The Government Could Not Have Continued In Office If There Had Been A "No" Vote

Sir Oxman

Scofflaw wrote: »

I thought he was claiming that a No vote would have forced them out - something I regard as completely wishful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Overall, I think you are right.
Though, it would have killed two birds with one stone (attempted kill on our homegrown cnuts)

It is imperative to the gangster govt we have to railroad NAMA through - after that they simply won't care one jot if they are decimated.
After all, there's always the next time.

prinz

jank wrote: »

When was the last time there was a mass demo outside the dail? There was a Nama demo where about 4 people showed up..

jank wrote: »

How else should the government is to be brought down?

jank wrote: »

Every working man be it in the public or private sector should march on the streets and ask for a GE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_rome

seems to fit the bill. At least then we wouldn't be accused of being meek etc

P. Breathnach

jank wrote: »

So this goes back to my earlier statment, why bother?
The country is ****ed yet people just have to take it up the ass until 2012 or until the greens pull out...

A change of government would not magically fix all our problems.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A change of government would not magically fix all our problems.

You do have to wonder - presumably there is some incredibly easy route out of our problems that involves no pain whatsoever for the average taxpayer, and that the current government aren't taking because they are...vindictively evil? Irretrievably in the vest pockets of the vested interests? Utterly incompetent? Take your pick - anyway, the shining gold door to fiscal redemption is apparently ajar, blocked only by the clotted darkness of Cowen.

Or, you know, not. Maybe we have real problems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MikeC101

Scofflaw wrote: »

You do have to wonder - presumably there is some incredibly easy route out of our problems that involves no pain whatsoever for the average taxpayer, and that the current government aren't taking because they are...vindictively evil? Irretrievably in the vest pockets of the vested interests? Utterly incompetent? Take your pick - anyway, the shining gold door to fiscal redemption is apparently ajar, blocked only by the clotted darkness of Cowen.

Or, you know, not. Maybe we have real problems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The problem is, when people say the "average taxpayer" shouldn't be feeling any pain, what they really mean is *they* don't want to feel any pain. Which is understandable to a certain degree.

The other thing I'm finding surprising is the amount of "the ultra rich should pay" rhetoric that's being bandied about as some sort of solution. Makes me wonder who are the "ultra rich" in Ireland? And if there was a heavy tax levied on the highest income earners, how many of them would become tax exiles before it was brought into force? Or, perhaps even worse, relocate their business to other countries.

meglome

MikeC101 wrote: »

The problem is, when people say the "average taxpayer" shouldn't be feeling any pain, what they really mean is *they* don't want to feel any pain. Which is understandable to a certain degree.

The other thing I'm finding surprising is the amount of "the ultra rich should pay" rhetoric that's being bandied about as some sort of solution. Makes me wonder who are the "ultra rich" in Ireland? And if there was a heavy tax levied on the highest income earners, how many of them would become tax exiles before it was brought into force? Or, perhaps even worse, relocate their business to other countries.

It's the US and THEM crap that is peddled. Some people have no idea how wealth is generated in the economy. They have this delusion that taxing the rich more and more does that.

jank

K-9 wrote: »

Well, we do have a small say over it, unlike yourself.

Which is what now? Posting on internet forums?

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

You do have to wonder - presumably there is some incredibly easy route out of our problems that involves no pain whatsoever for the average taxpayer, and that the current government aren't taking because they are...vindictively evil? Irretrievably in the vest pockets of the vested interests? Utterly incompetent? Take your pick - anyway, the shining gold door to fiscal redemption is apparently ajar, blocked only by the clotted darkness of Cowen.

Or, you know, not. Maybe we have real problems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think if you actually followed what I said I have alluded to the fact.
FG and Labour will not be a magic marker on our current problems by any means but at least NAMA in its current form will be dead. All the other problems well I am sure you have solutions to this yourself.

Your a great man to dance around the problem without having to pin your colours to the mast.

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

I think if you actually followed what I said I have alluded to the fact.
FG and Labour will not be a magic marker on our current problems by any means but at least NAMA in its current form will be dead. All the other problems well I am sure you have solutions to this yourself.

Your a great man to dance around the problem without having to pin your colours to the mast.

Possibly because, as I mentioned, I don't have any particular colours on such issues. I took issue with the idea that a No vote, or anything short of losing their majority, would make Fianna Fáil leave government.

However, now you come to mention it, I have yet to hear a convincing alternative to NAMA, and a lot of the opposition looks to me like people opposing on a knee-jerk basis. That makes the whole "kill Lisbon to kill FF to kill NAMA" meme just a bit too pat in my eyes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly because, as I mentioned, I don't have any particular colours on such issues .

So you are happy enough the way the country is governed. 9/10 people would disagree according to the last poll.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I took issue with the idea that a No vote, or anything short of losing their majority, would make Fianna Fáil leave government.

We have been over this, but I would take the opinion of people who are write about poltics for a living rather than some hacks on boards.ie

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, now you come to mention it, I have yet to hear a convincing alternative to NAMA, and a lot of the opposition looks to me like people opposing on a knee-jerk basis. That makes the whole "kill Lisbon to kill FF to kill NAMA" meme just a bit too pat in my eyes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah, the old FF trick. "We are/ It is the best out of a bad lot"

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

So you are happy enough the way the country is governed. 9/10 people would disagree according to the last poll.

We have been over this, but I would take the opinion of people who are write about poltics for a living rather than some hacks on boards.ie

Ah, the old FF trick. "We are/ It is the best out of a bad lot"

Fair enough - you have a view, you're not going to change it, and people who disagree with you are hacks and FF supporters. I'm familiar enough with people who use their opinions as a yardstick to measure reality with not to require more experience of the breed.


cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

jank wrote: »

So you are happy enough the way the country is governed. 9/10 people would disagree according to the last poll.

While I in no way speak for Scofflaw I think we can take it that he doesn't like this current government. That however doesn't also mean he is a paid up member of any other political party.

jank wrote: »

We have been over this, but I would take the opinion of people who are write about poltics for a living rather than some hacks on boards.ie

I personally would love a change of government. I saw nothing around Lisbon that would lead me to believe the government would quit. In fact I saw and heard things that made me think they wouldn't do that under any circumstances and won't unless the greens pull the plug or it's general election time in 2012.

jank wrote: »

Ah, the old FF trick. "We are/ It is the best out of a bad lot"

Well isn't it the best of a bad lot? When you're drowning in shít are you really worried you're dirty?

We could lose 5 of 10 billion on NAMA over 10 years. We have already lost 20 billion this year on our overspending. It's time we got things in perspective.

jank

meglome wrote: »

While I in no way speak for Scofflaw I think we can take it that he doesn't like this current government. That however doesn't also mean he is a paid up member of any other political party..

Thats fair enough but I asked for opinions on matters and was told he had no opinion. Sitting on the fence to say the least.

meglome wrote: »

I personally would love a change of government. I saw nothing around Lisbon that would lead me to believe the government would quit. In fact I saw and heard things that made me think they wouldn't do that under any circumstances and won't unless the greens pull the plug or it's general election time in 2012..

See previous few pages of this thread for an answer to this.

meglome wrote: »

Well isn't it the best of a bad lot? When you're drowning in shít are you really worried you're dirty?

We could lose 5 of 10 billion on NAMA over 10 years. We have already lost 20 billion this year on our overspending. It's time we got things in perspective.

I think we can lose alot lot more than that nevermind the fact that high propetry prices will then be in the interest of the government. We all know where that economic theory has got us. *Rinse and Repeat!*

meglome

jank wrote: »

Thats fair enough but I asked for opinions on matters and was told he had no opinion. Sitting on the fence to say the least.

I believe he said he didn't have colours on certain issues.

jank wrote: »

See previous few pages of this thread for an answer to this.

I did but didn't see anyone explain why a party with historically low poll results would go hold a general election before it has to. A general election which would undoubtedly lead to a severe hammering. Makes no sense whatsoever.

jank wrote: »

I think we can lose alot lot more than that nevermind the fact that high property prices will then be in the interest of the government. We all know where that economic theory has got us. *Rinse and Repeat!*

I'm sorry but even if the government get the NAMA thing wrong the losses will be large but nothing like we're losing each and every day now. NAMA is scary but our daily losses are truly frightening.

drkpower

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, now you come to mention it, I have yet to hear a convincing alternative to NAMA, and a lot of the opposition looks to me like people opposing on a knee-jerk basis.

While there may be some truth to that statement, the suggestion that a fundamental change in Government would not be a massive positive is not in keeping with reality.

Certainly, it will not immediately fix all our problems. But, for our problems to be fixed, massive cuts/changes/pain will need to be inflicted on pretty much every sector of society. When that is done by a Government with historically low approval levels in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis, it is destined to result in industrial action and the resultant chaos, division and bitterness that that will bring. To sell such measures to the electorate, we need to trust the sellers. Right now we dont.

The only downside to a change in Government is the potential instability a 3-6 week election campaign might bring. But to say that a new Government is a bad idea is an untenable position.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

While there may be some truth to that statement, the suggestion that a fundamental change in Government would not be a massive positive is not in keeping with reality.

Certainly, it will not immediately fix all our problems. But, for our problems to be fixed, massive cuts/changes/pain will need to be inflicted on pretty much every sector of society. When that is done by a Government with historically low approval levels in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis, it is destined to result in industrial action and the resultant chaos, division and bitterness that that will bring. To sell such measures to the electorate, we need to trust the sellers. Right now we dont.

The only downside to a change in Government is the potential instability a 3-6 week election campaign might bring. But to say that a new Government is a bad idea is an untenable position.

To be honest I want a general election some time around next summer, after NAMA has been brought in and after the budget etc. NAMA in theory is a good way to get the country back on its feet and the only way I think it'll fall down is mismanagement, such as the government not forcing the banks to lend out the money they've been given.

I've heard things like Labour saying there's no need for public sector wage cuts and that's just madness. They know as well as anyone that they're badly needed but if they say that they won't get elected. So I want FF to bring in all the painful cuts that no one wants even thought they're absolutely necessary and once the country is committed we can have a general election and get the other guys in to manage it. They'll then be in a much better position because they can keep the cuts that are necessary and roll back a bit on others. Say Labour came in now and gave the public sector an 8% cut they'd be strung up but if FF give them a 10% cut and Labour come in and give them back 2% everyone will love them

meglome

drkpower wrote: »

While there may be some truth to that statement, the suggestion that a fundamental change in Government would not be a massive positive is not in keeping with reality.

Certainly, it will not immediately fix all our problems. But, for our problems to be fixed, massive cuts/changes/pain will need to be inflicted on pretty much every sector of society. When that is done by a Government with historically low approval levels in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis, it is destined to result in industrial action and the resultant chaos, division and bitterness that that will bring. To sell such measures to the electorate, we need to trust the sellers. Right now we dont.

The only downside to a change in Government is the potential instability a 3-6 week election campaign might bring. But to say that a new Government is a bad idea is an untenable position.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that a change in government could be a positive thing. Scofflaw's point appears to be (and I agree with it) that the problems are so bad that it won't necessarily matter what government are in.

drkpower

meglome wrote: »

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that a change in government could be a positive thing. Scofflaw's point appears to be (and I agree with it) that the problems are so bad that it won't necessarily matter what government are in.

While are problems are bad:eek:, they can get worse:eek::eek:.

And one way for them to get worse is for the country to be paralysed by public (or private) sector strikes for a considerable length of time. That would hit us further in the pocket but more importantly would destroy are credibility and threaten our competitiveness should the upturn ever arrive.

Not that the PS will take cuts completely lying down if a new Government introduces these cuts, but it will immeasurably assist in maintaining some kiund of industrial calm if the cutter has a fresh mandate from the people.

SkepticOne

meglome wrote: »

Scofflaw's point appears to be (and I agree with it) that the problems are so bad that it won't necessarily matter what government are in.

I think the current situation can be likened to a ship going down and the captain making sure himself, his immediate crew and their friends get the lifeboats. Sure people don't like it but these are the 'tough choices', as they put it, that the government has to make.

I would agree with those who say we are in for a difficult time ahead but I would be rather have someone in charge who didn't directly cause the problem and who hasn't yet built up the network of people who are owed favours or relationships with vested interests who need to be kept happy.

If you are saying it doesn't matter who is running the country in difficult times then when exactly does it matter? When times are easy?

I would argue that when we are facing difficulties that is precisely the time you want those who caused the problems out.

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

Thats fair enough but I asked for opinions on matters and was told he had no opinion. Sitting on the fence to say the least.

In fact, you suggested I was 'dancing around the issue' rather than 'nailing my colours to the mast'. All I pointed out was that I don't have any colours to nail to the mast in this instance - that's not the same as having no opinion.

My own view, if you insist on having it, is that the current government is well outside its competence zone, and, moreover, has been outside its competence zone for the last decade at least. I don't have the visceral hatred for them that some appear to be able to manage, but there's no denying that Fianna Fáil completely squandered the boom, buying electoral popularity with short-sighted pro-cyclical policies that inflated an extremely predictable housing boom and dangerously distorted the economy.

I don't think it's possibly, really, to exaggerate the extent to which Fianna Fáil are economic wreckers - their entire history in government is one of pro-cyclic fiscal stupidity, costly white elephants, 'strategic planning' that encompasses only the short-term goal of shoring up their voting support at the long-term expense of any kind of coherent vision, while at the local level they're a byword for bucolic venality,petty corruption, and an almost total intellectual failure to understand the very concept of planning.

However, at the moment the field of possible choices for any government has narrowed to only a few - and it seems to me that it matters little who does them, since the shape of the choices are largely dictated by external events and constraints.

On that basis, I would rather not waste the opportunity for a new government on those things that have to be done regardless - I would prefer to see Fianna Fáil stay in power and tidy up their own mess for once. The Rainbow government did Fianna Fáil's tidying in the Nineties, and all it achieved for them was over a decade of uninterrupted relegation to the opposition benches.

I can see the point of NAMA, and it's a reasonable solution to a problem that will otherwise destroy the Irish economy - most particularly, it will destroy native SMEs. I can also see that Fianna Fáil might well try to fiddle it in favour of their developer friends, but I think their leeway for doing so is extremely limited, since the ECB is involved, and the IMF is observing. Fine Gael's 'alternative' wasn't anything other than knee-jerk opposition.

jank wrote: »

See previous few pages of this thread for an answer to this.

One which only you appear to find satisfactory. I'm certainly not interested in removing Fianna Fáil from office at this point - they have sown, so let them reap.


cordially,
Scofflaw

drkpower

Scofflaw wrote: »

InOne which only you appear to find satisfactory. I'm certainly not interested in removing Fianna Fáil from office at this point - they have sown, so let them reap.

I dont especially want to over-egg my point on this but I have to point out that this attitude, whilst understandable, is dangerous. The likelihood of industrial strife arising out of cuts is increased substantially if they are delivered by an incredibly unpopular FF Gov rather than by a slightly more popular FG (+/-Lab) Gov with a fresh mandate.

I also want FF to pay, to essentially to be decimated for a generation if not longer. But that temptation to let them reap what they sow will slow and/or threaten our recovery. Feelings of revenge, while understandable, are mis-placed and counter-productive.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... My own view, if you insist on having it, is that the current government is well outside its competence zone, and, moreover, has been outside its competence zone for the last decade at least. I don't have the visceral hatred for them that some appear to be able to manage, but there's no denying that Fianna Fáil completely squandered the boom, buying electoral popularity with short-sighted pro-cyclical policies that inflated an extremely predictable housing boom and dangerously distorted the economy.

I don't think it's possibly, really, to exaggerate the extent to which Fianna Fáil are economic wreckers - their entire history in government is one of pro-cyclic fiscal stupidity, costly white elephants, 'strategic planning' that encompasses only the short-term goal of shoring up their voting support at the long-term expense of any kind of coherent vision, while at the local level they're a byword for bucolic venality,petty corruption, and an almost total intellectual failure to understand the very concept of planning...

I largely agree, but cavil at the use of "bucolic" as a negative epithet.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I largely agree, but cavil at the use of "bucolic" as a negative epithet.

It's more of a qualifying adjective for 'venality'...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

drkpower wrote: »

I dont especially want to over-egg my point on this but I have to point out that this attitude, whilst understandable, is dangerous. The likelihood of industrial strife arising out of cuts is increased substantially if they are delivered by an incredibly unpopular FF Gov rather than by a slightly more popular FG (+/-Lab) Gov with a fresh mandate.

I also want FF to pay, to essentially to be decimated for a generation if not longer. But that temptation to let them reap what they sow will slow and/or threaten our recovery. Feelings of revenge, while understandable, are mis-placed and counter-productive.

It's not about revenge - it's about the damage to Fianna Fáil. A slowing of our recovery now is well worth the damage done to Fianna Fáil, since their re-election will simply lead to squandering of that recovery, making the recovery itself unsustainable.

Approximately a quarter of the country will not vote anything but Fianna Fáil - there is, therefore, a solid base for their electoral performance, unless they are sufficiently unpopular that their own gene pool would rather abstain than vote them in.

cordially,
Scofflaw

drkpower

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not about revenge - it's about the damage to Fianna Fáil. A slowing of our recovery now is well worth the damage done to Fianna Fáil, since their re-election will simply lead to squandering of that recovery, making the recovery itself unsustainable.

Approximately a quarter of the country will not vote anything but Fianna Fáil - there is, therefore, a solid base for their electoral performance, unless they are sufficiently unpopular that their own gene pool would rather abstain than vote them in.

Are you suggesting that FF could be re-elected in any upcoming election? Surely not.

Or are you suggesting that a slowing of our recovery now is worth the intermediate - long term destruction of FF? If so, I am surprised that you would be so reckless with the Nation's future. If the industrial action that is threatened on foot of cuts happens, it could be catastrophic to the perilous state we are in. It may not be a case of merely slowing our recovery so much as threatening the State's very viability. The support for such industrial strife will be significantly reduced if the cuts come from a new freshly-mandated Government (whoever they are).

Trust me, Id like to see FF disappear (through the gates of M'joy...) but risking the State to destroy FF is absolute lunacy.

thebman

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggesting that FF could be re-elected in any upcoming election? Surely not.

Or are you suggesting that a slowing of our recovery now is worth the intermediate - long term destruction of FF? If so, I am surprised that you would be so reckless with the Nation's future. If the industrial action that is threatened on foot of cuts happens, it could be catastrophic to the perilous state we are in. It may not be a case of merely slowing our recovery so much as threatening the State's very viability. The support for such industrial strife will be significantly reduced if the cuts come from a new freshly-mandated Government (whoever they are).

Trust me, Id like to see FF disappear (through the gates of M'joy...) but risking the State to destroy FF is absolute lunacy.

A FF recovery ruins the state anyway so the only choice is to risk the state TBH.

Scofflaw

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggesting that FF could be re-elected in any upcoming election? Surely not.

Or are you suggesting that a slowing of our recovery now is worth the intermediate - long term destruction of FF? If so, I am surprised that you would be so reckless with the Nation's future. If the industrial action that is threatened on foot of cuts happens, it could be catastrophic to the perilous state we are in. It may not be a case of merely slowing our recovery so much as threatening the State's very viability. The support for such industrial strife will be significantly reduced if the cuts come from a new freshly-mandated Government (whoever they are).

Trust me, Id like to see FF disappear (through the gates of M'joy...) but risking the State to destroy FF is absolute lunacy.

I don't believe the choice between the current government and a putative alternative is a choice between risking the State and not risking the State. There is a risk to the State, and it might be a little higher under the current government, but if the Irish people prefer to choose self-destruction over accepting the necessary pain under Fianna Fáil, they're not going to choose to accept it under Fine Gael either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

drkpower

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't believe the choice between the current government and a putative alternative is a choice between risking the State and not risking the State. There is a risk to the State, and it might be a little higher under the current government, but if the Irish people prefer to choose self-destruction over accepting the necessary pain under Fianna Fáil, they're not going to choose to accept it under Fine Gael either.

Of course, it is not an all-or-nothing game. But, as you admit, there is a real risk to the very viability of the State. That is a pretty remarkable state of affairs. In such circumstances, we should be doing everything that we can, literally everything, to reduce that risk. One of those things is ensuring that the Government who has to enact draconian measures has the requisite practical mandate to do so.

Yet, you and others would prefer to leave FF in Government, thus increasing (perhaps to a small degree) that risk to the State. And for what? To ensure FF's long-term annihilation. ... A State with FF may stink, but its better than no State at all.

Im afraid that your attitude is incredibly irresponsible. And given the stakes, it is far more irresponsible than those who chose to vote No on the basis of very little. And we know what you think about them....:eek:

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, it is not an all-or-nothing game. But, as you admit, there is a real risk to the very viability of the State. That is a pretty remarkable state of affairs. In such circumstances, we should be doing everything that we can, literally everything, to reduce that risk. One of those things is ensuring that the Government who has to enact draconian measures has the requisite practical mandate to do so.

Yet, you and others would prefer to leave FF in Government, thus increasing (perhaps to a small degree) that risk to the State. And for what? To ensure FF's long-term annihilation. ... A State with FF may stink, but its better than no State at all.

Im afraid that your attitude is incredibly irresponsible. And given the stakes, it is far more irresponsible than those who chose to vote No on the basis of very little. And we know what you think about them....:eek:

As I said earlier, I want FF in power to make these changes because these changes will have to be made regardless and I doubt the public sector are just going to bend over and take it if Enda Kenny is telling them to do it instead of Brian Cowen. Once these cuts have been put in place we can bring in a shiny new government who can blame everything on FF but still keep most if not all of the cuts they brought in. Everybody's happy

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I said earlier, I want FF in power to make these changes because these changes will have to be made regardless and I doubt the public sector are just going to bend over and take it if Enda Kenny is telling them to do it instead of Brian Cowen. Once these cuts have been put in place we can bring in a shiny new government who can blame everything on FF but still keep most if not all of the cuts they brought in. Everybody's happy

If Enda Kenny is telling them to take it, he will be doing so frsh from obtaining a significant mandate from the public. Strikes only last if they have a degree of public support. The level of public support will be further decreased if they cutters have secured a fresh (and probably) overwhelming mandate.

It is not that the Ps will take it from Cowen easier than they will from Cowen; it is that they will know that the potential for a successful strike is significantly lower if directed against a freshly mandated Government.