Opposition parties . . All hot air . .

hallelujajordan

anymore wrote: »

You are right, my apologies, best to stick to facts and figures.
As I have previously stated, even Brian Cowen, party leader and now taoiseach is involved in property investment both here and in the UK and other prominent TDs are as well. The relevance of this is it illustrates the extent to which the party has caught up in and driving the property market in Ireland in a way which negatively affected every single person seeking to buy a home to live in. i.e single home owners.

I didn't have time before but I have looked more closely at the Dail Register of Interests posted by an earlier poster and while a number of posters here have selectively posted details of property investments by FF members as some sort of demonstration that FF members themselves drove the property boom, the register doesn't really support this. .

I'm only up to 'F' but so far I have found the following Fine Gael politicians who themselves appear to have engaged in significant (and sometimes international) property development . .

James Bannon FG
Sean Barrett FG
Deirdre Clune FG
Simon Coveney FG
Michael Creed FG
Damien English FG
Frank Feighan FG

Take a particular look at Sean Barrett's portfolio of interests registered in Jersey for some reason . . or Coveney's property in Brussels, or Frank Feighan's properties in France, Bulgaria and dotted around Ireland.

TBH, I don't really care what they do with their money, I don't think its relevant but if you want to use this data to support the fact that FF were . .

anymore wrote:

caught up in and driving the property market in Ireland in a way which negatively affected every single person seeking to buy a home to live in.

. . . then you have to look more widely than FF and accept that property speculation and development existed across the political spectrum in Ireland and across Irish society in general.

This is what I mean when I argue that "we all went crazy" . . Of course I don't mean every single person and we can continue to have that ridiculous argument if you feel the need to defend your personal position with an "I didn't go crazy, I saw it comin" type comment . . but the country in general got involved in inflating a bubble that was always going to burst.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This is what I mean when I argue that "we all went crazy" . . Of course I don't mean every single person and we can continue to have that ridiculous argument if you feel the need to defend your personal position with an "I didn't go crazy, I saw it comin" type comment . . but the country in general got involved in inflating a bubble that was always going to burst.

I still can't get my head around this; again you imply that "FF in general" isn't corrupt or dodgy or at fault, but you're happy to extend that to say that "the country in general" is at fault.

This, despite the fact that FF's decisions - in a party where presumably they can influence each other and their decisions - inflated the boom, but I - as part of "the country in general" - could not influence ANYONE by my decision not to get greedy or corrupt or overspend.

It's far from a "ridiculous argument", and no amount of FF spin claiming that it's (a) not true or (b) a ridiculous argument will change the facts, which I for one will challenge at every opportunity so that no-one gets away with spouting such rubbish as if it were fact.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You - by you own admission - joined the party that condoned them.

As has been pointed out above, you're happy enough to tar everyone who just passively lived their lives with a collective "we", despite many of us not actively buying into the lifestyle or greed.

. . and as I have pointed out before, I fully accept that the collective 'we' does not include everyone . . I don't tar you with that brush . .

Liam Byrne wrote:

And yet having specifically and actively chosen FF as your party, you're objecting to THAT being a collective "we" - with collective condoning and responsibility, despite that being far more valid as you had a choice as to whether or not to join it.

Yeah, I do object . . I'm not here to represent FF . . I'm just open (or stupid) enough to admit I'm a member. . . Of course I don't condone everything that has happened in the past in FF . . and I don't agree with all of their current policies, but yes, I chose to join the party because I believe that its better to engage in politics to try to change things for the future rather than sit on the fence and throw sh1t at politicians. . .

Liam Byrne wrote:

No, instead you are saying "vote sensibly, not in anger" and trying to gain votes for a party that HAS NOT CHANGED ONE IOTA.

I'm not trying to gain any votes. . all I have done is challenge the logic of using your vote to protest at what may have happened in the past, while ignoring what is best for the future . . Look, if Brian Lenihan's economic policies are shown to work and Ireland inc is recovering come 2012 I think it would be pretty foolish to remove them from office in protest at whats gone behind us.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I still can't get my head around this; again you imply that "FF in general" isn't corrupt or dodgy or at fault, but you're happy to extend that to say that "the country in general" is at fault.

Your selectively reading my posts . . I have clearly said that I, as a member of FF am absolutely willing to accept that they had a role to play and a responsibility to bear for the economic situation. Where we differ is on how to deal with that responsibility going forward. I also believe we as a society need to look at our role in the boom that went bust and not constantly blame our politicians for everything.

With regards to corruption, I also accept that there have been corrupt people in FF, as there have been in other parties but I do not accept that party itself is or was corrupt.

Liam Byrne wrote:

It's far from a "ridiculous argument", and no amount of FF spin (a) claiming that it's not true or (b) a ridiculous argument will change the facts, which I for one will challenge at every opportunity so that no-one gets away with spouting such rubbish as if it were fact.

The ridiculous argument is the one where I talk about 'collective responsibility' and you keep saying 'It wasn't me !' . .

. . I know it wasn't you . . . and for what its worth, it wasn't me either but that doesn't mean that collective responsibility can't exist.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Look, if Brian Lenihan's economic policies are shown to work and Ireland inc is recovering come 2012 I think it would be pretty foolish to remove them from office in protest at whats gone behind us.

And if Lenihan hadn't saddled us with Anglo and NAMA (the effects of which will not be apparent until 2020 at the earliest) I might agree with you.

And that is precisely why I'm challenging you so much; it's not personal - it's just pointing out the facts.

A partial recovery by 2012 should be possible (other countries are emerging already) but the 2 year delay in acting and the multiplier effect of FF's policies have crippled us even in terms of that, let alone the long-term effects of NAMA and Anglo, which have ensured that a full recovery can only come when property prices go mentally unrealistic again in order to get some of that money back through NAMA.

House prices at the moment are relatively realistic (if you ignore the lack of infrastructure and facilities due to crap planning - because you're buying a house at the back of a sprawling estate with no facilities and a 2 mile walk to the "local" bus).

The so-called "recovery" to high prices required to make NAMA a success is a sickening repeat of the same mistakes, but FF will need to force that to happen in order to make NAMA work.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And if Lenihan hadn't saddled us with Anglo and NAMA (the effects of which will not be apparent until 2020 at the earliest) I might agree with you.

The point I was making was if Lenihan's policies (which include NAMA) are shown to work, then it would be foolish to remove FF from government simply as a protest for the past. .

I would argue that if Lenihan hadn't saddled us with NAMA then we might as a country be answerable to the IMF at this stage.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The point I was making was if Lenihan's policies (which include NAMA) are shown to work, then it would be foolish to remove FF from government simply as a protest for the past. .

And the point I am making is that we won't have a clue of what NAMA will cost us by 2012.

Add in the fact that unless FF are comprehensively told that their past - and current - actions are unacceptable, and that their plan to re-inflate the bubble in order to make NAMA work (thereby making Ireland uncompetitive again due to the ridiculous cost of the basic human right of having a roof over your head) is not acceptable either, they won't change; they'll be rewarded with power on the back of their actions, and they'll simply say "no reason to change".

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yeah, I do object . . I'm not here to represent FF . . I'm just open (or stupid) enough to admit I'm a member. . .

You may not think you represent FF but as a member they represent you. We have issue with the fact you support FF

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Of course I don't condone everything that has happened in the past in FF . . and I don't agree with all of their current policies, but yes, I chose to join the party because I believe that its better to engage in politics to try to change things for the future rather than sit on the fence and throw sh1t at politicians. . .

There are many parties you could have joined to 'try to change things for the future'. This doesn't explain why you chose FF. Can you give us details as why you did choose FF. Why didn't you join Sinn Fein for example??

hallelujajordan wrote: »

all I have done is challenge the logic of using your vote to protest at what may have happened in the past, while ignoring what is best for the future . . Look, if Brian Lenihan's economic policies are shown to work and Ireland inc is recovering come 2012 I think it would be pretty foolish to remove them from office in protest at whats gone behind us.

I'd love to meet you in person. By your 'logic' I could smear my sh1t on your face but then do a great job wiping it off and we could be bestest friends 'for the future'. Even if the government return us to growth of 5%, even if they all begin to crap gold bars, they need to be removed for their terrible mismanagement of Ireland and their waste of the boom.

Regarding your argument of the collective 'we' inflating the bubble, I don't care if the collective we were involved in mass buggery, we elect a government to run the country, to manage the economy, to take responsibility. They could have iniated policies to counter the collective we's actions.

jmayo

hallelujajordan wrote: »

. . and as I have pointed out before, I fully accept that the collective 'we' does not include everyone . . I don't tar you with that brush . .

I'm not trying to gain any votes. . all I have done is challenge the logic of using your vote to protest at what may have happened in the past, while ignoring what is best for the future . . Look, if Brian Lenihan's economic policies are shown to work and Ireland inc is recovering come 2012 I think it would be pretty foolish to remove them from office in protest at whats gone behind us.

As Liam Byrne keeps trying to get across to you we won't know about the full effects of NAMA for best part of a decade.
It is ff solution of putting it on the long finger and hoping something turns up to rescue the situation.

Back to footbal analogy, your team are relegated, have administrators knocking at the door as you look at even more relegation and you would leave the management, chairman, tresurere, etc in charge.
Peter Ridsdale would have loved you as a Leeds supporter :rolleyes:

ff and their fellow travellers (pds) managed to :

• create a massive bubble (they were the government in charge of setting tax breaks, putting brakes on investment incentives, reining in bank lending) which has left thousands with crippling lifelong debts
• wasted billions on ego ill thoughtout projects
• wasted billions on badly run projects
• allowed our public spending ramp up uncontrollably all funded by short term unsustainabal transactional taxes from above bubble
• allowed our entire financial infrastructure to emplode and left the taxpayer to pay for it's rescue

And you say that the people should not vote against them in protest for the above, because you claim they are dealing with the mess they created and are leading us to recovery.

The argument that they are dealing with the mess doesn't stand up because

1. they didn't deal with depositor guarantees until Joe Duffy show had affectively prompted runs - they could have headed that off earlier
2. they guaranteed everything, which included a bank that was corruptly run as affectively a slush fund for the well connected and high rollers of this country
3. they nationalised and recaptilalised above bank which will never lend to ordinary citizens or business
4. they refused to adress public spending and bring in cutbacks claiming it would be doen in December budget 08.
   They did bring in early budget, but then rolled back on their decisions which affectively achieved little.
   Thus public spending grew in 2008/2009.
5. they actually seriously thought about ludricrious plan of cutting public sector wages by allowing people take unpaid days off.
6. they invented a mechanism where they will take the toxic loans off the banks at some notional future value (what the securing property assets might achieve in the future) with the whole scheme making a profit or breaking even, only if property prices return to peak bubble values.
7. they have recapitalised two big high street banks yet there is no noticable advances in lending to business and the banks are still run by inbreds even against ministers wishes.
8. they gave golden handshakes to the most incompetent high ranking public servants who it appears presided over corruption at worst and gross incompetence at best.
9. they have done nothing about seriously investiagting the banking mess - oh yes there is garda involvement but nothing has come of this even after a year ?
10. they refused to address their own members lavish expenses and rolled back on high ranking public servants salary cuts

Now yes some of above is historical, but they are all since the ar** started falling out of things and if they have managed to not manage for the last two years, then why should we expect any different in the next two.
Hell they have made things worse not better.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The point I was making was if Lenihan's policies (which include NAMA) are shown to work, then it would be foolish to remove FF from government simply as a protest for the past. .

I would argue that if Lenihan hadn't saddled us with NAMA then we might as a country be answerable to the IMF at this stage.

How will NAMA be shown to work in next two years ?
The banks need further recapitalisation, they are not lending, developer loans that will be tied into NAMA are in limbo and the developers owing these loans have been shown, thanks to foriegn banks and individuals, to have no jocks on now that the property bubble tide has gone out.

All the while the Irish taxpayer will be saddled with:

• 50 odd billion for buying sh*** loans (originally worth 70ish now maybe worth 40ish and descreasing)
• 15-20 odd billion total bank recapitalisation (already poured in over 11 I believe)

And what exactly have we gotten in return ?
A banking system run by the same old gang that kinda works for some. :rolleyes:

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

You may not think you represent FF but as a member they represent you. We have issue with the fact you support FF



There are many parties you could have joined to 'try to change things for the future'. This doesn't explain why you chose FF. Can you give us details as why you did choose FF. Why didn't you join Sinn Fein for example??

That's a ridiculous question. . when it becomes mandatory (or even appropriate) to have to justify your political choices on here in order to express your opinions then I will, until then I'll follow the rules like everyone else and express my opinions ON TOPIC.

Laminations wrote:

I'd love to meet you in person. By your 'logic' I could smear my sh1t on your face but then do a great job wiping it off and we could be bestest friends 'for the future'. Even if the government return us to growth of 5%, even if they all begin to crap gold bars, they need to be removed for their terrible mismanagement of Ireland and their waste of the boom.

The only thing important in politics is the future. In principle, if we replace a successful government (and before you point out why they are not successful, I'm speaking in the hypothetical) with an unstable, unworkable partnership simply as a punishment for the sins of the past, we will be doing the country a disservice. We have to chose a government who we feel are best positioned to take Ireland forward.

laminations wrote:

Regarding your argument of the collective 'we' inflating the bubble, I don't care if the collective we were involved in mass buggery, we elect a government to run the country, to manage the economy, to take responsibility. They could have iniated policies to counter the collective we's actions.

I agree. . the government could have acted differently during the boom times in order to slow down the economy. But yet they didn't and we still returned them . . three times in a row . . . we refreshed their mandate . . we said "thank you very much, we'll have a bit more of that if you please. . ."

And before you point me to the fact that only 45% of people voted for FF, point me towards the fundamentally different economic policies that the opposition parties were presenting to the electorate during the same period.

I don't absolve the government or FF from responsibility for Irelands economic woes . .I've said that about 50 times in different ways yet no-one seems to hear it. But, at the end of the day, politicians are public representatives. They exercise the will of the public and when they do that and it goes wrong the public need to share in some of the responsibility.

yoshytoshy

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I agree. . the government could have acted differently during the boom times in order to slow down the economy. But yet they didn't and we still returned them . . three times in a row . . . we refreshed their mandate . . we said "thank you very much, we'll have a bit more of that if you please. . ."

Thats not the truth and you know it. Bertie ahern practically told people to go kill themselves for thinking the obvious at the time.
A lot of people were bullied into thinking everything was ok ,when in fact their worries were correct.

Fianna fail got in on lies and they've been trying their best to cover them up ever since.

There is no "we" ,there never was. It was just lies.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In principle, if we replace a successful government (and before you point out why they are not successful, I'm speaking in the hypothetical) with an unstable, unworkable partnership simply as a punishment for the sins of the past, we will be doing the country a disservice. We have to chose a government who we feel are best positioned to take Ireland forward.

Contradiction, no ?

hallelujajordan

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Thats not the truth and you know it. Bertie ahern practically told people to go kill themselves for thinking the obvious at the time.
A lot of people were bullied into thinking everything was ok ,when in fact their worries were correct.

Fianna fail got in on lies and they've been trying their best to cover them up ever since.

There is no "we" ,there never was. It was just lies.

Which bit isn't true ? We did return them three times ? We did refresh their mandate ? We could see what was happening in the economy ? There were economists predicting the bubble would burst and the public chose to ignore it and return FF. Not because they trusted them and believed what they were saying but because they liked what was in it for them . .

And btw, a) your quoting Bertie Aherns 'suicide' comment way out of context . . he didn't tell anyone to go kill themselves and You know that . . and b) that comment was made since, not before, the last election and had no bearing on the publics decision in 2007.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Contradiction, no ?

No, no contradiction at all . . I'm arguing the principle of removing a successful government as a protest vote as opposed to electing the most appropriate government for the future. . the bit in parentheses was simply to try to avoid taking it away from the principled question in the way that you have just done I failed.

yoshytoshy

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And btw, a) your quoting Bertie Aherns 'suicide' comment way out of context . . he didn't tell anyone to go kill themselves and You know that . . and b) that comment was made since, not before, the last election and had no bearing on the publics decision in 2007.

It was an attitude held by him and other people in government. They forced this country into mortar meltdown and now they want us to put the country back together for them.
I'm amazed anyone has the gall to stand up for fianna fail.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Which bit isn't true ? We did return them three times ? We did refresh their mandate ?

The Borg "we" did; the rest of us didn't.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

We could see what was happening in the economy ?

I'll accept that "we", because even though I'm no economist I could see that we were headed for trouble.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

There were economists predicting the bubble would burst and the public chose to ignore it and return FF.

The public didn't "choose" to ignore it; Ahern & Co bull****ted them to convince them it would be a blip or a "soft landing". And I wouldn't criticise the (rest of the) public for falling for it, because you'd imagine that the experts in Government should have some clue.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Not because they trusted them and believed what they were saying but because they liked what was in it for them .

Bull. We were told by our Government that it would be a soft landing.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No, no contradiction at all . . I'm arguing the principle of removing a successful government as a protest vote as opposed to electing the most appropriate government for the future

You speak like they're mutually exclusive. They're one and the same.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

the bit in parentheses was simply to try to avoid taking it away from the principled question in the way that you have just done I failed.

Don't beat yourself up about it; it goes with the territory of being an FF member!

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The public didn't "choose" to ignore it; Ahern & Co bull****ted them to convince them it would be a blip or a "soft landing". And I wouldn't criticise the (rest of the) public for falling for it, because you'd imagine that the experts in Government should have some clue.

This is where we differ . . I think the public has a mind of its own, makes its own decisions based on all of the available information . . and in doing so has to take responsibility for its decisions. .

There are two ways of looking at this. . either the country was duped by a FF who knew what was coming down the line but were so obsessed with staying in power that they lied to the electorate or the electorate were convinced by a government who honestly believed that there would be a soft landing, and that they were best positioned to manage it. . That the soft landing only disappeared due to the globally unforeseen economic downturn.

If the former is true, you'd have to ask WHY ? It would have been far better for the long term success of FF to exit government in 2007 and come back in post-recession ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

Don't beat yourself up about it; it goes with the territory of being an FF member!

LOL

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This is where we differ . . I think the public has a mind of its own, makes its own decisions based on all of the available information . . and in doing so has to take responsibility for its decisions. .

Now there's a novel idea. I wonder would FF ever start doing that ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

There are two ways of looking at this. . either the country was duped by a FF who knew what was coming down the line but were so obsessed with staying in power that they lied to the electorate or the electorate were convinced by a government who honestly believed that there would be a soft landing, and that they were best positioned to manage it. .

....in which case the Government were 100% wrong. OK, it improves their standing as it wouldn't have been a blatant lie (a benefit of the doubt that it's difficult to give FF after all the tall tales and pocket-lining that's gone on at high levels over the years, but it would still mean that they are incompetent, don't heed the many warnings they were given, and therefore are not best positioned to take us anywhere.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

That the soft landing only disappeared due to the globally unforeseen economic downturn.

100% UNTRUE. If this were "Qi" the alarms would be going off. The level of corruption and bad decision-making that has been discovered in the banks (and in the Government re planning and tax breaks) would have dragged us down regardless - not Lehmans, not any other banks - our own. Unregulated by Bertie's buddy.

Oh, see paragraph 1.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If the former is true, you'd have to ask WHY ? It would have been far better for the long term success of FF to exit government in 2007 and come back in post-recession ?

As a wild guess : they wouldn't have gotten NAMA through if they did this, and so their mates would have been out of pocket.

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This is where we differ . . I think the public has a mind of its own, makes its own decisions based on all of the available information . . and in doing so has to take responsibility for its decisions. .

There are two ways of looking at this. . either the country was duped by a FF who knew what was coming down the line but were so obsessed with staying in power that they lied to the electorate or the electorate were convinced by a government who honestly believed that there would be a soft landing, and that they were best positioned to manage it. . That the soft landing only disappeared due to the globally unforeseen economic downturn.

If the former is true, you'd have to ask WHY ? It would have been far better for the long term success of FF to exit government in 2007 and come back in post-recession ?

LOL

There is no such separate entity such as ' the public' which thinks and reaches conclusions independently. Fianna Fail did lie to the public ' remember ' they'd be better off killing themselves man' ? The only thing Bertie Ahern has ever though about has been his own career.
Look at the way he was willing to expose his former secretary to the Mahon Tribunal in her misguided attempts to protect him.
As stated before, the ESRI did rightly predict what would happen in the event of an external economic shock linked to our over reliance on the construction sector.
Have you ever read any of the ESRI's reports ?

Drumpot

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Would you care to explain the difference between these ?

If someone votes against "in anger" at the damage that FF have done, then they'll vote against them.

If someone steps back, looks objectively at the damage that they've done and how they've bailed out their buddies and shafted the rest of us, and lined their own pockets, then they can easily draw the same conclusion and action.

If someone simply decides not to reward incompetence and corruption, they'll vote against FF too.

So the whole "vote sensibly" does apply, but the anger is an irrlevant red herring, and if anything it should help those of us who simply want to see a better Ireland, because it would counteract the blinkered (or beneficiary) core FF vote.

Wrong wrong wrong . . .

I am advocating that people vote for intelligent, competent and morally sound T.D's . .

All the sounds coming out of FG is that they all want Kenny to rollback on his "paycut" stunt . .

Again you are looking at this from a basic point of view - Either you vote FF or not . .

What I have been saying the whole time is that the current members of the dail (most of them) are stuck in the culture of greed and self interest. Only Joe Higgins has any sort of credibility when it comes to standing up for the little man while showing actions to match his convictions (Im not saying I agree with the guy, but I respect his transparency, you usually know where you stand with that guy).

When you vote in anger you dont necessarily make the correct choice. All you do is vote against what you dislike (which doesnt mean you are voting in a better alternative) . . Do you think people make their best decisions when angry ? I certainly dont think thats the case. The best decisions are usually educated ones made when people are grounded and thinking straight. .

If you want to "see a better Ireland" like you suggest, then you will encourage people to ask more of their T.D's. , demand more transparancy, demand more honesty, demand moral courage and not just assume that voting in the current crop of dud's from the opposition will sort out our problems. .The opposition party have shown very little in the way of looking like they want a change to the culture within politics (how long did it take for them to come out against JOD expenses). We should be encouraging better quality people to stand for election .

Im not in anyway defending FF . . I am condemning Irish Politics and the electorate that continue to accept 2nd best at the expense of getting real change . .

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

....in which case the Government were 100% wrong. OK, it improves their standing as it wouldn't have been a blatant lie (a benefit of the doubt that it's difficult to give FF after all the tall tales and pocket-lining that's gone on at high levels over the years, but it would still mean that they are incompetent, don't heed the many warnings they were given, and therefore are not best positioned to take us anywhere.



100% UNTRUE. If this were "Qi" the alarms would be going off. The level of corruption and bad decision-making that has been discovered in the banks (and in the Government re planning and tax breaks) would have dragged us down regardless - not Lehmans, not any other banks - our own. Unregulated by Bertie's buddy.

Oh, see paragraph 1.

Yes, the government got it wrong in that they didn't predict what anymore just described as the 'external economic shock' that hastened the crisis and destroyed the soft landing. Others got it wrong too . . both political leaders and economists throughout the world. If you think that my statement is 100% untrue and that we would be exactly where we are regardless of the global economic downturn then I think you are naive.

Liam Byrne wrote:

As a wild guess : they wouldn't have gotten NAMA through if they did this, and so their mates would have been out of pocket.

I think you need to take yourself over to the conspiracy theories board. What you are suggesting is that prior to the election in 2007 FF knew what was ahead in 2008/2009 yet nevertheless (and at the cost of their own long term futures) lied to the electorate to get back into government so that when the banking crisis hit they could implement a vehicle to remove the toxic debt in the banks so that their mates would not be out of pocket . . ? ?

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, the government got it wrong in that they didn't predict what anymore just described as the 'external economic shock' that hastened the crisis and destroyed the soft landing. Others got it wrong too . . both political leaders and economists throughout the world. If you think that my statement is 100% untrue and that we would be exactly where we are regardless of the global economic downturn then I think you are naive.




I think you need to take yourself over to the conspiracy theories board. What you are suggesting is that prior to the election in 2007 FF knew what was ahead in 2008/2009 yet nevertheless (and at the cost of their own long term futures) lied to the electorate to get back into government so that when the banking crisis hit they could implement a vehicle to remove the toxic debt in the banks so that their mates would not be out of pocket . . ? ?

What dont you understand about FF lies ?
They did it prior to 2002 election , about cutbacks and they did it prior to last GE ! They mocked and and sneered at anyone who pointed out that Ireland was heading for a crash. Have you forgotten Ahern's ' suicide' remark ? The National Competitive Council pointed out that one of the biggest sources of inflation was from the Public sector.
Do you ever read any economic reports from any of the various Government bodies ?
If you dont why are you talking about the economy ?
Shows us the facts ?

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

I am advocating that people vote for intelligent, competent and morally sound T.D's . .

The opposition party have shown very little in the way of looking like they want a change to the culture within politics (how long did it take for them to come out against JOD expenses). We should be encouraging better quality people to stand for election .

I agree 100%, and I am on record as saying that FG lost ground in my eyes when they kept quiet re O'Donoghue - a search on boards would prove this.

And yes, I'd prefer much better candidates overall, and a less corrupt system so those candidates could achieve things, rather than being corrupted and assimilated.

We're told that we can't pay peanuts, and despite our ridiculous grand-a-day positions, we still get the monkeys.

I'd love if even ONE person in the Dail was worth that.

But the fact remains that at least FG are the much lesser of two evils, on both fronts : less corrupt and less incompetent.

So voting "in anger" and voting for the best (of what's available) are one and the same thing.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If you think that my statement is 100% untrue and that we would be exactly where we are regardless of the global economic downturn then I think you are naive.

We would have gotten there eventually.

And personally, I don't care whether or not you think I'm naieve; you're the one joining FF and claiming that they're the "best positioned to lead us", so I'd be well able to return that compliment.

Of course, my "naievity" as you call it somehow allowed me to see stuff that Ahern, Cowen & Lenihan couldn't, and who got that right ? And that's with the 3 of them far better advised and on a combined 30 times my salary (at least).

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I think you need to take yourself over to the conspiracy theories board. What you are suggesting is that prior to the election in 2007 FF knew what was ahead in 2008/2009 yet nevertheless (and at the cost of their own long term futures) lied to the electorate to get back into government so that when the banking crisis hit they could implement a vehicle to remove the toxic debt in the banks so that their mates would not be out of pocket . . ? ?

Well, the fact is that they lied and ignored the most relevant advice. And since the fact remains that they had already supported planning and tax breaks to the detriment of the country in order to line the pockets of their Galway Tent buddies, the above isn't particularly far-fetched.

Can you give any other explanation why Lenihan bailed out the cesspit Anglo with our money without even checking whether it was worth it ?

Anyway, either they lied or they didn't see it coming. So either they're hopelessly incompetent, or the above is a possiblity. Or - as I suspect - a little of both.

Laminations

Drumpot we all agree with you that we need higher standards in irish politics but when we are trying to discuss the relative merits of a sh1t sandwich vs. a ham sandwich it is not helpful for you to continually mention cake.

Laminations

Hallelujajordan your argument is both morally deficient and hypocritical. You acknowledge that FF fecked up but note that the people voted for them so the people share the blame. The people were somewhat hoodwinked, but now you will give them your vote, knowing the extent of their mismanagement and ineptitude, the consequences of which really began to show post the 2007 election. You and others who maintain support for FF are to blame. Not reporting a murder because you didnt realise what you were witnessing was such is a most incompetent, sitting back with popcorn is criminal negligence if not aiding and abetting.

You agreed that Roddy Molloy and Patrick Neary should have gone for their mismanagement and ineptitude. By 'voting for the future' you disregard the past and exclude FF from the rule 'you feck up, you're fecked out'

Laminations

The morally deficient part is really highlighted by your view of the future. If Mugabi came up with a killer economic policy would that make him a good candidate? Does current or future performance absolve someone of sins of the past? Should you not take into consideration someones track record when deciding to give them your support for the future?

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

The morally deficient part is really highlighted by your view of the future. If Mugabi came up with a killer economic policy would that make him a good candidate? Does current or future performance absolve someone of sins of the past? Should you not take into consideration someones track record when deciding to give them your support for the future?

Lads, this argument is a) going around in circles and b) getting personal so I'll bow out I understand that you don't accept my opinion and I can understand why. . . I'm very happy to accept yours.

It's a shame you have to resort to such examples to prove your point. I'm not sure its valid to compare a political party in Ireland who you blame for causing an economic downturn (and btw who also share responsibility with others for bringing peace to our country, saving many lives in the process) . . with someone who operates above any level of modern democracy and who is clearly guilty of genocide in his own country

Laminations

I was giving that example as an extension of your thinking. You are right though, the argument is going in circles. No matter what facts we may point out that undermine your opinion you still believe an opinion cannot be wrong. If you believe opinions cannot be debated then there is no point in this argument