The Government: Have they failed?

Riddle101 · 12-11-2008 6:18pm #1

Ever since Brian Cowen came to power i've often said to myself, Brian Cowen is by far the worst Taosieach we've ever, had. I mean seriously let's put aside the fact that he failed to get the Lisbon Treaty passed, even though i voted no. He has also failed to get his act together in terms of the Recession. First he takes away the Over 70's Medical Card and plans to bring in Student Fees, then he closes down those Army Barracks some of which house families of PDF soldiers, then the dispute with Teachers. He also insists that the Gardai have the resources to deal with Law and Order even though we've had dozens of gangland killings and the only thing he plans to do is introduce new survalience laws

Then you have Mary Harney. I don't need to explain why Mary Harney is terrible, the Health System is in shambles with her around. Even with the public outcry to give her the sack she continues to hold her post

Mary Coughlan, what can i say as Taniste she should be helping Cowen to deal with the pressure but I hear little about her on the news, and she seems to be keeping silent, what's the matter Mary cat got your tongue

There's more i could say but i'll stop where i am. I don't know it just seems like the government are failing us and i know it's going to be hard we can't expect them to be good because of the Recession and all but the Government have their heads in their arses now. Look at USA, they're heading into recession now but B-Rock Obama had managed to put hope in the Americans, that's what we need. But what can we do, i mean is there anyone in Irish politics good enough to take up the helm. Fine Gael are most likely the best candidate but i'm not a big fan of Enda Kenny and Labour are only good when they're siding with Fine Gael. The rest are not good enough as they just aren't powerful enough. Sinn Fein i can't get around because they're still living in the 1960's and Green are about as adequate as comatose

ednwireland · 12-11-2008 11:28pm

they failed several years ago its just that people have only started realising it now. they'll still vote for em next time

dresden8 · 13-11-2008 1:12am

Failed at what?

Their rich friends have made fortunes.

Score 1.

eoinbn · 13-11-2008 1:24am

The 2002-2007 government failed, the current government is in an impossible situation.

ednwireland · 13-11-2008 11:22am

sorry i must have my usual cynicism generator turned off you are right of course. the final nail in that coffin was the 1.65 billion bailout of the builders in the last budget. when they are trying to save 2 billion as to what FF are really about.

Biggins · 13-11-2008 12:33pm

Failed: 2 words...

BIG TIME.

Permabear · 13-11-2008 1:55pm

This post has been deleted.

jmayo · 13-11-2008 8:14pm

Hey I notice a trend here

Hey I notice another trend here, the love affair with the low tax, low spend, little government and low interference model.

And would the fact that governments worldwide stayed out of the bankers lives have anything to do with the fact that the once great free marketters are suddently begging governments for bail out money from us the taxpayers eh ?
Reversed Socialism I call it

Just wondering if you aren't a soon to be homeless PD by any chance ?
Mods I am just wondering

Tea drinker · 14-11-2008 9:13pm

perfect answer, 10 out of 10.

heyjude · 14-11-2008 9:52pm

AFAIK the Democrats had a majority in Congress and the Senate during the Clinton years and he left office with government finances in a record surplus, then 8 years of Bush and the Federal deficit is at an all time high, as Bush failed to balance the books spectacularly. Now Obama comes in and with the bank bailout and Fed deficit, if he wants to do anything he has to borrow more or tax those that Bush's tax cuts strongly favoured. The people wanted change and change comes with a price tag, the problem is Bush has left the cupboard bare and the credit card maxed out.

Permabear · 15-11-2008 12:11am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 15-11-2008 12:18am

This post has been deleted.

ninty9er · 15-11-2008 12:55am

The government has taken action to ensure the legislation required to combat gangland was introduced.

Longer detention periods
Statements to Gardaí admissable in court
Emergency Response Unit on the ground (And they are....there are 2 of those new armour plated Volvos in Limerick 24/7)

For the first time we have a dedicated Garda Traffic Corps

The government took decisive action (with the opposition) in tackling the financial crisis that hit the global economy and worked through the night to draft legislation to ensure AIB didn't collapse and bring down PTSB causing a consumer rush on the remaining banks which would have seen the IMF knocking on the doors of Government Buildings on October 2nd looking for the keys.

We have a cost of approx €600m of providing the guarantee, cheaper than any other.

I agree with means testing the medical card for all, and have had an article to that effect published which my FG counterpart locally agreed with privately to one of my committee before admonishing it when asked by others.

I'll admit that I don't see any reason that higher taxes shouldn't be levied on.

I'm listening to Snap, Crackle and Pop on the Late Late now. Anton Savage on the end is is the only one talking sense.

Fintan O'Toole does have a point on the levy increasing to 3%, 4%, 5% etc...

Michael Healey Ray is making an eejit of himself.

We will have increased unemployment, to be expected as the whole Eurozone is now in recession. The likes of Dell etc will eventually pack up manufacturing. The focus NEEDS to be on getting the workers there upskilled and working for themselves. The era of the multi-national manufacturing base is over as greed has pushed wage demands, inflation and debt skyrocketing. I have been quilty of that myself, but I worked in retail and keep my debt low.

The backlash against Reg. Fee hikes is symptomatic of a student movement that says

"no you can't do that, but we're clueless as to how you can save the money and we will work tooth and nail to stop any fees on even the richest students"

This is symptomatic of the upper income unemployable arts student with rich parents being the only people willing to run for these positions. You rarely find the sons and daughters of private sector employees who have worked their arses off to send them to college spending this year/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 running a students' union.

The less well off will now feel the brunt (and I warned the SU President in UL that being unengaging and unreceptive would lead to all student's being shafted before the budget....but nobody would listen)

Means tested Tuition Fees ARE and always HAVE BEEN the way to properly fund a 3rd level institution. I never have and never will buy the argument that more than 90% of students are self financing, if the actual figure was higher than 3-4% I'd be extremely shocked.

Taxes could be higher, but I imagine that's what we'll get in next year's budget. Corporation tax should be lower.

There are no longer hostilities in Northern Ireland and frankly, why should soldiers in Longford be any more immune to restructuring than Pfizer workers or Intel executives. The facilities are no longer necessary or economical. Athlone is hardly Baghdad!

I'm sure you'll find another thread with comprehensive views I've expressed on the education budget.

Failure, no. Could be doing better, YES.

nesf · 15-11-2008 6:17am

He is to the PDs what the Socialist Party is to Labour.

Permabear · 15-11-2008 2:07pm

This post has been deleted.

molloyjh · 15-11-2008 3:59pm

Very true. But the fact of the matter is most are. You'll find relatively few people here in Ireland agreeing with your point of view. At the end of the day the "less Government interference" idea, no matter what way you try and spin the current economic crisis (Government made banks take on those loans? Please! They were more than happy to do it and the US Government more than happy to let them.), has led to a period where-by the Governments of multiple Western capitalist democracies have had to directly bail out their financial institutions. It hasn't worked.

Our problems have been compounded further by irresponsible Government over the last 10-15 years. The housing market is always an unstable one. For every boom there is a crash and its been a while coming now. Yet the foundation of much of our economy was in the construction area, one of the least stable areas. What sense does that make? FF looking out for their buddies has landed us in hotter water than we should have been in. I agree Cowen and co are in an impossible situation, but then they were part of the problem up until now so they are hardly going to be the solution. Just look at the budget, which they tried to spin as fair and relative across the board. Most of the changes introduced were static changes affecting everyone across the board equally, which by definition affects the less well off more than the well to do.

Those who took these so called "risks" over the last decade were rewarded for doing so but are now being protected from the fallout of those risks, which means they weer never risks to begin with. This combined with the shocking neglect of the public service, in terms of making the relevant changes to bring about a better service, means that we have had the biggest and best years of the country gone by and all we got was overpriced houses and a few roads. Its downright shameful. There have been a few positive moves in the policing area, but for the most part they have been lip service compared to what was needed, nothing in terms of health care leading to a criminally poor and bloated system, an education system badly in need of reform which they now want to take away from despite looking to create a knowledge based workforce and the so-called middle-class carrying the buck.

I'm on nearly twice the national average wage. I bought a house 4 years ago with my better half on the edge of the city for a relatively low price and are facing the very real probability of negative equity in the next couple of months. My outgoings are fairly minimal all things considered and I'm still having a hard time month on month because of the high cost of living. Heaven help anyone on the average national wage after buying a house in the last 2 years. I don't know how they are surviving. And if people on the average wage are barely getting by then you know there is something very seriously wrong.

Permabear · 15-11-2008 8:47pm

This post has been deleted.

gurramok · 15-11-2008 9:25pm

I'm intrigued, what evidence do you have of TSB been the bank that was going to be brought down that fateful night?
In the media, speculation has been it has been BOI or Anglo, do you have a source for it been the TSB.

In another part of your post, you said national debt was 117% of GDP in bust times.

We're going to reach that again in a few years unless drastic action is taken now to tackle the public sector thru either layoffs and/or pay cuts OR a magical export driven growth industry appearing as the saviour to replace the housing bubble revenues.

ninty9er · 15-11-2008 10:29pm

I was in Leinster House that day. AIB would have brought TSB with it is what I actually said. Speculation is not always true, or even loosely related to the truth.

That wasn't me actually. But as I have previously said it does partially explain where all the boom cash went as opposed to the accusations that 100s of billions were squandered.

Debt will increase over the coming 7-10 years, but it'll never hit those levels again, and it won't be to fund current spending on the dole.

evil-monkey · 15-11-2008 10:59pm

ya, it's called democracy...

+1

Kershaw.D · 15-11-2008 11:11pm

Yes they have failed big time
right now I think that we would have been better staying part of the uk

None of the current gov will be here after the the next election
And now with the country falling apart they decide to go and spend €60000 on Christmas lights for O'Connell st alone

ninty9er · 16-11-2008 12:13am

:rolleyes:

molloyjh · 16-11-2008 1:42pm

The two are in no way comparable due to the level of information available to us now on the issue in debate vs the level of information available then on that issue. Maybe you should have picked a more relevant example?

Maybe you didn't get the point I was making. In the US the policy had been less interference and more of a move toward true free market. It was the US that brought about this global economic crisis purely because there was noone stepping in and regulating what the lenders were doing. It was this movement towards true free markets that led to the bail-outs and guarantees. That's what is so funny about the whole thing. The one thing they were avoiding at all costs, i.e. Government interference, turned out to be the one thing they desperately needed in the end. If that is not proof that the model failed I dion't know what is.

I think the fundamental difference between your view and mine is that I honestly believe the system we have in place is a good one. However the problems that we have had have been in how that system has been utilised buy our Governments. I blame the politicians for this mess, not the system. I strongly believe that the only long-term successful model out there is one consisting of one major element: balance. We need regulation of businesses to ensure that capitalism doesn't run away with itself to the detrement of society. However we need to ensure it is regulated in such a way as to not stifle it also, a careful balancing act. I believe trade unions are an extremely important part of the whole set-up, however I believe many trade unions have developed too much power.

Basically the truth is in the middle somewhere. No extreme view is right purely because society as a whole is in no way extreme. The happy medium is where we need to be aiming for.

I'm not sure if you realise just how this credit system works. For a bank to change its interest rates at all, be it an increase or a decrease, it must first get approval to do so from the Irish Cenrtal Bank, not the ECB. This reminds me of my favourite gripe people have had with credit card lenders in the past: When their credit limit was raised automatically people used to complain that the banks were "forcing them to spend more". That is not what was happening. They were given the option to spend more, but the decision to do so lay entirely with them.

No, this is an argument for a different Government. Don't blame the system for the failings of the individuals within it. It strikes me that you're oversimplifying the problem, and as a result the solution too.

I.e. the people within Government, not the system itself. As above.

Without knowing what money was going where I can't say with any great accuracy where the cuts were best made. I think tightening up on social welfare abuse is a must, targeting the wealthy in our society for a more proportional contribution is another. The only point I was really making there is that the people who suffered most from the last budget were not the ones who were taking the risks and the status quo of the well off not contributing relative to the rest of us has remained. This was a perfect time to address that issue. And the whole idea of cut backs in education when trying to build a knowledge based workforce does seem a bit counter-productive, doesn't it?

On that point I think we agree. As I said it's all about balance IMO, which means more Government in some areas, less in others.

There is nothing contradictory in that statement. If you look at the housing boom for example, that was driven by the market not the Government. The baby boomers needed accomodation. There was always going to be an overall economic impact to that, which was always going to positive. So what did the Government do in that case? Did they say to themselves that this was a temporary jump in the construction industry that was unsustainable and put in place measures to ensure that once this boom ended the economy as a whole would be cushioned? Or did they piggyback on the wave of this increased demand and neglect the economy completely?

The boom years were not created by Government. They made a few policy decisions along the way that ensured that we got a good deal from it alright, but then they squandered what we did get. To say that economically the last 15 years were good and the Government mismanaged that is in no way contradictory so I fail to see your point.

Again, oversimplification of the problem and the solution. Does the above statement mean that you want the health service privatised? Do you want an American system, where-by if you can't afford it you can go feck off? Just because something is not run correctly does not mean that it cannot be. Things like health and education need to remain public services because of the service they provide, an altruistic service more concerned with the people than the profit. Take the NCT as a great example. They have set failure rates (leading to follow-up NCTs) that they need to "achieve" to make their targets. Do you want to see something like that in our schools? I sure as hell don't.

Having worked long enough in the financial industry I can tell you that this is total nonsense. The banks, as I explained above, sought the reductions in interest rates that they charged. They are as much to blame as anyone else. They sought these reduction for one reason and one reason only - without the reduction in interest rates noone could have afforded the houses. However that point just took us into a spiralling effect where-by the lower the interest rates the more expensive the houses became. Noone stepped in at any point to stop the market doing its thing - increased demand led directly to the higher house prices and lower interest rates, not anything any Government did, they just facilitated it and took a tidy sum annually from stamp duty. Had the Government stepped in at some point to reduce the stamp duty rates - which at the moment mean you need at least 30k plus your 8% deposit to get anything in Dublin - and at the same time passed legislation to prevent the construction companies increasing their unit prices in line with this reduction then they may have been able to reduce the damage this collapse is causing. At the moment I'm faced with a situation of needing 60-70k to cover a deposit and stamp duty on a house, which we're never going to have. And there are plenty of people in this situation. And this is just adding to the countries problems because it's my generation that should be creating the most demand, young people getting married and starting a family.

As you've no doubt figured I'm strongly opposed to this idea for the most part. There is a happy medium that our system as it stands will accomodate with very little modification, the only problem we have (IMO) is that our elected officials aren't that interested in the system or how it might best serve this country. That's their failing, and ours for not getting the best out of them yet continually electing them, not the systems.

molloyjh · 16-11-2008 1:43pm

Didn't the retailers fork out for that rather than the Government in an attempt to get people into the Christmas spirit early, and therefore spend more in their stores?

Kershaw.D · 16-11-2008 2:16pm

no ,i think the gov paid for it ,the same idea xmas early just the gov done it for more taxes

Permabear · 16-11-2008 3:11pm

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet · 16-11-2008 3:26pm

Complete rubbish,
It's deregulation which has failed miserably.
The loans in which you speak, where regulated because banks were happy to take deposits from minorities, but wouldn't give them loans in return.
The governmnet moved in to stymie institutional racism.
The "freemarket" in which you advocate, was soundly condemed since the Great Depression. You need to read The Grapes of Wrath or The Jungle to see how capitalists exploited people in the decades before the big crash.
Heck, i bet you're even opposed to legislation to curtail monopolies.
Your ideology belongs to a different era donegalfella, the pendullum has swung!

Permabear · 16-11-2008 10:36pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 17-11-2008 1:16pm

Ah yes, the glory days of Standard Oil and the US Steel Corporation. The free market at its finest. Until the pesky government came along and spoiled the party. What's wrong with monopolies, anyway?

Permabear · 17-11-2008 1:30pm

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet · 17-11-2008 1:35pm

It's lunatic ideology.
You're just here hijacking a thread.
You should probably start your own thread on the Economics board.
Though you may be playing to an empty gallery there too.

The Government: Have they failed?

Comments