Why the anger against current government?

Mr.Micro

LordSutch wrote: »

Thankfully Fianna Fail and their new leadership seem to have shed their old skin and are rebuilding themselves again under the new leadership of Micheál Martin, not that I'd vote for them myself, but at least they have undergone a painful and embarrassing transition into a credible opposition party.

Have you seen the FF bench in the Dail? I would love to know what is new or changed about FF. Willie O Dea is still..... Willie or Dea, Martin is still the same. Its still the same FF skin, just a bit thicker.

"Why the anger against current government?"
I believe it is because people don't like being told that they HAVE to live within their means and pay their way. The current Government has a very hard job to do and are doing their best. They don't always get things right, but they are trying. When people are asked for their input, they stay at home moaning on Internet Forums, instead of going out and giving the Government guidance they seek. There are without doubt, many families that are struggling, but there are many more that are doing ok. Young families always struggle, but things always level out as the children get older. These are the ones that need the most help.

Godge

bbam wrote: »

People aren't stupid either..
MN companies are on the radio constantly spouting that they aren't here for the low corporate tax but rather for the skilled workforce.... Fine, they should be contributing more to the country through increased Corporate tax.

"people" in general aren't against tax increases, most are against tax increases that further erode the lives of the middle/low earners. Those on high wages could pay more tax, a third tax band as we had before would be very progressive

.

I would think people are stupid.

For example, we have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world yet we have people constantly going on about taxing higher earners even more. It defies logic. We are losing the brightest and the best to emigration and that most highly educated workforce won't hang around too long to be taxed to the hilt.

The biggest gap between us and other countries in relation to income tax is that we hardly tax people up to a level of €35,000 while other countries take a significant amount of tax from this cohort. It hardly helps that our social welfare rates are so high that taxing this group would act as a further disincentive to work.

RainMaker

Maybe people are just realizing that what is called democracy in this country is actually a sham.

You replace one shower of gombeen idiots, and all you get is another.

They make promises then do the opposite, then hire some PR firm to convince everybody that things are somehow better than everybody knows they are e.g. Latest unemployment figures.

The primary school behaviour that passes as political debate in the Dail.

The whip system, the dysfunctional Seanad...


The fact is they got elected based on lies, and have used that "mandate" to continue on failed policies that were never, ever in a million years going to work...

The back-slapping, handshaking culture of self-congratulations every time some private company announces new jobs - mostly completely unconnected to the govt, but who's always there to make the announcements and try to take credit?

The whole political class should be banned from ever even running for election again for the simple reason they are only concerned with being politicians.
I thought it was funny during the abortion debates how many politicians had to vote based on their personal and religious beliefs, but had no problems inflicting misery and suffering on families across the country with their budgetary policies.
I take some pleasure in knowing that if some of them are as religious as they like to portray and indeed if heaven/hell do exist, then a lot of those same religious politicians will be burning in hell for eternity for the suffering they have caused, while trying to convince is it's good for us!

v638sg7k1a92bx

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Exactly, if they were tried and put to jail, people would be more accepting of these austerity measures.

Government gave people the opportunity to introduce new legislation via the House of Oireachtas Inquiries referendum which would have given the government additional powers to address exactly what people have been bitching about re "The Banks" and the people decided to vote no.

Knob Longman

They are nothing compared to the last lot.

skirt_hunter

RainMaker wrote: »

Maybe people are just realizing that what is called democracy in this country is actually a sham.

You replace one shower of gombeen idiots, and all you get is another.

They make promises then do the opposite, then hire some PR firm to convince everybody that things are somehow better than everybody knows they are e.g. Latest unemployment figures.

The primary school behaviour that passes as political debate in the Dail.

The whip system, the dysfunctional Seanad...


The fact is they got elected based on lies, and have used that "mandate" to continue on failed policies that were never, ever in a million years going to work...

The back-slapping, handshaking culture of self-congratulations every time some private company announces new jobs - mostly completely unconnected to the govt, but who's always there to make the announcements and try to take credit?

The whole political class should be banned from ever even running for election again for the simple reason they are only concerned with being politicians.
I thought it was funny during the abortion debates how many politicians had to vote based on their personal and religious beliefs, but had no problems inflicting misery and suffering on families across the country with their budgetary policies.
I take some pleasure in knowing that if some of them are as religious as they like to portray and indeed if heaven/hell do exist, then a lot of those same religious politicians will be burning in hell for eternity for the suffering they have caused, while trying to convince is it's good for us!

austerity is not a choice , some people like to believe it is , 2002 - 2007 was a fantasy based on bubble revenues , were still spending too much based on the reduction in revenue

hatrickpatrick

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Government gave people the opportunity to introduce new legislation via the House of Oireachtas Inquiries referendum which would have given the government additional powers to address exactly what people have been bitching about re "The Banks" and the people decided to vote no.

Who said anything about the Oireachtas? I'm talking about using the existing legal system, not setting up enquiries which would in all probability be as utterly useless as Mahon and Moriarty - naming the culprits and then having no powers whatsoever to actually punish them, and effectively granting them immunity because evidence used in a tribunal cannot then be used in a criminal trial. Absolute farce.

There's plenty the government could be doing within the existing system in order to achieve some semblance of justice for the Irish people.
They could be drafting new laws against any such rotten and corrupt behavior in the future, if it's found that those responsible for the banking crisis technically didn't break any laws.
They shouldn't be withholding evidence which could assist in the investigation (Exhibit A and Exhibit B.)
They shouldn't be refusing to release evidence which could prove that the ECB overstepped its legal boundaries in order to force us into a bailout.
They shouldn't be abstaining from votes which decide whether or not to increase the pay to executives of taxpayer rescued failed banks.
The DPP shouldn't be granting immunity to senior Anglo executives such as its CFO, who almost certainly knew exactly what was going on and at the very least didn't speak up about it, and in all probability took some part in it himself.
They should have more Gardai working on the case considering how central it is to any hope of the Irish people getting any kind of justice out of all this.
They shouldn't be forcing uninvolved taxpayers to bail out any more failed businesses despite them allegedly being private companies with responsibility for their own decisions. What's the justification for robbing all of us to bail out Quinn but not doing the same to bail out struggling homeowners? Either both are legitimate or neither, either we're bailing out people who made mistakes or we're not - we shouldn't be basing those decisions on whether or not someone is an important person in Irish society or not, or the effect on other financial institutions which again are private companies responsible for their own f*ck ups. This last example is possibly the one which angers me the most. There's absolutely no justification for it whatsoever and it's an obvious and direct slap in the face to those who don't move in such exalted circles as politicians and financial executives. :mad:

Really, there's just so much evidence pointing towards high level collusion that I'm genuinely very surprised that so many people are so "meh" about it. This entire saga is proof if any was needed that some people's wellbeing is considered more important than others depending on where they are on the elite's ladder, and that is not the type of society I'm willing to live in.

None of the above has anything to do with waving a magic wand to solve the recession. They are separate issues, and this one is every bit as important.

Sand

:rolleyes:

View wrote: »

No it isn't, it is in the voters' court as they elect the politicians, not the other way around.

If the electorate choose a poor standard of politicians then those politicians will be representative of the electorates' poor choices.

Not picking on you View, but that's a bit of circular view. A rather frustrating one too.Let see what I've learned about self described grown up adult voters views in Ireland.

1-Politicians lie. Everyone knows this.
2-Its not politicians fault they lie. Its the voters fault.
3-If voters vote against politicians because they lied in their manifestos, the voters are fickle children who aren't mature enough to stay the course.
4-If voters *dont* vote against politicians because they lied, they get the government they deserve - i.e. near habitually dishonest and corrupt parties like Fianna Fail.
5-If voters decide to vote for an honest government -HA!- Fooled you, see #1
6-If voters decides not to vote for a dishonest government - they get the government they deserve. Again.

So the voters are *always* at fault, no matter who they vote for, and the politicians are *never* at fault, and the voters are simultaneously at fault for both voting for dishonest politicians and voting against dishonest politicians.

I get it now. Its a pretty Orwellian, and I do believe the great man did remark that “There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.”

But seriously - get over the 1950s Catholic guilt complex. Just because you've been wronged does not mean that you deserved to be wronged. Just because the voters were lied to does not mean they deserved to be lied to. Fine Gael and other parties routinely lie in their manifestos and the voters will hold them to account for it. Thats good right? All you people arguing the Irish voter ought to punish poor standards of politicians ought to be particularly cheered by Labours hammering. Gilmore is a particularly dishonest politician, even by Irish standards, and his party is taking a hammering in the polls. Good right? No, bad apparently, those fickle Irish voters not having the maturity to support their openly lying politicians unquestioningly.

The only support I'm seeing for pathological dishonesty and poor standards in Irish politics in this thread is coming from the so called mature/adult voters who are totally okay with manifestos being a pack of lies.

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

Fine Gael and other parties routinely lie in their manifestos and the voters will hold them to account for it.

By Voting for Fianna Fáil again! Hurray! Put up the Galway races tent once more!

Or... you could read a manifesto using your critical faculties.

None of the cuts or tax rises the government have made are a surprise to me. The surprise is that they didn't raise income tax and cut core social welfare: they actually kept some promises.

I wish they hadn't, the idiots.

Sand

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

By Voting for Fianna Fáil again! Hurray! Put up the Galway races tent once more!

Or... you could read a manifesto using your critical faculties.

None of the cuts or tax rises the government have made are a surprise to me. The surprise is that they didn't raise income tax and cut core social welfare: they actually kept some promises.

I wish they hadn't, the idiots.

Why bother? It's full of lies. All manifestos are lies. Because all politicians lie. Or so I'm told. You *might* catch the factual lies if you had say, a fully staffed team of hundreds of fact checkers and complete access to the civil service records (and not even TDs do) but how do you catch lies about the intent to empower the Dail? And even if you did catch a factual lie - so what? Shure mature, adult voters already know the manifesto is lies.

You might as well vote for the same party your granddaddy voted for according to the self described adult, mature voters. As good a reason as any.

Honestly - I have to laugh seeing the same people who decry the poor standards of Irish politics endorsing exactly the same views that led to those poor standards - except they tell themselves they're smart enough to decry the poor standards of the rest of us. A coping strategy I suppose.

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

Why bother? It's full of lies.

Yes, but there are bits of truth in there, and you can work out who to vote for, who will run the country best.

Or you could just for for FF like your Dad did.

hatrickpatrick

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

By Voting for Fianna Fáil again! Hurray! Put up the Galway races tent once more!

Or... you could read a manifesto using your critical faculties.

None of the cuts or tax rises the government have made are a surprise to me. The surprise is that they didn't raise income tax and cut core social welfare: they actually kept some promises.

I wish they hadn't, the idiots.

Or how about wishing they hadn't made those promises in the first place?

It's pretty simple, don't make promises you either don't intend to or are unlikely to be able to keep. If every party was forced to adhere to this, we would be able to choose the best of a bad lot (which is all Irish politics is at the moment) knowing exactly how bad each one is.

How anyone can defend dishonesty because it's the only way to get elected is beyond me. Is it ok for me to lie about my position in order to get a loan, because it's the only way I'll be able to get a loan ahead of someone else? Is it ok for me to lie in court because if I tell the truth I'll get a conviction?

The "It's ok for politicians to lie because how else will they get elected" viewpoint is such an insane fallacy I'm never really sure where to start.

Zubeneschamali

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Or how about wishing they hadn't made those promises in the first place?

I wish Enda Kenny had come out and promised to eat the firstborn child in every family if he was elected.

We would still have had to vote for him, but everyone would be glad he didn't keep his stupid promises.

View

Sand wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Not picking on you View, but that's a bit of circular view. A rather frustrating one too.Let see what I've learned about self described grown up adult voters views in Ireland.

1-Politicians lie. Everyone knows this.
2-Its not politicians fault they lie. Its the voters fault.
3-If voters vote against politicians because they lied in their manifestos, the voters are fickle children who aren't mature enough to stay the course.
4-If voters *dont* vote against politicians because they lied, they get the government they deserve - i.e. near habitually dishonest and corrupt parties like Fianna Fail.
5-If voters decide to vote for an honest government -HA!- Fooled you, see #1
6-If voters decides not to vote for a dishonest government - they get the government they deserve. Again.

So the voters are *always* at fault, no matter who they vote for, and the politicians are *never* at fault, and the voters are simultaneously at fault for both voting for dishonest politicians and voting against dishonest politicians.

I get it now.

No, you clearly don't get it.

It is like this:
1) We are a democracy,
2) It is the responsibility US, the citizens of a democracy to make our democracy work for us - not "the politicians", "the Troika" or "someone somewhere"
3) To vote we must be adults and - a prerequisite - have grown up enough to take responbility for our own actions and inactions,
4) Any voter is free to set up a political party (subject to fairly minor conditions) and advocate for what they believe,
5) We, the voters, are free to elect whomever we want and whatever political party we choose, including any new ones,
6) We, the voters, are NOT obliged to vote for existing political parties OR politicians we feel have failed to deliver,
7) If we, the voters, give a single party an overall majority, it gets the opportunity to attempt to deliver on its manifesto,
8) If we, the voters, do not then the parties elected to represent the diverse views in our society have to reach a compromise on what they can deliver,
9) In both cases (7 & 8), such delivery is obviously subject to constraints, financial being the most obvious but others such as legal, politcal and - probably most important - time (as the legislative process is a slow one) being critcal factors.
10) Come the next election, we, the voters, get the opportunity to give those parties (or party) in power, the opportunity to continue their legislative efforts OR, if we so choose, to pass the opportunity to either opposition parties (or party) OR to new parties (that have not been represented in the Oireachtas before)
11) Obviously, if we, the voters, don't use our opportunities wisely, we get to live with the consequences of our poor choices. Equally, obviously, if we continuously make wise choices, we will transforrm our society - which will take time since change comes slowly.

Change is NOT going to come about if we throw our hands up in despair - no one (else) "owes" us a better form of society than the one we have. If we want one, it is up to us, the voters, to effect the change needed to change our society.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Or how about wishing they hadn't made those promises in the first place?

It's pretty simple, don't make promises you either don't intend to or are unlikely to be able to keep.

An interesting idea but you do realise that even the larger parties can't be certain they'll be able to keep their promises since that depends on they number of votes they get and their coalition partners (presuming a coalition), not to mention economic circumstances? And that the smaller parties have even less certainty about this than the larger ones?

Logically, none of the parties would be able to produce any form of manifesto.

That would turn our elections even more into political "beauty contests" where no one is elected on anything other than the personal "likability" of the candidate. At which point, a voter may have a "choice" but it is largely an irrelevant one since you might as well use a lottery as an election to select TDs at that stage.

Horrid Henry

Voters are to blame.

A politician who told the truth and introduced appropriate policies wouldn't get re-elected.

Loafing Oaf

View wrote: »

An interesting idea but you do realise that even the larger parties can't be certain they'll be able to keep their promises since that depends on they number of votes they get and their coalition partners (presuming a coalition), not to mention economic circumstances?

But the point about Labour's promises is that they were phrased in such a way that they appeared to override these considerations. If Gilmore had said Labour would oppose cuts in child benefit, or resist FG efforts to do it, his position might be defensible in a jesuitical sense, but he said they would 'not agree' to such cuts. I wish some interviewer would pin him down on this.

hatrickpatrick

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wish Enda Kenny had come out and promised to eat the firstborn child in every family if he was elected.

We would still have had to vote for him, but everyone would be glad he didn't keep his stupid promises.

Why would we have "had to vote for him" exactly?
Politics should be based on voting for those who espouse policies one approves of - that is completely impossible if these policies can be completely misrepresented and turned on their head as soon as the election is over.

It's akin to buying a TV which was advertised as being widescreen but subsequently opening the box and finding that it wasn't - except in that case you can return the TV and ask for a new one, which is something we can't do with politicians.

Better analogy, considering the government is supposed to be working for the public: Imagine if you hired someone based on an entirely made up and falsified CV, and then weren't able to do anything about it until their five year contract was up? I'm fairly sure in that case you would have legitimate grounds for dismissal.

Why the tolerance for politicians misrepresenting their intentions when we don't tolerate it in other walks of life?

Zubeneschamali

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why would we have "had to vote for him" exactly?

Because FF had to go.

sarumite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why would we have "had to vote for him" exactly?
Politics should be based on voting for those who espouse policies one approves of - that is completely impossible if these policies can be completely misrepresented and turned on their head as soon as the election is over.

I am not sure if I agree. I can agree with many policies, none of which are actually in the countries best interest. I can be opposed to many policies despite them being in the countries best interest. When politics is purely about approving a particular policy, you get the kind of populist demagoguery we see with the likes of SF or the ULA. As Otto Von Bismark once said, "Politics is the art of the possible", unfortunately what appeals to voters can often be the impossible..

Gambas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's akin to buying a TV which was advertised as being widescreen but subsequently opening the box and finding that it wasn't - except in that case you can return the TV and ask for a new one, which is something we can't do with politicians.I'm fairly sure in that case you would have legitimate grounds for dismissal.

No, it's akin to buying a box of tampax and thinking that tomorrow you'll be skiing and hang-gliding. Even though you are a man.

Voters need to have a basic level of understanding of what running a government is about at any point in time. In 2011 running the government in Ireland was about 1 thing. Stabilising the public finances and then the improving the wider economy. Anyone who believed any promise that conflicted with this shouldn't have the vote.

v638sg7k1a92bx

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Who said anything about the Oireachtas? I'm talking about using the existing legal system, not setting up enquiries which would in all probability be as utterly useless as Mahon and Moriarty - naming the culprits and then having no powers whatsoever to actually punish them, and effectively granting them immunity because evidence used in a tribunal cannot then be used in a criminal trial. Absolute farce.

There's plenty the government could be doing within the existing system in order to achieve some semblance of justice for the Irish people.
They could be drafting new laws against any such rotten and corrupt behavior in the future, if it's found that those responsible for the banking crisis technically didn't break any laws.
They shouldn't be withholding evidence which could assist in the investigation (Exhibit A and Exhibit B.)
They shouldn't be refusing to release evidence which could prove that the ECB overstepped its legal boundaries in order to force us into a bailout.
They shouldn't be abstaining from votes which decide whether or not to increase the pay to executives of taxpayer rescued failed banks.
The DPP shouldn't be granting immunity to senior Anglo executives such as its CFO, who almost certainly knew exactly what was going on and at the very least didn't speak up about it, and in all probability took some part in it himself.
They should have more Gardai working on the case considering how central it is to any hope of the Irish people getting any kind of justice out of all this.
They shouldn't be forcing uninvolved taxpayers to bail out any more failed businesses despite them allegedly being private companies with responsibility for their own decisions. What's the justification for robbing all of us to bail out Quinn but not doing the same to bail out struggling homeowners? Either both are legitimate or neither, either we're bailing out people who made mistakes or we're not - we shouldn't be basing those decisions on whether or not someone is an important person in Irish society or not, or the effect on other financial institutions which again are private companies responsible for their own f*ck ups. This last example is possibly the one which angers me the most. There's absolutely no justification for it whatsoever and it's an obvious and direct slap in the face to those who don't move in such exalted circles as politicians and financial executives. :mad:

Really, there's just so much evidence pointing towards high level collusion that I'm genuinely very surprised that so many people are so "meh" about it. This entire saga is proof if any was needed that some people's wellbeing is considered more important than others depending on where they are on the elite's ladder, and that is not the type of society I'm willing to live in.

None of the above has anything to do with waving a magic wand to solve the recession. They are separate issues, and this one is every bit as important.

Where do I even start on this, your whole post is totally misinformed and misdirected.

First, the whole point of the Oircheatas inquiries referendum was to give the Oirechatas more powers of investigation in order to avoid long and costly Tribunals, the Govt put this option to the people and they said No. Anglo tapes were published this year and the same people who voted No to that referendum were jumping up and down because the government "wasn't doing anything".

Second, all of the links you provided are to sensationalist newspaper articles! Minister for Finance is acting on legal advice most likely not to prejudice ongoing legal proceedings and the DPP is separate from the government and if they decide to grant immunity in criminal proceedings they have their reasons for doing so. Maybe the DPP made a mistake but this has nothing to do with the government and even if they wanted to, the govt cannot get directly involve in a criminal trial as that is for the courts to decide.

The cap on bankers pay although it was what people wanted and expected at the time it transpires that to fill a position for a bank executive nobody suitably qualified for the job would be willing to take it for the salary on offer. Noonan realises this and also realises he cannot vote in favour of increases in executives pay because of the red top tabloid brigade so he abstains from the vote instead.

More Gardai on the case is not the Governments problem, it's a problem for the Gardai to manage their resources and obtain suitably qualified staff but you would probably have a problem with that if you felt they were being paid too much.

"Bailing out more failed businesses" only applies to people who have an insurance policy and is there to protect insurance policy holders in the event they ever have an insurance claim. For example, home insurance policy holder house burns down in the middle of the night, the 2% levy is there to ensure that the home owner receives their compensation.

All of your anger should be directed at the previous government, the bank guarantee was in 2008 and our bail out was in 2010. All of your misinformed anger is based on events that happened pre 2011 when the current government was elected.

IMO, the ship has sailed in relation to prosecuting bankers and investigations into the banking crisis. We've totally missed the boat over five years later and people really need to move on at this stage. The only reason to have a banking inquiry is to banish FF to the history books where they belong along with the PD's. The Irish people also need to reflect on why the voted FF in consistently for 50 out of 80 years and why they believed Bertie when he said as Minister for Finance that he had no bank account and cashed his ministerial cheque in Fagan's pub. All we need to do is look at the who's who of FF over recent times and it pales in comparison to peoples gripes over O'Reilly and constituency favouritism; Charlie Haughey, Bertien Ahern, Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, P. Flynn, Beverly Flynn, John O'Donoghue to name just a few

golfball37

Tickers being less bad than FF is hardly reason for an endorsement. We expected better but got more of the same, no matter how its dressed up.

Zubeneschamali

golfball37 wrote: »

Tickers being less bad than FF is hardly reason for an endorsement.

Well, are you going to vote for bad or worse? That's what it comes down to.

v638sg7k1a92bx

golfball37 wrote: »

Tickers being less bad than FF is hardly reason for an endorsement. We expected better but got more of the same, no matter how its dressed up.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Anyway, my main point is that the anger is misdirected.

rodento

Whats the point of this thread, all you've done is insult each and every poster

wolfpawnat

rodento wrote: »

Whats the point of this thread, all you've done is insult each and every poster

*whispers* It's Enda trying to think up reasons he's brilliant.

Sand

View wrote: »

No, you clearly don't get it.

It is like this:
1) We are a democracy,
2) It is the responsibility US, the citizens of a democracy to make our democracy work for us - not "the politicians", "the Troika" or "someone somewhere"
3) To vote we must be adults and - a prerequisite - have grown up enough to take responbility for our own actions and inactions,
4) Any voter is free to set up a political party (subject to fairly minor conditions) and advocate for what they believe,
5) We, the voters, are free to elect whomever we want and whatever political party we choose, including any new ones,
6) We, the voters, are NOT obliged to vote for existing political parties OR politicians we feel have failed to deliver,
7) If we, the voters, give a single party an overall majority, it gets the opportunity to attempt to deliver on its manifesto,
8) If we, the voters, do not then the parties elected to represent the diverse views in our society have to reach a compromise on what they can deliver,
9) In both cases (7 & 8), such delivery is obviously subject to constraints, financial being the most obvious but others such as legal, politcal and - probably most important - time (as the legislative process is a slow one) being critcal factors.
10) Come the next election, we, the voters, get the opportunity to give those parties (or party) in power, the opportunity to continue their legislative efforts OR, if we so choose, to pass the opportunity to either opposition parties (or party) OR to new parties (that have not been represented in the Oireachtas before)
11) Obviously, if we, the voters, don't use our opportunities wisely, we get to live with the consequences of our poor choices. Equally, obviously, if we continuously make wise choices, we will transforrm our society - which will take time since change comes slowly.

Change is NOT going to come about if we throw our hands up in despair - no one (else) "owes" us a better form of society than the one we have. If we want one, it is up to us, the voters, to effect the change needed to change our society.

No View, I do get it. In a society where the buck gets passed shamelessly by every highly paid politician, civil servant, public figure and connected figures - you know, the people with actual constitutional responsibilities - its handy to have a faceless, unrepresented, vague group to scapegoat. The voters. Its hilarious - on the one hand the voters are expected to take all the responsibility, whilst simultaneously the same people happily admit that all politicians lie. So the voters have to take responsibility for a decision they make whilst being deliberately lied to. And the fact they are being lied to...well that's also the voters fault. A legal contract will have clauses that invalidate the contract if either party enters by making deceitful claims - not voting apparently.

You can even feel superior doling out shallow truisms like "We are a democracy" and bemoaning the short sighted selfishness of voters, like you aren't a voter yourself. You are one of those short sighted selfish voters you're blaming View. I take it you tried to apply your own approach to picking your government - how did that work out for you?

The voters very clearly threw out Fianna Fail last time. They brought in Fine Gael with a clear mandate to govern in a better way - more honest, transparent, more engaged with the Dail. None of that costs any money. It would actually save money. Fine Gael have actually governed in a more dishonest, secretive and distant manner than even Fianna Fail did before them. The people are making the *right* choice: they are punishing FG and Labour.

And yet people are starting threads here, bemoaning the voters for being selfish and short-sighted because they are punishing FG and Labour.

For all the moralising the result is the same: politicians, civil servants, public figures: they've all got an excuse. Its always the voters fault. And that is actually *embraced* as a healthy political viewpoint. Laughable. Has anyone supporting that view read *any* Irish political history? The corrosive cynicism of Haughey pervades every area of Irish public life, to the point where politicians lying is no longer seen as a problem.

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

its handy to have a faceless, unrepresented, vague group to scapegoat. The voters.

Well, I blame FF and everyone who was ever dopey enough to vote for FF equally. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Cedrus

Many years ago an English Tory friend opined that democracy was a sham and the idea of universal suffrage was flawed, that some people were unfit and too uneducated to be allowed to vote.

I vociferously disagreed back then and by conviction I still would. However some of the views and more importantly the 'reasoning' behind these views aired in this forum (and many more public fora in Ireland) makes me want to call him up and apologise.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Sand wrote: »

No View, I do get it. In a society where the buck gets passed shamelessly by every highly paid politician, civil servant, public figure and connected figures - you know, the people with actual constitutional responsibilities - its handy to have a faceless, unrepresented, vague group to scapegoat. The voters. Its hilarious - on the one hand the voters are expected to take all the responsibility, whilst simultaneously the same people happily admit that all politicians lie. So the voters have to take responsibility for a decision they make whilst being deliberately lied to. And the fact they are being lied to...well that's also the voters fault. A legal contract will have clauses that invalidate the contract if either party enters by making deceitful claims - not voting apparently.

You can even feel superior doling out shallow truisms like "We are a democracy" and bemoaning the short sighted selfishness of voters, like you aren't a voter yourself. You are one of those short sighted selfish voters you're blaming View. I take it you tried to apply your own approach to picking your government - how did that work out for you?

The voters very clearly threw out Fianna Fail last time. They brought in Fine Gael with a clear mandate to govern in a better way - more honest, transparent, more engaged with the Dail. None of that costs any money. It would actually save money. Fine Gael have actually governed in a more dishonest, secretive and distant manner than even Fianna Fail did before them. The people are making the *right* choice: they are punishing FG and Labour.

And yet people are starting threads here, bemoaning the voters for being selfish and short-sighted because they are punishing FG and Labour.

For all the moralising the result is the same: politicians, civil servants, public figures: they've all got an excuse. Its always the voters fault. And that is actually *embraced* as a healthy political viewpoint. Laughable. Has anyone supporting that view read *any* Irish political history? The corrosive cynicism of Haughey pervades every area of Irish public life, to the point where politicians lying is no longer seen as a problem.

This is just more airy fairy nonsense. Hope, change, a new type of politics, who is doiling out shallow truisms now, you seem disappointed that Barack Obama wasn't running in our last election???

As for this

Sand wrote: »

Fine Gael have actually governed in a more dishonest, secretive and distant manner than even Fianna Fail did before them.

I'm curious to know how you came up with this considering that we've had five referendums in the last two and a half years.

We're about to exit EU/IMF bailout with no preconditions which would have been inconceiveable two years ago and yet people are moaning about this "new kind of politics" yet when pressed on the issue those in favour can't seem to explain exactly what that means without doling out obvious truisms.

flutered

Banjo String wrote: »

This too.

or howling clicking his fingers for a gaurd to come and remove photographers from his immidiate vicinity.

flutered

Horrid Henry wrote: »

Voters are to blame.

A politician who told the truth and introduced appropriate policies wouldn't get re-elected.

or to quote the fat rabbit, sure every one tells lies in order to get elected.

UpTheLilies

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Im going to play devils advocate here however notice alot of what I read online is general animosity towards current government, and I know the property tax is an example of an unpopular policy they've introduced but at the same time I know they're coming off the back of an unprecedented IMF intervention. It appears that many people seem to blame this government for all of life's problems when really its the previous govt the should be pissed at. Did people really expect the govt to turn the whole economy around after two and half years in government?

A population unhappy with their government!! what ever next.

nesf

Cedrus wrote: »

Many years ago an English Tory friend opined that democracy was a sham and the idea of universal suffrage was flawed, that some people were unfit and too uneducated to be allowed to vote.

I vociferously disagreed back then and by conviction I still would. However some of the views and more importantly the 'reasoning' behind these views aired in this forum (and many more public fora in Ireland) makes me want to call him up and apologise.

It's rather hard to study politics in any depth, talk to the general public about politics and not come out at the end of it not thinking that democracy is a bad idea. The average voter has very little understanding of how countries and economies work never mind what should be done to improve them.

That said, no one has some up with a better idea. Unless we can genetically engineer a truly benevolent dictator or something.

hatrickpatrick

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Where do I even start on this, your whole post is totally misinformed and misdirected.

First, the whole point of the Oircheatas inquiries referendum was to give the Oirechatas more powers of investigation in order to avoid long and costly Tribunals, the Govt put this option to the people and they said No. Anglo tapes were published this year and the same people who voted No to that referendum were jumping up and down because the government "wasn't doing anything".

Once again, would an Oireachtas enquiry have had the power to jail people? Forward them to the courts? Fine them?
I don't think anyone is interested in yet another completely toothless instrument allowing us to say "Yes, this guy did it, now he's free to go and nothing will happen to him" like the tribunals did.

Second, all of the links you provided are to sensationalist newspaper articles!

All of my links are to articles describing cases in which the government has sided with vested interests instead of the general population of ordinary people.

Minister for Finance is acting on legal advice most likely not to prejudice ongoing legal proceedings

What legal proceedings would be in any way affected by revealing whether or not the ECB broke the rules it's supposed to follow in order to force us into a bailout?

and the DPP is separate from the government and if they decide to grant immunity in criminal proceedings they have their reasons for doing so. Maybe the DPP made a mistake but this has nothing to do with the government and even if they wanted to, the govt cannot get directly involve in a criminal trial as that is for the courts to decide.

What form of public office does the DPP fall under, out of interest? If the position doesn't fall under "government" then what does it fall under? I'm assuming it's not "judiciary"?

The cap on bankers pay although it was what people wanted and expected at the time it transpires that to fill a position for a bank executive nobody suitably qualified for the job would be willing to take it for the salary on offer. Noonan realises this and also realises he cannot vote in favour of increases in executives pay because of the red top tabloid brigade so he abstains from the vote instead.

Why can't he vote against it...? Even if he did, it wouldn't even have passed, it would have been a purely symbolic opportunity for the minister to publicly state whose side he's actually on.

More Gardai on the case is not the Governments problem, it's a problem for the Gardai to manage their resources and obtain suitably qualified staff but you would probably have a problem with that if you felt they were being paid too much.

Actually I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, it's a case of national importance.

"Bailing out more failed businesses" only applies to people who have an insurance policy and is there to protect insurance policy holders in the event they ever have an insurance claim. For example, home insurance policy holder house burns down in the middle of the night, the 2% levy is there to ensure that the home owner receives their compensation.

And is it in any way fair to levy that on customers of other insurance companies which didn't go broke? If my shop gets robbed, should every other shop on the street have to give me a percentage of their revenue to make up for whatever was stolen from my own cash register?

All of your anger should be directed at the previous government, the bank guarantee was in 2008 and our bail out was in 2010. All of your misinformed anger is based on events that happened pre 2011 when the current government was elected.

My anger is directed both at the previous government for making a mess, and at our current government for a( how they're cleaning it up, and (b) not trying to punish those who made it in the first place.

IMO, the ship has sailed in relation to prosecuting bankers and investigations into the banking crisis. We've totally missed the boat over five years later and people really need to move on at this stage.

Would you say that to someone whose relative or friend had been murdered and five years later the perpetrators hadn't been caught? Would you say it to people like the McCanns? Just move on and forget about it?
Interesting concept. Sounds like a statute of limitations on steroids. Get away with something for long enough and no one will bother trying to catch you for it after that.

The only reason to have a banking inquiry is to banish FF to the history books where they belong along with the PD's. The Irish people also need to reflect on why the voted FF in consistently for 50 out of 80 years and why they believed Bertie when he said as Minister for Finance that he had no bank account and cashed his ministerial cheque in Fagan's pub. All we need to do is look at the who's who of FF over recent times and it pales in comparison to peoples gripes over O'Reilly and constituency favouritism; Charlie Haughey, Bertien Ahern, Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, P. Flynn, Beverly Flynn, John O'Donoghue to name just a few

Why focus only on politicians? I agree with everything you're saying about FF, but to suggest that FF were the only crooks involved in this whole mess seems ridiculous.

steddyeddy

hmmm wrote: »

A lot of Irish people wanted someone to wave a magic wand and rid us of our problems overnight, so we could get back to making ourselves rich buying property. Naturally they're disappointed.

Do you read the daily mail by any chance? You basically think that a lot of irish people thought that the recession could be solved overnight? You seriously think that a large section of the Irish people want to return to the mental property market we had and blame the government for that?

I love this head in the sand mentality. Someone with a long term illness loses a medical card they must be mad at the government becuase they didn't bring back the celtic tiger.

I'm not happy with the government for a few reasons:

• They show zero respect for the people of the country and put party politics over democracy and the well being of the country.
• They make a stand on a particular issue and won't even debate it.
• They will (they as in the inner circle of fine gael as opposed to the back benchers) will stick to an agenda without debating it no matter what logic is thrown at them
• Some of the heads of the party are seriously lacking in intelligence.

v638sg7k1a92bx

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again, would an Oireachtas enquiry have had the power to jail people? Forward them to the courts? Fine them?
I don't think anyone is interested in yet another completely toothless instrument allowing us to say "Yes, this guy did it, now he's free to go and nothing will happen to him" like the tribunals did.
All of my links are to articles describing cases in which the government has sided with vested interests instead of the general population of ordinary people.
What legal proceedings would be in any way affected by revealing whether or not the ECB broke the rules it's supposed to follow in order to force us into a bailout?
What form of public office does the DPP fall under, out of interest? If the position doesn't fall under "government" then what does it fall under? I'm assuming it's not "judiciary"?
Why can't he vote against it...? Even if he did, it wouldn't even have passed, it would have been a purely symbolic opportunity for the minister to publicly state whose side he's actually on.
Actually I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, it's a case of national importance.
And is it in any way fair to levy that on customers of other insurance companies which didn't go broke? If my shop gets robbed, should every other shop on the street have to give me a percentage of their revenue to make up for whatever was stolen from my own cash register?
My anger is directed both at the previous government for making a mess, and at our current government for a( how they're cleaning it up, and (b) not trying to punish those who made it in the first place.
Would you say that to someone whose relative or friend had been murdered and five years later the perpetrators hadn't been caught? Would you say it to people like the McCanns? Just move on and forget about it?
Interesting concept. Sounds like a statute of limitations on steroids. Get away with something for long enough and no one will bother trying to catch you for it after that.
Why focus only on politicians? I agree with everything you're saying about FF, but to suggest that FF were the only crooks involved in this whole mess seems ridiculous.

Here we go again. I’m not going to even attempt to reply to each of one of your inaccuracies as it appears the first intellectual smack down only appears to have made you dig a deeper hole rather than allayed any of your misinformed opinions. It appears that you’re upset because the Minister for Finance doesn’t call you in advance of every decision he makes in order to get your approval. Also, your parallel between Madeline McCanns disappearance and the Irish banking crisis is just a bridge to far for me but this argument trumps them all:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And is it in any way fair to levy that on customers of other insurance companies which didn't go broke? If my shop gets robbed, should every other shop on the street have to give me a percentage of their revenue to make up for whatever was stolen from my own cash register?

By your selective criteria, should the same not apply for our tax regime? For example, if we applied your methodology, why should people earning higher incomes pay higher taxes so that people on lower incomes can avail of services such as healthcare, housing, public transport etc. If we apply your example of the “cash register” people on higher incomes should pay the same amount as every else. But then you also seem to have a problem with said high earners who according to you this government is looking after.

Sand

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Here we go again. I’m not going to even attempt to reply to each of one of your inaccuracies

Have you even attempted to reply to anyone's actual points on the thread at all?

You asked why people are angry. People tell you why they are angry. You're clearly not interested in listening to them or replying to them. They're not asking for your permission to be annoyed with the government. You cant disprove their anger. Get over it.

Hootanany

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again, would an Oireachtas enquiry have had the power to jail people? Forward them to the courts? Fine them?
I don't think anyone is interested in yet another completely toothless instrument allowing us to say "Yes, this guy did it, now he's free to go and nothing will happen to him" like the tribunals did.



All of my links are to articles describing cases in which the government has sided with vested interests instead of the general population of ordinary people.



What legal proceedings would be in any way affected by revealing whether or not the ECB broke the rules it's supposed to follow in order to force us into a bailout?



What form of public office does the DPP fall under, out of interest? If the position doesn't fall under "government" then what does it fall under? I'm assuming it's not "judiciary"?



Why can't he vote against it...? Even if he did, it wouldn't even have passed, it would have been a purely symbolic opportunity for the minister to publicly state whose side he's actually on.



Actually I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, it's a case of national importance.



And is it in any way fair to levy that on customers of other insurance companies which didn't go broke? If my shop gets robbed, should every other shop on the street have to give me a percentage of their revenue to make up for whatever was stolen from my own cash register?



My anger is directed both at the previous government for making a mess, and at our current government for a( how they're cleaning it up, and (b) not trying to punish those who made it in the first place.



Would you say that to someone whose relative or friend had been murdered and five years later the perpetrators hadn't been caught? Would you say it to people like the McCanns? Just move on and forget about it?
Interesting concept. Sounds like a statute of limitations on steroids. Get away with something for long enough and no one will bother trying to catch you for it after that.



Why focus only on politicians? I agree with everything you're saying about FF, but to suggest that FF were the only crooks involved in this whole mess seems ridiculous.

TLDR

They are lying Toads that are just feathering their best nests like the last shower.
Time for a change.

gandalf

Hootanany wrote: »

Time for a change.

To what?

Cookie_Monster

gandalf wrote: »

To what?

The Brits? They've haven't had a go in nearly 100 years :pac:

Billy86

Well don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Skrynesaver

gandalf wrote: »

To what?

Any chance we could do a replay of Clontarf and throw it? The Danes seem to be good at the whole effective government thing.

Son Of A Vidic

gandalf wrote: »

Hootanany wrote: »

TLDR

Time for a change.

To what?

With a response like that, it might be a wise move to change your avatar.

ardmacha

The Danes seem to be good at the whole effective government thing.

Their bank didn't make much of a go of things here.

micosoft

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And is it in any way fair to levy that on customers of other insurance companies which didn't go broke? If my shop gets robbed, should every other shop on the street have to give me a percentage of their revenue to make up for whatever was stolen from my own cash register?

Amazing hatrickpatrick. You've just invented the concept of Insurance without even trying...

hatrickpatrick

Talia Modern Football wrote: »

Here we go again. I’m not going to even attempt to reply to each of one of your inaccuracies as it appears the first intellectual smack down only appears to have made you dig a deeper hole rather than allayed any of your misinformed opinions. It appears that you’re upset because the Minister for Finance doesn’t call you in advance of every decision he makes in order to get your approval.

I'm upset that he went against the very clear wishes of the people he allegedly represents. Almost nobody wants to see bankers being paid more than they already are; as representatives, the actions of TDs when given the opportunity should reflect that.

Also, your parallel between Madeline McCanns disappearance and the Irish banking crisis is just a bridge to far for me

It's called an analogy - both are unsolved crimes, you're implying that when X amount of time has passed, people should just "let it go" and forget about pursuing justice. As far as I'm concerned, even if a hundred years pass by without justice being served, it's still worth pursuing. If there was wrongdoing, it deserves to be exposed and punished. If what happened was technically not illegal, then it should be made illegal to ensure that nobody ever, ever tries to pull the same crap again for as long as this nation exists.
Is that an unreasonable proposition? I'm not suggesting we should be making new laws to act retrospectively, I'm saying that if it's found that Seanie's loan juggling with Nationwide and Anglo's deal with the golden circle were not criminal offenses, then fair enough. Let them go. BUT - there's absolutely no reason not to then say "Right, we had to let these people go, but tomorrow morning we begin drafting NEW legislation so that nobody will ever be able to get away with this again in the future".

Is there anything remotely unreasonable about that? If loopholes exist, close them. Without delay.

By your selective criteria, should the same not apply for our tax regime? For example, if we applied your methodology, why should people earning higher incomes pay higher taxes so that people on lower incomes can avail of services such as healthcare, housing, public transport etc. If we apply your example of the “cash register” people on higher incomes should pay the same amount as every else.

Insurance is not a public service. You choose to sign up for it and you know the risk you take when you choose to sign up for it, just like with banking.
Where would you propose this should end, exactly? If it's ok to do this with insurance, when does it become unacceptable? Levying an extra charge on everyone who has a magazine subscription because one magazine publisher went broke and those who had subscriptions to it have to be compensated? Asking everyone who books a hotel room on a particular weekend tp fork out to compensate those who booked for a hotel which has since gone bankrupt?

Business between a private entity and a private citizen are neither anyone else's problem nor anyone else's responsibility. If it goes belly up, it sucks, but it's not something that customers of other businesses should have to pay for. It's nothing to do with them and shouldn't be.
What makes insurance special, that it shouldn't be treated like any other private business arrangement (assuming of course, that you DON'T in fact believe, to take my example, that everyone booking a hotel room in an unrelated hotel should be charged extra to refund those who booked rooms in a now bankrupt hotel?)

But then you also seem to have a problem with said high earners who according to you this government is looking after.

When have I EVER said I had a problem with high earners? I have a problem with people who have undue influence on government policy and I have a problem with people who are protected by the government selectively because of who they are, while others are hung out to dry. It should be one rule for everyone.
Someone's income literally make no difference to my opinion of them - I'd have no problem with a multi billionaire as long as he or she didn't use that money to influence political representatives and as long as he or she wasn't protected by the government if and when he or she completely f*cked up, a la the banks.
You're trying, perhaps unwittingly, to bracket me in with the type of left wing activist who objects to wealth in general. I don't consider myself one of those. As long as it's earned honestly and more importantly used legitimately (IE, not for nefarious purposes) I have nothing against wealth and/or the holders thereof. There are plenty of good people among the wealthy as well as the gangsters I have an issue with, and I think if you look at my history here you'd find that any attempt to paint me as being just generally anti-rich is without basis. You can be rich and part of the political elite, just as you can be part of the political elite and not rich. They may be related issues, but they're not the same.

Icepick

rodento wrote: »

We were promised a whole new kind of politics and got Perry, Hogan and O'Reilly

We were offered hope and got to support a system that allows people to stay in their unpaid for house's for free

We were offered a future but the government is holding on to a massive housing stock for statigic reasons....

We were offered fairness and equity but got a squeezed middle, the upper /lower classes got off scot free

We were offered real reform....

But if all this happened, they would be even less popular, especially Labour.

And they have to reform a civil service that oversaw and contributed to the economic crash.