What chance of a General Election in 2010 ?

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't disagree but remember Lenihan did hit the public sector with the pension levy much earlier . . and the government put a huge amount of effort into managing public perceptions around public sector pay before hitting it in the December budget . . the unions need to be managed and the balance between anarchy and cost saving needs to be maintained. So far the Lenihan/Cowen government have extracted a significant amount of cash at the cost of a single day long strike.

BTW, for what its worth I don't believe the line about Cowen dithering and Lenihan rocking in to make the tougher decisions. In my view this was just an excellent good cop/bad cop routine. . a highly effective negotiation strategy.

I think it was more "good cop" "incompetent Home Simpson Cop" scenario. This was not a well rehersed attempt at getting the unions onside. Top negotiation would have been to have cut a viable deal with the Unions, and ensure all and sundry got a piece of the pie. One thing I have learnt in my rudimentary attempts at legal negotiation ; it is never an attempt to take the shirt of your opponants back. The budgetary cuts were a display of that. The Unions got absolutly nothing,and I support that. However, the 12 Days business was done when Lenihan was out of the country. The logistics would suggest that Cowen was attempting to play the conciliator, and failed.

hallelujajordan

Het-Field wrote: »

I think it was more "good cop" "incompetent Home Simpson Cop" scenario. This was not a well rehersed attempt at getting the unions onside. Top negotiation would have been to have cut a viable deal with the Unions, and ensure all and sundry got a piece of the pie. One thing I have learnt in my rudimentary attempts at legal negotiation ; it is never an attempt to take the shirt of your opponants back. The budgetary cuts were a display of that. The Unions got absolutly nothing,and I support that. However, the 12 Days business was done when Lenihan was out of the country. The logistics would suggest that Cowen was attempting to play the conciliator, and failed.

Your analysis works if it suits the debate to cast Cowen in the Homer Simpson role. . I like to measure the results i can see rather than the nonsense that is reported in the papers. . Cowen / Lenihan's objective in the most recent budget was to extract maximum pay cuts with minimal public disturbance. . . The 12 day's farce (which was only ever put in the public domain by the unions) achieved, if nothing else, a cancellation of the one day strike planned for the week before the budget and the opportunity for the government to achieve a goal that they had worked towards with a sustained PR campaign that lasted months. You can like/dislike Cowen as much as you want but he is one of the cleverest men to hold the post of Taoiseach . . far cleverer than his predecessor.

hallelujajordan

Het-Field wrote: »

Three years is a long time in politics, and I am entitled to regret my decision. I voted the current government into power, however, I was not aware of the full extent of Ireland's situation. It is not to say that FG would have done any better, however, it was not thier profferences and "policies which created the domestic problems, which fall outside of the remit of responsibility of the "Global Recession"

But the essence of this debate is the next election and the next government. Don't you think it makes more sense to judge FF and the current government on their current performance. On how they are managing this crisis versus what a FG/Lab government would do. And when you come to vote in 2012 on the next government aren't you going to have to forget pre-2007 policies and measure the government on how they dealt with this crisis and how well positioned they are to continue dealing with it ?

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

But the essence of this debate is the next election and the next government. Don't you think it makes more sense to judge FF and the current government on their current performance. On how they are managing this crisis versus what a FG/Lab government would do. And when you come to vote in 2012 on the next government aren't you going to have to forget pre-2007 policies and measure the government on how they dealt with this crisis and how well positioned they are to continue dealing with it ?

As I have said, Three years is a long time in politics. I have not made up my mind who I shall vote for. Of course my decision will be couched on a number of factors, and any chance FF have of getting my vote will be based on an election ome time in the future.

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Your analysis works if it suits the debate to cast Cowen in the Homer Simpson role. . I like to measure the results i can see rather than the nonsense that is reported in the papers. . Cowen / Lenihan's objective in the most recent budget was to extract maximum pay cuts with minimal public disturbance. . . The 12 day's farce (which was only ever put in the public domain by the unions) achieved, if nothing else, a cancellation of the one day strike planned for the week before the budget and the opportunity for the government to achieve a goal that they had worked towards with a sustained PR campaign that lasted months. You can like/dislike Cowen as much as you want but he is one of the cleverest men to hold the post of Taoiseach . . far cleverer than his predecessor.

I cant believe that anybody could believe this wa a masterstroke of tomfoolery to postpone strikes at all costs. If this was the case, a ham fisted agreement would have been created. The cuts highlight the weakness of the Unions. This is not in their interests. This was not a result of negotiation, this was Lenihan taking the reigns when his tribalistic, and politically incompetent (bad finance minister, appalling leader of Fianna Fail) leader tired to do a Bertie. Furthermore, if what you say is true, then it is just another example of short term pragmatism. Strikes wil happen, and the fact that the Unions folded in December will not preclude them from taking action to "defend" their embers.More proposed strikes, and work to rule are on the way. The fact that we have not heard of potential strike action over christmas is due to the fact that it is Christmas

Cowen is one of the WORST holders of the office of Taoiseach. I dont doubt that he is an honourable man, who will never stand before a tribunal and seek to shirk resonsibility. However, the man has NO legislative record. In fact he was in the finance when Ireland moved from a self sustaining export ecomony, to sustaining itself off short term windfall taxes, which he then used to increase spening by 10% each year. We all know of his achievement in health i.e. "Angola", while a monkey could have done the job of Foreign Affairs between 2001-2004. In fact, while in foreign affairs he failed to deliver Nice I. The man has NOT articulated Ireland's difficulties, and has not made ONE state of the nation address. He is not leading the country.

Eutow

hallelujajordan wrote: »

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.

Proactive definition from business dictionary - Action and result oriented behavior, instead of the one that waits for things to happen and then tries to adjust (react) to them. Proactive behavior aims at identification and exploitation of opportunities and in taking preemptory action against potential problems and threats, whereas reactive behavior focuses on fighting a fire or solving a problem after it occurs.

I think this definition explains "proactive" quite clearly, so I don't think it is a red herring as you described it.

NAMA was set up after the banking crisis hit, so it is re-active, and no amount of FF touting spin will change that fact.

Eutow

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. 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.

I don't take responsibility for this because I never voted for Fianna Fail, I didn't buy a house because I know I can't afford it, and I never spend what I don't have. I also realise that if I use my credit card, I have to pay the money back the next month, and if I don't I will be subjected to high interest rates - (I use my credit card rarely, so I have always paid money back the following month).

FF were in power for the last 10 years, so as a blind follower of FF, are you actually admitting that FF are responsible for this mess through their incompetence, greed, gombeenism, and corrupt policies, and that people were wrong to vote FF?

Sorry for going off topic, but I would love a General Election as soon as possible, though I think FF will wait till 2012 and hope that people forget about the balls FF made of the country. Hopefully FF are wiped out completely, and whoever takes over has the balls to change the whole politically structure in this country because it needs it.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And when you come to vote in 2012 on the next government aren't you going to have to forget pre-2007 policies and measure the government on how they dealt with this crisis and how well positioned they are to continue dealing with it ?

So you want us to vote for the crowd that (a) tolerate / don't weed out corruption and (b) only had to "deal with this crisis" because they caused it ?

Sorting out the mess that they made is the least they can do for us. If you break something in someone's house, you clean up, pay for it, and then you leave.

Of course, FF's solution means that we'll be paying long after they leave, unfortunately.

But whether it's 2010 or 2012, you'll see me leaving if Ireland votes this shower of incompetent, arrogant money-wasters back in! Both from having that type of Government and living alongside the blinkered and forgetful-a-la-Bertie idiots that vote for them.

Eutow

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you want us to vote for the crowd that (a) tolerate / don't weed out corruption and (b) only had to "deal with this crisis" because they caused it ?

Sorting out the mess that they made is the least they can do for us. If you break something in someone's house, you clean up, pay for it, and then you leave.

Of course, FF's solution means that we'll be paying long after they leave, unfortunately.

But whether it's 2010 or 2012, you'll see me leaving if Ireland votes this shower of incompetent, arrogant money-wasters back in! Both from having that type of Government and living alongside the blinkered and forgetful-a-la-Bertie idiots that vote for them.

That would be reactive Liam.:) Be more proactive and leave before they get voted in again by our wonderful electorate. I think I'll be leaving before 2012 anyway.

hallelujajordan

Eutow wrote: »

Proactive definition from business dictionary - Action and result oriented behavior, instead of the one that waits for things to happen and then tries to adjust (react) to them. Proactive behavior aims at identification and exploitation of opportunities and in taking preemptory action against potential problems and threats, whereas reactive behavior focuses on fighting a fire or solving a problem after it occurs.

I think this definition explains "proactive" quite clearly, so I don't think it is a red herring as you described it.

NAMA was set up after the banking crisis hit, so it is re-active, and no amount of FF touting spin will change that fact.

Don't agree . . NAMA is a pro-active measure designed to pr-empt and prevent the fall of our largest banks by removing their toxic debt. I agree (as I have said already!) that it would have been more proactive to prevent the circumstances that led to the development of such debt. . but to suggest that NAMA is purely a reactive measure is just wrong . .

hallelujajordan

Eutow wrote: »

I don't take responsibility for this because I never voted for Fianna Fail, I didn't buy a house because I know I can't afford it, and I never spend what I don't have. I also realise that if I use my credit card, I have to pay the money back the next month, and if I don't I will be subjected to high interest rates - (I use my credit card rarely, so I have always paid money back the following month).

I will add you (with Liam Byrne) to my list of people to exclude when I talk about collective responsibility . . to restate, Collective responsibility does not require that every single person took part in an action ..

Eutow wrote:

FF were in power for the last 10 years, so as a blind follower of FF, are you actually admitting that FF are responsible for this mess through their incompetence, greed, gombeenism, and corrupt policies, and that people were wrong to vote FF?

First, you don't know me so don't presume that I am a blind follower of anything. I believe that FF acted on the mandate provided to them by the people of Ireland time and again during the Celtic tiger years. Had they not, the people would have replaced them with someone else who would have followed similar policies . .

Do me a favour, take the manifesto's of all the leading parties over the past 12 years and point me to the fundamental economic policy differences between FF and its opponents.

Eutow wrote:

Sorry for going off topic, but I would love a General Election as soon as possible, though I think FF will wait till 2012 and hope that people forget about the balls FF made of the country. Hopefully FF are wiped out completely, and whoever takes over has the balls to change the whole politically structure in this country because it needs it.

- There is no rationale for FF to call a GE any earlier. There is a stable coalition with an agreed programme for government and we are making steady progress.
- FF will not be wiped out at the next election . . look, Bertie Aherne is slated on here and accused of all sorts of criminal mis-doings all of which happened prior to his leading FF back into government in 2007. At the end of the day the country will realise (as they did in 2007) that FF are the most capable party to lead the Irish government regardless of what the anti-FF hacks on here believe.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you want us to vote for the crowd that (a) tolerate / don't weed out corruption and (b) only had to "deal with this crisis" because they caused it ?

Sorting out the mess that they made is the least they can do for us. If you break something in someone's house, you clean up, pay for it, and then you leave.

Of course, FF's solution means that we'll be paying long after they leave, unfortunately.

But whether it's 2010 or 2012, you'll see me leaving if Ireland votes this shower of incompetent, arrogant money-wasters back in! Both from having that type of Government and living alongside the blinkered and forgetful-a-la-Bertie idiots that vote for them.

I personally don't care who you vote for. . I will be voting for the party that I believed are best positioned to lead an Irish government during the period 2012-2017, regardless of what might have happened in the past. To do any otherwise would be foolhardy.

Eutow

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Don't agree . . NAMA is a pro-active measure designed to pr-empt and prevent the fall of our largest banks by removing their toxic debt. I agree (as I have said already!) that it would have been more proactive to prevent the circumstances that led to the development of such debt. . but to suggest that NAMA is purely a reactive measure is just wrong . .

Well we disagree. Think of this situation. You have a fireplace in your house and you light it, you put a fireguard in place to prevent material falling out onto the carpet and starting a fire - (proactive).

But, if you light the fireplace, and don't put a guard in front of it, and coal falls out of it onto the carpet and starts a fire after you have left the room. You then come back fifteen minutes later and notice the whole room on fire, you ring the fire-brigade, they put it out, but the room is destroyed. This is reactive because you only acted after the problem occured.
It is not proactive to call the fire-brigade after the event occurs, beacuse you would not let the fire spread to the rest of the rooms, unless you were completely insane.


This can be compared to NAMA. The government only reacted after the problem occured, not before. It cannot be partly or fully proactive, it is either proactive or it isn't.
The fact that NAMA was set up before the banks went totally bust does not make it partly proactive because if you waited till the banks went completely bust then there is nothing to save, so it would be neither proactive or reactive, there would be nothing left to react to, it would just be plain economic suicide.

hallelujajordan

This is a silly argument but anyway . .

Eutow wrote: »

Well we disagree. Think of this situation. You have a fireplace in your house and you light it, you put a fireguard in place to prevent material falling out onto the carpet and starting a fire - (proactive).

Its actually reactive. You are reacting to the fact that you have lit the fire and created the potential for a piece of coal to fall out and burn your house down. Just like NAMA is reacting to the potential for the toxic debt that exists within the banking community to bring down the banks.

Eutow wrote:

But, if you light the fireplace, and don't put a guard in front of it, and coal falls out of it onto the carpet and starts a fire after you have left the room. You then come back fifteen minutes later and notice the whole room on fire, you ring the fire-brigade, they put it out, but the room is destroyed. This is reactive because you only acted after the problem occured.

Yes, and if we didn't put NAMA in place, waited for the banks to fail and continued to recapitalise them as needed or eventually nationalise them, that would be reactive.

Eutow wrote:

This can be compared to NAMA. The government only reacted after the problem occured, not before. It cannot be partly or fully proactive, it is either proactive or it isn't.
The fact that NAMA was set up before the banks went totally bust does not make it partly proactive because if you waited till the banks went completely bust then there is nothing to save, so it would be neither proactive or reactive, there would be nothing left to react to, it would just be plain economic suicide.

Again, it really depends how you look at it . . I would argue that the government have reacted to a problem in order to proactively prevent another...

Eutow

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I will add you (with Liam Byrne) to my list of people to exclude when I talk about collective responsibility . . to restate, Collective responsibility does not require that every single person took part in an action ..

Thanks, but I know collective responsibility does not include every individual.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

First, you don't know me so don't presume that I am a blind follower of anything. I believe that FF acted on the mandate provided to them by the people of Ireland time and again during the Celtic tiger years. Had they not, the people would have replaced them with someone else who would have followed similar policies . .

Well, I'm only going by some of your previous posts. You seem to think FF are doing a good job. I don't think they are. A lot of FF supporters vote for them because their parents voted for them, and continue to vote for them no matter how badly the screw the country. This problem also happens within FG. I do believe they will be voted into power at the next general election but for different reasons to you.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Do me a favour, take the manifesto's of all the leading parties over the past 12 years and point me to the fundamental economic policy differences between FF and its opponents.

Something I agree with. We don't have a legitimate opposition.

Eutow

hallelujajordan wrote: »

- There is no rationale for FF to call a GE any earlier. There is a stable coalition with an agreed programme for government and we are making steady progress.
- FF will not be wiped out at the next election . . look, Bertie Aherne is slated on here and accused of all sorts of criminal mis-doings all of which happened prior to his leading FF back into government in 2007. At the end of the day the country will realise (as they did in 2007) that FF are the most capable party to lead the Irish government regardless of what the anti-FF hacks on here believe.

This is what worries me. Fianna Fail have proved since 1997 they are not capable of leading this country, but it seems a lot of Irish people don't like competent leaders, but the type we always seem to get.

hallelujajordan

Eutow wrote: »

Well, I'm only going by some of your previous posts. You seem to think FF are doing a good job. I don't think they are. A lot of FF supporters vote for them because their parents voted for them, and continue to vote for them no matter how badly the screw the country. This problem also happens within FG. I do believe they will be voted into power at the next general election but for different reasons to you.

I'm a member of Fianna Fail and I support their current position but am getting a little miffed at the presumptuousness and the deeply patronising attitudes of the anti-FF people on here. Lets debate the facts and forget the personal jibes

For what its worth, and none of your business other than to contradict you presumption that I might be some sort of FF family voter, my father was a labourer all his life and has always supported the Labour party (we debate politics a lot). In University I was a member of Young Fine Gael, and then later decided to join Fianna Fail because I believe in what they are doing. . . Yes there are problems and there are many of us within the party who recognise these problems and work to influence a resolution.

Eutow wrote:

Something I agree with. We don't have a legitimate opposition.

Or, we get what we pay for. . No party has taken a deeply opposing economic view to FF because if they did, they wouldn't have won any seats and they would cease to exist . .

This is what I mean by Collective Responsibility.

hallelujajordan

Eutow wrote: »

This is what worries me. Fianna Fail have proved since 1997 they are not capable of leading this country, but it seems a lot of Irish people don't like competent leaders, but the type we always seem to get.

Gimme a break . . speaking as someone who left Ireland in the early-90's, returned in the late 90's and have been able to settle and build a family and a career in Ireland since then, it is just daft to say that FF have proven they are not capable of leading Ireland. .

Of course there have been mistakes and misjudgments and, I concede, bad apples but you are overstating the situation enormously with that comment.

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Gimme a break . . speaking as someone who left Ireland in the early-90's, returned in the late 90's and have been able to settle and build a family and a career in Ireland since then, it is just daft to say that FF have proven they are not capable of leading Ireland. .

Of course there have been mistakes and misjudgments and, I concede, bad apples but you are overstating the situation enormously with that comment.

In fairness, there is far more at stake then just you and your family.

The mistakes and misjudgements have had a catastrophic effect on the life and livelyhoods of many. It almost appears that you seek to negate the mistakes, and render them as tiny transgressions, as opposed to major governmental errors which have seen the live register grow to 400,000+, our competitiveness plummett to 16th in Europe, the creation of a 24 Bilion Euro public debt, and their reticence to deal with the banks, and effectively support their wanton practice to stimulate a property bubble. If these aformentioned mistakes dont indicate a level of incompetence and incapability to lead, then I would have to suggest that only the Zimbabwe government could be an incapable government.

TBH, I really dont care anymore about the gripes that people have with Bertie, Haughey, Burke, Flynn, Lawlor, Dunlop etc. The fate that the likes of Brian Cowen have bistowed upon so many Irish people is far more concerning. Ireland's crisis is NOT heavily attributable to the world recession. Both the OECD and IMF reports highlight this. I was created by short sighted pragmatism. There is little to suggest that we should vest power back into the hands of those who overheated the economy in the first place. In three years time, I may agree with you. However, the vast majority of the public will not be nodding their head in agreement. They will remember the public pay cuts, the christmas bonus, their joblesness, the sustained attack on the professions (most notibly the Legal Profession). They will also remember NAMA, and the millstone that it is. It has sucked up billions of assets which will never be sold, and will be paid for by the Irish taxpayer thirty years into the future. Further bailouts, and possible nationalisations of banks will also be considered. The Irish people DONT thank FF for that, nor will they. This is due to the fact that it is hitting them in their wallets.The people are naturally selfish, and will consider their own lot. This equally trickles down into the private sector which wont thank FF for failing to deal with Wages, the cost of energy, and the one abomination that was land rents. They wont thank Coughlan for failing to redreess our blunt competitive edge.

Furthermore, they will recall the floods and their destructive force, which Green and FF led Government failed to deal with. They may remember the indemnity handed by Michael Woods to the Church prior to the Ryan and Murphy Reports. The Mahon Tribunal may also have one or two things to say about Bertie.

I have admitted that I shall be revisiting my decision as to who I shall vote for in three years. However, in this current climate, why should we return this government ? Why should we validate an absent Taoiseach, and and incompetent Tanaiste ? Why should we seek to continue with a Minsiter For The Environment who has been pitifully absent during two periods of natural strife ? Why should we accept a Minister For Justice who's legislation has been conservative at best ? Why should we accept O Dea, Cullen etc ?

As of today, why should we seek to return the people who are failing to deal with this crisis competently. If, and God Forbid, if Brian Lenihan decided to take a sabbatical from politics, who would be capable of taking over finance ? Would Richard Bruton or George Lee not make a better alternative ?

hallelujajordan

Het-Field wrote: »

In fairness, there is far more at stake then just you and your family.


The mistakes and misjudgements have had a catastrophic effect on the life and livelyhoods of many. It almost appears that you seek to negate the mistakes, and render them as tiny transgressions, as opposed to major governmental errors which have seen the live register grow to 400,000+, our competitiveness plummett to 16th in Europe, the creation of a 24 Bilion Euro public debt, and their reticence to deal with the banks, and effectively support their wanton practice to stimulate a property bubble. If these aformentioned mistakes dont indicate a level of incompetence and incapability to lead, then I would have to suggest that only the Zimbabwe government could be an incapable government.

Nor am I suggesting there isn't far more at stake . . . I'm just using myself as an example. . . As someone who grew up in the 80's and remembers what the quality of life was then I think it is important to retain some perspective and realism here. Its important to draw a balance. I'm not suggesting that the overheating in the property market and the subsequent bubble burst is a tiny transgression but I am saying that :

a) we bear collective responsibility for this and
b) it really isn't as catastrophic as you are making it sound.

To draw a parallel between the Irish and Zimbabwean governments is just foolish.

het-field wrote:

TBH, I really dont care anymore about the gripes that people have with Bertie, Haughey, Burke, Flynn, Lawlor, Dunlop etc. The fate that the likes of Brian Cowen have bistowed upon so many Irish people is far more concerning. Ireland's crisis is NOT heavily attributable to the world recession. Both the OECD and IMF reports highlight this. I was created by short sighted pragmatism. There is little to suggest that we should vest power back into the hands of those who overheated the economy in the first place. In three years time, I may agree with you. However, the vast majority of the public will not be nodding their head in agreement. They will remember the public pay cuts, the christmas bonus, their joblesness, the sustained attack on the professions (most notibly the Legal Profession). They will also remember NAMA, and the millstone that it is. It has sucked up billions of assets which will never be sold, and will be paid for by the Irish taxpayer thirty years into the future. Further bailouts, and possible nationalisations of banks will also be considered. The Irish people DONT thank FF for that, nor will they. This is due to the fact that it is hitting them in their wallets.The people are naturally selfish, and will consider their own lot. This equally trickles down into the private sector which wont thank FF for failing to deal with Wages, the cost of energy, and the one abomination that was land rents. They wont thank Coughlan for failing to redreess our blunt competitive edge.


Furthermore, they will recall the floods and their destructive force, which Green and FF led Government failed to deal with. They may remember the indemnity handed by Michael Woods to the Church prior to the Ryan and Murphy Reports. The Mahon Tribunal may also have one or two things to say about Bertie.

You are right, the people are naturally selfish . . thats why we are where we are. . Collective Responsibility, we get what we pay for ! I've been saying this all along. In two years time the country will vote based on the amount of money in their pocket at the time, on how the FF government have effected a recovery (assuming they do) and on how their go-forward situation looks. They will do what they did in 2007 and vote for the party that they feel are best positioned to lead Ireland into the future

You are way off the mark if you think they will remember the floods . . What was the impact of the floods in Dublin 4 or 5 years back to FF electability ? A photo of Bertie up to his knees that won him more votes than it lost. Nor will they remember that we ran out of salt in January 2010; And if you think Bertie and the Mahon tribunal will have any effect, look at the effect Haughey had on FF electability in the 90's ?

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Nor am I suggesting there isn't far more at stake . . . I'm just using myself as an example. . . As someone who grew up in the 80's and remembers what the quality of life was then I think it is important to retain some perspective and realism here. Its important to draw a balance. I'm not suggesting that the overheating in the property market and the subsequent bubble burst is a tiny transgression but I am saying that :

a) we bear collective responsibility for this and
b) it really isn't as catastrophic as you are making it sound.

To draw a parallel between the Irish and Zimbabwean governments is just foolish.



You are right, the people are naturally selfish . . thats why we are where we are. . Collective Responsibility, we get what we pay for ! I've been saying this all along. In two years time the country will vote based on the amount of money in their pocket at the time, on how the FF government have effected a recovery (assuming they do) and on how their go-forward situation looks. They will do what they did in 2007 and vote for the party that they feel are best positioned to lead Ireland into the future

You are way off the mark if you think they will remember the floods . . What was the impact of the floods in Dublin 4 or 5 years back to FF electability ? A photo of Bertie up to his knees that won him more votes than it lost. Nor will they remember that we ran out of salt in January 2010; And if you think Bertie and the Mahon tribunal will have any effect, look at the effect Haughey had on FF electability in the 90's ?

The floods etc may be incidental. I agree that this will have lesser impact, however, the economic hardship, worry and difficulty and wont be forgotten. Two years time wont see any major recovery. How are the governemtn going to redress the 24 Billion Defecit ? As such people's wallents wont be bluging with cash, the live register will still be sitting at a high level, and if our competitive edge isnt restored, we are going to be confined to a stagnent enterprise sector. You said it yourself that recovery will be slow, that is if recovery occurs at all. We are living in different times. In 2007 the wool was pulled over the public's eyes. Remember Bertie contended that the boom would get "boomier", and that the property bubble was not really a bubble at all.

The property bubble is quite catastrophic. The construction industry has been rendered virtually redundant thanks to the policies of the past five years. We can thank Mr Ahern and Cowen.People at the top of the industry have told me that there are enough houses built for 25 years. Many of these properties will never be sold. This means that those who are involved in the industry will not be able to get back on the jobs ladder for some time. Even re-entry to the education system may not be sufficient to get a job.

Even your own leaders have admitted to the catastrophic nature of Ireland's economic woes, yet you seem intent on negating them

hallelujajordan

Het-Field wrote: »

The floods etc may be incidental. I agree that this will have lesser impact, however, the economic hardship, worry and difficulty and wont be forgotten. Two years time wont see any major recovery. How are the governemtn going to redress the 24 Billion Defecit ? As such people's wallents wont be bluging with cash, the live register will still be sitting at a high level, and if our competitive edge isnt restored, we are going to be confined to a stagnent enterprise sector. You said it yourself that recovery will be slow, that is if recovery occurs at all. We are living in different times. In 2007 the wool was pulled over the public's eyes. Remember Bertie contended that the boom would get "boomier", and that the property bubble was not really a bubble at all.

The property bubble is quite catastrophic. The construction industry has been rendered virtually redundant thanks to the policies of the past five years. We can thank Mr Ahern and Cowen.People at the top of the industry have told me that there are enough houses built for 25 years. Many of these properties will never be sold. This means that those who are involved in the industry will not be able to get back on the jobs ladder for some time. Even re-entry to the education system may not be sufficient to get a job.

Even your own leaders have admitted to the catastrophic nature of Ireland's economic woes, yet you seem intent on negating them

I'm not negating them, I know how bad the situation is . . I just think its important to bring some balance and realism into the debate. . And I don't think that the fall of the construction industry is will be as catastrophic as you claim in the longer term. The economy will bounce back and so will we. . (under the right government).

I also don't believe that the ordinary Joe on the street cares about the deficit. In 2012, they will be comparing their situation to the low points of 2009, not 2005 and they will be voting based on the improvements they are seeing in their own personal situations . .

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm not negating them, I know how bad the situation is . . I just think its important to bring some balance and realism into the debate. . And I don't think that the fall of the construction industry is will be as catastrophic as you claim in the longer term. The economy will bounce back and so will we. . (under the right government).

I also don't believe that the ordinary Joe on the street cares about the deficit. In 2012, they will be comparing their situation to the low points of 2009, not 2005 and they will be voting based on the improvements they are seeing in their own personal situations . .

Obviously you are not involved in the construction sector or you wouldnt say that. The amount of people who are jobless, and are cast on the long term scrap heap as a result of the property development orgy. The market is flooded, and will be for a long time. How come we dont hear about the collapse of world property markets ? It is simply due to the fact that our government and banks mismanaged them. I know you would lay the blame at those who took out the 100% mortgages, however, the fundamental crux remains, that the state should have NEVER allowed that sort of environment develop. They should have been keeping on eye on the self, and state-professed hub of a national economy. As opposed to this the state turned a blind eye, and when the banks were maxed out they came to the state, cap in hand, for a massive bailout in the form of recapitalisation, nationaliation and NAMA. At least the state have stopped trying to refute any suggestion that it was a bailout.

The defecit is exactly what has seen public servants lose up to 15% of their pay packets (the roll back on senior Civil Servants is an argument for another day), social welfare recipiants lose their Christmas Bonus, and a flat tax on all form of fuels and carbon producing matter. To close the gap in 2010 the budget will need another savage cut (in spite of what Mr Lenihan said last month). Without seeking to sell off state assets, public sector streamlining, a cull of the jobs for the boyos QUANGOs, the state have had to hit recipiants of state money. There is only so many tims that can be done before we are driven further into recession.

hallelujajordan

Het-Field wrote: »

Obviously you are not involved in the construction sector or you wouldnt say that. The amount of people who are jobless, and are cast on the long term scrap heap as a result of the property development orgy. The market is flooded, and will be for a long time. How come we dont hear about the collapse of world property markets ? It is simply due to the fact that our government and banks mismanaged them. I know you would lay the blame at those who took out the 100% mortgages, however, the fundamental crux remains, that the state should have NEVER allowed that sort of environment develop. They should have been keeping on eye on the self, and state-professed hub of a national economy. As opposed to this the state turned a blind eye, and when the banks were maxed out they came to the state, cap in hand, for a massive bailout in the form of recapitalisation, nationaliation and NAMA. At least the state have stopped trying to refute any suggestion that it was a bailout.

No I'm not in the construction industry but that's kind of my point . . this property crash may be catastrophic for the construction sector and it clearly creates huge problems for the rest of us but it is not catastrophic for the country.

And if you don't hear about world property crashes then you are not listening very closely . . Have you heard of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the subprime mortgage crisis ? I travel a fair amount, mainly to the East Coast US and the UK and I can tell you that in the US they were talking property crash long before we were and they are being hit much harder by the repo-man than we are . . and in the UK, its no better than it is here

Het-field wrote:

The defecit is exactly what has seen public servants lose up to 15% of their pay packets (the roll back on senior Civil Servants is an argument for another day), social welfare recipiants lose their Christmas Bonus, and a flat tax on all form of fuels and carbon producing matter. To close the gap in 2010 the budget will need another savage cut (in spite of what Mr Lenihan said last month). Without seeking to sell off state assets, public sector streamlining, a cull of the jobs for the boyos QUANGOs, the state have had to hit recipiants of state money. There is only so many tims that can be done before we are driven further into recession.

Public servants were overpaid relative to the rest of the country and to their peers in other countries. . . and I would contend that there is still room for cuts in the public sector paybill . . Social welfare payments were too high for certain sectors (compare what a single unemployed person in ROI gets to someone in the same circumstance in the UK) and its absolutely appropriate that we should pay tax on our carbon usage. The next savings will come from public sector streamlining and a sorting out of the Quangos . . There is plenty of scope for further cost saving without driving the economy backwards.

freewheeler

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No I'm not in the construction industry but that's kind of my point . . this property crash may be catastrophic for the construction sector and it clearly creates huge problems for the rest of us but it is not catastrophic for the country.

And if you don't hear about world property crashes then you are not listening very closely . . Have you heard of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the subprime mortgage crisis ? I travel a fair amount, mainly to the East Coast US and the UK and I can tell you that in the US they were talking property crash long before we were and they are being hit much harder by the repo-man than we are . . and in the UK, its no better than it is here



Public servants were overpaid relative to the rest of the country and to their peers in other countries. . . and I would contend that there is still room for cuts in the public sector paybill . . Social welfare payments were too high for certain sectors (compare what a single unemployed person in ROI gets to someone in the same circumstance in the UK) and its absolutely appropriate that we should pay tax on our carbon usage. The next savings will come from public sector streamlining and a sorting out of the Quangos . . There is plenty of scope for further cost saving without driving the economy backwards.

Don't forget who gave public servants the ridiculous pay rises..your lot again!! amazing how all the stupid decisions and idiotic policies all stem from the same source.We need an election ASAP before your buddies do any more damage to our country..oh and if you see any sign of one Mr.Noel Dempsey on your travels could you tell him whats going on here? seems he cant be contacted...brilliant!

hallelujajordan

freewheeler wrote: »

Don't forget who gave public servants the ridiculous pay rises..your lot again!! amazing how all the stupid decisions and idiotic policies all stem from the same source.We need an election ASAP before your buddies do any more damage to our country..oh and if you see any sign of one Mr.Noel Dempsey on your travels could you tell him whats going on here? seems he cant be contacted...brilliant!

Agreed, in retrospect the benchmarking agreements were a mistake. . the whole social partnership was a mistake (in retrospect) . . but that whole process just feeds into my theory of Collective Responsibility. The entire public sector (like many of the rest of us) wanting their piece of the celtic tiger pie and putting in place a government that would provide it. Any government would have done the same thing because at the end of the day the mandate comes not from Fianna Fail membership but from the electorate at large. .

Its a bit like beating up the credit card companies when they give us too high a limit and we get ourselves in too much debt. There is a point where we have to take individual or collective responsibility for our actions . .

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No I'm not in the construction industry but that's kind of my point . . this property crash may be catastrophic for the construction sector and it clearly creates huge problems for the rest of us but it is not catastrophic for the country.

And if you don't hear about world property crashes then you are not listening very closely . . Have you heard of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the subprime mortgage crisis ? I travel a fair amount, mainly to the East Coast US and the UK and I can tell you that in the US they were talking property crash long before we were and they are being hit much harder by the repo-man than we are . . and in the UK, its no better than it is here



Public servants were overpaid relative to the rest of the country and to their peers in other countries. . . and I would contend that there is still room for cuts in the public sector paybill . . Social welfare payments were too high for certain sectors (compare what a single unemployed person in ROI gets to someone in the same circumstance in the UK) and its absolutely appropriate that we should pay tax on our carbon usage. The next savings will come from public sector streamlining and a sorting out of the Quangos . . There is plenty of scope for further cost saving without driving the economy backwards.

The US and UK are not comparable to Ireland. Ireland is small, open island economy, which spent its life developing itself as an export based economy. We relied on foreign pharmaceutical etc companies for sustainable productivity. Cowen and Bertie began ignoring that sector in 2003 or so, and begin priming the property market. Our ability to recover from such a crash will take far longer, as we dont have any sector which is truly thriving at the moment, nor are the conditions ripe for sectoral advancement. The repo man aside, the Irish taxpayer now owns these white elephant properties, and indicators would suggest that NAMA could take dozens of years to complete, even if it completes at all.

Who paid the public sector and the social welfare recipiants above their station ? Who did that in the name of vote buying as opposed to sensible economic management ? The dangers of benchmarking II were articulated, but that didnt stop Bertie. The same applied to successive 10% per annum increases in public spending. Equally, David McWilliams' three part "In Search of The Pope's Children" documentary forewarned the crash. Bertie suggested that such naysayers should commit suicide. I know countless public sector workers who NEVER bought into the Celtic Tiger, and to parcel them in with those who ran amok is a joke. Bertie could have called a halt to social partnership if it wasnt viable.

Why should we pay for carbon emissions ? Why not for other emissions such as methane ? Its a global gravy train which Cowen has readily bought into. In fact the only leader who alluded to Copenhagen being any sort of success was Cowen. Plus he just handed over 100 Million Euro to the project. Global Warming is happening, however, it is credibly contested that it has anything to do with Carbon emissions. Finally, the government clearly have no committment to seeking out carbon free initiatives, as Cowen has not even brought he Nuclear alternative to the table.

Id like to see where the next savings are coming from. I dont believe they have any interest in public sector reform or streamlining. They have not considered eradicating useless layers of beureaucracy. To bridge this gap, the state will need to dip their hand into people's pockets, or cut back on public services ina very heavy way. Equally, they will need to keep the ****show that is NAMA going, and that will require billions. Equally, further bank recapitalisations will continue as the state tries to dig its way out of a hole, that could ahve been avoided.

Your statements about "collective responsibility" actually highlight Bertie and Biffo's incompetence. If people wanted to buy into the Celtic Tiger, when it wasnt for them to do so, why did Bertie do it ? Why did he continue the social partnership shambles ? He was in a position to stop it. In 1997 the Irish Independent ran a headline story on Election Day entitled "Its Payback Time". That was in relation to Fine Gael, Labour, and Democratic Left's reticence to spend. Bertie got in, and he spent like crazy, particularly when he got shot of McCreevy and Harney, and had the BIFFO doormat. Bertie could have called a halt to public and populist demands. However, he didnt.

hallelujajordan

Het-Field wrote: »

The US and UK are not comparable to Ireland. Ireland is small, open island economy, which spent its life developing itself as an export based economy. We relied on foreign pharmaceutical etc companies for sustainable productivity. Cowen and Bertie began ignoring that sector in 2003 or so, and begin priming the property market. Our ability to recover from such a crash will take far longer, as we dont have any sector which is truly thriving at the moment, nor are the conditions ripe for sectoral advancement. The repo man aside, the Irish taxpayer now owns these white elephant properties, and indicators would suggest that NAMA could take dozens of years to complete, even if it completes at all.

To be fair, I'm not suggesting they are comparable (although I do believe they are in that we are all suffering from a property-fueled economic crisis) but i had to respond to your ridiculous question . . .

Het-field wrote:

How come we dont hear about the collapse of world property markets ?

. . . with just a little bit of a reality check. And if you are comparing crises from one economy to another I don't think you can put 'the repo-man aside' . . many people are loosing their homes in the US and so far that is not happening in Ireland.

Het-field wrote:

Who paid the public sector and the social welfare recipiants above their station ? Who did that in the name of vote buying as opposed to sensible economic management ? The dangers of benchmarking II were articulated, but that didnt stop Bertie. The same applied to successive 10% per annum increases in public spending.

I've addressed this in my last post . . Its hard to criticise a government for doing what they promised they were going to do and for then delivering on those promises.

Het-field wrote:

Equally, David McWilliams' three part "In Search of The Pope's Children" documentary forewarned the crash. Bertie suggested that such naysayers should commit suicide.

Well actually he didn't say that . . he said something quite different and in a completely different context. . . He also apologised for the comment almost immediately. . but hey, you guys will probably still be misrepresenting that comment in 10 years.

Het-field wrote:

I know countless public sector workers who NEVER bought into the Celtic Tiger, and to parcel them in with those who ran amok is a joke. Bertie could have called a halt to social partnership if it wasnt viable.

But yet every single one of them were members of a union that sat down with the government to negotiate ridiculous benchmarking increases. When you are paying an organisation to represent you in this manner Collective Responsibility certainly applies.

Het-field wrote:

Why should we pay for carbon emissions ? Why not for other emissions such as methane ? Its a global gravy train which Cowen has readily bought into. In fact the only leader who alluded to Copenhagen being any sort of success was Cowen. Plus he just handed over 100 Million Euro to the project. Global Warming is happening, however, it is credibly contested that it has anything to do with Carbon emissions. Finally, the government clearly have no committment to seeking out carbon free initiatives, as Cowen has not even brought he Nuclear alternative to the table.

I'm happy to have this argument elsewhere, the debate about whether or not global warming is real and caused by fossil fuels is an interesting one but not really appropriate for this thread. For what its worth, I believe that it is appropriate to tax the use of carbon in order to encourage a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

Het-field wrote:

Id like to see where the next savings are coming from. I dont believe they have any interest in public sector reform or streamlining. They have not considered eradicating useless layers of beureaucracy. To bridge this gap, the state will need to dip their hand into people's pockets, or cut back on public services ina very heavy way. Equally, they will need to keep the ****show that is NAMA going, and that will require billions. Equally, further bank recapitalisations will continue as the state tries to dig its way out of a hole, that could ahve been avoided.

I do believe that this government has an appetite for real public sector reform and I think you will see changes there . . they have a clear vision for the amount of money they need to save and this is an obvious source.

Het-field wrote:

Your statements about "collective responsibility" actually highlight Bertie and Biffo's incompetence. If people wanted to buy into the Celtic Tiger, when it wasnt for them to do so, why did Bertie do it ? Why did he continue the social partnership shambles ? He was in a position to stop it. In 1997 the Irish Independent ran a headline story on Election Day entitled "Its Payback Time". That was in relation to Fine Gael, Labour, and Democratic Left's reticence to spend. Bertie got in, and he spent like crazy, particularly when he got shot of McCreevy and Harney, and had the BIFFO doormat. Bertie could have called a halt to public and populist demands. However, he didnt.

He didn't and his government was re-elected twice after that point. . I'm not saying that the government are immune from responsibility for the decisions that were made; I'm simply pointing to the reasons those decisions were made and highlighting that in a democracy where we get to vote based on a published manifesto, we have to share in the collective responsibility for the outcomes when said manifesto is put into action

Het-Field

hallelujajordan wrote: »

To be fair, I'm not suggesting they are comparable (although I do believe they are in that we are all suffering from a property-fueled economic crisis) but i had to respond to your ridiculous question . . .



. . . with just a little bit of a reality check. And if you are comparing crises from one economy to another I don't think you can put 'the repo-man aside' . . many people are loosing their homes in the US and so far that is not happening in Ireland.

I've addressed this in my last post . . Its hard to criticise a government for doing what they promised they were going to do and for then delivering on those promises.



Well actually he didn't say that . . he said something quite different and in a completely different context. . . He also apologised for the comment almost immediately. . but hey, you guys will probably still be misrepresenting that comment in 10 years.



But yet every single one of them were members of a union that sat down with the government to negotiate ridiculous benchmarking increases. When you are paying an organisation to represent you in this manner Collective Responsibility certainly applies.

I'm happy to have this argument elsewhere, the debate about whether or not global warming is real and caused by fossil fuels is an interesting one but not really appropriate for this thread. For what its worth, I believe that it is appropriate to tax the use of carbon in order to encourage a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.



I do believe that this government has an appetite for real public sector reform and I think you will see changes there . . they have a clear vision for the amount of money they need to save and this is an obvious source.



He didn't and his government was re-elected twice after that point. . I'm not saying that the government are immune from responsibility for the decisions that were made; I'm simply pointing to the reasons those decisions were made and highlighting that in a democracy where we get to vote based on a published manifesto, we have to share in the collective responsibility for the outcomes when said manifesto is put into action

1.Misrepresentation of Bertie is irrelevant. It still remains that McWilliams forwarned the crash, and the Bertie led government didnt do a tap. You can pick up on the semantics of what Bertie said, however, it doesnt negate the fact that he rubbished economic naysayers,a nd that he was wrong and McWilliams was right.

3.Should Irish property owners be immune from the repo man ? Should debts not be satisfied ? It appears that you are advocating a Labour Party policy

3.If it wasnt in the country's best interests, then why did they put it in the manifesto in the first place ? If what you say about voting on manifestos is correct, then you have articulated the fact that FF are a pragmatic and populist party, with no real interest in public reform beyond an election. Manifestos are simply pre electoral statements, and the vast amjority of Irish people DONT read them. Politics should be about sensible management rather then "give them what they want". If its not in the interest of the nation, then it shouldnt be offered. FF offered this unsustainable style of politics. They did it in 1977, and almost drove the country into the hands of the IMF, and it took ten years before FF lied about preserving Irish folk from cuts, before cutting profusely by stealing the electoral clothes of FG and the newluy founded Progressive Democrats.Equally was NAMA, Anglo Irish's Nationalsiation, Billions of Euros in Banking Recapitalisation, and the Indemnity to the Catholic Church (2001) part of any FF manifesto ? None of those were. As such the weight of the manifesto, and the mandate to implement it is irrelevant. You may think it isnt, but Governmental realities tell otherwise.

4.The democratic will of the people aka populist demands needent be adhered to. Look at FF in 1987 ? Look at FG/DL/Lab 1994-1997. They didnt follow through on manifestos. I would like you to point to me where Benchmarking II was advocated in a manifesto. If the Social Partnership model was clearly failing, as it was, then Bertie should have stopped it. He was the man convening the talks, and he NEVER got tough. Simply because the "unions" wanted it, doesnt mean that they should ahve got it. It was irresponsible for Bertie not to tell them to sit down and shut up. He focused his mind on what would get him the most publicity and keep them quiet.

5.All your "beliefs" are not rooted in hard fact. This ranges from your belief in moving from fossil fuels, notwithstanding how unsustainable and expensive that would be (how many people could afford one solar panel, let alone enough to power their homes and cars) Equally you belief in an "appitite" for reform has not been borne out in the facts. As has been noted, the savings made in December are likely to be re-routed into the banks.


Yes people vote for their leaders. However, those people are elected to "lead". They are not elected to slavishly carry out the "will of the people" regardless of whether it is in the nations interest or not. The leaders are in the position to direct Irish economic and social norms, and they must do so in the name of sustainable prosperity. The Government are NOT doing that, nor have they been.

hallelujajordan

Het-Field wrote: »

1.Misrepresentation of Bertie is irrelevant. It still remains that McWilliams forwarned the crash, and the Bertie led government didnt do a tap. You can pick up on the semantics of what Bertie said, however, it doesnt negate the fact that he rubbished economic naysayers,a nd that he was wrong and McWilliams was right.

How, in all seriousness can misrepresenting Bertie Aherne be irrelevant. . sure if that's the case the gloves are off. . lets just make up words or facts to support our argument. . .

Yes, McWilliams got it right and yes, the government failed to listen to him . . Who cares ? McWilliams is a journalist; he is not an elected politician and he is not the sole authority on Irish economic matters. . . How often do you find two economists who fail to agree on predictions for the future. Its hardly a black and white science. The job of the government is to weigh up the evidence using the experts that they pay and to make what they believe to be the right decisions. Of course they will not always be the right decisions ! but the same is true in any business.

Het-field wrote:

3.Should Irish property owners be immune from the repo man ? Should debts not be satisfied ? It appears that you are advocating a Labour Party policy

When did I advocate labour party policies . . I merely pointed to US house repossessions to counter your ridiculous argument that the property crash is a uniquely Irish phenomenon.

het-field wrote:

3.If it wasnt in the country's best interests, then why did they put it in the manifesto in the first place ? If what you say about voting on manifestos is correct, then you have articulated the fact that FF are a pragmatic and populist party, with no real interest in public reform beyond an election. Manifestos are simply pre electoral statements, and the vast amjority of Irish people DONT read them. Politics should be about sensible management rather then "give them what they want". If its not in the interest of the nation, then it shouldnt be offered. FF offered this unsustainable style of politics. They did it in 1977, and almost drove the country into the hands of the IMF, and it took ten years before FF lied about preserving Irish folk from cuts, before cutting profusely by stealing the electoral clothes of FG and the newluy founded Progressive Democrats.Equally was NAMA, Anglo Irish's Nationalsiation, Billions of Euros in Banking Recapitalisation, and the Indemnity to the Catholic Church (2001) part of any FF manifesto ? None of those were. As such the weight of the manifesto, and the mandate to implement it is irrelevant. You may think it isnt, but Governmental realities tell otherwise.

This argument is just getting silly. Are you seriously suggesting that the government should have gone back to the electorate each time for a mandate to 1) put NAMA in place 2) recapitalise the banks 3) nationalise Anglo 4) Indemnify the Catholic church - actually, scratch 4 since that was already in place before this (and the previous) government were elected. I agree with your assertion by the way that manifesto's are pre-electoral statements but again, if you don't read the manifesto, don't argue when the party you vote for do what they said they were going to do ! Actually, the true manifesto is recent performance and the continued reelection of this government is the strongest "Yes, we like what you are doing and want you to continue" signal there is.

Het-field wrote:

4.The democratic will of the people aka populist demands needent be adhered to. Look at FF in 1987 ? Look at FG/DL/Lab 1994-1997. They didnt follow through on manifestos. I would like you to point to me where Benchmarking II was advocated in a manifesto. If the Social Partnership model was clearly failing, as it was, then Bertie should have stopped it. He was the man convening the talks, and he NEVER got tough. Simply because the "unions" wanted it, doesnt mean that they should ahve got it. It was irresponsible for Bertie not to tell them to sit down and shut up. He focused his mind on what would get him the most publicity and keep them quiet.

The rainbow government is hardly a good example given that it lasted only 2.5 years and that its effect will have kept FG out of government for the next 15 years. . In fact, doesn't that rather prove my point about a government needing to respect the will of the people.

Social Partnership was committed to on Page 41 of the 2007 manifesto and benchmarking (specifically for nurses) was committed to on page 119. It was clear in 2007 that the government and its social partners were committed to benchmarking and anyone who doesn't accept that had their eyes closed. I agree with your comment that the unions should not have 'got it' simply because they wanted it, and I've never argued differently but don't you think that once they did "get-it" they then share in the collective responsibility for the effects of "it"

Het-field wrote:

5.All your "beliefs" are not rooted in hard fact. This ranges from your belief in moving from fossil fuels, notwithstanding how unsustainable and expensive that would be (how many people could afford one solar panel, let alone enough to power their homes and cars) Equally you belief in an "appitite" for reform has not been borne out in the facts. As has been noted, the savings made in December are likely to be re-routed into the banks.

On the contrary, you have continuously attacked my beliefs and each time I try to respond with facts or data. Then you ignore what I have to say and try to attack me from a different angle. And if you want to debate fossil fuel, open another thread and lets go . . no point dragging this even further off topic.