Labour are 7% in the polls - So who here is voting for them &why

happy_knome

their is a market for a party which focuses on the private sector voter who runs a small business right now , all parties pander to the multinationals but all the parties also actively court the public sector vote , labour have to as its their base and they idealogically believe in big goverment , fianna fail do it because it suits them

Idbatterim

JSA and SWA for ages 22-24 was cut from €144 to €100 in budget 2014 and from €188 to €144 for 25 year olds.

Budget 2013 they tried to cut disability allowance to €144/100 for under 25s and abolish it for under 18s.

BTEA 18-25 was cut from €188 to €160

Burton was on the record the other day saying she wants to overturn this, this is something that they did, that I would absolutely agree with and it should not be overturned. Finish school, pass go, collect E188... The problem with that rate living at home is, well... That its easy to get lazy and stay there... They should be in education or employment as the tories in the uk say...

their is a market for a party which focuses on the private sector voter who runs a small business right now , all parties pander to the multinationals but all the parties also actively court the public sector vote , labour have to as its their base and they ideologically believe in big goverment , fianna fail do it because it suits them

Reboot seem to fit the private sector, pro business bill. They dont need to try and be everything to everyone, all they need is to win enough seats to fill FG up, ideologically they are the closest aligned, that is if we actually believe FG want reform, or they might hope Labour rebound, they go in with them and avoid making any difficult decisions, like the past few years IMO...

Grab All Association

Idbatterim wrote: »

Burton was on the record the other day saying she wants to overturn this, this is something that they did, that I would absolutely agree with and it should not be overturned. Finnish school, pass go, collect E188... The problem with that rate living at home is, well... That its easy to get lazy and stay there... They should be in education or employment as the tories in the uk say...

Bull****. When we left school in the early 2000s (I traveled/worked across Europe and studied abroad) most of my friends/classmates who didn't go to college all went on apprenticeships or got jobs in the construction industry. The ones who got lazy and stayed there was the 4% mostly mid 40s-50s (I grew up in a housing estate full of these people all alcoholics)

Since 2007

The construction industry collapsed

Few if any apprenticeships offered these days. (Tipperary for example used to have at least 20 advertised. Today just 1)

The majority of low paid menial jobs that used to attract these age groups whilst studying in college etc are all internships.

18-25 year olds did nothing to cause this crisis yet were the ones who suffered the most from it. At the last election the majority of Labour voters were this age group.

To add you can't just leave school at 18 either and go on JSA. I think you have to wait 3-6 months before you can claim JSA

Idbatterim

18-25 year olds did nothing to cause this crisis yet were the ones who suffered the most from it. At the last election the majority of Labour voters were this age group.

What you never have, you dont miss. Off the wall welfare rates... Have never contributed anything, here is E188 (up until recently enough), have paid in a fortune and become redundant with mortgage etc, E188, its a fantastic system! The Germans could really learn from us :rolleyes:

Bull****. When we left school in the early 2000s (I traveled/worked across Europe and studied abroad) most of my friends/classmates who didn't go to college all went on apprenticeships or got jobs in the construction industry. The ones who got lazy and stayed there was the 4% mostly mid 40s-50s (I grew up in a housing estate full of these people all alcoholics)

BS in your opinion, a few of the lads I went to school with had a private education and their parents have a good work ethic and they ended up having a handy little number on our welfare system, if this is what privately educated kids with working parents are doing, I can imagine the numbers doing it with the legions of work shy in this country...

happy_knome

Chris___ wrote: »

Bull****. When we left school in the early 2000s (I traveled/worked across Europe and studied abroad) most of my friends/classmates who didn't go to college all went on apprenticeships or got jobs in the construction industry. The ones who got lazy and stayed there was the 4% mostly mid 40s-50s (I grew up in a housing estate full of these people all alcoholics)

Since 2007

The construction industry collapsed

Few if any apprenticeships offered these days. (Tipperary for example used to have at least 20 advertised. Today just 1)

The majority of low paid menial jobs that used to attract these age groups whilst studying in college etc are all internships.

18-25 year olds did nothing to cause this crisis yet were the ones who suffered the most from it. At the last election the majority of Labour voters were this age group.

To add you can't just leave school at 18 either and go on JSA. I think you have to wait 3-6 months before you can claim JSA

18 - 25 year olds are rip for cutting for two reasons


1. they are more likely to emmigrate and getting rid of them removes a voter threat to traditional parties

2. they are less likely to vote anyway

pensioners are much more likely to vote , hence why they completely escaped the recession bar trivial reductions in phone subsidies etc

Icepick

happy_knome wrote: »

unionists have a lot more political principal and rigour than the political class down here , irish people are centre left in outlook , ulster protestants are very definately centre right

were SF as big down here , the country would be very different than northern ireland

I am sure Syriza voters had similar delusions.

tayto lover

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

About 1/4 of those who voted FG at the last GE have switched allegiances to SF.

I seriously doubt that.

valor rorghulis

Didn't vote for them last time but I think they have been extremely brave in backing Fine Gael on decisions which needed to be made.

Will transfer to them in the next election so long as they don't promise anything too mental

BoJack Horseman

tayto lover wrote: »

I seriously doubt that.

http://www.thejournal.ie/opinion-poll-politics-sunday-business-post-1952546-Feb2015/

However, it also found that 19% of those who voted Fine Gael are now planning to vote for Sinn Féin – which has gone up one point to 21%.

Icepick

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/opinion-poll-politics-sunday-business-post-1952546-Feb2015/

19% isn't about 1/4 but it shows how messed up the situation is after the fall of FF.
Would like to see how many of the 19% voted for FF in the past. I assume it would be quite a high number.

Steppenwolfe

valor rorghulis wrote: »

Didn't vote for them last time but I think they have been extremely brave in backing Fine Gael on decisions which needed to be made.

Will transfer to them in the next election so long as they don't promise anything too mental

Why would you worry about what they promise? They are liars and bare faced about it too. Trying to rationalise it by saying "Sure isn't that what you do in an election" isn't going to cut it. They wooed certain sections of the electorate with their lies. I very much doubt the same sections are going to be fooled twice. The fact that a self confessed FG voter is going to vote for them next time is proof of the pudding.

ps. I didn't vote for them and never will. I was fooled once in the 90's by that shower of self serving liars. Never again.

oscarBravo

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I was fooled once in the 90's by that shower of self serving liars. Never again.

I wouldn't worry about it - come the next election, I'm sure there will be a long and varied list of candidates who can be trusted not to tell people what they want to hear in return for votes.

Long and varied.

conorh91

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/opinion-poll-politics-sunday-business-post-1952546-Feb2015/

Not sure I'd believe that.

I'd say many of us who voted in the last election would have to pause and try to remember whether we gave our first preference vote to X or to Y, especially if we are non-rigidly aligned.

Tbh, I can't even remember who I gave my first vote to in the local/ Euro elections.

People are aware they are talking to polling agencies, and so they are capable of answering the call in a tactical way, i.e. attempting to accentuate the anti-Govt 'outrage'.

Many of the people who say they voted FG/ Lab in the last election and 'never again' have probably never voted FG/ Lab.

If I were a lifelong Shinner, I'd tell a pollster I was a covert from FG.

Sure why not?

BoJack Horseman

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Why would you worry about what they promise? They are liars and bare faced about it too. Trying to rationalise it by saying "Sure isn't that what you do in an election" isn't going to cut it. They wooed certain sections of the electorate with their lies.

If a left-wing voter wants to find a home where no one lies, they will never vote.

One has to look to them self if they are naive enough to think the budgetary crisis of the last 5 years could have disappeared without pain.

Chips Lovell

I don't think Labour, or many of the other parties, lied as such. The main thing I thought Labour were guilty of last time out is over-egging the pudding, giving a misleading impression of how much better a deal they could achieve.

It takes two to tango though and voters are often equally as responsible. People tend to seize on soundbites without paying any attention to the nuances or qualifications that come with them. And there's a sizeable constituency of people who seem to vote on the basis of what they think a party's policy is rather than what it actually is.

There's an amount of people who seemed to genuinely believe FG policy was to give a Syriza-style two fingers to the troika.

happy_knome

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think Labour, or many of the other parties, lied as such. The main thing I thought Labour were guilty of last time out is over-egging the pudding, giving a misleading impression of how much better a deal they could achieve.

It takes two to tango though and voters are often equally as responsible. People tend to seize on soundbites without paying any attention to the nuances or qualifications that come with them. And there's a sizeable constituency of people who seem to vote on the basis of what they think a party's policy is rather than what it actually is.

There's an amount of people who seemed to genuinely believe FG policy was to give a Syriza-style two fingers to the troika.

a study not so long ago revealed that 30% of voters believed SF were a low tax party

BoJack Horseman

happy_knome wrote: »

a study not so long ago revealed that 30% of voters believed SF were a low tax party

Well, at least the majority were savvy enough!

tayto lover

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think Labour, or many of the other parties, lied as such. The main thing I thought Labour were guilty of last time out is over-egging the pudding, giving a misleading impression of how much better a deal they could achieve.

It takes two to tango though and voters are often equally as responsible. People tend to seize on soundbites without paying any attention to the nuances or qualifications that come with them. And there's a sizeable constituency of people who seem to vote on the basis of what they think a party's policy is rather than what it actually is.

There's an amount of people who seemed to genuinely believe FG policy was to give a Syriza-style two fingers to the troika.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/shaun-connolly/cloak-of-invisibility-hides-labours-broken-promises-190486.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/colette-browne/coalition-let-down-by-broken-promises-and-campaign-lies-174699.html

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-labour-faces-the-same-fate-as-the-greens-after-reneging-on-promises-774122-Feb2013/

http://www.thejournal.ie/labour-councillors-resign-quit-coalition-1152524-Jan2014/

Icepick

Regarding pre-election promises, they refer to a programme a party can follow if it's able to form the government alone.
Blaming a minority partner for not fulfilling all their pre-election promises is rather silly.

Having said that, they promised more that they were ever going to be able to achieve. But what else does anyone expect from a socialist party?

tayto lover

Icepick wrote: »

Regarding pre-election promises, they refer to a programme a party can follow if it's able to form the government alone.
Blaming a minority partner for not fulfilling all their pre-election promises is rather silly.

Having said that, they promised more that they were ever going to be able to achieve. But what else does anyone expect from a socialist party?

It wasn't just the socialists.
Some other party promised to clean up politics and end cronyism.

Steppenwolfe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If a left-wing voter wants to find a home where no one lies, they will never vote.

One has to look to them self if they are naive enough to think the budgetary crisis of the last 5 years could have disappeared without pain.

It's more about who pays the price or suffers the most pain. Labour profess to be protecting the average worker and less well off. In reality they are no better than FG.

View

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

It's more about who pays the price or suffers the most pain. Labour profess to be protecting the average worker and less well off. In reality they are no better than FG.

The depends on whether you take a short or medium term view.

Bankrupting a financially-troubled state may appease voters in the short term but when the state can no longer provide basic services such as education, health etc, the "average worker" will be much worse off.

Conversely, sorting the state's finances out so it can continue over the medium term to provide such services for the "average worker" is "protecting the average worker" even if Labour gets little credit for doing so from the voters.

Steppenwolfe

View wrote: »

The depends on whether you take a short or medium term view.

Bankrupting a financially-troubled state may appease voters in the short term but when the state can no longer provide basic services such as education, health etc, the "average worker" will be much worse off.

Conversely, sorting the state's finances out so it can continue over the medium term to provide such services for the "average worker" is "protecting the average worker" even if Labour gets little credit for doing so from the voters.

We're far from bankrupt if the government is flagging up tax cuts for the better off in the next budget. It's always about who pays. Always.

BoJack Horseman

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

We're far from bankrupt if the government is flagging up tax cuts for the better off in the next budget. It's always about who pays. Always.

So what makes the likes of the SP's promise to make working people pay far more tax superior to the LP?

Steppenwolfe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So what makes the likes of the SP's promise to make working people pay far more tax superior to the LP?

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay. So of course some working people would pay more than they do now. Seems a fairer system and reasonable enough to me. Not sure why anybody would object to that. Well, actually I do. It's the same people saying services and pay has to be cut for the sake of the economy. They favour more indiscriminate direct taxes as it doesn't affect them as much. The same ones who will cry blue murder if asked to pay more tax on their higeher incomes. There's a party for that class of electorate. It's called FG. They will survive after the election as they are looking after their own. Labour will be destroyed as they are doing the opposite.

Icepick

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay.

What a novelty idea.

Oh wait our income tax system is already one of thee most progressive ones in the world.

BoJack Horseman

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay.

No, they have said 'higher' tax.
Luckily, the income tax system is already exactly as you described....

It's the same people saying services and pay has to be cut for the sake of the economy. They favour more indiscriminate direct taxes as it doesn't affect them as much. The same ones who will cry blue murder if asked to pay more tax on their higeher incomes. There's a party for that class of electorate. It's called FG. They will survive after the election as they are looking after their own. Labour will be destroyed as they are doing the opposite.

Yeah......that's just a rant.

You didn't answer the question.

What is it about the SP's much much higher taxation demands (no just income tax) that makes them a better choice than labour?

Idbatterim

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay. So of course some working people would pay more than they do now. Seems a fairer system and reasonable enough to me. Not sure why anybody would object to that. Well, actually I do. It's the same people saying services and pay has to be cut for the sake of the economy. They favour more indiscriminate direct taxes as it doesn't affect them as much. The same ones who will cry blue murder if asked to pay more tax on their higeher incomes. There's a party for that class of electorate. It's called FG. They will survive after the election as they are looking after their own. Labour will be destroyed as they are doing the opposite.

Even if we had a flat rate 20% system, the more you earn the more you pay, that isnt enough here though, Ie. earn another 10,000 pay 2,000 extra in tax, no here, they want over half of YOUR income at the marginal rate. I will tell you one of the main problems, hundreds of thousands of low income workers contributing virtually nothing in direct taxes.... I absolutely agree with that those who earn more pay more, nobody doesnt, but "progressive" taxes here at the rate they kick in at and at the marginal rate, are unfair, anti competitive, anti work and jobs, straight up they are simply a disgrace...

Thats is what years of "right wing" FF and FG has gotten us folks, a marginal tax rate of over half your income on a relative pittance...:rolleyes:

Steppenwolfe

Icepick wrote: »

What a novelty idea.

Oh wait our income tax system is already one of thee most progressive ones in the world.

I've no idea about the rest of the world. I do know there is room for improvement here. The USC and water taxes are certainly not progressive.

FreudianSlippers

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I've no idea about the rest of the world. I do know there is room for improvement here. The USC and water taxes are certainly not progressive.

Commodity consumptions should not be progressive. Should people pay different rates for clothing, fuel, electricity, food, etc. based on their income?

Steppenwolfe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Commodity consumptions should not be progressive. Should people pay different rates for clothing, fuel, electricity, food, etc. based on their income?

I wouldn't object if electricity/gas was subsidized to some extent. I think they already are for some people.

Chips Lovell

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

The USC and water taxes are certainly not progressive.

USC is progressive.

Water charges aren't a tax, per se.

Idbatterim

what do you make of this Steppenwolfe?



http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/squeezed-workers-here-hit-top-tax-rate-earlier-than-in-other-countries-29611581.html

FreudianSlippers

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I wouldn't object if electricity/gas was subsidized to some extent. I think they already are for some people.

Water was also going to be heavily subsidised for everyone in the state, plus extra for the poor and elderly.

Now it's totally unfair to everyone (thanks protesters!) in that you pay the same regardless of income and usage. The proposed system that the protesters overturned was more progressive.

Idbatterim

Now it's totally unfair to everyone (thanks protesters!) in that you pay the same regardless of income and usage. The proposed system that the protesters overturned was more progressive.

this always makes me laugh, as if anything here is actually based on fairness, everything has been pretty much decided upon by your leverage of vested interest groups on government and buying elections for decades...

In relation to the water, take a read of the below and yet a 1 billion euro plus scheme to take water from the shannon to serve dublin is being proposed :rolleyes:

Last October, when Dubliners thought they were being charged for water on the basis of how much they used it appears to have given them pause for thought. Water usage dropped to its lowest for the year.
The previous month, which was to be the last month of “free” water, consumption was at its highest.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/water-usage-in-dublin-area-fell-sharply-as-users-considered-charge-1.2120744

Steppenwolfe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, they have said 'higher' tax.
Luckily, the income tax system is already exactly as you described....

Not exactly. USC and water taxes need to be adressed and incorporated in to the regular income tax system.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yeah......that's just a rant.

You didn't answer the question.

What is it about the SP's much much higher taxation demands (no just income tax) that makes them a better choice than labour?

It's a thread about Labour still having a 7% folowing. I'm not here to defend SF. I have no idea what their specific taxation policy is. As they profess to being left wing I presume they want a fairer taxation system than present under FG/Labour.

There must be plenty of SF threads around if you want to bash the shinners. I'm sure the posters there could better answer your loaded questions.

Steppenwolfe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Water was also going to be heavily subsidised for everyone in the state, plus extra for the poor and elderly.

Now it's totally unfair to everyone (thanks protesters!) in that you pay the same regardless of income and usage. The proposed system that the protesters overturned was more progressive.

I'd agree with you to some extent on that.

Steppenwolfe

Idbatterim wrote: »

what do you make of this Steppenwolfe?



http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/squeezed-workers-here-hit-top-tax-rate-earlier-than-in-other-countries-29611581.html

It doesn't surprise me. If I was still young with skills I'd be outta here like a hot snot. I don't blame the young people and skilled for leaving in droves. I did it in the 80's, but I weathered that storm and learned from experience. Thank **** I'm not dependant on the bastards anymore. The country was always a kip for most people and no matter who gets in to power it always will be.

Chips Lovell

As someone who favours a welfare state and progressive taxation, one aspect of Labour policy doesn't sit well with me and that's this thing about taking x-amount of people "out of the tax net". FF and FG are fond of it too.

I think everyone who works should pay some amount of income tax, even a token amount. You feel like more of a stakeholder in a system that you're a contributor to it.

Godge

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay.

Isn't our system the most progressive in the world already?

Don't we have the lowest income taxes in the OECD on those earning below the average income?

How can our income tax system be made more progressive without overtaxing at the top?

Godge

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

As someone who favours a welfare state and progressive taxation, one aspect of Labour policy doesn't sit well with me and that's this thing about taking x-amount of people "out of the tax net". FF and FG are fond of it too.

I think everyone who works should be some amount of tax, even a token amount. You feel like more of a stakeholder in a system that you're a contributor to.

I agree, and it can be done simply enough.

For example, increase the minimum wage by around 4% to bring it to €9. At the same time abolish the USC exemption and apply the 2% rate to all income below the current exemption rate. That way, those on the minimum wage still get an increase even though they start to pay USC.

Idbatterim

As someone who favours a welfare state and progressive taxation, one aspect of Labour policy doesn't sit well with me and that's this thing about taking x-amount of people "out of the tax net". FF and FG are fond of it too.

I think everyone who works should be some amount of tax, even a token amount. You feel like more of a stakeholder in a system that you're a contributor to.

I totally agree and they are at it again, they want to take another 90,000 out of the tax net, isnt it great though, tax less people, tax those paying less, increase all areas of spending... burning the candle at both ends, cant see where it can go wrong :rolleyes:

BoJack Horseman

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Not exactly. USC and water taxes need to be adressed and incorporated in to the regular income tax system.

USC is already progressive.
As said, utilities / consumption taxes are not charged on the basis of earnings.

It seems labour voters feel betrayed, but they are equally uninformed as to how much more tax the far-left have in store.

Chips Lovell

Idbatterim wrote: »

I totally agree and they are at it again, they want to take another 90,000 out of the tax net, isnt it great though, tax less people, tax those paying less, increase all areas of spending... burning the candle at both ends, cant see where it can go wrong :rolleyes:

Election next year.

TheGoldenAges

Yeah at the moment Labour are probably my first preference. Since there's not really a party that comes close to meeting my political position (though Labour are probably the closest) I'll probably allign with them.

sarumite

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that, but it loooks like a loaded question. From what I've heard they favour a more progressive income tax policy where the more you earn the more you pay.

Even under a flat tax system, that would be the case since income tax is measured as a %age.

Idbatterim

Even under a flat tax system, that would be the case since income tax is measured as a %age.

exactly, I made this point earlier in response to the above quote...

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

I agree, and it can be done simply enough.

For example, increase the minimum wage by around 4% to bring it to €9. At the same time abolish the USC exemption and apply the 2% rate to all income below the current exemption rate. That way, those on the minimum wage still get an increase even though they start to pay USC.

Increasing the minimum wage will run into problems with business groups as they would be the ones increasing wages by 4% which would increase their costs whereas changes to USC wouldn't change impact them.

View

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

We're far from bankrupt

We aren't, precisely, because the government took the medium-term view not the short-term view. Hence, the "average worker" does not face the harsh reality of a bankrupt state.

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

if the government is flagging up tax cuts for the better off in the next budget. It's always about who pays. Always.

Indeed it is indeed. Remember though the purpose of the tax system is to collect the monies to pay the bills we have. It is - regrettably - better to have an efficient but unfair tax system rather than a fair one that is hopelessly inefficient.

SpaceTime

They've been consistently strong on things like reproductive rights, gay rights, secular policies (keeping Church and state separate).

That's quite important to me. FF and FG have a very poor record on all of that and SF is questionable.