So, the Leaders Debate (II) is Over, who won

KELTICKNIGHTT

party hacks on these boards i think posting in these threads

InigoMontoya

A minor point - on Newstalk this morning some commentator mentioned Kenny's answer to the "who's going to suffer?" question (he said "everyone is going to suffer, blah, blah, 5 point plan!") as being "close to a major gaff".

I thought it was at least a bit more honest than most of the other answers, and a plus point for Kenny. Opinions?

sgb

I'm going to vote for the bloke with the red tie

gandalf

InigoMontoya wrote: »

A minor point - on Newstalk this morning some commentator mentioned Kenny's answer to the "who's going to suffer?" question (he said "everyone is going to suffer, blah, blah, 5 point plan!") as being "close to a major gaff".

I thought it was at least a bit more honest than most of the other answers, and a plus point for Kenny. Opinions?

Of course it is. He and Gormley were honest that everyone is going to suffer. We have not seen the worst yet people. Anyone who is saying that someone else will be made pay like the "rich" is lying to you.

the_syco

Kenny did a decent job at speaking, and delivered his message clearly enough.

Adams did an excellent job at speaking, and promised the silver bullet, to deny the IMF, and to pay for all this, and more, from a limited fund.

Everyone attacked him on this.

Mental Mickey

gandalf wrote: »

There needs to be a none of the above option because I feel these so called leaders debates are about as useful as a chocolate teapot at getting to the meat and bones of each parties policies.

Maybe have a format with one leader facing an intelligent audience asking questions so they do not have the release valve of one of the other so called leaders jumping in to try and get some of the limelight and detracting from the topic at hand.

I really despair for politics in this country if people base their choice on who to vote for with these pantomime performances.

Completely agree. And someone else other than Pat The Plank should be the chair? Maybe Bryan Dobson?

raymon

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

party hacks on these boards i think posting in these threads

who is a party hack??

KELTICKNIGHTT

sgb wrote: »

I'm going to vote for the bloke with the red tie

think there was a lot of red ties there:D

scargill

Michael Martin this morning said that he would continue to attack Gerry Adams at every oppurtinuity during the election if Gerry spoke about fraud or corruption during the election campaign.

He said
"There is a fundamental problem for Gerry when he continues to deny his membership of the IRA because every time he talks in this debate during the election about honesty and so on, (and saying such things as 'we must be up front, we must be transparent'), it jars very much with his own position about the past."

Now Michael.....the same could be said for you!!

This is what I heard when I heard him say the above !!

"There is a fundamental problem for Michael when he continues to deny his membership of Fianna Fail because every time he talks in this debate during the election about honesty and so on, (and saying such things as 'we must be up front, we must be transparent'), it jars very much with his own position about the past."

KELTICKNIGHTT

non of the above a nice idea as option in pole

KELTICKNIGHTT

scargill wrote: »

Michael Martin this morning said that he would continue to attack Gerry Adams at every oppurtinuity during the election if Gerry spoke about fraud or corruption during the election campaign.

He said
"There is a fundamental problem for Gerry when he continues to deny his membership of the IRA because every time he talks in this debate during the election about honesty and so on, (and saying such things as 'we must be up front, we must be transparent'), it jars very much with his own position about the past."

Now Michael.....the same could be said for you!!

This is what I heard when I heard him say the above !!

"There is a fundamental problem for Michael when he continues to deny his membership of Fianna Fail because every time he talks in this debate during the election about honesty and so on, (and saying such things as 'we must be up front, we must be transparent'), it jars very much with his own position about the past."

what are you talking about ?

KELTICKNIGHTT

raymon wrote: »

who is a party hack??

was posted in couple of threads about party hacks,who,your guess is as good as mine but could guess

gandalf

Mental Mickey wrote: »

Completely agree. And someone else other than Pat The Plank should be the chair? Maybe Bryan Dobson?

No Dobson lost all creditability with Bertie Aherns Crying Game show.

I'd suggest hiring in Jeremy Paxman to chair, he would chew every one of our lightweight leaders up totally without breaking into a sweat.

scargill

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

what are you talking about ?

sorry - not sure what you mean?

I'm talking about how MM obviously had it in for GA last night (FF are fighting for 3rd place with SF afterall?).

And I'm talking about the brass neck of MM.

KELTICKNIGHTT

scargill wrote: »

sorry - not sure what you mean?

I'm talking about how MM obviously had it in for GA last night (FF are fighting for 3rd place with SF afterall?).

And I'm talking about the brass neck of MM.

ok

gandalf

scargill wrote: »

sorry - not sure what you mean?

I'm talking about how MM obviously had it in for GA last night (FF are fighting for 3rd place with SF afterall?).

And I'm talking about the brass neck of MM.

Of course MM is going after SF they are taking the support of the more republican members of FF and if SF gain footholds in those locations then they will probably not see those members come back and those seats will be lost.

With regard to those FF supporters who will be voting for FG, MM and the mandarins know that this is a protest vote and they will be back at the next GE so they are not seen as critical.

Magi11

RachaelVO wrote: »

I disagree! Someone has to be able to win a discussion, and show, in this instance who will represent the country on the international stage, and who can ensure that in negotiations (whether EU/IMF or otherwise), can hold their own!

Someone should be able to win a discussion but this wasn't a discussion and it wasn't a debate. It was a series of scripted soundbites with about 30 seconds spontaneity in the whole thing. Then you get people on here who have already made up their minds, calling their guy the winner. Also if you are a floating voter then there are more substantial tests for a party than if their leader can memorise 10 minutes of talking points and then repeat a selected one whenever possible.
The only interesting debate in the history of television between "leaders" was Series 7 of The West Wing!!!

Mental Mickey

Magi11 wrote: »

Someone should be able to win a discussion but this wasn't a discussion and it wasn't a debate. It was a series of scripted soundbites with about 30 seconds spontaneity in the whole thing. Then you get people on here who have already made up their minds, calling their guy the winner. Also if you are a floating voter then there are more substantial tests for a party than if their leader can memorise 10 minutes of talking points and then repeat a selected one whenever possible. The only interesting debate in the history of television between "leaders" was Series 7 of The West Wing!!!

This is why I hate these programmes. The political equivalent of the Eurovision Song Contest.

swiss

I saw a tweet on the eleventh hour directly after the debate that I thought was apropos. I can't remember the text verbatim but the point was effectively that for the most part the debates don't really change peoples minds and that most people use these debates to reinforce their own biases.

I thought it was probably correct in my instance, because although I watched the debate with some interest, I have more or less made up my mind who I'm voting for (although my later preferences are up for grabs). I will say that Gormley did quite a lot better than I expected, Enda held up which I guess you could call a victory given the low expectations, Martin was more combative than I thought he would be - I guess he felt he had nothing to lose, and Adams kept playing the Republican card, pandering to his base but not doing anything to expand it, which I would consider poor politics. I don't think Gilmore did badly but it was also a fairly unremarkable performance, I certainly wasn't inspired to vote Labour on the back of it but perhaps thats just me.

RetroBate

What they said I'd heard before and it didn't sound any more convincing.

All were men.
All wore ties.
All wore suits.

Why do 99% of male politicians wear suits and ties?

Uniformity of dress indicates an unwillingness to challenge conventions and accepted truths.

Scary.

Lockstep

I doubt many people have their minds changed by these debates.

Nearly everyone who watches these debates is already interested and would have their own preconceptions and given none of the speakers did badly, every party can claim their leader did best.


That said, I greatly enjoyed the debate. Every speaker came across well.

Anonymous1987

swiss wrote: »

I saw a tweet on the eleventh hour directly after the debate that I thought was apropos. I can't remember the text verbatim but the point was effectively that for the most part the debates don't really change peoples minds and that most people use these debates to reinforce their own biases.

I'd agree with this, for the informed voter anyway. If you know a parties policies then the debate is really just a clash of personalities and a charisma test. The substance of the arguments remain the same so it's really how they are presented.

Bottle_of_Smoke

gandalf wrote: »

No Dobson lost all creditability with Bertie Aherns Crying Game show.

I'd suggest hiring in Jeremy Paxman to chair, he would chew every one of our lightweight leaders up totally without breaking into a sweat.

I thought Kenny was pretty suitable. In a 5-way debate(a format I am completely against btw) there's no point in the moderator grilling them because that's what the other leaders are there for.

In a 2 way debate I'd agree a Paxman type would be good for getting to the issues

RachaelVO

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

I'd agree with this, for the informed voter anyway. If you know a parties policies then the debate is really just a clash of personalities and a charisma test. The substance of the arguments remain the same so it's really how they are presented.

That is very true, I will say one thing though, I am not necessarily a big fan of SF, but I think it would be so easy to get swept up in Gerrys rhetoric. He was very convincing, and in a much as I wanted to belive him I can't see how he can back up his sweeping statements. In as much as I didn't want to like him, I found I couldn't help myself. I also found that I liked Micheal Martin too, even though I wanted to hate him after all FF have put the part through!

I wanted to like Eamonn and felt a bit let down by him. I'm from his constituency and I've voted for him since he was in council for the Workers Party and he just didn't do himself an good whatsoever.

That's if I'm being honest and objective, rather than using their performances to cement my earlier bias... at least I hope I'm being honest!

gandalf

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I thought Kenny was pretty suitable. In a 5-way debate(a format I am completely against btw) there's no point in the moderator grilling them because that's what the other leaders are there for.

In a 2 way debate I'd agree a Paxman type would be good for getting to the issues

No my original idea was to have one leader having a live audience put questions directly to him and a strong presenter/moderator to ensure he answers the questions asked. I think that would be a far more effective way to get to the substance as it effects the ordinary citizens (feck it I don't want to us that word after GA sullied it last night) of this country.

RTE or TV3 could give each leader 1 hour from Monday to Friday in this format and we would learn an awful lot more about their parties policies that we will with an infinite number of adversarial leaders debates whether they are a 3-way of 5-way (sounds like we are talking about a dodgy porno at this stage!).

Pete_Cavan

gandalf wrote: »

No my original idea was to have one leader having a live audience put questions directly to him and a strong presenter/moderator to ensure he answers the questions asked. I think that would be a far more effective way to get to the substance as it effects the ordinary citizens (feck it I don't want to us that word after GA sullied it last night) of this country.

RTE or TV3 could give each leader 1 hour from Monday to Friday in this format and we would learn an awful lot more about their parties policies that we will with an infinite number of adversarial leaders debates whether they are a 3-way of 5-way (sounds like we are talking about a dodgy porno at this stage!).

The best approach would be a dragons den type interrogation, although not necessarily for the party leaders. We should get each parties spokesperson on finance/health/jobs etc. up and question them on the relevant issue.

county man

RetroBate wrote: »

What they said I'd heard before and it didn't sound any more convincing.

All were men.
All wore ties.
All wore suits.

Why do 99% of male politicians wear suits and ties?

Uniformity of dress indicates an unwillingness to challenge conventions and accepted truths.

Scary.

Would you prefer if they wore tracksuits and trainers?:rolleyes:

gandalf

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The best approach would be a dragons den type interrogation, although not necessarily for the party leaders. We should get each parties spokesperson on finance/health/jobs etc. up and question them on the relevant issue.

Oh I like that, with 2 Irish interrogators and Jeremy Paxman

steelcityblues

No bias towards 'de leader' of course in today's Irish Cork Examiner, on their scorecard they give Martin 33 out of 50.

Will_H

Firstly, I think RTE said this morning there were a million viewers for the programme last nite which was interesting in itself.

TBH, I don't care who is perceived as the "winner" - as someone else posted, it's the media who wins!

I did think Gormley spoke the most sense, he was articulate & to the point. I was very interested to see who responded to his request for sitting down and changing the way government works.

I'm not sure that Gilmore is a leader of the country & anyway, Joan Burton scares the beejezus outta me.

Kenny's policies of "we're all going to suffer more" is typical political claptrap for more taxes. The people want to know, needs to know where they are going and how we're going to get there. Taxing us to death seems to be their policy. Adding 2% onto the VAT rate for imports is utter, utter madness.
"Increases in standard rate of VAT to 22% in 2012 and 23% in 2013"
"Increases in motor tax [€50 & €100 respectively]".
"Increase in the carbon tax to €20 per tonne in 2012, and to €25 per tonne by 2014"
"An environmental tax on packaging"
"€1 increase in excise duty on a bottle of wine"
"25c increase in a pack of cigarettes in 2012"

On the plus side:
"2-Year cut in reduced 13.5% Rate of VAT to 12% on labour-intensive services"
"2-Year halving of lower 8.5% rate of employers’ PRSI on employees with
earnings up to €356 per week (instead of minimum wage cut)"
"Abolition of €3 travel tax"
"Allowing defined contribution pension savers to access funds early
(2.5% per year for 4 years) (and taxing the drawdowns)"

The reason I put so much up on FG is that they will most likely be in Govt.

Just for the record, I am still undecided as to who I will vote for, although I am fully decided on who I will NOT be voting for!

Mental Mickey

RetroBate wrote: »

What they said I'd heard before and it didn't sound any more convincing.

All were men.
All wore ties.
All wore suits.

Why do 99% of male politicians wear suits and ties?

Uniformity of dress indicates an unwillingness to challenge conventions and accepted truths.

Scary.

Your point being??

RetroBate

Mental Mickey wrote: »

Your point being??

Read the two last lines of my post.

RetroBate

county man wrote: »

Would you prefer if they wore tracksuits and trainers?:rolleyes:

Why not? As long as it didn't become the new uniform.

nesf

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The best approach would be a dragons den type interrogation, although not necessarily for the party leaders. We should get each parties spokesperson on finance/health/jobs etc. up and question them on the relevant issue.

That'd be great, but the parties would never agree with it because they'd all be ripped to shreds by a competent group of interrogators.

kunob

Apart from Gerry Adams, none of the party leaders appear to care one iota. Someone who is distraught over seeing his children and grandchildren emigrate, over the taxation, over the job situation, the cuts in benefits: What does it for him if Enda tells him that FG have a five point plan? Have the party leaders no decency? What about telling that poor man that they are sorry to hear about his plight, that they sympathize with him? What about expressing some care and concern to another human being? Apart from Gerry, all of them are just cardboard cut-outs who are obsessed with power and money. Why did nobody ask Michael Martin what the size of his pension package is going to be? And then let Michael make the point that everybody has to share in the pain. Developers, gamblers, criminals, bankers lost money because of their insane greed, and now low and middle income earners have to replace the money that these scumbags have burned?And not with one word have I heard a FF politician say that this is unfair and morally wrong. This countries needs leaders and managers who care, and not another bunch who equally care about no one but themselves.

nesf

swiss wrote: »

I saw a tweet on the eleventh hour directly after the debate that I thought was apropos. I can't remember the text verbatim but the point was effectively that for the most part the debates don't really change peoples minds and that most people use these debates to reinforce their own biases.

I'm not sure that applies to everyone. I'm fairly "floating voterish" in outlook, was a PD supporter but never lived in an area where I could actually vote PD so was used to voting for parties that I didn't really support (also helped me never fall into the trap of being a "party man" and blindly supporting my party). And even then, I only joined the PDs because I felt I should join some party as a politically active adult and the PDs were the closest to my personal views but their policies never represented my views if that make sense.

I'm probably going to vote FG, to a large extent because I really like their health policy and I consider health an extremely important issue for various personal reasons (am horribly biased in this respect), but I definitely did not come out of last night thinking Kenny won or that Kenny put in a great performance. My favourite of the lot was Gormley and I've no intention of voting Green.

outandabout

Kenny hands down for me. Micheal Martin spent too much time laying into Gerry Adams, presumably because FF will be fighting SF for the last seat in several constituencies.

Gormley wasn't bad but I think the Greens have been marginalised.

Gilmore looked a bit lost but may do better when there's a three way debate.

Gerry Adams looked out of place and they might have been better with Caoimhin O Caoghlain who at least has been active in the Dail for the last few years.

maynooth_rules

InigoMontoya wrote: »

A minor point - on Newstalk this morning some commentator mentioned Kenny's answer to the "who's going to suffer?" question (he said "everyone is going to suffer, blah, blah, 5 point plan!") as being "close to a major gaff".

I thought it was at least a bit more honest than most of the other answers, and a plus point for Kenny. Opinions?

Agreed. The easy option is to say nobody will suffer, FG will make everything perfect. instead he spoke the truth and I hope people will respect him for that

Koyasan

SmurfX wrote: »

Seems a lot of agendas are going on here in the voting. It'd hard to be unbiased and not accept Gormley "won" this and by some margin. He was the most direct in answering the actual questions, took the fewest unnecessary swipes at the opposition, gave informative details on his policies and was generally gentlemanly and polite when dealing with other candidates.

Beyond belief how anyone could vote for anyone else in the context of this poll.

+1 to this. It was so clear, which made the bias on TV3 and RTE afterward so clear.

I wonder how many undecided voters actually watched. If Gormley actually gets the last seat in DSE, I'd say it would be due to last night.

tracking

RachaelVO wrote: »

So who do you think, between the 5 leaders won. They were all a bit reticent, but I can't decide who I think did better. What does everyone else think? and Why?

There is clear breach of the Good Friday Agreement in the Leaders Debate. Attack against the will of the overwhelming majority of the people of this state. There is need for censure against the groups involved. All done to defend the rampant corruption and cronyism those people suffer under.

jmayo

the_syco wrote: »

...
Adams did an excellent job at speaking, and promised the silver bullet, to deny the IMF, and to pay for all this, and more, from a limited fund.

Everyone attacked him on this.

They attacked him becuase he is talking through his ar**.
You can't reverse all cuts (taxes etc), tell anyone that may lend to us in the future to f*** off, meanwhile keep our 20 billion current budget deficit and fund it from a combination of a pension reserve fund that currently has 4 odd billion and from taxing or cutting the salaries of the "rich".

It is pure bullsh**.

paky wrote: »

thought it was quite funny when michael martin attacked gerry adams on the issue of fraud when him and his party stole over 40 billion euro from the tax payer and gave it to the banks. pure and utter scum. cant wait to see the day when they're all unemployed

Its pot and kettle to some degree but it is a bit rich when shinners lecture anyone else on morals and ethical behaviour. :rolleyes:
ff have been a corrupt unethical political organisation it appears for decades and have used the country and it's non connected taxpayers/citizens to get their suppporters rich.

Meanwhile sf didn't actually recognise the democratically elected government of this state until a couple of decades ago, they have considered killing and maiming women and children as justifiable and in our name.
Hell some of the current elected members see the murder of one our police force as regrettable, but not something that should be condemmed as wrong.
So neither in my mind are worthy of being in positions of power.

InigoMontoya wrote: »

A minor point - on Newstalk this morning some commentator mentioned Kenny's answer to the "who's going to suffer?" question (he said "everyone is going to suffer, blah, blah, 5 point plan!") as being "close to a major gaff".

I thought it was at least a bit more honest than most of the other answers, and a plus point for Kenny. Opinions?

It is probably one of the most honest statements from last night.

RetroBate wrote: »

What they said I'd heard before and it didn't sound any more convincing.

All were men.
All wore ties.
All wore suits.

Why do 99% of male politicians wear suits and ties?

Uniformity of dress indicates an unwillingness to challenge conventions and accepted truths.

Scary.

Now scary would be seeing them in dresses, but whatever floats your boat as they say.

Will_H wrote: »

...
Kenny's policies of "we're all going to suffer more" is typical political claptrap for more taxes. The people want to know, needs to know where they are going and how we're going to get there. Taxing us to death seems to be their policy. Adding 2% onto the VAT rate for imports is utter, utter madness.

Actually it isn't claptrap it is the bloody truth.
We are all going to get hit with taxes or cuts.
You would need to be living off the land and not spending a penny to avoid being caught in some way.

We haven't seen the half of it and anyone like adams that spouts pure sh**e about taxing the rich and finding 20 billion magically to fund a 20 billion deficit is the one misleading people.

Adding 2% onto imports might be no harm although not shure if they can get away with it (EU and all that mullarkey) ?
People are all spouting about getting people spending, but on what ?
How much use is it if people buy a new TV or ipod ?
Yeah it gets a few quid for the shop or the postal service that delivers it, but how much of that money remains in Ireland ?
Upping retail spending will not get us out of this mess.
Producing stuff and services that others want to buy off us, or producing stuff that cuts our imports is what will get us out of this mess.

Will_H wrote: »

"€1 increase in excise duty on a bottle of wine"

And how many vineyards are there in Ireland ?
Drink whiskey, vodka, beer etc.

Will_H wrote: »

"25c increase in a pack of cigarettes in 2012"

Cigs are bad for you
BTW how many tobacco plantations have we got ?

Will_H wrote: »

Just for the record, I am still undecided as to who I will vote for, although I am fully decided on who I will NOT be voting for!

Let me guess you are not voting for FG. :rolleyes:

kunob wrote: »

Apart from Gerry Adams, none of the party leaders appear to care one iota. Someone who is distraught over seeing his children and grandchildren emigrate, over the taxation, over the job situation, the cuts in benefits: What does it for him if Enda tells him that FG have a five point plan? Have the party leaders no decency? What about telling that poor man that they are sorry to hear about his plight, that they sympathize with him?

Yeah gerry really cares about ya. :rolleyes:
Offering someone sympathy and no viable solution or plan is f*** all use.

And please lets not have a discussion about the fairytale that SF call a plan.

LordSutch

kunob wrote: »

Apart from Gerry Adams, none of the party leaders appear to care one iota. Someone who is distraught over seeing his children and grandchildren emigrate . . .

Or maybe just like Someone who was distraught over seeing his children exiled by the IRA pre 94, (not that Mr Adams would know anyting about that kind of thing) :cool:

I agree that Adams came over all Statesman like (to his own followers), and he did speak well as he wagged his finger, but if you actually analyze the content of what he said, "Republic this & Republic that", Citizens this, and Citizens that, All the people have a right, etc etc, which all amounts to a hill of beans in the real world > Telling the EMF to bugger off while raiding the pension fund at the same time!!! Hmm, He's not for Government me thinks.

I thought Enda was a bit slow & not as camera friendly as Adams, but the content of Enda's policies, along with Gilmore's more leftish proposals (are where we are really heading). I thought Eamon had a solid performance, and I even thought Michael Martin was in good speaking form (specially when he put down Adams) Nice and as for poor old Gormley, well, I think he's a nice man, but I'm not sure that he should be the leader of the Green Party.

In my opinion . . .

GFJD

We need a hardline stance in Europe when negotiating. Out of the 5 of those people , I would say I would want either Gerry or Eamon to be in that room when those negotiations are happening , preferably both.

Enda will be going around redfaced and frustrated lookin as if hes just farted , Gormley would be trying to get more eco grants into a deal and Michael Martin would be happy with any token gesture of a re-negotiation.

No , its very clear. We cant do it unilateraly granted , but we need the approach of Labour and the Shinners in any future re-negotiations.

Gerry won it hands down in my opinion.

Sin é.

Cyrus

GFJD wrote: »

We need a hardline stance in Europe when negotiating. Out of the 5 of those people , I would say I would want either Gerry or Eamon to be in that room when those negotiations are happening , preferably both.

Enda will be going around redfaced and frustrated lookin as if hes just farted , Gormley would be trying to get more eco grants into a deal and Michael Martin would be happy with any token gesture of a re-negotiation.

No , its very clear. We cant do it unilateraly granted , but we need the approach of Labour and the Shinners in any future re-negotiations.

Gerry won it hands down in my opinion.

Sin é.

Gerry isnt looking to negotiate with them tho is he, he is going to do his own thing, thankfully it wont come to pass

also himself and gilmore seem to think that the people who pay most of the tax in this country are going to be happy to pay more and more so people on the dole wont be cut

Indestructable

Adams, simply for his reference to the DUP...

Will_H

jmayo wrote: »

Actually it isn't claptrap it is the bloody truth. We are all going to get hit with taxes or cuts.

Read what I said again - "is typical political claptrap for more taxes" - i.e. more taxes. :rolleyes:

jmayo wrote: »

Adding 2% onto imports might be no harm.....How much use is it if people buy a new TV or ipod ?

You seriously think that electronics are the only 'goods' imported into this country???!! Please - say it ain't so...:(

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah it gets a few quid for the shop or the postal service that delivers it, but how much of that money remains in Ireland ?
Upping retail spending will not get us out of this mess.

Well, let's see now - if & when people start spending again [in the retail sense], the money goes to employ people/keep people in a job, who pay taxes, who are paid wages, some of which they will spend, which keeps people off the dole....can you see the pattern yet..?? Have you worked out how the money stays in Ireland...?! Particularly in the border counties where people will simply start popping across the border to spend their hard-earned cash.

And I agree 100% with you, retail spending will not get us out of this mess, however, it will alleviate the burden on the taxpayer which is already high enough.

jmayo wrote: »

Producing stuff and services that others want to buy off us, or producing stuff that cuts our imports is what will get us out of this mess.

You mean, like wine & cigarettes?!
Our exports are already performing reasonably well. We need to stimulate the LOCAL economy which, I believe, adding 2% onto imports will not do.

jmayo wrote: »

Let me guess you are not voting for FG. :rolleyes:

Wrong again :rolleyes: - I'm not voting FF. Haven't decided on who else yet which is why I am researching what they offer.

wee truck big driver

the funniest part is the renegoiation of the imf deal while not considering not bailing out the banks is like playing poker and showing everybody your hand before you start betting it would be funny if it wasnt so serious

antomack

For all the actual concrete information gained in terms of how they're going to solve all our problems it would have made better tv if they had put the five of them into a boxing ring and let them fight it out.

None of the questions were really answered, not unusual for politicians, and other than mentioning some general facts and figures you were none the wiser in terms of how likely any of their policies would be in achieving what they say.

Main thing to come out of the night was that you'd be wondering how any coalition could exist at all. We keep hearing that a coalition between FG and Labour is likely but from what was seen in the debate you'd wonder could it work at all since Enda and Eamon kept dissing each other's policies at every oppportunity, quite something considering there are quite a few similarities between those policies.

Overall we just saw a tit for tat in terms of trying to run down each others policies even though no one leader left one with the concrete impression that their proposed policies would work.

What might make a better format of 'debate' would be to have various sessions covering each aspect of the main issues, economy, health, education, employment, etc.. Then each party would nominate it's spokesperson for the subject and an 'expert' panel and audience would be there to grill each party's policies. Full costings and breakdown of the policies would be necessary so a detailed evaluation could be done, these breakdowns would need to be provided to the expert panel in advance so their questions would deal with specifics. For example let the finance spokepersons go in front of a panel of economic experts and have their policies taken through a detailed analysis to see how achieveable they actually are and where they intend getting the money to implement their policies. I realise that a lot of the sessions might be above what the average Joe needs to know so it might not suit a live tv scenario. If impartial coverage of the sessions could be ensured then some sort of executive summary could be aired from them.

flipall

OK i watched it and still don't have my mind made up, usually i wouldnt sit and watch this stuff for so long but this year i have an interest, like thousands others i presume.

For starters i'm sorry to any diehard FGers but Enda Kennys voice and the way he talks goes through me.. Also FG say they are going to put billions into creating jobs, where are they gonna get these billions since they are not going to raise taxes?! Are they gonna rob a bank

Sinn Fein... Not a hope!

FF, they got us into this mess but i think Micheal Martin seems to bring a younger eye to Irish politics tho he hasnt done anything outstanding in the last few years just gone with the flow while all taxpayers were screwed!

Labour - Your policies are sooooooo not realistic in my eyes!

Greens

This is all in my own opinion, i am still bewildered as to who to vote for! They are all promising very unrealistic goals!

Sergeant

flipall wrote: »

Also FG say they are going to put billions into creating jobs, where are they gonna get these billions since they are not going to raise taxes?! Are they gonna rob a bank

By the sale of non-strategic state assets, and through further efficiencies in the public service. In their 87 page election manifesto that they published today, as well as in their NewEra policy paper.