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

FG Manifesto out

Options
245

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    Neutrality is a sham, just look at what the UN did for Yugoslavia compared with NATO. Sarajevo was under seige for 4 years with genocide of tens of thousands of people. The UN watched for years, when NATO intervened it ended with a peace treaty in 3 weeks
    Yugoslavia was a civil war, not a war between countries. Been a member of NATO will not end genocide. We are far too small a country to get involved with military force.

    With Neutrality we can decide where our forces go and not bound by defence treaties or obligations. We see every day NATO members been seriously injuries or losing soldier lives in Afghanistan when Bush and Blair decide to start another war causing more higher causalities than necessary. Been a member of NATO has far more negatives and positives.
    UN resolutions was veto by UN Members, especially permanent members with opposing views.

    The Following has veto on UN missions and decisions making.
    China — Permanent Member
    France — Permanent Member
    Russian Federation* — Permanent Member
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Permanent Member
    United States of America — Permanent Member

    We Trade with many of these members who are in opposing views.

    Here your NATO statics on their recent war, I hope Ireland will never be part of in the future.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
    Civilians Casualties
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Major_casualties_and_accidental_strikes_by_coalition_forces
    wikipedia wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
    Casualties and losses Afghan Security Forces:
    7,500+ killed [14]
    [15]
    [16]
    Afghan Northern Alliance:
    200 Killed[17][18][19][20]
    Coalition:
    Killed: 2,243 (US: 1,399, UK: 351, Canada: 154, Others: 339)[21]
    Wounded: 12,523+ (US: 9,771,[22] UK: 4,091,[23][24] Canada: 1200+,[25] Australia: 162,[26] Romania: 44,[27] Estonia: 43[28])
    Contractors:
    Killed: 1,764*[29][30]
    Wounded & injured: 59,465*[29][30]
    Taliban and Insurgents
    Killed or captured: 38,000+
    Wounded: unknown
    Civilian deaths: 14,000-34,000 approx. *Casualty numbers from the US Dept. of Labor for Contractors are combined for Iraq and Afghanistan.

    No to Fine Gael.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    FG are for same sex unions but against same sex marraige.


  • Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭mossyc123


    Whats with the obsession with legislating for same-sex marriage?

    The country is facing a woeful economic crises and all you guys can go on about is a fairly minor social issue.

    Talk about self-absorbed.

    Same type of people who'd throw out the "gombeenism" cliche when rural TD's get in based purely on local issues :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Ghost Estate


    mossyc123 wrote: »
    Whats with the obsession with legislating for same-sex marriage?

    The country is facing a woeful economic crises and all you guys can go on a fairly minor social issue.

    Talk about self-absorbed.

    Same type of people who'd throw out the "gombeenism" cliche when rural TD's get in based purely on local issues :rolleyes:

    Presumably because boards.ie in general is filled with fairly vocal Atheists who'd love nothing more than to give the church a dig. That and the great Irish inferiority complex that we seem to take anything that's new onboard without question lest we be seen as 'backwards' to outsiders.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    limklad wrote: »
    With Neutrality we can decide where our forces go and not bound by defence treaties or obligations. We see every day NATO members been seriously injuries or losing soldier lives in Afghanistan when Bush and Blair decide to start another war causing more higher causalities than necessary. Been a member of NATO has far more negatives and positives.



    Here your NATO statics on their recent war, I hope Ireland will never be part of in the future.

    Unfortunately we have soldiers in Afghanistan atm:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISAF_troop_number_statistics
    http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.html

    IMO we should never get involved in any UN botchjob missions.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 374 ✭✭Reilly616


    mossyc123 wrote: »
    Whats with the obsession with legislating for same-sex marriage?

    The country is facing a woeful economic crises and all you guys can go on about is a fairly minor social issue.

    Talk about self-absorbed.

    Equality isn't a "minor social issue". Some of us just don't get swept up by the issue of the moment and focus only on that. I'm not sure how you could class it as self-absorbed either, unless you're assuming we're all gay... :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,957 ✭✭✭The Volt


    Can anyone explain what they mean by 'regulating embryo research'?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 374 ✭✭Reilly616


    Voltwad wrote: »
    Can anyone explain what they mean by 'regulating embryo research'?

    There is currently no legislation on things such as the storage of human embryos, IVF etc. A recent case that went to the Supreme Court, and narrowed the Constitutional definition of the "unborn", highlighted this fact.

    Edit: I forget off hand the name of the case, but if you search "the frozen embryo case" you will find it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    WeeBushy wrote: »
    :mad: (depending on their definition of marraige, can't figure out if they are referring to the RC idea of marriage, or the union of two individuals)
    Isn't civil partnership already law in Ireland? And aren't the first civil ceremonies due to take place soon?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    FG are for same sex unions but against same sex marraige.
    What's the difference?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭mossyc123


    Reilly616 wrote: »
    Equality isn't a "minor social issue". Some of us just don't get swept up by the issue of the moment and focus only on that. I'm not sure how you could class it as self-absorbed either, unless you're assuming we're all gay... :confused:

    "The issue of the moment".

    That's how you have chosen to phrase the greatest crisis this country has faced since the Civil War?!

    I know money isn't everything and all but come on its pretty fcukin serious!!!

    We should be voting for who we believe is best placed to get the thing sorted in some sort of an efficient manner.

    All other considerations should be put aside for the time being IMO.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    But where this is not possible, Irish bankruptcy laws must be updated. They currently are unpractical,
    unused, excessively costly and overly penal. A Fine Gael Government will fast-track the reforms needed to
    bring us into line with best international standards, focusing on the following elements:
    • Reducing the time to discharge from bankruptcy from six years to one for “honest bankrupts”, defined
    as one that has materially complied with the Tax, NAMA and Companies Acts among others;
    • A Non-Judicial Debt Settlement System that will change bankruptcy from a judicial to an administrative
    process, with filings being made with a new Debt Settlement Office within the Courts Service without the
    need for legal representation;
    • New Commercial Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs), which are legally binding arrangements between
    the directors of a company and their creditors (at least 75%) that would protect the debtor from interest
    charges and the threat of enforcement during the period of the life of the CVA;
    • A Limited Residence and Personal Assets Safe Harbour that will permit a bankrupt to ring fence from
    the bankruptcy process ownership of a principal private residence (within limits based on size, value and
    family numbers) and specified personal assets not to exceed €40,000 in value; and
    • A Prohibition against Discrimination against Discharged Bankrupts to ensure that former bankrupts
    are treated fairly in their applications for credit or other services.

    This is good and badly needed espeacially the Honest Bankruptcy part.
    Kick-Starting the Property Market: Getting the property market functioning properly again is a condition
    of strong economic recovery. This will require NAMA to dispose of property assets secured from developers
    in default of their loans into the private sector as quickly as possible. We are open to considering new types
    of investment vehicles – such as U.S. style Real Estate Investment Trusts – that can help create a new, liquid
    investment market in commercial property for Irish pension funds and smaller investors.

    I don't understand why we need to kick start the Property market. Why are we not better off to just let it take it's course without interference, what are the benefits of "Kick-starting" the property market?
    Child Benefit: Fine Gael will implement a rebalanced and integrated “Child Income Support” with both
    universal and targeted components to make the system of child support better targeted at child poverty.

    I feel Child benefit should be scrapped altogether
    Regulation of Embryo Research: We will legislate to regulate human embryo research

    Good
    Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as
    a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice
    of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol
    consumption and the viability of pubs.

    I cant understand this at all. I feel it is a ridiculous thing to do. If pubs want more customers they should lower their prices. I don't feel goverment intervention is the best way forward at all.
    Financial Crimes: Fine Gael will ensure that rogue bankers and all those that misappropriate or embezzle
    funds are properly pursued for their crimes and that the full rigours of the law will apply to them. We will
    give the courts the powers necessary to impose appropriate fines and jail sentences

    This sounds great. Hopefully they actually deliver on this promise.
    Sentencing Reform: We will overhaul current sentencing practices to ensure violent criminals serve their
    full term in prison. We will end the cost to the taxpayer of short term sentences, which lead to high rates
    of re-offending, and use more cost effective and community based methods of punishing offending. We
    will end the practice of imprisoning people who cannot pay their fines and debts and introduce a system
    which takes a small amount of money from a persons’ wages or social welfare by an “attachment order” to
    pay off the fine or debt over time

    Again a good proposal

    I agree with all the defence proposals.

    I agree with most of the education part of the document, bar the extra points for maths and some science courses "where skills shortages currently exist". Allocating 50% of the mark to the irish oral is a great idea imo.
    Second Chance Education (17,000 places): This will offer former retail and construction workers that
    did not finish school or to college ‘back to education’ placements for two years. Participants will receive a
    premium payment of €20 per week on top of their social welfare payment, a €500 payment towards books
    etc and a €3,000 completion bonus.

    I feel this will be too costly and is completely unfair. An awful idea imo.
    Graduate Contribution: Fine Gael will develop a fairer funding system for third level to ensure every
    student has access to a high quality education. This will involve a graduate contribution from students
    of roughly a third of the cost of their course. The contribution will be made by new entrants to publiclyfunded third level institutions after the student graduates, enters employment and reaches a defined
    income threshold.

    If by this they mean a graduate tax, then good. it's not ideal but is a step in the right direction imo.

    The Faircare plan sounds great, though I don't know how viable it is. Hopefully they definitely do this anyway:
    Manpower Crisis: Fine Gael will initiate a long-term manpower strategy to tackle the chronic front line
    staff shortages we face in specialities such as general practice, mental health, physiotherapy, occupational
    therapy and speech and language therapy to mention but a few.
    Rare Diseases: In Government, Fine Gael is committed to developing a national plan for rare diseases by 2013
    Hopefully i can end up working here, it's an area I would like to get involved in. Hope this happens :D

    Overall i am pretty pleased. Fine Gael will more then likely be getting my vote anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭WhosUpDocs


    FG are for same sex unions but against same sex marraige.

    I'm torn now. I'm generally for the vast majority of FG policy and would probably flee the country if Joan Burton became our finance minister. It's annoying to have to chose between good social policy vs. good economic policy.

    Does anyone know if they would actively oppose it if suggested by an opposition party or could they let it slide through to referendum without putting up much fuss a la divorce legislation?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 374 ✭✭Reilly616


    later10 wrote: »
    Isn't civil partnership already law in Ireland? And aren't the first civil ceremonies due to take place soon?
    later10 wrote: »
    What's the difference?

    Ireland does have civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples only. They have been legal since January 1st, but none have taken place yet, since there are just practical things that have to be set up first. As such, the only people in civil partnerships at the moment are ones who had a civil union or marriage before they came here.

    There are too many differences between civil partnership and marriage to mention, but to put it simply; civil partnership is like marriage, but with about half of the marriage associated rights stripped away from it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭WhosUpDocs


    later10 wrote: »
    What's the difference?

    Most importantly IMO civil partnership doesn't recognize the right to parentage of both parents. That needs to change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    WhosUpDocs wrote: »
    I'm torn now. I'm generally for the vast majority of FG policy and would probably flee the country if Joan Burton became our finance minister. It's annoying to have to chose between good social policy vs. good economic policy.

    Does anyone know if they would actively oppose it if suggested by an opposition party or could they let it slide through to referendum without putting up much fuss a la divorce legislation?

    ye I feel the same way.Though I am generally happy with most of their proposals.

    I think in the current situation though good economic policy has to win over. Sure whats the point in giving full rights to gays and lesbians if they have all emigrated :P


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 374 ✭✭Reilly616


    mossyc123 wrote: »
    "The issue of the moment".

    That's how you have chosen to phrase the greatest crisis this country has faced since the Civil War?!

    I know money isn't everything and all but come on its pretty fcukin serious!!!

    We should be voting for who we believe is best placed to get the thing sorted in some sort of an efficient manner.

    All other considerations should be put aside for the time being IMO.

    Therein lies the difference. While acknowledging the importance of the current crisis, I do not believe that all other issues should be put aside.

    I did not mean to belittle the crisis by my turn of phrase, but rather I meant to emphasise that elections should not (even in such a crisis) be run on one issue. I do not think that we should completely forget about other important issues, just because there is a bigger one.

    Further, I am not an economist. I do not think that I am in a position to judge each party's economic plan and know which will be the best for the country. I can try, but I know that I'm not knowledgeable enough in that area. What I know (at least to some extent) is law, so I tend to focus more on that than others might. I'm not suggesting that's the best way to do it, I'm just saying that that is how I will be deciding how to exercise my democratic right.


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭WhosUpDocs


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    I think in the current situation though good economic policy has to win over. Sure whats the point in giving full rights to gays and lesbians if they have all emigrated :P

    Very true. It's heading that way if we don't do something soon! :mad:

    On a separate note:
    Second Chance Education (17,000 places): This will offer former retail and construction workers that
    did not finish school or to college ‘back to education’ placements for two years. Participants will receive a
    premium payment of €20 per week on top of their social welfare payment, a €500 payment towards books
    etc and a €3,000 completion bonus.

    With some napkin maths that's costing us somewhere in the region of 94.8 million euro extra on top of the 350 million euro 17,000 people on social welfare already cost us. Think this may need to be rethought


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    WhosUpDocs wrote: »
    Very true. It's heading that way if we don't do something soon! :mad:

    On a separate note:
    Second Chance Education (17,000 places): This will offer former retail and construction workers that
    did not finish school or to college ‘back to education’ placements for two years. Participants will receive a
    premium payment of €20 per week on top of their social welfare payment, a €500 payment towards books
    etc and a €3,000 completion bonus.

    With some napkin maths that's costing us somewhere in the region of 94.8 million euro extra on top of the 350 million euro 17,000 people on social welfare already cost us. Think this may need to be rethought

    Ye I don't understand that at all. I also don't see why they should get an extra 20 euro to attend plus money for finishing, I wouldnt particular mind if these people simply got there social welfare, I feel that would be fair.
    The second chance should be an incentive enough though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭WhosUpDocs


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Ye I don't understand that at all. I also don't see why they should get an extra 20 euro to attend plus money for finishing, I wouldnt particular mind if these people simply got there social welfare, I feel that would be fair.
    The second chance should be an incentive enough though.

    Couldn't agree more. I'm 100% for free education. It's one of the last actual strengths of this country. But paying people to attend seems counter intuitive. I know if I wasn't a full time student and unemployed I'd jump at the chance to get back.

    It's not like they let me draw social welfare while in college. Double standards need to be addressed


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    WhosUpDocs wrote: »
    Couldn't agree more. I'm 100% for free education. It's one of the last actual strengths of this country. But paying people to attend seems counter intuitive. I know if I wasn't a full time student and unemployed I'd jump at the chance to get back.

    It's not like they let me draw social welfare while in college. Double standards need to be addressed

    I agree with your post bar the bold part. I believe students should have to pay 2500 reg fee, plus 2500 tuition fee (unless you qualify for a grant) but not one cent more.

    But hey lets not get into all this. :)

    I agree though however, what could be better than being paid to go to college? I'd jump at the chance too!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    later10 wrote: »
    What's the difference?


    I've no idea.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 374 ✭✭Reilly616


    I've no idea.

    See WhosUpDocs' post above, and mine on the previous page. Or if you really care, see the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0024/index.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭WhosUpDocs


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    I agree with your post bar the bold part. I believe students should have to pay 2500 reg fee, plus 2500 tuition fee (unless you qualify for a grant) but not one cent more.

    But hey lets not get into all this. :)

    I agree though however, what could be better than being paid to go to college? I'd jump at the chance too!

    It's actually just 2500 reg fee which is covered by the grant if you qualify. I meant to put inverted commas around free:D You don't need to tell me college is far from free :eek:

    But yeah that's another can o' worms entirely.

    Generally pretty impressed with the manifesto overall though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Reilly616 wrote: »
    See WhosUpDocs' post above, and mine on the previous page. Or if you really care, see the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0024/index.html



    Thanks. I've wiki'd it for a more condensed review. I don't see the point in supporting one and not the other though, I can only assume it's for voting purposes and they are afraid to alienate there more conservative members while hoping a civil union will be enough to satisfy more liberal voters.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 374 ✭✭Reilly616


    Thanks. I've wiki'd it for a more condensed review. I don't see the point in supporting one and not the other though, I can only assume it's for voting purposes and they are afraid to alienate there more conservative members while hoping a civil union will be enough to satisfy more liberal voters.

    I guess that's about the long and short of it, yeah. It's about time the parties realised the public opinion on the matter though.

    From Wiki: "In September 2010, an Irish Times/Behaviour Attitudes survey of 1,006 people showed that 67% felt that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. This majority extended across all age groups, with the exception of the over-65s, while 66% of Catholics were in favour of same-sex marriage. Only 25% disagreed that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, opposition that was concentrated among older people and those in rural areas."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Ireland


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    andrewire wrote: »
    FG is against same-sex unions. I have been told this by two FG TDs: Lucinda Creighton and Leo Varadkar. They will do nothing for the gays.

    Well that is a lie as FG were the first party to have a policy on same sex civil partnerships.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 374 ✭✭Reilly616


    jank wrote: »
    Well that is a lie as FG were the first party to have a policy on same sex civil partnerships.

    We're talking about marriages, not partnerships. I guess the use of "union" in the text you quoted was ambiguous.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Reilly616 wrote: »
    We're talking about marriages, not partnerships. I guess the use of "union" in the text you quoted was ambiguous.

    Fair enough. I would be for this as well but would not be a deal breaker for me. Bigger fish to fry as this would only effect about 0.1% of the population.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 374 ✭✭Reilly616


    jank wrote: »
    Fair enough. I would be for this as well but would not be a deal breaker for me. Bigger fish to fry as this would only [affect] about 0.1% of the population.

    More like 5-10%, but that's not really the point. After all, it's not those in the majority that often need help with equality. That said, I fully understand it not being a deal breaker for you.


Advertisement