who will you vote for in the next elections ?,

weedfreedomtinp

im completely confused who to vote for next time round,
not sure if the current government have done enough to get peoples trust to stay in power.

who is the most honest party in this country

flanzer

We could do no worse than getting the Poultry Party in.

I don't know where my vote'll be going. They're all as corrupt and think as each other

gerry28

weedfreedomtinp wrote: »

not sure if the current government have done enough to get peoples trust to stay in power.

I believe people should be responsible for their actions. This government haven't accepted responsibility for their part in the shape of the country - mismanagement and incompetence should not be rewarded.

They are getting patted on the back and congratulated on their tough budget... it was only tough because they needed the savings to help clean up the mess they played a massive part in creating -You shouldn't be congratulated for cleaning your own vomit from the floor:rolleyes:

I think it will be a travisty if they do not get punished at the next election. What message will it give them... 'do whatever yous like guys we'll continue to vote you in no matter what'!!

AARRRGH

I can't vote for FG for two reasons:

1. Any party that would maintain Enda Kenny as leader are obviously a bunch of morons.

2. I had a job interview with them a few years ago and I found them to be a very rude and close minded bunch of people.

I normally vote for the Greens but they'll never be getting my vote again.

If I vote for labour they will probably go into coalition with FG.

So it'll have to be an independent or one of the fringe parties.

ei.sdraob

honest answer? i dont know

i have something against them all

it might come down to choosing the least worse option

Bobeagleburger

Fianna Fail are in long enough.

Too much time in power leads to corruption which is evident.

So next election will be anyone but Fianna Fail tbh.

Dannyboy83

Its pretty simple.

A vote for Labour is a vote for the 1980s.
A vote for Labour is a continuation of the Bertienomics that landed us in this sh1t.

A vote for FF means more of the same.
It means you approve of everything that has happened in this country in the last 12 year.
It will be a lot easier to have criminal investigations yielding real results, if the criminals are out of power and unable to interfere.
( The only reason people are actually considering voting for FF is because of Lenihan & Martin. I have to admit, I gave it some thought myself, but 2 men are not capable of rescuing the toxic waste factory that is FF).

That means the only vote left is FG, regardless of how you feel about them.
FG have to have a majority in order to be able to do anything, we cannot afford a coalition.
If you can't bring yourself to vote FG, then abstain.

I have no allegiance to any party - only the right party at the right time.
FG are the right party at this time.

View

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Its pretty simple.

A vote for Labour is a vote for the 1980s.
A vote for Labour is a continuation of the Bertienomics that landed us in this sh1t.

When Labour was last in power, Ruairi Q managed to run the state's finances fairly well - he was if memory serves me correctly almost the only Minister of Finance who actually reduced the National Debt. There were no Benchmarking exercises when he was Minister for Finance. As such, assuming Labour would do "Bertienomics" is probably a bit presumptious.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

FG have to have a majority in order to be able to do anything, we cannot afford a coalition.

FG won't have an absolute majority. They may be the largest party able to pick and choose their coalition partner (like FF have been able to do for the last while). There hasn't been a single party majority Government here since the Independent electoral commissions were established.

Eliot Rosewater

AARRRGH wrote: »

1. Any party that would maintain Enda Kenny as leader are obviously a bunch of morons.
2. I had a job interview with them a few years ago and I found them to be a very rude and close minded bunch of people..

So your basing your vote on the presumed personalities of a number of Fine Gaelers, rather than who will actually run the country best?

This isnt a personality test. Were looking for people to manage our country.

woodseb

I think i'll vote like most people in the country does....

forget about national issues and elect the guy who will fix the potholes outside my house

Flex

Id like to vote Fine Gael, however I wont as long as I think theres a chance theyll bring the Labour party into a coalition because I dont want anything to do with giving the Labour party a place in government.

Ive emailed my local Fine Gael TD about this stating my concerns about voting for Fine Gael primarily because of their affiliation with Labour and in fairness he replied to me the next day with a long email. I wont be voting for the Greens, Sinn Féin, an Independent, PDs or (definitely) Labour though.

If anyones interested, heres the reply the Fine Gael TD sent me. he mentioned a rather interesting point that in the next government, Labour may well get into a coalition government anyway, with either FG or FF.

Dear Larry

Thank you for your e-mail and for your words of support. It would be easy for an opposition party to take populist positions and to be dishonest with people to get their votes. We’ve chosen to tell the truth all along and have done our best to set out a viable and achievable way forward for the country. We’re taking a lot of flak for it but we are also getting a lot of support too and will have a real mandate for change.

I understand your concerns about Labour and it does come up a lot. Fine Gael is aiming to win an overall majority in the next Dail and to govern alone. We will run enough candidates to win an overall majority and while we are 5 or 6 points short of it in the polls, it can be done. Fine Gael is the only party in a position to form a government without Labour. Certainly, any other government would have to include Labour to make up the numbers. There is no way that Fianna Fail will hang on to enough seats to stay in power with the Greens. They would need Labour. Indeed, the alternative to Fine Gael might well be Labour-FF coalition with Labour as the major party if FF does really badly. So I guess FG really is the only option.

If we do have to form a coalition with Labour, it is important that FG is as strong as possible. Certainly, we want to be bigger than them by a margin of 2:1 or 3:1 so that we can enter any negotiations from a position of strength. I do think that some decisions made by Labour in the past few weeks are encouraging. They came out against the strikes, signed up to the need for a €4 billion correction which they had not done previous and a €1.3 bn cut in the public sector payroll. They were pretty quiet about it all but it is significant. They are clearly repositioning a little. It is worth remembering that the last FG-Labour government (under Bruton with Quinn as Finance Minister) increased spending much less than the subsequent FF governments, increased public sector pay and welfare much less than FF, reduced taxes slowly but sustainably, abolished the property tax and brought in the 12.5% corporation tax rate, brought unemployment down from 14% to 10% and even balanced the budget in their last year. Not a bad record for 2 ½ years in government.

Regards

Leo

dlofnep

Sinn Féin. All councillors and TD's earn an average industrial wage, the rest goes back into the party. The councillors and TD's are in it for the politics, and not for the money. They are hard-working in the community, and routinely stick up for the most vulnerable in society. A few weeks ago, they had a sleep out in Dublin in the freezing cold to highlight the issue of homelessness in Dublin - I don't see any other politicians demonstrating a similar level of commitment.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

Sinn Féin. All councillors and TD's earn an average industrial wage, the rest goes back into the party. The councillors and TD's are in it for the politics, and not for the money. They are hard-working in the community, and routinely stick up for the most vulnerable in society. A few weeks ago, they had a sleep out in Dublin in the freezing cold to highlight the issue of homelessness in Dublin - I don't see any other politicians demonstrating a similar level of commitment.

hahahahahahaha, yea really "hardworking" guys they are

Sinn Féin's Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness both claimed £21,600 each – £1,800 a month – in mortgage interest payments on a two-bedroom London flat in 2008-09. All Sinn Féin MPs refuse to take their seats at Westminster because they would be required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. The three other Sinn Féin MPs – Pat Doherty, Michelle Gildernew and Conor Murphy – also claimed £1,800 per month each for a townhouse they share.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/10/mps-expenses-what-we-ve-learned-so-far

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hahahahahahaha, yea really "hardworking" guys they are

Yes, they are hard-working. Your attitude is immature.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/10/mps-expenses-what-we-ve-learned-so-far

I fail to see anything wrong with the above. Firstly, it doesn't change the fact that they work hard on behalf of their constituencies and earn an average industrial wage.

Secondly, Your attempt to smear their hard work at a grass-roots level, by somehow detracting from it due to rent-allowance that they receive, is poor (which btw, enables them to stay in Britain, while working on important issues like the GFA and Stormont, ensuring political stability in the north).

They were entitled to the allowance, and as such - received it. I'm sure you'd be happier if they didn't visit Britain to work on the peace-process, right?

Eliot Rosewater

In certain aspects Sinn Fein might be the best party - when it comes to being proactive in the community etc. Additionally the taking of only the industrial wage is noble perhaps, yet only a symbolic gesture.

At the end of the day I wouldn't trust Sinn Fein running Ireland. Its nothing idealistic, like an abhorrence to their violent history. I feel they couldn't run the economy without eventually running it into the ground. They advocate higher taxes, and the raising of corporation tax as far as I know. These measures would be disastrous for the economy.

They also take the biscuit when it comes to social welfare, in my opinion. Whatever your stance on the need for social welfare, the high levels Sinn Fein have advocated raising it to would make having a job nothing short of stupid.

I think that in blindly following "workers rights" they fall into the trap of forgetting where the jobs come from, and how and why the jobs were created.

dlofnep wrote: »

which btw, enables them to stay in Britain, while working on important issues like the GFA and Stormont, ensuring political stability in the north

In fairness, the allowance isn't meant for accommodation while acting as a negotiator, and the British government would pay for their stay. The allowance was designed for when on duty in parliament, and given Sinn Fein dont attend parliament the allowance is not justified.

To be honest dlofnep, and Im saying this as someone who holds you in the highest regard, the denial that goes on when Sinn Fein is "found out" at something only alienates people more. I would guess that people are less annoyed about the travel allowance than Sinn Feins denial of it being wrong.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes, they are hard-working. Your attitude is immature.



I fail to see anything wrong with the above. Firstly, it doesn't change the fact that they work hard on behalf of their constituencies and earn an average industrial wage.

Secondly, Your attempt to smear their hard work at a grass-roots level, by somehow detracting from it due to rent-allowance that they receive, is poor (which btw, enables them to stay in Britain, while working on important issues like the GFA and Stormont, ensuring political stability in the north).

They were entitled to the allowance, and as such - received it. I'm sure you'd be happier if they didn't visit Britain to work on the peace-process, right?

they abused the system, the took allowance money while not bothering to attend the parliament to which they were elected to attend by the people

yeah we need more politicians like that :rolleyes: we already have a bunch of thieves in power, we dont need any more
and never mind their past and current connections to "certain" sections of society


and then their is their disastrous past record and attitude when it comes to EU

and finally lets not mention their crazy economic plan, 25-50% corpo tax will kill this country, low corporate taxation is the only economic plus we have left


while there is no denying that there might be nice people working for SF, who do good things, if they ever get into power in this country and implement their policies, then you can kiss goodbye to whatever remains of our economy

:mad:

dlofnep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In fairness, the allowance isn't meant for accommodation while acting as a negotiator, and the British government would pay for their stay. The allowance was designed for when on duty in parliament, and given Sinn Fein dont attend parliament the allowance is not justified.

And for obvious reason, they will not sit in parliament. It doesn't mean that the housing isn't required, as they do spend alot of time there politically.

So if the issue is that they don't merit the allowance because the do not sit in parliament - I would argue that, they do merit it because they still work on behalf of their constituents as much as any other politician and are required to be consistently over in Britain working for the betterment of peace in Ireland. I'm not trying to detract from the issue at hand - but in the bigger picture - It's unfair to judge their hard work in the community based on them receiving rent allowance.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

To be honest dlofnep, and Im saying this as someone who holds you in the highest regard, the denial that goes on when Sinn Fein is "found out" at something only alienates people more. I would guess that people are less annoyed about the travel allowance than Sinn Feins denial of it being wrong.

I respect that, but the reason you'll find that some activists (and I myself am guilty of it at times) are always on the defensive, is because people attack SF on the silliest of issues, even when it's not pertinent to the matter at hand - IE: Judging hard work done in the community based on receiving rent allowance.

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they abused the system, the took allowance money while not bothering to attend the parliament to which they were elected to attend by the people

They did not abuse the system. If they were not entitled to the funds, they would not have received it. The reason they do not sit in parliament, is because they will not swear an oath to the queen. This is perfectly understandable in terms of Republican values.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yeah we need more politicians like that :rolleyes: we already have a bunch of thieves in power, we dont need any more

They are not thieves. They are hard-working politicians.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and then their is their disastrous past record and attitude when it comes to EU

Their european policies has nothing to do with their actual work within the community, which was our original argument. You might disagree with their European policies, and I can respect that - but it's really not pertinent to what we were between us. It is however obviously important to your reason for voting or not voting for them, which once again I can respect.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and finally lets not mention their crazy economic plan, 25-50% corpo tax will kill this country, low corporate taxation is the only economic plus we have left

The corporation tax issue is always worth a debate. But it was 17.5%, and not 50%. Besides, this is old news - The policy has been updated to maintain the status quo.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

while there is no denying that there might be nice people working for SF, who do good things, if they ever get into power in this country and implement their policies, then you can kiss goodbye to whatever remains of our economy

I disagree. I think there would be more support for the most vulnerable classes in society, rather than protecting the over-paid, and people who have destroyed our economy.

Eliot Rosewater

dlofnep wrote: »

I would argue that, they do merit it because they still work on behalf of their constituents as much as any other politician and are required to be consistently over in Britain working for the betterment of peace in Ireland.

I realize your position. However the issue is that British Government will pay for their stay anyway as they are foreign negotiators anyway, as far as I know.

Look I think we will leave that tangent there because once people get a hint of Sinn Fein bashing potential the threads go completely out of hand. I dont want to be the cause of that.

dlofnep wrote: »

It's unfair to judge their hard work in the community based on them receiving rent allowance.

+1

I imagine Sinn Fein do suffer from the "hate one aspect, hate all aspects" mentality people have towards people and groups they disagree with. If I were to discuss the merits and demerits of Sinn Fein, in this context of a "who to vote for" discussion, it would be based solely on how they will govern.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

They did not abuse the system. If they were not entitled to the funds, they would not have received it. The reason they do not sit in parliament, is because they will not swear an oath to the queen. This is perfectly understandable in terms of Republican values.

im sorry, people elect them to represent them, not attending parliament is not representation, if the people are not being represented then what can they do if so if a law gets passed that might hurt them?

this whole expenses thing is bull and them refusing to admit its wrong, will they refuse to attend our parliament to if they disagree with something in our constitution?

dlofnep wrote: »

They are not thieves. They are hard-working politicians.

looking at Mary Lou performance over last 2 years, a liar would be a better word

dlofnep wrote: »

Their european policies has nothing to do with their actual work within the community, which was our original argument. You might disagree with their European policies, and I can respect that - but it's really not pertinent to what we were between us. It is however obviously important to your reason for voting or not voting for them, which once again I can respect.

Their European policies have everything to do with local communities up to the national level, as it affects everyone

if SF were in power in 70's, we would have not joined EU and the country would now resemble the likes of Albania, a small insignificant country on perifery of Europe

lets not forget their scaremongering in Nice, Lisbon and every other EU referenda since, non of which came true

dlofnep wrote: »

The corporation tax issue is always worth a debate. But it was 17.5%, and not 50%. Besides, this is old news - The policy has been updated to maintain the status quo.

no it was 25 or so %, i visited their site and saw the figures with my own eyes, hell i think there was thread on boards about it too, im gonna look thru internet archive to see if the page got cached

this is beside their other crazy communist like economic policies

take a look at their recent budget submissions, their answer to everything is borrow more. no thanks

dlofnep wrote: »

I disagree. I think there would be more support for the most vulnerable classes in society, rather than protecting the over-paid, and people who have destroyed our economy.

im sorry having the most generous welfare system in the world and one of the highest minimum wages is not providing support for the vulnerable?

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im sorry, people elect them to represent them, not attending parliament is not representation, if the people are not being represented then what can they do if so if a law gets passed that might hurt them?

They are representing them. It's a complex situation and not one that any politician in Ireland would like to be in. The nationalist community would not vote for Sinn Féin if they sat. SF represent the nationalist community in the north, by far. The issue is due to lack of power in Stormont, and not a lack of SF members sitting in WM.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

this whole expenses thing is bull and them refusing to admit its wrong

It's not bull. If they were not entitled to them, they would not have received them. I've already explained why they require accommodation. The alternative is that they do not visit Britain, and do not take part in the ongoing peace-process.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

looking at Mary Lou performance over last 2 years, a liar would be a better word

But yet, she still received 48,000 first-preference votes, narrowly missing out on her seat. I don't live in Dublin, so I can't comment first-hand on Mary Lou's work in her constituency. Perhaps you live there, and feel unimpressed by her work. I however am very happy with the work in my local constituency.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Their European policies have everything to do with local communities up to the national level, as it affects everyone

Of course they do, I didn't state otherwise.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if SF were in power in 70's, we would have not joined EU and the country would now resemble the likes of Albania, a small insignificant country on perifery of Europe

I feel we would have eventually joined the EU at some point, but it's a valid point.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no it was 25 or so %, i visited their site and saw the figures with my own eyes, hell i think there was thread on boards about it too, im gonna look thru internet archive to see if the page got cached

It was 17.5%. If you can provide a source for your original claims of 50%, I'd love to see them.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im sorry having the most generous welfare system in the world and one of the highest minimum wages is not providing support for the vulnerable?

Nothing to do with the cost of living here then, no?

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

They are representing them. It's a complex situation and not one that any politician in Ireland would like to be in. The nationalist community would not vote for Sinn Féin if they sat. SF represent the nationalist community in the north, by far. The issue is due to lack of power in Stormont, and not a lack of SF members sitting in WM.

let me get this straight

you claim people would not vote for a party that will represent them? :rolleyes:

have they ever tried and see what happens? you make northern irish voters to be some sort of muppets

and thirdly, look iff they dont want to go to london, fine, but why claim for rent when they are not even in present in the island? we dont need that sort of behavior

how do they require accommodation if some of them dont even bother to travel to london? yet they claim for it

dlofnep wrote: »

But yet, she still received 48,000 first-preference votes, narrowly missing out on her seat. I don't live in Dublin, so I can't comment first-hand on Mary Lou's work in her constituency. Perhaps you live there, and feel unimpressed by her work. I however am very happy with the work in my local constituency.

FF won several elections with alot more first preference votes than that, does that make them "good"?

im unimpressed with her lying and dumb speeches, and I will never forgive her for Lisbon

dlofnep wrote: »

It was 17.5%. If you can provide a source for your original claims of 50%, I'd love to see them.

1. that was a typo it was meant to be 20-30%
2. their site seems to have been redesigned, i saw the economic policy page about a year ago, which stated close to 30% corpo tax, and thats when i promised myself never to vote for them, im trying to see if it was saved on archive.org
3. they want to increase corpo tax in NI even more http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/6062

· The gradual harmonisation of corporation tax on an all-Ireland basis. In the immediate term, a corporation tax rate in the 6 Counties of 17.5% for smaller companies with profits from £50,001 to £300,000 while maintaining the rate of 30% for larger companies with profits of over £300,000.

wait werent they the ones screaming against tax "harmonisation" at Lisbon?

A 5% increase in corporation tax in the 26 Counties from the current 12.5% to 17.5% as part of a much needed wider progressive reform of the tax system, the objective of which would be the creation of a fair and egalitarian tax system enabling the state to deliver the infrastructure and social spending which ultimately has a beneficial impact for business as well as communities.

translation: lets remove the only advantage ireland has for businesses, drive alot of companies away, all so we can have few million more to spend on welfare and PS :cool:

dlofnep wrote: »

Nothing to do with the cost of living here then, no?

uhm NO, as was pointed out by many of the posters and moderators here in multiple threads

welfare went up well above the inflation rate for the last decade, especially during election years

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

let me get this straight

you claim people would not vote for a party that will represent them? :rolleyes:

No, I did not claim that. I stated that SF will lose votes if they swore an oath to the queen - as it would sell out their values. They lost supporters when they supported policing. It makes only perfect sense that they would lose voters if they swore an oath to the queen. They are an Irish Republican party, not a Unionist party.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

have they ever tried and see what happens? you make northern irish voters to be some sort of muppets

I take it you've never heard of the SDLP.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and thirdly, look iff they dont want to go to london, fine, but why claim for rent when they are not even in present in the island? we dont need that sort of behavior

They ARE present on the Island, routinely. Are you aware that all MP's also have rent allowance for homes that they do not stay in throughout the year. I can only assume that you are not.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how do they require accommodation if some of them dont even bother to travel to london? yet they claim for it

Because they DO travel to London.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

FF won several elections with alot more first preference votes than that, does that make them "good"?

I never said it demonstrated that she was good. I stated that despite your comments, she still received 48K first preference votes. I'm still awaiting to hear your first-hand dealings with her or her work -since you're an expert on what she has done for her constituents.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. that was a typo it was meant to be 20-30%
2. their site seems to have been redesigned, i saw the economic policy page about a year ago, which stated close to 30% corpo tax, and thats when i promised myself never to vote for them, im trying to see if it was saved on archive.org

It was 17.5%. I was there when the proposal was made at the Ard Fheis.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

3. they want to increase corpo tax in NI even more http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/6062

Do you actually know what the corporate tax rates are there?

Small companies are taxed at 21% - Sinn Féin wanted to reduce this to 17.5%, to give small businesses and local businesses a better chance to start up. They wanted to keep a 30% tax rate for larger companies.

So, they didn't actually want to increase the corporate tax rate - they wanted to maintain it for large companies, and reduce it by 4.5% for smaller businesses. Are we clear on this?

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I did not claim that. I stated that SF will lose votes if they swore an oath to the queen - as it would sell out their values. They lost supporters when they supported policing. It makes only perfect sense that they would lose voters if they swore an oath to the queen. They are an Irish Republican party, not a Unionist party.

lost votes to whom?

dlofnep wrote: »

They ARE present on the Island, routinely. Are you aware that all MP's also have rent allowance for homes that they do not stay in throughout the year. I can only assume that you are not.

Because they DO travel to London.

sometimes they do travel, but not all of them as some refuse to do so, yet they all claim for it as if they a re there all the time (as they are meant to be)

thats just wrong

dlofnep wrote: »

I never said it demonstrated that she was good. I stated that despite your comments, she still received 48K first preference votes. I'm still awaiting to hear your first-hand dealings with her or her work -since you're an expert on what she has done for her constituents.

im still waiting for tanks to roll into Dublin, our men conscripted to a EU army and our taxes increased from Brussels

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you actually know what the corporate tax rates are there?

Small companies are taxed at 21% - Sinn Féin wanted to reduce this to 17.5%, to give small businesses and local businesses a better chance to start up. They wanted to keep a 30% tax rate for larger companies.

So, they didn't actually want to increase the corporate tax rate - they wanted to maintain it for large companies, and reduce it by 4.5% for smaller businesses. Are we clear on this?

they want to increase corpo tax here in Ireland, that just a terrible move altogether, any party that wants to increase this even by a tiny amount deserves no votes especially nowadays

if SF ever get into power here me and my company be out of here, i dont see why my hard earn money should be wasted by quasi communist/terrorist bunch of muppets, the current lot is bad enough as is

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lost votes to whom?

To other Republican movements. These said movements do not engage within the political establishments, and thus - the votes were "lost". You're really demonstrating a complete lack of understanding on politics in the north. There are many groups like Éirígí who increased their support base, just on the policing issue alone. To suggest that they would not lose further votes for sitting in Westminster shows a complete lack of understanding about the voting demographics.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

sometimes they do travel, but not all of them as some refuse to do so, yet they all claim for it as if they a re there all the time (as they are meant to be)

Wrong.

They routinely travel there, in a political context. I have already pointed out to you - that the allowances are used by many MP's in other political parties, who do not stay in the respective residences for long periods either.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they want to increase corpo tax here in Ireland, that just a terrible move altogether, any party that wants to increase this even by a tiny amount deserves no votes especially nowadays

I see you're trying to wriggle out of your blatant lies. You stated that they wanted to increase tax in the north, which was false. I pointed out that they wished to maintain the status quo - but reduce tax for smaller companies by 4.5% to 17.5%. You've not even offered to apologise for your false claims - but tried to sweep it under the carpet.

Moreover - our low corporate tax rates here have created a very unstable infrastructure. Yes - it entices companies to come to Ireland, but it also makes Ireland dependant on these foreign investments - instead of focusing on local investments. This was very evident when Dell decided to pull out of Ireland, resulting in 2000 job losses and a 5% NGDP deficit.

Our low corporate tax rates are great for short-term to medium term-investment - but the result of it is, our infrastructure is completely screwed and dependant on foreign investment. Consequently, anytime there is economic hardship - it's going to really impact Ireland because these businesses will either downsize, or completely move.

ejmaztec

For the moment, SF seem to thrive on local issues, whereas on national and international matters, they still have some way to go.

As for violence, would I wrong in saying that both FF and FG both sprang from violence, albeit a long time ago?

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

To other Republican movements. These said movements do not engage within the political establishments, and thus - the votes were "lost". You're really demonstrating a complete lack of understanding on politics in the north. There are many groups like Éirígí who increased their support base, just on the policing issue alone. To suggest that they would not lose further votes for sitting in Westminster shows a complete lack of understanding about the voting demographics.

* if the other republican parties represent their voters, then whats wrong with that?
* we already have issues with TDs not attending, we dont need a party who makes a routine out of it
* if SF dont want to represent their voters, then thats their choice, i dont see why anyone would vote for a party that spits in the face of democracy
* why would anyone would want to elect democratic representatives and then expect these representatives not to represent them? the whole thing is retardingly stupid

dlofnep wrote: »

They routinely travel there, in a political context. I have already pointed out to you - that the allowances are used by many MP's in other political parties, who do not stay in the respective residences for long periods either.

* alot less than other parties, yet they claim fully
* just because other parties are doing something "wrong" doesnt mean its ok for to do the same SF or worse

dlofnep wrote: »

I see you're trying to wriggle out of your blatant lies. You stated that they wanted to increase tax in the north, which was false. I pointed out that they wished to maintain the status quo - but reduce tax for smaller companies by 4.5% to 17.5%. You've not even offered to apologise for your false claims - but tried to sweep it under the carpet.

* will or will not SF increase taxes here in South as per their policies?
* in the North they are just demonstrating that they are willing to punish large businesses in order to gain money for more welfare policies, same business that probably employ alot of people

dlofnep wrote: »

Moreover - our low corporate tax rates here have created a very unstable infrastructure. Yes - it entices companies to come to Ireland, but it also makes Ireland dependant on these foreign investments - instead of focusing on local investments. This was very evident when Dell decided to pull out of Ireland, resulting in 2000 job losses and a 5% NGDP deficit.

* our infrastructure is ****ed up for many reasons, corpo tax has little to do with it
* focusing on local investments by taxing all (yes that includes small) business more :rolleyes:
* if we had high corpo rate as per SF policy there would have been no Dell in ireland in first place, something is better than nothing

dlofnep wrote: »

Our low corporate tax rates are great for short-term to medium term-investment - but the result of it is, our infrastructure is completely screwed and dependant on foreign investment. Consequently, anytime there is economic hardship - it's going to really impact Ireland because these businesses will either downsize, or completely move.

socialist waffle, i want examples

ejmaztec wrote: »

For the moment, SF seem to thrive on local issues, whereas on national and international matters, they still have some way to go.

As for violence, would I wrong in saying that both FF and FG both sprang from violence, albeit a long time ago?

i dont see any other party but SF defending and covering up for recent murderers of Gardai

i dont care what happened 80 years ago, i care about what happened in last decade or two

/

ei.sdraob

heres an article that highlights things that so wrong with SF economic policy

well worth a read

Those of us who oppose Sinn Fein tend to be very quick off the mark at attacking Sinn Fein’s economic policy, normally by listening to their easy painless If-Only-We-Had-A-Government-That-Cared solutions and throwing stuff at the telly.
Yet, I decided recently that that was not good enough, and so decided to actually read some of their policies.
Trawling around their website, the document that caught my eye was their 2007 budget submission. Now, bearing in mind that it is two years old, was written before the current crisis, and I’m taking their figures at face value, it does give a fascinating look into the mindset within Sinn Fein.
First, one should note that it advocates at least (Not everything is costed. To their credit, most is.) an extra €3.7 billion in taxpayer funded public spending, and one presumes that reversing existing cutbacks would also be put on top of that. The fact that they opposed the cutbacks makes that, I think, a reasonable observation.
Most of the spending is good laudable mom and apple pie stuff, but what is really interesting is what they call in the document “revenue boosting proposals.” Even the language is interesting, in that it is not money to cover the costs of the extra cash, just something to be put towards it. Here are some of the choice ones:
” 50% tax rate on high income earners with incomes over €100,000.” Does that mean they pay 50% on the extra, which will raise little, or 50% on the total?
” Increase corporate tax from 12.5% to 17.5%” As foriegn companies can find cheaper tax regimes elsewhere, is this not effectively a tax on Irish business?
” A significant immediate curtailment of the tax incentives for occupational pensions, PRSAs…” So private sector workers get clobbered for providing their own pensions, whilst getting taxed to provide public sector pensions?
” …by giving asylum seekers the right to work they will pay tax and therefore contribute revenue to the exchequer.” I agree with this. I suspect Sinn Fein doesn’t stress this policy whilst canvassing in Jobstown.
” Increase capital gains tax from 20% to 40%” This one always underlines the difference between people who work for a living, and people who spend other people’s money for a living. The idea that this will raise huge extra taxes is laughable, because a recently married couple who want to sell their second flat will just wait until the tax is cut, as it will be by the next government, and save themselves 20%. It’s so huge it is worth waiting. As a result, you’re getting an extra 20% of nothing.
“Immediately end tax breaks for private hospitals….and ultimately replace the private system within an agreed timetable.” In effect, abolish private healthcare. Because the state runs healthcare so well.
“Overall, the NESF has estimated that for every €1 invested in early childcare and education a return of €7.10 can be expected.” How, by selling the children into slavery? Voodoo economics at its finest. It may even be true, but to count this as a revenue boosting proposal is taking the piss.
What’s most striking about the SF approach if the belief that a country’s wealth is some sort of natural occurring phenomenon to be tapped. It assumes that people who generate wealth will be quite happy to just accept SF confiscating their hard earned money, as opposed to moving to Britain which will soon have a Tory government. It also engages in the Big Fat Lie that nearly all the Irish left engage in: That high spending on public services can be done without cost to the ordinary PAYE worker. It’s the funny thing about Irish socialists. They’re not. The key tenet of socialism is that the common good is funded by mutual sacrifice. That’s not what SF or the rest of the Irish left offer, instead offering a type of George W. Bush Republicanism: Low taxes, high spending and some one else will pick up the tab. It’s a con.

http://jasonomahony.ie/?p=2359

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* if the other republican parties represent their voters, then whats wrong with that?

Who said anything was wrong with it? You're not even making sense at this point.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* if SF dont want to represent their voters, then thats their choice, i dont see why anyone would vote for a party that spits in the face of democracy

They do represent their voters. They are the largest Republican party in the north - Who do you think speaks on behalf of the nationalist community? Who do you think negotiates for the nationalist community?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* will or will not SF increase taxes here in South as per their policies?

No, they will not increase corporate tax in the south. This issue has already been closed. It will remain at 12.5% in the south. This has been clarified by Gerry Adams. However, 12.5% corporate tax is extremely low when compared to other nations.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* in the North they are just demonstrating that they are willing to punish large businesses in order to gain money for more welfare policies, same business that probably employ alot of people

You're still fabricating lies.

How are they punishing large businesses when their policy is to keep the current tax rate there as it is? They are not planning on changing it, and did not create the current rate - which is standard across the north and in Britain.

The only plans they have for the north is to reduce corporate tax for small businesses by 4.5%. Please, absorb what I am telling you so I don't have to repeat myself again. The last thing I want to do on christmas eve is to correct your blatant lies.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* our infrastructure is ****ed up for many reasons, corpo tax has little to do with it

You're mis-using words. I said our infrastructure has no stability. Low corporate tax creates an infrastructure that is dependant on external courses. At any point, these said sources can go - like what happened with Dell which resulted in a 5% NGDP deficit. It's not to say that these companies are not important to our economy - it's to state the obvious, that our entire state is dependant on foreign investment that can pull out of here at any moment and leave us clean and dry.

In the broad scheme of things, a 17.5% corporate tax rate is still extremely low when compared to other countries.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* if we had high corpo rate as per SF policy there would have been no Dell in ireland in first place, something is better than nothing

That's incorrect. Dell moved to Poland where there is a 19% corporate tax rate. The reason they moved is because of the cost of employing a work-force is significantly cheaper, due to the cost of living being significantly cheaper.

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

heres an article that highlights things that so wrong with SF economic policy

Any thoughts of your own, or are you just going to plagiarise other people's work?

AARRRGH

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So your basing your vote on the presumed personalities of a number of Fine Gaelers, rather than who will actually run the country best?

This isnt a personality test. Were looking for people to manage our country.

No if you read my post you can see I have no faith in Enda Kenny as a leader. If that's the best FG have to offer, I can't see them being good in government.

I like their finance guy though, can't remember his name.