Dealing with canvassers

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So let me get this straight; by "we", I presume you mean some part of FF ? So a part of FF warned a local candidate to disassociate himself from a local TD who has done a crap job ?

I don't want to misrepresent you, so is that REALLY what you meant by "we did warn him about that" ?

And if so, can you not see how this extends to the need to disassociate himself from a whole PARTY who has done an even worse job ?

No I'm saying that we told him local issues are local issues and putting a TD on you literature for local elections drags his problems on you, even though you will be able to do nothing about them if elected. Bus lanes and community centres - local issues, Social Welfare and economy - national issues.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you REALLY suggesting even MORE taxes and levies over and above the ones we're already forking out to bail out the Galway Tent Brigade and ensure they have their payoffs and "bonuses" ? :eek:

Let national level sort out the waste first, bringing down the taxes; THEN maybe people will have a few cent to spare.....otherwise you are going to cause mass emigration.......

Of course, that would save FF on a whole range of levels.....people pissed off with them gone, so less votes against them; smaller dole queues, etc......maybe that's the overall plan that the two Briaain-deads have....

No I'm suggesting we need some our taxes levied closer to where they are being spent, and that money controlled by local politicians, governing purely for the local area.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

No I'm saying that we told him local issues are local issues and putting a TD on you literature for local elections drags his problems on you, even though you will be able to do nothing about them if elected. Bus lanes and community centres - local issues, Social Welfare and economy - national issues.

OK.....thanks for the clarification; but part of my statement still applies.
The WOD mug-shot was one thing, but there beside it was the FF logo.

If being associated with WOD drags his problems that you can do nothing about onto the local election candidate, then surely being on the FF ticket "drags the national FF problems on you", too ? So if you're saying that WOD's problems and actions affect him and he's better off not being associated with them, surely FF's do too, by being associated with them ?

ninty9er wrote: »

No I'm suggesting we need some our taxes levied closer to where they are being spent, and that money controlled by local politicians, governing purely for the local area.

Thanks for the clarification....some of the "existing" taxes (or at least amounts) - PHEW!

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK.....thanks for the clarification; but part of my statement still applies.
The WOD mug-shot was one thing, but there beside it was the FF logo.

If being associated with WOD drags his problems that you can do nothing about onto the local election candidate, then surely being on the FF ticket "drags the national FF problems on you", too ? So if you're saying that WOD's problems and actions affect him and he's better off not being associated with them, surely FF's do too, by being associated with them ?

You see, thing is, while there are some high profile and admittedly ridiculous fv<k ups on behalf of FF, a lot of good has been done over the past decade.

You don't see Michael Noonan losing votes because FG has failed to do anything with Limerick City Council, so while it may seem an oxymoron to 99% of the population, it's quite feasible that local FF representatives in Limerick will take decisions diametrically opposed to local FF representatives in Donegal because there are 2 different needs bases. Not everything falls on national policy. While it's quite difficult to have local policy given the limited powers of councils, in general, nobody's out to screw you.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification....some of the "existing" taxes (or at least amounts) - PHEW!

I like the Swedish system, but it would need some tweaking.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

You see, thing is, while there are some high profile and admittedly ridiculous fv<k ups on behalf of FF, a lot of good has been done over the past decade.

Fair point, but shouldn't that be "by FF, and by their leaders that went unpunished" ?

FF have majorly "fv<ked up" on major issues that affect everyone, and that now have everyone who's worked their asses off barely surviving, with poor job security (at best), zero chance of a pension, and zero chance of getting loans.

FF also stood by and both actively and passively condoned what can charitably described as "dodgy practices" by many high-profile members, including Haughey, Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, Bertie Ahern, Beverly Cooper-Flynn. All of those people should have been evicted - permanently - from the party to prove that the party was serious about weeding out corruption and being seen to be ethical and above reproach.

Bertie also famously told those warning him about the economy to "fv<k off and commit suicide". He also told people that he didn't give people jobs because they gave him money, but "only" "because they were his friends".....that's nepotism of the highest order and should have been punished, but because it was seen as the "lesser of two evils" it went unsanctioned.

eVoting, the Bertie Bowl and numerous other projects cost us billions that could have been put away for the current "rainy day", and again no-one was taken to task over it; there was no accountability.

John O'Donoghue was elected as Minister for Justice promising "zero tolerance", and again that failed to materialise.

So the litany of "fv<k ups" BY FF is phenomenal....and while everyone makes mistakes, the fact that those involved were not only kept within the party but some were even promoted is sickening; and even those who weren't got to keep their jobs and pensions after they screwed up royally.....if they were in the private sector they would have been dead and buried and unemployable.

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

You see, thing is, while there are some high profile and admittedly ridiculous fv<k ups on behalf of FF, a lot of good has been done over the past decade.

On behalf of FF ????
I thought it was FF that were in power or were the ff ministers just minding the place for some other mythical not to blame for anything ff ?
Are you now trying to distance your ff form the cack handed bunch that actually spend a few days a week in Leinster House ?

At what cost was this "lot of good was done over last decade" ?
Or more precisely what good was done that could have been done at half the cost and in a much shorter time frame ?
All I see over the last decade is big wastage of money and the destruction of a once thriving economy in order to get short term gain.
Or maybe I have really missed something the last 8/9 months :eek:
Oh wait I hear the refrain Northern Ireland and evrlasting peace on our island :rolleyes:

ninty9er wrote: »

I like the Swedish system, but it would need some tweaking.

I like the Swedish system too.
It's mainly because you see dodgy politicans with a hint of scandal actually RESIGN and fcuk off the politcal stage meaning we have to have no huge tribunals costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions :rolleyes:

When was the last time an Irish politican resigned ?

ninty9er

jmayo wrote: »

On behalf of FF ????

Less than 1/10 of 1% of the party is comprised of TDs. Similarly to the way many FG members want Enda gone, there are things the PP does that do not wash well with the party, but they are the people that the electorate chose.

jmayo wrote: »

I like the Swedish system too.
It's mainly because you see dodgy politicans with a hint of scandal actually RESIGN and fcuk off the politcal stage meaning we have to have no huge tribunals costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions :rolleyes:

When was the last time an Irish politican resigned ?

So what you're saying is that "it's okay to be corrupt, and as long as you resign we won't look into it?"

Very fair:rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

So what you're saying is that "it's okay to be corrupt, and as long as you resign we won't look into it?"

You know well that that's not what he's saying...... :rolleyes:

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You know well that that's not what he's saying...... :rolleyes:

Well then the tribunal costs would still be there,wouldn't they....

Joey the lips

The most sensable thing to do would be write down points that concern you and hand them a copy. Some of the answers below are very humourous and a little daft. This is your chance you will be complaining for the next 2 years you never heard from them. All the big corruption issues are about the economy as a whole. Do you really care? If you do you know who your voting for so this thread is pointless!

I get loads done this way and as sec for a residents association we have done very well out of this approch

Do you really care how corrupt FF are ao the fact that enda kenny is a muppet when the hole in your road that destroyerd 2 alloys has been repaired.

Try this approch for a change rather than give out and doing nothing.
It gets results!

blinding

Ask them can they not get their leaflets printed on toilet roll and then it would be of some use to you.

Actually this is a serious suggestion and the information might get read before being put to good use.

Joey the lips

blinding wrote: »

Ask them can they not get their leaflets printed on toilet roll and then it would be of some use to you.

Actually this is a serious suggestion and the information might get read before being put to good use.

Nah Michael O Leary already has this idea, dont think labour would like to be linked to michael o leary's idea!

bcirl03

Fair play to ya OP - I'm with ya 100% on how to deal with these FF wasters when they knock at the door.

I wouldn’t waste my breath talking to them, what good will it do. Look what talking did for us the over the last ten years when they knocked – NOTHING.

Now sling your hook FF canvassers.

blinding

Joey the lips wrote: »

Nah Michael O Leary already has this idea, dont think labour would like to be linked to michael o leary's idea!

The toilet paper leaflet scheme would really be a policy that the Greens should get to the bottom of.

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

Less than 1/10 of 1% of the party is comprised of TDs. Similarly to the way many FG members want Enda gone, there are things the PP does that do not wash well with the party, but they are the people that the electorate chose.

It is gas to see how you are now trying to wriggle out of almost being in the same ff party as biffo, mary et al.
Anything to distance yourself from the bunch of incompetent gobsh*** that head your own party is it ?
Tell you what why don't you rename as New FF.

ninty9er wrote: »

So what you're saying is that "it's okay to be corrupt, and as long as you resign we won't look into it?"

Very fair:rolleyes:

You know damm fcuking well that is not what I am saying.

The don't have tribunals in Sweden because their politicans have a thing called ethics and if they do soemthing wrong they RESIGN.
Why not look up that word in the dictionary, it is actually close to another little used word in Ireland called RESPONSIBILITY.

We wouldn't have had to have half the tribunals, but for some of your party's politicans.
The big names at these tribunals (bar one I think) all happened to be from your party and even worse they were either the leaders or very close to the leader.
And just in case your amnesia is kicking in again, here are the big names who have being linked to dodgy (unexplained cash) payments which in most democracies would warrant resignation, dimissal and even jailtime.
Charlie, Ray, Liam, Padraig, Bertie are all big names and all ffers.

ninty9er wrote: »

Well then the tribunal costs would still be there,wouldn't they....

Other countries don't engage in this navel gazing that is just another talking shop, out of which no presecutions are ever made.
They actually bring criminal prosecutions and the electorate do not vote for these people in the future.

holly1

A friend of mine has a big sign on the door saying,

IF YOU ARE FROM F.F./P.D./G.P. PLEASE DONT KNOCK ON MY DOOR.

I thought it was a good idea.

nkay1985

I've been out canvassing with my dad over the past two weeks. My brother had one person open the door, say "No thanks", then close the door again.

It was a bit abrupt but I left thinking "That's grand, he's obviously got no interest so the leaflet would be wasted on him, and he's not going to vote for anybody else either."

I've had quite a number of people saying "You're not Fianna Fail, are you?" or variations of this once they open the door. There seems to be a lot of anger and I don't envy them to be honest.

I can see where people are coming from with the point about the individual councillor/candidate not being at fault and therefore undeserving of the backlash. But at the end of the day you align yourself with a party for good and for bad. You can't ride their coat tails into government in good times and then say you don't support them come times like this. So as far as I'm concerned, every FF candidate deserves the anger at the doorsteps.

gizmo555

ninty9er wrote: »

No I'm suggesting we need some our taxes levied closer to where they are being spent, and that money controlled by local politicians, governing purely for the local area.

Of course, we used to have this, until FF bought the 1977 general election by among other things, promising the abolition of domestic rates.

Zynks

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Criticise me for my approach all you want, but given what their party has done to us I am definitely entitled to express my displeasure in some way, and I was far more civil than their membership and allegiance entitles them to. Believe me, it crossed my mind that they (maybe just their leaders and former leaders, but they are supporting them so they have to take some of the blame) deserved a LOT worse.....

I totally agree. This is not personal. It is a political statement.

I agree people have no right to be violent of abusive towards canvassers, but if you can't distinguish a strong refusal to entertain a discussion with someone from your party from a personal rejection, maybe you shouldn't be canvassing.

There are three parties with whom I have absolutely no intention to enter any kind of discussion. I have listed them and put a sign beside my door bell:

PLEASE, NO CANVASSING FROM:

• Party 1
• Party 2
• Party 3

Let’s save some time!

I think that is a win-win. It saves them time and I don't need to be unpleasant.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

Well then the tribunal costs would still be there,wouldn't they....

No. Not if your party didn't put scumbags and incompetents into top positions.

If there wasn't corruption, there'd be no need for tribunals.

And even IF a tribunal was required, if there wasn't sh1tloads of time wasted by people obstructing it and / or telling it 5 different accounts of how they got cash, then it might cost money, but it'd cost a lot less. :mad:

Liam Byrne

holly1 wrote: »

A friend of mine has a big sign on the door saying,

IF YOU ARE FROM F.F./P.D./G.P. PLEASE DONT KNOCK ON MY DOOR.

I thought it was a good idea.

I'd considered this, but I'd leave out the "please" - it makes it a request rather than an instruction. A bit like "please don't take cash from people" or "please don't screw up the economy"....

Mind you, I'd probably also replace the words "KNOCK ON" with "DARKEN".... :P

elshambo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. Not if your party didn't put scumbags and incompetents into top positions.

If there wasn't corruption, there'd be no need for tribunals.

And even IF a tribunal was required, if there wasn't sh1tloads of time wasted by people obstructing it and / or telling it 5 different accounts of how they got cash, then it might cost money, but it'd cost a lot less. :mad:

Or they could have just let the law deal with it as they would do in ANY other non-corrupt country
OOH wait:o

There should never have been tribunals, it should have went thru the law courts, cheaper, more efficent and some of the bas&ards would be behind bars now!

ninty9er

elshambo wrote: »

Or they could have just let the law deal with it as they would do in ANY other non-corrupt country
OOH wait:o

There should never have been tribunals, it should have went thru the law courts, cheaper, more efficent and some of the bas&ards would be behind bars now!

No objections here. That would allow the majority of the party to get on with its business without the armchair critics telling 80,000 people they're scum by association, which has happened in this country and continues to.

elshambo

ninty9er wrote: »

No objections here. That would allow the majority of the party to get on with its business without the armchair critics telling 80,000 people they're scum by association, which has happened in this country and continues to.

Fair point except

It was the FF who set up the tribunals to help some of its leaders/high ranking members evade punishment so the party is as much a part of it as the indivudials

+
80,000 of ye!?
IF ye really wanted to ye could have flushed out the "scum" element a long time ago

Instead YE, not all 80,000 but a large amount defended them to the hills as ye were winning

Funny now that ye are losing they are now "scum"

ninty9er wrote: »

without the armchair critics

You mean the electorate?
We all know that political classes have a dim view of those who they actually work for
but the political parties usually try to keep that hidden :eek:

ninty9er

elshambo wrote: »

Fair point except
Funny now that ye are losing they are now "scum"

I never said they're scum...I said the public think of us as scum by association with Fianna Fáil, even though only a handful of people have ever been proven to be corrupt. What I'm saying is people should get real and move on.

elshambo wrote: »

You mean the electorate?
We all know that political classes have a dim view of those who they actually work for
but the political parties usually try to keep that hidden :eek:

No I mean armchair critics, I genereally specify the electorate as people who bother to vote instead of complaining about what they don't know then and doing nothing. I know that's not the technical definition, but it is the real one in my opinion.

jmayo

I notice ninty99er uses the well trodden phrase about nothing has been proven.
As he knows damm well it is very hard to prove corruption, since very few record their dodgy transactions for posterity.
Very few know where the skeltons are hidden and they are bribed to keep quiet.
They use offshore accounts, cash transactions, third parties and various gifts as a means of getting their rewards for deals done. Remind you of anybody in particular :rolleyes:

He tels us that people shoudl get real and move on.
Yeah move on to what ?
Has it escaped him that his party has probably scuppered this country for generations to come, through their cack handness of the economic mess they created because they allowed vested interests, who happened to be major party contributors, to run amuck in this country for 7 odd years.
I agree it is time we got real and consigned his party to where they belong, away from any semblance of power.

BTW ninty99er you never responded to my posts.
Couldn't find the definition of RESIGN or RESPONSIBILITY :rolleyes:

The way I see FF supporters is that they condoned nay gave the green light to corruption, or at the very least dodgy unethical behaviour, within their own organisation by standing back and backing the leaders who had hints of corruption about them. And please do not give us the sh*** that nothing was proven.

Remember Edmund Burkes attributed quote and how all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to stand idly by and do nothing.
Well the same could paraphrase the ff party.

Liam Byrne

Once again, you're fudging the issue, ninty9er...

No-one is saying that individual FF members are scum.....what we are saying is that there are high-ranking members (and it's a good few of them, judging by the list) who ARE scum; there are as many who are incompetent and should be fired.

The "handful" that you speak of are the ones AT THE TOP LEVEL....how did they get to the top if they should have been turfed out years ago ?

And what about the remaining ones at the top level who might not be corrupt but have proven themselves time and time again to be incompetent and completely out-of-touch ?

Do you know anyone else who wouldn't even bother to read a report before agreeing to invest / bail out a group of companies to the tune of billions ? Would you fire an employee who didn't read the report and then spent your money, costing you a fortune ?

Corruption isn't the only problem with FF, y'know - so don't pretend that it is.

No-one's saying that ALL of FF are scum; no-one's saying that they're all corrupt. But there is definitely a guilt-by-association if the 80,000 decent members that you claim can't force the scum to admit responsibility and/or resign, or persuade the party to fill top positions with people who are actually capable of doing the job.

And even if there are some who wanted to and tried and failed, what's the point in voting for them ? Their party obviously does not allow their efforts to shine through, and so they'd be better off going independent or joining another party which would allow them succeed.

So there are 2 options for those 80,000 FF members who want to be taken seriously:

1) Resign from the party
2) Push like hell and get rid of the incompetent and / or corrupt gob****es at the top

If they manage that, THEN they'll deserve some respect and kudos; but until then it's their choice to be burdened with the "guilt by association". We cannot be blamed for reacting appropriately to their choices, action and inaction.

Maybe THEN we'll be able to get some of them to work for the good of the country......

MavisDavis

Has anyone else noticed FF candidates not actually putting "FF" on their literature? These are people I'm certain are running for FF btw.

elshambo

ninty9er
Funny how you took this:

elshambo wrote: »

Fair point except

It was the FF who set up the tribunals to help some of its leaders/high ranking members evade punishment so the party is as much a part of it as the indivudials

+
80,000 of ye!?
IF ye really wanted to ye could have flushed out the "scum" element a long time ago

Instead YE, not all 80,000 but a large amount defended them to the hills as ye were winning

Funny now that ye are losing they are now "scum"

changed it to this:

elshambo wrote: »

Fair point except

Funny now that ye are losing they are now "scum"

Ignoring the KEY point's of the text
replied with this:

ninty9er wrote: »

I never said they're scum...I said the public think of us as scum by association with Fianna Fáil, even though only a handful of people have ever been proven to be corrupt. What I'm saying is people should get real and move on.

Any partcular reason you choose to ignore this part?

elshambo wrote: »

It was the FF who set up the tribunals to help some of its leaders/high ranking members evade punishment so the party is as much a part of it as the indivudials

+
80,000 of ye!?
IF ye really wanted to ye could have flushed out the "scum" element a long time ago

Instead YE, not all 80,000 but a large amount defended them to the hills as ye were winning

BTW im not an idiot!
Im not a 70 year old with a party affilation
and I see thru your parties spin from a mile off SO
I would like an answer BUT
id prefer you didnt answer than try to cover up with some party line!

Cheers!

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

No objections here. That would allow the majority of the party to get on with its business without the armchair critics telling 80,000 people they're scum by association, which has happened in this country and continues to.

Why push the requirement for justice, and the responsibility, on to someone else [again] ?

If the party itself actually kicked them out then there would be no "by association".

Instead we had Bertie claiming that he looked up every tree for proof about Ray Burke, and Cowen saying that it was up to the tribunals to determine whether Bertie was dodgy, despite Bertie giving 5 different accounts of how he got the cash.

The tribunals were set up as a pass-the-buck to avoid the need to kick out people who stank, since it allowed FF to scream "innocent until proven guilty", while at the same time dragging out the tribunals for as long as possible and keeping those people in power.

If there was no tribunal and Bertie or Cowen had said "that looks bad, and is distracting and dragging down the party - you need to resign", then the party would not have been tarnished.

As for your contempt of armchair critics - does that include the informed ones, like the ones that Bertie told to "fv<k off and commit suicide" when they warned him that he was steering the country into an abyss ?

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The "handful" that you speak of are the ones AT THE TOP LEVEL....

Actually - I just spotted even more of a fudge on this issue....

ninty9er wrote: »

only a handful of people have ever been proven to be corrupt

Bertie wasn't "proven" to be corrupt, but still admitted to the nepotism, was described by King Charvet-Shirt Scum himself as "the most cunning and devious of them all". And was kept at the top.

So we're not talking about the handful proven to be corrupt....we're talking about the ones who are......

PLUS (like I said) the ones who are incompetent
PLUS the ones who lie and betray the electorate (e.g. WOD's two-faced stance on Aer Lingus, O'Donoghue's "zero tolerance", etc.....)

Get rid of them and maybe then we'll consider the party......

But at the mo - like I told the doorsteppers : not a hope!