of a bottomless purse.
Your notions regarding how that would work relies on a similar principal to what you espoused in your anarchism explained thread.

How you can say politicians don't represent people is beyond me given that they spend a lot of time at their local clinics as it is.

Akrasia

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1910843409637960957&q=the+ministry+of+truth&total=1142&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I'll have a look at those when I've a bit of time akrasia.
Thanks for posting them

Jackie laughlin

Clown Bag,
I'm a member of the Labour Party. I'm certainly not on the inside of a party machine, as you put it.

For many years I held the view that FF and FG were essentially the same. My mistake was that I was viewing them from the perspective of a complete outsider. When I tried to put myself in the position of someone who was likely to vote for either of them, what for me were subtle or fairly insignificant differences became clear and real differences. In other words, if I were conservative or liberal - and that accounts for the vast majority in Ireland - I would look at them differently and see them as alternatives. In truth this should have dawned on me a lot sooner as I often expressed preferences between them as I worked my way down ballot papers.

There is little confidence on the left and no stomach for offering a radical alternative; in the present climate of right-wing consensus it would be electoral suicide. Take a look at the tenor of the criticism on Boards. Leaving aside the cynics, many contributors want better management of the economy or even a benevolent dictator. There isn't the slightest sign of a desire for radical alternatives. Indeed many contributors seem to be cross that a few FFers have been caught with briefcases and/or envelopes of money and had this not been the case FF would be perfectly acceptable.

Dirk Gently

Akrasia wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1910843409637960957&q=the+ministry+of+truth&total=1142&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

how many actually voted for it in the end?

nesf

Akrasia wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1910843409637960957&q=the+ministry+of+truth&total=1142&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

That's a real can of worms.

Sleepy

nesf wrote: »

Define educated. Normally when people use it it's a synonym for "an opinion like mine".

An educated voter wouldn't vote in a TD for local reasons.
An educated voter would understand basic economics and understand when they're being lied to.

Unless of course they're greedy, self-serving and short-sighted (but educated) voters...

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

An educated voter wouldn't vote in a TD for local reasons.

Why would an educated voter do that? Surely local reasons are very important when you're voting for a backbencher. People are self-interested, you can't expect them to not vote for people that will help them.

Jackie laughlin

Nesf,
Sleepy is largely correct. The "constituency services" offered in Ireland are almost completely bogus. Ignorant (There's no other word.) voters opt for someone who "is active in the locality". This usually means someone who collects complaints, writes lots of letters and pretends that his or her efforts have had results.

nesf

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Nesf,
Sleepy is largely correct. The "constituency services" offered in Ireland are almost completely bogus. Ignorant (There's no other word.) voters opt for someone who "is active in the locality". This usually means someone who collects complaints, writes lots of letters and pretends that his or her efforts have had results.

I interpreted "local reasons" as including (but not limited to) actual active decent local politicians who improve conditions within their constituency.

Sleepy

Actually nesf, I expect them to vote for people who'll help all of us.

We have local government to handle local government. It seems we also have TD's to handle local government. Which unfortunately leaves us with nobody to run the bloody country.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

Actually nesf, I expect them to vote for people who'll help all of us.

You just want them to vote for the same reasons you do, which is understandable but isn't what I'd call "educated".

Sleepy wrote: »

We have local government to handle local government. It seems we also have TD's to handle local government. Which unfortunately leaves us with nobody to run the bloody country.

Except that TDs can't ignore national issues because they impact on the local concerns (assuming that they are mainly concerned with local issues), so presumably said TDs would run the bloody country since ignoring it would hurt them locally.

When you get down to it the people elect TDs to represent their interests and honestly, for the vast majority of us those interests mainly concern us and our immediate surroundings.

Sleepy

So you don't see TD's running around doing CC's work as a conflict of interest?

e.g. Willie O' Dea's involvement in the Shannon Heathrow link isn't time he should be focusing on his role as minister for defence?

Out of interest what would you call casting an educated vote? Because I fail to see how voting for someone because mammy and daddy do or because he's the nice chap who owns the pub down the road can be considered an educated voter.

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

So you don't see TD's running around doing CC's work as a conflict of interest?

Can there ever not be a conflict of interest?

Sleepy wrote: »

Out of interest what would you call casting an educated vote?

I'd question whether the term is ever really meaningful.


You seem to be thinking in terms of abstract ideals here rather than politics tbh.

Sleepy

I probably am tbh nesf. Wouldn't you rather see the potential for a conflict of interest reduced? Do you think we might get better governance if ministers focused on their briefs rather than who's funeral they should be attending to ensure votes at the next election?

Tricity Bendix

Akrasia wrote: »

both parties are perfectly willing to lie cheat and spin in order to gain political advantage.

Along with every other political party and independent in the country

Sleepy wrote:

e.g. Willie O' Dea's involvement in the Shannon Heathrow link isn't time he should be focusing on his role as minister for defence?

He was elected to represent his constituency. I think he has tried to do that. Just because he was made a Minister does not mean that he is somehow exempt from his job as a public representative.

Sleepy

While in reality he probably was voted into the Dail in order to act as a local councilor, the job description would tell us that he's elected to the Dail to represent his constituents views on national issues. Now, if you consider the Shannon-Heathrow link to be a national issue, fair enough, but to be honest, outside of the Shannon region most people don't give a fiddlers... which would tell me that it's considered a local issue by the majority of the electorate.

jmayo

Sleepy wrote: »

While in reality he probably was voted into the Dail in order to act as a local councilor, the job description would tell us that he's elected to the Dail to represent his constituents views on national issues. Now, if you consider the Shannon-Heathrow link to be a national issue, fair enough, but to be honest, outside of the Shannon region most people don't give a fiddlers... which would tell me that it's considered a local issue by the majority of the electorate.

Actually Shannon is not in O'Dea's constituency it is in Clare but the Shannon - Heathrow link is of importance to multiple constituences along the western coast and midwest.
Of course to some people it is only of National importance if it involves Dublin :rolleyes:
People should remember taxes will increase in Dublin when unemployment increases outside of Dublin.

This is one of the times when local TDs should have fought for what some people see as a "local issue".

Either way the FF/PD/Independent FF TDs for the Mid-West constituences have a lot to answer to their constituents .
If they don't agree with the government not putting pressure on Aer Lingus (of which they own 25%) or if they feel tjhat the minister responsible knew about it in advance and played stump, then why did these TD's not back a motion of no confidence in their Taoiseach?

The only FF TD to stand up or rather not show up was Ned O'Keefe, who saw Bertie's hypocrisy for what it is.

Of course little willie would not resign over the issue.
Any chance we would have any politican who would actually stand by his believes/principles and show the courage shown by Robin Cook in UK.

Jackie laughlin

Generally speaking a TD can do nothing whatsoever for his or her constituency or constituents. Constituency "work", offices etc. constitute a lie told to the gullible citizen. The more a TD presents as a "hard working local representative" the greater the lie.

However, state initiatives can de directed towards particular constituencies, if a minister so decides. That location could be the minister's own constituency. In the case of a govt. requiring the support of an independent - the original was the Gregory deal - resources could be directed at a constituency. It must be remembered that there is a cost here in that other constituencies are not favoured. I find this unacceptable but I can't think of a way to prevent it, short of constitutional change.

No one who supported the privatisation of Aer Lingus can oppose the closing of routes into Shannon and be taken seriously. The airline was privatised so that it could take commercial decisions free of public service obligations.

bright

clown bag wrote: »

FF are populists and labour and FG are inferior populists playing catchup on FF.

There is your answer. Irish political ideologies are about as inovative as something eh not very eh...damn.

Time Magazine

bright wrote: »

There is your answer. Irish political ideologies are about as inovative as something eh not very eh...damn.

About as innovative as your post