Gilmores facade is showing cracks

anymore

The Sunday times carries an article ( page 10 sorry dont have link) on Eamon Gilmores interview with Ivan Yates on Newstalk, where Yates " tried to get frank answers" from the politician on a number of issues :

Where did the Gilmore and the party stand on the Croke Agreement ? ANS : Gilmore wouldnt answer for fear of interferring !
Where did Gilmore stand on the question of Cardinal Brady resigning ?
ANS: Gilmore siad it was a matter for Church !
What was Gilmores stand on water charges ?
ANS: Gilmore said the labour hadnt decied yet !

How do labour's polticians and supporters justify this evasive and non committal attitude to some of the important issues of the day ?
Is Eamon Gilmore just bluff and bluster or is there any substance behind his energetic protests and speeches ?

FlutterinBantam

anymore wrote: »

The Sunday times carries an article ( page 10 sorry dont have link) on Eamon Gilmores interview with Ivan Yates on Newstalk, where Yates " tried to get frank answers" from the politician on a number of issues :

Where did the Gilmore and the party stand on the Croke Agreement ? ANS : Gilmore wouldnt answer for fear of interferring !
Where did Gilmore stand on the question of Cardinal Brady resigning ?
ANS: Gilmore siad it was a matter for Church !
What was Gilmores stand on water charges ?
ANS: Gilmore said the labour hadnt decied yet !

How do labour's polticians and supporters justify this evasive and non committal attitude to some of the important issues of the day ?
Is Eamon Gilmore just bluff and bluster or is there any substance behind his energetic protests and speeches ?

No substance whatsoever.

Ash.J.Williams

I really am dumbfounded as to who to vote for next time round, it really is a case of voting for the turd or the **** sandwich.

Sand

Might as well elect MRBI to lead the country instead of Gilmore. At least it cuts out the middle man. But you couldnt describe either as "leading" though could you.

The rise of Gilmore has been mystifying - he gives a good rabble rousing tirade for whatever his handlers tell him is polling well, but I had thought the Irish voters were tired of the Bertie Ahern style. Clearly not, as the Fianna Fail model still seems to work for Labour. He is the "whatever youre having yourself" type guy. No political, social or economic views that are known of. Only vague denouncements of vague wrongs like unfairness.

We are reassured that hes just being tricky, and that if he gets into power that hell take the hardlines required. That all this populist talk now is just a political trick. Well, he is fooling somebody alright. I would advise the people who think theres actually something more to him that it might be them that he is fooling. He is certainly not doing politics in Ireland any favours by refusing to engage meaningfully in a recognition of the situation we are in.

FlutterinBantam

Sand wrote: »

Might as well elect MRBI to lead the country instead of Gilmore. At least it cuts out the middle man. But you couldnt describe either as "leading" though could you.

The rise of Gilmore has been mystifying - he gives a good rabble rousing tirade for whatever his handlers tell him is polling well, but I had thought the Irish voters were tried of the Bertie Ahern style. Clearly not, as the Fianna Fail model still seems to work for Labour. He is the "whatever youre having yourself" type guy. No political, social or economic views that are known of. Only vague denouncements of vague wrongs like unfairness.

We are reassured that hes just being tricky, and that if he gets into power that hell take the hardlines required. That all this populist talk now is just a political trick. Well, he is fooling somebody alright. I would advise the people who think theres actually something more to him that it might be them that he is fooling. He is certainly not doing politics in Ireland any favours by refusing to engage meaningfully in a recognition of the situation we are in.

Spot on, the typical Trojan Horse , looks the part, speaks the part but in reality will do nothing to sort the country from the dilemma it's in.

This guy will do nothing to advance our cause.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FlutterinBantam

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

His vision of fairness would be that people who take no risk and embed into the public sector should be rewarded as well as those who risk their resources and money to generate employment, and have no guarantee other than their own expertise, on whether they succeed or fail.

that's brother Gilmore for ya.;)

Taxipete29

anymore wrote: »

The Sunday times carries an article ( page 10 sorry dont have link) on Eamon Gilmores interview with Ivan Yates on Newstalk, where Yates " tried to get frank answers" from the politician on a number of issues :

Where did the Gilmore and the party stand on the Croke Agreement ? ANS : Gilmore wouldnt answer for fear of interferring !
Where did Gilmore stand on the question of Cardinal Brady resigning ?
ANS: Gilmore siad it was a matter for Church !
What was Gilmores stand on water charges ?
ANS: Gilmore said the labour hadnt decied yet !

How do labour's polticians and supporters justify this evasive and non committal attitude to some of the important issues of the day ?
Is Eamon Gilmore just bluff and bluster or is there any substance behind his energetic protests and speeches ?

Politics and religion should not be mixed. He is right that its a matter for the church.

So a politician tells the truth instead of giving some long tale which equates to the same answer and he is getting blasted for it. Labour has plenty of policy but examining that is obviously not as easy as slagging the lefties. Capitalism got us into this mess, crony capitalism is keeping us there and yet some how its socialism that is the problem :rolleyes:.

If people really think there are no alternatives in this country go out and create one. If you mean what you say, stand up and be counted or is it just far easier to slag off those who do participate rather than doing anything meaningful yourselves??

Breezer

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Politics and religion should not be mixed. He is right that its a matter for the church.

But criminality, and the coverup thereof, is a matter for the law, and by extension, the Department of Justice, so politics and the Catholic church clearly do mix in this case.

So a politician tells the truth instead of giving some long tale which equates to the same answer and he is getting blasted for it.

I didn't hear the interview, so I only have the OP's extracts above to go on, but which truth-telling are you referring to exactly? That he shouldn't have an opinion on a vital economic recovery strategy, that he shouldn't have an opinion on the child abuse scandal, or that he yet hasn't decided what his opinion is on a matter that has now been topical for several weeks?

Labour has plenty of policy

Where? I keep hearing this from Labour supporters, but when I went searching for it on the party website (http://www.labour.ie/policy/) all I found were a few vague, manifesto-like information sheets, soundbites and some speeches by Gilmore. I see that today the party has finally posted a comprehensive-looking policy document on tourism (I haven't read it yet, but it looks quite hefty), but this is only dated today, and is the only one I can see.

Labour may well believe in Universal Health Insurance, for example, but there is a stark contrast between Gilmore's speech and Fine Gael's entire website dedicated to the policy, which is accompanied by a comprehensive PDF.

I am genuinely trying to find out about Labour's policies, so please point me in their direction if you can. Despite being a YFG member, I don't agree with everything FG says or does. I'd really like to know what this "third way" is offering. But the third way really doesn't seem to be helping itself.

FlutterinBantam

Bottom line is Gilmore and Bighair Burton won't sort it out.


Usually these people can't be pinned down, but they want the PS to be untouched whilst the risktakers and left to their own devices.


Sorry Brother Gilmore, you don't fool this poster.

Hazlittle

This is why I only vote for boring politicians. I dont trust anyone who can speak well. That and the whole taking away the right to remain silent thing. The police already have a disgusting amount of power.

FlutterinBantam

Hazlittle wrote: »

This is why I only vote for boring politicians. I dont trust anyone who can speak well. That and the whole taking away the right to remain silent thing. The police already have a disgusting amount of power.

And your point sir?

Breezer

Hazlittle wrote: »

This is why I only vote for boring politicians. I dont trust anyone who can speak well. That and the whole taking away the right to remain silent thing. The police already have a disgusting amount of power.

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

Hazlittle

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

And your point sir?

Right look at Obama. He was charismatic and rant about "hope and change". And he's even worse than Bush when it comes to civil liberties. The Labour party is the same. The have a populist charismatic leader that would be even worse than the current government. Their law and order policies scare the pants off me.

Basically all I want is politicians to hand me their policies to inspect and thats it. We dont need this nonsense song and dance.

Hazlittle

Breezer wrote: »

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

I DONT believe the police in Ireland have an practical function. I dont want them having even more power over me. Gilmore does and I oppose this.

FlutterinBantam

Even after a few Stellas I can't understand this.

Hazlittle

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Even after a few Stellas I can't understand this.

How is it hard to understand that I dont like the idea of being randomly picked by the police for breaking one of many stupid nanny state laws and being questioned without seeing a lawyer first. Thats what Gilmore wants.

Profiler

anymore wrote: »

Where did the Gilmore and the party stand on the Croke Agreement ? ANS : Gilmore wouldnt answer for fear of interferring !

Gilmore is waiting until the unions have given their response (backing or rejection) Were he speak out and suggest how they should respond it would be... well interfering.

anymore wrote: »

Where did Gilmore stand on the question of Cardinal Brady resigning ?
ANS: Gilmore siad it was a matter for Church !

Well as the Church is a unelected and undemocratic body where Rome decides who is Bishop or not, exactly what good would Gilmore coming out and demanding Brady's resignation?

anymore wrote: »

What was Gilmores stand on water charges ?
ANS: Gilmore said the labour hadnt decied yet !

Water charges are coming - Europe has decided that. So no decision to be made whatsoever.

However until the Government has outlined how charges will be implemented how the vulnerable in society will be charged (or not) how can Gilmore give his response to a position not yet know.

anymore wrote: »

Is Eamon Gilmore just bluff and bluster

No, for that see Aherne, B.

anymore wrote: »

or is there any substance behind his energetic protests and speeches ?

Ask John O'Donoghue that question

Bob Z

Hazlittle wrote: »

Right look at Obama. He was charismatic and rant about "hope and change". And he's even worse than Bush when it comes to civil liberties. The Labour party is the same. The have a populist charismatic leader that would be even worse than the current government. Their law and order policies scare the pants off me.

I know BO didn't do everything he promised but was he actually worse than bush?

Pride Fighter

The usual assortment of the far right bashing the Labour party. Nothing new here.

For anyone interested in formulating their own opinion and becoming familiar with Labour policy look here http://www.labour.ie/policy/

Labour has only released nine policy documents this year. As for people saying things like Gilmore is a soundbite politician with no policies behind him, I'd say it would take a long time to line out Labour policy so Gilmore just concisely deals with the main points or attacks those traitors Fianna Fail. And attacking those traitors constructively is certainly something Labour does. We do not do personal attacks on the government unlike Fianna Fail did such as John O'Donoghue attacking Nora Owen in the Dail in 95/96.

In conclusion there is no facade showing cracks.

FlutterinBantam

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The usual assortment of the far right bashing the Labour party. Nothing new here.

For anyone interested in formulating their own opinion and becoming familiar with Labour policy look here http://www.labour.ie/policy/

Labour has only released nine policy documents this year. As for people saying things like Gilmore is a soundbite politician with no policies behind him, I'd say it would take a long time to line out Labour policy so Gilmore just concisely deals with the main points or attacks those traitors Fianna Fail. And attacking those traitors constructively is certainly something Labour does. We do not do personal attacks on the government unlike Fianna Fail did such as John O'Donoghue attacking Nora Owen in the Dail in 95/96.

In conclusion there is no facade showing cracks.

That auld shoooite might influence the punters in the sinks, but it sure as hell doesn't influence the taxpayer, and the person whose toil supports the country as opposed to those who fit into the corollary of that;)


You know who you are:rolleyes:

Nodin

....bash the unemployed time again, is it?

Breezer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

For anyone interested in formulating their own opinion and becoming familiar with Labour policy look here http://www.labour.ie/policy/

Pride Fighter, I've looked at that page already (see my post above). There's 8 items there (actually there's 10, but 3 of them appear to be the same).

Quite frankly, two of them (health and education) are complete rubbish. I'm referring to the documents themselves, not whether or not I agree with the sparse content.

Half of the education document is taken up with a drawing of a school. The other half consists of bullet points, some of which are decent, but some of which are very vague ("Improve the standard of Irish educational outcomes in literacy, maths and science, so as to give Ireland a world class education system." - How?) Nowhere is it mentioned where the funding is going to come from.

The health "policy document" is a transcript of a speech by Gilmore.

The tourism document seems pretty detailed, and the banking and betting documents seem reasonably well fleshed-out. Then you have two bills, and budget proposals from last year.

So no, it's not true to say Labour have no policies. But they really don't have very many, or at least they aren't communicating them very well via the website. I'd contrast this with FG's 20 policy documents, which are far more detailed (almost all run to over 10 pages, many to more than 20). I know you disagree with a lot of what FG say, but at least they give you something to disagree with.

If I've got it all wrong, please do pull me up on it. Since the next government will in all likelihood be an FG/Labour coalition, I'd love to be able to go through Labour policy and talk to my local TD (Gilmore, as it happens, whom I voted for last time out) about it. But at the moment there seems to be only a very limited contribution from a party that aspires to lead the country.

Pride Fighter

Breezer wrote: »

Pride Fighter, I've looked at that page already (see my post above). There's 8 items there (actually there's 10, but 3 of them appear to be the same).

Quite frankly, two of them (health and education) are complete rubbish. I'm referring to the documents themselves, not whether or not I agree with the sparse content.

Half of the education document is taken up with a drawing of a school. The other half consists of bullet points, some of which are decent, but some of which are very vague ("Improve the standard of Irish educational outcomes in literacy, maths and science, so as to give Ireland a world class education system." - How?) Nowhere is it mentioned where the funding is going to come from.

The health "policy document" is a transcript of a speech by Gilmore.

The tourism document seems pretty detailed, and the banking and betting documents seem reasonably well fleshed-out. Then you have two bills, and budget proposals from last year.

So no, it's not true to say Labour have no policies. But they really don't have very many, or at least they aren't communicating them very well via the website. I'd contrast this with FG's 20 policy documents, which are far more detailed (almost all run to over 10 pages, many to more than 20). I know you disagree with a lot of what FG say, but at least they give you something to disagree with.

If I've got it all wrong, please do pull me up on it. Since the next government will in all likelihood be an FG/Labour coalition, I'd love to be able to go through Labour policy and talk to my local TD (Gilmore, as it happens, whom I voted for last time out) about it. But at the moment there seems to be only a very limited contribution from a party that aspires to lead the country.

Labour's healthcare policy document is called curing our ills. It is from 10 years ago but it is quite a coherent policy for universal health insurance. It runs to 30 pages. I have a hard copy at home. As for the education document, it is mostly our aims and aspirations, it is not a finalised policy document but what is there is quite good. The new school design is Ruairi Quinn's own work, he is a qualified architect.

I'm sure that many more policy documents coming on stream. I think they are quite good and coherent. Some that you mentioned lack detail, but I'm sure thats cause they will be accompanied by other policy documents that will be released later.

Breezer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Labour's healthcare policy document is called curing our ills. It is from 10 years ago but it is quite a coherent policy for universal health insurance. It runs to 30 pages. I have a hard copy at home. As for the education document, it is mostly our aims and aspirations, it is not a finalised policy document but what is there is quite good. The new school design is Ruairi Quinn's own work, he is a qualified architect.

I'm sure that many more policy documents coming on stream. I think they are quite good and coherent. Some that you mentioned lack detail, but I'm sure thats cause they will be accompanied by other policy documents that will be released later.

10 years old? That's insane. A huge amount has happened in healthcare since then, both in terms of medical knowledge and in organisational best practice, never mind the fact that the HSE was unheard of at that point. I'm not surprised it's not on the website if that's the best they have. There's been 2 general elections in the last ten years and we're approaching another one, what on earth have the various health spokespersons been doing in that time?

Some of what is there in the educational document is quite good. Recognising the Educate Together movement as a secondary school patron, for example, is a simple, concrete move that I think a lot of people in this country would like to see happen. Some of it is nothing but vague aspirations though, as I've outlined above. And I'm sure Ruairi Quinn is an excellent architect, but his job is Labour's education spokesperson. I can't help feeling that his time would be better spent putting forward detailed policy to get kids out of the prefabs, rather than designing utopian schools to put them in once that happens.

I sincerely hope these policy documents you mention are coming, and coming soon. We're 3 years into Gilmore's tenure and his party has 6 policies that seem to have had the slightest thought put into them. That's worrying.

As I said, I voted for Gilmore last time. And I want to like him. He's clean cut, honest, a great speaker and I think he'd be a great representative for Ireland on the world stage. But unless he and his colleagues come up with something more substantial between now and election day, he won't be featuring on my ballot paper, because I have absolutely no idea what he intends doing in office.

Hazlittle

Bob Z wrote: »

I know BO didn't do everything he promised but was he actually worse than bush?

Bush bailed out the banks, Obama continued to bailout the banks. Bush went to Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama is still in Iraw and Afghanistan. Bush crushed civil liberties for national security, Obama has even further crushed civil liberties for national security.

I was anti-Bush, I am even more anti-Obama.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The usual assortment of the far right bashing the Labour party. Nothing new here.

For anyone interested in formulating their own opinion and becoming familiar with Labour policy look here http://www.labour.ie/policy/

Labour has only released nine policy documents this year. As for people saying things like Gilmore is a soundbite politician with no policies behind him, I'd say it would take a long time to line out Labour policy so Gilmore just concisely deals with the main points or attacks those traitors Fianna Failure. And attacking those traitors constructively is certainly something Labour does. We do not do personal attacks on the government unlike Fianna Failure did such as John O'Donoghue attacking Nora Owen in the Dail in 95/96.

In conclusion there is no facade showing cracks.

I've read their policies, hence I'm scared by them. Whats far right about maintaining the right to silence?

Breezer

When you said this:

Hazlittle wrote: »

I DONT believe the police in Ireland have an practical function.

I decided I didn't really want to discuss it further, but my curiosity has gotten the better of me. Basically...

Hazlittle wrote: »

I've read their policies, hence I'm scared by them. Whats far right about maintaining the right to silence?

...where exactly are you getting this from?

Sand

@Profiler

Gilmore is waiting until the unions have given their response (backing or rejection) Were he speak out and suggest how they should respond it would be... well interfering.

The Croke Park agreement is between two parties. The unions and their membership. And the State. Gilmore intends to form at least part of the government of the State shortly.

Union members are expressing doubts if the State will even hold up their side of the deal. They, and everyone else had a right to know what Gilmore thinks - does he think its a good deal for the State? Does he think its a good deal for the unions? If he is in government will he adhere to the Croke Park deal without reservation or will he feel able to dismantle it if he feels it is against State interests? Is he able to seperate the interests of the State and the public sector unions?

These are questions that voters have a right to know an answer to. We give politicians a democratic mandate based on their policies and views. If Gilmore and his ilk refuse to espouse any views on issues of *critical* importance to the future of this State then they are basically empty suits, unfit for office.

Their cowardice, Gilmore's in particular, is pathetic. Either they think Croke Park agreement is a good deal, or they dont. Sitting on the fence is not an option either for the government or any party hoping to form part of the next government. We cant freewheel downhill anymore. We are in a very tough situation, and Labour are acting like its 2006 and they can enter electionmode promising tax cuts and spending increases.

Water charges are another example - its basic common sense and good policy to charge by consumption, to reward efficient usage and punish wastage (all metered at point of use...) to bring about a reduction in wastage, but its politically unpopular. So Gilmore and Labour are too cowardly to come out and lead on the issue, to actually lay out a view, explain it and win votes. Rabbit in headlights. Not leadership material. We need leaders in the Dail, not followers. Labour have to offer an alternative. Right now, theyre making Fianna Fail look magisterial. Thats how awful they are.

@Hazlittle

I was anti-Bush, I am even more anti-Obama.

But he gives such good speeches....

aDeener

Hazlittle wrote: »

Right look at Obama. He was charismatic and rant about "hope and change". And he's even worse than Bush when it comes to civil liberties. The Labour party is the same. The have a populist charismatic leader that would be even worse than the current government. Their law and order policies scare the pants off me.

Basically all I want is politicians to hand me their policies to inspect and thats it. We dont need this nonsense song and dance.

there is nothing charismatic about eamonn gilmore. i would have no problem voting FG only for they would have to form a coalition with that gobshite.

Breezer

aDeener wrote: »

there is nothing charismatic about eamonn gilmore. i would have no problem voting FG only for they would have to form a coalition with that gobshite.

The best way to prevent that happening is to vote for Fine Gael but not Labour

rightwingdub

Breezer wrote: »

The best way to prevent that happening is to vote for Fine Gael but not Labour

Fine Gael won't get anywhere near an overall majority with Kenny in charge, if there was head to head debate between Biffo and Kenny, Cowen would absolutely slaughter Kenny who's feebleness would be there for all to see and I don't have any time for Cowen either.

As for Gilmore I actually think he's even worse than Cowen and Kenny and once he gets into government we'll see what populist rubbish he comes out with.

Profiler

Sand wrote: »

The Croke Park agreement is between two parties. The unions and their membership. And the State. Gilmore intends to form at least part of the government of the State shortly.

He is not however part of the Government. Were he to speak out now then the government, it's cronies and a few of the posters who have criticised him on here would be whinging about the opposition meddling where they should not be. He's dammed if he does and dammed if he dosen't.

Sand wrote: »

Union members are expressing doubts if the State will even hold up their side of the deal.

SO they should be, it is unaffordable (IMO)

Sand wrote: »

They, and everyone else had a right to know what Gilmore thinks - does he think its a good deal for the State? Does he think its a good deal for the unions? If he is in government will he adhere to the Croke Park deal without reservation or will he feel able to dismantle it if he feels it is against State interests? Is he able to seperate the interests of the State and the public sector unions?

Hey while we are at it lets clog up the airwaves by ensuring Gilmore is respond to every single Gov policy...

Sand wrote: »

These are questions that voters have a right to know an answer to. We give politicians a democratic mandate based on their policies and views. If Gilmore and his ilk refuse to espouse any views on issues of *critical* importance to the future of this State then they are basically empty suits, unfit for office.

Gilmore has not refused to espouse a view on any issue. He's been pretty vocal, but hey if they are suits unfit for the office, then they can always get a job in Fianna Fail or one of the banks they bailed out...

Sand wrote: »

Their cowardice, Gilmore's in particular, is pathetic.

Cowardice? right, no point in continuing with you, if that is your view.

anymore

Profiler wrote: »

Gilmore is waiting until the unions have given their response (backing or rejection) Were he speak out and suggest how they should respond it would be... well interfering.



Well as the Church is a unelected and undemocratic body where Rome decides who is Bishop or not, exactly what good would Gilmore coming out and demanding Brady's resignation?




Water charges are coming - Europe has decided that. So no decision to be made whatsoever.

However until the Government has outlined how charges will be implemented how the vulnerable in society will be charged (or not) how can Gilmore give his response to a position not yet know.


No, for that see Aherne, B.

Ask John O'Donoghue that question

So Gilmore wants to be Leader who doesnt decide on any issue he can squirm out of ?
Democratic Left tail wagging the labour Dog again !:D
I suspect his refusal to answer these questions shows his lack of courage and sense of responsility - typical left wing bluffer !

Eliot Rosewater

Profiler wrote: »

He is not however part of the Government. Were he to speak out now then the government, it's cronies and a few of the posters who have criticised him on here would be whinging about the opposition meddling where they should not be.

You seem to be suggesting that the opposition shouldn't be ... erm ... opposing. At the very least you're creating a strawman: do you see Cowen "whinge" at Leader's Questions about the fact that the opposition is "meddling" in the government's affairs? The idea of opposition is intrinsic in parliamentary democracy.


But you do, in a way, hit upon Gilmore's tactic. By being so elusive and by saying so little, he can avoid insulting anybody and pick up everyone's votes. It's the very definition of "populist": say what everyone wants to hear.

Breezer

rightwingdub wrote: »

Fine Gael won't get anywhere near an overall majority with Kenny in charge

In all honesty, probably not, but individual votes add up to make a difference. If people genuinely want a government with FG but not Labour, then rallying behind FG is the way to do it. Dismissing them them on the basis that they'll also bring in Labour if not enough people vote for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Profiler wrote:

Hey while we are at it lets clog up the airwaves by ensuring Gilmore is respond to every single Gov policy...

Yes, that is his job! Gordon Brown couldn't sneeze for the last few years without David Cameron having an opinion on it. The thing is, Gilmore (and Burton) are clogging up the airwaves, but despite that they're not really saying much.

rightwingdub

Breezer wrote: »

In all honesty, probably not, but individual votes add up to make a difference. If people genuinely want a government with FG but not Labour, then rallying behind FG is the way to do it. Dismissing them them on the basis that they'll also bring in Labour if not enough people vote for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, that is his job! Gordon Brown couldn't sneeze for the last few years without David Cameron having an opinion on it. The thing is, Gilmore (and Burton) are clogging up the airwaves, but despite that they're not really saying much.

I'm considering voting FG if only they became a proper centre right political party, Kenny doesn't stand for anything.

thebaldsoprano

Pride Fighter wrote: »

For anyone interested in formulating their own opinion and becoming familiar with Labour policy look here http://www.labour.ie/policy/

From this Labour policy document (Dec 2009):

There should a negotiated agreement to secure savings in the public sector wage bill

And five months later Gilmore vows to reverse public sector pay cuts.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

In conclusion there is no facade showing cracks.

Right, so Labour proposes reducing the PS wage bill by increasing PS wages - classic nineteen-eightyfour doublespeak... That looks like a crack in the facade to me

Hazlittle

Breezer wrote: »

When you said this:I decided I didn't really want to discuss it further, but my curiosity has gotten the better of me. Basically......where exactly are you getting this from?

I mean that the police in the current dont anything particularly good in comparison the amount of damage cause by our stupid laws that we have. In theory a legal system is suppose to be productive in regards to conflict disputes, but current I see zero value for money in having our government. I prefer anarchy over a badly managed govenrment.

I got my info from talking to him personally. I Googled it and this is what I got. He makes a vague reference to it. Its late and I'm tired. I'm not putting more effort than that.

http://theconnollycolumn.blogspot.com/2007/09/eamon-gilmore.html

Breezer wrote: »

In all honesty, probably not, but individual votes add up to make a difference. If people genuinely want a government with FG but not Labour, then rallying behind FG is the way to do it. Dismissing them them on the basis that they'll also bring in Labour if not enough people vote for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Its not my place to tell you who to vote for but its like when people say they would vote Lib Dems if they thought they would win. Look up John Cleeses 1997 election broadcast to see what I mean.

rightwingdub wrote: »

I'm considering voting FG if only they became a proper centre right political party, Kenny doesn't stand for anything.

Form your own party then.

Sand

@Profiler

He is not however part of the Government. Were he to speak out now then the government, it's cronies and a few of the posters who have criticised him on here would be whinging about the opposition meddling where they should not be. He's dammed if he does and dammed if he dosen't.

Oh please. Hes an elected member of the Dail and leader of what is apparently a popular party with aims to form a government next time out. Speaking out and laying out his views and policies in more than vague generalities is exactly what he should be doing. If he doesnt have any views on the policy of the state then maybe he ought to resign and open up his seat to someone with something to say.

SO they should be, it is unaffordable (IMO)

Are you running for election? If so, thanks for expressing a view on which someone can cast a vote on an educated basis. Now, has Gilmore or Labour expressed a view? Other than "No comment", nope. How is any voter to express a view in an educated fashion when even Gilmore is unable or unwilling to express even the basic essentials of his own parties policy?

Hey while we are at it lets clog up the airwaves by ensuring Gilmore is respond to every single Gov policy...

He was brought onto Newstalk to do an interview - he was asked a couple of simple, straightforward question to which he could have sketched out even the bare essentials of Labour policy. He dodged and ducked and dived and refused to explain what Labours view or his own view was on any of the questions asked of him. I am surprised he didnt offer a caveat when he was accused of being the leader of the Labour Party.

Gilmore has not refused to espouse a view on any issue. He's been pretty vocal, but hey if they are suits unfit for the office, then they can always get a job in Fianna Fail or one of the banks they bailed out...

Are you serious? Gilmore has no opinion on the Croke Park deal hes willing to share with the general public. No opinion on water charges that hes willing to share with the general public. And no opinion on the responsibility of Brady in the enablement/coverup of child abuse that hes willing to share with the general public.

And thats just one interview!

Hes vocal when it comes to rabble rousing, but hes got nothing to say beyond tirades against "unfairness", whatever that means.

Cowardice? right, no point in continuing with you, if that is your view.

A spade is a spade. The man and his party are terrified of actually having to give an opinion if its in anyway controversial. Real leadership material.

Pride Fighter

Breezer wrote: »

10 years old? That's insane. A huge amount has happened in healthcare since then, both in terms of medical knowledge and in organisational best practice, never mind the fact that the HSE was unheard of at that point. I'm not surprised it's not on the website if that's the best they have. There's been 2 general elections in the last ten years and we're approaching another one, what on earth have the various health spokespersons been doing in that time?

It makes no odds that it is 10 years old. Particularly when Fine Gael have copied it word for word almost. The main difference between Labour's health proposals and Fine Gael is that Labour will not close any hospitals or hand them over to private interests. Fair Care advocates the Dutch model which has no state run hospitals, only private, for profit hospitals. Private enterprise is a good thing, but in terms of healthcare, health is a human right and should be provided for by the state, free of charge, not by big business that will skimp on healthcare provisions to extend profit-margins.

Pride Fighter

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

From this Labour policy document (Dec 2009):
And five months later Gilmore vows to reverse public sector pay cuts.



Right, so Labour proposes reducing the PS wage bill by increasing PS wages - classic nineteen-eightyfour doublespeak... That looks like a crack in the facade to me

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Labour advocates cuts in public sector pay. We are in a mess, created by Fianna Fail. In a few years time, when the mess has been sorted, that is when we will reverse the public sector pay cuts, when we can pay. That wont be for a while, but temporary cuts are what we advocate with a reversal after stable, sustainable, economic growth.

oppenheimer1

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Labour advocates cuts in public sector pay. We are in a mess, created by Fianna Fail. In a few years time, when the mess has been sorted, that is when we will reverse the public sector pay cuts, when we can pay. That wont be for a while, but temporary cuts are what we advocate with a reversal after stable, sustainable, economic growth.

If thats the case why doesn't gilmore come out and say he supports the Croke park deal? Its because he's a two faced waffler with no back bone and wants to be all things to everyone. It will be a sad day for the country if they are let anywhere near the chequebook

Pride Fighter

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If thats the case why doesn't gilmore come out and say he supports the Croke park deal? Its because he's a two faced waffler with no back bone and wants to be all things to everyone. It will be a sad day for the country if they are let anywhere near the chequebook

Gilmore neither supports or rejects the deal. Perhaps you have heard that trade unions have a little thing called a ballot, where they let their members vote. Gilmore does not want to interfere in the democratic action of the union movement. It is not ethical or right to tell people how to vote.

oppenheimer1

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Gilmore neither supports or rejects the deal. Perhaps you have heard that trade unions have a little thing called a ballot, where they let their members vote. Gilmore does not want to interfere in the democratic action of the union movement. It is not ethical or right to tell people how to vote.

Surely the leader of the third largest party in the Dáil should share his opinion with the electorate, considering the likelihood of him being in power come the next election. But Gilmore is a fence sitter and doesn't want to harm his popularity by pissing off one half of the electorate one way or another.

What was the Labour party calling for during the boom times, why it was increased spending, rather than partially pay down the national debt which is what happened. An eye for prudence the Labour party have :rolleyes:

That just about sums up any policy one needs to know about them.

Pride Fighter

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Surely the leader of the third largest party in the Dáil should share his opinion with the electorate, considering the likelihood of him being in power come the next election. But Gilmore is a fence sitter and doesn't want to harm his popularity by pissing off one half of the electorate one way or another.

What was the Labour party calling for during the boom times, why it was increased spending, rather than partially pay down the national debt which is what happened. An eye for prudence the Labour party have :rolleyes:

That just about sums up any policy one needs to know about them.

I think you will find Ruairi Quinn as finance minister created 1,000 jobs a week, introduced a 12.5% corporation tax rate, and Irelands first budget surplus. That is the actions of Labour during the boom times.

oppenheimer1

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I think you will find Ruairi Quinn as finance minister created 1,000 jobs a week, introduced a 12.5% corporation tax rate, and Irelands first budget surplus. That is the actions of Labour during the boom times.

They seem to have lost their way in recent times then. I take it you don't deny they called for further spending increases back in 06-07? Spending increases which today would have left us further in the mire.

Pride Fighter

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They seem to have lost their way in recent times then. I take it you don't deny they called for further spending increases back in 06-07? Spending increases which today would have left us further in the mire.

Fine Gael proposed the same thing. I fully accept what you just said. Also the figures provided for by the department of finance suggested economic growth far greater than what actually occurred and they did not see the current crash coming, despite several warnings.

I'd also say that the policies FG/Lab in their joint manifesto had they been implemented post 07 we'd be in a worse situation now. Economically as well as electorally. Cause we'd be in a bigger hole economically, and electorally FG/Lab would be blamed for the crash rather than FF. FF would then sweep back to power as a single party, overall majority. That would be a disaster.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It makes no odds that it is 10 years old. Particularly when Fine Gael have copied it word for word almost. The main difference between Labour's health proposals and Fine Gael is that Labour will not close any hospitals or hand them over to private interests. Fair Care advocates the Dutch model which has no state run hospitals, only private, for profit hospitals. Private enterprise is a good thing, but in terms of healthcare, health is a human right and should be provided for by the state, free of charge, not by big business that will skimp on healthcare provisions to extend profit-margins.

This is one of the things that scares me about the Labour party. You're letting your ideology ruin peoples lives and for what? So the government has control over everyones lives? No country that allows their government run their healthcare has a good health care system.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Gilmore neither supports or rejects the deal. Perhaps you have heard that trade unions have a little thing called a ballot, where they let their members vote. Gilmore does not want to interfere in the democratic action of the union movement. It is not ethical or right to tell people how to vote.

So I dont get a vote or a ballot? Fantastic. Loving labour party democracy already.

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If labour policies of the 70's 80's had been followed it would have been a complete disaster for the country !

Fuhrer

Hazlittle wrote: »

No country that allows their government run their healthcare has a good health care system.

You mean apart from France, Italy, Japan, Norway etc.