Just lost respect for Kenny

Sully

Did you all expect a perfect government? I think they are doing much better than Fianna Fail, and would be better than any of our alternatives. Sad I know.

What was the specific issue you had with Kenny, Liam?

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

People who want to make a living without relying on welfare or dig-outs or false expenses are the workhorse of the economy...and what you do with a workhorse is hitch them to something heavy. The alternative is to be Greece.

No, the alternative is to have ethical people in power who have the will to close the false expenses loopholes and make welfare the "get by" option that it should be, and people should be damn glad of that if they ever do actually need it.

Flogging the workhorse to death is short-sighted in the extreme.

Liam Byrne

Sully wrote: »

Did you all expect a perfect government? I think they are doing much better than Fianna Fail, and would be better than any of our alternatives. Sad I know.

What was the specific issue you had with Kenny, Liam?

Defending something (actually, not even defending it but changing the subject) that he would have correctly complained about FF doing back in January......paying money to unguaranteed bondholders.

sanbrafyffe

well said,,,if they ever took the whole control we would be total screwed,,,there best in opposition

pconn062 wrote: »

Wow, if Sinn Fein are really our best option then we really are screwed.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, the alternative is to have ethical people in power who have the will to close the false expenses loopholes and make welfare the "get by" option that it should be, and people should be damn glad of that if they ever do actually need it.

Flogging the workhorse to death is short-sighted in the extreme.

The irony is that if the workhorses fall on hard times, they will be means tested even if they only want to apply for the miniscule 12 month back to Work allowance ! whereas if you fall into the much quoted 'Poor and Vulnerable' category, then you can live safely in the knowledge that few will have the temerity to suggest you get off your ass and find a job..... we are probably close to the point where siggestions like that will be regarded as a ' Hate Crime' :eek:

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

The irony is that if the workhorses fall on hard times, they will be means tested even if they only want to apply for the miniscule 12 month back to Work allowance ! whereas if you fall into the much quoted 'Poor and Vulnerable' category, then you can live safely in the knowledge that few will have the temerity to suggest you get off your ass and find a job..... we are probably close to the point where siggestions like that will be regarded as a ' Hate Crime' :eek:

Definitely. And if you bother to be an entrepreneur (something Ireland likes to claim that it is friendly towards) and become self-employed or set up your own business, then you have to damn well struggle on through the hard times because if that business fails you will get absolutely no support or income.

Meanwhile Ahern gets a year's salary and has no tax-clearance cert and there's no comeback despite him illegally being in the Dáil while wrecking the country, and Callely submits a forged invoice for mobile phones with a company that no longer exists and hasn't yet been charged or jailed.

Meanwhile we drive our older cars over potholed roads that the government can't afford to fix, and their response : ensure that those with money can buy new cars and get lower tax while forcing us to get our cars tested more often due to said ****e roads.

And if a toll company is charging too much and therefore getting less traffic (not to mention the additional aspect of less people working also impacting on them) ? Well sure no problem - we'll just "compensate" them out of the wages of ordinary people too.

I'd call the country a cesspit if it weren't for the fact that The Greens would charge me to inspect it instead of simply fining those responsible for the pollution.

Son Of A Vidic

Another friend of mine just folded his business due to cash flow problems. His business was going really well, but he had two major problems. He had to take a lot of customers to court because they were not settling bills. And the banks who we now support on our shoulders, would not provide credit to help cash-flow. Different government alright, but the same shít continues.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Defending something (actually, not even defending it but changing the subject) that he would have correctly complained about FF doing back in January......paying money to unguaranteed bondholders.

But thats the joy of being in opposition. You can tell the voters what they want to hear - the popular thing, which in the long run is not in the interests of the country. Kenny could promise to burn bondholders, save roscommon a and e etc. but in reality he knew the course the government at the time was taking was not right or wrong but the only one. FF, the populist party to be taking the most unpopular decisions in the history of the state would certainly have seemed odd to them. So odd that they were forced.

Now in government, the fact is they have to make unpopular decisions. Quite rightly too, populism got us to where we are today.

hallelujajordan

anymore wrote: »

I feel pretty much the same myself...voting FG used to seem the least worst option byt contact with FG politicans over a period has made me question that too. Funnily enough one FG councillor in a friends area who does seem to be reasonably good is, wait for it..... a former FF councillor !
As the americans say, go figure !

You both have other options. . you both seem to spend a lot of energy channeling your political frustrations onto boards. . you both have the option to channel your energy into the political system . . It's more difficult than continually criticising the political system on here; you will learn that in politics there is a need to compromise and that there may be times that you have to abandon that moral high ground you share in order to get things done. . . but more people with your strong principles became a part of the system, perhaps the system may change ?

hallelujajordan

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But thats the joy of being in opposition. You can tell the voters what they want to hear - the popular thing, which in the long run is not in the interests of the country. Kenny could promise to burn bondholders, save roscommon a and e etc. but in reality he knew the course the government at the time was taking was not right or wrong but the only one. FF, the populist party to be taking the most unpopular decisions in the history of the state would certainly have seemed odd to them. So odd that they were forced.

Now in government, the fact is they have to make unpopular decisions. Quite rightly too, populism got us to where we are today.

What I find bizarre is that Liam and others are somehow surprised by this turn of events. . . that perhaps FG jumped the populist bandwagon to pick up votes and are now struggling to deliver on their populist promises . . Shocker !!

Do you (ie . . Liam et al) really believe that FG would be paying back unguaranteed bondholders if they didn't have to ? There may be reasons that are not visible to us that are forcing FG to make such decisions. I said the same about some of Brian Lenihans decisions and I will allow FG the same defence.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

you will learn that in politics there is a need to compromise and that there may be times that you have to abandon that moral high ground you share in order to get things done

No. Preferences should be open for compromise, but moral issues should not.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

. . but more people with your strong principles became a part of the system, perhaps the system may change ?

Unlikely. There isn't even the remotest opening for me in the current system.

Do you (ie . . Liam et al) really believe that FG would be paying back unguaranteed bondholders if they didn't have to ? There may be reasons that are not visible to us that are forcing FG to make such decisions.

Then let them tell us the reasons. Be honest for a change. Keeping us in the dark and shovelling bull**** at us is what you do with mushrooms, not people.

The issue I have, however, is that while the above may be true regarding the elephant in the room that FF left us with, the inertia in relation to fixing the smaller problems - the ones where there is no reason not to fix stuff - leaves a massive question mark over their priorities.

Idiots scream "sexism" over a stupid insult, and nod and wink in relation to fraudulent payments and use of telephones and allow bankers off with massive payments and bonuses, unable to change the rules. Not one person forced to resign for bringing the Dáil into disrepute, Ahern still swanning around unchallenged, and meanwhile waffle is the order of the day when they are asked a straight question.

But when it comes to changing rules about dress codes and the illegal VRT and even the bull**** of calling extra taxes "levies", they have no problem changing rules and undermining household budgets.

Give me a decent, fair, ethical party with vision and an idea of a fairer society, one where community values and fairness are put ahead of stroke-pulling and profit and lucrative state licences, and I'll join up and work my ass off to promote them.

View

Is this a case of "Come back the Greens, all is forgiven"?

Dannyboy83

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, replaced by: other politician, if you see what I mean.

That assumes that another corrupt politician will step up for the job.
Which is what does happen, in the current system, when there is no deterrent.

Introduce the deterrent, keep ousting the corrupt and lying politicians, and sooner or later, you will achieve the desired result.
It works in other countries - think of the contrast between the expenses scandal in the UK vs Republic of Ireland.
Some of their politicians were booted vs Ivor Callely awarded €17k by the High Court:pac:
That's the very reason we need a recall mechanism.
Saying nothing of the likes of Michael Lowry.

If every competitor in the 100m is subject to mandatory drug testing, they have to either:
A) Develop new ways to cheat, finding ways to stay one step ahead of the tests (only so far you can go)
or
Become honest

Not sure if you saw the recent piece by Shane Ross on the Public Accounts Committee:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/shane-ross/shane-ross-fg-amp-labour-are-good-ffers-2800003.html

You can sum up the article in three words he wrote: Nothing is changing.

Actually, it doesn't, quite. Fianna Fáil's regular habit was to make a lot of promises in the election campaign, make cuts and unpopular decisions as soon as they were in power, then ramp up spending and populism in the election year again.

I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying that we can assume a couple of things as constants:

1. people like to hear that they will get nice things

True. But never 100% of the people.
Why? Well, imo, because somebody always has to pay for somebody else's nice thing.

If the public sector get nice things, at the cost of the everyone else, you immediately have an equilibrium - which otherwise wouldn't (and currently doesn't) exist.
If the social welfare bill is unsustainable....
If politicians use smear tactics about brothels...
If the Taoiseach goes on the radio drunk...
If the new leader of Fianna Fail has received questionable payments from developers into his wife's bank account....
If FG say they will reform expenditure to get elected, then turn around and announce plans to raise taxes by €10 billion.........;
.
.
etc.

If FG say they will keep Roscommon hospital open, then they have better have a credible reason to explain to people why they are forced to close it.

You can never satisfy 100% of the electorate anyway, you just satisfy the democratic majority.



2. politicians like people to like them

Which is why they lie.
If they have to tell the truth or face the consequences, that option is now gone.
If they want people to like them, they now at least have to try to achieve something.

3. everyone knows it's easier to promise than deliver
Another symptom of the current problem. You can't go to a client, undercut all your competitors and tell him you'll set up an entire Social Networking platform for €5, because you can't afford to do that.
If you do it, you either accept the €5 or you get fired.
It doesn't work like that - you have to give a realistic assessment.

A politician can lie, say they'll do it and throw in a server for free, they undercut you - the honest competitor, but then they are immune from the consequences: "Sorry Sir, but that's gonna cost €5k, and there is no free server, but you've signed the contract so you can't dismiss me"

Business doesn't work like that.
Irish Politics does.


4. people forget exactly what nice thing was promised
Wouldn't matter if the people believe the politician is doing a good job.
"So we didn't get the motorway to Limerick, well, all the roads in Cork in are fantastic condition (LOL!), 1 out of 2 ain't bad"

5. people often object to things only in the short term

Not necessarily. I don't think people stop objecting, unless their actual opinion changes, they just prioritize.
(Or in Ireland, become apathetic/disillusioned.)

I presume you still have a Green agenda, simply you accept that it's on the backburner for now.
If environmental issues are no longer a concern, then your politics have changed, not your objectivity.
If they're still a concern, but a lesser concern, you have re-prioritized.

That, to me, means that the politician's reaction to constant threat of recall will be to make continual promises, lay claim to everything positive, and never do anything that runs even the slightest risk of being taken badly in the short term.

Current system as I see it:
"continual promises (lies)" - check
"lay claim to everything positive" - check,

"and never do anything that runs even the slightest risk of being taken badly in the short term." - a matter of perspective, as I said - somebody always has to pay for somebody else's nice thing - but check.

Should a government not have the ability to make decisions that are unpopular?

I don't see why they would necessarily lose that ability - unless they lie in order to achieve it.
If you skip the informing people part, then you just have unrest.
If you skip the democratic majority part, then you're not a democracy.

Is 10 billion worth of cuts going to be popular?
No.

What's the alternative?
10 billion worth of tax increases.

There is no popular or likeable decision.
There is a more popular and more likeable decision tho to the democratic majority.

FG didn't achieve a near majority by stating they would increase taxes by 10 billion. They knew that was the more unpopular decision. It's not very democratic to ignore the less unpopular decision.

Dannyboy83

Could people stop saying we got what we voted for?
No, we didn't get what we voted for.
That's why we are (understandably) pissed off.

If I go to Toyota to buy a car, and they give me a motorbike - I didn't get what I paid for. And they don't have a leg to stand on in court.

If we were expected to vote for politicians based on the opposite of what they said, then I would have been voting for the ULA.

Dannyboy83

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Wanting better isn't naive, but expecting it probably is. I can't think of many/any country that has honest politicians, it's not just a problem for Ireland, it's a problem with Democracy and the electorate not being very intelligent. Politicians won't tell the truth because for the majority of them they won't get elected.

The electorate vote for what's on offer.
You cannot vote for what is not on offer.
The problem is, the politicians are allowed to lie about what is on offer, without consequence.

If I tell you I can teach you to speak Chinese in 3 months, and 2 weeks in, you realize I can't speak Chinese myself, I get fired.

If a politician tells you he can teach you to speak Chinese in 3 months, and 2 weeks in, you realize he can't speak Chinese myself, it's your tough sh1t.
So what is there to stop the other politician who can't speak Chinese, to claim he will do it in 2 months and he will pay you!

I can't think of another profession where this is accepted!

All you have to do is look at us at the moment, in a massive crisis where we are running a huge deficit and the majority of people don't want to pay extra taxes, which is why they voted for FG and not the ULA!
don't want welfare cuts, Disagree, plenty do which is why they voted for FG and not the ULA!
people in the public service don't want wage cuts, But plenty outside the PS do want to see PS wages cuts, which is why they voted for FG and not the ULA!
don't want job cuts. But plenty outside the PS do want to see PS jobs cut, which is why they voted for FG and not the ULA!

And FG are in power, not the ULA - so why are we getting things we didn't vote for, and not getting things we did vote for?

Dannyboy83

DexyDrain wrote: »

The most amazing thing about this whole saga is how few people realise we are in every sense at all out economic war, we are swimming with the sharks while trying to plug our wounds and swim at the same time. Britain would have been overrun within months if Churchill had just come out and said 'look the spitfires and hurricanes are being blown out of the skies faster than we can build them and their pilots are on the verge of complete physical and mental exhaustion.' It would have been honest, it would have given people pretty accurate expectations, but it would also have lost the war. Germany abandoned the invasion because they did not know how close to collapse the RAF really was. National interest often means being extremely tactical with the information you have to hand.

That wouldn't have been honest, that would have been defeatist.
There is a difference.

He said

"I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

Then he said:

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end.
We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

And then he did it.

He didn't claim it would be a cakewalk, but he was honest without being defeatist. The British people knew what they were in for and to this day their resolve is still spoken about. If he had lied, their resolve would have been broken.

===

Churchill didn't say
"We will eliminate the Nazis by 1940"

and he equally didn't say
"We will fight on the beaches, yada yada yada", then as soon as he was in power, strike up an alliance with Hitler, or surrender.

He said what the did, and he did what he said.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Completely uncalled for. Will I bother reporting it or will you do the decent thing and delete it yourself ?

Only yesterday I warned you about not threatening people with reporting their posts. Seriously, do this again and I'll ban you from this forum for a while. Do not start an argument with me about this.

DexyDrain

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That wouldn't have been honest, that would have been defeatist.
There is a difference.

He said

Then he said:

And then he did it.

He didn't claim it would be a cakewalk, but he was honest without being defeatist. The British people knew what they were in for and to this day their resolve is still spoken about. If he had lied, their resolve would have been broken.

===

Churchill didn't say
"We will eliminate the Nazis by 1940"

and he equally didn't say
"We will fight on the beaches, yada yada yada", then as soon as he was in power, strike up an alliance with Hitler, or surrender.

He said what the did, and he did what he said.

So you agree with me then. Churchill never said 'we're banjaxed' or we should default(surrender) sooner rather than later. Selling bonds last September at a hugely over subscribed auction at just below 5 and just slightly above 6 per cent would not have been possible if the government had adopted the line from the opposition and the celebrity/ego economists.

Churchill had the advantage though in that the opposition were not screaming down any microphone put in front of them "what aircraft we have left are mostly inferior, our tactics are plainly stupid (the squadron formations were dumb) and our Prime Minister and the cabinet are incompetent buffoons who barely managed to evacuate our defeated army from beaches you can almost see on a clear day".

He did what was necessary and within his control and was very lucky that good fortune rather than an an ability to actually repel an invasion saw them through. Unlike us, they got to work rather than drowned themselves in hopeless masochism.

anymore

DexyDrain wrote: »

So you agree with me then. Churchill never said 'we're banjaxed' or we should default(surrender) sooner rather than later. Selling bonds last September at a hugely over subscribed auction at just below 5 and just slightly above 6 per cent would not have been possible if the government had adopted the line from the opposition and the celebrity/ego economists.

Churchill had the advantage though in that the opposition were not screaming down any microphone put in front of them "what aircraft we have left are mostly inferior, our tactics are plainly stupid (the squadron formations were dumb) and our Prime Minister and the cabinet are incompetent buffoons who barely managed to evacuate our defeated army from beaches you can almost see on a clear day".

He did what was necessary and within his control and was very lucky that good fortune rather than an an ability to actually repel an invasion saw them through. Unlike us, they got to work rather than drowned themselves in hopeless masochism.

Churchill also had the advantage of being half sozzled on brandy for most of the war. He also made a thorough nuisance of himself as far as trying to interfere in operational planning was concerned.
Though to be honest, it is difficult to see what relevance comaprisons between Kenny and Churchill have.

DexyDrain

anymore wrote: »

Churchill also had the advantage of being half sozzled on brandy for most of the war. He also made a thorough nuisance of himself as far as trying to interfere in operational planning was concerned.
Though to be honest, it is difficult to see what relevance comaprisons between Kenny and Churchill have.

If Varadkar, Burton et al were around at the time Goering would have been delighted with the tip off that they were on their knees and would have gone back to bombing airfields after switching to cities. Churchill displayed resolve and determination, made everyone feel their contribution counted and was relied on and promoted a spirit of defiance against the odds. Here, we preferred the exact opposite path, rejoicing in the words of those who made us feel our contributions and resolve were pathetic and pointless, our government idiotic, our choices taken stupid but somehow our options were fully open to whatever they could dream up in their cabin in the woods.

professore

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure I'll get some stick for saying this, but there is an unpleasant possibility here, which is that what Fine Gael are doing they're doing because it's in the best interests of the country. Once you set aside the fantasies of telling everyone to stuff it and somehow walking away debt-free, the incoming government were going to have the same set of options as the outgoing one, and the same limited number of real-world options for dealing with them, because they were donning the strait-jacket prepared over the decade of the bubble.

Paying back the bank debt isn't about the banks, it's about the deficit. The deficit will not be sorted by 2013, or 2014, or whenever we're supposed to be re-entering the markets - and if the deficit isn't sorted, about the only option at this point is to look like people who pay their debts no matter whether they "guaranteed" them or not, because otherwise there is no chance of return to the markets at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I initially disagreed with this analysis, but having done some research on the matter I have to say that unfortunately you are right. We need to reduce our budget deficit - i.e. spend less than we take in - or we are rightly in trouble.

anymore

The British people seemed to make thier opinion as regards Churchill pretty clear after the second World War
The reality is that in times of crisis most people tend to rally to the cause and some will find resources of strength and determination that had previousuly laid dormant. That appears to be human nature. If we are to look to World War 11 for inspiration and examples of heroic effort above and beyond ther normal expectation of humans, then it is to the russians we should be looking. However that is never done so perhaps we should keep our foucus on the here and now.

DexyDrain

anymore wrote: »

The British people seemed to make thier opinion as regards Churchill pretty clear after the second World War
The reality is that in times of crisis most people tend to rally to the cause and some will find resources of strength and determination that had previousuly laid dormant. That appears to be human nature. If we are to look to World War 11 for inspiration and examples of heroic effort above and beyond ther normal expectation of humans, then it is to the russians we should be looking. However that is never done so perhaps we should keep our foucus on the here and now.

For sure, the Russians or Churchill or the Japanese, we could look in lots of places for examples, just not at our own pre-election opposition, media and celeb/ego economists. That's my point.

Here's what an alaysis of the Swedish banking, budgetary and financial crisis of the early 90's, which was very similar to our own both in how it originated and in how it was managed, had to say:

"On top of this—and perhaps the most important factor— there was political consensus. The government sought and received backing from the main opposition party. That party was also allowed to appoint Board members of the Bank Support Authority so that it could be continuously informed and influence decisions. That was important both for political legitimacy at home and for credibility abroad—investors could be sure that the system we had created would be upheld even if there were a change in government."

http://www.riksbank.se/templates/speech.aspx?id=1752

We did not have this. Once the government decided to adopt the only proven solutions to such crises from experience in Sweden and in Asia and the path was set down, the Dail should have committed to it. Instead, We had opposition salivating at the prospect of seats at the cabinet table and a knife in the back of FF. We were completely let down by them. Anyone trying to calm the situation was ridiculed and told to f off. We just didn't know how to handle ourselves in a crisis any more than in a boom.

Liam Byrne

View wrote: »

Is this a case of "Come back the Greens, all is forgiven"?

Absolutely not! They still voted in favour of bailouts & NAMA, and they u-turn on stuff just as quickly in terms of their "polluter pays" "principles".

"we'll tax you more so that you'll use the bus"
"er....there is no bus"
"well that's because you chose to live in the countryside"
"er....I work from home and so don't pollute"
"well then buy a new car and get taxed less"
"er....I don't have enough money to do that, and I don't borrow more than I can afford to pay back"
"tough **** - and we're using some of your money to bail out people who didn't have that sensible approach"

whatstherush

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Absolutely not! They still voted in favour of bailouts & NAMA, and they u-turn on stuff just as quickly in terms of their "polluter pays" "principles".

"we'll tax you more so that you'll use the bus"
"er....there is no bus"
"well that's because you chose to live in the countryside"
"er....I work from home and so don't pollute"
"well then buy a new car and get taxed less"
"er....I don't have enough money to do that, and I don't borrow more than I can afford to pay back"
"tough **** - and we're using some of your money to bail out people who didn't have that sensible approach"

I cycled to work today, because of their bike to work scheme.

Liam Byrne

whatstherush wrote: »

I cycled to work today, because of their bike to work scheme.

Good for you. You obviously live on a non-rural road where cycling doesn't involve overgrown hedges and dodging potholes.

View

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The electorate vote for what's on offer.
You cannot vote for what is not on offer.

We live in a democracy and had an election within the last five months. This was fairly well flagged in advance.

You and/or others who felt there was something that was "not on offer" to the electorate could have either stood for election as a (new) political party, or as independents, committed to offering the electorate the option of voting for whatever you believed wasn't on offer.

The absence of citizens and/or a (new) political party offering the electorate the opportunity to vote for whatever you believe the electorate should have been offered to them would point to either:
a) the electorate has little, if any, interest in it, or,
b) absence of commitment by the relevant citizens to offering the electorate such a choice (which in practice essentially amounts to the same thing as the electorate not being interested in it).

There is no obligation on the politicians in the other political parties to set up a new political party offering whatever you and/or others believe the electorate should be offered, or for that matter for politicians to advocate policies they do not favour. Instead that is entirely up to citizens who hold such beliefs.

Liam Byrne

View wrote: »

There is no obligation on the politicians in the other political parties to set up a new political party offering whatever you and/or others believe the electorate should be offered, or for that matter for politicians to advocate policies they do not favour.

Agreed. However the biggest issue in Ireland is where politicians advocate those policies pre-election and then immediately abandon them once they have been elected and are safe from reproach for 5 years.

Dannyboy83

View wrote: »

We live in a democracy and had an election within the last five months. This was fairly well flagged in advance.

You and/or others who felt there was something that was "not on offer" to the electorate could have either stood for election as a (new) political party, or as independents, committed to offering the electorate the option of voting for whatever you believed wasn't on offer.

The absence of citizens and/or a (new) political party offering the electorate the opportunity to vote for whatever you believe the electorate should have been offered to them would point to either:
a) the electorate has little, if any, interest in it, or,
b) absence of commitment by the relevant citizens to offering the electorate such a choice (which in practice essentially amounts to the same thing as the electorate not being interested in it).

or c) That parlimentary democracies such as Ireland/UK, do not produce left fielders such as Barrack Obama. Parliamentary democracies have to be scaled, there is no shortcut. You grease the right palms, you say the right things, you serve your time, you scratch the right backs, you turn a blind eye, and maybe....just maybe, you'll eventually be in a position to influence something

There is no obligation on the politicians in the other political parties to set up a new political party offering whatever you and/or others believe the electorate should be offered, or for that matter for politicians to advocate policies they do not favour. Instead that is entirely up to citizens who hold such beliefs.

Anyway, I think you completely misunderstood my point.
I've never spoken of what was 'not on offer' in this thread.
I voted for what was on offer.
That is what I expected to get.
That is not what we got.

I've reiterated it about 15 times in this thread, using analogies from learning Chinese to cars to builders and so on but I'll go again if it helps to clarify:

I walk into a food court - there are lots of different restaurants.

I can't order burger and chips, because there is no burger stand.
So I go to a steakhouse and I order a steak.
What do I get: A vegetarian quiche.
I don't care if the steaks are all sold out, that's false advertising - I would have gone to the French restaurant if I wanted a quiche!

I couldn't order the burger and chips because that wasn't available.
But it's unethical to advertise the steak, if that's not available either, just to get my business! You are stealing business from the honest restaurant!

Dannyboy83

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Agreed. However the biggest issue in Ireland is where politicians advocate those policies pre-election and then immediately abandon them once they have been elected and are safe from reproach for 5 years.

HALLE-FLIPPING-LUJAH!