Another 2 years for the Government parties?

View

According to the Constitution (Article 16.5), the term of a Dail may last up to seven years. This has been reduced to five years subsequently by an act of the Oireachtas.

Given the severity of the economic crisis, should the Government parties amend that act to increase their term up to seven years again, thus giving them an extra two years to continue their work?

If yes, why? If no, why not? All opinions welcome...

Liam Byrne

You're joking, right ?

An EXTRA two years of this fiasco ? :mad:

Do you not think they've done enough damage already ?

It'll be bad enough surviving the next two years of these corrupt incompetents without adding another 2 to it!

Sulmac

I'd rather have a four year limit like most other countries, or maybe even a three year limit like New Zealand has.

Two more years (on top of the two remaining) of this would be a joke.

Red_Marauder

Well recently markets have reacted badly to political events in the United Kingdom, where Cameron and Brown have been slinging economic slop at one another in light of the forthcoming general election.

This has recently caused Britain to suffer its first ever January deficit in its one trillion gizillion year history, and bond markets have taken a hit.

I'm not saying we should lengthen the government term necessarily

However, markets are looking favourably on our Governments actions, and the cost of the insurance we pay on Government debt has been cut because of their confidence.

What we do know is that markets dislike anything that is unpredictable. And that includes general elections where the opposition have a very different economic strategy.

KerranJast

There'd be riots on the street if the Government tried to row back on the 5 year term.

deanh

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Well recently markets have reacted badly to political events in the United Kingdom, where Cameron and Brown have been slinging economic slop at one another in light of the forthcoming general election.

This has recently caused Britain to suffer its first ever January deficit in its one trillion gizillion year history, and bond markets have taken a hit.

I'm not saying we should lengthen the government term necessarily

However, markets are looking favourably on our Governments actions, and the cost of the insurance we pay on Government debt has been cut because of their confidence.

What we do know is that markets dislike anything that is unpredictable. And that includes general elections where the opposition have a very different economic strategy.

What markets don't like is political instability( prospect of a hung parliament caused U.K. problems). Financiers would interpret any such move in Ireland as anti- democratic and start comparing us to Zimbabwe. Mind you, FF does have a lot in common with Mugabe's Zanu PF(FF?).

danman

Yea, that true.

The genocide in Cavan is reason enough to comapre the 2 Governments.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

However, markets are looking favourably on our Governments actions, and the cost of the insurance we pay on Government debt has been cut because of their confidence.

I dunno - I was down in the local farmer's market there earlier and everyone rightly pissed off with our that Government's actions.

I mean, we wouldn't have the debt if the Government had done their job up to now, so suddenly judging them only based on the past 6 - 8 months and claiming that that is a show of "confidence" is misleading.

Plus "votes of confidence" are fickle and inappropriate things, as we found out this week.

The incompetence and tolerance for corruption and the two-fingers to the country is increasing, and we need them out two years earlier not later.

bmaxi

KerranJast wrote: »

There'd be riots on the street if the Government tried to row back on the 5 year term.

No there wouldn't. If there haven't been riots in the streets after whats gone on in the past ten years, there never will be. Unless, of course, someone puts a passport size photo of Queen Elizabeth in Clery's window. You have to get your priorities right you know.

Eliot Rosewater

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I mean, we wouldn't have the debt if the Government had done their job up to now

I suppose its a question of how you decide who to vote for. Do you base it on a parties long term track record, or what they're liable to do in the immediate term? I think the policies of FF the last 12 year have been poor. But one has to ask: if FF are removed and a government including Labour gets in, will the fiscal rectitude stop as the State bows to the whims of the trade unions? In other words is it best that FF stay in government until the recession ends?

Ideally, I would say yes. But the fly in the ointment is the collective amnesia of the Irish electorate. If FF were in until the end of the recession, people would start praising them again and they would get back in.

It comes down to a conflicting interest between wanting to punish FF for what they did but also wanting a Government that will cut back on spending in light of the depression. A Labour government could be disastrous in this regard.

Red_Marauder

deanh wrote: »

What markets don't like is political instability( prospect of a hung parliament caused U.K. problems). Financiers would interpret any such move in Ireland as anti- democratic and start comparing us to Zimbabwe.

No they wouldn't.

It isn't the tenacity of Mugabe's grip on power that markets have a problem with, it's things like his government failing to even secure international funds for ink and special paper for printing more money.

View

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But one has to ask: if FF are removed and a government including Labour gets in, will the fiscal rectitude stop as the State bows to the whims of the trade unions?

I hate to point this out to you but it was FF, not Labour, that spent the last decade buying off the trade unions with the tax payer's money. Labour, when last in office, was positively restrained in comparasion to them.

View

KerranJast wrote: »

There'd be riots on the street if the Government tried to row back on the 5 year term.

Why? Because they act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution?

Can't see it personally...

Eliot Rosewater

View wrote: »

I hate to point this out to you but it was FF, not Labour, that spent the last decade buying off the trade unions with the tax payer's money.

I know! But the question is: in the next two years who are going to be more restrained, FF or Labour? My point is that you have to look forwards as well as backwards.

For example: would Labour have reduced social welfare payments?

Liam Byrne

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My point is that you have to look forwards as well as backwards.

I don't want to insult you, but that makes you sound like an FF member.

The fact is that if you look "backwards" (otherwise known as taking FF's track record into account, which sounds less biased) you see the incompetence and corruption.

And there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the party that landed us in this mess should be given an opportunity to line their own pockets more or dig us deeper into the ****e.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

For example: would Labour have reduced social welfare payments?

For example : Would Labour have foisted NAMA on us so that they can screw us in 10 years time, like FF will/are - even after being consigned to the rubbish tip where they belong ?

Iwasfrozen

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The fact is that if you look "backwards" (otherwise known as taking FF's track record into account, which sounds less biased) you see the incompetence and corruption.

And there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the party that landed us in this mess should be given an opportunity to line their own pockets more or dig us deeper into the ****e.

I hate to tell you but it wasn't FF that landed us in this mess. It was we the people. Sure they may have encouraged the developers but who toke out the 120% loans to play for a new house and car they didn't need during the boom years ?

Governments however make an easy scape goat for people and the media is quick to pick up on this.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

For example : Would Labour have foisted NAMA on us so that they can screw us in 10 years time, like FF will/are - even after being consigned to the rubbish tip where they belong ?

Nah Labour would have nationalised the banks, like they planned to do.

goose2005

Maybe O'Dea will be released in time to fight the election then...

patmar

Its absolutely vital the government stays for full term, right to the last minute. An election any sooner would be a disaster as the only certainty right now is that FF will be gone. The problem is what takes over and whats on offer is a mish mash of extreme right and extreme left and I include Labour in extreme left. Too many "experts" are forgetting FF will be fighting for their political life and that when an election does come the alternative will have come up with policies to place before the people. Can any sane person expect the mish mash to take the harsh decisions ?

Eliot Rosewater

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't want to insult you, but that makes you sound like an FF member.

That "if I'm not totally with you then I'm against you" attitude is a very poor one to have. I've no interest in handcuffing myself to the past. Yes I'm pissed off like the rest of the country, but that doesn't mean come voting day I'm going to throw the chance of budget rectitude away just to spite some greedy politicians.

Like it or not, Fianna Fáil have a lot better prospects for fixing the government deficit than Labour or any other party bar Fine Gael.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that the party that landed us in this mess should be given an opportunity to line their own pockets more or dig us deeper into the ****e.

Thats just sensationalist rhetoric, to be honest.

Red_Marauder

I don't entirely agree with the above post but it is true, the longer Labour can be kept away from power, the better it will be for our economic progress.

I think they can just about manage a part in a 'steady-as-she-goes' economy, but they are not a party to manage such a high maintenance situation like this that requires serious corrections to public expenditure.

As an aside, I heard Blair Horan on RTE Radio recently come out with the startling line "We are not living beyond our means". Given Labour's cosy relationship with the unions, this is a sentiment I fear would be expressed in government and could have serious consequences for our economic future.

Boskowski

Some people argue that markets reacted favourably towards the governments actions. I argue against it. I predict that not a single euro of actual budget reduction will remain from the 'tough measures' when we look back at this year in 2011. The gap between debits and credits will be just as big as last year, hopefully not worse. God only knows where the next 4 billion are going to come from. The government is just running a gigantic scam that's all. How the EU let us get away with this is amazing.

I do agree that the opposition is equally unsuitable though. Our problem is not a 'party problem'. The whole system the entire political structure is rotten and probably beyond repair.

Liam Byrne

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

that doesn't mean come voting day I'm going to throw the chance of budget rectitude away just to spite some greedy politicians.

You mean the ones who throw €100,000 at their loyal mates who bring politics into disrepute ?

Fiscal rectitude my ass!

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Like it or not, Fianna Fáil have a lot better prospects for fixing the government deficit than Labour or any other party bar Fine Gael.

Whether or not I'd like the above isn't the issue. The fact that it's not true is.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Thats just sensationalist rhetoric, to be honest.

No. It's 100% honest. Someone who screwed up as badly as they have (and what's worse, continue to treat us with contempt) should not be given the chance to do so again.

I'm on record as saying that part of me would like to see FF have to clean up their own mess, but I genuinely don't think that they can, or that they have the will to do so.

Maybe FG or Labour can't either, but at least they don't have the stink of corruption hanging over them, or inexplicable policies to bail out their mates with the basis for that falling apart by the second with revelations that the banks can't give us the promised dividends, won't release credit into the economy (as used as the excuse for the fiasco) and votes of confidence for even more corruption and dodgy shennanigans.

And - in the absence of a completely competent and issue-free alternative- I'll stand 100% over the fact that the lack of corruption and condoning of same is a massive factor. That's not sensationalist or rhetoric, it's common sense and an honest evaluation.

View

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I know! But the question is: in the next two years who are going to be more restrained, FF or Labour?

Well, since it is probable that FF will be in power during the next 2 years, the answer is Labour will be more restrained (Opposition parties don't get to make spending decisions).

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

For example: would Labour have reduced social welfare payments?

In my opinion, yes. Social Welfare is just too big a part of the budget to escape the axe.

Liam Byrne

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I hate to tell you but it wasn't FF that landed us in this mess. It was we the people. Sure they may have encouraged the developers but who toke out the 120% loans to play for a new house and car they didn't need during the boom years ?

Please, not more of this bull ?

I can't speak for everyone, but I definitely didn't.

And the banks who paid those out were incompetent (and are ironically the ones that FF view as "essential" - why ?)

Not to mention that Ahern's mate was given the title of "regulator" and did SFA about it. Why is there a regulator position if the banks can do what they please ?

What's the point in paying someone if someone doesn't need to keep an eye on the banks ?

I'm no expert, but the day I saw 100% mortgages being offered with no reaction from FF (due to the tax take they were going to get) I could smell trouble.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Governments however make an easy scape goat for people and the media is quick to pick up on this.

The only reason that the current government makes "an easy scapegoat" is because their incompetence and arrogance is sickeningly obvious.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nah Labour would have nationalised the banks, like they planned to do.

As distinct from the shower who will be taking an extra 17% of BoI next week ?

At least Labour might have planned it, and not just have it happen through ill-thought-through incompetence.

deanh

When did FF ever tackle a budget deficit? Fact: It was a labour Minister for Finance and a FG/Lab/DL coalition that had the first budget surplus. Pity that FF blew the boom(as per Davy stockbrokers this week). Things must be bad for this government when even business supporters are dumping on them.

Eliot Rosewater

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You mean the ones who throw €100,000 at their loyal mates who bring politics into disrepute?

Social welfare and public service wages account for some €40,000,000,000 I believe. Im much more concerned about that. Cutting down on corruption and pay-offs is good, however to argue that our budget stability depends on it is disingenuous. There are much bigger fish to fry.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Whether or not I'd like the above isn't the issue. The fact that it's not true is.

Are you saying that Labour, who's annual conferences are officially attended by the Trade Unions, have a better chance of reducing social welfare and the public sector wage bill than Fianna Fail? That seems to be what your suggesting.

freewheeler

So you are willing to turn a blind eye to the corruption and incompetence of FF? I find that attitude inexplicable to be honest..I would like to think that a governments policies should be geared towards the good of the country rather than the good of those who have so regularly passed them brown envelopes...

Eliot Rosewater

freewheeler wrote: »

I find that attitude inexplicable to be honest.

Then you clearly haven't been considering what Ive said.

freewheeler

Well perhaps i've misunderstood? You seem to be saying that they should be left in power until the recession ends? I would disagree totally as i don't trust them to do the right thing..they have proven time and again where their priorities lie and I can assure you that it's not with the common good We have suffered these fools for far too long already..I say get them out NOW before they do even more damage to our country.

Liam Byrne

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Social welfare and public service wages account for some €40,000,000,000 I believe. Im much more concerned about that. Cutting down on corruption and pay-offs is good, however to argue that our budget stability depends on it is disingenuous. There are much bigger fish to fry.

A fair point at face value.

However if the corruption is still in place, then "our budget stability" will once again be sacrificed in order to maintain the status quo of the Galway Tent.

So they're inextricably linked.

Get rid of the corruption and people will accept the necessary, but pay fortunes to corrupt and incompetent banks, regulators, politicians, etc, and there will be no reason for the public to accept that decisions are being made in OUR best interests.

I mean, if a known liar tells you that something is in your best interests, would you believe him ?

TheManHimself

The Greens are spineless enough to stay in their ministerial comfort till 2012