FG Manifesto out

Reilly616

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. We all happy now?

When talking about Irish law, I think the Constitution of Ireland, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Ireland, takes precedence over citizensinformation.ie . . .

But as has been said above, this should be somewhere else. Maybe a mod could move the abortion comments to a new thread? In relation to the FG manifesto, I think the point has been made.

leincar

I read both the Fine Gael and the Labour manifesto's and I found there to be a lot more substance to the Fine Gael manifesto. I may not agree with everything, but it really comes down to the economy. All other considerations right now have to be secondary. Surely?

Pete_Cavan

Reilly616 wrote: »

When talking about Irish law, I think the Constitution of Ireland, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Ireland, takes precedence over citizensinformation.ie . . .

But as has been said above, this should be somewhere else. Maybe a mod could move the abortion comments to a new thread? In relation to the FG manifesto, I think the point has been made.

Do you even know what the Constitution is? Here, read up on it (your favourite website). Not everything is directly governed by the Constitution. citizensinformation.ie provides comprehensive information on public services and on the entitlements of citizens in Ireland. It is a lot more relevant here than the Constitution.

Reilly616

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Do you even know what the Constitution is? Here, read up on it (your favourite website). Not everything is directly governed by the Constitution. citizensinformation.ie provides comprehensive information on public services and on the entitlements of citizens in Ireland. It is a lot more relevant here than the Constitution.

No it isn't. And it is in no way comprehensive. It provides a very useful service, and I do indeed like the website, but it simply isn't more relevant to any legal question than the actual letter of the law.

Please don't try to be patronising ("Do you even know what the Constitution is?"), I'm being civil with you. I happen to know very well what the Constitution is, moreso than yourself I'd imagine, based on your posts.

Pete_Cavan

Reilly616 wrote: »

No it isn't. And it is in no way comprehensive. It provides a very useful service, and I do indeed like the website, but it simply isn't more relevant to any legal question than the actual letter of the law.

The constitution sets out the fundamental rights of citizens of this country and establishes our government and legal systems. It is not just a list of laws. Just because something is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean it is not the law in this country. For example, the ban on smoking in the workplace was introduced under the Public Health (Tobacco) Act, 2002 (Section 47) Regulations 2003 but you will not find that referred to in the constitution.

The information on the citizensinformation.ie website is based on the laws of this country and the entitlements of citizens in Ireland. Unless you are going to challenge something as being unconstitutional, it has more relevance here than the constitution.

Reilly616 wrote: »

Please don't try to be patronising ("Do you even know what the Constitution is?"), I'm being civil with you. I happen to know very well what the Constitution is, moreso than yourself I'd imagine, based on your posts.

If that came across as patronising I apologise, that was not my intention. However, I am not sure which posts you are basing that last line on.

namloc1980

Never realised that FG's stance on same-sex marriages was such a hot topic.

johnnyskeleton

It's all very well saying what they aspire to, but there is very little about how they will actually achieve it. Does anyone really understand their ideas about jobs? It seems to be as simple as "3% growth = 100k jobs = 3% growth = 100k jobs" ad nausem until people believe that there is actually something behind it.

Other than that, they propose cuts but increased services, they want a small government but have set out a number of items that they will do (most of which will cost money).

They want to tackle serious crime, but they also want to focus on community policing and have gardai live in the area they work in. Much of their views on crime and justice have actually been implemented by FF (electronic tagging, reducing garda time in court, prohibit phones in prison and introducing anti-gang laws) or is based on a misunderstanding of what is already there (remission is not "automatic" etc).

Overall, it is much like the criticism they make of the other parties - all buzzwords, no substance. To be fair, the other parties are equally scant when it comes to details and they are more than happy to peddal a lie if it gets them more votes. Some of the ideas are quite good, but I also get the impression that much of what is said in this manifesto will be pushed to the back of the queue as the government spends all its time putting out fires with the banks, public finances and dealing with Europe/IMF.

I really wish there was a straight talking party that just came out and said "massive cuts, some increases in taxes, do the best we can with the banks and hope like hell the economy starts to grow sometime soon". I mean, no one wants to hear that, but it is the only realistic set of promises that a politician can make at the moment. And now, more than ever, what we really need is honesty.

Pete_Cavan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's all very well saying what they aspire to, but there is very little about how they will actually achieve it. Does anyone really understand their ideas about jobs? It seems to be as simple as "3% growth = 100k jobs = 3% growth = 100k jobs" ad nausem until people believe that there is actually something behind it.

IMO FG have the most credible jobs policy. They are focusing on infrastructure that will mainly create jobs from its existence, as well as during their construction. Every business in the country needs energy, broadband and water so improving the quality of these will make it easier to do business. Also in the case of energy and broadband, lowering the price by introducing competition to the markets will reduce costs to consumers and buinesses.

Other parties want to build schools and hospitals which will only create construction jobs (most of the teachers and health care jobs exist already) which are 100% reliant on government funding. Once that funding stops those jobs will be lost. This does not create sustainable jobs. FGs investment will be funded by the sale of non-strategic state assets, Im not sure where the others will get the money from.

Also FG policy of favouring cuts and not burdening people further with taxes will make for a better environment for doing business and creating jobs as well as encouraging consumer spending.

Reilly616

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The constitution sets out the fundamental rights of citizens of this country and establishes our government and legal systems. It is not just a list of laws. Just because something is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean it is not the law in this country. For example, the ban on smoking in the workplace was introduced under the Public Health (Tobacco) Act, 2002 (Section 47) Regulations 2003 but you will not find that referred to in the constitution.

The information on the citizensinformation.ie website is based on the laws of this country and the entitlements of citizens in Ireland. Unless you are going to challenge something as being unconstitutional, it has more relevance here than the constitution.

If that came across as patronising I apologise, that was not my intention. However, I am not sure which posts you are basing that last line on.

The Constitution was only brought up because you were disputing our terminology. We were taking about marriage. The Constitution talks about marriage. That's the ling and short of it.

I am basing that last line on all of your posts on this topic. Your descriptions of the Constitution just seem a bit naive to me. For example, in the quoted post, you explain very obvious features of the Constituion as if that is some sort of revalation. Anyone with a legal education would not be likely to look at it in such a simplistic manner. That's all I was basing it on.

Now, in all seriousness, this niche topic has gone too far already. I'd be happy to continue in private messages, but here is not the place for it.

Eric Cartman

well as a die hard FF supporter and long time enda kenny opposer I have to say, if it wasnt for enda id give FG my 1st preference, allowing stag hunting , not oging on an all out war on motorists / big 4x4s and actually having a realistic economic plan its quite good

I couldnt give a fiddlers about same sex unions as it doesnt directly affect me

Dozen Wicked Words

5.3 Fine Gael will reverse the ban on stag hunting.

Don't agree with this, and would prefer a total ban on all blood sports.

Increasing Productivity by Changing the Way Hospitals are Paid: We will pay hospitals for the number of patients they treat rather than, as is currently the case, giving them block grants. This system, which is known as Money Follows the Patient, should increase hospital productivity by between 5% and 10% and will make the system much more transparent and accountable.

This will encourage hospital managers to increase high turnover day cases at the expense of more complicated procedures. The large regional hospitals and Dublin referral hospitals will be negatively impacted by this policy.

...necessary and fair to also reduce social welfare payments for those with the capacity to work beginning
with €3 weekly cuts in 2012 and 2013 and a final €4 cut in 2014...

Unfair, IMO, that the poorest in society take a further hit.

Although I would not vote for them, its a good read, and well written to appeal to a wide cross-section of the public. (as all manifestos are I suppose!) Particularly the Middle-Class, who presumably are FGs key demographic.

z0oT

I've had a quick skim through it, and thus far I can't find anything I totally disagree with.

One thing caught my eye though re. the bailout deal:

We will seek a mandate from the Irish people to renegotiate a more credible, fairer package that is better for Ireland and Europe.

Does this mean they'd put the deal to a referendum?

pocketvenus

If I read it correct what I do not agree with is increasing the DIRT rate to encourage spending. I mean 30% taken of your saving is madness.

Our politicans are telling us they cannot afford to provide us with anything especially when alot of the younger generation get to pension age and were encouraging us to save for our future and then as they cannnot think of enough ways to get their hands on cash they decide to increase the DIRT rate.

First of all how about introducing the DIRT rate on the over 65's who I believe are exempt.

Second it won't encourage people to spend, people will just pull it out and either keep it at home, thus leading to a risk of break in's increasing or if possible move it outside of Ireland.

wonderfulname

dooferoaks wrote: »

Don't agree with this, and would prefer a total ban on all blood sports.

Why? I don't get this, have you ever witnessed any? Are you aware of what they entail?

As for the issues surrounding same sex marriage, yes it is a bloody disgrace that a first world country have second class citizens.

As for the constitution, it's not written in stone, that's what referendums are for, and they are sorely needed.

I think given our current monetary situation it is time to look at what progress we can make at little or no cost, above are three examples, there are many more.

One thing I am glad to see is that they intend to legislate for IVF etc, I hope they chuck in a referendum tidying up the constitutions view of the unborn and legislate clearly on such.

Eliot Rosewater

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

IOther parties want to build schools and hospitals which will only create construction jobs (most of the teachers and health care jobs exist already) which are 100% reliant on government funding. Once that funding stops those jobs will be lost.

I totally agree. But Fine Gael are doing the exact same thing!

New Era wrote:

NewEra will create 105.000 new jobs.

NewERA investments will stimulate the construction sector and the wider economy in the face of the recession, supporting just over 105,000 additional jobs in four years. The new jobs are likely to be spread evenly between regions and skill levels.

The problem is, as you say, that when the government stops stimulating the construction sector we will be left at square one again. Stimulating construction will only prolong the necessary readjustment.


Such matters should be left to the market, which will find a stable equilibrium. By intervening so much in the construction sector the Fianna Fail government greatly distorted market signals - particularly relating to the labour market. A false signal was sent out to the effect that construction was a good career. So now we have too many construction workers, who are forced to re-skill or emigrate. Prolonging the false signal is simply ridiculous, I think.

wonderfulname

wonderfulname wrote: »

Why? I don't get this, have you ever witnessed any? Are you aware of what they entail?

Chasing and scaring the life out of an unfortunate animal until it dies from either a heart attack or sheer exhaustion, just for fun? Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right. The Ward Hunt chased a stag through a schoolyard while the children were still in school, and just about to leave to go home. That's absolutely dispicable.

Dozen Wicked Words

wonderfulname wrote: »

Why? I don't get this, have you ever witnessed any? Are you aware of what they entail?

I could say the same about hunting really, I dont get it. What justification is there for hunting Stag? I am against the killing of any animal for sport, in a civilised society I would hope people had moved on from this. Thats my only reason, and the reason I am against any hunting with hounds, shooting for sport, dog fighting, badger baiting, hare coursing, in the wider world, bull fighting, cock fighting bear baiting etc etc.

wonderfulname

Flying Fox wrote: »

Chasing and scaring the life out of an unfortunate animal until it dies from either a heart attack or sheer exhaustion, just for fun? Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right. The Ward Hunt chased a stag through a schoolyard while the children were still in school, and just about to leave to go home. That's absolutely dispicable.

That story is a lot different when you hear it from the other side, but just some broad facts on hunting for both you and my other reply;

Wild animals are used to hunting and being hunted. They are adapted to it by evolution.
What might be a devastating experience for man or domestic pet is part of normal daily life in the wild. Wild animals lack the complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear and death. For the major part of any hunt the quarry is under no abnormal stress.
Stress in the short final stage of a hunt is equivalent to no more than that of strenous exercise. The kill, if it occurs, is almost instantaneous and above all certain.
Hunting leaves no wounded or damaged survivors.
Quarry that evade hounds rapidly return to normal activity.
Hunting performs a vital search and dispatch function for the weak and the sick.
And as importantly, especially for farmers, hunting keeps numbers within acceptable limits. The destruction an overpopulation of these animals can do far outweighs any harm in hunting, a fox will kill a shed of hens for the sake of it, sick badgers can spread said sickness to herds, pheasants were deliberately introduced to Ireland for the purpose of hunting, they are now an invasive species and damaging to biodiversity, the list goes on.

Just because something is alive doesn't mean it feels as you do, if you feel so strongly you should cut out the meat, fish and dairy, as it must be equally as cruel, while you are at it cut out the fruit and veg, after all intensive farming is damaging to biodiversity, live off what you find in hedgerows. Your only problem is your perception of the method.

I used to hunt, I hate the pompous air of it in the UK, where it is a fun game for the well off, but that's not the case here. Also bull fighting/ dog fighting etc. is in a completely different bracket, it is cruel, animals are sustained in a state of pain for prolonged periods of time, that just doesn't happen with hunting.

Anyway, I vow not to respond again for fear of complete derailing of the thread, PM/Open a new thread if you want to continue.

wonderfulname

wonderfulname wrote: »

That story is a lot different when you hear it from the other side, but just some broad facts on hunting for both you and my other reply;

Wild animals are used to hunting and being hunted. They are adapted to it by evolution.
What might be a devastating experience for man or domestic pet is part of normal daily life in the wild. Wild animals lack the complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear and death. For the major part of any hunt the quarry is under no abnormal stress.
Stress in the short final stage of a hunt is equivalent to no more than that of strenous exercise. The kill, if it occurs, is almost instantaneous and above all certain.
Hunting leaves no wounded or damaged survivors.
Quarry that evade hounds rapidly return to normal activity.
Hunting performs a vital search and dispatch function for the weak and the sick.
And as importantly, especially for farmers, hunting keeps numbers within acceptable limits. The destruction an overpopulation of these animals can do far outweighs any harm in hunting, a fox will kill a shed of hens for the sake of it, sick badgers can spread said sickness to herds, pheasants were deliberately introduced to Ireland for the purpose of hunting, they are now an invasive species and damaging to biodiversity, the list goes on.

Just because something is alive doesn't mean it feels as you do, if you feel so strongly you should cut out the meat, fish and dairy, as it must be equally as cruel, while you are at it cut out the fruit and veg, after all intensive farming is damaging to biodiversity, live off what you find in hedgerows. Your only problem is your perception of the method.

I used to hunt, I hate the pompous air of it in the UK, where it is a fun game for the well off, but that's not the case here. Also bull fighting/ dog fighting etc. is in a completely different bracket, it is cruel, animals are sustained in a state of pain for prolonged periods of time, that just doesn't happen with hunting.

Anyway, I vow not to respond again for fear of complete derailing of the thread, PM/Open a new thread if you want to continue.

I don't see any reason not to reply here. I have no intention of derailing the thread, which is here to discuss various aspects of the manifesto. There are already several pages about same sex marraige.

Firstly, I'd like to hear your side of the story re: the stag hunt which invaded a schoolyard. Are you saying it never happened?

I'm amazed that you think animals are somehow incapable of feeling fear, and that a hunt is a nice little jaunt for them. I'm sure you've seen pets such as cats and dogs very frightened in certain situations, I know I have. So why wouldn't a stag feel the same?

I'm not going to get into my eating habits as they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we're having here.

I wasn't aware that stags posed any great danger to hens?

Dozen Wicked Words

wonderfulname wrote: »

I used to hunt, I hate the pompous air of it in the UK, where it is a fun game for the well off, but that's not the case here. Also bull fighting/ dog fighting etc. is in a completely different bracket, it is cruel, animals are sustained in a state of pain for prolonged periods of time, that just doesn't happen with hunting.

Anyway, I vow not to respond again for fear of complete derailing of the thread, PM/Open a new thread if you want to continue.

Here its a fun game for everyone, not just the pompous? <insert incredulous smiley here>. I see the killing of any animal for "sport", no matter what bows you put on it, no matter how long you think it may or may not take an animal to die, as wrong. I am sure wild animals are used to being hunted, by other wild animals, would hope that Man might have advanced a bit more than that.

Anyway, as you say, we will end up taking it further off thread. We have a simple difference of opinion, you are happy with that part of FG manifesto, I am not. I don't understand your view, you don't understand mine. C'est la Vie

Pete_Cavan

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I totally agree. But Fine Gael are doing the exact same thing!


The problem is, as you say, that when the government stops stimulating the construction sector we will be left at square one again. Stimulating construction will only prolong the necessary readjustment.


Such matters should be left to the market, which will find a stable equilibrium. By intervening so much in the construction sector the Fianna Fail government greatly distorted market signals - particularly relating to the labour market. A false signal was sent out to the effect that construction was a good career. So now we have too many construction workers, who are forced to re-skill or emigrate. Prolonging the false signal is simply ridiculous, I think.

From FG election manifesto;

As we fix the deficit in a way that restores confidence, a Fine Gael

Government will use the remaining funds in the NPRF, sell non-strategic state assets and restructure the commercial semi-state sector in order to finance €7 billion in extra investment in water services, telecommunications and energy. This will support demand and employment in the short-term, and provide the basis for sustainable, export-led jobs and growth for the next generation.

I agree with you that FF distorted and ultimately destroyed the market but FG are not doing the exact same thing, which other parties are. They understand that the jobs created directly from the investment will be short-term but that the infrastructure created by the investment will allow for sustainable jobs to be created indirectly. With a reliable and efficient energy supply, quality high speed broadband and plentiful clean water available, we will have an environment for new businesses to start up and existing businesses to develop which will generate jobs.

johnnyskeleton

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

IMO FG have the most credible jobs policy.

All the jobs policies focus on generalised ideas of creating jobs in construction (of anything so long as it is not houses or offices) or on some generalised rising tide argument.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

They are focusing on infrastructure that will mainly create jobs from its existence, as well as during their construction.

Good debate on Primetime tonight where Moore McDowell makes the good point that infrastructural projects are misallocations.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Every business in the country needs energy, broadband and water so improving the quality of these will make it easier to do business.

Souldn't the private companies in the first two areas step up to the plate there? As regards water, do you have any cost benefit analysis on that?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Also in the case of energy and broadband, lowering the price by introducing competition to the markets will reduce costs to consumers and buinesses.

Isn't that the opposite of a government strategy on jobs? Surely that is an argument in favour of a party that doesn't have a jobs strategy and is only interested in fixing our deficit?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Also FG policy of favouring cuts and not burdening people further with taxes will make for a better environment for doing business and creating jobs as well as encouraging consumer spending.

But they are not really. They claim to be in favour of cuts but have issued a manifesto full of new spending on all issues that are important to people. They are against tax increases but have big plans for all sorts of stealth taxes. They claim to be interested in letting the private sector create jobs, so why then do they need this rather silly "jobs strategy" of publically created jobs. They are just the same as every other populist party in Ireland.

Idbatterim

the thing is though, if competition was allowed in closed or protected sectors, there would be far more people working, earning alot less. When I think of the ridiculous salaries those in the ESB and god knows how many other semi states are on here, I reckon sell off the semi states etc and allow savage private sector competition. The entire motor tax system could probably become web based, privatise admin in HSE, possibly garda stations, fire stations the saving are endless! Another example is why the hell were the DAA awarded tender to run T2, if you look at OLeary he flys hundreds of millions over Europe, if he had extra incentive, god knows how many tourists he could bring in here.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Good debate on Primetime tonight where Moore McDowell makes the good point that infrastructural projects are misallocations.

He did not say that. He said they weren't automatically good resource allocations which is a very different statement.

Aard

FG manifesto, p. 2: "An Gaeilge".


Should have a séimhiú, lol.

Auctionmcd

Ghost Estate wrote: »

No property tax

Good stuff!

PARAGRAPH 16, property taxes will be imposed by Local Government. Stealth taxation as FG hide this as best they can. They will empower local county council to generate revenue through property taxes and increased rates.

jimaneejeebus

Any word on how their going to pay off the €200,000,000,000?

jimaneejeebus

'Smarter'' leaner' 'more efficient' 'better-looking nurses' 'nicer clocks in waiting rooms'

Auctionmcd

I would vote for that, as we arent going to have any other influences in Healthcare we might as well have something nice to look at while we are waiting on trolleys

dsmythy

Auctionmcd wrote: »

PARAGRAPH 16, property taxes will be imposed by Local Government. Stealth taxation as FG hide this as best they can. They will empower local county council to generate revenue through property taxes and increased rates.

That talks about making local government more powerful and accountable and also indicates three options each council would have other than property taxes to raise revenues. So no property tax.