TONIGHT With Vincent Browne

InReality

ArtSmart wrote: »

yes. it's fun to come across as a arrogant ignorant nutter.

No to a right wing voter he probably sounded reasonable.
I mean there is some room for debate on it, and how to address it.
The basic link , and direction the link works , from poor = bad health , is pretty straighforward.

Leo is more of a politican's politican than I thought.

ArtSmart

InReality wrote: »

No to a right wing voter he probably sounded reasonable.
I mean there is some room for debate on it, and how to address it.
The basic link , and direction the link works , from poor = bad health , is pretty straighforward.

Leo is more of a politican's politican than I thought.

yeah, got ye. playing to the home fans

Sardonicat

ArtSmart wrote: »

and the statement that people wont accept a property tax - what he meant was- his targeted voters wont like it / accept it.

No they wouldn't accecpt that, but they'll love what FG are proposing, 'cos it confirms their sense of entitlement. Nauseating, innit?

We basically have to choose between gombeens or gob****es.

ArtSmart

Sardonicat wrote: »

No they wouldn't accecpt that, but they'll love the what FG are proposing, 'cos it confirms their sense of entitlement. Nauseating, innit?

We basically have to choose between gombeens or gob****es.

yeah, pretty poor all round.

i tells ye, the loony left is looking less and less loony...:D

Sardonicat

ArtSmart wrote: »

yeah, pretty poor all round.

i tells ye, the loony left is looking less and less loony...:D

So that makes it gombeens, gob****es and goosesteppers?

Wish i could move to denmark.

scargill

Leo Varadkar lost a lot of FG votes tonight. As soon as he said that a property tax (linked to income levels) wouldn't work because of an "unwillingness" to pay I actually utter the words "W.T.F?" to myself !
I'm "unwilling" to pay a lot of my taxes - does that mean they won't be collected????

On the other hand it is a bit mad that we are probably going to introduce some sort of property tax when most of the country is in negative equity, no houses are being built and very few are changing hands.
A property tax was needed 5 years ago.

Same goes for interest rates - they should've been higher during the boom, not the other way round!

I'm not sure where all these potential FG voters might float off to now? I'd say SF/ULA/Ind will be all up in the next poll.

ArtSmart

Sardonicat wrote: »

So that makes it gombeens, gob****es and goosesteppers?

Wish i could move to denmark.

and gobbligook.

Yeah, amazing Denmark Sweden can be so socialist and also so competitive. Sweden is rated the most competitive country in the world!

so much for socialism = lazy commie poverty ner'dowells.

brianthebard

Hard to see SF getting a bump off this FG mini meltdown, unless there were a lot of people who didn't realise FG were going to cut welfare and increase vat? Someone on vinnies show said that it might be a low turnout this election and I agree, every day the choices look less and less appealing. FF supporters have a history of not turning out when their party is in the doldrums, rather than voting for someone else, so that will further decrease the numbers. And if FG mess up badly enough they could also keep away votes. Plus when you add in that so many people have already accepted that it will be a fg led govt with some combination of support, there's little incentive to vote. So really it could potentially be one of the lowest turnouts ever!

ArtSmart

scargill wrote: »

Leo Varadkar lost a lot of FG votes tonight. As soon as he said that a property tax (linked to income levels) wouldn't work because of an "unwillingness" to pay I actually utter the words "W.T.F?" to myself !
I'm "unwilling" to pay a lot of my taxes - does that mean they won't be collected????

On the other hand it is a bit mad that we are probably going to introduce some sort of property tax when most of the country is in negative equity, no houses are being built and very few are changing hands.
A property tax was needed 5 years ago.

Same goes for interest rates - they should've been higher during the boom, not the other way round!

I'm not sure where all these potential FG voters might float off to now? I'd say SF/ULA/Ind will be all up in the next poll.

FG voters moving to SF/ ULA???

doubt it. i'd say indys and lab if anything

ETA I'd say Vlad will be put back in the box until after the election

ArtSmart

brianthebard wrote: »

Hard to see SF getting a bump off this FG mini meltdown, unless there were a lot of people who didn't realise FG were going to cut welfare and increase vat? Someone on vinnies show said that it might be a low turnout this election and I agree, every day the choices look less and less appealing. FF supporters have a history of not turning out when their party is in the doldrums, rather than voting for someone else, so that will further decrease the numbers. And if FG mess up badly enough they could also keep away votes. Plus when you add in that so many people have already accepted that it will be a fg led govt with some combination of support, there's little incentive to vote. So really it could potentially be one of the lowest turnouts ever!

does a low turnout favour the incumbent or the opposition usually?

Sardonicat

ArtSmart wrote: »

and gobbligook.

Yeah, amazing Denmark Sweden can be so socialist and also so competitive. Sweden is rated the most competitive country in the world!

so much for socialism = lazy commie poverty ner'dowells.

They like to pay their taxes there. One of my lecturers was Danish, and when things started going tits-up here she said, in all earnest:"Maybe now the Irish will learn that they have to pay their tax" (She also told me that I have a "scandanavian spirit" and am the least "Irish" Irish person she has ever met!) Having said that, they also get what they pay for there, unlke here, where our money is shovelled into big black holes of nepostism and inefficiency. Here, we just get what we deserve for voting these ****ers in and basically not engaging in any meaningful way politically.

ArtSmart

Sardonicat wrote: »

They like to pay their taxes there. One of my lecturers was Danish, and when things started going tits-up here she said, in all earnest:"Maybe now the Irish will learn that they have to pay their tax" (She also told me that I have a "scandanavian spirit" and am the least "Irish" Irish person she has ever met!) Having said that, they also get what they pay for there, unlke here, where our money is shovelled into big black holes of nepostism and inefficiency. Here, we just get what we deserve for voting these ****ers in and basically not engaging in any meaningful way politically.

agree on that point.

one thing that really struck me during the 'boom' - really struck me, was how little improvements were there is simple things like the roads (except for dodgy partnerships for big money earning roads), primary schools (all the ones i know are still in pre-fabs) and as for the health service...arrrghh.( i do recognise though that's a complex one)

but genuinely, there was no sense of reinvestment that i could see.

scargill

ArtSmart wrote: »

FG voters moving to SF/ ULA???

doubt it. i'd say indys and lab if anything

I know what you mean but talking to mates the general opinion is that voting for FG/Labour will probably not mean much of a change from FF.

For the last 6 months whenever I heard Pearse O Doherty talking about "burning the bondholders" I cringed.
Do you know what.....I'm kind of not cringing so much anymore. I'm starting to think there might be some sense to this approach (not completely burning them and going it alone, but some sort of negotiation on the debt levels).

It sounds more palatable than raising income tax, VAT, cutting min. wage, cutting benefits to most vunerable in society to keep up with the interest payments on that debt.

The looney left I believe they are called. Not half as looney as shower that led us to where we are!

Sardonicat

ArtSmart wrote: »

agree on that point.

one thing that really struck me during the 'boom' - really struck me, was how little improvements were there is simple things like the roads (except for dodgy partnerships for big money earning roads), primary schools (all the ones i know are still in pre-fabs) and as for the health service...arrrghh.( i do recognise though that's a complex one)

but genuinely, there was no sense of reinvestment that i could see.

Ah, yeah, the public/private partnerships. Otherwise known as slicing up the cake with your mates.

Health had a fortune fired at it. but, it was coming up from a very low base and the money seemed to go to all the wrong places there. ****, my head starts to explode whrn I think about that.

ArtSmart

scargill wrote: »

I know what you mean but talking to mates the general opinion is that voting for FG/Labour will probably not mean much of a change from FF.

For the last 6 months whenever I heard Pearse O Doherty talking about "burning the bondholders" I cringed.
Do you know what.....I'm kind of not cringing so much anymore. I'm starting to think there might be some sense to this approach (not completely burning them and going it alone, but some sort of negotiation on the debt levels).

It sounds more palatable than raising income tax, VAT, cutting min. wage, cutting benefits to most vunerable in society to keep up with the interest payments on that debt.

The looney left I believe they are called. Not half as looney as shower that led us to where we are!

SNAP!

when i first heard bout burn bond holders i laughed. but i've lost complete faith in the fckers that come one and start saying why it cant be done. like that banker fker on vinny tonight - the bond holders are 'believed'* to be Irish pension funds (old grannies) and credit union (the poor)


scumbags, i despise them at this stage.


*believed by fcking who??? same old line as FF - and even they've stopped using it.
ETA in fact there was a post on boards as to the identiyof the real bond holders - not Irish and not pension funds

ArtSmart

apparent list of bond-holders below at bottom of this article.
i cant verify for accuracy, but dont think it's being challenged

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/are-irish-taxpayers-about-bail-out-goldman-peter-sutherland-stealing-his-own-people-give-vam

and the Financial Times seems to verify it

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/10/18/373161/aibaiting/

came across this -even Bloomberg expect bond holders (not ours) to take a haircut 41% haircut
http://investmentwatchblog.com/according-to-bloomberg-bondholders-of-senior-debt-including-bonds-formerly-guaranteed-by-the-government-will-face-write-offs-of-about-41/

JonathanAnon

scargill wrote: »

For the last 6 months whenever I heard Pearse O Doherty talking about "burning the bondholders" I cringed. Do you know what.....I'm kind of not cringing so much anymore. I'm starting to think there might be some sense to this approach (not completely burning them and going it alone, but some sort of negotiation on the debt levels).

Well the Shinners argument is that we're gonna end up defaulting anyway, so we might as well do it now... and start the recovery now... instead of prolonging the thing for another two years..

We have a deficit of 19 Billion last year which supposedly will be reduced to 13 next year.. BUT we will be adding another 5-7 Billion to the bill to pay the interest on the bailout... ??

The only way to save a default would be to take the attitude that the IMF took in Latvia.... cut all expenditure.. dole and other social welfare benefits, public sector numbers, upper level wages to be capped at 100k perhaps, close down quangos etc etc .. NO party has the balls to tackle any of these, so a huge annual Exchequer deficit is a certainty, and default pretty much inevitable..

Sardonicat

JonathanAnon wrote: »

The only way to save a default would be to take the attitude that the IMF took in Latvia.... cut all expenditure.. dole and other social welfare benefits, public sector numbers, upper level wages to be capped at 100k perhaps, close down quangos etc etc .. NO party has the balls to tackle any of these, so a huge annual Exchequer deficit is a certainty, and default pretty much inevitable..

So, why didn't the imf do this here? Surely, they can do the maths. Or is it a gradual build up (or knock down!) that has been worked out for us?

brianthebard

ArtSmart wrote: »

does a low turnout favour the incumbent or the opposition usually?

I think generally teh incumbent but I'm not sure how it will affect the numbers in this case. It might see less transfers going beyond a party?

scargill wrote: »

I know what you mean but talking to mates the general opinion is that voting for FG/Labour will probably not mean much of a change from FF.

For the last 6 months whenever I heard Pearse O Doherty talking about "burning the bondholders" I cringed.
Do you know what.....I'm kind of not cringing so much anymore. I'm starting to think there might be some sense to this approach (not completely burning them and going it alone, but some sort of negotiation on the debt levels).

I think especially in the last week even, SF policies have become more and more realistic. I think they are the only pragmatic party in this issue, the options have been put in front of us as default now or default later, SF says choose the first one because the country will be far worse off by the time we default later.

The burn the bondholders stuff has been pretty extreme but you have to remember that when they go into negotiations on the bailout and default they will need to be fairly uncompromising, we've seen what will happen if Irish negotiators go in and make no attempt to act like we will burn the bondholders if a severe haircut is not implemented. If SF said now that they would pay the bondholders 20 or 30 cent then the negotiations might end up with us paying 60,70 or 80. We need to argue and negotiate from a position of strength which is what burn the bondholders as a policy actually gives us.

Labour and FG have been told that there will be no renegotiations but they persist in pushing it as a policy. If they have been told no then its obvious the ecb won't say yes just because they get into power, and without stating that they will burn the bondholders if the bailout isn't renegotiated, the ecb has no incentive to change its mind.

brianthebard

Sardonicat wrote: »

So, why didn't the imf do this here? Surely, they can do the maths. Or is it a gradual build up (or knock down!) that has been worked out for us?

The severity of the crash in Latvia was much worse apparently, along the lines of Iceland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/31/global-recession-europe-protests

about half way down.

This is an interesting indo piece (oxymoron?) about what could happen if Ireland fails to meet IMF targets and is forced into greater austerity measures than already being proposed by FF,FG, and Lab. Considering the additional funds 'required' by Anglo this week I think its fairly clear we won't meet those targets.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/business/global/16latvia.html

bhovaspack

brianthebard wrote: »

I think especially in the last week even, SF policies have become more and more realistic. I think they are the only pragmatic party in this issue, the options have been put in front of us as default now or default later, SF says choose the first one because the country will be far worse off by the time we default later.

As far as I can see, the parties advocating this suffer credibility issues because they are not willing to properly answer when pushed on the question of what happens when and if we go down the default route. On one level, they seem to be suggesting that the option is between the lesser and greater of two already very great evils, but no one is spelling that out properly when pushed. I wish someone would just admit how crap it will be, but that it will be potentially less crap than the alternative. That, at least, would make sense.

JonathanAnon

brianthebard wrote: »

I think especially in the last week even, SF policies have become more and more realistic. I think they are the only pragmatic party in this issue, the options have been put in front of us as default now or default later, SF says choose the first one because the country will be far worse off by the time we default later.

What I dont understand is that a lot of independent highly regarded economists are saying this, yet ALL of the politicians bar SF seem to be still in denial... Even if we reach the target of a 13 Billion deficit for this year's Exchequer figures, the interest is accumulating on top of the deficit.. on top of the bailout loan ... on top of our national debt ...

The country will be struggling to pull the country into an equilibrium situation where the books balance.. never mind having enough of a surplus to pay even the interest on our loans..

The only hope really is a huge boost economically, but that seems hugely unlikely, and given that the Government seems intent on killing off small business with rates/rents etc etc this seems unlikely..

brianthebard

bhovaspack wrote: »

As far as I can see, the parties advocating this suffer credibility issues because they are not willing to properly answer when pushed on the question of what happens when and if we go down the default route. On one level, they seem to be suggesting that the option is between the lesser and greater of two already very great evils, but no one is spelling that out properly when pushed. I wish someone would just admit how crap it will be, but that it will be potentially less crap than the alternative. That, at least, would make sense.

SF has said that they will use the National Pension fund to pay for the next year. They also afaik want to nationalise the gas fields off Mayo but whether that would happen while in govt or whether it would raise any money in the short term remains to be seen.
The plan is to separate sovereign and bank debt, default on the latter or give the bondholders an extreme haircut, and try to make an agreement from there with the imf/eu. After that SF expect to borrow from the bond markets again.
Now the three main parties act like this will never happen again but all indications are that the price of Irish bonds went up as a result of taking on the bank debt (the markets way of saying they knew we should default and that the debt was not sustainable) and therefore once the default has been arranged the markets should start lending again since they recognise that Ireland will have once more become a place they can invest in.

That may seem a bit unclear and that's partly because of the way I explained it and partly because it does depend an awful lot on the bond markets lending again soon, but it can be done, Iceland is already preparing to return to the bond markets in less than 3 years since their crisis. Bearing in mind that they did not have an orderly negotiated default it is realistic to think that Ireland can return in less time than 3 years.


Also I'm pretty sure that Arthur Morgan spelled out how crap it would be after we default on the frontline the other night but perhaps not, perhaps not in enough detail, but then how crap it becomes again depends on the bond markets.

JonathanAnon wrote: »

What I dont understand is that a lot of independent highly regarded economists are saying this, yet ALL of the politicians bar SF seem to be still in denial... Even if we reach the target of a 13 Billion deficit for this year's Exchequer figures, the interest is accumulating on top of the deficit.. on top of the bailout loan ... on top of our national debt ...

The country will be struggling to pull the country into an equilibrium situation where the books balance.. never mind having enough of a surplus to pay even the interest on our loans..

The only hope really is a huge boost economically, but that seems hugely unlikely, and given that the Government seems intent on killing off small business with rates/rents etc etc this seems unlikely..

Exactly, these are the reasons why a default appears inevitable, and in the meantime Ireland will suffer further and further cuts taking money from the people and the economy until finally it collapses under the weight of the banks. I would much rather borrow money again on the bond markets at the rate last given (9%?) if the money borrowed was 20bn, instead of 85 or 100bn or whatever the final figure the govt agrees with the imf and ecb is at 6%, the interest will be far less.

You have people in charge of these markets saying Ireland should not have taken on the banks and should default but for whatever reason labour and fg have been fixated on continuing the ff policy, I don't know what it is some people say they are scared of our European overlords, maybe that's true, maybe they're just fighting for ff voters, I really don't know but its very worrying that the two main opposition parties can't come up with policies that are fundamentally in opposition to the govt, I'd like to think that someone in Labour is saying that this is possible, that we need to make a contingency plan, etc, but then perhaps they are worried they will blow their chance for a coalition with ff or fg if the figures work out that way. The fatalism with which Pat Rabbitte talks about the issue in particular is unnerving.

MaceFace

gallinini wrote: »

What an appalling statement, hes just shown his true colours. Another rich mans friend just as I always suspected FF and FG and one and the same.Michael Taft was far more in tune than Leo and actually seemed to understand what affect the raising of VAT would have on the lower paid in our society.

He never said the rich wouldn't pay it - he said the public won't pay. Look at the last time "rates" were tried - people just refused to pay which made the whole thing irrelevant. That will happen again which makes it extremely unfair as you either put these people in prison for not paying taxes or you let them away and thus the whole thing falls apart.

Also, FG policy appears to be lessening the VAT on the lower end of the scale, so most of the items that "less well off" people pay are in this bracket, so they won't be as affected.
Remember who Taft is - just a Union official who only cares about his members. He couldn't care less about the less well off, but he is using this as a stick to beat the other parties so Labour get elected.

ArtSmart wrote: »

yeah. FG = slash n burn policy

they were saying these things bout 8 months ago.

then they changed completely into caring FG, people first party - with vlad leading the way.

load a bolliix.

the truth's well and truly outta the bag now.

will be interesting to see FG's the attempts at spinning this debacle

What debacle?
Think for just one minute about this episode - it had one FG politician, three "socialists" and an IMF official who never really spoke. It was just a gang up on the politician and his policies.
Call it slash and burn, but what is the alternative - tax your way out? That didn't work before so why would it work now?

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's inexcusable for a graduate of medicine to not know the stats supporting the link between poverty and poor health outcomes. I'd wager he does, but they don't suit his political vision. Even the most intelligent people can fall foul of cognitive dissonance when they are wedded to an ideology. These are thacherite policies that he is expounding. I'm waiting for him to say "there is no such thing as society..."

It's better to see this now than it is to get a nasty shock after you vote for them.

I knew people would pick up his point the wrong way - he was only talking about money in peoples pocket - does "lack of money" cause poor health?
He acknowledged that being out of work causes ill-health as that was not what he was saying - it was only about money in peoples pockets. He acknowledged about being out of work causing problems, but the NUI(?) person made a point that poverty causes obesity. I don't get that - surely a lack of money should not make you obese and what actually makes you obese is lack of education or laziness (both of which contribute to you having a lack of money).
(BTW: I am not arguing that less well off people suffer more from ill health, but saying that less well off people have a lot of problems, lack of money being one, and that in itself does not neccessarily lead to ill health).

Donal Og O Baelach

Bodhisopha wrote: »

I want to slap that man in his fat child face.

Insightful analysis and top quality commentry - thats what I like about this thread.
Actually, wouldn't it be great if they read out this kind of comment, instead of the usual smart arse drivel.

Skid

"What part of America are you from Leo? Were you ever bitten by a lizard or a snake or an eel ?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrNbFAyZOr8

The other parties need to start comparing Vardkar to Thatcher more often, he is toxic for Fine Gael.

His policies are driven by an offensive ideology and he comes across as a dangerous man to have in office.

(And Mario - your impression of Vincent is dreadful - this is the way to do it ^^^)

omahaid

I'm baffled at all the negative posts about Leo. What did he say wrong? FG are a right wing party with right wing policies. I mean, WTF, did ye expect him to come on and say "we're going to tax the rich and give to the poor"?

He's a right wing guy from a right wing party so I think he put that message across very well last night.

omahaid

Anyway, why did Vincent think it fair to not impose a property tax on people in negative equity? You mean, lets not tax the people who took out 105% mortgages, the same people who, imo, are partially responsible for the mess we're in?

Donal Og O Baelach

omahaid wrote: »

Anyway, why did Vincent think it fair to not impose a property tax on people in negative equity? You mean, lets not tax the people who took out 105% mortgages, the same people who, imo, are partially responsible for the mess we're in?

If Vincent has a politician on who says his main party policy is not drowning puppies, Vincent would be like:

"..Not drowning puppies...this..this is extraordinary.. why NOT drown the puppies? Aren't puppies to blame for everything in this country? And you say you won't drown them."

danbohan

SkidMark wrote: »

"What part of America are you from Leo? Were you ever bitten by a lizard or a snake or an eel ?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrNbFAyZOr8

The other parties need to start comparing Vardkar to Thatcher more often, he is toxic for Fine Gael.

His policies are driven by an offensive ideology and he comes across as a dangerous man to have in office.

(And Mario - your impression of Vincent is dreadful - this is the way to do it ^^^)

its not just leo

you put kenny , bruton ,leo , and james reilly in some nice black military uniforms and ......................................