Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The PD's are kaput

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Tricity Bendix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Tricity Bendix


    Dob74 wrote: »
    What is to become of the money and assets of the PDs? Are the senior members going to steal and give them to FF & FG?
    That money legally belongs to the Progressive Democrats. Grealish and O'Malley have no right to take it to Fianna Fail when they make the jump. A lot of money will be spent on stuff like legal advice on how to wind down and on redundency packages for HQ staff, I think some of it will go a farewell party, and anything left over will be going to charity.
    turgon wrote:
    By your logic, just because someone has been voted in by their constituents they have a national mandate to be a minister. Do you thus invisage 166 ministers?
    The truth of the matter is that any of the 166 TDs can be picked to become a minister. Even the senators can become ministers. The 'national mandate to be a minister' comes from the Taoiseach, not from the people. Nobody voted for Dempsey or O'Dea to be ministers. They received a mandate from the people to represent their constituencies, not to be ministers.


  • Options
    #33
    Dob74
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dob74


    b.ie curious wrote: »
    That money legally belongs to the Progressive Democrats. Grealish and O'Malley have no right to take it to Fianna Fail when they make the jump. A lot of money will be spent on stuff like legal advice on how to wind down and on redundency packages for HQ staff, I think some of it will go a farewell party, and anything left over will be going to charity.



    I hope this is the case but winding down the party is wide open for corruption. The winding down of company's is rife with dodgy deals and selling assets cheap to those in the know. Why doesn't the party's money and assets go to the people who want to keep the party going? The leaders all have jobs lined up for themselves and are leaving there supporters with nothing. When Rabbite & Co. left the Workers Party they did not destory it like the selfish leaders of the PDs are doing. But than again selfishness is a core princple of the PDs.

    Cannon ran for the leadership only last year and he is now destorying the party!! Why did he bother running for the leader if he was planning to do this? The party that was to bring high standards in high places have clearly failed like their laissez-faire economic policy's. Now everyone in the country has to gaurantee the banks who are still being run by the idiots who got us into this mess. We have a banking regulator who doesnt feel obligated to REGULATE. This is down to the idiology of the government who didnt want to interfere in the markets.

    Cullen managed to get into the cabinet dispute being incompetent. So I guess there is plenty hope for Grealish, Cannon and O'Malley no matter what their intelligence.
    Stoke politics at its best. Long live the greed of the celtic tiger.


  • Options
    #34
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    b.ie curious wrote: »
    That money legally belongs to the Progressive Democrats. Grealish and O'Malley have no right to take it to Fianna Fail when they make the jump. A lot of money will be spent on stuff like legal advice on how to wind down and on redundency packages for HQ staff, I think some of it will go a farewell party, and anything left over will be going to charity.


    The truth of the matter is that any of the 166 TDs can be picked to become a minister. Even the senators can become ministers. The 'national mandate to be a minister' comes from the Taoiseach, not from the people. Nobody voted for Dempsey or O'Dea to be ministers. They received a mandate from the people to represent their constituencies, not to be ministers.

    I don't remember a single voter giving Biffo a mandate to be Taoiseacht either...


  • Options
    #35
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    I don't remember a single voter giving Biffo a mandate to be Taoiseacht either...

    No Taoiseach has ever gotten a mandate from the people. The Dáil mandates a Taoiseach.


  • Options
    #36
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,821 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    b.ie curious wrote: »
    A lot of money will be spent on stuff like legal advice on how to wind down and on redundency packages for HQ staff, I think some of it will go a farewell party, and anything left over will be going to charity.
    is there a kind of irony in that the last act of the PDs is to help the less fortunate? :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    CSC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 653 ✭✭✭CSC


    What has happened to Michael McDowell? Is he still involved in politics?


  • Options
    #38
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    kbannon wrote: »
    is there a kind of irony in that the last act of the PDs is to help the less fortunate? :D
    You are talking about the party that brought in the first minimum wage and set it at the highest level in Europe, thereby incentivising people to get off social welfare and start to work.
    The party that pushed the foreign aid cause even when it wasn't as popular.


  • Options
    #39
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Dob74 wrote: »
    What is to become of the money and assets of the PDs?

    Well don't expect the PDs to be asking where money came from / goes to.......based on recent experience, it seems they prefer not to know.....


  • Options
    #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    CSC wrote: »
    What has happened to Michael McDowell? Is he still involved in politics?

    No, hes gone back to Law, thank the Jaysus. Presumably he counts as a PD asset, if he hasn't paid them the money back for those constituency surveys yet....


  • Options
    #41
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dob74
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dob74


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    The problem with the finanical crisis for Ireland. Is yes this country is the size Kentucky but they where not paying 50 million an arce for land in Kentucky. Having lived in the states for ten years it was easy to see that we are being ripped off for housing and land. The central bank did nothing about it, except allow larger and larger loans to given out. We can blame global conditions all we like but turth of the matter is the banks lost the run of themselves and the government did nothing to stop them. Who knows who new what but we are in dip sh;t. We have borrowed 200 billion privately from outside of this country. The PDs are not to blame for the whole mess but certainly a laisse-faire idiology did not help the matter.


  • Options
    #43
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #44
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    b.ie curious wrote: »
    The truth of the matter is that any of the 166 TDs can be picked to become a minister. Even the senators can become ministers. The 'national mandate to be a minister' comes from the Taoiseach, not from the people.

    Yes but the Taoiseach wouldnt be there unless people believed in the policies of he and his party. Brian Cowen is Taoseach because so many people gave a mandate to his party, ie they determined that his policies would be most desirable. In effect saying they would like him and his fellows to run the country.

    You seem to be saying that TD's are voted on regional issues alone. I think its well known that most people vote by party, ie national issues.
    ninty9er wrote: »
    No Taoiseach has ever gotten a mandate from the people.

    Kinda ridulous statement tbh. People voted for FF in the 30's because they wanted Dev to implement the FF policies.


  • Options
    #45
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Assuming that you're an advocate of laissez-faire, what about the ordinary punters whose life savings would evaporate in the event of bank collapses?


  • Options
    #46
    Dob74
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dob74


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    We definately will lose choice in the next election. The middle classes needs a party to stand up for them. The leadership of the PDs have looked out for number one and sold themselves cheap. At least Harney for all her faults wont jump into another political party.


  • Options
    #47
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    The_Minister

    Also, the YPDs support drug legalisation and stuff like that, 99er, so I wouldn't call them raging righties.

    Would they be classed as libertarian then? (as opposed to liberal)

    ireland2007.gif

    The pd's put forward an ideological viewpoint. One that was rejected by the Irish voters. But they seem to have much less in common with FF than FG do.
    oscarBravo

    Assuming that you're an advocate of laissez-faire, what about the ordinary punters whose life savings would evaporate in the event of bank collapses?

    That already happens to share holdings/savings when companies collapse. The government could insist all deposits are insured without them having to be the ones who do the insuring.


  • Options
    #48
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    cavedave wrote: »
    That already happens to share holdings/savings when companies collapse.
    Those are investments, and they are understood to carry risk. Bank deposits are supposed to be risk-free. If they are perceived as risky, then people will have little choice but to hold their savings in cash, which pretty much defeats much of the purpose of having banks.
    The government could insist all deposits are insured without them having to be the ones who do the insuring.
    If the government don't, who will? Who guarantees the liquidity of the insurance companies, especially in a laissez-faire system?


  • Options
    #49
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Bank deposits are supposed to be risk-free. If they are perceived as risky, then people will have little choice but to hold their savings in cash, which pretty much defeats much of the purpose of having banks.

    Bank deposits are not always risk free. People have lost money they have had deposited in banks for as long as there has been banks. It is up to people to decide what level of risk they are willing to take. Some institutions take in valuables and charge a fee for keeping them (as opposed to interest for the right to lend them out again).
    If the government don't, who will? Who guarantees the liquidity of the insurance companies, especially in a laissez-faire system?

    Who guarantees the sun will rise tomorrow? Not the government. There is somethings they should guarantee and some they should not. And it is up to the people to decide if bank deposits are one they should. Even the fairly laissez-faire American government insure small depositors money in banks. But not all governments have to do this.


  • Options
    #50
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    cavedave wrote: »
    Bank deposits are not always risk free. People have lost money they have had deposited in banks for as long as there has been banks.
    This is a good thing, how?
    It is up to people to decide what level of risk they are willing to take.
    True - and it doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the wider economy if tens of thousands of people suddenly lose their entire life savings, right? There are no wider negative consequences whatsoever to runs on banks, are there?
    Some institutions take in valuables and charge a fee for keeping them (as opposed to interest for the right to lend them out again).
    What do you suppose would happen to the economy if all interest-paying banks switched to fee-charging banks instead?
    Who guarantees the sun will rise tomorrow? Not the government.
    Straw man.
    There is somethings they should guarantee and some they should not. And it is up to the people to decide if bank deposits are one they should.
    As one of "the people" I'm fairly happy with the idea that my meagre deposits are guaranteed.
    Even the fairly laissez-faire American government insure small depositors money in banks. But not all governments have to do this.
    Sure, but it gets away from my main point, which is that advocates of laissez-faire don't seem to want to discuss the actual consequences, at the individual saver level, of the policies they espouse.


  • Options
    #51
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    This is getting away from a discussion on the PD's. As far as I know they never supported a removal of government protection of deposits.

    It might be worth noting that relying on the government to protect your savings is fairly unwise. Governments can default on their debts, this happens fairly commonly. Governments can inflate their way out of problems in a way that destroys all your savings. Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe. Even if all your deposts have a 100% government protection if they are running the printing presses so there is hyperinflation your savings are of no value anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    cavedave wrote: »
    This is getting away from a discussion on the PD's. As far as I know they never supported a removal of government protection of deposits.
    An interesting point in its own right: even the PDs weren't that enamoured of laissez-faire.
    It might be worth noting that relying on the government to protect your savings is fairly unwise.
    So, who do you rely on to do so?


  • Options
    #53
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #54
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Simply not true. The average working- to lower-middle-class person, insofar as they have savings, keep them in deposit accounts. As the level of savings increases, so does the likelihood that people will start to invest in managed funds.
    If I wanted simply to use a bank to hoard my life savings, I would buy gold and put it in the vault. But this is not what most people do.
    No; they put it into deposit accounts, where it is perceived as being as safe as hoarding cash, but with a small return to offset inflation.

    All of which studiously avoids the points I've been making, which, ironically, makes the point for me. Advocates of laissez-faire policies studiously ignore the potential impacts of those policies on individuals, preferring to focus instead on abstract market models.


  • Options
    #55
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #56
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #57
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    oscarBravo

    So, who do you rely on to do so?

    I don't know. You could keep gold in a well protected vault. But if your paying for someone to hold this for you they might go bust. You could hold your assets under your mattress (preferably the kind that cannot be inflated away like fiat currency) but i do no think its safe to have your life savings lying around your house.


    Anyway back to the Pd's. They were formed as a reasonably ideological party from a fairly large group of already active TD's disenfranchised with their political parties. Could this happen again now? For example is there a truly socialist group in Labour and the greens that could split off?


  • Options
    #58
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    You're wilfully misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of how markets work: money exists only because people have faith in it. The fact that a government will guarantee deposits effectively means that it probably won't have to make good on that guarantee. Paradoxical, yes - but true nonetheless.

    And still the fundamental point is being avoided: why is it better not to have these guarantees in place than to have them?


  • Options
    #59
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Nope, just my experience. Do you have a reference to back up your assertion that the average Joe keeps his few bob in a managed fund rather than a savings account?
    You think the banks pay interest as some kind of benevolent gesture "to offset inflation"?!?!
    No, and I didn't say so. Can we keep the straw men out of the discussion?
    Actually, we don't! We focus on the fact that individuals are significantly more prosperous and free in a free-market economy.
    Unless you're going to pretend that a free-market economy will guarantee wealth to everyone, you've yet again glossed over the fact that, without safeguards in place, some people will be left destitute through no fault of their own. But hey - someone else got rich, so that's ok, right?
    Au contraire, worrying about who will guarantee individuals' wealth presumes that they have had the opportunity to accumulate such wealth in the first place.
    Are you seriously trying to claim that in anything but a perfectly-free market, there are no opportunities for people to become wealthy?
    cavedave wrote: »
    I don't know. You could keep gold in a well protected vault. But if your paying for someone to hold this for you they might go bust. You could hold your assets under your mattress (preferably the kind that cannot be inflated away like fiat currency) but i do no think its safe to have your life savings lying around your house.
    OK, we've established that there is no such thing as perfect security for savings. How does this amount to an argument for taking away such security as is available?


  • Options
    #60
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement