FFs Water Charges

raymon

Fianna Fail signed us up to an agreement that water charges would be implemented by 2014.
They also signed us up to bail out their buddies in Anglo Irish Bank.

However now that they are in opposition they want to not implement water charges in 2014 as planned by them and pay for the shortfall with the Anglo Irish promissory note deal savings.

More populism, amnesia, and general dishonesty from Fianna Fail

You couldn't make it up.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ff-promissory-note-savings-should-be-used-to-defer-water-charges-590190.html

nesf

Eh, are you reading the same article as you linked? They're calling for pushing forward the date for introduction of water charges due to changing financial circumstances not abolishing their introduction.

raymon

nesf wrote: »

Eh, are you reading the same article as you linked? They're calling for pushing forward the date for introduction of water charges due to changing financial circumstances not abolishing their introduction.

Yes , I should have said "not implementing them in 2014 as planned."

OP fixed now

nesf

raymon wrote: »

Yes , I should have said "not implementing them in 2014 as planned."

OP fixed now

Cool, just because them asking for them to be abolished would be pure opportunism of the worst kind, them asking for them to be delayed because we're slightly better off financially is still playing the Opposition "we don't actually have to implement anything we say" card but is nowhere near as bad.

Mr.Micro

raymon wrote: »

Fianna Fail signed us up to an agreement that water charges would be implemented by 2014.
They also signed us up to bail out their buddies in Anglo Irish Bank.

However now that they are in opposition they want to not implement water charges in 2014 as planned by them and pay for the shortfall with the Anglo Irish promissory note deal savings.

More populism, amnesia, and general dishonesty from Fianna Fail

You couldn't make it up.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ff-promissory-note-savings-should-be-used-to-defer-water-charges-590190.html

Its just FF trying to sound like they are the good guys and concerned about indebted homeowners. They cannot really oppose much though, can they, in view of the fact that much of the current situation is down to them. It must be really tough to be in opposition and know that you cannot oppose much of the austere programme.

Sierra Oscar

The introduction of both a property tax and water charges were meant to occur on the back of economic growth which has failed to materialize in any shape or form. I don't think it is absurd to suggest that they be deferred considering the growth has failed to materialize. In fact, I don't know why the government has not demanded some sort of meaningful renegotiation with the troika now that growth is lower than what was forecast when the agreement was entered into.

walshb

It's no different than FG and Labour playing the FF card in realtion to having inherited the mess we are in.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The introduction of both a property tax and water charges were meant to occur on the back of economic growth which has failed to materialize in any shape or form. I don't think it is absurd to suggest that they be deferred considering the growth has failed to materialize.

This water charge that Fianna Fail signed us up to for 2014 was not conditional on growth.

Do you have a link to support this claim??

Phoebas

It makes sense for FF to want them delayed until the year of the next GE.

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

This water charge that Fianna Fail signed us up to for 2014 was not conditional on growth.

Do you have a link to support this claim??

Don't have any links, but the spirit of the agreement was to get us out of the mess that we were in - and fostering growth was a key aim. The forecasted growth has not materialized, and it is pretty obvious that the introduction of further charges at the moment will possibly bring us back into recession. That would not be good for our recovery, so surely deferring the charges is the sensible option? It is not rocket science - especially in this specific proposal considering FF have identified an alternative revenue source to cover the deferral.

Also, believe it or not, political parties can change their positions on certain issues depending on various variables. The variable in this case is economic growth, or the lack thereof.

Chucky the tree

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Don't have any links, but the spirit of the agreement was to get us out of the mess that we were in - and fostering growth was a key aim. The forecasted growth has not materialized, and it is pretty obvious that the introduction of further charges at the moment will possibly bring us back into recession. That would not be good for our recovery, so surely deferring the charges is the sensible option? It is not rocket science - especially in this specific proposal considering FF have identified an alternative revenue source to cover the deferral.

Also, believe it or not, political parties can change their positions on certain issues depending on various variables. The variable in this case is economic growth, or the lack thereof.

Or the variable can be they are in opposition so can just blatantly lie.

Mr.Micro

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The introduction of both a property tax and water charges were meant to occur on the back of economic growth which has failed to materialize in any shape or form. I don't think it is absurd to suggest that they be deferred considering the growth has failed to materialize. In fact, I don't know why the government has not demanded some sort of meaningful renegotiation with the troika now that growth is lower than what was forecast when the agreement was entered into.

So can we blame FF then for the introduction of the charges in conception and implementation? Since growth is low, then revenue is much needed from somewhere and deferring the charges would delay that revenue. Its a case of an own goal by FF trying to get a political something from this, to no avail, as it makes them look stupid as people will see it was a FF idea in the first place.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Don't have any links, but the spirit of the agreement was to get us out of the mess that we were in.

I didn't think you had a link because it is just not correct.

Also the spirit of the agreement was not to get us out of the mess we were in. The agreement was just a footnote to a wider handover of soverignty.

Fianna Fail is now engaging in political point scoring which is terribly dishonest .

I don't want to pay any water charge or property taxes, but I don't want the dishonest voice of Fianna Fail to be on my side. For example Willie o Dea tried to join a disabled protest a few months ago , but was soon chased away by protesters.

Fianna Fail are the root cause , not part of the solution.

Keep telling those lies Martin and McGrath et al

aloyisious

There's a lot of it about, it's lapping up on our shores, running down the roads. We're forever carrying umbrellas in fear of it getting us in the neck, the farmers are annoyed with it (free or otherwise), the weeds up in Roundwood like it.

Even the Govt is split about it. Phil say's we're paying for it from Jan 2014, Eamon say's (no, we're not). Michael "peacmaker - all things to all men" say's (no, we won't, we haven't got the meters yet - we'll talk to the Troika about the payment start-date). It'd almost make me cry in my drink "top my whiskey up with a splash of water, please"

oscarBravo

aloyisious wrote: »

There's a lot of it about, it's lapping up on our shores, running down the roads.

Clean drinking water?

raymon

I'm glad they backed off on this.......for now.

Sierra Oscar

Also important to note that the introduction of water charges was to follow an audit of the existing network and a major investment in upgrading the infrastructure of the water network, which has not occurred as of yet. Reassuring to see that the government are seeking to defer the charges by following FF's advice.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Also important to note that the introduction of water charges was to follow an audit of the existing network and a major investment in upgrading the infrastructure of the water network, which has not occurred as of yet. Reassuring to see that the government are seeking to defer the charges by following FF's advice.

FF activist claims that FF populism led to reprieve of FF water tax .

Who are you trying to fool ? Really !

nesf

raymon wrote: »

FF activist claims that FF populism led to reprieve of FF water tax .

Who are you trying to fool ? Really !

Just one thing because I hate it:

FF might have suggested this tax but they do not own it. It's a very common form of taxation found in many countries. That it was not immediately abolished by the Opposition when they took over power means that it cannot and should not be conveniently painted as a FF tax. It's not. It's a tax suggested by FF and continued with by the FG/Lab Government. This suggests a consensus on the tax being appropriate at the moment amongst the main parties in the State.

If on the other hand FG/Lab abolished the introduction of water charges when they got into power then yes, you could call it a specifically FF policy.

raymon

nesf wrote: »

Just one thing because I hate it:

FF might have suggested this tax but they do not own it. It's a very common form of taxation found in many countries. That it was not immediately abolished by the Opposition when they took over power means that it cannot and should not be conveniently painted as a FF tax. It's not. It's a tax suggested by FF and continued with by the FG/Lab Government. This suggests a consensus on the tax being appropriate at the moment amongst the main parties in the State.

If on the other hand FG/Lab abolished the introduction of water charges when they got into power then yes, you could call it a specifically FF policy.

I agree with everything you say here.

My point is that FF are being cynical.

Mc Grath complaining about water taxes that FF signed us up for.

Thomas Byrne complaining about property taxes that FF signed us up for

Michael Martin wanting tribunals to be reopened

Various FF TDs complaining with faux outrage at a mortgage crisis that they created

Willie O Dea attempting to join a protest in support of the disabled.

PAC committee chairman complaining about government spending after his own office was decked out to the tune of a quarter of a million previously.

FG and Labour need to be held accountable for their decisions , but the amnesia of FF is staggering.

VinLieger

walshb wrote: »

It's no different than FG and Labour playing the FF card in realtion to having inherited the mess we are in.

Huh? One is true the other is populist politics. Anytime FF come out with garbage that refutes or goes against policies they enacted while in power FG and Labour are entirely within their rights to point that fact out to show how absurd and populist FF are being

nesf

raymon wrote: »

I agree with everything you say here.

My point is that FF are being cynical.

Mc Grath complaining about water taxes that FF signed us up for.

Thomas Byrne complaining about property taxes that FF signed us up for

Michael Martin wanting tribunals to be reopened

Various FF TDs complaining with faux outrage at a mortgage crisis that they created

Willie O Dea attempting to join a protest in support of the disabled.

PAC committee chairman complaining about government spending after his own office was decked out to the tune of a quarter of a million previously.

FG and Labour need to be held accountable for their decisions , but the amnesia of FF is staggering.

And they're to do what? They weren't left die by the voters, they were returned as the biggest party in Opposition. They have a duty to oppose things and questions things that the public are opposed to.

VinLieger

nesf wrote: »

And they're to do what? They weren't left die by the voters, they were returned as the biggest party in Opposition. They have a duty to oppose things and questions things that the public are opposed to.

Even when they are responsible for implementing them or starting the process to introduce them? Like the water charges?
I get its the oppositions responsibility and job to question government but i will refuse to listen to anyone from FF talking about FG making poor decisions no matter how true they might be as its hypocrisy of the highest order

nesf

VinLieger wrote: »

Even when they are responsible for implementing them or starting the process to introduce them? Like the water charges?
I get its the oppositions responsibility and job to question government but i will refuse to listen to anyone from FF talking about FG making poor decisions no matter how true they might be as its hypocrisy of the highest order

Pretty much. It's amusing to hear FF decry tax increases and so on given they initiated the process but they have a job to do in the Opposition and it is to bleat and make populist noises knowing that they don't have to implement anything they actually propose (yet) so they need to get on with that as if history wasn't something we bothered to keep track of.

VinLieger

nesf wrote: »

Pretty much. It's amusing to hear FF decry tax increases and so on given they initiated the process but they have a job to do in the Opposition and it is to bleat and make populist noises knowing that they don't have to implement anything they actually propose (yet) so they need to get on with that as if history wasn't something we bothered to keep track of.

I disagree completely that the only purpose of the opposition is to shout and stamp their feet and make insane populist proposals.
Thats a key point of how our system of government is failing us i think, and its not only the opposition who are at fault, in many cases opposition proposals are voted down not because they arent well thought out, illogical or mightn work but simply because the government wont get credit.

Sierra Oscar

nesf wrote: »

Pretty much. It's amusing to hear FF decry tax increases and so on given they initiated the process but they have a job to do in the Opposition and it is to bleat and make populist noises knowing that they don't have to implement anything they actually propose (yet) so they need to get on with that as if history wasn't something we bothered to keep track of.

In fairness though, the introduction of a water charge was only to occur after a deep analysis audit was undertaken of the entire water system to identify problem areas that need remedial work to bring down the amount of water lost through leaks. Following that audit, an investment was to occur to improve the quality of the water infrastructure.

Those two objectives are yet to be undertaken. There should be no water charges until they are completed. That is the FF position, and I think it is pretty sensible - especially considering that there was a commitment made by the current government that water charges would not be introduced until after an audit was undertaken and completed.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

In fairness though, the introduction of a water tax was only to occur after a deep analysis audit was undertaken of the entire water system to identify problem areas that need remedial work to bring down the amount of water lost through leaks. Following that audit, an investment was to occur to improve the quality of the water infrastructure.
Y
Those two objectives are yet to be undertaken. There should be no water charges until they are completed. That is the FF position.

Not correct . Please provide some basis for your claim that FF had planned to do a deep analysis audit as part of the memo of understanding with the troika.

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

Not correct . Please provide some basis for your claim that FF had planned to do a deep analysis audit as part of the memo of understanding with the troika.

I have already said that the current government themselves even announced that an audit of the water network would occur prior to the introduction of water charges.

And let me get this correct, you don't think an audit should occur alongside remedial works? That we should be paying for the upkeep of a water network riddled with leaks? Your blind of hatred of FF ensures that you would rather everyone suffer just so as you can get a dig at the party for some reason or another.

Find the links yourself, it is not my responsibility to educate you.

melekalikimaka

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

And let me get this correct, you don't think an audit should occur alongside remedial works? That we should be paying for the upkeep of a water network riddled with leaks?

we are paying for it already, just not directly, with the huge deficit, I think maybe it will all occur a bit quicker once the charges are brought in

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I have already said that the current government themselves even announced that an audit of the water network would occur prior to the introduction of water charges.

And let me get this correct, you don't think an audit should occur alongside remedial works? That we should be paying for the upkeep of a water network riddled with leaks? Your blind of hatred of FF ensures that you would rather everyone suffer just so as you can get a dig at the party for some reason or another.

Find the links yourself, it is not my responsibility to educate you.

The government should do an audit of the network absolutely.
I refuse to defend FG or Labour.

That doesn't make what you are saying about FF true.

Pete_Cavan

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

In fairness though, the introduction of a water charge was only to occur after a deep analysis audit was undertaken of the entire water system to identify problem areas that need remedial work to bring down the amount of water lost through leaks. Following that audit, an investment was to occur to improve the quality of the water infrastructure.

Those two objectives are yet to be undertaken. There should be no water charges until they are completed. That is the FF position, and I think it is pretty sensible - especially considering that there was a commitment made by the current government that water charges would not be introduced until after an audit was undertaken and completed.

A system audit is not necessary for the introduction of water charges. An audit prior to charges will provide data based on abnormally high usage rates which will change dramatically when charges are introduced. It will be no good for future system planning as the data will be out of date immediately. Carrying out such an audit requires meters to measure flows so it makes sense to wait until permanent consumer are installed and use these to acquire data.

An audit prior to charging also does not recognise water loss on the consumer side of the connection, ie. where water leaks on the consumer side of the meter which they would be paying for and so will look to repair in order to reduce their bill. What appears to be a problematic main may be the result of leaks which are not in states infrastructure, skewing the results making no good for planning future upgrades.

Perhaps you can provide a link to where the current government committed to undertakening an audit before water charges are introduced. I will take your word that FFs position is anything but "pretty sensible".

Sierra Oscar

melekalikimaka wrote: »

we are paying for it already, just not directly, with the huge deficit, I think maybe it will all occur a bit quicker once the charges are brought in

I agree. Just to clarify - I think we need water charges. Under investment has occurred due to the lack of sustainable financing for the water network.

However I believe that the best plan is to undertaken a systematic examination of the water network prior to the introduction of charges. When that has been undertaken, and the areas needing the greatest attention identified, then we can bring in water charges - and at that stage we will have the information at hand to ensure that the monies collected can be put to efficient use in upgrading the infrastructure. Don't give them the money until we know where it will be used, and that there is a real plan to tackle the problems associated with the infrastructure.

Otherwise there will be huge wastage of resources. Just wait and see.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

A system audit is not necessary for the introduction of water charges. An audit prior to charges will provide data based on abnormally high usage rates which will change dramatically when charges are introduced. It will be no good for future system planning as the data will be out of date immediately. Carrying out such an audit requires meters to measure flows so it makes sense to wait until permanent consumer are installed and use these to acquire data.

An audit prior to charging also does not recognise water loss on the consumer side of the connection, ie. where water leaks on the consumer side of the meter which they would be paying for and so will look to repair in order to reduce their bill. What appears to be a problematic main may be the result of leaks which are not in states infrastructure, skewing the results making no good for planning future upgrades.

Perhaps you can provide a link to where the current government committed to undertakening an audit before water charges are introduced. I will take your word that FFs position is anything but "pretty sensible".

How will water meters placed on tertiary pipe lines connecting to the mains indicate if there are leaks in the mains itself? It will also fail to show unauthorised connections. An audit is envisaged to be much more than just monitoring domestic usage - it was to involve on site analysis to identify leaks themselves in the water infrastructure. Also, you don't have to wait for the introduction of water charges to identify leaks as it is. Leaks are consistent, and do not correspond with the normal demand rates associated with domestic use.

Again, the audit was to identify issues with the main water network infrastructure - not domestic infrastructure. The undertaking of water metering as it is will force domestic users to fix leaks within their own properties, and that is already occurring. I have had a water meter installed at my home by the council for years now. However metering domestic households will not solve the problem with the main infrastructure itself. In fact I would be willing to bet that it will ensure that Irish Water just merely target domestic users unproportionately, and fail to invest the monies necessary to fix the underlying problem that is a creaking infrastructure backbone.

Pete_Cavan

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

How will water meters placed on tertiary pipe lines connecting to the mains indicate if there are leaks in the mains itself? It will also fail to show unauthorised connections. An audit is envisaged to be much more than just monitoring domestic usage - it was to involve on site analysis to identify leaks themselves in the water infrastructure. Also, you don't have to wait for the introduction of water charges to identify leaks as it is. Leaks are consistent, and do not correspond with the normal demand rates associated with domestic use.

Again, the audit was to identify issues with the main water network infrastructure - not domestic infrastructure. The undertaking of water metering as it is will force domestic users to fix leaks within their own properties, and that is already occurring. I have had a water meter installed at my home by the council for years now. However metering domestic households will not solve the problem with the main infrastructure itself. In fact I would be willing to bet that it will ensure that Irish Water just merely target domestic users unproportionately, and fail to invest the monies necessary to fix the underlying problem that is a creaking infrastructure backbone.

Measuring flows using meters are the only practical way to determine leakage rates. How would you propose to do it, follow the route of every pipe in the country with listening equipment and mark every spot you hear something with a X? Dig down and expose every pipe and visually inspect it? Using data collected from meters is the only practical way to do it. The collective readings from property meters, be they domestic or non domestic, should correspond with the reading from the bulk meter on the distribution pipe. Any anomalies can then be investigated. The data from the meters will compliment the SCADA system, allowing for better management of the network. This will allow for ongoing monitoring of the system into the future, meaning there is no need for some big overall audit amassing data which will be instantly out of date, however you envisage that happening.

And water metering will not be limited to domestic premises, many commercial premises already have metered supplies and a forthcoming EU directive will make it necessary for all commercial premises to have a meter. At present all new premises must make provision for a water meter in their planning application and other premises will be fitted with them as part of the metering programme.

I know you will continue to defend this idea of an audit in an attempt to conceal the hypocrisy if FF which the OP pointed out.

Sierra Oscar

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

And water metering will not be limited to domestic premises, many commercial premises already have metered supplies and a forthcoming EU directive will make it necessary for all commercial premises to have a meter. At present all new premises must make provision for a water meter in their planning application and other premises will be fitted with them as part of the metering programme.

Apologies, what I had meant is leakages on private property essentially. 'Domestic' may not have been the best term to use! I think over time the undertaking of water metering will help alleviate leakages on private property, as people will be forced to pay for their wastage. That is already the case in a number of counties where councils have installed water meters for years now. As I said, my home place has had a water meter for a decade now - along with commercial premises in the area. I just worry that the infrastructure itself will not receive the attention that it needs.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Measuring flows using meters are the only practical way to determine leakage rates.

Do you not see the major problem in your analysis though? Water has to pass through a meter for the meter itself to pick up on the flow. Water meters on tertiary lines will tell us little about leaks in the mains. They will find it difficult to indicate if there is a leak, because the leak is before it reaches the meter. If Irish Water just merely use the water meters on tertiary lines to identify problems, then they will not pick up on any problems in the infrastructure itself - and the underlying problem of a creaking network will remain. I am not an expert on the water network I will admit, but is that analysis not fair?

There are a number of ways in which you could identify problem areas by undertaking an audit. One of the crudest methods would be to identify the oldest sections of infrastructure, and to prioritize as to what sections need upgrading first. That would require an audit though, as the water network is currently operated by dozens of different local authorities requiring the information to be collated and centralized to ensure such decisions can be taken.

Anyways, I just think it would be better to have identified problems prior to the introduction of charges so the government can turn around immediately and tell those who are paying the charges as to how their money will be used to restore the quality of the network. I think failure to do that will lead to people seeing the charge as being unjust and refusing to pay, and will undermine the whole process as a result.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I know you will continue to defend this idea of an audit in an attempt to conceal the hypocrisy if FF which the OP pointed out.

Meh, not really. If Irish Water come out with a satisfactory plan for the renewal of the water network prior to the imposition of water charges then I will support them. What I wont support is my money just going into a black-hole where the underlying problems with the water network aren't addressed.

raymon

Of course problems with the infrastructure need to be fixed. The government need to be held accountable. This is obvious.

That's not the point .

FF were using their skills of amnesia to pretend that the water charge was not something they signed us up for with the troika . It was a Fianna Fail idea. Part of a wider betrayal.

Michael Mc Grath was even complaining about the date of implementation. That was the exact date ( Jan 2004) that FF committed to.

Thankfully the government have now postponed the charges.

Silentcorner

What I wont support is my money just going into a black-hole where the underlying problems with the water network aren't addressed.[/QUOTE]

See this is where any FF argument fall flat on it's face...you have no problem supporting a party that threw more of taxpayers money into more black holes than any political party in Europe...ie FAS, HSE, indeed our issues with leakage in the water system have been around for years...the whole reason why this needs to be introduced is the fault of FF (I have no issue with a water charge in principle)

This can be applied to almost any of our nations ills, and even tho some people are being fooled, more of us are simply aghast...

Mr.Micro

Let us not kid ourselves that massive investment is needed in our crumbling infrastructure, neglected by successive previous governments. Water is one such area. Up to now it has been a haphazard bungling provision and treatment by the various local authorities. It is to be welcomed that at least now a proper water authority will be set up soon to take the responsibility for all the mains water and treatment. Of course this means that charges will be the norm for most householders in line with other European nations.

It is no surprise that FF sat over boom, boom and bust and never invested in water provision and other vital projects.

Sierra Oscar

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It is no surprise that FF sat over boom, boom and bust and never invested in water provision and other vital projects.

The level of investment undoubtedly needs to increase, but to suggest that no investment occurred is not being very truthful.

To quote from the Price Waterhouse Cooper report, which was commissioned by the current government, ...

Leakage has been reduced from 5,112 megaliters per day in 1994-95 to less than 3,281 megaliters per day in 2009-10

Irish Water: Phase 1 Report

I agree that continued investment is needed, and that in the long run a more sustainable form of funding is required.

goose2005

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The level of investment undoubtedly needs to increase, but to suggest that no investment occurred is not being very truthful.

To quote from the Price Waterhouse Cooper report, which was commissioned by the current government, ...



Irish Water: Phase 1 Report

I agree that continued investment is needed, and that in the long run a more sustainable form of funding is required.

But most of those figures are guesses, the infrastructure is so antiquated that we don't know how much is wasted

Srianadh

Raymon, of course the public know that FF were always for water charges but the second your lot agreed to them (on an initially accelerated timetable) they as much became FG/Lab's water charges as they were FF's. Give over the attempted slight of hand. The Government's "an older boy did it" excuse has worn out. No more hiding for Enda and co. They wanted the reigns of power to lead so it's about time he and his cabinet started leading not pointing the finger like a bold kid in the playground that knows they've been caught red handed.

raymon

Srianadh wrote: »

Raymon, of course the public know that FF were always for water charges but the second your lot agreed to them (on an initially accelerated timetable) they as much became FG/Lab's water charges as they were FF's. Give over the attempted slight of hand. The Government's "an older boy did it" excuse has worn out. No more hiding for Enda and co. They wanted the reigns of power to lead so it's about time he and his cabinet started leading not pointing the finger like a bold kid in the playground that knows they've been caught red handed.

I think you are missing the OP.

I am not going to defend Lab or FG , why should I ? They all need to be held accountable .

The problem is that FF are trying to fool the public, by suddenly opposing measures that they signed us up for.

It is dishonest and cynical.

Srianadh

raymon wrote: »

I think you are missing the OP.

I am not going to defend Lab or FG , why should I ? They all need to be held accountable .

The problem is that FF are trying to fool the public, by suddenly opposing measures that they signed us up for.

It is dishonest and cynical.

Your OP makes no mention of the current government and completely paints this out to be solely about FF. It isn't. It's about every single one of the three bailout government parties. Watching ye clamber over eachother to point the finger at eachother for the inequitable austerity measures you've bringing in is sickening to the ordinary public like myself and is the reason that so many of us are growing more and more disheartened with politics. FG promised a new politics and new ways to combat our problems, not that they'd be lemmings and simply point the finger into the past when people question them. It's utterly disappointing. Labour..........don't get me started, they just plain lied and stole votes (mine included) as a result. They're toast next time we get an opportunity to vote on them!

Srianadh

One other thing, having re read the article, although it's coming from FF it is a good point. This government were killed telling us what a great deal they got for us but we're yet to see a single advantage to loading our children with debt. What the hell is going on there?

raymon

Srianadh wrote: »

Your OP makes no mention of the current government and completely paints this out to be solely about FF. It isn't. It's about every single one of the three bailout government parties. Watching ye clamber over eachother to point the finger at eachother for the inequitable austerity measures you've bringing in is sickening to the ordinary public like myself and is the reason that so many of us are growing more and more disheartened with politics. FG promised a new politics and new ways to combat our problems, not that they'd be lemmings and simply point the finger into the past when people question them. It's utterly disappointing. Labour..........don't get me started, they just plain lied and stole votes (mine included) as a result. They're toast next time we get an opportunity to vote on them!

Hold on a sec , don't associate me with FG or Labour.

I am just getting tired of Michael McGrath and Fianna Fail attempting to airbrush themselves out of these issues that they landed our country with.

johnnydeep

VinLieger wrote: »

I disagree completely that the only purpose of the opposition is to shout and stamp their feet and make insane populist proposals.
Thats a key point of how our system of government is failing us i think, and its not only the opposition who are at fault, in many cases opposition proposals are voted down not because they arent well thought out, illogical or mightn work but simply because the government wont get credit.

remind me again how f.g and lab reacted back during cowan's reign when the **** was hitting the fan. did they run the country and government down at every opourtunity at the countries expense. did they come up with any well thought out reasoned ideas to help or were they barely able to contain their glee. while shouting and roaring in mock outrage. while now implementing all the previous goverments policies

johnnydeep

raymon wrote: »

Hold on a sec , don't associate me with FG or Labour.

I am just getting tired of Michael McGrath and Fianna Fail attempting to airbrush themselves out of these issues that they landed our country with.

its hard not to associate you with f.g

Solair

I think they need it permanently linked to them like the Tories in the UK are intrinsically linked to Poll Tax and water privatisation.

We need to ram home the fact that voting for populist, opportunistic parties results in reality biting hard a few years / decades later.

All of these taxes are just paying for previous governments bad choices.

They ran up the bills & then did the lousy deal with the Troika and are now trying to blame everyone else from the current government to the voters for being so irresponsible by trying to buy new homes to live in.

The greens got hammered (deservedly) for supporting them but maybe they did us all a big favour by showing just what lengths FF would go to to ensure the property bubble was maintained and the banks got looked after at the general public's expense.

Personally, I'll never vote for FF under any circumstances. They've a track record of doing this stuff over and over!

johnnydeep

Solair wrote: »

I think they need it permanently linked to them like the Tories in the UK are intrinsically linked to Poll Tax and water privatisation.

We need to ram home the fact that voting for populist, opportunistic parties results in reality biting hard a few years / decades later.

All of these taxes are just paying for previous governments bad choices.

They ran up the bills & then did the lousy deal with the Troika and are now trying to blame everyone else from the current government to the voters for being so irresponsible by trying to buy new homes to live in.

The greens got hammered (deservedly) for supporting them but maybe they did us all a big favour by showing just what lengths FF would go to to ensure the property bubble was maintained and the banks got looked after at the general public's expense.

Personally, I'll never vote for FF under any circumstances. They've a track record of doing this stuff over and over!

you will never vote for f.f again

Solair

johnnydeep wrote: »

you will never vote for f.f again

Eh?

raymon

johnnydeep wrote: »

its hard not to associate you with f.g

Because I dislike Fianna Fail lies , means I am FG ?

That's a hideous assumption.

johnnydeep

raymon wrote: »

Because I dislike Fianna Fail lies , means I am FG ?

That's a hideous assumption.

presuming you have voted in the past, as far as I was aware there was only 3 options. f.f, f.g or s.f