Fine Gael overall majority: our best hope

Manach

Einhard wrote: »

Everyone of us living in this state is a consumer of the state, and I don't think it's inequitable that we all contirbute something towards that. I do think it unfair to say to someone earning €70 that their tax burden will increase by, say, €3k, but that someone earning €20k will incur no increase at all. Not only is it unfair, but it's not sustainable.
.

Whilst I appreciate your comparison you've made with German workers in regard taxes, your typical PAYE worker (a me feiner like myself) I reckon does not receive the same level as State benefit. Higher taxes mean that the economic options I could make to maximise my potential, such as educational courses in other fields of IT skills have been denied (I'm sure other posters have found how training budgets have evaporated during this recession).

steelcityblues

However, you seem to be missing my point here. Within a few months, the Irish people will be asked to vote in a General Election. Of the limited choices that are available to us, Fine Gael is the best. If you'd like to convince me that I would be better off giving my vote to Fianna Fáil, Labour, the Greens, Sinn Féin, or other, I'm all ears.[/QUOTE]

While their Northern element turn me off a bit, I will probably cast a vote for SF, if for nothing else trying to protect Irish sovereignity with them taking the lead now on protesting the IMF overlords (why isn't Enda doing this?), seeing Lisbon for what it is, pressing the by-election delays, and applying the necessary pressure on O'Donoughe and O'Dea misdemeanors (despite Labour hogging the credit).

They do at least advocate for social and gender equality even if I know some of their members will never get the chip off their shoulder about the 'Prods'

I don't really care to here other smartasses bring up bank robbing and Jerry McCabe either, as it is irrelevant to the current state of things.

Appreciate you are more classic market liberal than I am, but I don't understand why you are sold on a Fine Gael that quietly endorse anti-economic measures - although they are 100% right about the Seanad abolition.

Kenny is simply not enough of an ideologue for a voter like you either, and the gombeen backbenchers delibarately made the wrong choice in the summer.

punchdrunk

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

wish I knew! but lets face it the politicians we are presently faced with,are not the politicians that this Country deserves

oscarBravo

steelcityblues wrote: »

While their Northern element turn me off a bit, I will probably cast a vote for SF, if for nothing else trying to protect Irish sovereignity...

To paraphrase my late father-in-law: "you can't eat sovereignty."

...with them taking the lead now on protesting the IMF overlords (why isn't Enda doing this?)...

Maybe he's a pragmatist? What's to be gained from protesting the IMF?

...seeing Lisbon for what it is...

It was an EU treaty. It certainly wasn't a fraction of the things SF claimed it (and every. single. previous. EU treaty) was.

...pressing the by-election delays...

That's the one thing I'll give SF credit for - and they shouldn't have had to do it.

oscarBravo

punchdrunk wrote: »

wish I knew! but lets face it the politicians we are presently faced with,are not the politicians that this Country deserves

In the meantime, we're left with a choice of the politicians who actually put themselves forward for election. Until the perfect politician shows up, we get to vote for the least worst of them - and that's what this thread is about.

meglome

steelcityblues wrote: »

While their Northern element turn me off a bit, I will probably cast a vote for SF, if for nothing else trying to protect Irish sovereignity with them taking the lead now on protesting the IMF overlords (why isn't Enda doing this?), seeing Lisbon for what it is, pressing the by-election delays, and applying the necessary pressure on O'Donoughe and O'Dea misdemeanors (despite Labour hogging the credit).

They do at least advocate for social and gender equality even if I know some of their members will never get the chip off their shoulder about the 'Prods'

I do give Sinn Fein credit where credit is due. We all thought holding up the by-elections was disgraceful but they actually brought that to head. The main problem is their economic policy's which quite frankly are just rubbish. The country would slide further down the toilet with them calling the shots. And it doesn't help that they pretend to be pro-EU while campaigning against every treaty we've had with the EU. All the while saying the exact same things about each one.

I'm really sick of this LOOK WHAT LISBON DONE stuff. We as a nation got us where we are. The Lisbon treaty was voted in long after the seeds of our downfall were sown.

thebaldsoprano

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

FF/Greens/FG turned billions in toxic property loans into soverign debt.

They contributed to and voted for the bank guarantee scheme too. Not only that, they called for it to be expanded. This'd be a big problem for me - and I'd imagine quite a few centre-right voters - in giving them support. This was a pretty odd thing to do given that they had very short notice and any data they had on the banks would have come through FF. Their eagerness to support the guarantee has to raise questions about what vested interests they have and how exactly they're tangled into the web of cronyism that's been screwing the country over the last few years.

Of course Labour have their vested interests too and they've also got the problem that their membership may try to force the party's hand in pursuing them, like they did with the resolution on PS pay.

I'll probably vote FG on the basis that the deficit problem is larger than the banking problem, but I really won't be happy about it. The joys of being a centre-right voter...

Rebelheart

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If these back-slapping, funeral attending, nepotistic, slithery cowboys with pretensions to being less corrupt are the best alternative to Fianna Fáil that the sons and daughters of Banbha can throw up then, to quote O'Meagher Condon from the dock before he was sentenced to death in 1867: God Save Ireland.

Anybody who thinks the Blueshirts are not going to replicate the Fianna Foulers in government is either A) conversing through their puga pyga; oblivious to how unmistakably similar the political culture/ethical bankruptcy of Fine Gael is to Fianna Fáil C) has a vested interest in seeing Fianna Fáil cronyism replaced by Fine Gael cronyism but in dressing this same old so-so as a radical, ethical improvement when it's entirely about jobs for a different clique of boys.

Anybody here who has needed to pull a few strings would be aware that the politicians of all parties are equally as bad as each other - and that, obviously, includes Fine Gael. The way certain rightwing ideologues here are going on you'd swear Fine Gael-dominated councils and the like are behaving like paragons of virtue and ethical government. Ignorant, misguided nonsense. It's the pretensions to being above the very corruption that they condemn the Foulers of which is most repellent.

Rebelheart

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And this makes them different to Fine Gael how, precisely?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And, Nostradamus: you know this how, exactly?

Rebelheart

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sweet, sweet, sweet Jesus. Are they still looking for reds under the bed where you're from? Spoken like a true Blueshirt.

donegalfella wrote: »

We cannot give the reins of power either to radical Marxist nationalists (Sinn Féin) or to populist leftists whose central response to our current economic predicament is blaming FF and proposing to tax the wealthy (Labour).

More of the same tired atavistic Paddy Cooney/Paddy Donegan/Brendan McGahon rhetoric of the rightwing ideologue who retreats into his carefully constructed certainties when he's struggling to offer something fresh. Your decidedly populist rightwing scaremongering reminds me of this 1932 Fine Gael election poster:



Leopards. Spots. And all that. So much for all that "progress" you like to think you embody when you're reduced to regurgitating the neat, simplistic and embarrassingly idiotic Fine Gael view of the world in the 1930s.

K-9

Laois_Man wrote: »

Someone on TV came up with this brillian nugget the other night too! He claimed we play less tax than the likes of the Germans! I nearly spat up my digestive buiscuit!

GERMANY!!!! Where the average income in my own profession is similar to what it is here - but, where Tax Free Income for single person is €8,004 and the next €13,500 is taxed linerally at between 14% and 24% and then increases linearly from 24% to 42% for the remainde up to €53,000 and 45% for the rest.

A single working person here can earn up to about €17,000 tax free and 20% above that, up to about €36,000. A person on minimum wage here pays no tax or PRSI, they pay €1,2/300 on your figures in Germany. What is the PRSI rate in Germany because I am not even counting that?

Laois_Man wrote:

Compare that to here where we have a flat 1% income levy on EVERYTHING under €100,000 2% on EVERYTHING above that, plus 20% on the first €36,400 after credits which for a single person, the basic credit is pittence compared to Germany - and then the 41% on the rest! No "Linear" increases at all.

Unfortunately that was brought in exactly because about 50% of the work force paid no tax or PRSI, unlike Germany!

We aren't highly taxed here, not on PAYE or PRSI anyway. All the political parties told us we were in the last election and it is false. It's part of the reason we are in this mess.

kaiser sauze

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm confused, are you proposing that this bailout must be done when this happens?

donegalfella wrote: »

To sum up, raising taxes to extortionate levels will only see an exodus of wealthier people (and hence much-needed private capital) from Ireland. We can't pretend that that would not have an impact, given the fragile state of our economy and our banking system.

This is a common scare tactic used by the wealthy and does not stand up to scrutiny.

The Clinton era tax rates did not cause a flight from The US.

droidus wrote: »

So our best hope after more than a decade of centre right neo-liberal economic policies which have completely destroyed this country, is an even more economically right wing party which has explicitly identified itself with Thatcher and the tories?

Yes, if they do it properly.

droidus wrote: »

Strange that 'high net worth individuals' would rather see minor changes in management rather than the radical changes in structure that we actually need. Anything to avoid those tax increases eh?

High net worth individuals have no problem paying their taxes, it is when they see them being wasted that they get irked.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have to admit that until you clarified yourself here, droidus questioning of your original post was warranted.

However...

You give too much credence to market sentiment being favourable to us. I find that highly unlikely to have turned out to be the case. Even without a budget deficit, the banks problems are still there and they are close to making us insolvent due to the sheer scale of losses (of both capital and writedowns). A €20Bn odd CBD does not matter when you are taking about bank losses of potentially upwards of €100Bn, not to mention the injections that they have received from our own central bank and ECB. All of these have to be repaid and who is responsible?

We are. The muppets are now proposing that we take a 99.9% stake in AIB and a controlling stake in BoI. Added to our already full ownership of Anglo.

To summarise: injections €120-130Bn, EU €85Bn. (NAMA and previous capital inhections are included in 90 + 20 figures)

A reducing CBD is not a major concern to the markets, it is the figures I have outlined above. This is why the upcoming budget is not relevant from a market point of view, it is only an EU/IMF condition for receiving the bailout money.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OH OH OH LET ME!

in billions
Current National Debt 90
Bonds due for encashment (3yr) 20
EU/IMF 85(?)
Interest on all 6% ish (3yr) 30
Already planned borrowings 20

OTHER
ECB injections 90-100
Central Bank injections 35

The €250Bn figure is too low.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

STOP!

Are you proposing that we had to bail out the banks if we had no CBD?

Your confusion on this issue is most surprising.

----

In any case, I would have to say that I agree with most of what FG propose. It just cries out for it to be extended further.

The proposal about the numbers of politicians is close to a pipe dream as the abolition of the Seanad and the restructuring of our representation proportions would both need a referendum.

mayo_lad

plonk wrote: »

We managed to achieve 50% energy from renewables in April of this year, and we have the potential to export 10 times our own power usage into the European grid from renewables.

Fine Gaels "new era" plan which aims to do this together with their "Reinventing Government" plan leaves them as the only obvious party to vote for at this present time.

I know Kenny isn't the most desirable leader but he has a team of knowledgeable people behind him.

+1
I never saw Kenny as a leader of the party more of a manager of a good team who would let the best people shine . Which has been shown in the policies they have came up with. Remember this is the man who rebut the party from 2002. The fact that he is vice-president of the EPP which is the largest party in the eu can only help him in these negotiations with the imf and eu

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

senordingdong

mayo_lad wrote: »

+1
I never saw Kenny as a leader of the party more of a manager of a good team who would let the best people shine . Which has been shown in the policies they have came up with. Remember this is the man who rebut the party from 2002. The fact that he is vice-president of the EPP which is the largest party in the eu can only help him in these negotiations with the imf and eu

Leader and manager are very similar imo.

Kenny is more then fit for the position and deserves a chance to prove himself at least.
We all saw the damage that Brutons challenge and other back stabbing has done to FG.

invinciblePRSTV

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is no logic to your position. You argue against a bailout of the banks, and argue for severe cuts to public spending, but then advocate a vote for a party that supported the bailout unconditionally (and red scare about a party that didn't) and has repeatedly supported maintaining at least some of the various SW payments you rally against.

Unsurprisingly raising tax rates aren't part of your magic solution, even though the realpolitik of the situation dictates that FG, on their own or in coalition, will have to introduce tax hikes. The forthcoming budget will probably require FG support to pass and include tax hikes, will you still support them then?

Could it be your primary reason for advocating support for FG isn't based on nobel ideas about "reform" and the like, but simply because you are looking after no.1 - namely your wallet, and you want others to disproportionately take the burden of bailing out the banks. Be honest here, there's no shame in admitting your real motivations.

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the meantime, we're left with a choice of the politicians who actually put themselves forward for election. Until the perfect politician shows up, we get to vote for the least worst of them - and that's what this thread is about.

Maybe we need to vote for the party whose policies are most likely to improve the quality of future politicians.

As such labours gender quota plans which would effectively force parties to drop constraints against women...(and many men) from entering politics would have the most transfromative effects.

Yitzhak Rabin

T runner wrote: »

Maybe we need to vote for the party whose policies are most likely to improve the quality of future politicians.

As such labours gender quota plans which would effectively force parties to drop constraints against women...(and many men) from entering politics would have the most transfromative effects.

Gender quotas is an unfair, and deeply undemocratic idea. Its also sexist imo. Its saying, we need to create a situation where women are given an unfair advantage, as they could never do it on their own. Its insulting to women who have run for election and succeeded and those who plan to do so in the future.

Most female politicians are against the idea in any case http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0804/1224276150481.html

By all means we can do things to make it easier for a women to enter politics, but introducing a quota is silly.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

I think you are confusing my remarks on what I believe we should have done with my commentary on what the government actually did. Just to be clear, my preferred route would have been to:

1) Restore sanity to the public finances in 2008 with an emergency budget that stripped inflated public wages and pensions, inflated social welfare payments, quangos, and all other Celtic Tiger excesses out of the economy.

2) Let the banks burn.

And let the economy starved of liquidity burn with it? Thank God it didnt come to that.

3) Weather the storm.

With no economy, no cash or credit, no salaries or wages after our banks burn: how do you propose we weather it? Barter? Looting?

T runner

yekahs wrote: »

Gender quotas is an unfair, and deeply undemocratic idea. Its also sexist imo. Its saying, we need to create a situation where women are given an unfair advantage, as they could never do it on their own. Its insulting to women who have run for election and succeeded and those who plan to do so in the future.

Most female politicians are against the idea in any case http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0804/1224276150481.html

By all means we can do things to make it easier for a women to enter politics, but introducing a quota is silly.

Quotas have worked quite well in Scandinavia, transforming those countries.
Eurpope will bring in a gender quota.

The majority of those opposed are from the traditional parties.
The argument is..i didnt need a quota why would anyone else?

The unfortunate fact is that many of the women elected gor their tickets as relations of dead male TDs.

There has never been any more than 13% female representation in the histry of the State. We will not do things to make things easier for women to enter the state. "We" are 90% male. Why would we?

People bleat on about radically altering the Political system. Yet when it comes to the uncomfortable decisions it turns out they are happy with the tired useless group of publicans etc we have now.

Everyone seems to agree that the old system of politics should end. Seems they are not really serious after all.

What one radical change will increase the choice and quality of candidates more than a quota system? Remember a quota systam will force parties to remove the walls of old boys clubs and demolish them..making it easier for more men and women to entre politics, giveing agreater choice and quality in depth come nomination time.

Raging_Ninja

Last time I checked, half the population of the country was female, and there is no restriction on women being eligible to vote.

If this was truly a major issue, then women should organize to vote for female candidates.

Seems to me the only reason the proportion of women in office is low is because fewer women are interested in entering politics than men, and apparently most women don't vote for a candidate based on gender.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Buford T Justice

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And yet these are the measures that we are told will stabilize the economy

It beggars belief

T runner

yekahs wrote: »

Gender quotas is an unfair, and deeply undemocratic idea.

Having 30% female representaion in dail Eireann seems a whole lot fairer tahn having 10%.

Its also sexist imo. Its saying, we need to create a situation where women are given an unfair advantage, as they could never do it on their own.

That is actually probably a sexist sentiment although you dont realise it. You are implying that there is an even playing field at the moment.
How could taht be the case if only 13% of TDs are women? Are you saying women are less capable?

There is not an even playing field. Quotas put the onus on political parties to even it out. ot has been this way since the founding of the state they are not going to take initiatives on their own.

If you toss a coin 100 times do you know the probability of getting 13 heads and 87 tails? very very low. Know the probability of getting this result for several hundred tosses? 1 in billions. Either women are very poor at politics or else we have a system that puts barriers up against women (and many men).

Studies have isolated tehse barriers. We know what they are. We also know political parties wont change it themselves.

A quota system which has worked so well in Scandanavia could transform the type of politician we have here.

Its insulting to women who have run for election and succeeded and those who plan to do so in the future.

How exactly is it insulting. It is fair..the palying field is levelled until teh parties remove their barriers.

Most female politicians are against the idea in any case http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0804/1224276150481.html

As they were in Sweden. Now a massive proportion of politicians support it male and female.

The sight of Paul Gogarty bringing his child to a press release becuase we couldnt find a baby sitter brought him many critics.

Nobody commented on the obvious. There are no child care facilities in Dail Eireann!!!!!!

Ill say it again...
There are no child care facilities in Dail Eireann!!!!!!


This is a deeply backward looking sexist state we live in.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then just tax the very wealthy as labour suggest. The top 350 earners cleared 41 billion of personal wealth in the last 3 years of the boom.
Through tax evasion avoidance and scams they only paid 15% tax on average on that amount. Looks like these citizens are not paying their share.

If some take the hump and move elsewhere what harm. I would wager that anyone who does is an overseas resident for tax purposes anyway.

We have protected this "wealth generating" class enough and the government gave them free reign to run this economy over a cliff.

A tiny proportion of the population who hold 30-40% of the wealth seem to be not acting in a very patriotic manner.

Has FG a policy for bringing these people back into the fold where they are responsible and equal citizens of this Republic?

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

Then just tax the very wealthy as labour suggest.

[...]

If some take the hump and move elsewhere what harm.

So we can solve our problems by taxing the wealthy, and if the wealthy jump ship, what harm?

I'm clearly missing a large chunk of your calculus, because it ain't adding up for me.

Lockstep

Try and keep the gender quotas out of this. Fairly off topic on an otherwise excellent thread.
/mod

kaiser sauze

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks, but your posts did not state anything like this, so I appreciate the clarification.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we can solve our problems by taxing the wealthy, and if the wealthy jump ship, what harm?

I'm clearly missing a large chunk of your calculus, because it ain't adding up for me.

Misrepresenting me and ignoring large portions of my post are youre problems there.

If some of the wealthy jump ship what harm was what i said, not all of them as you falsely implied.

Are you comfortable with the idea that this very group pay so very little tax?
Are you defending the governments policy to allow this group to persistently dodge and evade tax and to turn a blind eye while they ran this economy off the cliff?

Everyone paying their fair share of taxes seems to work in other Republics like France. Here however, we allow this group to dodge taxes, conduct blatant capital gains scams, pretend to live overseas all for fear that this omnipotent "wealth generating class" will cut and run?

Plenty of FF supporters on boards even if they dont realise it eh Oscar?

And please dont deliberately misrepresent my post again.