To the 24.8% who gave Fianna Fail a first preference: Why ?

Cunning Alias

meglome wrote: »

Which would be fine if the person is an independent. But if that person has happily and quietly followed the FF party line they don't deserve a vote.

Oh come on. So by that logic you are saying that even if the individual is the best person for the job. They dont deserve any votes because of their party.

Liam Byrne

Cunning Alias wrote: »

Oh come on. So by that logic you are saying that even if the individual is the best person for the job. They dont deserve any votes because of their party.

Yup. I told 3 people that if they wanted my vote they could resign from FF and come back to me.

The candidate themselves could be brilliant, but if you help promote and condone incompetence and corruption, then they're a liability.

meglome

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yup. I told 3 people that if they wanted my vote they could resign from FF and come back to me.

The candidate themselves could be brilliant, but if you help promote and condone incompetence and corruption, then they're a liability.

Exactly if you support a party that is putting the country in the toilet you'd need to be seriously amazing to get my vote. Then again if you were that amazing you wouldn't be in Fianna Fail.

Dr Galen

Cunning Alias wrote: »

Oh come on. So by that logic you are saying that even if the individual is the best person for the job. They dont deserve any votes because of their party.

pretty much yes.

by taking the badge of a party, then i assume they condone and agree with the policies and actions of that party. If the candidates don't share the same views as the party, then why are they a member and running for office under that banner?

if as Liam Byrne suggests a candidate who was previously FF, stood down from the party in protest, then there is a chance of my vote, obviously depending on their platform etc.

edit: btw that follows through on all parties not just FF. for example, i disagree totally with Sinn Feins policies, also any of the ragtag socialist workers party crew too.

colly10

meglome wrote: »

So just because you don't like Enda Kennys personality you'd still rather vote for a party that has brought the country to the brink of financial ruin. Sweet ****ing christ.

I rarely agree with him either and I just think he just goes against the FF stance rather than looking at whats best for the country, it's not just that I think he's a complete tosser.

I also think FG will not do a better job

Liam Byrne

colly10 wrote: »

I just think he just goes against the FF stance rather than looking at whats best for the country

So it's somehow HIS fault if those 2 things coincide ?

colly10 wrote: »

I also think FG will not do a better job

Do you think they could do worse ?

I don't, but if you do, fair enough. But if you think they'd even do an EQUAL job, the fact that it would be minus the corruption and self-serving "hire our buddies and pay them bonuses even if they don't do their jobs" would be an improvement.

Dr Galen

colly10 wrote: »

I rarely agree with him either and I just think he just goes against the FF stance rather than looking at whats best for the country, it's not just that I think he's a complete tosser.

I also think FG will not do a better job

maybe those two things aren't mutually exclusive? would you maybe share some examples of what you mean by just going against FF and not for the good of the country?

and tbh, if a politician does what in my mind is right for the country and i agree with the policies, I couldn't give a rats ass if he is a tosser. Obviously, personality is important in public office, but I've voted for candidates in the past, who I've met and thought "i don't like him, but he's making good points"

Cunning Alias

Think people need to remember this is a local election, not a general election.

Dr Galen

i'm well aware f what type of election it is CA, but that doesn't take away from the fact that by representing a part in any election, the candidate is endorsing the policies of the whole party , even those that don't necessarily apply directly to that election.

my local issues are also directly tied to national policy, for example, local education issues and funding for schools. healthcare - and specifically the provision of decent primary care services etc. so my vote goes to the party that I feel is best euipped to deal with the issues affecting me, both nationally and locally.

also don't forget, a lot of the crazy planning decisions that have contributed to the present property and banking crisis were in several cases, allowed to proceed by local authorities. again an example of how all politics becomes local, and how local can become national in a short space of time

Cunning Alias

Fair point MM. Im 25 so the issues that bother me are probably a bit different than people older than me. I asked the same questions to each person who came to the door and I voted on their answers. Simple as.

You can say its foolish that I didn't vote by party but thats how I decided.

Oh and I didn't give FF any votes in the EU.

Dr Galen

Cunning Alias wrote: »

Fair point MM. Im 25 so the issues that bother me are probably a bit different than people older than me. I asked the same questions to each person who came to the door and I voted on their answers. Simple as.

You can say its foolish that I didn't vote by party but thats how I decided.

Oh and I didn't give FF any votes in the EU.

to be fair CA i'd say you were far from foolish.

foolish is voting for someone because they are someone's son or daughter or uncle etc

you had a system, asked the questions and then made a choice, based on what was important to you. i may not agree with you overall choices, but i think it's great that you had given it some thought.

Elmo

I would like to know why 57% of the people voted for the same party?

As for the 24% of people who voted for FF, you don't get to ask why, this is a democracy people can vote anyway they want.

And they have so while I might think it odd that 57% of people are fool by FG/FF I can only respect their decision.

I would question why 38% of people voted for FF in the last GE? but sure that is just how it is.

bmaxi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But if you think they'd even do an EQUAL job, the fact that it would be minus the corruption and self-serving "hire our buddies and pay them bonuses even if they don't do their jobs" would be an improvement.

Although no lover of FF, I don't think any of the other parties have a squeaky clean record in the "hire our buddies" stakes. After every General Election where the Government is defeated there is a mad rush to appoint heads of committees, departments, boards etc. I remember in particular, a bust up between Brian Cowen and Michael Noonan, after Cowen overturned appointments Noonan had made just before leaving office.
One thing that needs to be brought home to FG, Labour and the rest is, the public will not stand for any more corruption and their tenure in Government will be very short lived if they don't clean up the system.

Elmo

bmaxi wrote: »

One thing that needs to be brought home to FG, Labour and the rest is, the public will not stand for any more corruption and their tenure in Government will be very short lived if they don't clean up the system.

I wish this was the case unfortunately we just have to look about on the successful FF 2007 election to see that this really is not the case.

colly10

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So it's somehow HIS fault if those 2 things coincide ?

I would be cynical enough to believe that he forms his opinion based on the opposite of FF's, I mean FF must make the odd good decision from time to time but he is never anything but critical and rarely states exactly what he would do to improve on it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you think they could do worse ?

I don't, but if you do, fair enough. But if you think they'd even do an EQUAL job, the fact that it would be minus the corruption and self-serving "hire our buddies and pay them bonuses even if they don't do their jobs" would be an improvement.

I think they could possibly, they lack experience so theres no reason why not. It would be hard for them to be corrupt now in fairness, they may be when they get into power.
Small corruption (like Ahern) doesn't bother me to be honest as long as the persons doing a good job. Id rather have Ahern running the country despite anything he's done

Im not pro FF or anti FG btw, I just have no time for Kenny and would hate the thought of him running the country

Elmo

colly10 wrote: »

I think they could possibly, they lack experience so theres no reason why not. It would be hard for them to be corrupt now in fairness, they may be when they get into power.
Small corruption (like Ahern) doesn't bother me to be honest as long as the persons doing a good job. Id rather have Ahern running the country despite anything he's done

Lacking experience is a joke.

Small corruption? RAY BURKE Minister for Foreign Affairs and he knew nothing, nothing, poor fool of a man Ahern? :mad:

Power corrupts but it isn't an excuse.

bmaxi

Elmo wrote: »

I wish this was the case unfortunately we just have to look about on the successful FF 2007 election to see that this really is not the case.

It's up to you and me to make it the case. As has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum and others, it is public apathy that allows politicians to get away with this c*ap.
You only have to look to the UK at the moment to see what can be achieved by "people power". It is conceivable that 50% of sitting MPs will be gone by or at the next election.

Sir Oxman

colly10 wrote: »

I would be cynical enough to believe that he forms his opinion based on the opposite of FF's, I mean FF must make the odd good decision from time to time but he is never anything but critical and rarely states exactly what he would do to improve on it.



I think they could possibly, they lack experience so theres no reason why not. It would be hard for them to be corrupt now in fairness, they may be when they get into power.
Small corruption (like Ahern) doesn't bother me to be honest as long as the persons doing a good job. Id rather have Ahern running the country despite anything he's done

Im not pro FF or anti FG btw, I just have no time for Kenny and would hate the thought of him running the country

This is what I cannot and will never understand.
Ahern didn't 'do a good job', he basically fckd you and I and our childrens children up the arse for the foreseeable.

colly10

gambiaman wrote: »

This is what I cannot and will never understand.
Ahern didn't 'do a good job', he basically fckd you and I and our childrens children up the arse for the foreseeable.

If they weren't spending money then people would complain that they weren't, yes there was money wasted but thats something you'll always get. Even if the country was loaded now, we'd still have job losses (and people would probably calling for a raise in the dole)

gcgirl

colly10 wrote: »

If they weren't spending money then people would complain that they weren't, yes there was money wasted but thats something you'll always get. Even if the country was loaded now, we'd still have job losses (and people would probably calling for a raise in the dole)

Small corruption ?? Are you having a laugh?
SSIA, early childcare allowance, dropping tax rates, bringing capital gains tax down, Election winning giveaways our government cant solely depend on Stamp duty to keep us going and thats why we're ****ed !
Education and health are completely screwed!!

And from what i have heard Now Berti is trying to take the credit for making the ''Wheel''?

SaturnV

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

i'm well aware f what type of election it is CA, but that doesn't take away from the fact that by representing a party in any election, the candidate is endorsing the policies of the whole party , even those that don't necessarily apply directly to that election.

Is this really true? What are the limits of this? Is it just party policies, or philosophy, or the behaviour of individual members of the party? How was your vote in the european elections affected by the european party the candidates would sit with if elected, as it must have been if you follow through on this logic.

Specifically, has there been an instance of a councilor not doing something that was detrimental to their constitiuents that was a direct result of them "towing the party line"? That's a genuine question, by the way...

Dr Galen

SaturnV wrote: »

Is it just party policies, or philosophy, or the behaviour of individual members of the party?

by standing for a party, I'd believe that a candidate also stands for and buys into the policies and philosophies of said party

behaviour of individual members of the party would have some role to play, but that would depend on that person's importance withing the party wouldn't it. If they influenced the policies etc, then you'd have to take that into consideration

How was your vote in the european elections affected by the european party the candidates would sit with if elected, as it must have been if you follow through on this logic.

it certainly did. not to the same extent, because as much as i'd love to have the time to go through each EU groupings full platforms, life gets a bit in the way but you are right, my logic would lead to this being the case too.

Specifically, has there been an instance of a councilor not doing something that was detrimental to their constitiuents that was a direct result of them "towing the party line"? That's a genuine question, by the way...

well yes, how about a Green supporting the party line on providing support to FF? ON the flipside of this, there have been instances where councillors have NOT towed the party line, for example the cutbacks in Crumlin, and those people should rightly get praise for acting in that way when it is for the greater good. I do try and see it all ways, hard as that is sometimes though

Yoda

Elmo wrote: »

s for the 24% of people who voted for FF, you don't get to ask why, this is a democracy people can vote anyway they want.

Erm, no. Since it is a democracy you can't make them vote one way or another. Asking "Why?" is perfectly reasonable.

As is considering the reasons they did so to be poor, or at least incredible.

Elmo

gcgirl wrote: »

Small corruption ?? Are you having a laugh?
SSIA, early childcare allowance, dropping tax rates, bringing capital gains tax down, Election winning giveaways our government cant solely depend on Stamp duty to keep us going and thats why we're ****ed !
Education and health are completely screwed!!

And from what i have heard Now Berti is trying to take the credit for making the ''Wheel''?

In fairness that isn't corruption a Government is well within its right to provide all of the above services. I am sure FG would have run with similar policies. We even saw at the 2007 election that both FG and Labour where planning to spend based on figures provided by the Dept of Finance. I amn't defending the policies of FF but they are not much different to those of FG. And lets face it people where only to happy to continue with FF in government. TBH I have no sympathy.

Elmo

bmaxi wrote: »

It's up to you and me to make it the case. As has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum and others, it is public apathy that allows politicians to get away with this c*ap.
You only have to look to the UK at the moment to see what can be achieved by "people power". It is conceivable that 50% of sitting MPs will be gone by or at the next election.

Well voting FG and giving them a golden spoon doesn't show that.

Ardent

colly10 wrote: »

I didn't bother voting (for the first time) but if I was I wouldn't have any problem voting for FF, they've been poor but I don't think anyone else would have done a better job (and could have done worse).
I don't like Enda Kenny as a leader and will never give FG a vote while he's leading the party

You, sir, are an idiot.

TheInquisitor

Ardent wrote: »

You, sir, are an idiot.

Wow and what a genius argument that is. Well done

gcgirl

Elmo wrote: »

In fairness that isn't corruption a Government is well within its right to provide all of the above services. I am sure FG would have run with similar policies. We even saw at the 2007 election that both FG and Labour where planning to spend based on figures provided by the Dept of Finance. I amn't defending the policies of FF but they are not much different to those of FG. And lets face it people where only to happy to continue with FF in government. TBH I have no sympathy.

How much of ECA went overseas instead of setting government run childcare facilates Look at France and other EU states? FF have been there since 97 instead proping up their builder mates and making a mess of the finances most 6th class students prob would have done a better job!

Ardent

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Wow and what a genius argument that is. Well done

It had to be said.

colly10

Ardent wrote: »

You, sir, are an idiot.

Yes im an idiot because I will not vote someone who I dislike in as taoiseach of this country :rolleyes: