Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

yes to jobs...

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mitch Connor wrote: »
    Indeed, no doubt there are lots of No voters out there who voted Noas they believed that a Yes would secure abortion, euthanasia and a EUR 1.84 minimum wage for themselves.
    If there are, I wonder if they would be consoled by the reality that the yes vote carried the day, and yet these things have not come to pass.

    I suspect, however, that the response (were they to be asked) would be to tell us that no-one expected it to happen the very next day.


  • Options
    #123
    candy-gal1
    Registered Users Posts: 6,568 ✭✭✭candy-gal1


    as i said before i voted no, il say again, YES TO JOBS!? what does that even mean tbh?! soundbite much!


  • Options
    #124
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Mitch Connor wrote: »
    Indeed, no doubt there are lots of No voters out there who voted Noas they believed that a Yes would secure abortion, euthanasia and a EUR 1.84 minimum wage for themselves. They were probably the crucial swing voters that ensured the Lisbon amendment wasn't passed last time.:rolleyes:

    Well, the post-referenda analysis from Lisbon I would seem to indicate that an sizeable chunk of No voters did vote No because of precisely these concerns.

    And, with the guarentees in place, they happily swung back into the Yes camp for Lisbon II.

    Without all that scaremongering by the No side in Lisbon I, the Yes side would (almost) definitely have won it outright.


  • Options
    #125
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    candy-gal1 wrote: »
    as i said before i voted no, il say again, YES TO JOBS!? what does that even mean tbh?! soundbite much!

    Maybe you should read the thread?


  • Options
    #126
    ih8northsiders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭ih8northsiders


    candy-gal1 wrote: »
    as i said before i voted no, il say again, YES TO JOBS!? what does that even mean tbh?! soundbite much!

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    candy-gal1 wrote: »
    as i said before i voted no, il say again, YES TO JOBS!? what does that even mean tbh?! soundbite much!
    The yes side in this forum are insinuating that "yes to jobs" doesnt actually mean "yes to jobs", and never did mean that. Yet I (and a couple of other posters who agreed with me) are called retards for having that point of view.


  • Options
    #128
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    The yes side in this forum are insinuating that "yes to jobs" doesnt actually mean "yes to jobs", and never did mean that. Yet I (and a couple of other posters who agreed with me) are called retards for having that point of view.
    OK, so we're clear: you genuinely believe that those posters that said "Yes to Jobs" were promising that jobs would be created as a direct, immediate and inevitable consequence of a "yes" vote?


  • Options
    #129
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, so we're clear: you genuinely believe that those posters that said "Yes to Jobs" were promising that jobs would be created as a direct, immediate and inevitable consequence of a "yes" vote?

    They're politicians, oscarBravo - of course we didn't believe them.

    The issue - to me, anyway - is that they then claimed that they didn't use it as a tactic.

    And THAT, at least, is 100% bull****.

    They dug an unnecessary hole by creating and being pictured with those posters and flyers, so they should be held accountable.


  • Options
    #130
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #131
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, so we're clear: you genuinely believe that those posters that said "Yes to Jobs" were promising that jobs would be created as a direct, immediate and inevitable consequence of a "yes" vote?
    Direct: Yes
    Inevitable:Yes
    Consequence of a Yes vote : Yes
    Immediate: Obviously not

    TBH I think that people who voted yes know that they were mislead now, but wont admit it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    They're politicians, oscarBravo - of course we didn't believe them.
    I'm not asking whether people believed the promises, I'm asking exactly what people believed was being promised.
    The issue - to me, anyway - is that they then claimed that they didn't use it as a tactic.
    With respect, that's a different topic.


  • Options
    #133
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    Direct: Yes
    Inevitable:Yes
    Consequence of a Yes vote : Yes
    Immediate: Obviously not
    OK, so you believe that the people who used the slogan "Yes for Jobs" were promising that jobs would be created as a direct and inevitable consequence of a "yes" vote, but you don't believe that they promised that it would happen immediately.

    Two more questions: how do you arrive at that interpretation from three words without any further context, and why are you complaining about the promise not being fulfilled yet when you accept that it wasn't promised immediately?


  • Options
    #134
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,601 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    Direct: Yes
    Inevitable:Yes
    Consequence of a Yes vote : Yes
    Immediate: Obviously not

    TBH I think that people who voted yes know that they were mislead now, but wont admit it

    Oh ffs.

    Not everyone voted based on the irrelevent slogans quoted by both sides.

    I think I actually mentioned this in another thread before the vote, but this is exactly as I predicted. The NO side latching onto any negative thing that happens from here on in, and blaming the Yes vote for it.
    On the flip side the yes vote will latch onto any positivity and give the credit to the yes vote.

    Both are equally as wrong as each other to be honest.


  • Options
    #135
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Two more questions: how do you arrive at that interpretation from three words without any further context, and why are you complaining about the promise not being fulfilled yet when you accept that it wasn't promised immediately?
    Its not an interpretation, its what the slogan says! Its promising Jobs (yes to jobs) and economic recovery (yes to recovery), obviously thats not happening in a day/week

    kippy wrote: »
    Oh ffs.

    Not everyone voted based on the irrelevent slogans quoted by both sides.

    I think I actually mentioned this in another thread before the vote, but this is exactly as I predicted. The NO side latching onto any negative thing that happens from here on in, and blaming the Yes vote for it.
    On the flip side the yes vote will latch onto any positivity and give the credit to the yes vote.

    Both are equally as wrong as each other to be honest.
    Some of the worst signs were from coir (a group I abhor btw). As i have mentioned in other threads, that infamous 1.84 poster was a flat out lie, and cost the no side votes


  • Options
    #136
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    This is like the claims that a Yes to the Constitution in Spain caused Unemployment. Pointless thread.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #137
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    Its not an interpretation, its what the slogan says! Its promising Jobs (yes to jobs) and economic recovery (yes to recovery), obviously thats not happening in a day/week
    So why are we discussing it a week to the day after the vote, and before the treaty has even been ratified?


  • Options
    #138
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    Its not an interpretation, its what the slogan says! Its promising Jobs (yes to jobs) and economic recovery (yes to recovery), obviously thats not happening in a day/week

    So where, then, is the problem?

    You agree that teh posters were not saying "jobs will be available, on tap, immediately".

    Someone has complained that there have been further job losses, and the yes side have said exactly what you've just agreed with here...that they never claimed jobs would be available, on tap, immediately.

    You've taken personal offence that they've said nasty things about anyone who believed this...despite you agreeing that this isn't what you believe.

    You've claimed that they're backing away from the claim...when you agree that teh interpretation they're backing away from isn't what it ever meant in the first place.

    Yet, when someone complains that jobs aren't available, on tap, immediately, and yes voters say that this isn't what was meant...you're accusing them of backing away from promises.

    I'm at a loss to understand what your objection is, when you seem to be objecting about the yes voters saying they understand the slogan the same way you do.


  • Options
    #139
    Hydrosylator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Hydrosylator


    View wrote: »
    Most private and company pension funds are heavily invested in the stock market. Likewise, the NTMA - which has been charged with funding the state OAP pension scheme in the (distant) future - is also heavily invested in the stock market.

    As such, unless you either intend to die or are certain you will (due to illness) before reaching pensionable age, the stock market really does involve you and everyone else.
    Unless like me and hundreds of thousands more, you have no pension.


  • Options
    #140
    Hydrosylator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭Hydrosylator


    ih8northsiders wrote: »
    my family voted yes to lisbon and both my parents have high paying jobs. so yeah yes to jobs makes sense.
    Why, did they get the jobs on Monday?


  • Options
    #141
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    my issue is that on the day the treaty was passed, the government distanced themselves from the claims (clear as day claims) that they made during the campaign. These two claims singlehandedly won them the referendum


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,025 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Lisbon won't make the slightest bit of difference to Ireland's economic woes. The problems are deep and mostly internal to Ireland. The yes side should of course never have linked Lisbon to jobs, but they chose to. If Ireland doesn't cut it's cloth to suit it's measure pretty soon, the whole thing will come crashing down.


  • Options
    #143
    Martin 2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 268 ✭✭Martin 2


    I always saw the Yes slogans in a relative rather than an absolute sense; there were 2 possible outcomes a Yes or a No vote and relative to a No vote a yes would likely help the economy, create jobs (net) and aid recovery. Many people felt this way based on the word of business orgs, MNC's, economists and a fair amount of intuition.
    Inferences from these campaign slogans are only meaningful if they compare what has happened after the yes vote to what might have happened had we voted no. Time is also a critical factor, the reaction can be fast in terms of stock/bond market response or slow in terms of FDI and job creation.


  • Options
    #144
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    These two claims singlehandedly won them the referendum

    I have to pull you up on this, MaxPower; I'm disgusted at the posters (nothing to do with the vote) and I disagree with the poster above who added the caveat ("on tap, immediately") in order to dilute the lies.

    HOWEVER the fact of the matter is that there were a myriad of factors in relation to the vote.

    It was defeated last time, partially because the Government ****ed up and didn't negotiate the issues that they later claimed caused the "no". While this may have been stretching the truth, it certainly was a factor.

    Personally I think that if those issues were serious factors, this is an indictment of the Government and the cost of the re-run is yet another example of waste, because negotiation in advance would have gotten around this.

    But would those clarifications have been enough ? We'll never know.

    The fact is that the "Yes to Jobs" was a red herring, and those involved in coming up with that - now distancing themselves from the "jingle" by lying about it and even removing posters within a day of the vote - should be shot, as well as held accountable for the cost of the misleading posters.

    So there were lots of factors; some valid, and some lies. But you've said it yourself...
    Max Power1 wrote: »
    As i have mentioned in other threads, that infamous 1.84 poster was a flat out lie, and cost the no side votes
    Max Power1 wrote: »
    These two claims singlehandedly won them the referendum

    In those two quotes alone you're contradicting yourself.


  • Options
    #145
    ih8northsiders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭ih8northsiders


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    the best poster on these forums speaks.


  • Options
    #146
    free to prosper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭free to prosper


    Mr [Eamon] Ryan said that if there is a Yes vote on Friday, it will pave the way for economic recovery.

    “The recovery starts on Saturday,” he said.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0930/breaking79.htm

    2, 450 jobs lost since Saturday and counting.


  • Options
    #147
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The fact is that the "Yes to Jobs" was a red herring, and those involved in coming up with that - now distancing themselves from the "jingle" by lying about it and even removing posters within a day of the vote - should be shot, as well as held accountable for the cost of the misleading posters.

    Maybe they are taking the posters down because they have to?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #148
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    free to prosper wrote: »
    Mr [Eamon] Ryan said that if there is a Yes vote on Friday, it will pave the way for economic recovery.

    “The recovery starts on Saturday,” he said.
    Yup, that was a pretty stupid thing to say.

    Politician in "saying something stupid" shocker - film at 11.


  • Options
    #149
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I have to pull you up on this, MaxPower; I'm disgusted at the posters (nothing to do with the vote) and I disagree with the poster above who added the caveat ("on tap, immediately") in order to dilute the lies.

    HOWEVER the fact of the matter is that there were a myriad of factors in relation to the vote.

    It was defeated last time, partially because the Government ****ed up and didn't negotiate the issues that they later claimed caused the "no". While this may have been stretching the truth, it certainly was a factor.

    Personally I think that if those issues were serious factors, this is an indictment of the Government and the cost of the re-run is yet another example of waste, because negotiation in advance would have gotten around this.

    But would those clarifications have been enough ? We'll never know.

    The fact is that the "Yes to Jobs" was a red herring, and those involved in coming up with that - now distancing themselves from the "jingle" by lying about it and even removing posters within a day of the vote - should be shot, as well as held accountable for the cost of the misleading posters.
    Yes, there were red herrings as you say on both sides. The difference is the Yes side's slogans were believed as facts whereeas Coir and Libertas's outlandish BS wasnt believed. It seems a case of "means to an end" for the govenrment
    So there were lots of factors; some valid, and some lies. But you've said it yourself...





    In those two quotes alone you're contradicting yourself.
    Now youre being pedantic! What I meant was on the yes side, it was those 2 claims that won them the referendum. The no side basically comitted harikiri with those Coir posters, and I feel for logical no voters like Joe Higgins having to deal with this rather than the issues at hand.


  • Options
    #150
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    free to prosper wrote: »
    Mr [Eamon] Ryan said that if there is a Yes vote on Friday, it will pave the way for economic recovery.

    “The recovery starts on Saturday,” he said.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0930/breaking79.htm

    2, 450 jobs lost since Saturday and counting.

    And finishes when? 2 years, 5? Is no one getting tired of repeating themselves?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I wish someone would explain to me what this thread is about.

    Does someone believe that "Yes to Jobs" should be considered a legally-binding contract, and that Aer Lingus shouldn't have been allowed to lay people off after the referendum?

    Did Aer Lingus themselves campaign on the basis of "Yes for Jobs", and thereby leave themselves open to a charge of hypocrisy?

    Yes if you read the link in my first post you'll see this is the case.


Advertisement