Did you vote for Fianna Fail and if so why

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Meh, I didnt vote for Fianna Fail last time around so I'm in the clear \0/

I have always *liked* the idea of voting for Fine Gael, but unfortunately they have an electoral anchor around their necks called Labour. But given the demise of the PDs and the sheer incompetence of Fianna Fail, the argument that "the other side is worse" deserves to be tested. They can hardly be worse....can they? I am seriously considering volunteering to help out with their campaining in my constituency even if its just putting up posters.

Fianna Fail *must* be kicked from power at the next election. The sheer incompetence, greed and stupidity of their schemes to buy votes in the builders tent at the Galway races, with decentralisation and their total surrender of any responsibility for the economy requires it. No one can argue that they deserve to be re-elected at the next opportunity. No one.

I'm not arguing with you on this point at all—but the question to ask is why it costs €50 to see a doctor about an upset stomach. The vigorous competition of the free market will logically drive costs down, so why are they so high?

I'm pretty economically liberal, but Id argue that medical care isnt a viable free market as the costs of entry are pretty high - years and years in medical school, building experience etc etc. It makes sense to keep primary care free - so long as its not time wasting or unimportant procedures. I would charge drunks who need their stomachs pumped for example, regardless of their right to free healthcare...

We should have free healthcare for EVERYONE, not just OAPs. At the time we were rolling in money and could easily have afforded it.

You havent been paying attention have you? The economy has basically been everyone in Ireland selling each other houses at stupid prices and the government charging stamp duty on it - the property market slumps and suddenly the government is down 20 billion on annual income...

We've been running on a false economy for the past few years and the government has mistakenly treated the income from property taxes as being somehow permament as opposed to merely temporary - hence the growth of the state bill to incredible levels over our actual real ability to pay for services.

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

I reject it - as noted in the thread about welfare, people seem to be under the misconception that as soon as people get some help, they turn into lazy criminals.

But welfare fraud is a very real problem in this country and we do have people pulling the piss out of the system drawing the dole and making no effort to find work no? It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a system of social welfare but the reality is that we need to put a lot of thought and care into designing the systems so that we don't create "welfare traps" that have sections of society unemployed and discouraged from seeking employment.

Rejecting the idea of moral hazard being a problem in welfare systems is to ignore reality tbh.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella, you simply refuse to accept any points that I make. You just gloss over the ones that you don't like and latch onto the bits that you want to. You still have yet to state whether you accept that free primary health care ultimately reduces the burden of health care costs to the state.

I never said that post-primary care should be free and I don't think it should be for those who can afford it. Health insurance is not so incredibly expensive and most people, who can afford it, should be strongly pushed to avail of it (as is the case now).

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not calling for unlimited health care - strawman argument - you're quite the expert at these.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella, can you please stop with twisting what I say? Did I say that Alan Greenspan didn't intervene? Please quote from where I said that. Please do. I said that he favours minimal intervention.

My opinion is that the lack of regulation of the markets in the US, along with cheap credit and a big dose of human fallacy caused the bubbles in the market.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can you explain? I'm not an expert in economics.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I will do so as soon as you answer my question first. I mean't world wide- not just in Ireland.

nesf wrote: »

But welfare fraud is a very real problem in this country and we do have people pulling the piss out of the system drawing the dole and making no effort to find work no? It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a system of social welfare but the reality is that we need to put a lot of thought and care into designing the systems so that we don't create "welfare traps" that have sections of society unemployed and discouraged from seeking employment.

Rejecting the idea of moral hazard being a problem in welfare systems is to ignore reality tbh.

I shouldn't have said that I reject it entirely. I don't think that no moral hazard exists, I just think it is overstated.

I totally agree with you that social welfare should be properly thought through. For example, at the moment I am trying to hold onto a part time job and claim the dole part-time as well. As it stands, I am losing money by working. This, obviously, is not a good situation.

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

thier is no competition among private practice gp,s because its a cartel , if i lived in leixlip and wasnt happy with my gp and decided i wanted to visit a gp who used to work in the local surgery in leixlip but who six moths ago left to set up his own practice in maynooth , i couldnt just drive to maynooth because the doctor who used to work in my local practice wouldnt see me , he would have a cosy unwritten arangement with his previous collegue in leixlip that he wouldnt take any of his patients with him , trust me , thier is no bigger clique in irish society than that of doctors , competition does not exist

But.....

The market is always right.
The private sector will always do what is best for society.
Government interference destroys competition.

They wouldn't go form cartels to protect their income would they?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

df wrote:

Well, Hong Kong (especially prior to 1997) could be described as a laissez-faire state—not ideally so, but one of the clearest recent examples we have. Now, can you give me an example of a very regulated state that works well?

Your question is very open to interpretation, I presume you left it like that for a reason. I also presume you mean a regulated state that is highly industrialised and modernised. So how about Korea? Singapore? Has regulation not worked well for them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lolz so there wasn't a period of strong protectionism, restriction and regulation from the fifties until then, to put Korea on the path to modernisation? And as for Singapore??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

I shouldn't have said that I reject it entirely. I don't think that no moral hazard exists, I just think it is overstated.

By who and where? If anything, in this country the problem of moral hazard is never discussed in politics and all we hear about is how hard it is for people to live on the dole and how it needs to be increased etc.

taconnol wrote: »

I totally agree with you that social welfare should be properly thought through. For example, at the moment I am trying to hold onto a part time job and claim the dole part-time as well. As it stands, I am losing money by working. This, obviously, is not a good situation.

By definition any social welfare disincentivises work. This is acceptable to a point because we need to provide some safety net for those who fall on hard times but problems like it's indefinite nature (you can, theoretically live on the dole from 18-65 if you really wanted to) and our rising considerations of what "hardship" entails complicate matter. Should we cut the dole? Reduce the dole for the long term unemployed? None of these is a particularly tasteful or politically popular option.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh epic lulz to that one. Argument dissolve at your fingertips did it?

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

By definition any social welfare disincentivises work. This is acceptable to a point because we need to provide some safety net for those who fall on hard times but problems like it's indefinite nature (you can, theoretically live on the dole from 18-65 if you really wanted to) and our rising considerations of what "hardship" entails complicate matter. Should we cut the dole? Reduce the dole for the long term unemployed? None of these is a particularly tasteful or politically popular option.

I wouldn't go as far as to say by definition. There are means of giving welfare that is not monetary based. Extra tuition, help with job interviews, assigned work, social meetings to get people out of the house. Start with literacy; we all know the figures for illiteracy in this country are shocking, has everyone on the dole been tested for literacy and taught accordingly?

Valmont

I had just turned 18 at the last general election and FF were the only ones to call around to the door and answer the few questions I had. The FG person seemed like an awful eejit and didn't come across well at all. That said, I plan to be more in tune with the situation next time around.

Happy Monday

Yes - I have voted for FF.

Why - they have always represented a safe pair of hands.

I mean why would you want people with little or no experience in government running the show.

Plus I find it hypocritical of the opposition parties to condemn FF on each and every issue and then come 100% on side on Lisbon.

Makes you think that principles come a bad second to getting their grubby hands on power.

Liam Byrne

Valmont wrote: »

......answer the few questions I had.

But did they answer them truthfully ?

brianthebard

Happy Monday wrote: »

Yes - I have voted for FF.

Why - they have always represented a safe pair of hands.

I mean why would you want people with little or no experience in government running the show.

So why isn't Cumann na nGaedhael still in government?

Plus I find it hypocritical of the opposition parties to condemn FF on each and every issue and then come 100% on side on Lisbon.

Makes you think that principles come a bad second to getting their grubby hands on power.

How is that hypocritical? ftr SF were against lisbon. Are parties not allowed have a common ground for fear of hypocrisy?

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

I wouldn't go as far as to say by definition. There are means of giving welfare that is not monetary based.

True I should have been more specific than social welfare.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Start with literacy; we all know the figures for illiteracy in this country are shocking, has everyone on the dole been tested for literacy and taught accordingly?

Actually, why can't these people help themselves? There are public libraries for them to use in most areas, even rural ones, and adult literacy resources are hardly non-existent (here for instance).

At what point does it become their responsibility to help themselves rather than something the State has to poke them into doing? Serious question rather than an ideological one, I approve completely of things like "Take the First Step" but honestly it annoys me that people expect the State to do things that they should take responsibility for themselves, like their basic education as adults.

leeroybrown

I voted for an alternative government with an order that was most likely to make good use of transfers. I think that the length of time that FF have managed to stay in power over the last number of elections has left the country in a situation where a lot of politics and policies were allowed to fester. Coming up to the election I didn't view the alternative as streets ahead but did feel that the country needed a change in government while the state finances were in good condition.

The result was somewhat like I expected. FG and Labour failed to put on anything close to a sufficiently strong show of unity to persuade voters to change. FG in particular ran an under-impressive campaign with Enda Kenny getting close to self parody at times. The PDs took a hammering for the government and even managed to lose a seat more than I expected. In the end the main parties offered the people what they wanted - a blue skies election campaign with low taxes and better services based on the most optimistic economic growth figures. I'm not suggesting that either group should have predicted the current economic nosedive but my take on the economy at the time was that both election platforms would likely run a reasonable deficit. I think that over all FF lied more convincingly.

In the end I reckon that FG and Labour were probably worried about being blamed for an economic slowdown at the time and are probably now very relieved that they didn't get in...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happy Monday

brianthebard wrote: »

So why isn't Cumann na nGaedhael still in government?
How is that hypocritical? ftr SF were against lisbon. Are parties not allowed have a common ground for fear of hypocrisy?

C na G are no longer in power because they failed to prove they were a safe pair of hands but I do accept the point that at different times there is a need for a change of government. I'm just not convinced that FG will provide that change in direction. Unlike Obama, I get the impression that Enda K would get in on day 1 and say 'now lads, let's do more of the same whatever that was'. I voted for FF on the basis that they were better placed to follow the same course.

My point about Lisbon is based on the fact that on this big issue FG and Lab supported FF without any reservations. Surely they should have told Joe public that this incompetent government made a hames of the negotiations on behalf of the Irish people but we should still vote yes. No - for once, there was no criticism of FF. This makes me think that the other criticism of FF is opportunistic and self serving and not based in fact. That is more than hypocritical.

pushpop

The problem as a few have pointed out, is that the government act like any organisation that has a monopoly, be it political or commercial - complacent, lethargic and slow to react. FF have no opposition to speak of, apart from a bunch of naive ideologues who bitch and whinge and *never* offer a constructive alternative. I voted FF begrudgingly, as at least you have some idea of what you're getting.

But there is without a doubt a political malaise strangling the country. We have a public sector holding the private sector and the rest of the country to ransom with its top-heavy structure and over-inflated sense of entitlement while small and large businesses alike are haemorrhaging staff. Within FF themselves there is a shocking lack of vision or direction, they merely react (slowly) to the world around them rather than anticipating or planning for future events. It's a shame really.

brianthebard

Happy Monday wrote: »

My point about Lisbon is based on the fact that on this big issue FG and Lab supported FF without any reservations. Surely they should have told Joe public that this incompetent government made a hames of the negotiations on behalf of the Irish people but we should still vote yes. No - for once, there was no criticism of FF. This makes me think that the other criticism of FF is opportunistic and self serving and not based in fact. That is more than hypocritical.

They supported the Treaty, not FF. The Lisbon treaty is an international issue, not a national one. There was no need to criticise FF.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Actually, why can't these people help themselves? There are public libraries for them to use in most areas, even rural ones, and adult literacy resources are hardly non-existent (here for instance).

At what point does it become their responsibility to help themselves rather than something the State has to poke them into doing? Serious question rather than an ideological one, I approve completely of things like "Take the First Step" but honestly it annoys me that people expect the State to do things that they should take responsibility for themselves, like their basic education as adults.

You don't think there are dyslexics or people with borderline learning disabilities on the dole now because they were never diagnosed? Are you saying that people should go to public libraries to pick up a book and start reading? How does an illiterate person read a website? If you believe that the state has done all it can/could to teach these people how to read and it was their own fault for not learning then fine, but while a fifth of the population remains functionally illiterate I'm going to say this is an issue for the state to deal with. What's the odds that the figures for functionally illiterate is higher amongst the long term unemployed?

Happy Monday

brianthebard wrote: »

They supported the Treaty, not FF. The Lisbon treaty is an international issue, not a national one. There was no need to criticise FF.

No - the treaty was negotiated and signed off by FF.
In essence they supported a treaty negotiated by an wholly incompetent government in their estimation.
Or if it wasn't then the lack of influence by the Irish government should have been highlighted by FG.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

You don't think there are dyslexics or people with borderline learning disabilities on the dole now because they were never diagnosed? Are you saying that people should go to public libraries to pick up a book and start reading? How does an illiterate person read a website? If you believe that the state has done all it can/could to teach these people how to read and it was their own fault for not learning then fine, but while a fifth of the population remains functionally illiterate I'm going to say this is an issue for the state to deal with. What's the odds that the figures for functionally illiterate is higher amongst the long term unemployed?

A fifth? Any other study to back that figure up? (I only ask because it seems very high considering we have had free primary since the 60s and that would have improved things dramatically in this regard). Also, what definition of functional illiteracy are they using?

It's not that the State has done everything it could do to help them to read* it's that we already have free education provision and a wealth of literacy agencies, the website I linked to is only one of them and it doesn't have an online-only presence. There is help available for people already is my point. I'm a big believer in the power of literacy and the benefits it brings but if I had to draw up a list of priority problems that need fixing it wouldn't rank at the top of the to do list for the country. There's a limited pie of funding to be divvied out, and there are always going to be far more worthy causes than money unfortunately.


*Arguably I don't see why the State should do this, the burden on the State should be to provide free access to basic education rather than ensuring all people are educated to X degree.

brianthebard

I don't have another link to hand, but that figure is lower than I've heard before so I'm sticking with it. yes there is help available, but are they doing enough to get help to the people? Just providing free education doesn't mean you can wipe your hands and say the state has provided everything it needs to-again I ask you about the issue of learning disabilities which have never been diagnosed? Does the state not have a responsibility? The child who feel behind and never recovered, and is now on the dole because the state in its free education system didn't help the child, does the state not have a responsibility to that person?
If a person can't even fill in a job application form, how do you expect them to find a way off the dole? Illiteracy is very high on my list of priority problems, is Cuba can have virtually 100% literacy then why can't we? Their pie is quite a bit smaller I think you'll agree.

El Stuntman

Happy Monday wrote: »

Yes - I have voted for FF.

Why - they have always represented a safe pair of hands.

well that 'safe pair of hands' has looted the safe and headed for the hills leaving you stuck with the debts

well done

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, I agree that market forces can motivate innovation, good quality etc.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well it can be quite expensive, depending. For example, my mother just had an operation yesterday and desipte having health care, she wouldn't have been covered to stay overnight - couldn't afford the €500 to pay for it herself so came home after being under general anaestheic.

I just think health care should be provided for people who can't afford it. Housing too.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're right about low interest rates being an incentive to borrow but that doesn't remove the lack of responsibility of lending institutions. Just because an individual wants to borrow a certain amount, it doesn't mean that s/he should be given it. Cheap credit alone is not the problem. THe problem is cheap credit PLUS a lack of regulation.

How would you suggest interest rates are set then?

I stand by my point that a lack of regulation is largely to blame for this mess. I mean it was the deregulation in the US in the early 80s that caused a huge growth in savings banks, credit bubble ensued and the first Bush president had to bail them out at the end of the 80s! We've learned nothing.

Further deregulation all through the 90s, under the watchful eye of Greenspan, and the culture of risk set in, banks get the right to underwrite securities. Greenspan also pushed for unregulated derivatives.

So now, we're in a a similar situation to the end of the 1980s except this time, it isn't the small S & L institutions that we have to bail out, it's huge investment banks that underpin the entire financial system!

Time and again, a lack of regulation has proven to end in bailouts.

donegalfella wrote: »

Well, Hong Kong (especially prior to 1997) could be described as a laissez-faire state—not ideally so, but one of the clearest recent examples we have. Now, can you give me an example of a very regulated state that works well?

For me, a good economy is one that is balanced with other sectors, such as social issues and the environment. So Sweden would be a good one, in my opinion, although I'm not sure if you would consider them very regulated?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree that VAT should be lower as it is in indiscriminate tax.

nesf wrote: »

By who and where? If anything, in this country the problem of moral hazard is never discussed in politics and all we hear about is how hard it is for people to live on the dole and how it needs to be increased etc.

Well, just from discussions on here and discussions in my economics class. I don't know everything that the government has been saying so I can't say.

Considering we have the one of the lowest, if not the lowest rate of social welfare spending per capita in Europe, it may suggest that the "moral hazard" is down to other factors, as I discussed in greater detail in the Dole thread.

nesf wrote: »

By definition any social welfare disincentivises work. This is acceptable to a point because we need to provide some safety net for those who fall on hard times but problems like it's indefinite nature (you can, theoretically live on the dole from 18-65 if you really wanted to) and our rising considerations of what "hardship" entails complicate matter. Should we cut the dole? Reduce the dole for the long term unemployed? None of these is a particularly tasteful or politically popular option.

Well, I see what you're saying but I don't think that cutting the dole will help. I suppose long-term unemployment payments should be more linked to efforts to find a job. As it stands, I think it's a bit too easy to claim you're looking for work, without providing too much info (you just fill out a table of what companies you've contacted).

V interesting responses guys!