Dublin West General Election 2011 [Mod note post #218]

athtrasna

Pat Dunne wrote: »

I am interested in knowing which FG policies have convinced you to go this way.

Interesting enough I take the opposite view, from what I have read of the FG policies

FG have proposed to raise the VAT rate by a further 2% (killing off any recovery in the retail trade).

FG also want to cut children's allowance by 7.5%.

FG want to impose water charges on all domestic users.

FG have actually said they want to CUT VAT by 2% so I don't know where you are getting the increase from?

Children's allowance is currently set at one of the highest levels in Europe. It's also one that grew exponentially in the boom years and wasn't indexed linked. I'm 30 and I remember as a teenager, childrens allowance was £15 per child..that's not THAT long ago...now it's a whole lot more.

As for water charges, we are one of the only countries in the developed world that don't have them currently. We also have a water system that's in dire need of replacement and that money has to come from somewhere. While additional taxes are never welcome, I am a realist and it has always just been a matter of time before they come in. Most new developments in the past decade built water meters into the houses, it was that inevitable.

The problem for FG now, as for previous FG governments, is that they will inherit a shambles of an economy. To straighten that out, some tough and painful decisions will have to be taken...which will be all people will remember at the next Election and FF will take over the beginning of better times again.

The Waltzing Consumer

Pat Dunne wrote: »

FG have proposed to raise the VAT rate by a further 2% (killing off any recovery in the retail trade).

FG also want to cut children's allowance by 7.5%.

FG want to impose water charges on all domestic users.

Their proposal to sell of the state assets including the ESB, the Ports and Forestry is seriously questionable, (even the Tory’s in the UK have baulked at this one).

Their future treatment of the banks seems to no different to Fianna Fail's and certainly their handling of the banking crisis in the past was highly questionable to say the least.

I would find it impossible to support any party that wanted this!

I would question these claims. From looking at FG manifesto, regarding VAT, they say this which is at odds with your claim:

"The rise in the standard 21% rate of VAT proposed by this Government should be accompanied by a temporary (3-year) cut of at least 1.5% in the reduced 13.5% rate of VAT on labour-intensive services (construction, hotels, restaurants, hairdressing, newspapers etc.), bringing it down to 12%. This will boost the competitiveness of our tourism sector and help divert domestic consumer spending from importintensive goods into labour-intensive domestic service"

As for water charges, this is what they say:
"Fine Gael will only introduce household water charges when responsibility for water delivery is transferred from 34 local authorities to a single national water company, which will be responsible for cutting operating costs and making the investments needed to fix water leaks, as set out in detail in our NewERA plan. Fine Gael believes that such a national water company would be up and running within 12 months. At that point, the operating costs and future investment requirements for water services will be largely funded by household and business charges, with some continued taxpayer subsidies to pay for free allowances for family households."

I could go on, but each issue that you have said is not as black and white as you make it out to be. You are a Labour party member and activist right? You would probably be the first one here to defend Labour if someone looks at your policies and twists them to make them sound as bad and simple as possible, would you not? I agree we should be critical of all party policies, but if you have a vested interest (campaigning for Labour) you are not exactly going to be non-biased.

athtrasna

It's very hard to be passionate about politics without having leanings one way or another but this election is one for massive change I think.

Was passing my polling station last night and noted all the posters on the pole outside the gate. What's the betting all those parties will ignore the "no political activity within 50m of the entrance to the grounds" on polling day and leave them up. Every election so far they have done and the Gardai and the returning officer take no action.

BostonB

Seems to be cyclical one govt breaks the country the other one tries to put it back together again. It will be interesting how many remember the last 10 yrs when they vote the next time.


So far I'm not impressed with FG in opposition. They gave FF an easy time. Indeed FG didn't win this election. FF lost it.

Pat Dunne

athtrasna wrote: »

FG have actually said they want to CUT VAT by 2% so I don't know where you are getting the increase from?

Children's allowance is currently set at one of the highest levels in Europe. It's also one that grew exponentially in the boom years and wasn't indexed linked. I'm 30 and I remember as a teenager, childrens allowance was £15 per child..that's not THAT long ago...now it's a whole lot more.

As for water charges, we are one of the only countries in the developed world that don't have them currently. We also have a water system that's in dire need of replacement and that money has to come from somewhere. While additional taxes are never welcome, I am a realist and it has always just been a matter of time before they come in. Most new developments in the past decade built water meters into the houses, it was that inevitable.

The problem for FG now, as for previous FG governments, is that they will inherit a shambles of an economy. To straighten that out, some tough and painful decisions will have to be taken...which will be all people will remember at the next Election and FF will take over the beginning of better times again.

With regard to the VAT issue, I watched Leo Varadkar on the Tonight with Vincent Browne program on TV3, unable to defend the 23% VAT rate proposed by his party. I would believe that Leo is well clued in on the proposed VAT rate increase as he is a FG party spokesperson.

I am also a realist, however this is yet another charge that will hit people who are already finding it difficult or impossible to meet their mortage repayments and weekly bills.

With regards to children's allowance, I would strongly disagree with the FG proposal to simply cut the current rate. What I would propose is that children's welfare payments to parents on higher salaries of €100K plus should be means tested. Again this proposed cut will hardest hit parents who are already finding it difficult to cope.

I agree with you that the country faces challenging time ahead however we must remember it is the people who have to pay for the hubris of Fianna Fail, their vested interest lobby groups and the Greedy Bankers. The burden must be shared equally throughout our society.

I would much rather live in a just and equal society, than an economy!

athtrasna

Anyone see the new Pink McGuinness diamond posters, and the new Turquoise and Pink Lenihan & Martin posters - who the hell thought they were a good idea. The Lenihan/Martin ones look like they're badly photoshopped together.

dirtynosebeps

the only person that has called so far is the S.F. guy paul donnelly, then strangely enough another canvessor on his behalf called a few days later unaware of paul knocking around. otherwise it's just flyers in the door and one from michael martin asking us to vote for lenihan. not a good sign. well at least donnelly has my no.1 vote now just for knocking.

tenandtracer

Had a Higgins canvasser call to the door a few nights ago, earnest young chap out in the pouring rain.

FF canvassers on the doorstep lat night, they seemed genuinely terrified:eek:
They were looking for transfers for Lenihan, desperate for any kind of a vote.


No sign of any other canvassers.

Luttrell1975

Was canassed by FF, but no sign of any senior figures and this young lad McGuinness was there.

The transfers to Lenihan will save him. I am from a FF family but I can tell you the embaressment and disgrace that he (and Cowen) caused this country means that the last FF vote in this family is my father and he is saying he will give Lenihan no 3. In other words a load of FF loyalists will save Lenihan when it gets to the third count, but think he cares abou their protest in some way.

genericguy

I have to say, this mcguinness character is another Bertie. I grew up in the area, and have since moved on, however during the council election, this gentleman kncked at the door while I was with my father. My father then asked him how he could support the government as a teacher given the position of FF when faced with teachers' strikes. He then turns around and says "well i don't support FF's policies". For christ sake, how can anyone represent a party whose values they don't support? Stinks of an attempt to gain power for the sake of power.

His basic message seemed to be that he should be elected so that he can have a title and some semblance of power rather than to fulfil any burning desire to deliver a brighter future to the people of the area. I've also yet to hear anything but Fianna Fail rhetoric from him either during this campaign - his response to difficult questions is limited to "but Labour would be worse". When a friend of mine responded to this to by mentioning that Labour brought us the first budget surplus in the history of the state, whereas Fianna Fail have brought us, our future children and their children the burden of paying for Fianna Fail's inebriation on power and brown envelopes, the inept little slither hadn't a word to say.

*sits back and waits for chucknorris*

tenandtracer

genericguy wrote: »

*sits back and waits for chucknorris*

All we got is David Norris, will that do?

genericguy

tenandtracer wrote: »

All we got is David Norris, will that do?

I think the christian solidarity party may take issue with him, but yeah, he'll do

Timulus Package

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Moment of the night has to be the Joan and Joe mix up. Joan showing she has a sense of humour.
All candidates performed reasonably well, felt sorry for the Patrick, David and Kieran for getting left out at the start. Leo looked out in front at the start but really did not push on from there and let the others catch up to him. The independent Clemtine had a good start but then went fairly down hill from there (oil refinery in Dublin). Joe Higgins was typically well spoken without saying very much, always critical. Paul Donnelly comes across well as the man of the people, economics is not his strong point though. Roderic is ok but lacks a bit of personality, he made some valid points though. Lenihan looked tired at the start but gradually came into. Joan was tolerable to listen to and felt she expressed herself well. David and Paddy came into with a lot of energy and did well with only having a minute to speak. Kieran looks out of place and did not really seem that enthusiastic. While David and Patrick can distinguish themselves from their more senior party member, I do not think Kieran tries at all to be any different to Leo. He seems satisfied to be the number 2 candidate.
Was surprised by the quite anti FG feeling in the room, a lot of attacks from the audience and the other candidates used that to their advantage.
A good debate in all, some great questions from the audience. Felt a bit rushed, some of the questions should have got longer responses than 15 seconds. Cleared some things up for me, and feel I have better idea of how I will vote.

He nailed the economics. Donnelly and Higgins both agreed on the economy and both got it right. All the other believe we can actually pay the debt and are forcing us to borrow more to pay it. The main rule of economics is that you can only pay out what you get in. You can not reduce your debt by borrowing more. It's against the very basic of economic rules. Donnelly and Higgins are the only two who apply this rule. The others think that 1.5m workers (many of which are in huge personal debt) can pay hundreds of Billions of Banking debt. Untill Labour, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail accept this rule they will be wrong on every aspect of the economy they care to mention. The fact that they all agree to ignore this rule doesn't make the rule go away.

athtrasna

Bottom line is we owe that debt..money has been borrowed. It is in our National Interest ie the interest of our nation that we do our best to pay that back to our lenders. I'm not happy about it but the repercussions of default are horrendous and would ruin our country in the long run.

Timulus Package

athtrasna wrote: »

Bottom line is we owe that debt..money has been borrowed. It is in our National Interest ie the interest of our nation that we do our best to pay that back to our lenders. I'm not happy about it but the repercussions of default are horrendous and would ruin our country in the long run.

The bottom line is we don't owe the bank debt. We have not drawn down on the IMF loan to pay it all yet.
We should do and will do our best as a Nation to pay back our lenders. We have no reason to pay back Lenders that invested in private banks.
No one wants to default. The Country is ruined and it will happen much sooner if we borrow from the IMF/EU at 5.8% to pay back debts that don't belong to us. If we seperate the private debt we have a chance at survival.
The repercussions of taking private debt of unkown billions and placing it on the back of Irish families is horrendous and will ruin the Irish people.

Clearly you won't believe this as like the rest of them you ignore the first rule of economics. You actually believe we are able toi pay it. Untill we address this you will be wrong on every aspect of the economy that's discussed during the remainder of the election.

EDIT - I don't include the Independant Candidate here as I don't know his position on this.

chucknorris

genericguy wrote: »

I have to say, this mcguinness character is another Bertie. I grew up in the area, and have since moved on, however during the council election, this gentleman kncked at the door while I was with my father. My father then asked him how he could support the government as a teacher given the position of FF when faced with teachers' strikes. He then turns around and says "well i don't support FF's policies". For christ sake, how can anyone represent a party whose values they don't support? Stinks of an attempt to gain power for the sake of power.

His basic message seemed to be that he should be elected so that he can have a title and some semblance of power rather than to fulfil any burning desire to deliver a brighter future to the people of the area. I've also yet to hear anything but Fianna Fail rhetoric from him either during this campaign - his response to difficult questions is limited to "but Labour would be worse". When a friend of mine responded to this to by mentioning that Labour brought us the first budget surplus in the history of the state, whereas Fianna Fail have brought us, our future children and their children the burden of paying for Fianna Fail's inebriation on power and brown envelopes, the inept little slither hadn't a word to say.

*sits back and waits for chucknorris*

b****x

You didn't listen to phantom, you didn't read the community voice, you didn't read the gazette and you didn't read fridays metro - all in the last few days

if you did you would realise what you said is total bollix.


PS: I think you should run for election and get off the fence :P

chucknorris

Timulus Package wrote: »

The bottom line is we don't owe the bank debt. We have not drawn down on the IMF loan to pay it all yet.
We should do and will do our best as a Nation to pay back our lenders. We have no reason to pay back Lenders that invested in private banks.
No one wants to default. The Country is ruined and it will happen much sooner if we borrow from the IMF/EU at 5.8% to pay back debts that don't belong to us. If we seperate the private debt we have a chance at survival.
The repercussions of taking private debt of unkown billions and placing it on the back of Irish families is horrendous and will ruin the Irish people.

Clearly you won't believe this as like the rest of them you ignore the first rule of economics. You actually believe we are able toi pay it. Untill we address this you will be wrong on every aspect of the economy that's discussed during the remainder of the election.

EDIT - I don't include the Independant Candidate here as I don't know his position on this.

I agree with what you said totally. I also believe the next government wont and cannot do anything about it. I think were screwed.

Timulus Package

chucknorris wrote: »

I agree with what you said totally. I also believe the next government wont and cannot do anything about it. I think were screwed.

If you think we can do nothing about it then you don't agree with me.
We were screwed, by FF. We are to continue being screwed by those in FG and LB who continue to deny the reality.

chucknorris

Timulus Package wrote: »

If you think we can do nothing about it then you don't agree with me.
We were screwed, by FF. We are to continue being screwed by those in FG and LB who continue to deny the reality.

No no, you don't understand what I'm saying. I agree with what you said and I agree to what you reckon we should do, but the fact is; no party that is going to be in power is going to go that route. You know that.

There is no way we can pay that back and there is no way we will. According to McWilliams; we are going to default one way or the other.

Timulus Package

chucknorris wrote: »

No no, you don't understand what I'm saying. I agree with what you said and I agree to what you reckon we should do, but the fact is; no party that is going to be in power is going to go that route. You know that.

There is no way we can pay that back and there is no way we will. According to McWilliams; we are going to default one way or the other.

Let me try to understand here, I'm still a little confused.

You think I'm right in what we should do but are supporting and promoting a candidate that wants to do the opposite. As posted above that is very Bertie like.

I know no party expected to be in Government will do it as they have said as much. That is why I won't be voting for them. I have a firm belief that stong opposition can impact on Government decisions. I will be voting for candidates who say they'll do what you and I agree to be the right thing regardless of prospects for Government.

According to most economists including McWilliams and also Joe Higgins and Paul Donnelly. If McWilliams is right why do you think that the other candidates (excluding the independant) have been misleading us through the entire campaign?

chucknorris

Timulus Package wrote: »

Let me try to understand here, I'm still a little confused.

You think I'm right in what we should do but are supporting and promoting a candidate that wants to do the opposite. As posted above that is very Bertie like.

I know no party expected to be in Government will do it as they have said as much. That is why I won't be voting for them. I have a firm belief that stong opposition can impact on Government decisions. I will be voting for candidates who say they'll do what you and I agree to be the right thing regardless of prospects for Government.

According to most economists including McWilliams and also Joe Higgins and Paul Donnelly. If McWilliams is right why do you think that the other candidates (excluding the independant) have been misleading us through the entire campaign?

(1) Let me try to understand here, I'm still a little confused.

It's called a balanced opinion, don't let it confuse you.

(2) As posted above that is very Bertie like.

Total bollix as I've already said. You ask the majority in Corduff or Mulhuddart for an opinion on him and you'll find that statement to be a smear. He is a lad of integrity and always has been. Bertie is a rat and if you want to go along with the smear, your a sheep. Allot of people in his community will tell you they cant vote for him due to FF but they will also tell you they highly respect him. This is not a popularity contest but an important vote and you should think for yourself before following that smear. Make up your own mind, give him a call, get informed but don't follow that rubbish above.

(3) I have a firm belief that stong opposition can impact on Government decisions.

Strong opposition never has and never will never impact on government decisions. The system does not allow it, although reform is promised by many, it is badly needed. Don't kid yourself at the moment regarding opposition. Opposition today is a talking shop. It's also powerless. Unfortunately.

(4) I will be voting for candidates who say they'll do what you and I agree to be the right thing regardless of prospects for Government.

That's your right and that's admirable. I've no problem with that and you and I are entitled to our views and opinion.

(5) If McWilliams is right why do you think that the other candidates (excluding the independant) have been misleading us through the entire campaign?

Because it's power "stupid". Of course I'm not calling you stupid, I'm simply using an expression. They all want power. They will do anything to achieve it. It's all they have ever wanted whilst in opposition and that's the way it'll always be. DO YOU REALLY THINK THERE IS GOING OT BE CHANGE?

Timulus Package

chucknorris wrote: »

It's called a balanced opinion, don't let it confuse you.

It's the wrong opinion but you are entitled to be wrong.

Total bollix as I've already said. You ask the majority in Corduff or Mulhuddart for an opinion on him and you'll find that statement to be a smear. He is a lad of integrity and always has been. Bertie is a rat and if you want to go along with the smear, your a sheep. Allot of people in his community will tell you they cant vote for him due to FF but they will also tell you they highly respect him. This is not a popularity contest but an important vote and you should think for yourself before following that smear. Make up your own mind, give him a call, get informed but don't follow that rubbish above.

I wasn't calling him Bertie like I was calling you Bertie like in your approach.

Strong opposition never has and never will never impact on government decisions. The system does not allow it, although reform is promised by many, it is badly needed. Don't kid yourself at the moment regarding opposition. Opposition today is a talking shop. It's also powerless. Unfortunately.

Your example is the example of weak opposition. The pensioners went in opposition to a Government decision and won. This is real opposition.
FG and LB only ever seen themselves as Government in waiting and never used opposition to it's potential. Add to that that they pretty much agreed with the direction the Government were going and again it falls into the weak oppoition discription.

That's your right and that's admirable. I've no problem with that and you and I are entitled to our views and opinion.

Calling it admirable is patronising. It's not admirable it's just what it is, the truth. We are all big enough to hear it.

Because it's power "stupid". Of course I'm not calling you stupid, I'm simply using an expression. They all want power. They will do anything to achieve it. It's all they have ever wanted whilst in opposition and that's the way it'll always be. DO YOU REALLY THINK THERE IS GOING OT BE CHANGE?

So your candidate does want power and by default Higgins and Donnelly are not in it for power? Power for the sake of power is were FF lost the plot. In opposition it's were LB and FG failed the Country. I won't reward them for it. Your defeatism is very disappointing. I hope you candidate isn't of the 'i'm going to be helpless in Government' mindset too.
I really think there will be a change. Either we decide and controll the change as best we can or we let it be forced upon us. I know which I'd prefer.

chucknorris

Timulus Package wrote: »

It's the wrong opinion but you are entitled to be wrong.




I wasn't calling him Bertie like I was calling you Bertie like in your approach.




Your example is the example of weak opposition. The pensioners went in opposition to a Government decision and won. This is real opposition.
FG and LB only ever seen themselves as Government in waiting and never used opposition to it's potential. Add to that that they pretty much agreed with the direction the Government were going and again it falls into the weak oppoition discription.




Calling it admirable is patronising. It's not admirable it's just what it is, the truth. We are all big enough to hear it.



So your candidate does want power and by default Higgins and Donnelly are not in it for power? Power for the sake of power is were FF lost the plot. In opposition it's were LB and FG failed the Country. I won't reward them for it. Your defeatism is very disappointing. I hope you candidate isn't of the 'i'm going to be helpless in Government' mindset too.
I really think there will be a change. Either we decide and controll the change as best we can or we let it be forced upon us. I know which I'd prefer.

Defeatism is your word, not mine. I would like to think I am a realist.

My view is based on precedent. Nothing has changed in the system to suggest any change in the future. I realise it's negative but allot of people are expressing the same view.

ps: Bertie like is also a smear. The suggestion is WRONG.

BTW - 50% of the Sinn Fein election pot in Dublin west has been given to the Mary Lou campaign. This is true. Now that's defeatism.

SOURCE: Ask them, you know them.

Timulus Package

chucknorris wrote: »

Defeatism is your word, not mine. I would like to think I am a realist.

My view is based on precedent. Nothing has changed in the system to suggest any change in the future. I realise it's negative but allot of people are expressing the same view.

ps: Bertie like is also a smear. The suggestion is WRONG.

BTW - 50% of the Sinn Fein election pot in Dublin west has been given to the Mary Lou campaign. This is true. Now that's defeatism.

SOURCE: Ask them, you know them.

I won't entertain the last point.

I take back the Ahern remark. I am just trying to point out the real economic situation and it happens that you agree. I'm in support of anyone who takes a similar stance and is willing to act on it.

You think you are a realist yet you claim being in opposition is useless but will vote for someone who will be in opposition and who's view of the economy you disagree with.

Nothing has changed? That's to general to be a real point. It's meaningless.

Now if you want to ignore the candidates and discuss the economy and personal opinions I'm all for that. I'd prefer it that way. If you want to discuss political reform I'm all for that too.

If you want to continue discussing individual candidates i'm not going to ignore it if I disagree. Either way you can set the agenda.

chucknorris

Timulus Package wrote: »

If you want to continue discussing individual candidates i'm not going to ignore it if I disagree. Either way you can set the agenda.

SHOOT: I'll talk about anything.

Timulus Package

chucknorris wrote: »

SHOOT: I'll talk about anything.

1. If you believe we will be unable to pay the private debt why will you vote for a candidate/party who intend to make you pay it?

2. If you believe that being in opposition is powerless why will you vote for a candidate/party that will be in opposition?

3. If you believe that nothing has changed and therefore nothing will change why will you vote?

4. If you accept that the politicians who disagree with mcWilliams are all about power why would you support a candidate/party that disagrees with him?

Morag

you know you two could have that chat via pm rather then hogging the thread.

chucknorris

Timulus Package wrote: »

1. If you believe we will be unable to pay the private debt why will you vote for a candidate/party who intend to make you pay it?

2. If you believe that being in opposition is powerless why will you vote for a candidate/party that will be in opposition?

3. If you believe that nothing has changed and therefore nothing will change why will you vote?

4. If you accept that the politicians who disagree with mcWilliams are all about power why would you support a candidate/party that disagrees with him?

1. If you believe we will be unable to pay the private debt why will you vote for a candidate/party who intend to make you pay it?

(A) As I've already said, even if we should not pay or cannot pay it, the fact is FF FG and Labour all intend on trying to pay it. The alternative candidates may be popular by stating they will scrap it etc but I think their all round economic policies are BONKERS. Correcting one wrong will not excuse the other mess they will create in my opinion.

2. If you believe that being in opposition is powerless why will you vote for a candidate/party that will be in opposition?

I'm stating opposition is powerless full stop. This applies to future government and previous governments too. It didn't stop you voting either for your opposition individuals. I'm voting for a representative who I know and admire and believe is a break from the usual suspects that have been around a long long time and have did very little in my opinion to justify that they will do any different now.

3. If you believe that nothing has changed and therefore nothing will change why will you vote?

When I give out, I'll be entitled to give out based on voting. Not voting and giving out is not on.

4. If you accept that the politicians who disagree with mcWilliams are all about power why would you support a candidate/party that disagrees with him?

Because I am able to make decisions without being extreme in every way. I do not have a one track mind. I reckon I have a balanced view. What I said was, all the parties are power hungry. I know that, no surprises there. I vote on the best candidate and have voted differently in the last two general elections. My mind is not always set in stone.



AND NOW A QUESTION FOR YOU.

Are you the 98fm fugitive?

chucknorris

Sharrow wrote: »

you know you two could have that chat via pm rather then hogging the thread.

Wheres the fun in that? I think they are fair questions to ask from the other forum-er.....what do you want to talk about???

Morag

Anyone been looking for the mintures of the co Coucil to see what they candidates have been doing and how they have been voting?

I agree that if a person accepts a nomination to a party ticket and is using the party machine to get elected then they are agreeing to the parties policies and will be voting what way the party whip tells them so they can't try and decry distance.

I wasn't impressed with David McGuinness performance at the hustings at all, it was my first time to see him and had not heard of him from the local elections until now and he certainly won't be getting a preference from me.

5 days to the election and we still have not had any canvasser from any party to the door.