Latest Poll, Red C

nkay1985

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well that didn't stop George Dubbya, and Enda is nowhere near his level of idiocy.

Is that the yardstick by which you wish to measure someone?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Were the bank guarantee and NAMA, and the first half-assed budget all prior to this arbitrary six-months in ?

He opened so many cans of worms in that 6 months that no sickness is gonna make me forgive him.

Saying "from six months in" is as arbitrary as - I dunno - the November 2009 price benchmark for NAMA.

No, it's fairly widely accepted (within the media) that it took Lenihan six months to get to grips with his new portfolio. That's understandable considering the state of the fiscal situation. Since then, I think he's done well. I didn't just pick a number out of my head.

Liam Byrne

nkay1985 wrote: »

Is that the yardstick by which you wish to measure someone?

Jesus no!

I was just saying that all the crap thrown around about Enda is small potatoes compared to the likes of Bush and Ahern.

I'm on record as saying that I'd like better than Kenny, but the fact is that he does talk sense a lot of the time (if you bother to listen) and with Bruton behind him he is a lot more palatable than most.

Ideally, I'd like a combination of Kenny & Gilmore, but given the choice I'd prefer someone who does the job rather than simply talking the talk, a la Ahern.

nkay1985 wrote: »

No, it's fairly widely accepted (within the media) that it took Lenihan six months to get to grips with his new portfolio.

Pity he made all of his key decisions within those six months, so........anything he's actually managed to do half-right (and remember that is his job, so sorry if I refuse to do the whole "clap the pilot for actually landing the plane" thing) since is irrelevant....he has screwed up the country based on panicked and un-thought-through reactions within those six months.

P.S. It's also "widely accepted" (in both the media and elsewhere) that the public want FF out........and any time we raise that we're reminded that it's the full term that counts; unfortunately for FF, that "full term" starts from the day they were elected, not from six months in!

thebman

nkay1985 wrote: »

Is that the yardstick by which you wish to measure someone

He measures up favorably when compared to Cowen IMO too.

Lockstep

Sully wrote: »

There is always a populist line regardless of the climate people find themselves in.

That's very true.
Going by colloquial terms for populism (saying whatever will get votes etc), then the term doesn't apply. By and large, Gilmore is consistent with his political statements and was certainly not saying what was popular at the time.

irishh_bob

Sully wrote: »

You cant elect someone with no government experience as the leader of a country! He said it himself in a recent interview, he has never even been a minister and would need to see if he is good at that before even considering it.

obviously i meant elect him leader of fine gael , was speaking to the fine gael party

Liam Byrne

irishh_bob wrote: »

obviously i meant elect him leader of fine gael , was speaking to the fine gael party

In which case he would probably be the next Taoiseach.....

deanh

Sully wrote: »

You cant elect someone with no government experience as the leader of a country!

Tony Blair? Nicolas Sarcozy? Barack Obama? David Cameron? All have managed to gain high elected office with little or no ministerial experience. If this is not a barrier to success around the world, why should it be in Ireland?

meditraitor

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A Labour Party government will be disastrous for the economy, in my opinion. I outlined why I think this in a thread: Will a Labour government only prolong the economic ruin?

I supported most of my assertions there with links to newspapers. Unfortunately no Labour supporters challenged my claims. As such, do I just accept my conclusion as generally correct?

Nobody bothered answering that post because it is all conjecture, if you want to use guesswork and ignorance as a start point for a thread you will only get fan boys agreeing with your mud slinging tactics.

You ignorantly offer no real reply to some valid points earlier in this thread and then go ahead and add more conjecture (I could use another word for the reply) as if it was fact.

I saw those. Unfortunately they don't go anywhere near explaining the problem I laid out in my thread: that Labour will not make cuts to at least 65% of public spending and thus they must raise tax, which will reduce the number of jobs on offer due to a less rewarding environment for job creaters.

You seem to be under the illusion that tax hikes will be the order of the day to pay for PS spending, and were in the name of jebus christ did you get the idea that labour (see the name LABOUR) policies would reduce job creation?

So back to the original point - Walter Mitty political commentry or posts dont usually garner replies.....

Try harder with the mud slinging, be less obvious and someone might engage;)

Eliot Rosewater

meditraitor wrote: »

You seem to be under the illusion that tax hikes will be the order of the day to pay for PS spending, and were in the name of jebus christ did you get the idea that labour (see the name LABOUR) policies would reduce job creation?

Let me make this extremely simple. Labour do not want to cut at least 65% of spending (not conjecture, see sources). A Labour government will have to deal with this unwillingness to cut outgoings, along with the growing debt. The only way they can do this is by increasing taxes (remember, the left side of the book has to balance with the right). Taxes have a negative impact upon job creation.

I beg you, show me where the conjecture lies.


And by the way, no one ever ignores a post because they think it's conjecture. In fact, such posts are the easiest to dispute because they are built upon such weak foundations. I think the unwillingness to address this point I've been making repeatedly on this forum the past week stems from another source.

That last sentence is conjecture, of course.

thetonynator

I actually think that a labour ff coalition with gilmore as taoiseach would be a good thing, but there is no way Labour would ever do it. I can't stand kenny, or fine gael in general.

maynooth_rules

thetonynator wrote: »

I actually think that a labour ff coalition with gilmore as taoiseach would be a good thing, but there is no way Labour would ever do it. I can't stand kenny, or fine gael in general.

Having Fianna Fail Ministers in any form in our next government will be a disaster for this country. Labour are well aware of where it will lead them if they jump into bed with them. May I ask why you can't stand Fine Gael??

thetonynator

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Having Fianna Fail Ministers in any form in our next government will be a disaster for this country. Labour are well aware of where it will lead them if they jump into bed with them. May I ask why you can't stand Fine Gael??

Enda. He really annoys me and I couldn't stand the idea of him as taoiseach.

maynooth_rules

thetonynator wrote: »

Enda. He really annoys me and I couldn't stand the idea of him as taoiseach.

Perfectly fair, I am far from a big fan of him myself. But if they get power, they will have what looks to be a talented front bench. Plus what they are hoping to do with Health is enough for my vote. You won't be giving a vote to John paul Phealan then???

thetonynator

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Perfectly fair, I am far from a big fan of him myself. But if they get power, they will have what looks to be a talented front bench. Plus what they are hoping to do with Health is enough for my vote. You won't be giving a vote to John paul Phealan then???

I actually have no problem with their front bench, or john paul, but if it was a case of enda kenny in charge . . .I'd prefer cowen tbh.

steelcityblues

Where was George Lee in Leinster House this evening when he was needed?

thetonynator

steelcityblues wrote: »

Where was George Lee in Leinster House this evening when he was needed?

What happened???

IrishTonyO

thetonynator wrote: »

What happened???

Vote for the by-elections was a tie 76 to 76, the CC had to cast his vote, but even funnier on RTE radio drivetime, they said 2 Fianna Fail TDs accidentally voted with the opposition

thetonynator

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Vote for the by-elections was a tie 76 to 76, the CC had to cast his vote, but even funnier on RTE radio drivetime, they said 2 Fianna Fail TDs accidentally voted with the opposition

Bet mcdaid didn't turn up . . .

maynooth_rules

thetonynator wrote: »

Bet mcdaid didn't turn up . . .

Bertie probably didn't either. But the media won't highlight the fact that his record of turning up is hardly much more impressive than McDaid

maynooth_rules

thetonynator wrote: »

I actually have no problem with their front bench, or john paul, but if it was a case of enda kenny in charge . . .I'd prefer cowen tbh.

But in fairness to Kenny, he is not spinless to the extent that Biffo is. He has a small idea of the anger the general public have at the moment. He would not have given the same patethic responces that Biffo gave to Bouchers pension top up, and Geogahan Quinns lucrative pension.

Liam Byrne

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Bertie probably didn't either. But the media won't highlight the fact that his record of turning up is hardly much more impressive than McDaid

Whyever not ? If he's a freeloading little prick then we deserve to know.

thetonynator

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Bertie probably didn't either. But the media won't highlight the fact that his record of turning up is hardly much more impressive than McDaid

He's actually not required to for some reson, i read about in the indo the other day, but when the chief whip calls him he has to come running . . .:rolleyes: