Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

C&H General Election Thread

Options
12467…13

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Cian92
    Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭Cian92


    eVeNtInE wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    What sort of spending cuts do you think are necessary?

    What sort of reforms in public spendind do you think are necessary?

    If you don't mind me asking...


  • Options
    #93
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    MavisDavis wrote: »
    Or trying to get people talking about politics. You're talking about FG now, aren't you? Lighten up!

    Huh? I don't mind them at all but they're just stupid.
    unknown13 wrote: »
    Right wing parties are generally more favored to the middle and upper classes of society. Do you think the bankers would be living where they are today if Sinn Fein or Labour were in power in the last Dail term

    Sinn Fein no. Labour absolutely yes. I get what you're saying about being in favour of the middle and upper classes but even then the middle and upper classes are going to be paying a lot of money for this bank bailout.


  • Options
    #94
    eVeNtInE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭eVeNtInE


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #95
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    eVeNtInE wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Why avoid hitting frontline staff too hard?
    Why shouldn't they take it like the rest of their sector, just because they're more visible?


  • Options
    #96
    eVeNtInE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭eVeNtInE


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    So all of a sudden nationalising companies and putting their losses onto us is part of capitalism? LOL.


  • Options
    #98
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    eVeNtInE wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    My mam's a civil servant who "only" works in an office. She had to work 70 hour weeks coming up to the budget. The people who work in administration are the people who run the country. They write our laws, collect taxes, carry out audits, pay people's welfare etc. All absolutely essential to the running of any state.


  • Options
    #99
    eVeNtInE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭eVeNtInE


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #100
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    eVeNtInE wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    What? I was responding to your previous post where you claimed that frontline staff should be protected at the expense of people in administration, who's jobs are just as important.


  • Options
    #101
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    amacachi wrote: »
    So all of a sudden nationalising companies and putting their losses onto us is part of capitalism? LOL.

    If that was in response to me (you didn't really indicate) I was saying that the lack of regulation that caused the mess in the first place was part of capitalism.
    "Nationalising" (inverted commas because that's not really what happened, at least not in any long term way) them wasn't a capitalist thing to do admittedly, but what else do you do when those in charge of half the country's money start to fail?

    We basically let them run amok for years and turned to the left only when it was too late and we needed to deal with their ****-ups.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    If that was in response to me (you didn't really indicate) I was saying that the lack of regulation that caused the mess in the first place was part of capitalism.
    "Nationalising" (inverted commas because that's not really what happened, at least not in any long term way) them wasn't a capitalist thing to do admittedly, but what else do you do when those in charge of half the country's money start to fail?

    We basically let them run amok for years and turned to the left only when it was too late and we needed to deal with their ****-ups.
    Let them fail. The thing is they knew that they'd get away with it. The regulations were fine, the lack of punishment is the problem. More regulation isn't a solution, the solution is to have a government willing to punish criminals. If the people responsible actually thought they would get punished or would lose their wealth do you think they would've acted as they did? Had "capitalism" been allowed to run its course then it's doubtful the crisis would've gotten as bad as it did.
    The banking crisis is distracting from the other failures of the state as well. Taxing and spending is a leftist position, and when no precations are taken for when taxes fall we end up with a deficit like we have now.

    Of course the main problem IMO is the attempts to control the economy. The cause of the entire worldwide bubble was the stupidly low interest rate. But no-one likes to think of high interest rates.


  • Options
    #103
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    amacachi wrote: »
    More regulation isn't a solution, the solution is to have a government willing to punish criminals. If the people responsible actually thought they would get punished or would lose their wealth do you think they would've acted as they did?

    I agree, but what would they be punished for?
    To punish people for stuff like this you need to first set down strict regulations on what is and isn't allowed.
    I don't see how we could have a system in which we punish the people responsible without setting more strict regulations on what they can do.

    Unless you're saying that there were enough regulations in place, but they just weren't being enforced, in which case I still consider that a lack of regulation for all practical purposes.


    As for the whole public sector thing, I doubt that's going to be resolved satisfactorily, there's tons of waste in the sector, and a lot of inefficiencies and bureaucracy.
    Unfortunately most people seem to be scapegoating the average office worker and just calling for unreasonable pay cuts or job cuts across the board, when this won't really fix anything, and will just leave a lot of important places understaffed, while the big earners continue to earn big and the average worker gets screwed over due to public perception that they have it too good.


  • Options
    #104
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    I agree, but what would they be punished for?
    To punish people for stuff like this you need to first set down strict regulations on what is and isn't allowed.
    I don't see how we could have a system in which we punish the people responsible without setting more strict regulations on what they can do.
    There was enough regulation but it was unenforced.
    Without going into it too much the whole financial system is screwed up and it's screwed up by governments wanting control of the uncontrollable while allowing the creation of wealth which doesn't actually exist. A free market that wasn't being tampered with for political reasons would work just fine.
    Unless you're saying that there were enough regulations in place, but they just weren't being enforced, in which case I still consider that a lack of regulation for all practical purposes.
    Fair enough, I think corruption and certain friendships had a lot to do with it.
    As for the whole public sector thing, I doubt that's going to be resolved satisfactorily, there's tons of waste in the sector, and a lot of inefficiencies and bureaucracy.
    Unfortunately most people seem to be scapegoating the average office worker and just calling for unreasonable pay cuts or job cuts across the board, when this won't really fix anything, and will just leave a lot of important places understaffed, while the big earners continue to earn big and the average worker gets screwed over due to public perception that they have it too good.
    Thank the unions for that as well. I had a LOL a couple of years ago when I saw jobs were available in SEI. The split was something like 30% clerical officers (20-30k per year) and the rest were administrative officers etc. who would be on 60+k a year. Somehow I find it hard to believe that so many high-level decisions could be made from a base that requires that few clerical workers. :pac:
    Even if it's unfair to some it doesn't change the fact that the deficit needs to be closed. One "solution" is to find "efficiencies" without laying anyone off or cutting wages further. How that saves money I'd love to know. The other is to cut pay and/or numbers.


  • Options
    #105
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    amacachi wrote: »
    There was enough regulation but it was unenforced.
    Without going into it too much the whole financial system is screwed up and it's screwed up by governments wanting control of the uncontrollable while allowing the creation of wealth which doesn't actually exist. A free market that wasn't being tampered with for political reasons would work just fine.
    I really don't get what you're trying to say, first your saying that regulations weren't enforced and that people weren't being punished.
    Then you say that the market shouldn't be tampered with, you can't have it both ways.

    As for just letting them fail, that would hurt the employees and customers many orders of magnitude more than it would hurt those making the decisions.
    We'd end up coming in and picking up the pieces in the end anyway.
    Thank the unions for that as well. I had a LOL a couple of years ago when I saw jobs were available in SEI. The split was something like 30% clerical officers (20-30k per year) and the rest were administrative officers etc. who would be on 60+k a year. Somehow I find it hard to believe that so many high-level decisions could be made from a base that requires that few clerical workers. :pac:
    Even if it's unfair to some it doesn't change the fact that the deficit needs to be closed. One "solution" is to find "efficiencies" without laying anyone off or cutting wages further. How that saves money I'd love to know. The other is to cut pay and/or numbers.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't cut wages or lay anyone off, but we need to cut the wages of the people who are actually overpaid, and we need to lay off those we can actually do without.
    As you said, there's a very high proportion of high-earners and people in administrative positions, but I can see the clerical workers taking much more of a hit than they should, and the decision makers taking much less.


  • Options
    #106
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    I really don't get what you're trying to say, first your saying that regulations weren't enforced and that people weren't being punished.
    Then you say that the market shouldn't be tampered with, you can't have it both ways.

    As for just letting them fail, that would hurt the employees and customers many orders of magnitude more than it would hurt those making the decisions.
    We'd end up coming in and picking up the pieces in the end anyway.
    TBH my thoughts on it go way outside what this thread is for. :pac:
    Basically the current system we have is set up purely so it can be tampered with for political reasons then there shock and horror when it all goes to **** even though it's obvious that with low inflation and a big increase in the money supply and/or assets value that something's going to have to give eventually. We need a system that isn't a plaything for politicians and where failures are allowed, otherwise the whole thing is an exercise in futility.


  • Options
    #107
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    bythewoods wrote: »

    ireland2011.png

    Labour don't belong there, and FG/FF should be closer to the centre.
    I'd agree with you re: Labour (though I don't think they're as Left of centre as they like to portray themselves) but I would disagree re: FF/FG; that's pretty accurate imho.
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »
    She could redeem herself yet- Michael Martin was once a very much disliked Minister for Health but now hes a surprisingly well-liked party leader.
    Health though is 'the Minister's graveyard' where party leaders have traditionally shoved the Young Pretenders to put manners on them and knock the shine off their image. Harney was to a certain extent the exception, but I think she actually believed she could knock it into shape and relished the challenge; she was wrong, and I think she just eventually gave up and lost interest. Martin was actually a pretty ok Minister for Education in his day; certainly, we haven't had better since.
    Pygmalion wrote: »
    lolol
    Mine was pretty similar.

    Why don't we agree more? :pac:
    kev9100 wrote: »
    I've been hearing that quite a lot recently. I'm voting Labour/Left so I'm obviously biased but I really don't see the appeal. One of the biggest non-ideological criticisms of the last gov. was independents milking the system so they could get their pet projects. When a gov. needs independents to survive this is bound to happen time and time again.
    eV is right, we haven't had true independents though ... we've had gene-poolers who have for one reason or another lost or given up the party whip.

    Lowry dirtied his copy-book and lost the whip; Healy-Rae took a sulk when FF refused to nominate him to stand for the Dáil in '97 (he was an FF councillor and their Director of Elections for many many years).

    I wouldn't mind seeing a few genuine independents elected. Yes, there are difficulties with independents and stability, but in the absence of any timely and genuine effort to create a reform party, we could do with a few voices like Shane Ross' in the Dáil (irritating as he can be!)
    eVeNtInE wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    That's the thing though eV, FF will happily spend money on anything to buy votes (well, most of them will, but FF more so) or declare themselves as anything (remember Bertie declaring himself a socialist?!) if they think it will give them an advantage, but at heart that party is right of centre, traditionalist, and the closest thing to the party of the Catholic Church that exists in Ireland. That's what they are and want to be, but they will sell their souls (and their policies) for a handful of votes, and go to confession afterwards! :rolleyes:
    Pygmalion wrote: »
    Why avoid hitting frontline staff too hard?
    Why shouldn't they take it like the rest of their sector, just because they're more visible?
    Because they do most of the work which impacts on people's health / education / etc.?
    sock puppet wrote: »
    My mam's a civil servant who "only" works in an office. She had to work 70 hour weeks coming up to the budget. The people who work in administration are the people who run the country. They write our laws, collect taxes, carry out audits, pay people's welfare etc. All absolutely essential to the running of any state.
    I hear you, and as someone who ends up clearing a lot of the "admin" work at the weekends when I'm *supposed* to be off, I hear you loud and clear. But there are lots of people further up the line who push papers around, go to meetings, and create extra (and usually unnecessary) work for your mother, and that bulge in the system has developed over many years. The HSE is rife with it ... way too many senior middle and senior managers who were amalgamated in from the old Health Boards and found "work" to do. Ask your mother; I doubt she would disagree with me. There are admin workers in the public and in the civil service who are essentially frontline workers too ... but most of them have two "managers" on average somewhere further up the chain. Doesn't that sound a bit skewed to you?


  • Options
    #108
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    Bottleopener wrote: »
    I got a far worse one through the door today from Sinn Féin candidate Seán Crowe >_<, a really terrible Valentines themed election pamphlet.

    seancrowevalfront.jpg

    Brought to you courtesy of the best website ever.


  • Options
    #109
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    Martin was actually a pretty ok Minister for Education in his day; certainly, we haven't had better since.

    I thought Hanafin did well in Education....then again, I got a scholarship off her so I may be slightly biased! :pac:

    Certainly O'Keeffe and Coughlan have been terrible anyway; O'Keeffe seemed like he'd do anything to bring back fees and the first thing on Coughlan's agenda was bonus points for an already dumbed down maths course. :rolleyes:

    I actually just realised I don't know the Fine Gael or Labour spokespeople on education. Now to Google who the next minister will be....

    EDIT: Brian Hayes for FG (don't know much about him) and Ruari Quinn for Labour (he'd certainly be better than Coughlan anyway)


  • Options
    #110
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4HIyAk_k6Y


  • Options
    #111
    kev9100
    Registered Users Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭kev9100


    KnifeWRENCH wrote: »
    Brian Hayes for FG (don't know much about him) and Ruari Quinn for Labour (he'd certainly be better than Coughlan anyway)


    I don't know about Hayes, but Quinn was a brillaint minister in the 1990s. I'd say he wants finance though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    kev9100 wrote: »
    I know about Hayes, but Quinn was a brillaint minister in the 1990s. I'd say he wants finance though.

    But isn't Joan Burton Labour's finance person? Don't think she'd be too happy giving away that portfolio to Quinn!

    But I'd say FG will hold onto finance if they can, so it'll probably be Michael Noonan who gets it.


  • Options
    #113
    kev9100
    Registered Users Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭kev9100


    KnifeWRENCH wrote: »
    But isn't Joan Burton Labour's finance person? Don't think she'd be too happy giving away that portfolio to Quinn!

    But I'd say FG will hold onto finance if they can, so it'll probably be Michael Noonan who gets it.

    Yeah, but I can't see Labour going into coalition with FG unless they get some very senior positions. And Bruton's standing in the party is considerably lower thn Quinn's.


  • Options
    #114
    MavisDavis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,263 ✭✭✭MavisDavis


    KnifeWRENCH wrote: »
    EDIT: Brian Hayes for FG (don't know much about him) and Ruari Quinn for Labour (he'd certainly be better than Coughlan anyway)

    Actually, Fergus O'Dowd is FG Education Spokesperson. He's my local T.D. and a good one at that.


  • Options
    #115
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    MavisDavis wrote: »
    Actually, Fergus O'Dowd is FG Education Spokesperson. He's my local T.D. and a good one at that.

    Woops. :o I just googled "Fine Gael education spokesperson" and the first result that came up said Brian Hayes....I didn't notice that it dated back to 2008!

    Thanks for correcting that.


  • Options
    #116
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    I just thought to ask now, was anybody at the candidates debate in NUIG?


  • Options
    #117
    flyswatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭flyswatter


    Fergus O Dowd is a good TD and he was going to get my vote but I'm unsure now. I don't agree with FG's stance on Irish for education and as education spokesman, he is behind it in some way.


  • Options
    #118
    MavisDavis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,263 ✭✭✭MavisDavis


    flyswatter wrote: »
    Fergus O Dowd is a good TD and he was going to get my vote but I'm unsure now. I don't agree with FG's stance on Irish for education and as education spokesman, he is behind it in some way.

    To be honest, I think that there are more important issues at stake than Leaving Cert Irish. Plus, it's just a proposal: a review of the entire teaching of Irish will take place before any decision is made on whether to bring in optional Irish.


  • Options
    #119
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    MavisDavis wrote: »
    To be honest, I think that there are more important issues at stake than Leaving Cert Irish.

    Lies, everything else is inconsequential.


  • Options
    #120
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    flyswatter wrote: »
    Fergus O Dowd is a good TD and he was going to get my vote but I'm unsure now. I don't agree with FG's stance on Irish for education and as education spokesman, he is behind it in some way.

    Two things, never mind if they're "A good TD" and look after the yokels, because that shouldn't be their job.
    Secondly, if you have a problem with politicians wanting to give people freedom and a choice then you should be voting for a "socialist" or "workers" party.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    amacachi wrote: »
    Secondly, if you have a problem with politicians wanting to give people freedom and a choice then you should be voting for a "socialist" or "workers" party.

    Well to be fair theres no party in Ireland that follows a libertarian viewpoint so they all interfere in peoples lives in one way or another.


Advertisement