Socialist Party's policies

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll get back to the substance of why you are wrong when I'm not on the touch site, but are you planning on ignoring the substance of my post which rubbishes what you've been saying the past few posts?

No, I think you should answer my post that destroyed your post.
(yes, that's what you sound like)

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Which makes Godge's original non-point he was arguing with himself about people moving elsewhere for the dole, which nobody had suggested except himself, make even less sense.
Thanks for that.

You need to follow the logic. We have been going round in circles, something a bit like this.

Poster 1: A ball rolled from X to Y without being pushed.
Poster 2: Since when is X higher than Y?
Poster 1: I never said X was higher than Y
Poster 2: Your first statement doesn't make sense then without further explanation
Poster 1: Stop spewing out rubbish, you are the only one saying X is higher than Y

Saintly Scholar

Is everyone aware of their policy to bring us back to British rule?

Dan_Solo

Saintly Scholar wrote: »

Is everyone aware of their policy to bring us back to British rule?

The Socialist Party? I though that was Denis O'Brien's thing?

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, I think you should answer my post that destroyed your post.
(yes, that's what you sound like)

I'm not sure to which point you are referring on review.

Jolly Red Giant

Saintly Scholar wrote: »

Is everyone aware of their policy to bring us back to British rule?

The trolls are out again I see :rolleyes:

garhjw

Is it a socialist party policy to take people captive and hold them against their will?

Or is that only a Paul Murphy policy?

I'd like to know because my family and I could be in the city centre later and I'm concerned about being apprehended by thugs.

Jolly Red Giant

garhjw wrote: »

Is it a socialist party policy to take people captive and hold them against their will?

Or is that only a Paul Murphy policy?

I'd like to know because my family and I could be in the city centre later and I'm concerned about being apprehended by thugs.

You have to love the feigned indignation :rolleyes:

BoJack Horseman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You have to love the feigned indignation :rolleyes:

Tongue in cheek no doubt.

Be glad people discuss the outrageous behaviour of the Murphy mob instead on the blue-moon rarity of him opening his mouth truthfully about his communist goals he has in store for Ireland.

The former people forget, the latter, not so much.

Jolly Red Giant

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Tongue in cheek no doubt.

Be glad people discuss the outrageous behaviour of the Murphy mob instead on the blue-moon rarity of him opening his mouth truthfully about his communist goals he has in store for Ireland.

The former people forget, the latter, not so much.

Let's discuss the class war that Kenny and Co are waging against working class people to preserve the interests and wealth of the rich elites - how much tax has O'Brien paid on his €6billion of wealth in the past year.

BoJack Horseman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Let's discuss the class war that Kenny and Co are waging against working class people

Is that the case?

When the mantra of the far-left is "tax the rich", it is the very essence of class warfare.

Everyone paying their share is not class warfare.

how much tax has O'Brien paid on his €6billion of wealth in the past year.

You know as much as I do there.

Shame the pro-communist argument can't come up with something better though.

garhjw

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Let's discuss the class war that Kenny and Co are waging against working class people to preserve the interests and wealth of the rich elites - how much tax has O'Brien paid on his €6billion of wealth in the past year.

I'm sure he is fully tax compliant as per existing legislation. Much of his wealth is created outside of Ireland so would not be subject to tax here.

Soldie

Is there even a shred of evidence to suggest that the next socialist experiment, should it happen to come about, won't be an abject failure? We're told it'll be different. Different how?

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

Is there even a shred of evidence to suggest that the next capitalist experiment, should it happen to come about, won't be an abject failure? We're told it'll be different. Different how?

Better question really.

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Better question really.

Set up a thread and pose the question.

In the context of this thread, perhaps yourself or one of the other pro-communism posters can have a stab at an answer.

Soldie

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Better question really.

Do you care to answer my question? I'm only asking for a shred.

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

Do you care to answer my question? I'm only asking for a shred.

In the context that bank and business interest pandering governments have repeatedly failed to create any modicum of social/income equality in Ireland and in fact done the opposite, yes, a leftist government could hardly do any worse.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In the context that bank and business interest pandering governments have repeatedly failed to create any modicum of social/income equality in Ireland and in fact done the opposite, yes, a leftist government could hardly do any worse.

What suggests this?

Saipanne

For all the failings in capitalism, that socialists correctly highlight, their biggest failure for more than a century has been to suggest a credible alternative.

FreudianSlippers

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What suggests this?

Nothing. By increasing social welfare and cutting USC and LPT they would have no way to fund the country; the only idea is to tax the millionaires (read : over €100k ) which wouldn't make up the tax loss in the slightest

Chips Lovell

To go back to the original question, I wouldn't really consider the likes of the SP, SWP or SF as socialist.

Populist definitely, in that they tend to gravitate towards vote winning positions that aren't really socialist, such as opposing property taxes.

Fantasist maybe, in that they tend to pursue the fiction that you can have a high level of state services with minimal taxation. The budgetary gap is usually be explained away by implying that there's some kind of magical money tree that those currently in power are too afraid to shake, such as burning bondholders or cutting TD's pay or clamping down on tax exiles.

Real socialists accept that if you want a welfare state, then you usually require a relatively high level of taxation on middle income earners upwards.

FreudianSlippers

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

To go back to the original question, I wouldn't really consider the likes of the SP, SWP or SF as socialist.

Populist definitely, in that they tend to gravitate towards vote winning positions that aren't really socialist, such as opposing property taxes.

Fantasist maybe, in that they tend to pursue the fiction that you can have a high level of state services with minimal taxation. The budgetary gap is usually be explained away by implying that there's some kind of magical money tree that those currently in power are too afraid to shake, such as burning bondholders or cutting TD's pay or clamping down on tax exiles.

Real socialists accept that if you want a welfare state, then you usually require a relatively high level of taxation on middle income earners upwards.

Which is pretty much what we've got

Soldie

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In the context that bank and business interest pandering governments have repeatedly failed to create any modicum of social/income equality in Ireland and in fact done the opposite, yes, a leftist government could hardly do any worse.

You're answering a question I didn't ask.

Again: Is there even a shred of evidence to suggest that the next socialist experiment, should it happen to come about, won't be an abject failure? We're told it'll be different. Different how?

Dan_Solo

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

The budgetary gap is usually be explained away by implying that there's some kind of magical money tree that those currently in power are too afraid to shake, such as burning bondholders or cutting TD's pay or clamping down on tax exiles.

The department of finance appear to also believe in these magical money trees it seems as they cost SF's budgets.

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

Again: Is there even a shred of evidence to suggest that the next socialist experiment, should it happen to come about, won't be an abject failure? We're told it'll be different. Different how?

Ah, I see. You see "socialist" and you read "communist".
Can't help you there then as you don't even know your own question, how could I?

Chips Lovell

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The department of finance appear to also believe in these magical money trees it seems as they cost SF's budgets.

Sinn Fein disagree with you:

Sinn Fein's Finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty said a number of its core proposals, such as the introduction of a wealth tax, could not be costed by the Department of Finance.

However, he said such a measure will still be pursued by the party in future budgets. Other measures which the party said could not be costed were the introduction of a tax on sugary drinks, a ban on below-cost selling of alcohol and increasing the taxes on the exploration or drilling for oil and gas.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The department of finance appear to also believe in these magical money trees it seems as they cost SF's budgets.

Is that the same magical money tree that the poorest in Ireland seek when they emigrate?

Have you been able to come up with any evidence or reason to back up your statement that the poorest make up the largest amount of emigrants?

So far the statistics don't back you up and the logic doesn't work either. Or is this just another question that you will conveniently forget to answer?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Is that the same magical money tree that the poorest in Ireland seek when they emigrate?

Have you been able to come up with any evidence or reason to back up your statement that the poorest make up the largest amount of emigrants?

So far the statistics don't back you up and the logic doesn't work either. Or is this just another question that you will conveniently forget to answer?

I guess it's the same place as your original assurance that self-declared VIPs will leave Ireland in droves based on an estate agent in London talking to The Telegraph or your assurance that graduates on 100 a week dole are the high tax payers we just can't afford to lose any more of.

Dan_Solo

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Sinn Fein disagree with you:

"Sinn Fein budget would close down country says Taoiseach". In the Indespondent naturellement. Awesome link.
So it's been costed as far as the Dept of Finance is capable of, just like any other budget.
Odd that they can't cost basic stuff like a tax increase, but that's establishment cronies for you.

CramCycle

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The department of finance appear to also believe in these magical money trees it seems as they cost SF's budgets.

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Sinn Fein disagree with you:

The department are required to run the numbers for any proposal Sinn Fein request regardless of how ridiculous (from a friend who now does this as part of their job). They cost them but when the issues that these suggestions bring up arise, i.e. the numbers either look bad or don't add up, then SF turn around and phrase it as "could not be costed by the Department of Finance"

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The department of finance appear to also believe in these magical money trees it seems as they cost SF's budgets.

There is a huge difference between the Dept of finance confirming that 1 + 1 = 2 & giving studied evaluation as to whether a given policy will work as the proposer would like it to.

Chips Lovell

Indeed.

If any of these parties get into power, I'd expect one of two things to happen:

1.) Stick rigidly to their guns and, when the whole economy starts tanking, blame anyone but themselves, e.g. the EU, the ECB, the "elites", the media etc.

2.) Moderate their position to adapt to the realities.

Of the three, I'd expect Sinn Fein to be the mostly likely to follow option 2. A spell or two in power would probably see them emerge as something akin to old-school Fianna Fail.

Soldie

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, I see. You see "socialist" and you read "communist".
Can't help you there then as you don't even know your own question, how could I?

I ask those arguing for a socialist society as referred to in the OP how this version of socialism will succeed where every other iteration has failed.

Your answer: it can't be worse than what we currently have.

I point out that this doesn't answer my question.

Your response: you don't know what you're asking.

The fact that you tried to answer my question with a non-answer the first time around suggests that you know well what I'm asking.

Dan_Solo, surely you get tired of this nonsense yourself? What is stopping you from properly engaging with another poster? These incessant one-liners do nothing other than create a siege mentality in which you seem to find yourself in the unfortunate position of feeling as though you need to go on the defensive every other post. In short, you're doing yourself no favours. Comical Ali had an easier job.

I can already imagine your reply, and it'll make me feel I've wasted my time typing this.

Dyr

Soldie wrote: »

I ask those arguing for a socialist society as referred to in the OP how this version of socialism will succeed where every other iteration has failed.

You'd better ring most of northern europe and let them know so.

Dan_Solo

CramCycle wrote: »

The department are required to run the numbers for any proposal Sinn Fein request regardless of how ridiculous (from a friend who now does this as part of their job). They cost them but when the issues that these suggestions bring up arise, i.e. the numbers either look bad or don't add up, then SF turn around and phrase it as "could not be costed by the Department of Finance"

Ah right, so some mate of yours apparently says so.
Proven!

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

Dan_Solo, surely you get tired of this nonsense yourself? What is stopping you from properly engaging with another poster? These incessant one-liners do nothing other than create a siege mentality in which you seem to find yourself in the unfortunate position of feeling as though you need to go on the defensive every other post. In short, you're doing yourself no favours. Comical Ali had an easier job.

Wow, talk about a long winded way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, so there."
You didn't understand your own question because you are still confusing socialism with communism. Not sure if that's deliberate, it's a common tactic for right wingers to try and pawn off as logical debate.

BoJack Horseman

Bambi wrote: »

You'd better ring most of northern europe and let them know so.

What socialist/communist countries are located there?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Godge

Bambi wrote: »

You'd better ring most of northern europe and let them know so.

Do you mean most of northern europe who have higher taxes on low incomes and lower taxes on high incomes than Ireland?

Who have metered water charges and property taxes?

Who have small minimum charges for public services (visits to doctor, prescriptions, public transport etc.) so that these services cannot be abused?

All of the above are policies which are common across the rest of northern Europe yet have been consistently opposed in Ireland by the likes of Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party.

CramCycle

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah right, so some mate of yours apparently says so.
Proven!

Doesn't have to be proven its their job, day after day, "what would be the consequence if we done this", "what if we done that", use the nice sounding figures for soundbites in the Dail. If they are asked, they must provide a costing.

I know alot of people make cracks about the civil service and minimum output workers but they still have to do their job. The usual reason for a party stating that they could not provide costings is that they had not done the costings in time, or they just didn't provide the figures they expected and have interpretted it as them not looking at the figures the way they did.

Its quite simple stuff, the issue is that, in his opinion, some of the scenarios they give that they use for soundbites are unreasonable or they predict that the general population will not adapt to these costings etc.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I guess it's the same place as your original assurance that self-declared VIPs will leave Ireland in droves based on an estate agent in London talking to The Telegraph or your assurance that graduates on 100 a week dole are the high tax payers we just can't afford to lose any more of.

Please show me where I said this. You are once again telling lies.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"Sinn Fein budget would close down country says Taoiseach". In the Indespondent naturellement. Awesome link.
So it's been costed as far as the Dept of Finance is capable of, just like any other budget.
Odd that they can't cost basic stuff like a tax increase, but that's establishment cronies for you.

The reason that Sinn Fein budgets are hard to cost is because they are full of unrealistic ideas and assumptions and where they are costed, they are on a first-year basis with no thought to the future implications.

Year 1: Sinn Fein announce in budget on October 9th that all wealth held in Ireland will be taxed at 2% based on value as of October 9th. Tax immediately raises X billion as costed in Sinn Fein budget plan

Year 2: All wealth that can be moved abroad is moved abroad, commercial property prices collapse. Sinn Fein wealth tax raises a small fraction of X billion.

Now the Department of Finance will cost Year 1 and Sinn Fein will proudly display this like a four-year old who gets a gold star from teacher. A bit like that four-year old, SF and the electorate don't know anything beyond that day. The four-year old will soil himself the following day, SF will collapse the economy the following year and the electorate will get what they vote for as always.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Now the Department of Finance will cost Year 1 and Sinn Fein will proudly display this like a four-year old who gets a gold star from teacher. A bit like that four-year old, SF and the electorate don't know anything beyond that day. The four-year old will soil himself the following day, SF will collapse the economy the following year and the electorate will get what they vote for as always.

Fear not Department of Finance! Even when you say you can't cost all parts of a budget with your 100s of staff and multimillion budget, some guy on boards can fully assure you that that particular budget will bankrupt the country. Amazing really. Give yourself a gold star!
Have you got the winner at the Epsom 3.15 there while you're at it Godge?

PS: I'm sure we can immediately guess that other parties besides SF have budgets that are not susceptible to this completely unfathomable second year budget rule you've just invented on the spot?

Manach

One point I'd make is to differentiate between classical policies that align with socialist theory and that employed by moden parties. Such have were embraced by centralist parties of the political context suited. In Applebaum's book Iron curtain she notes the wide spread acceptance of nationalisation and welfare state policies by mainstream Central parties.

Dyr

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What socialist/communist countries are located there?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

From you own link:

"Therefore, all countries that claimed to be socialist are included, even if their claims are disputed. All countries that did not claim to be socialist are excluded, even in cases where those countries were considered socialist by certain outside observers."

Lazy attempt really on your part

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Fear not Department of Finance! Even when you say you can't cost all parts of a budget with your 100s of staff and multimillion budget, some guy on boards can fully assure you that that particular budget will bankrupt the country. Amazing really. Give yourself a gold star!
Have you got the winner at the Epsom 3.15 there while you're at it Godge?

PS: I'm sure we can immediately guess that other parties besides SF have budgets that are not susceptible to this completely unfathomable second year budget rule you've just invented on the spot?

As usual a response full of diversion, blather and insult with little in the way of logic designed to inflame rather than to contribute to rational debate. However, I will give you a chance to debate this rationally.

Anyway, ignoring your attempts to bait, the more rational part of your argument consists of

(1) A boards poster can't know more than the Department of Finance
(2) Other parties have similar second-year problems with their budget

Answers are quite simple

(1) Of course the Department of Finance would know more than most ordinary boards posters. I reckon there are one or two around here (not including you though) whose quality of posting suggests they would know as much as a Department of Finance official. But that doesn't matter. Because the Department of Finance officials can only answer the questions they are allowed to answer. When analysing budgetary and economic policies of political parties, they can only discuss the current year effects. So I am not outguessing the Department of Finance officials, neither am I saying I know more than them, I am only answering the questions they are not allowed to answer in the best way I can.

(2) Of course they do, but there are differences. Some budgetary policies will increase growth and lead to increased tax revenues and reduced social welfare expenditure by taking people off the dole. So for example Budget 2014 from the government saw increased growth in 2014, some of that due to external factors, some of it due to the budget itself. Budget 2015 is definitely one to encourage the growth path. The SF alternative is not and will impose greater burdens on the public.

Now if you are interested in genuine debate, you can provide your perspective on the differences between the two budgets and how Sinn Fein's is better and debate the two points above.

If you are just interested in rabble-rousing and invective, you can revert to your normal style of one-liner posting.

BoJack Horseman

Bambi wrote: »

From you own link:

"Therefore, all countries that claimed to be socialist are included, even if their claims are disputed. All countries that did not claim to be socialist are excluded, even in cases where those countries were considered socialist by certain outside observers."

Lazy attempt really on your part

So you may think Norway is socialist, despite Norway not being socialist or even claiming to be..... But you being "certain outside observers" that's enough to make a nation socialist.

That's handy.

garhjw

I presume it was socialist party policy to block up the city centre, preventing emergency services attending to any people in distress? I saw an ambulance stuck on the quays. Now, what happens if there was someone seriously I'll in it or they were on the way to a call?
Shows a total lack of respect for normal people.

Dan_Solo

garhjw wrote: »

I presume it was socialist party policy to block up the city centre, preventing emergency services attending to any people in distress? I saw an ambulance stuck on the quays. Now, what happens if there was someone seriously I'll in it or they were on the way to a call?
Shows a total lack of respect for normal people.

Yes, protesting is communist. Doing what you're told and accepting your lot is what good capitalists do.
Maybe the ambulance was there because there were 30,000-100,000 people at a protest? You have seen medical services at large crowd events before, yes?

garhjw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, protesting is communist. Doing what you're told and accepting your lot is what good capitalists do.
Maybe the ambulance was there because there were 30,000-100,000 people at a protest? You have seen medical services at large crowd events before, yes?

You didn't answer the question. Was is socialist policy to prevent emergency services attending calls? And I don't mean calls relating to the protests. I mean attending fires in buildings, car crashes, victims of assault, drug overdoses.

Very irresponsible to allow this happen. But ibm sure you and your lot will blame Denis obrien.

Black Swan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Pathetic stuff... You can have that tail surgically removed from between your legs I hear.

MOD: Dan_Solo has been banned for 3-months for several trollish posts like this across our Politics forums.

mikep

I caught a bit of the VB show this morning and Ogle was aked by VB if he was going to stand for election to the Dail, he didn't answer the main question but waffled on about joining all the socialist groups together as one force.
Is he lining himself up to be the shining light of socialism leading them to electoral gains as a united group??

If this happens I can see a deal between his group and Sinn Feinn being a serious (and in my opinion,dangerous) threat to the established parties.

Slighlty off topic,I know. Apologies..