Did you vote for Fianna Fail and if so why

Permabear · 30-01-2009 1:19pm

This post has been deleted.

Berti Vogts · 30-01-2009 1:23pm

How can FF be called a safe pair of hands when they have allowed the tax base and public expenditure to get so much out of kilter? When they fully supported a housing bubble while ignoring the underlying difficulties which our economy faced?

How exactly is it hypocritical for opposition parties to support the Lisbon treaty?

And stating that FF is preferable because other parties want to get their grubby hands on power? Give me a break.

El Stuntman · 30-01-2009 1:40pm

but individuals will always go for short-term gains (i.e. bonuses) and take on riskier positions in order to achieve this. You need to regulate against this in order to protect investors, depositors and the taxpayer.

remember a little bank called Lehman?

Permabear · 30-01-2009 2:12pm

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't · 30-01-2009 2:30pm

But taking it away will?

There is a self interest and greed element to banking that needs to be regulated for consumer and systemic good.

reilig · 30-01-2009 2:34pm

I would totally disagree with you. You're talking from the point of view of someone who did not agree with the result of the last election. The fact that FG did not even run a candidate from county Leitrim meant that they weren't going to get many votes from there anyway. FF, FG, Labour, SF, Greens etc tend to run contraversial candidates - people who will get a lot of media attention, but these are not necessarily people with a likeability factor.

An example of this is the Labour Party when they put Forward Mary Robinson for president. Nobody knew much about her, but she had a likeability factor. She expressed herself well and alligned herself with common people. Labour at this time had 10 to 12% of the total nationwide party support. but still they managed to get her elected and beat Brian lenehan Snr.

People didn't vote party, they voted for the person - and people still vote for the person. It just happens that FF have a better method of choosing likeable candidates.

In leitrim, at the time of the last election, Gareth McDaid went on for the Greens. He's well known and he got a world of media attention. But people don't like him because he was seen in the front line of objections to new factories that had applied for planning in the county over the previous few years and his views on farming were detremential to the future of farming in the county. If the Greens had run someone else less outspoken, then people would have voted for him/her.

People will vote for people that they like - regardless of what party the're in.

oceanclub · 30-01-2009 2:46pm

Umm, Brian Lenihan Sr. was winning until it came out that not only had he tried to intervene with the then President Hilary in a political decision, but he then lied about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Lenihan,_Snr#The_Lenihan_tape

P.

thebman · 30-01-2009 2:54pm

A completely free market isn't the answer IMO.

You just end up in a situation where the banks behaving recklessly can take down the economy. CEO's only care about their time in a company and are perfectly willing to leave it on the brink of collapse just before they leave with their outstanding awards for getting the share price that high. What do you do when that is a business such as a bank that is crucial to the welfare of the economy?

You can't stop greed, you just have to try to minimize the risk it poses. You need a certain amount of regulation to achieve that. The free market would eat itself IMO.

reilig · 30-01-2009 3:11pm

My point exactly. People felt that they could not trust him because he had lied. So people voted for Mary Robinson - they didn't care what political party she was in - they voted for her as a person not as a member of the Labour party.

Mal-Adjusted · 30-01-2009 4:02pm

This is the argument i can't stand. "Shur the other crowd would be worse" has allowed these FF buffoons to grow fat & healthy with their corruption. ask yourselves, how could ANYONE possibly do worse that this crowd? this is just as bad as people voting the same way time after time because they're "a FF family" or "their community votes FG" simply because... Are we really that complacvent a people? the parties are meant to be loyal to us, not the other way around.

this isn't a personal attack, just an observation.

Macha · 30-01-2009 5:11pm

Do you have any actual stats/research? I have provided legitimate research to the contrary but all you have offered is some conversation you overheard on the bus? I'm not saying these people don't exist but is the existence of these people (and how many? a minority?) enough justification to punish the majority?

I'm on the dole but I don't want to be! I earn less money by keeping my part-time job but I still do it. Why should it be assumed that if I get even less money, I'll stop looking for a job?

On issues such as housing, food etc. These are basic needs! I certainly do not think that they should only be available to people who have enough money. Clearly, this philosophy should not extend to all markets (eg the market for flat-screen TVs, etc) but I strongly believe that the state should step in and help people in trouble - often it can be through no fault of their own. And even if it is their fault, I still don't want to see people sleeping on the streets because the mortgage they took out was too big.

Oh I totally disagree with the current bailouts, for institutions and individuals. Bankruptcy should hurt.

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but the problem as I see it, is that very often, these cycles take a generation to come around again. The last credit crunch and recession was in the 1980s - my paren'ts generation. I have no understanding of what it's like to live through a recession, lose my job, lose my house. So it's not like I can learn a lesson from what has gone before, other than on an academic level.

Moreover, many of the huge risk-takers did live through the 80s and know all about it! But they went ahead and took enormous risks. Who exactly is going to bail out Sean Dunne now? He's screwed.

Ah, now you're moving into social liberalism, and out of the realms of economics. I think this is a subject for another thread, perhaps in Humanities.

Is there an example of an economy where this has been done?

See I don't think it's that simple. Humans are not infallible. They make mistakes, take risks they shouldn't, go with the herd, etc. Companies are the same because they are run by humans. I think the government needs to take this into consideration with its future regulation.

Can you give an example of where there have been no bailouts and behaviour has changed as a result? Genuine question.

You're using an extreme example and it's certainly not like that today. But you know what? It's an amazing place to live. Things work, infrastructure is in place, innovation and education are well-funded, the cities are well planned, there are low levels of unemployment.

I have lived in Norway and it also has a higher tax rate than here but the services were top-quality (shame it was just a bit boring..:pac:)

Liam Byrne · 30-01-2009 5:38pm

They didn't "ignore it" - they told people who warned about it to "f**k off and commit suicide.

K4t · 30-01-2009 7:31pm

My parents both voted Fine Gael (Enda Kenny No.1) for only one reason: To get FF out. If you have forgotten, FG were not very far away from getting into government last year so don't drag us all down to your level.

They were corrupt before the Banking Crisis, but nobody listened. Some now wish they had 'committed suicide' :rolleyes:

irish_bob · 30-01-2009 10:34pm

if you believe that irish people do not for the most part vote based on which party a particular canditate is running for , then you my friend are seriously out of touch with your fellow countrymen

having FF or FG gives you a 20 metre headstart in a sprint ahead of someone with LAB or PD after them
michael mcdowell , an oustanding td , even when he did get elected never got close to topping the poll in his constituency , why , because thier were fianna fail back benchers in the same constituency , name one TD who wasnt in FG or FF who topped the poll in the last election in any consituency , o caeolian in monaghan is the only one i can think of but monaghan is not your average constituency

Badabing · 30-01-2009 11:43pm

Penrose in Longford Weatmeath and Lowry in Tipp but their the only two.

nesf · 31-01-2009 3:02am

Not really, it's *relatively* well structured with zero rates on food etc to minimise the impact on the poorest in society (whose food budgets will take up a much bigger percentage of their income than wealthier groups). Though this is off topic here tbh.

Economics class will mention moral hazard a lot because well, it's a core concept in the discipline (though the classic instances are with loans and insurance rather than social welfare payments but the concept captures some of the problems with the Dole fairly well for such a simple one).

We have one of the lowest tax takes as per GPD in Europe, ergo one would expect our social welfare spending to be low relative to other European countries. It's not really surprising, if people want a system where the bottom 40% or so of workers don't pay any income tax they can't expect services like the Swedes or Danes have. It's as simple as that, you can't fund world class free public hospitals by just taxing the top 20-30% of earners heavily.

I'm not really suggesting cutting the dole but the system as it stands is a mess precisely because it's so easy to "play" it. We need some system of welfare because the market won't ensure that everyone will have a basic level of income above subsistence levels. Designing this system is tough because as soon as you start paying people for not working (which is essentially what it is in some ways) you'll start attracting people who don't like to work as well as people who genuinely can't find work. I don't know what a better system might look like but we should definitely start looking at what our European counterparts are doing to combat moral hazard in their systems.

Permabear · 31-01-2009 2:55pm

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 31-01-2009 7:29pm

Oh sure, there's no such thing as a free lunch. I don't get why so many Irish people are under the misguided impression that we have such high texes here.

Good point.

Well, I think any economic comparison between the US and Ireland will make Ireland come out looking positively socialist.

Ah so that's what the poverty trap is! I thought it was people just unable to get out of poverty.

That's the thing - I don't like to base my views on how many times I may or may not have heard someone say something. I actually haven't heard it that much from any of my friends. I have one friend who is a structural and civil engineer, just lost his job and he has sent out CVs to everyone and anyone - Itsabagel, McDonalds etc. But then again, I don't want to be naive enough to think that I can generalise him out and say that this is the general attitude.

But there are states that are far more "nanny-ish" than us but the people are wiser with their money. Actually it is countries like Ireland, the UK and the US that have the lowest levels of household savings, when compared to countries like France and Germany that I'm guessing you would label as more "nanny-ish" than Ireland. This data would prove the exact opposite of your argument that a nanny-state discourages private saving. I'm guessing there's also a cultural aspect to saving as well.

I see what you're saying and I agree to a point. I think there's a happy medium between the "survival of the fittest" viewpoint and total protection by the state.

I just don't think you've provided enough evidence that "nanny" states encourage this moral hazard. You have the premise in your head and everything else you say runs from there.

We do not live in a world, or even a country of equal opportunity and to punish people and assume it's all their own fault is just so Hobbesian. I'm not saying anything about you dongealfella, but most of the people I know who espouse this view either have had a good start in life, or managed to make themselves and can't understand why other people can't be just like them.

Yes, I agree that the public sector has to be cut down. It's totally bloated.

Sure, for corporations fine. If a corporation goes under that's fine. But when a person loses their job, would you really have that person out on the street?

They may pay a fraction of the taxes in another country but the currency is not worth as much. Interestingly, the article doesn't say how much the guy is getting paid in his new job. As for its sustainability, well they're still there, aren't they? And they're not in the **** as much as we are, that's for sure.

When I lived in Norway, I was on minimum wage of 115kr, the equivalent of about €14/hr at the time. I managed to live in Oslo very, very comfortably, and every time I left the country, everything was ridiculously cheap for me.

Basically, I don't mind paying higher taxes for better services. Dublin is a total mess with the most awful services and sometimes it is just a complete joy to be able to jump on the Metro in Paris, on the T-bane in Oslo or a bike in Copenhagen without having to worry about all the pot-holes. It's about having a better quality of life.

Did you vote for Fianna Fail and if so why

Comments