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
What chance of a General Election in 2010 ?
Options
Comments
-
Everybody who makes valid points on this subject should NEVER forget,
that a former Taoiseach while in Office, suggested that those people with a contrary view to his and the FF party, should go away and committ Suicide.
That was His view and that arrogance remains.
The people will deal with this in due course.
Out of recession my arse, watch the job losses in the first 2 months of '10.
It's going to be savage.
Lets quote him properly . .
"'Sitting on the sidelines, cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit suicide because frankly the only thing that motivates me is being able to actively change something"
What he was saying (which is clear to anyone who can read beyond the one word) is that he is motivated by getting out and changing things rather than getting lost in a wave of (suicidal) negativity. It was a poor choice of words and one that he apologised for fairly quickly. It was not said in the context that you quote above. .
Not sure what this has to do with the topic in question ?
We are out of recession and time will tell what 2010 will bring. I believe that the economy will stay out of recession and will begin to grow slowly. I also believe that the unemployment rate has peaked and will remain stable throughout 2010.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »Well I have, just not directly.
- Brought forward the 2008 budget to October in order to implement early and necessary fiscal changes
- First country in Europe to implement the bank guarantee's last year that was quickly followed by many other countries.
- Implementation of emergency budget in April 09 to address the changed circumstances since the October budget
- Set up and implementation of NAMA to address the Toxic debt across the country and to allow the banks to function more normally (not to bail out developers as is constantly misreported)
- Implementation of much needed public sector pay cuts despite massive objections from the trade unions. .
I'm not arguing that these were all the right measures at the right time, but they are examples of the government (particularly the Finance minister) working proactively to try to address a challenging economic environment.
I posted this on here before but its a good example of how this proactive approach is recognised abroad even if it is not at home. .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6948046.ece
Everyone of those measure are reactive not proacitve.
Proactive would of been to introduce a property tax a few years back to avoid the bubble.
Proactive would of been to force the banks to tighten lending restrictions.
Proactive would of been to not introduce benchmarking in the first place and not squander the surplus of the boom years.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »
There's allowing a bad system to exist (unvouched, OTT expenses) and there's milking that to the hilt.
Everyone's to blame for allowing it to exist, true; but not everyone milked it.
I will concede that FG's stance on this was unacceptable.
Anyways, since FF are so "proactive", when do you reckon the objectionable and OTT expenses will be vouched and accountable, and limited to match the capabilities of the country ?
I don't believe that he milked it more than many others have . . I think he was unfairly and individually targetted when the real target should have been the system that continues to allow this to happen . .
I don't know when they will address this. I'm certainly been petitioning my local FF TD to work to change the system and I hope they will in 2010. I doubt any of their opponents would act any more radically in changing the system (but that I concede is beside the point)Liam Byrne wrote:Oh how the mighty have fallen! Anyone remember the "Bertie's Team" bull**** campaign ? Now he's on his own!
If he's dossing around abusing our tax money (state car, etc) on trips to promote his personal commercial enterprise / work of fiction then his leader should tell him to cop himself on and STOP; the behaviour is not acceptable.
? ? You seem to have a particular dislike for our ex-Taoiseach . . I've debated this point with you before and have no desire to do it again. Suffice to say, I think the our ex-Taoiseach has provided an enormous service to the country over many years. . I'm not all that concerned about him promoting his book on my time (although it isn't my time as I am not in his constituency)Liam Byrne wrote:"Proactive" ???? Do you know the meaning of the word ?
Proactive decisions are designed to avoid serious problems; they're designed to act on issues as soon as they're flagged. With FF, when these were flagged, the Financial Regulator was allowed to continue not doing his job, and FF told people that they were being pessimistic.
You can claim what you like from your party stance, but don't go off the scale by claiming FF are "proactive" - this isn't the humour forum.
And to top all that, FF are (at least) 2 years late actually acting on their "proactiveness".....I mightn't like NAMA, for obvious reasons, but even for NAMA-apologists to still not have it up and running two years and three budgets after the crisis is ridiculous!
I think the Cowen-led government have reacted very proactively to the acute crisis that has hit us over the last 18 months and yes, I do concede that the government should have done more, earlier to address the property bubble. However, as debated previously I truly believe that we all need to share in the responsibility for the bubble. Over the last 10 years, Ireland was overcome by a greedy consumerism. We provided the government with a clear mandate time and again to feed that consumerism.Liam Byrne wrote:
I'd argue the validity of that, but I can't see you being objective, so I'll just ask you to answer me this; will Britain have a 60-year hangover along the lines of NAMA ?
I honestly don't know . . Britain has its own problems with its banks and will address it in its own manner . .
I live in the Irish economy and I think Lenihan did the only thing he could sensibly do to free up the toxic debt and allow the banks to function again.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »I don't believe that he milked it more than many others have . . I think he was unfairly and individually targetted when the real target should have been the system that continues to allow this to happen . .
So you agree that everyone who milked it to the extreme should be fired ?
I see no problem in making an example of someone who has been greedy.
I do agree that all others should have been equally dealt with; I do not agree that O'Donoghue was treated unfairly.hallelujajordan wrote: »I don't know when they will address this. I'm certainly been petitioning my local FF TD to work to change the system and I hope they will in 2010. I doubt any of their opponents would act any more radically in changing the system (but that I concede is beside the point)
It's not "beside the point" because you're the one that claimed that FF are "proactive". This proves - again - that they are not. They haven't done it yet (not proactive) and if you're being proactive then it doesn't matter whether anyone else would or wouldn't do it.hallelujajordan wrote: »? ? You seem to have a particular dislike for our ex-Taoiseach . . I've debated this point with you before and have no desire to do it again. Suffice to say, I think the our ex-Taoiseach has provided an enormous service to the country over many years
I have a dislike for him based on his own actions. Not my fault.hallelujajordan wrote: »I'm not all that concerned about him promoting his book on my time (although it isn't my time as I am not in his constituency)
Really ? You have no objection to paying someone's salary through your taxes even when they blatantly swan off to do other jobs ? You have no objection to paying for his car, driver and petrol while he tries to flog a book ?
And how do you reckon that "not being in his constituency" means that you're somehow not paying for it ? If this were the case, then the others that you mention were "milking it" like O'Donoghue shouldn't be any concern to you, either, should they ?hallelujajordan wrote: »I think the Cowen-led government have reacted very proactively to the acute crisis that has hit us over the last 18 months and yes, I do concede that the government should have done more, earlier to address the property bubble.
Remind us again who was Minister for Finance when they should have "done more, earlier" ? Once again, your definition of "proactive" is adjusted to suit your view. Why start with the crisis and the current Government ? It's the same bunch of useless tossers as the previous Government.
Cowen helped land us in the ****; the fact that he's suddenly tried to "fix" this since becoming leader does not negate that culpability. And this fact is again made worse by your claim that he is "proactive".hallelujajordan wrote: »However, as debated previously I truly believe that we all need to share in the responsibility for the bubble. Over the last 10 years, Ireland was overcome by a greedy consumerism. We provided the government with a clear mandate time and again to feed that consumerism.
"We" did not. "We" do not need to "share in the responsiblity for the bubble", because many of us did not buy into this.
You can spout the party line all you like, but do not make me implicit in this bull****. I bit off only what I could chew (even less, considering what a bank once offered me as a loan that I turned down) and having survived 3 months on less than €1,000 a month last year (less than I'd have gotten on the dole) as a result of FF's incompetence I am sickened by this sudden need to socialise and share the losses while the white-collar scum that ripped us normal people off are laughing all the way to the banks with their cushy payoffs, their obscene nest-eggs safely stowed away somewhere.hallelujajordan wrote: »I honestly don't know . . Britain has its own problems with its banks and will address it in its own manner . .
Ah but you claimed earlier that FF's approach was so good that it was being copied willy-nilly; now you're admitting that what works in one country may not work in another, depending on the causes and the level of crap that past policies have left us stranded in ?hallelujajordan wrote: »I live in the Irish economy and I think Lenihan did the only thing he could sensibly do to free up the toxic debt and allow the banks to function again.
No normal person has any interest in Anglo functioning.
And "the only thing" is a ridiculous claim; firstly, nationalisation would have cost the same amount and would have meant that we could all share if the banks recovered; secondly all of those who made the policies that screwed us should have been fired with no pension or benefits or payoffs; and thirdly there is no guarantee that having given them our cash that the banks will function......Lenihan refused point-blank to implement the necessary legislation.
Add in the fictional "discount" that we're getting on the NAMA loans (paying less than some fictional future value but almost twice what stuff is actually worth) and you're a million miles away from it being "the only thing he could sensibly do".
He did something but no amount of FF spin will prove that it was "the only thing", or that - even by committing to whatever action - he did it correctly and with sufficient safeguards or a proper view of "long term value".
And I'll say it again : all of the above was hopelessly reactive - a million miles away from being "proactive".0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »So you agree that everyone who milked it to the extreme should be fired ?
I see no problem in making an example of someone who has been greedy.
I do agree that all others should have been equally dealt with; I do not agree that O'Donoghue was treated unfairly.
No, I don't think anyone should be fired. I think we should invest our time and energy focusing on changing the system so that expenses are more fairly paid in future. JO'D was targetted because he was CC and could not defend himself. That was why he was individually hounded and why he eventually resigned. That was unfair.Liam Byrne wrote:
It's not "beside the point" because you're the one that claimed that FF are "proactive". This proves - again - that they are not. They haven't done it yet (not proactive) and if you're being proactive then it doesn't matter whether anyone else would or wouldn't do it.
beside the point = it doesn't matter. We are saying the same thing. The government should address this whether or not the opposition would ? ?Liam Byrne wrote:Really ? You have no objection to paying someone's salary through your taxes even when they blatantly swan off to do other jobs ? You have no objection to paying for his car, driver and petrol while he tries to flog a book ?
No, its democracy. . anyone can stand for election and do as much or as little work in DE once they are elected. Their employer is the electorate in their constituency and if they keep them happy and represent them well they will continue to be elected.
I wasn't aware that Bertie had a car and driver but if so then I presume that is a perk of being an ex-Taoiseach and in no way linked to his position in DE.Liam Byrne wrote:
Remind us again who was Minister for Finance when they should have "done more, earlier" ? Once again, your definition of "proactive" is adjusted to suit your view. Why start with the crisis and the current Government ? It's the same bunch of useless tossers as the previous Government.
Cowen helped land us in the ****; the fact that he's suddenly tried to "fix" this since becoming leader does not negate that culpability. And this fact is again made worse by your claim that he is "proactive".
I take your point, but this thread is not about the record of FF in government over the last decade or so, and it is not about what Cowen did as minister for finance. It is about whether or not there is likely to be a GE in 2010 and in assessing this all that is really important is determining whether or not the current performance of the government is at such a level as will keep them in their position.Liam Byrne wrote:
"We" did not. "We" do not need to "share in the responsiblity for the bubble", because many of us did not buy into this.
You can spout the party line all you like, but do not make me implicit in this bull****. I bit off only what I could chew (even less, considering what a bank once offered me as a loan that I turned down) and having survived 3 months on less than €1,000 a month last year (less than I'd have gotten on the dole) as a result of FF's incompetence I am sickened by this sudden need to socialise and share the losses while the white-collar scum that ripped us normal people off are laughing all the way to the banks with their cushy payoffs, their obscene nest-eggs safely stowed away somewhere.
Apologies . . I forgot I had to specifically exclude Liam Byrne when referring to the collective populace of Ireland. What happened happened in part as a result of the collective greed of a nation. Collective does not imply that everyone took part.Liam Byrne wrote:
Ah but you claimed earlier that FF's approach was so good that it was being copied willy-nilly; now you're admitting that what works in one country may not work in another, depending on the causes and the level of crap that past policies have left us stranded in ?
No I didn't . . I never used the term willy-nilly !! I simply made the point that we were the first to implement a bank guarantee that other nations considered a good enough idea to follow. The fact that they don't follow our lead on NAMA might simply be because their toxic debt situation is different.Liam Byrne wrote:And "the only thing" is a ridiculous claim; firstly, nationalisation would have cost the same amount and would have meant that we could all share if the banks recovered; secondly all of those who made the policies that screwed us should have been fired with no pension or benefits or payoffs; and thirdly there is no guarantee that having given them our cash that the banks will function......Lenihan refused point-blank to implement the necessary legislation.
Add in the fictional "discount" that we're getting on the NAMA loans (paying less than some fictional future value but almost twice what stuff is actually worth) and you're a million miles away from it being "the only thing he could sensibly do".
He did something but no amount of FF spin will prove that it was "the only thing", or that - even by committing to whatever action - he did it correctly and with sufficient safeguards or a proper view of "long term value".
And I'll say it again : all of the above was hopelessly reactive - a million miles away from being "proactive".
Our Finance minister considered all of his options and determined that the NAMA option was the most appropriate thing to do. I don't believe that he had any other motivation when making this call. Economists seem somewhat divided over whether or not this was the right move but in truth only time will tell.0 -
Advertisement
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »No, its democracy. . anyone can stand for election and do as much or as little work in DE once they are elected. Their employer is the electorate in their constituency and if they keep them happy and represent them well they will continue to be elected.
Hence the need for a General Election.hallelujajordan wrote: »I wasn't aware that Bertie had a car and driver but if so then I presume that is a perk of being an ex-Taoiseach and in no way linked to his position in DE.
I don't care what it's linked to. The fact that Cowen hasn't told him to stop shows the contempt that Cowen has for how OUR money is being abused, and the level of tolerance that exists within FF for screwing the public finances.hallelujajordan wrote: »I take your point, but this thread is not about the record of FF in government over the last decade or so, and it is not about what Cowen did as minister for finance. It is about whether or not there is likely to be a GE in 2010 and in assessing this all that is really important is determining whether or not the current performance of the government is at such a level as will keep them in their position.
And a part of that is the fact that you cannot trust the people who created the crisis to lead us out of it. The other part is that they've screwed the public with 3 budgets while not "sharing the pain" themselves, and have rewarded incompetence and wasted even more of our money, not to mention introducing additional taxes (in items that have already had plenty of tax paid) and shafting the public even more.
Property taxes after already paying stamp duty
Green taxes on petrol, despite already paying VRT and now not being able to afford to change to a new greener car
Septic tank taxes proposed
....the list goes on; if FF can make someone pay twice, they will, but they'll still claim crazy expenses and cars and God knows what else.hallelujajordan wrote: »Apologies . . I forgot I had to specifically exclude Liam Byrne when referring to the collective populace of Ireland.
Genius! When faced with uncomfortable facts, throw in a sarky joke to deflect! The same tactic that Ahern used when asked on The Late Late why he wrote blank cheques for Haughey.
Make a laugh of it and hope someone forgets about the actual facts. "FF PR 101"hallelujajordan wrote: »No I didn't . . I never used the term willy-nilly !!
:rolleyes: And again! Semantics aside, you claimed that loads of countries were copying FF's amazing idea. I just said that - in cases where the economy wasn't as overheated and where the underlying issues weren't as dodgy, that might be appropriate. One size does not fit all, as other countries weren't as exposed due to crap domestic policies and waste.hallelujajordan wrote: »The fact that they don't follow our lead on NAMA might simply be because their toxic debt situation is different.
...or because it's a bad idea, badly implemented.Our Finance minister considered all of his options and determined that the NAMA option was the most appropriate thing to do. I don't believe that he had any other motivation when making this call. Economists seem somewhat divided over whether or not this was the right move but in truth only time will tell.
You claimed earlier that he did......the only thing he could sensibly do
This was YOUR phrase, not Lenihan's or an FF spin-doctor. Now you're agreeing that some economists and others disagree, and that "only time will tell".
So I presume you'll retract that statement that it was "the only thing he could sensibly do" ?0 -
1.We are NOT out of recession. Techinal is not reality, and our GNP continued to decline for the fourth quarter. Reputable economists would use the latter as the true barometer for recession..
2.FF HAD to do something about the banks. We are as creditworthy as Morocco for Christ sakes. We couldnt maintain the status quo. It took FF over 6 months to come to a solution, while REJECTING all that was said by economists and the opposition,NAMA worked in Sweden, in a very different system. It wont work in Ireland, thanks to the countless white elephant properties which exist in the border region and the midlands. In fact, had the bubble not burt, then thousands of Governmentaly sponsored houses would have gone up.
3.The closure of the deficit, only time will tell how useful the savings are. Some would suggest that they may be squandered as our useless banks are recapitalised. Others would suggest that they are part of the NAMA programme. Either way, FF took until December 2009 to take any steps at redressing the growing deficit, and had it not been for Leniha, Cowen would have proceeded with his "12 Days" masterstroke.
4.You claim that FF "are doing better then this time last year". One year on, the country has NO confidence in it's Tanaiste/Taoiseach. Cowen has not addressed the nation ONCE !. FF are down 80 Council seats, and one MEP since this time last year. THey have pissed off all sectors of society, with cuts which fall well short of what is necessary. Sadly, their most comeptent performer's position is up in the air. Finally, they have been at 20-25% in the polls, with NO sign of upturn.
5.Wait until this year is complete. Mr Trichet WILL raise interst rates, and another plethora of mortgage defaulters will lose the protection of the moritorium, and their assets will become more bad debts.
Jobs have NOT been restored.
Ireland has not made any attempt to becoming a competitive hub
The deficit is still huge.
You are blinkered by "party loyalty" to a party who's reticence to act is costing Ireland greatly.0 -
If i can replyWell I have, just not directly.
- Brought forward the 2008 budget to October in order to implement early and necessary fiscal changes
And made such a balls of it that point number three exists below. I work in tax, that budget was rushed and became a laughing stock when the health levy effects were not factored in to take account of the reductions in PAYE it would cause, i.e the forgot that by artificially taxing the gross pay the amount left falling to PAYE would also be reduced
- First country in Europe to implement the bank guarantee's last year that was quickly followed by many other countries.
Big whoop. They guaranteed deposits up to the tune of 100K to stop people making a run on the banks, which at the time was very very likely and already happening. I remember queues on Harcourt Street streaking around the corner as people moved to withdraw money from the US banks
- Implementation of emergency budget in April 09 to address the changed circumstances since the October budget
Changed circumstances? They were the exact same, we were going down the toiled and their first budget had done feck all to halt it, in addition they had gotten the sums wrong and if you look up this budget most of it was to clarify positions and put addendums to the first cock up of a budget
- Set up and implementation of NAMA to address the Toxic debt across the country and to allow the banks to function more normally (not to bail out developers as is constantly misreported)
THIS is where your argument falls down. How did they do it. Did they tell NAMA all this was coming their way- nope, they just dumped it on them. IN addition they didn't even leave NAMA officials go audit the books before the coughed up this magical 54 Billion. The logic apparantly is that by removing the "bad" loans the bank can start giving out cash in the forms of loans again. How? Ireland had access to credit through the European central bank, now that inter bank lending has tightened up where are these banks suppose to raise the capital for new loans??? NAMA is a waste of time, we needed to get credit flowing again, not assume toxic debts into the state fold, a more logical step would be a national bank or a national fund for the banks to access to provide this capital.
- Implementation of much needed public sector pay cuts despite massive objections from the trade unions.
No argument here. Cowen wanted to cave but at Lenihan had the balls for this one, but they ran benchmarking up to ridiculous levels during the boom acceding to every Union demand that made this necessary, if they had maintained some sort of order in benchmarking in the first place there wouldn't be such a dissparity and spoilt reaction from the unions.
I'm not arguing that these were all the right measures at the right time, but they are examples of the government (particularly the Finance minister) working proactively to try to address a challenging economic environment.
As pointed out earlier, none of these were pro active they were fire fighting measures. This government is not capabable of doing ANYTHING until the press uses it as a stick to beat them with.0 -
The topic of this thread is whether or not there is likely to be a GE in 2010. . . I am loathe to get into another lengthy debate defending government policy over the last 10 years, not because I can't or don't want to but because I have done this before and it is a fruitless debate . . we end up at the same point. NAMA's a great idea / No its not !!
I believe that there will not be a GE in 2010. If asked the question this time last year I would have said that there was only a very small chance that the government would see out 2009, let alone continue to a full term but since then like it or not, agree with their policies or not, Cowen has steadied the ship, stabilised the coalition government, delivered NAMA, delivered Lisbon, halted the growth in unemployment and stabilised the economy. Of course there is a huge amount more to do and I'm not suggesting for a second that we are now back to a nice, cosy, pre-recession state of affairs but we are in a better place than we were a year ago and for that reason the government will survive. I believe that if they can effect a recovery within the economy over the next two years FF will be returned at the next GE . . .
BTW, Het-Field, you slate FF's economic policies throughout your post . . you say they were slow to act and you disagree with the policies they have implemented yet, in the same post, you describe (I presume) the Minister for Finance as 'their most competent performer' ? Not sure that I am clear on what your position is ?0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »The topic of this thread is whether or not there is likely to be a GE in 2010. . .
:
I believe that there will not be a GE in 2010.
:
:
Cowen has steadied the ship, stabilised the coalition government, delivered NAMA, delivered Lisbon, halted the growth in unemployment and stabilised the economy.
Firstly, ass-saving stabilised the coalition. Nothing else. FF know they're screwed when they go to the polls, and the Greens know they'll be annihalated. So they'll stay in there while they can.hallelujajordan wrote: »Of course there is a huge amount more to do
And so you're basing your analysis on the fact that the guys frantically filling in the hole that they dug in the first place should be rewarded and trusted ?
You're also repeatedly claiming that they're proactive and doing the only option, despite not responding when its pointed out how neither is true.hallelujajordan wrote: »BTW, Het-Field, you slate FF's economic policies throughout your post . . you say they were slow to act and you disagree with the policies they have implemented yet, in the same post, you describe (I presume) the Minister for Finance as 'their most competent performer' ? Not sure that I am clear on what your position is ?
His position is - I reckon - like mine. Lenihan is ****e, but he's the best of a really, really, really bad lot.
Lenihan has stood his ground, and has made crap decisions in relation to throwing money away.
But at least he's not visibly tainted by scandals, corruption or running the country into the ground as a Taoiseach or Minister.
So yes, he's the best of a bad lot (even allowing for the fiasco that is NAMA).0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »
His position is - I reckon - like mine. Lenihan is ****e, but he's the best of a really, really, really bad lot.
Lenihan has stood his ground, and has made crap decisions in relation to throwing money away.
So yes, he's the best of a bad lot (even allowing for the fiasco that is NAMA).
What is your basis, oh wise one, for declaring NAMA a fiasco?
IT will take a decade to find out whether it was a good decision or not, but I"m sure Minister Lenihan will stand over them then as a mistake should it transpire to be a bad decision, you however, are full of bitterness and will never acknowledge, regardless of the outcome that the decision was the best one.
Mary Hanafin is also performing quite well, but I suppose all of those who had been decrying the largesse possible on benefits for the past decade are the self same people decrying decisions to cut it now while prices are tumbling at a rate not seen since the 30s.
The hypocracy (and I know I can be as guilty of it too, but not the same extent) sickens me.
There will be no election before March 20120 -
great debate here , but the simple fact is that this country is full of goldfish memory level vegetables that will vote them back in .
blazing saddles said it best :
http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/saddles/sounds/morons.wav0 -
What is your basis, oh wise one, for declaring NAMA a fiasco?
Let me see
1) The ridiculous view that overpaying (what could turn out to be paying double what stuff is worth) is somehow a "discount"
2) The fact that there was no legislation was introduced to force the banks to do anything for the good of society, despite the bailout
3) The fact that the banks are still allowed to pay their bosses ridiculous amounts, despite the fact that they should be damn grateful and should do the right thing
4) The fact that this is being done for banks that were corrupt cesspits to the core, with zero accountability and no proof that this chance will not be squandered
Essentially the fact that it is essentially a ridiculous gamble; and while even a gambler could walk away with a massive win, that doesn't mean that it was a "wise" bet; it means they got lucky.
So - even though I doubt it - it could "work", but even if it does it will be pure luck......the equivalent of taking €1 billion of our cash to Vegas and putting it on a roulette wheel in the hope of solving this year's deficit.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »The topic of this thread is whether or not there is likely to be a GE in 2010. . . I am loathe to get into another lengthy debate defending government policy over the last 10 years, not because I can't or don't want to but because I have done this before and it is a fruitless debate . . we end up at the same point. NAMA's a great idea / No its not !!
I believe that there will not be a GE in 2010. If asked the question this time last year I would have said that there was only a very small chance that the government would see out 2009, let alone continue to a full term but since then like it or not, agree with their policies or not, Cowen has steadied the ship, stabilised the coalition government, delivered NAMA, delivered Lisbon, halted the growth in unemployment and stabilised the economy. Of course there is a huge amount more to do and I'm not suggesting for a second that we are now back to a nice, cosy, pre-recession state of affairs but we are in a better place than we were a year ago and for that reason the government will survive. I believe that if they can effect a recovery within the economy over the next two years FF will be returned at the next GE . . .
BTW, Het-Field, you slate FF's economic policies throughout your post . . you say they were slow to act and you disagree with the policies they have implemented yet, in the same post, you describe (I presume) the Minister for Finance as 'their most competent performer' ? Not sure that I am clear on what your position is ?
Governmental stability is not an issue. It is a single party government. The Greens are far more FF-lite then the PDs ever were. They are scared stiff that their party will be obliterated in an election. The last thing they need is to become 1 Cllr larger then the rump of the Workers Party. There will be no election due to governmental instability. All they needed was a carbon tax, and a ban on stag hunting to stay sweet. Cowen didnt even need to negotiate with the Greens, so there is no cudos for that.
HE DIDNT DELIVER LISBON. Groups like Ireland For Europe, Pat Cox, Garrett Fitzgerland and the average and motivated citizen delivered it
Un-Employment hasnt stabilised. The figures are buffered by the brain drain as qualified young people fly to Canada and Australia in search of work. Furthermore, immigrants have returned home. As such the figures are in flux, and we wont have any stable figures until June or July of this year. If you want to credit Cowen and Coughlan with credit for anti competitive emmigration, then be my guest.
The economy has not stabilised. A fiscally conservative budget, while welcome, has not redressed the 20 + Billion public debt. Can they return to the same people and pilfer them in December 2010 ? Will they deal with the Social welfare system ? Will they touch the untouched quangos ?
Ireland is still an anti competitive mess ! The banking crisis is NOT even close to being over.
Lenihan showed an air of competency amongst a shower of incompetents like Cowen and Coughlan. Its not hard.0 -
I would rather listen to financial experts who seem to be of the opinion that nama is at best an unbelievable gamble being taken on our behalf by your buddies in FF..none of whom will be affected by it should it fail. The people who will pay are those that always do..working class people-but then when was it that FF cared about those? My only consolation is that Fianna Failure/Vegetables will get what they richly deserve when the badly needed general election comes around.What is your basis, oh wise one, for declaring NAMA a fiasco?
IT will take a decade to find out whether it was a good decision or not, but I"m sure Minister Lenihan will stand over them then as a mistake should it transpire to be a bad decision, you however, are full of bitterness and will never acknowledge, regardless of the outcome that the decision was the best one.
Mary Hanafin is also performing quite well, but I suppose all of those who had been decrying the largesse possible on benefits for the past decade are the self same people decrying decisions to cut it now while prices are tumbling at a rate not seen since the 30s.
The hypocracy (and I know I can be as guilty of it too, but not the same extent) sickens me.
There will be no election before March 20120 -
freewheeler wrote: »My only consolation is that Fianna Failure/Vegetables will get what they richly deserve when the badly needed general election comes around.
And with a bit of luck we will never vote that bunch of gob****es into power again.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, ass-saving stabilised the coalition. Nothing else. FF know they're screwed when they go to the polls, and the Greens know they'll be annihalated. So they'll stay in there while they can.
I don't believe that . . This time last year it looked like the Greens strongest option to retain their credibility and minimise their losses come the next election would have been to make a big song and dance about how they pulled the plug on FF, but they chose to stick around in government with FF to try to effect change.Liam Byrne wrote:And so you're basing your analysis on the fact that the guys frantically filling in the hole that they dug in the first place should be rewarded and trusted ?
No, I'm basing my analysis on the fact that over the last 18 months they have stood strong and made what I believe are the right decisions for the long term stability of the country. That is why they will remain in government until 2012 and that is why I believe they will be returned to government in 2012.Liam Byrne wrote:You're also repeatedly claiming that they're proactive and doing the only option, despite not responding when its pointed out how neither is true.
The question of proactivity versus reactivity is a red herring and a pointless debate. Everything a government does, every policy it makes is in reaction to a changing circumstance or the analysis of future changing circumstances so nothing can truly be argued to be proactive. I think setting up NAMA in order to tackle bad debt and free up the banks to operate as normal is a proactive measure. I agree that it may have been more proactive to prevent that debt at an earlier stage but as I have said previously I think we have a collective responsibility as a nation for that one. I think that tackling public sector pay is a proactive step towards reducing government expenditure and bridging the deficit. I agree that it would have been more proactive to reduce spending earlier but again I believe we bear collective responsibility for this. We supported a government that was lowering taxes and improving infrastructure and returned them three times.
The question of whether or not it was the only option is a silly one. Clearly Lenihan believed that NAMA was the only viable option and hence made that decision.hetfield wrote:Governmental stability is not an issue. It is a single party government. The Greens are far more FF-lite then the PDs ever were. They are scared stiff that their party will be obliterated in an election. The last thing they need is to become 1 Cllr larger then the rump of the Workers Party. There will be no election due to governmental instability. All they needed was a carbon tax, and a ban on stag hunting to stay sweet. Cowen didnt even need to negotiate with the Greens, so there is no cudos for that.
HE DIDNT DELIVER LISBON. Groups like Ireland For Europe, Pat Cox, Garrett Fitzgerland and the average and motivated citizen delivered it
Un-Employment hasnt stabilised. The figures are buffered by the brain drain as qualified young people fly to Canada and Australia in search of work. Furthermore, immigrants have returned home. As such the figures are in flux, and we wont have any stable figures until June or July of this year. If you want to credit Cowen and Coughlan with credit for anti competitive emmigration, then be my guest.
The economy has not stabilised. A fiscally conservative budget, while welcome, has not redressed the 20 + Billion public debt. Can they return to the same people and pilfer them in December 2010 ? Will they deal with the Social welfare system ? Will they touch the untouched quangos ?
Ireland is still an anti competitive mess ! The banking crisis is NOT even close to being over.
Lenihan showed an air of competency amongst a shower of incompetents like Cowen and Coughlan. Its not hard.
I think it is unreasonable to critcise Cowen for everything that goes wrong but refuse to credit him when things go well. If Lisbon 2 had failed it would have been the governments failure and might well have brought down the government. It didn't fail and for that Cowen (or more particularly Michael Martin) deserves credit. If the Green party had pulled the plug last year (as they may well have done in their own long term interest) Cowen would have been blamed. They didn't and he should be credited for keeping the coalition together.
Unemployment has stabilised and if you look at the live register numbers you will see that. The challenge for the government is to maintain this stability through 2010.
I find your views on Lenihan at best a contradiction. .
You describe him as having "an air of competence" in one post as being the cabinets "most competent performer" in another yet throughout you disagree with all of his policies and decisions ? ?0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »
I think it is unreasonable to critcise Cowen for everything that goes wrong but refuse to credit him when things go well. If Lisbon 2 had failed it would have been the governments failure and might well have brought down the government.
But you are doing the exact same thing! You are ignoring all his and Fianna Fail`s huge mistakes that have dragged this country to its knees and then rewarded them for the things they allegedly got right.
With regards to unemployment, it is far too early to say that it has stabaiised. If the numbers keep going down by March then fair enough but until then your point is moot.0 -
But you are doing the exact same thing! You are ignoring all his and Fianna Fail`s huge mistakes that have dragged this country to its knees and then rewarded them for the things they allegedly got right.
With regards to unemployment, it is far too early to say that it has stabaiised. If the numbers keep going down by March then fair enough but until then your point is moot.
No I'm not . . I'm more than happy to acknowledge that mistakes were made and that different decisions could have or should have been made or made earlier and I think I did so in my last post (having said that, its pretty easy to make such observations with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight). We returned a FF government three times in a row because we collectively (except Liam Byrne) liked what they were doing and we continuously renewed their mandate to do it. We share collectively (except Liam Byrne) in that responsibility because we collectively (except Liam Byrne) got caught up in the boom and its weak of us to blame FF (as you do - and Liam Byrne does) for dragging the country to its knees.
Regarding unemployment, I believe the data available supports an analysis that for now at least the numbers have stabilised. I agree that we need this to be maintained over the longer term and we can revisit this debate in March / July or next December when we have even stronger data, but the data available today is valid for todays analysis.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »We returned a FF government three times in a row because we collectively liked what they were doing and we continuously renewed their mandate to do it. We share collectively in that responsibility because we collectively got caught up in the Dublin and its weak of us to blame FF (as you do) for dragging the country to its knees.
Can I disassociate myself from that "collective we" again, please ?
BTW what the hell does "collectively got caught up in the Dublin" mean ?
And FF did drag the country to its knees.
Proactive policies (e.g. looking beyond how to get elected next time around with some relatively good news immediately prior to some election or other) would have meant that the proceeds of the boom were spread out over the foreseeable future.
Proactive policies would have involved regulating the banks, rather than McCreevy's "hands off" approach.
Proactive policies involve turning down the heat and putting away the candles, matches and kerosene once the temperature goes up too much; proactive policies do NOT involve calling the fire brigade and checking your insurance policy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Apologies. . I keep forgetting to disassociate you, corrected now . . although you do know that collective does not mean 'everyone' !Liam Byrne wrote: »Can I disassociate myself from that "collective we" again, please ?
Must be going madLiam Byrne wrote:BTW what the hell does "collectively got caught up in the Dublin" mean ?
. . fixed now. 0 -
None of that moaning or blame is going to correct the problem.Liam Byrne wrote: »Can I disassociate myself from that "collective we" again, please ?
BTW what the hell does "collectively got caught up in the Dublin" mean ?
And FF did drag the country to its knees.
Proactive policies (e.g. looking beyond how to get elected next time around with some relatively good news immediately prior to some election or other) would have meant that the proceeds of the boom were spread out over the foreseeable future.
Proactive policies would have involved regulating the banks, rather than McCreevy's "hands off" approach.
Proactive policies involve turning down the heat and putting away the candles, matches and kerosene once the temperature goes up too much; proactive policies do NOT involve calling the fire brigade and checking your insurance policy.
If Fianna Fáil has laid out a manifesto deemed most suitable to the majority of the electorate in 2012, then it should form a government irrespective of past mistakes.
To point at errors (most of which were known in 2006/7 before the LAST General Election) in 2012 and say "they might be the best chance for the future, but fu<k it, I can't vote for that because the logo is wrong" is going to exacerbate the problem by undoing any progress that will have been made to that point.
In fairness, there were very few variances in the manifestos of the 3 parties in 2007. I screamed "idiot!!" at a screen in Citywest Hotel numerous times during Bertie Ahern's Ard-Fheis speech for following Labour's promise to cut the top rate of tax, and to increase the pension even more...it was all folly and I'll be the first to admit is was blatant electioneering. But this is NOT Bertie Ahern's government. This government is Brian Cowen's and has a full mandate from Dáil Éireann, which is all it needs.0 -
Supporting fianna fail ,is like kicking a man when he's down.0
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »I don't believe that . . This time last year it looked like the Greens strongest option to retain their credibility and minimise their losses come the next election would have been to make a big song and dance about how they pulled the plug on FF, but they chose to stick around in government with FF to try to effect change.
No, I'm basing my analysis on the fact that over the last 18 months they have stood strong and made what I believe are the right decisions for the long term stability of the country. That is why they will remain in government until 2012 and that is why I believe they will be returned to government in 2012.
The question of proactivity versus reactivity is a red herring and a pointless debate. Everything a government does, every policy it makes is in reaction to a changing circumstance or the analysis of future changing circumstances so nothing can truly be argued to be proactive. I think setting up NAMA in order to tackle bad debt and free up the banks to operate as normal is a proactive measure. I agree that it may have been more proactive to prevent that debt at an earlier stage but as I have said previously I think we have a collective responsibility as a nation for that one. I think that tackling public sector pay is a proactive step towards reducing government expenditure and bridging the deficit. I agree that it would have been more proactive to reduce spending earlier but again I believe we bear collective responsibility for this. We supported a government that was lowering taxes and improving infrastructure and returned them three times.
The question of whether or not it was the only option is a silly one. Clearly Lenihan believed that NAMA was the only viable option and hence made that decision.
I think it is unreasonable to critcise Cowen for everything that goes wrong but refuse to credit him when things go well. If Lisbon 2 had failed it would have been the governments failure and might well have brought down the government. It didn't fail and for that Cowen (or more particularly Michael Martin) deserves credit. If the Green party had pulled the plug last year (as they may well have done in their own long term interest) Cowen would have been blamed. They didn't and he should be credited for keeping the coalition together.
Unemployment has stabilised and if you look at the live register numbers you will see that. The challenge for the government is to maintain this stability through 2010.
I find your views on Lenihan at best a contradiction. .
You describe him as having "an air of competence" in one post as being the cabinets "most competent performer" in another yet throughout you disagree with all of his policies and decisions ? ?
1.I never diagreed with Lenihan's decision to cut the public pay bill, and seek to introduce a lelvel of fiscal rectitude into the Irish economy. This was in spite of BIFFO's best efforts, as he stupidly tried to play conciliator, and concocted that 12 Days rubbish.
As Judge Constance Harm stated in the Simpsons, "Dont spit on my cup cake and call it frosting". The Greens are not there to "effect change". The Greens are their to save their own skins. The local and European election results highlighlight that their credibility is shot. Are they remaining for the good of the country ? No, they are maintaining their position to keep Gormely in a job. I would like to see Cowen silence the Labour Party, or the PD influence under Dessie O Malley/Mary Harney (1997-2002) with a carbon tax, and a ban of stag hunting. It is like shooting fish in a barrel, and takes no skill. It is not a Cowen success.
Lisbon had nothing to do with Cowen/FF. Tell me, what role did Cowen play in the treaty ? What did he do to ensure it's passage ? Was he responsible for any defining moment ?
Stabilisation of unemployment due to emigration is NOT an achievement. The only reason many are off the register is due to emigration. Thousands of qualified young people sent to foreign climes to find work is a national travisty. I have lost several close friends to this fate. How dare you suggest this to be a sign of FF competence Wait until later this year when more and more people start signing on as their interaction with the private sector has come to an end as they are forced out of business. Equally, we will have another flood of graduates out of work in September.0 -
1.I never diagreed with Lenihan's decision to cut the public pay bill, and seek to introduce a lelvel of fiscal rectitude into the Irish economy. This was in spite of BIFFO's best efforts, as he stupidly tried to play conciliator, and concocted that 12 Days rubbish.
As Judge Constance Harm stated in the Simpsons, "Dont spit on my cup cake and call it frosting". The Greens are not there to "effect change". The Greens are their to save their own skins. The local and European election results highlighlight that their credibility is shot. Are they remaining for the good of the country ? No, they are maintaining their position to keep Gormely in a job. I would like to see Cowen silence the Labour Party, or the PD influence under Dessie O Malley/Mary Harney (1997-2002) with a carbon tax, and a ban of stag hunting. It is like shooting fish in a barrel, and takes no skill. It is not a Cowen success.
Lisbon had nothing to do with Cowen/FF. Tell me, what role did Cowen play in the treaty ? What did he do to ensure it's passage ? Was he responsible for any defining moment ?
Stabilisation of unemployment due to emigration is NOT an achievement. The only reason many are off the register is due to emigration. Thousands of qualified young people sent to foreign climes to find work is a national travisty. I have lost several close friends to this fate. How dare you suggest this to be a sign of FF competence Wait until later this year when more and more people start signing on as their interaction with the private sector has come to an end as they are forced out of business. Equally, we will have another flood of graduates out of work in September.
Lisbon II was introduced by the government and the campaign from within the government was led by Micheal Martin, a member of Brian Cowen's cabinet to took a very visible position in the run up to the referendum and performed extremely well in many public debates. The strategy employed by Cowen's government was certainly different to Lisbon I and absolutely, Mr Cowen took a back seat in the run up to the referendum. But whatever his personal role was, the referendum was delivered and his strategy worked.
I dare to suggest that the unemployment has stabilised because I think the data available supports this claim. I'm struggling to understand how you conclude that unemployment the obvious stabilising effect is due to emigration. . . I've tried to find data to support or contradict your analysis and the only reliable source I can find is the Central Statistics Office website (cso.ie)
The most recent emigration data was published in April 2009 and shows that the number of emigrants increased year on year by 40% to 65,100 . . an increase of 19,800 from the previous year. So lets assume that this 19,800 is the recession effect. . This equates to 1,650 people per month (Incidentally, the same analysis showed that almost half of these were Eastern Europeans returning home, which somewhat contradicts the brain-drain theory).
During 2008 the net monthly increase in the live register was 9,050 new people per month. In the first 8 months of 2009 it increased to an average of 13,800 per month. However, between August and November the live register numbers actually dropped by 23,200 people . .
So compared to the average in the first 8 months of the year, there are 64,600 ((13,800 x 3) + 23,200) people who did not join the live register during the three months September through November. An average of 21,533 per month.
If your analysis is correct and there has been no stabilisation in the numbers of unemployed, the rate of immigration due to recession has increased from a rate of 1,650 per month in April to 21,533 a month in September (a 13 fold increase) . . If you have data that supports this increase, point me to it . . If not and your evidence is anecdotal then I believe the data available supports my analysis that unemployment has actually stabilised. Whether it stays that way is the next challenge for the government. I believe it will. We have seen an increase in consumer confidence and spending on the run up to Christmas which will have a positive effect on employment numbers in the first quarter of this year. I also believe that the recovery evident in other foreign economies will begin to have a positive effect on our exports which will in turn have a positive effect on our employment numbers further into 2010. . . Time will tell, but I believe Brian Lenihans analysis that we have turned a corner.0 -
Anyone with half a brain knows that (as usual) these numbers have been spun in every possible direction to reflect a positive light..as far as i can see we are nowhere near recovery and the fact that our 'government' says so makes me believe the opposite as at this stage i dont believe a word they say.hallelujajordan wrote: »Lisbon II was introduced by the government and the campaign from within the government was led by Micheal Martin, a member of Brian Cowen's cabinet to took a very visible position in the run up to the referendum and performed extremely well in many public debates. The strategy employed by Cowen's government was certainly different to Lisbon I and absolutely, Mr Cowen took a back seat in the run up to the referendum. But whatever his personal role was, the referendum was delivered and his strategy worked.
I dare to suggest that the unemployment has stabilised because I think the data available supports this claim. I'm struggling to understand how you conclude that unemployment the obvious stabilising effect is due to emigration. . . I've tried to find data to support or contradict your analysis and the only reliable source I can find is the Central Statistics Office website (cso.ie)
The most recent emigration data was published in April 2009 and shows that the number of emigrants increased year on year by 40% to 65,100 . . an increase of 19,800 from the previous year. So lets assume that this 19,800 is the recession effect. . This equates to 1,650 people per month (Incidentally, the same analysis showed that almost half of these were Eastern Europeans returning home, which somewhat contradicts the brain-drain theory).
During 2008 the net monthly increase in the live register was 9,050 new people per month. In the first 8 months of 2009 it increased to an average of 13,800 per month. However, between August and November the live register numbers actually dropped by 23,200 people . .
So compared to the average in the first 8 months of the year, there are 64,600 ((13,800 x 3) + 23,200) people who did not join the live register during the three months September through November. An average of 21,533 per month.
If your analysis is correct and there has been no stabilisation in the numbers of unemployed, the rate of immigration due to recession has increased from a rate of 1,650 per month in April to 21,533 a month in September (a 13 fold increase) . . If you have data that supports this increase, point me to it . . If not and your evidence is anecdotal then I believe the data available supports my analysis that unemployment has actually stabilised. Whether it stays that way is the next challenge for the government. I believe it will. We have seen an increase in consumer confidence and spending on the run up to Christmas which will have a positive effect on employment numbers in the first quarter of this year. I also believe that the recovery evident in other foreign economies will begin to have a positive effect on our exports which will in turn have a positive effect on our employment numbers further into 2010. . . Time will tell, but I believe Brian Lenihans analysis that we have turned a corner.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »Lisbon II was introduced by the government and the campaign from within the government was led by Micheal Martin, a member of Brian Cowen's cabinet to took a very visible position in the run up to the referendum and performed extremely well in many public debates. The strategy employed by Cowen's government was certainly different to Lisbon I and absolutely, Mr Cowen took a back seat in the run up to the referendum. But whatever his personal role was, the referendum was delivered and his strategy worked.
I dare to suggest that the unemployment has stabilised because I think the data available supports this claim. I'm struggling to understand how you conclude that unemployment the obvious stabilising effect is due to emigration. . . I've tried to find data to support or contradict your analysis and the only reliable source I can find is the Central Statistics Office website (cso.ie)
The most recent emigration data was published in April 2009 and shows that the number of emigrants increased year on year by 40% to 65,100 . . an increase of 19,800 from the previous year. So lets assume that this 19,800 is the recession effect. . This equates to 1,650 people per month (Incidentally, the same analysis showed that almost half of these were Eastern Europeans returning home, which somewhat contradicts the brain-drain theory).
During 2008 the net monthly increase in the live register was 9,050 new people per month. In the first 8 months of 2009 it increased to an average of 13,800 per month. However, between August and November the live register numbers actually dropped by 23,200 people . .
So compared to the average in the first 8 months of the year, there are 64,600 ((13,800 x 3) + 23,200) people who did not join the live register during the three months September through November. An average of 21,533 per month.
If your analysis is correct and there has been no stabilisation in the numbers of unemployed, the rate of immigration due to recession has increased from a rate of 1,650 per month in April to 21,533 a month in September (a 13 fold increase) . . If you have data that supports this increase, point me to it . . If not and your evidence is anecdotal then I believe the data available supports my analysis that unemployment has actually stabilised. Whether it stays that way is the next challenge for the government. I believe it will. We have seen an increase in consumer confidence and spending on the run up to Christmas which will have a positive effect on employment numbers in the first quarter of this year. I also believe that the recovery evident in other foreign economies will begin to have a positive effect on our exports which will in turn have a positive effect on our employment numbers further into 2010. . . Time will tell, but I believe Brian Lenihans analysis that we have turned a corner.
1.It was Ireland For Europe which led by Pat Cox, Brendan Halligan and Garrett Fitzgerald carried the referendum. They were the most prominant face, and encompassed the vast majority of non-affiliated people. Occasional appearences from Martin doesnt negate the fact that FF's role in the passage of the Lisbon Treaty was negligible at best. "His strategy worked". BIFFO has no strategy.
2. I would encourage you to wait until we see full figures for 2010 emmigration. Commentators predict anything up to 40,000 people could leave this jurisdiction. The reduction was also viewed in the light of average removals of those disentitled to sit on the live register, those who entered training schemes (not necessairly beneficial ones).Largescale entry to FAS has also skewed the figures vis-avis unemployment. I omitted to mention that. THese people are in training. They are no longer on the "live register", however, they are still, for all intents and purposes unemployed. The reduction is NOT a sign of a return to competitiveness (which FF lost incrementally as Bertie licked the arses of the Unions), or a return to growth in sustainable employment. Emigration, disentitlement, and governmental training schemes have all contributed. As I have said, given Ireland's blunt edge vis-a-vis competitiveness a return to largescale employment is some time away.
3.International recoveries at a faster rate are NOT good for Ireland. Mr Trichet is gagging to increase interest rates, and that is guaranteed to happen before the Autumn is out. As I have mentioned, irish wages are too high, the cost of electricity and land rents (not so much anymore) is too high, and Cowen has ignored any chance of cutting corporation tax to curry favour with our international partners.0 -
freewheeler wrote: »Anyone with half a brain knows that (as usual) these numbers have been spun in every possible direction to reflect a positive light..as far as i can see we are nowhere near recovery and the fact that our 'government' says so makes me believe the opposite as at this stage i dont believe a word they say.
Careful!!! You'll have Bertie Ahern coming on here wondering why you don't.....y'know......that thing that he reckons all realists should do ?0 -
freewheeler wrote: »Anyone with half a brain knows that (as usual) these numbers have been spun in every possible direction to reflect a positive light..as far as i can see we are nowhere near recovery and the fact that our 'government' says so makes me believe the opposite as at this stage i dont believe a word they say.
No spin here. . I have taken this data directly from cso.ie and you can verify it for yourself. . Unless you are suggesting that CSO have spun it : Not sure why the Central Statistics Organisation would do that ?0 -
Advertisement
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »No spin here. . I have taken this data directly from cso.ie and you can verify it for yourself. . Unless you are suggesting that CSO have spun it : Not sure why the Central Statistics Organisation would do that ?
Well the CSO have also mentioned that the standardised Unemployment rate is 12.5%. That doesnt exactly articulate much room to spin anything in a good light. Who is responsible for creating the conditions which created this rate ?0
Advertisement