Can we have peaceful, national protests yet?

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

And this, my peers, is a quite obvious attempt to stigmatize dissent.

So you would, in fact, prefer to have our country run by Vladimir Putin than by Enda Kenny?

hatrickpatrick

Bringing down the government won't change anything. It's the structure of our establishment that's the problem, not the people we put in it.
Changing the petrol won't help if the engine itself is bollocksed. We need a new engine.

comongethappy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Bringing down the government won't change anything. It's the structure of our establishment that's the problem, not the people we put in it.
Changing the petrol won't help if the engine itself is bollocksed. We need a new engine.

What is your solution?

hatrickpatrick

comongethappy wrote: »

What is your solution?

Standing orders need to be changed to move away from party line based politics and give independents more power in the Dail. Very stringent rules need to be introduced regarding shenanigans (since the word "corruption" is objected to by some ere outside a very narrow definition) of any kind - basically standards in public office need to be much, much higher.

As I've said before, Shatter's position shouldn't even be in question now, because his releasing of confidential information on Wallace should have resulted in his immediate removal from the DOJ. In any decent democracy it would have. There needs to be asolute zero tolerance to any misbehaviour of this sort whatsoever.

The right of recall should also be introduced as a matter of urgency. This culture of "great, I got a seat, now I can go back on every word I said before the election and there's nothing anyone can do about it for five years" must end ASAP.

These are just off the top of my head, I'm on my iPhone on a train at the moment so can't type anything too elaborate I'll post something more detailed when I get home, but how do you react in principle to the proposals here?
Standing order reform to place less emphasis on party politics, stringent laws against any kind f dodgy behaviour while in office, the right for the public to recall politicians at any time in between enteral elections, and generally far more democratic accountability.

Uriel.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Standing orders need to be changed to move away from party line based politics and give independents more power in the Dail. Very stringent rules need to be introduced regarding shenanigans (since the word "corruption" is objected to by some ere outside a very narrow definition) of any kind - basically standards in public office need to be much, much higher.

As I've said before, Shatter's position shouldn't even be in question now, because his releasing of confidential information on Wallace should have resulted in his immediate removal from the DOJ. In any decent democracy it would have. There needs to be asolute zero tolerance to any misbehaviour of this sort whatsoever.

The right of recall should also be introduced as a matter of urgency. This culture of "great, I got a seat, now I can go back on every word I said before the election and there's nothing anyone can do about it for five years" must end ASAP.

These are just off the top of my head, I'm on my iPhone on a train at the moment so can't type anything too elaborate I'll post something more detailed when I get home, but how do you react in principle to the proposals here?
Standing order reform to place less emphasis on party politics, stringent laws against any kind f dodgy behaviour while in office, the right for the public to recall politicians at any time in between enteral elections, and generally far more democratic accountability.

The right to recall would create a far too unstable Government and Parliament in my view and would only serve to damage the country in the long run. There has to be some acceptance that priorities change, other issues arise, unforeseen difficulties arise and resource constraints lead to "promises" being delay or watered down. Additionally, we are terrified to give Government too much power, and coupled with poor choice, we are left with coalitions, that by their very nature must compromise on actions and objectives.

Are there not stringent rules for public office holders already? SIPO, and general laws etc. What laws would you develop that are not already in place and that wouldn't stymie effective governance?


Standing order reform requires a very detailed analysis, and I am not sure that having a free for all voting with no party lines is stepping in the right direction. That's not the say the current system is fit for purpose either.

The one monumental shift required is how we govern and and elect representatives.

Local Government should be much more autonomous and should take on greater responsibility for managing local issues, including large transport and infrastructure programs. They should also have better control over budget and expenditure (and income).

Are legislature should be elected on a national basis to act as policy makers/developers and not be getting caught up in local politics and pot hole filling. To facilitate some of the changes, the Seanad needs to go completely.

I would also favour a directly elected President or Taoiseach, elected by all of the people to serve as head of the State (e.g. like the USA) and the other office abolished.

The 3 arms of the State would then be Dáil, Taoiseach/President, Judiciary and with a stronger local government. Won't ever happen though.

martingriff

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is it not entirely reasonable to try to gauge the level of interest in a new campaign before one sets it in motion?

But you have no campain your talking in general terms here about this and that iy just like those stupid occupy movements. To gage reaction you need to have a movement a set of ideals a plan a facebook page or something like that. You have given none of those yet.

By the use of the word some of us and all that it sounds like there is a movment or something if so what is it where is it. You are sounding like the keyboard warrior at the moment

sarumite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've said before, Shatter's position shouldn't even be in question now, because his releasing of confidential information on Wallace should have resulted in his immediate removal from the DOJ. In any decent democracy it would have. There needs to be asolute zero tolerance to any misbehaviour of this sort whatsoever.

In a decent democracy Wallace would have been turfed out long before Shatter could have released the information about him.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you would, in fact, prefer to have our country run by Vladimir Putin than by Enda Kenny?

In what way does this false dichotomy you've conjured, as if from thin air, relate to my comment?

Banjo String

sarumite wrote: »

In a decent democracy Wallace would have been turfed out long before Shatter could have released the information about him.

Why?

sarumite

Banjo String wrote: »

Why?

Because I don't hold Wallace to a lower standard than everyone else. A country cannot be run if people are knowingly and willfully cheating the general public out of taxes.

Banjo String

sarumite wrote: »

Because I don't hold Wallace to a lower standard than everyone else. A country cannot be run if people are knowingly and willfully cheating the general public out of taxes.

Hasn't he reached an agreement with Revenue, and all outstanding monies will be repaid?

Weren't FG guilty of defrauding Revenue by paying staff 'under the counter' for almost ten years? So maybe you should include Michael Noonan in your statement?

I'm not defending Mick Wallace btw, but it does seem some folk have very short memories indeed.

sarumite

Banjo String wrote: »

Hasn't he reached an agreement with Revenue, and all outstanding monies will be repaid?

Weren't FG guilty of defrauding Revenue by paying staff 'under the counter' for almost ten years? So maybe you should include Michael Noonan in your statement?

I'm not defending Mick Wallace btw, but it does seem some folk have very short memories indeed.

You may not be defending him, but you are doing a fair amount of deflection. My point still stands, he knowingly under declared his taxes.

I was responding to a post that specifically referred to Shatter and Wallace and not one discussing TD's or PP's in general. If you want to say others should be turfed out, by all means do.

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

In what way does this false dichotomy you've conjured, as if from thin air, relate to my comment?

What dichotomy have I conjured?

Banjo String

sarumite wrote: »

My point still stands, he knowingly under declared his taxes.

As did Noonan and the FG party. So my point is as valid as yours.

sarumite wrote: »

I was responding to a post that specifically referred to Shatter and Wallace and not one discussing TD's or PP's in general. If you want to say others should be turfed out, by all means do.

Shatter used personal info to discredit Wallace, weeks later it emerged Shatter had his own questionable dealings with gards on traffic duty.

Glass houses is all.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

What dichotomy have I conjured?

The false dichotomy where you asked which of the two dear leaders I'd prefer.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you would, in fact, prefer to have our country run by Vladimir Putin than by Enda Kenny?

Regardless of your attempt to distract attention by engaging in semantics (a favoured tactic of yours) I'll ask again.

How does your response relate to what I wrote?

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

The false dichotomy where you asked which of the two dear leaders I'd prefer.

Someone claimed that we'd be better off under Putin than Kenny. I considered this a childish and stupid argument, and pointed out that the lack of constructive alternatives being proposed was a good reason why people are not disposed to protest against the status quo. You in turn took umbrage at me pointing this out. Specifically, you described my post as "stigmatising dissent".

Now, given that you got upset that I was scoffing at the idea of Vladimir Putin as an improvement on Enda Kenny, I asked you to clarify whether you believed that Putin would in fact be an improvement. At that point you got all arm-wavy and indignant.

It's my considered belief that if someone thinks that we should be protesting against the current government, it behoves them to offer an intelligent alternative to it. If you believe protest is its own end and that an intelligent alternative is purely optional, I'll lend you my "down with this sort of thing" placard.

If you believe that protest does require an intelligent alternative, but agree with me that proposing Putin in place of Kenny doesn't come within an ass's roar of being such an alternative, then I'm frankly at a loss as to what your point is.

hatrickpatrick

Uriel. wrote: »

The right to recall would create a far too unstable Government and Parliament in my view and would only serve to damage the country in the long run.

Why is "stability" seen as some kind of gold standard? A boat which is at the bottom of the ocean can be described as "stable". A boat which is being raised is not "stable" as it is in flux. Stability doesn't necessarily equal good.

There has to be some acceptance that priorities change, other issues arise, unforeseen difficulties arise and resource constraints lead to "promises" being delay or watered down.

That's fair enough, but if a government's direction changes dramatically from the mandate we give them, we should be able to force them out. Otherwise election mandates are entirely worthless to begin with.

Additionally, we are terrified to give Government too much power, and coupled with poor choice, we are left with coalitions, that by their very nature must compromise on actions and objectives.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? The less power the government has, the better (in my opinion anyway). If you don't agree, I'm curious as to why - any particular specifics?

Are there not stringent rules for public office holders already? SIPO, and general laws etc. What laws would you develop that are not already in place and that wouldn't stymie effective governance?

If there were stringent rules for public office holders already, Shatter wouldn't be in power right now and FF wouldn't have lasted even half as long as they did. Shenanigans - that's general wrongdoing, from using privileged information to smear an opponent in a political attack to breaking agreed cabinet rules for ministerial advisor's pay (Kenny and Noonan) - these are unacceptable abuses of power (however small, no abuse of power is acceptable) and should be dealt with accordingly.

Standing order reform requires a very detailed analysis,

That's a good point, I'll make another thread about that in a while. To be fair I've been meaning to do that and look at them in detail, I just haven't had a chance.

and I am not sure that having a free for all voting with no party lines is stepping in the right direction. That's not the say the current system is fit for purpose either.

Why not? They'd be beholden to the public rather than to the cabinet. The whole purpose of a parliament is to hold the cabinet to account, not to rubber stamp it - the Dail is utterly useless in its current form, if you removed all of the TDs and just let the cabinet make all the laws nothing would change. This is an absurd system of government and must go.

The one monumental shift required is how we govern and and elect representatives.

Isn't that what I'm advocating?

Local Government should be much more autonomous and should take on greater responsibility for managing local issues, including large transport and infrastructure programs. They should also have better control over budget and expenditure (and income).

100 million per cent agree with this. Absolutely. The more powers which are removed from national government and given to local government, the better. But that won't happen unless the people demand it.

Our legislature should be elected on a national basis to act as policy makers/developers and not be getting caught up in local politics and pot hole filling.

Agreed.

To facilitate some of the changes, the Seanad needs to go completely.

I'm not sure about this - the Dail cannot be the be all and end all (unless it is completely and totally reformed, along the lines I've already suggested)

I would also favour a directly elected President or Taoiseach, elected by all of the people to serve as head of the State (e.g. like the USA) and the other office abolished.

To be honest I've always gone further and advocated directly elected departmental TDs. It would solve the mixed bag problem when it comes to elections now - the classic fallacy thrown around in EU debates is "If the general public didn't want integration they'd vote for SF". Obviously this is pure rubbish since there are many other SF policies people don't agree with - but if politicians had to specialize in a particular department and run for that department at election time, this would no longer be an issue. So if I felt I could make a real difference to the health service, I'd run as a TD for the department of health and would focus on those issues during my term.
These are all just ideas and they're pretty off topic to be fair, but the central point I think we both seem to agree on is that things have to change in Ireland. Where I think we disagree is that you seem to believe this can happen by working through the present system. Personally I don't think our self serving politicians will ever do anything like this unless we make them.
Central to my argument, once again, is that democracy shouldn't be a spectator sport. The general public should be as involved as possible in how the country is run, not just once every five years. This gives too much leeway for governments to betray their mandates in between elections, as happens literally every time we elect a government.

The 3 arms of the State would then be Dáil, Taoiseach/President, Judiciary and with a stronger local government. Won't ever happen though.

Well not with that defeatist attitude, it won't

martingriff wrote: »

But you have no campain your talking in general terms here about this and that iy just like those stupid occupy movements. To gage reaction you need to have a movement a set of ideals a plan a facebook page or something like that. You have given none of those yet.

Read the post which was being quoted here. First and foremost, I want corruption/wrongdoing/shenanigans to be dealt with unbelievably harshly. No more bullsh!t - if you abuse your office, you're gone. End of. So I'd start with a campaign for greater accountability.

By the use of the word some of us and all that it sounds like there is a movment or something if so what is it where is it. You are sounding like the keyboard warrior at the moment

There isn't a movement yet, just a lot of people who are very sick of how things are being run.
The problem I have with people like yourself is that they always want a fully fledged political party at the beginning of a discussion. That's ridiculous - movements emerge from conversations, you can't expect a defined movement when we haven't had the conversation yet!

sarumite wrote: »

In a decent democracy Wallace would have been turfed out long before Shatter could have released the information about him.

Not disagreeing with this necessarily, but can you explain why specifically?

sarumite

Banjo String wrote: »

As did Noonan and the FG party. So my point is as valid as yours.

I am not arguing the validity of your point, merely the relevance of it.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

Someone claimed that we'd be better off under Putin than Kenny. I considered this a childish and stupid argument, and pointed out that the lack of constructive alternatives being proposed was a good reason why people are not disposed to protest against the status quo.

Em.. you did not point out that there were lack of constructive alternatives. You took a stupid statement and suggested that boys and girls would be protesters don't protest because someone somewhere critical of the status quo says a stupid thing, the implication being that you too will be stupid if you protest.

Here it is again and you'll note that there is no pointing out of a lack of constructive alternatives.

jelfs wrote: »

Putin would be better.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And this, boys and girls, is why we're not protesting.

There is no doubt the statement was stupid but to try to present it up as typical of all who would protest for change, as I have pointed out, is little more than an attempt to stigmatise dissent.

Now, given that you got upset

I wasn't and am not at all upset.

that I was scoffing at the idea of Vladimir Putin as an improvement on Enda Kenny

But that's not what you did. You took a stupid statement and tried to use its stupidity as typical of those who'd protest creating a 'they stupid, we not' trivialisation of the issue.

I asked you to clarify whether you believed that Putin would in fact be an improvement.

No, you asked if I'd prefer Putin over Kenny. 'Would you like a nasty rash or malignant melanoma'. I'd rather have neither, ta.

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

Em.. you did not point out that there were lack of constructive alternatives.

That's true: I didn't explicitly say that.

You took a stupid statement and suggested that boys and girls would be protesters don't protest because someone somewhere critical of the status quo says a stupid thing, the implication being that you too will be stupid if you protest.

I didn't explicitly say that either. So in the absence of me explicitly stating what I meant, you decided that you knew what I meant, and argued with that. If you weren't clear on what my point was, it would have made more sense to ask than to jump to a conclusion.

For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't imply that people who protest are stupid. I pointed out - by implication - that protesting to demand change without offering a constructive alternative is stupid.

twowheelsgood

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not? They'd be beholden to the public rather than to the cabinet. The whole purpose of a parliament is to hold the cabinet to account, not to rubber stamp it - the Dail is utterly useless in its current form, if you removed all of the TDs and just let the cabinet make all the laws nothing would change. This is an absurd system of government and must go.

But surely removing the whips would lead to a parliament of county councils; all Dail members would simply focus on what’s best for their constituents. We would end up with a hospital, a third level college etc. in every constituency, a garda station in every village!

If what was good for the various constituencies was automatically good for the country then it might make some sense but if what you are proposing came to pass there would no longer even any formulation of national policy, on anything. It would be politically impossible to implement it, other than by accident.

hatrickpatrick

twowheelsgood wrote: »

But surely removing the whips would lead to a parliament of county councils; all Dail members would simply focus on what’s best for their constituents. We would end up with a hospital, a third level college etc. in every constituency, a garda station in every village!

Not if most of those issues were already the responsibility of local councils to begin with. The national parliament should be primarily concerned with national issues, not what goes where.

If what was good for the various constituencies was automatically good for the country then it might make some sense but if what you are proposing came to pass there would no longer even any formulation of national policy, on anything. It would be politically impossible to implement it, other than by accident.

See above with regard to empowered local / regional government. When it comes to making laws, deciding how the country is actually run etc, the more direct control the people have over how their representatives vote, the less likely we are to have a situation in which vested interests run the show.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't explicitly say that either.

That's why I used the word 'suggested'.

I pointed out - by implication - that protesting to demand change without offering a constructive alternative is stupid.

You did? I'm not so sure..

jelfs
Putin would be better.

oscarBravo
And this, boys and girls, is why we're not protesting.

Here's how it appears. When you say 'we' you're creating an 'us-and-them' dichotomy. 'We' (the sensible ones) don't protest because 'they' (the stupid ones) say things like that.

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

Here's how it appears.

Tell you what: you've decided you know better than I do what I meant, even after I've explained to you that you're wrong. That means that having a discussion with you on the subject is a waste of time, so I won't be bothering any more.

How much more productive would your posts on this thread have been if they had been proposing a realistic alternative that could be achieved through protesting, rather than arguing vehemently with a straw man?

twowheelsgood

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not if most of those issues were already the responsibility of local councils to begin with. The national parliament should be primarily concerned with national issues, not what goes where.

None of the examples I mentioned should be the responsibility of local councils. But they would be of major importance as local issues. The local government TD would not be well received if he were to tell his constituents that these are national issues and as a legislator in the national parliament his duty is clear!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When it comes to making laws, deciding how the country is actually run etc, the more direct control the people have over how their representatives vote, the less likely we are to have a situation in which vested interests run the show.

But no TD would then ever have any interest in national matters. All politics is local and the constituents want what is best for the locality, even if that is sub-optimal for the country!

Our TDs already focus too much on local matters, remove the whip and the distraction will be total. The whip gives them opportunity to occasionally consider the national good.

hatrickpatrick

twowheelsgood wrote: »

None of the examples I mentioned should be the responsibility of local councils.

Why not?

Our TDs already focus too much on local matters, remove the whip and the distraction will be total. The whip gives them opportunity to occasionally consider the national good.

It also removes the opportunity to consider what ordinary people outside the political circle actually want, and gives them something to hide behind when they take decisions which the vast majority of those people disapprove of.

bumper234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not?



It also removes the opportunity to consider what ordinary people outside the political circle actually want, and gives them something to hide behind when they take decisions which the vast majority of those people disapprove of.

You only have to look at the way the Healy Raes use their position to get what they want for their constituants. Imagine that on a much larger scale....the country would be bankrupt within 6 months.

twowheelsgood

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not?

Seriously? Higher education policy a local matter? Or our hospital network? What exactly do you consider to matters requiring national policy if not things like these?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It also removes the opportunity to consider what ordinary people outside the political circle actually want, and gives them something to hide behind when they take decisions which the vast majority of those people disapprove of.

The vast majority of people will disapprove of unpopular measures but they are sometimes (frequently) necessary. Or are you suggesting that a popular decision is a good one, and vice versa?

martingriff

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read the post which was being quoted here. First and foremost, I want corruption/wrongdoing/shenanigans to be dealt with unbelievably harshly. No more bullsh!t - if you abuse your office, you're gone. End of. So I'd start with a campaign for greater accountability.



There isn't a movement yet, just a lot of people who are very sick of how things are being run.
The problem I have with people like yourself is that they always want a fully fledged political party at the beginning of a discussion. That's ridiculous - movements emerge from conversations, you can't expect a defined movement when we haven't had the conversation yet!

I was responding to a message which I quoted not another. So wait a minute there is a lot a people sick with what is going on and rather than yourselves starting something for people to get behind you come on here to get people to do it that is the very definition of a keyboard warrior. I never asked for a political party but a movement needs a message a forum a page. If this is so very important to you then here is a novel thing DO SOMETHING ORGANISE SOMETHING don't wait and see if someone else will do it for you. If you have a conviction on something than you should care less what people are doing because and I will say it again what you are at the moment is a KEYBOARD WARRIOR

RichardAnd

Protests in Ireland will never go down well. I can't comment on the social phenomena or phenomenon that allows this to be so, but if someone tries to question the power that be, they will probably run into some of all of the following groups of individuals.

The "sheeple": I don't need to explain this portmanteau. Anyone who falls into this group will invariable be someone who may well know that they are being screwed, but they are too meek to do anything about it. Governments love sheeple. In Ireland, they just need to tell them that protesting and the like will upset their credit rating and the good little boys and girls will fall into line.

The lazy: I would say that this is the largest group I will attempt to describe. These guys know well that the system is rigged, but they won't do anything about it. After all, why protest when Fair City and Facebook are calling...

The begrudgers: Everyone know what I mean by "begrudger." People in this group don't care how badly they get f**ked. Their only concern is that everyone else gets screwed with them. This group is very easily herded by any government.

The smug. The smug professional. We all know someone like this, and we probably all want to smack him. This type of person will gladly go along with any edict the government hands down. When anyone else attempts to question the said action, the smug individual will immediately lambast the inquisitive soul because the smug and effete professional has convinced himself that accepting everything the state throws at him makes him some kind of intellectual.

I have a particular loathing for this group. This board is swimming with such people, but you’ll rarely find them in real life. The reason is very simple; these people are cowards. They only taut their supercilious crap on a board because they can do so anonymously.

Most of these people are probably upper middle class “professionals.” It’s likely that they are in a position where they will (or believe they will) be insulated from economic hardship. You won’t find many of these guys on the dole.

Phoebas

^^ No possibility at all then that there are a group of people not protesting because they feel that the government is actually doing quite a good job in the circumstances and the would be protesters aren't really making a great case for alternatives?

A broad based protest isn't going to be built by people who only want to insult the people who aren't with them.

Uriel.

Phoebas wrote: »

^^ No possibility at all then that there are a group of people not protesting because they feel that the government is actually doing quite a good job in the circumstances and the would be protesters aren't really making a great case for alternatives?

A broad based protest isn't going to be built by people who only want to insult the people who aren't with them.

How could you even think that? It's completely beyond the realms for these nutjobs to accept that the majority of people know certain things are necessary and get on with it.

Apparently it's not possible that a government could be doing a decent job.

martingriff

Uriel. wrote: »

How could you even think that? It's completely beyond the realms for these nutjobs to accept that the majority of people know certain things are necessary and get on with it.

Apparently it's not possible that a government could be doing a decent job.

Of course they aren't:

No extra money in my hand
No. estra money to get out of selling my house.
No magic bullet

There doing a terrible job:P

jdawson

Phoebas wrote: »

^^ No possibility at all then that there are a group of people not protesting because they feel that the government is actually doing quite a good job in the circumstances and the would be protesters aren't really making a great case for alternatives?

A broad based protest isn't going to be built by people who only want to insult the people who aren't with them.

Uriel. wrote: »

How could you even think that? It's completely beyond the realms for these nutjobs to accept that the majority of people know certain things are necessary and get on with it.

Apparently it's not possible that a government could be doing a decent job.

Both of you remind me of a comment I was told a party hack made at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis, that obviously most people must be happy with the performance of Fine Gael in government (despite the corruption scandals, incompetence & hypocrisy, bizarre taxes, and raiding of pensions) because there are no large scale protests on the streets. If this view is shared by many others in Fine Gael, they are treading a very dangerous line. The arrogance of some of the front bench, Shatter and Hogan in particular, suggests this is the case.

Many of my circle who are upper middle class, the Fine Gael core vote, are remarking that they are worse than Fianna Fáil. It takes a special breed of fool to enter government after the last crowd and be seen to be even worse. Labour, obviously, were never a consideration for these people despite Labour abandoning the working class vote in an attempt to get a share of the middle class vote. These people will probably never take to the streets, but they will show their dissatisfaction in the next General Election.

Phoebas wrote: »

At this stage of what?

We are infinitely better off now than we were when the last government fell. I swear, some people have the shortest memories.

Whenever someone tells me something is "infinitely better" I immediately think they are a bull****ter.

comongethappy

Tell us the alternative then?

Personally I'm not happy with things as they are.
However I'm certain that a Dáil majority of Mary-lou's & Joe Higgins will not deliver a utopian alternative for Ireland.

Though I'm happy to hear your alternative?

Uriel.

jdawson wrote: »

It takes a special breed of fool to enter government after the last crowd and be seen to be even worse.

I don't think so at all. You have a strange view of the last 10 years.

The current Government came into power when the country was effectively on its knees, if not already half buried.

Things are not so bad as they were 3 years ago. It's a slow process for sure, but how you could possibly think that this Government have under performed in comparison to the last is beyond me.

The problem you and your mates seem to have is the wonderful thinking that If I pay more taxes the Government is crap. If the Government give me more money they must be good.This just isn't the case, not always at least.

Have I less disposable income than I had 5 or 6 years ago? for sure! But if you think it had to be any other way then you are delusional - would another single or coalition Government other than the current have produced some sort of magic money tree to free us of our woes? No, of course not!

renegademaster

comongethappy wrote: »

Tell us the alternative then?

Personally I'm not happy with things as they are.
However I'm certain that a Dáil majority of Mary-lou's & Joe Higgins will not deliver a utopian alternative for Ireland.

Though I'm happy to hear your alternative?

sure we thought we gave a mandate to the current rot and look what they've done with it, i particulalry remember enda kenny adressing the davos forum and saying it was the peoples fault and then coming home and telling us it wasn't our fault, time magazine front pages bought and paid for for "good" PR, lies to get into power, changing of illegal bond payments and kicking the can down the road 40 years so our childrens children can sort it out.

if ya sit down and think about it, there's a serious list of reasons the current government needs to go and we need to show the people are awake or they next crowd will walk all over us again, be it this year or in april 2016, only difference between generals this year or in 2 years is if we wait 2 years we show everyone we're all asleep

jdawson

Uriel. wrote: »

I don't think so at all. You have a strange view of the last 10 years.

The current Government came into power when the country was effectively on its knees, if not already half buried.

Things are not so bad as they were 3 years ago. It's a slow process for sure, but how you could possibly think that this Government have under performed in comparison to the last is beyond me.

The problem you and your mates seem to have is the wonderful thinking that If I pay more taxes the Government is crap. If the Government give me more money they must be good.This just isn't the case, not always at least.

Have I less disposable income than I had 5 or 6 years ago? for sure! But if you think it had to be any other way then you are delusional - would another single or coalition Government other than the current have produced some sort of magic money tree to free us of our woes? No, of course not!

I agree that how the current government have underperformed may be beyond your intellect, stating that taxes are the reason why my "mates" are dissatisfied would suggest that is the case. Fine Gael had an open goal and blasted the ball wide and high.

comongethappy

renegademaster wrote: »

if ya sit down and think about it, there's a serious list of reasons the current government needs to go

So let's say that is true.

Which party would you like to see take power?

And what are you doing today to make that happen?

Uriel.

jdawson wrote: »

I agree that how the current government have underperformed may be beyond your intellect, stating that taxes are the reason why my "mates" are dissatisfied would suggest that is the case. Fine Gael had an open goal and blasted the ball wide and high.

well played sir, didn't take you long to get around to the playground, fancy a push on the swing?

hatrickpatrick

comongethappy wrote: »

So let's say that is true.

Which party would you like to see take power?

And what are you doing today to make that happen?

It's not about parties. It's about our system of government and the rules which govern those who sit in the Dail, in the cabinet table, in government departments, etc etc etc.

Let's start with something fairly basic. Would you agree that James Reilly should have been removed from his post with immediate effect when this whole debacle was revealed?
Perhaps I just desire higher standards of ethics from our government than you do.

jdawson

Uriel. wrote: »

well played sir, didn't take you long to get around to the playground, fancy a push on the swing?

There's no point in discussing this with someone who invents viewpoints and talks about magic money trees, I'll be sure to inform my "mates" that taxes are the reason why they are dissatisfied with the government. Run along. :pac:

comongethappy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about parties. It's about our system of government and the rules which govern those who sit in the Dail, in the cabinet table, in government departments, etc etc etc.

Let's start with something fairly basic. Would you agree that James Reilly should have been removed from his post with immediate effect when this whole debacle was revealed?
Perhaps I just desire higher standards of ethics from our government than you do.

Straw man stuff.

You claim its "not about parties".

What is it about then.

Please tell everyone YOUR form of government (that will work & is not fantastical).

Then tell us about what you are doing to implement it.

renegademaster

comongethappy wrote: »

Straw man stuff.

You claim its "not about parties".

What is it about then.

Please tell everyone YOUR form of government (that will work & is not fantastical).

Then tell us about what you are doing to implement it.

problem is not who's in the dail, it's what the people let these individuals away with while they're in the dail and afterwards these corrupt individuals walk away with full term pensions!!

Uriel.

jdawson wrote: »

There's no point in discussing this with someone who invents viewpoints and talks about magic money trees, I'll be sure to inform my "mates" that taxes are the reason why they are dissatisfied with the government. Run along. :pac:

Cool. While informing them, make sure you find out what they have in mind to take over from the current Government.

comongethappy

renegademaster wrote: »

problem is not who's in the dail, it's what the people let these individuals away with while they're in the dail and afterwards these corrupt individuals walk away with full term pensions!!

So your solution is.........

(seeing as the Irish electorate rejected plans to increase the scope & scale of investigations into politicians & officials)

renegademaster

comongethappy wrote: »

So your solution is.........

(seeing as the Irish electorate rejected plans to increase the scope & scale of investigations into politicians & officials)

holding governement to account!! mess up and you're out, this idea of leaving blatently corrupt liers in power for their full terms and watch them ride out into the sunset with full term pensions and the profits from claiming and taking all they could in the 4 years is not holding government to account, it's called fanning the flames!!

you are deliberately tryin to complicate the solution here for some reason unknown to me, are you on glue??

ps the irish people were damn right in rejecting the plans to increase the scope & scale of investigations into politicians & officials, christ imagine the corrupt shower having those powers!!

Scofflaw

jdawson, Uriel, pack in the playground stuff please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

comongethappy

It IS a complicated matter .

In order for us to get on board with your ideas, you have to articulate them.

Please outline further how politicians are to be removed from their ministerial office?
How does one measure something like competence?

If some people feel an ENTIRE government is corrupt/incompetent AND don't want to wait for the next election, tell us the mechanism for removing them?


I cannot overcomplicate something so complicated to begin with!

Banjo String

Uriel. wrote: »

I don't think so at all. You have a strange view of the last 10 years.

The current Government came into power when the country was effectively on its knees, if not already half buried.

Things are not so bad as they were 3 years ago. It's a slow process for sure, but how you could possibly think that this Government have under performed in comparison to the last is beyond me.

The problem you and your mates seem to have is the wonderful thinking that If I pay more taxes the Government is crap. If the Government give me more money they must be good.This just isn't the case, not always at least.

Have I less disposable income than I had 5 or 6 years ago? for sure! But if you think it had to be any other way then you are delusional - would another single or coalition Government other than the current have produced some sort of magic money tree to free us of our woes? No, of course not!

Its entirely possible people might be looking beyond the taxation/economic successes and failures of the government.

People might be dissatisfied with the whole new approach to Govt we were promised.

Whatever happened to the 'transparency, openness and and end to corruption" promised by Enda?

I also don't buy this whole "inherited mess from previous Govts" either.

And if anyone wants to talk strawman arguments. How's about anytime Enda/Eamon or any other member get ask anything slightly touchy by Adams/Mcdonald or Martin, usually replied with some reference to, Jean McConville /Northern bank or the old "when your party bankrupt the country" spiel

Don't you sometimes aspect a reasoned and coherent reply to legitimate questions the odd time?