Fine Gael overall majority: our best hope

T runner

mb1725 wrote: »

Michael Noonan is showing a very good grasp of the finance and is also seems extremely well informed on international market issues. He is a very good communicator with what seems like a brain. I think I'd like to see him get a crack at the top job.

Finance is the top job. Keep him there

johnnyskeleton

Einhard wrote: »

Increasing tax on the interest would target income already saved, and at the same time provide an incentive to invest the savings, whether on the high street or elsewhere.

I've responded to the increases in DIRT by moving money from AIB to banko del matresso.

As regards the OP, thanks for the party politicial broadcast telling us to vote for the blueshirts because there is no other choice. I suppose when a party's policies are basically FF lite, fear is the only reason they can use to get people to vote for them.

meglome

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I've responded to the increases in DIRT by moving money from AIB to banko del matresso.

Em so where do you live again?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As regards the OP, thanks for the party politicial broadcast telling us to vote for the blueshirts because there is no other choice. I suppose when a party's policies are basically FF lite, fear is the only reason they can use to get people to vote for them.

You using a phrase from the 1930's/40's says it all really. Time to move on methinks.

K_user

Just read this...and find it reeaaalllyyy funny!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which would take along time to sort out and cost us a fortune in research and reports. And will lead to the general public asking why they are no longer being represented.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I see strikes from the public service people who are trying to protect their jobs. But who needs those pesky buses, trains, postal workers, hospitals, teachers anyway!

Not mention the reports that would have to be generated first. Which means massive amounts spent on trying to figure out which departments are inefficient and are duplicated. See the irony?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good luck with that one.

Again...

Strikes on a major scale. Public service shuts down completely.

But again who needs those pesky buses, trains, postal workers, hospitals, teachers anyway?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More abuse for less money?

Would require a complete change in how the public sector is currently organised, leading to talks with the unions...you see where this is going?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly. Establish an independent council, who will cost the tax payer a fortune, but depending on how they are sent up, will have no power at all, or will be uncontrollable and might cause embarrassment to who ever is in power (not going to happen).

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In short FG will say anything to make themselves sound good. But if elected will do the "normal" thing. Which is blame all the problems on the last group of g*bsh*thes. Then pick up the reins, make a few minor changes and then carry on as before. All the promises will become part of the "long term plan". And will become the "things that are taking place in the background" come the debates in 4 years time.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And are the promises made by people who haven't actually sat down and talked to a single representative of any of the organizations that they are talking about cutting or moving.

And that is the great thing about being in the opposition. You can say what you like. But that all changes when you get elected, because you have to deal with the people and the consequences of your actions.

And there is no way that one government can deal with the current crisis and have the time to take on the entire public sector, while dealing with the backlash from the Irish public.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Spoken like someone who hasn't really thought this through...

The Unions don't care who is in power. The HSE, the Buses, the Trains, the Teachers, don't care who is in government. They will fight to protect their jobs. And any change will have to come slowly else this country will grind to a halt. Which makes all of FG's promises just hot air.

To put it bluntly. If it were that easy to cut public spending, to get Ireland out of crisis, it would be done already. But it hasn't.

None of the above are "new" ideas. They are the same sort of stuff that brought out every 4 years, just in different forms.

FG are just looking to grab power now that they have a chance. Just like Labour, just like SF, just like the "silly hat party". And they all will stir up enough trouble and talk enough crap, all to make themselves look better. And thats their job. But none of that changes the realities of how things like the public sector, the government or the country are run.

meglome

K_user wrote: »

Just read this...and find it reeaaalllyyy funny!

FG are just looking to grab power now that they have a chance. Just like Labour, just like SF, just like the "silly hat party". And they all will stir up enough trouble and talk enough crap, all to make themselves look better. And thats their job. But none of that changes the realities of how things like the public sector, the government or the country are run.

Given the OP has made it clear it's a situation where we are choosing the best of that we've got. Who do you suggest we vote for and why?

Edit: Cause reading your post it seems to me you are suggesting we should just all give up on Ireland as a lost cause and go elsewhere. A view I do not hold.

johnnyskeleton

meglome wrote: »

You using a phrase from the 1930's/40's says it all really. Time to move methinks.

I genuinely thought that when George Lee ran for FG that we would see them becoming a real politicial party.

Sadly not, as he was pushed out by the gombeens.

K-9

T runner wrote: »

I have a theory OP:

We all know there is no hope of a FG overall majority, so its not our best hope. The numbers wont add up.

The only numerical possibility for government with the policies you want is a FG/FF coalition.

I believe for obvious and understandeable reasons you didnt mention this in your OP.

To be brutally realistic. The only possible hope if you want to see the policies you are hoping for is a FG/FF coalition.

Going on seat projections this maybe more of a runner than people think, problem is nobody will touch FF and I can't see FF wanting to be in Govt.

FG/Labour could have 110 seats between them which leaves a very small opposition.

meglome

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I genuinely thought that when George Lee ran for FG that we would see them becoming a real politicial party.

Sadly not, as he was pushed out by the gombeens.

I was disappointed by that too. I wonder is there any chance of him coming back into politics?

K_user

meglome wrote: »

Given the OP has made it clear it's a situation where we are choosing the best of that we've got. Who do you suggest we vote for and why?

You vote for who you want, the person who has done the most for your local area.

The point I am making is that sweeping statements made by politicians, looking to take power, are all to be read with a pinch of salt.

All the FG "promises" as mentioned by the OP, while they sound great on paper, are not manageable in the short term. Not given the current situation in the country.

Parties should be concentrating on getting us stable, not making promises that they know they can't deliver on. Especially a party that hasn't sat down with any of the people that they are going to be trying to "fire".

oscarBravo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I genuinely thought that when George Lee ran for FG that we would see them becoming a real politicial party.

Sadly not, as he was pushed out by the gombeens.

Meh. If George Lee was serious about Politics he would have resigned from FG and held on to his seat. He pulled a Palin and quit on the people who elected him.

oscarBravo

K_user wrote: »

You vote for who you want, the person who has done the most for your local area.

Exactly what the country needs: more parochial politics.

All the FG "promises" as mentioned by the OP, while they sound great on paper, are not manageable in the short term. Not given the current situation in the country.

So you're opposed to reform, because vested interests are opposed to reform and will try to block it?

Way to build a vision for the future.

Parties should be concentrating on getting us stable, not making promises that they know they can't deliver on. Especially a party that hasn't sat down with any of the people that they are going to be trying to "fire".

Sitting down with those people got us the Croke Park Deal. What will sitting down with them again achieve?

nkay1985

I've said it many times on here but I'll say it again. I can't believe I'm going to be voting for FG in the next election but they seem to be the only viable option. I'm willing to give them their chance to deliver on the type of reform they've been promising.

I believe that they want to do this because there's a wave of young, politically interested people in the party who have grown up with the same old tired bullsh1t that is Irish politics. My main criticism is that they allow themselves to be led by a bumbling buffoon but I'm going to have to look past that. The only other thing that worries me about voting for FG is exactly the topic of this thread: the idea that Labour will have a big part in the government. Radical reform is needed in many areas of Irish society but Labour's core support is from those who have most to lose from this necessary reform. How people can't see this baffles me.

In an ideal world I'd be able to vote for a Fine Gael party led by someone other than Enda, with no risk of Labour playing a part in government but be able to pick a handful of their talented politicians (such as Ruairi Quinn and Pat Rabbitte) to serve in government. But it's not an ideal world so I'll just have to take the best option available.

oscarBravo

nkay1985 wrote: »

...a wave of young, politically interested people in the party... allow themselves to be led by a bumbling buffoon...

There's an apparent contradiction in there. When you come across a paradox, you often need to check your premises.

K_user

oscarBravo wrote: »

Exactly what the country needs: more parochial politics.

As as opposed to voting blindly for a party?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're opposed to reform, because vested interests are opposed to reform and will try to block it?

Who said I was opposed to reform?

Stop miss quoting for the sake/fun of it.

What I said was that I'm opposed to sweeping political statements of change. Its easy when you are in opposition to state that you are going to reform the public sector, because you don't have to deal with the realities of it. Its a whole different beast when you try it.

Change takes time. It takes effort. It needs a stable ground to work from.

Ireland, at this moment in time, is not stable and needs to take steps to save its future. There will be no sweeping changes because those involved won't allow it. So the FG are knowingly promising something that they can't deliver. Not that I hold that against them - its all part and parcel with the "game".

In the US Obama promised that he would make things better, but it would take time. He was voted in and straight away given a Nobel Peace prize! Currently his rating is relatively low because the public are starting to realise that there is no quick fix to a recession.

In the UK their previous Prime Minister was considered a real hate figure. Just like Biffo is today. His opposition were calling themselves a real force of change. Promises were made. Yesterday, on the news, I was watching protesters in London marching with big signs with Nick Clegg's face on them.

The point being that the Government, no matter who they are, will always be to blame. They will always be in the firing line. And people who found it easy to be in opposition suddenly find themselves under real pressure and sometimes a figure of public unrest. And the bigger/madder the promises, the bigger/madder the back lash.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Way to build a vision for the future. Sitting down with those people got us the Croke Park Deal. What will sitting down with them again achieve?

Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean you can ignore them.

The public sector unions are powerful. They control the essential services that we, the public, depend on. No government can change how they operate without getting their consent. And any government that tries to change them by force will grind the country to a halt with strikes. Thats the reality. Its not nice, its not pretty, none of us really like it, but if it were easy to change then it would have been done already.

Liam Byrne

nkay1985 wrote: »

I've said it many times on here but I'll say it again. I can't believe I'm going to be voting for FG in the next election but they seem to be the only viable option. I'm willing to give them their chance to deliver on the type of reform they've been promising.

They had better start that reform and putting their money where their mouth is, though; the article linked to earlier showing how they didn't object to a pay/expenses rise is a serious indictment.

dynamick

Paddy Power is offering 25/1 on FG obtaining more than 80 seats. So they have next to no chance of an overall majority. A vote for FG is a vote for a Labour coalition.

FG has never had any policy differences with FF. They've done less robbing than FF but then they've had less access to the till. Three years in power over the past 23 years with the same set of policies as FF shows what losers they are. Their councillors have proven themselves well capable of dodgy practices and rezonings whenever they had the opportunity. Voting for FG in preference to FF is like supporting Man City over Man U.

funny thread title: kenny our only hope!


Help me Enda Wan Kenny, you're our only hope.

Liam Byrne

dynamick wrote: »

Voting for FG in preference to FF is like supporting Man City over Man U.

Man City & Man U have no control over our lives.

This "blindly support a party as if it were a team" is ridiculous.

And I love the way people are implying that FG are as corrupt but just didn't have the same opportunities.

If you're hiring a new staff member because the previous one robbed you blind, you're bound to be cautious, but you don't automatically assume that the candidates are all robbing con-men.

K_user

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They had better start that reform and putting their money where their mouth is, though; the article linked to earlier showing how they didn't object to a pay/expenses rise is a serious indictment.

The sad truth is that any "new" government is going to have their hands full with the same problems as the current government.

Sweeping statements are nice for elections, but reform takes time and involves upsetting a lot of people.

Does anyone really see Enda Kenny sitting down with IMF, the EU Banks, his EU counterparts and telling them all that everything is fine, while the Health Board, the Teachers and public transport are all on strike? No.

Ireland needs to show that it isn't imploding, while we all kinda know it is sort of. We need to show stability. We need a strong government that looks to have the support of the people. Then the markets will start to trust us. And then the EU will relax more and not try to force their way in even more.

If we elect a new government and within 6 months there are massive strikes...you understand where I'm going with this...


Getting out of this hole isn't going to be easy. And people are going to suffer. There will be cuts. There will be reform. This will happen under any government. But it needs to happen as painlessly as possible.

Liam Byrne

K_user wrote: »

.....reform takes time and involves upsetting a lot of people.

Saying / voting "No" to a proposed pay rise takes 2 seconds.

K_user

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you're hiring a new staff member because the previous one robbed you blind, you're bound to be cautious, but you don't automatically assume that the candidates are all robbing con-men.

But they are not "new" candidates, they are just transfers.

If a business has two major departments, one that has more "power" than the other, but it has come to light that there may have been issues/dodgy dealings/unanswered questions. Well then its logical that you'd hand power over to the other side. But what if that section isn't exactly squeaky clean either? A business can't just throw everyone out with the dishwater. And it can't restructure itself overnight. But it can try to mix and match its department heads and see who has the best ideas. Both sides will try and pin the blame on the other. Both will lie/cheat/steal. But the business has to except that and move on.

oscarBravo

K_user wrote: »

As as opposed to voting blindly for a party?

Who said anything about voting blindly? Stop misquoting for the fun of it.

What I said was that I'm opposed to sweeping political statements of change. Its easy when you are in opposition to state that you are going to reform the public sector, because you don't have to deal with the realities of it. Its a whole different beast when you try it.

So you'd vote for the party whose manifesto was "we'll leave things more or less in the crap state that they're in, and hope to tweak things a little at a time, if we can get permission from the unions"?

Change takes time. It takes effort. It needs a stable ground to work from.

It also needs vision.

There will be no sweeping changes because those involved won't allow it.

[...]

The public sector unions are powerful. They control the essential services that we, the public, depend on. No government can change how they operate without getting their consent. And any government that tries to change them by force will grind the country to a halt with strikes. Thats the reality. Its not nice, its not pretty, none of us really like it, but if it were easy to change then it would have been done already.

It may not be easy to change, but it's got to change, and it's got to change soon. If it comes to a showdown between the government - acting for the good of the country - and the unions - acting for the good of their members - I'd rather suffer through the short-term pain of the showdown than the long-term agony of being held to ransom.

K_user

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Saying / voting "No" to a proposed pay rise takes 2 seconds.

It does.

But putting a halt to the intricate pay/bonus/benefit/travel expenses of the Irish public sector...while sorting out the BILLIONS paid out in benefits in social welfare...while dealing with questions on governmental policies...while dealing with the Irish Banks...while dealing with the pressure from the EU...

Things are never that simple. There are no quick fixes. Just painful slow ones.

Liam Byrne

K_user wrote: »

Both sides will try and pin the blame on the other. Both will lie/cheat/steal. But the business has to except that and move on.

Or just call it a day and leave the corrupt idiots jobless.

There aren't two "sides", btw.....that's civil war crap.

K_user

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who said anything about voting blindly? Stop misquoting for the fun of it.

And now we enter the game of politics and spin!

The "he said/she said" of debate. Where both sides try and blame the other and neither will back down!

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you'd vote for the party whose manifesto was "we'll leave things more or less in the crap state that they're in, and hope to tweak things a little at a time, if we can get permission from the unions"?

Did I say that?

This isn't about manifestos. Its about the Irish public choosing who they feel can steer us through this mess. If they feel that FF are a lost cause then the party will be out on its ear and thats fine. But who will take over?

The problem in these situations is that people don't often vote how you'd expect. And we could end up with a very odd mix in power.

One party would be preferable, it gives stability. But considering the last 20 years of Irish politics, its unlikely.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It also needs vision.

And every politician talks about having vision.

We all have vision.

Having a vision is like have an opinion.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may not be easy to change, but it's got to change, and it's got to change soon. If it comes to a showdown between the government - acting for the good of the country - and the unions - acting for the good of their members - I'd rather suffer through the short-term pain of the showdown than the long-term agony of being held to ransom.

Very easily said.

But unions represent ten's of thousands of employees who will fight to keep their jobs, the lively hoods, their homes. And that is the problem that we face.

K_user

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Or just call it a day and leave the corrupt idiots jobless.

But how do you sort out the corrupt ones?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There aren't two "sides", btw.....that's civil war crap.

I was following the Man City v's Man U example.

And you have to take into account that there are two major parties in this country. The one currently in power and the one trying to gain power. The other parties will play their parts, but its all about the "big" two.