Opposition to table motion of 'no confidence' in Government over budget

Ghandee

Didn't take long.

This should seriously put the wind up an already fragile coalition.

A NATIONWIDE campaign against the property tax has been launched by Sinn Fein.

The opposition confirmed it will also table a motion of no confidence in the Government in the Dail next week.

Party leader Gerry Adams accused Fine Gael and Labour of breaking their contract with the electorate and tearing up their election promises. "During the election these parties stood on a platform of standing up for Ireland's interests in Europe; of 'not one more red cent' to be given to the banks; of protecting child benefit," said Mr Adams. "The government not only failed to keep their promises but they have taken the extreme opposite approach.

"They have introduced a savage, regressive budget which among other measures sees a new tax on the family home, cuts to child benefit and payments to carers. "The budget targets ordinary working families and the most vulnerable in our society and further damages the potential for economic growth and recovery."

Elsewhere Sinn Fein activists across the Republic of Ireland have been mobilising against the family home tax, introduced in last week's budget. Households will be hit with a 0.18% property tax rate, costing an average 250-300 euro a year, with a higher mansion tax rate of 0.25% for homes worth one million euro plus. Elected representatives, activists and supporters are angry at the tax hike, as well as cuts, are taking part in protests, information stalls and leaflet drops.

Deputy leader Mary Lou McDonald said campaigners will be active across the state this weekend and all next week. She also called for a major mobilisation at the Dail next Friday when the legislation is being debated.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/opposition-to-table-motion-of-no-confidence-in-government-over-budget-3319600.html

In fairness the last budget probably has upset enough of the electorate now that a change of political leadership could be inevitable.

bcmf

What is needed is for some of the sheep that are the back benchers to put their money where their mouth is and break ranks and vote with the opposition which they wont do, as usual.
That would mean they would have to get off the gravy train and perhaps live with us mere mortals and maybe even have to vouch for their expenses. Cant see that happening!

Ghandee

bcmf wrote: »

What is needed is for some of the sheep that are the back benchers to put their money where their mouth is and break ranks and vote with the opposition which they wont do, as usual.
That would mean they would have to get off the gravy train and perhaps live with us mere mortals and maybe even have to vouch for their expenses. Cant see that happening!

In fairness, expenses must be vouched from now on, as per the last budget.
Funnily enough, politicians can take two options regarding their expenses, an unvouched route, or a vouched/receipts provided one.

Have a guess which one entitles them to almost double the amount?

Mr.Micro

Ghandee wrote: »

This should seriously put the wind up an already fragile coalition.



In fairness the last budget probably has upset enough of the electorate now that a change of political leadership could be inevitable.

I very much doubt that. What is the alternative to the current Government? FF with FG? What did people expect in the budget when austerity is living here? The property tax is here to stay and no matter who gets in next time they will keep the property tax but glad that it was another Government that brought it in.

Good loser

The Sinn Fein opposition to the property tax is entirely bogus and opportunistic. If they were elected in the morning with an overall majority they wouldn't dream of abolishing it - nor would they be allowed to. Even if the IMF went it would be a hugely negative signal to the bond markets.

Noticed Pearse Doherty last week touting the wealth tax and listing all the countries in Europe with one or planning one. While every country in Europe (bar Malta) has a residential property tax - and to him this is irrelevant. Hypocrisy.

raymon

I propose a vote of no confidence in the opposition

guinnessdrinker

bcmf wrote: »

What is needed is for some of the sheep that are the back benchers to put their money where their mouth is and break ranks and vote with the opposition which they wont do, as usual.
That would mean they would have to get off the gravy train and perhaps live with us mere mortals and maybe even have to vouch for their expenses. Cant see that happening!

I can't see any of the Labour backbenchers voting against the budget. They are just throwing shapes in an attempt to make themselves look better, pure optics.

thebman

I'm so surprised the oppsition don't like the budget.

Basically this is just going through the motions, same as any other opposition would do.

They'd be terrified if the government actully fell and they might have to take over. Easier to shout from the sidelines.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

In fairness the last budget probably has upset enough of the electorate now that a change of political leadership could be inevitable.

Ah Ghandee, has a week gone by since the Government was formed that you haven't predicted their imminent demise?

djpbarry

Ghandee wrote: »

This should seriously put the wind up an already fragile coalition.

Why should the government be worried about Sinn Fein being Sinn Fein?

bcmf wrote: »

What is needed is for some of the sheep that are the back benchers to put their money where their mouth is and break ranks and vote with the opposition which they wont do, as usual.

Why would Labour and FG backbenchers want to align themselves with Sinn Fein?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Myself, I prefer to share this photo around, I feel it gets the message across far more efficiently:

I suppose you hold exactly the same opinions now as you did in 1994?

hatrickpatrick

djpbarry wrote: »

Why should the government be worried about Sinn Fein being Sinn Fein?
Why would Labour and FG backbenchers want to align themselves with Sinn Fein?
I suppose you hold exactly the same opinions now as you did in 1994?

I was a 5 year old kid in 1994 - and I didn't use my opinions to try and discredit somebody by claiming I wouldn't impose them myself.

I don't exactly see how something which was "immoral" in '94 is no longer immoral, unless we're going to claim that "morality" is dependent on external factors. Of course, I wouldn't be so foolish as to use a word as strong as "immoral" about something I wasn't absolutely committed to. For example, I would use the word "immoral" to describe imposing a political regime on an unwilling population (re, for example, Israel in East Jerusalem and the West Bank) - and I will not change that position when it suddenly becomes convenient for me to do so.

Of course, the very same people who constantly accuse today's opposition of making statements which they would instantly throw away if elected to government, will probably defend the same behavior from the current government when it was in opposition. It's called having double standards - which a lot of the pro austerity-without-justice crowd seem to enthusiastically embrace.

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't exactly see how something which was "immoral" in '94 is no longer immoral...

A property tax was not immoral in '94 and is not immoral now.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course, the very same people who constantly accuse today's opposition of making statements which they would instantly throw away if elected to government, will probably defend the same behavior from the current government when it was in opposition.

If Enda said the above in the run-up to the last election, you might have a point. But dragging up 18-year-old soundbites is pretty meaningless in politics.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's called having double standards...

Well now, referring back to a certain party mentioned in the OP, if it's double standards you're after, then look no further than Gerry and Co. for the benchmark against which all double standards shall be judged.

hatrickpatrick

djpbarry wrote: »

A property tax was not immoral in '94 and is not immoral now.

In your opinion. Mr Kenny clearly disagrees. Or rather, he disagreed when it suited him politically.

If Enda said the above in the run-up to the last election, you might have a point. But dragging up 18-year-old soundbites is pretty meaningless in politics.

And perhaps that's everything that's wrong with our political system?

Well now, referring back to a certain party mentioned in the OP, if it's double standards you're after, then look no further than Gerry and Co. for the benchmark against which all double standards shall be judged.

I agree, which is why I despise Sinn Fein. Doesn't for one minute mean I have an obligation to support or defend anyone else.

jimmycrackcorm

Gerry Adams thinks the government are breaking their contract.

Wonder what contract that would be?

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...he disagreed when it suited him politically.

Probably. And people bought it. So is the problem the politician or the people who elected him on the back of populist promises?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And perhaps that's everything that's wrong with our political system?

Maybe, but I still think holding someone to something they said almost two decades ago is a bit silly. Whatever their reasons, people are entitled to change their minds. As I said earlier, if this was a statement that was made in the run up to the last election, then you might have a point.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I was a 5 year old kid in 1994 - and I didn't use my opinions to try and discredit somebody by claiming I wouldn't impose them myself.

I don't exactly see how something which was "immoral" in '94 is no longer immoral, unless we're going to claim that "morality" is dependent on external factors. Of course, I wouldn't be so foolish as to use a word as strong as "immoral" about something I wasn't absolutely committed to. For example, I would use the word "immoral" to describe imposing a political regime on an unwilling population (re, for example, Israel in East Jerusalem and the West Bank) - and I will not change that position when it suddenly becomes convenient for me to do so.

Of course, the very same people who constantly accuse today's opposition of making statements which they would instantly throw away if elected to government, will probably defend the same behavior from the current government when it was in opposition. It's called having double standards - which a lot of the pro austerity-without-justice crowd seem to enthusiastically embrace.

You're exceptionally gullible htp. Words like truth, trust and morality are inappropriate in politics. It cannot be any other way.

Sean Lemass - possibly our best ever prime minister - said the first thing to do after an election was to abandon all the promises.

This was an exaggeration perhaps but if the choice was to implement all or abandon all any sensible administration would do the latter.

In the US Lyndon Johnson brought in civil rights for blacks - the most significant societal change in the US since the civil war. He wouldn't have had a hope of getting elected in 1964 if this had been one of his promises.

He also was exceptionally corrupt in the financial sense - being in the pay of the construction and oil industries in Texas.

There was, of course, one exception, one person referred to throughout his political career as 'The Incorruptible' - Maximilien Robespierre.

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

You're exceptionally gullible htp. Words like truth, trust and morality are inappropriate in politics. It cannot be any other way.

Sean Lemass - possibly our best ever prime minister - said the first thing to do after an election was to abandon all the promises.

This was an exaggeration perhaps but if the choice was to implement all or abandon all any sensible administration would do the latter.

In the US Lyndon Johnson brought in civil rights for blacks - the most significant societal change in the US since the civil war. He wouldn't have had a hope of getting elected in 1964 if this had been one of his promises.

He also was exceptionally corrupt in the financial sense - being in the pay of the construction and oil industries in Texas.

There was, of course, one exception, one person referred to throughout his political career as 'The Incorruptible' - Maximilien Robespierre.

And your stating "it cannot be any other way" is why things will never actually change. Too many people are willing to bend over and allow the government to get away with almost anything it wants to get away with.
What should I tell my kids about government, then? "We live in a Republic, which means that we tell people it's run by everyone for everyone, but in reality it's run by a bunch of liars for the benefit of a small clique of bankers and corporate leaders"?

Not a chance in hell. If the system is that screwed then we need to change it.

hatrickpatrick

djpbarry wrote: »

Probably. And people bought it. So is the problem the politician or the people who elected him on the back of populist promises?

Neither, the problem is an electoral system which doesn't penalize rampant dishonesty.

Maybe, but I still think holding someone to something they said almost two decades ago is a bit silly. Whatever their reasons, people are entitled to change their minds. As I said earlier, if this was a statement that was made in the run up to the last election, then you might have a point.

People are entitled to change their minds, sure, but it becomes seriously dubious when the situation in question is stating an absolute position of morality in order to damage an opponent, and then turning around once in power and doing exactly the opposite.

Ghandee

djpbarry wrote: »

A property tax was not immoral in '94 and is not immoral now.

Are you calling Enda a liar?

It was he that said it

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Neither, the problem is an electoral system which doesn't penalize rampant dishonesty.

I disagree. The problem is the electorate buying into unrealistic pre-election promises. The third-level fees issue is a good example. If I were still living in Ireland and I was told by an election candidate that the reintroduction of fees was completely out of the question, my immediate response would be “so how do you intend to fund third-level education?”.

The problem with Ireland is the blind acceptance of unrealistic promises, followed by disbelief and rage when said unrealistic promises are not kept.

oscarBravo

Ghandee wrote: »

Are you calling Enda a liar?

It was he that said it

You haven't changed your mind on anything whatsoever in the last 18 years?

Wow.

Ghandee

oscarBravo wrote: »

You haven't changed your mind on anything whatsoever in the last 18 years?

Wow.

I'd be confident enough in saying that I've kept the same mindset on morally wrong/right issues this last eighteen years or so, yeah.

Maybe Enda could explain why it is now morally right, just, and completely fair to tax a persons home.

I wouldn't count on it though, if I asked him now, he'd be likely to throw up something that happened twenty or thirty years ago to park the question I'd imagine.



The irony in that

oscarBravo

Ghandee wrote: »

I'd be confident enough in saying that I've kept the same mindset on morally wrong/right issues this last eighteen years or so, yeah.

I most certainly haven't. I'd be horrified to think that I had.

Ghandee

oscarBravo wrote: »

I most certainly haven't. I'd be horrified to think that I had.

Good for you, though you're not asking the nation to put their hands in their pockets and pay hundreds of euro because you've changed your principles.

Mull over that one.

oscarBravo

Ghandee wrote: »

Good for you, though you're not asking the nation to put their hands in their pockets and pay hundreds of euro because you've changed your principles.

Mull over that one.

I'm not sure what's to mull over. You seem to be suggesting that Enda shouldn't change his mind because you'd rather he didn't, which is somewhat at odds with the idea of "principles".

Ghandee

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure what's to mull over. You seem to be suggesting that Enda shouldn't change his mind because you'd rather he didn't, which is somewhat at odds with the idea of "principles".

No, all I'm mulling over is why he suddenly has decided that it is now, contary to what he previously said, it actually is 'morally right, just, and fair' that he taxes the family home.

I dont think he has answered that to date.


When he does, I'll stop mulling over it.

Ghandee

Colm Keaveney has now joined the Independent benches in the Dail I see......

Good loser

Ghandee wrote: »

No, all I'm mulling over is why he suddenly has decided that it is now, contary to what he previously said, it actually is 'morally right, just, and fair' that he taxes the family home.

I dont think he has answered that to date.


When he does, I'll stop mulling over it.

It doesn't have to be 'morally right, just and fair'. Just legal. Your responsibility as a citizen is to obey the law.

I was in southern India last Christmas (ref Ghandee) and in all the houses property tax was paid - up to €400 per annum.

There were property taxes on the family home in Ireland from 1860 until 1978; since then the State has paid the rates to the local councils on behalf of the householders. But the State is now broke.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And your stating "it cannot be any other way" is why things will never actually change. Too many people are willing to bend over and allow the government to get away with almost anything it wants to get away with.
What should I tell my kids about government, then? "We live in a Republic, which means that we tell people it's run by everyone for everyone, but in reality it's run by a bunch of liars for the benefit of a small clique of bankers and corporate leaders"?

Not a chance in hell. If the system is that screwed then we need to change it.

Tell em (when they're old enough) that they must take people as they find them.

As you state in your first sentence 'things will never actually change'. Individuals will change but human nature won't.

To quote 'The dividing line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man.'

Mr.Micro

Ghandee wrote: »

Colm Keaveney has now joined the Independent benches in the Dail I see......

Looking out for himself I would say. He could have helped more with the Government and not now on the outside. I am cynical of his stance, and I suspect its purely self serving to be re-elected next time out. What did he expect in Government....... easy popular decisions?

oscarBravo

Ghandee wrote: »

No, all I'm mulling over is why he suddenly has decided that it is now, contary to what he previously said, it actually is 'morally right, just, and fair' that he taxes the family home.

Maybe he has suddenly realised that it makes sense to broaden the tax base when we're picking up the pieces of the previous government's long-term erosion thereof.

If he had a change of heart from a position you disagreed with to one you agreed with, would you be berating him as strongly?

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

If he had a change of heart from a position you disagreed with to one you agreed with, would you be berating him as strongly?

I actually would be. I'm no hypocrite. If he had previously berated an opposing party for something he is now considering doing, I would absolutely find this very cynical.

hatrickpatrick

djpbarry wrote: »

I disagree. The problem is the electorate buying into unrealistic pre-election promises. The third-level fees issue is a good example. If I were still living in Ireland and I was told by an election candidate that the reintroduction of fees was completely out of the question, my immediate response would be “so how do you intend to fund third-level education?”.

The problem with Ireland is the blind acceptance of unrealistic promises, followed by disbelief and rage when said unrealistic promises are not kept.

They shouldn't be allowed to make promises if they know in advance that they're not going to keep them, a la Eamonn Gilmore's Wikileaks cable.

If they were heavily penalized for this, we'd have a far more honest political system. There should actually be far easier recall of individual politicians by the electorate IMO. They'd be far more careful about what they say in order to steal people's votes if they knew the public could impeach them tomorrow morning instead of 5 years from now...

yosser hughes

I haven't read any of the responses to this thread, just the OP.
No the govt. will not fall now or in the forseeable future. They have backbone. The likes of Keaveney and Shortall are preserving their seats.
That's fine.
The moronic Irish electorate will vote FF/SF the next time anyway.
When that happens you can give up on Ireland.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I actually would be. I'm no hypocrite.

Fair enough. I take it that you also hold precisely the same views on every subject as you did 18 years ago, and are confident that you'll continue to hold precisely those same views for another 18 years?

What a wonderful world we'd live in if everyone felt the same way.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They shouldn't be allowed to make promises if they know in advance that they're not going to keep them, a la Eamonn Gilmore's Wikileaks cable.

If they were heavily penalized for this, we'd have a far more honest political system. There should actually be far easier recall of individual politicians by the electorate IMO. They'd be far more careful about what they say in order to steal people's votes if they knew the public could impeach them tomorrow morning instead of 5 years from now...

Great. So instead of "we will do blah blah blah" in a manifesto, you'll get "we will try to do..." or "we aim to do..."

Not my idea of radical political reform.

Chips Lovell

If politicians never changed their mind about anything, Gerry Adams would still be trying to violently overthrow British rule in Northern Ireland.

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They shouldn't be allowed to make promises if they know in advance that they're not going to keep them, a la Eamonn Gilmore's Wikileaks cable.

If they were heavily penalized for this, we'd have a far more honest political system.

So rather than having the electorate cop the **** on, you want to appoint a body that thinks critically on behalf of the electorate.

Brilliant. I don't see any potential issues with that.

maccored

So Adams was single handedly 'violently' trying to overthrow british rule. Is this some kind of new history that isnt related to actual history? I thought it was the IRA being violent, not SF.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If politicians never changed their mind about anything, Gerry Adams would still be trying to violently overthrow British rule in Northern Ireland.