Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fine Gael would rather welcome Fianna Fail back to power than risk Sinn Fein upsetting the civil war party see-saw monopoly. That's them cutting our nose to spite our face, especially when you look at the last crash and the anti-FF heavy propaganda Kenny's FG used to get in.

Agreed. It's a pretty bad indictment of SF that FG would rather get into bed with FF if a gun was put to their head.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Agreed. It's a pretty bad indictment of SF that FG would rather get into bed with FF if a gun was put to their head.

It says more about FG character. I mean you may recall Fianna Fail being the absolute worse and us 'practically eating out of bins'. SF aside, why would FG turn around and go into unofficial partnership with them? Do they value power over the well being of the country? Or where FG completely wrong about FF, you know, like pencils have erasers?

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

SF aside, why would FG turn around and go into unofficial partnership with them?

In a word, numbers.

No party has a majority. Polls suggest this will remain the same at the next election.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

In a word, numbers.

No party has a majority. Polls suggest this will remain the same at the next election.

So, ethics and the well being of the country take second place to maintaining bums in seats. Got it.

As I say it's just hard to take anything FG say seriously in regard to their supposed abhorrence towards FF, their reasoning. FG made a great case, but sure the material was all around us. To get on their faux moral high horse about SF, is laughable.

Is SF were a majority party and offered FG a junior partnership, I would expect great division in FG.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So, ethics and the well being of the country take second place to maintaining bums in seats. Got it.

As I say it's just hard to take anything FG say seriously in regard to their supposed abhorrence towards FF, their reasoning. FG made a great case, but sure the material was all around us. To get on their faux moral high horse about SF, is laughable.

Is SF were a majority party and offered FG a junior partnership, I would expect great division in FG.

Were you not one of the ones claiming FG and FF are basically the same party? Granted, their policies are similar.

Ethics and well being of the country take first place, that's why FG will not give SF the reigns of power. Better the divil you know and all that.

I agree with your last point.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Were you not one of the ones claiming FG and FF are basically the same party? Granted, their policies are similar.

Ethics and well being of the country take first place, that's why FG will not give SF the reigns of power. Better the divil you know and all that.

I agree with your last point.

It's not credible. I would be very interested in seeing how FG weigh up FF compared to SF. What might the criteria be I wonder?
I would have reservations about SF holding the reins, but it beats better the devil you know when that devil has created generational debt and profited while myriad crises worsen. Difficult to tell if I'm talking about FF or FG, I know.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not credible. I would be very interested in seeing how FG weigh up FF compared to SF. What might the criteria be I wonder?
I would have reservations about SF holding the reins, but it beats better the devil you know when that devil has created generational debt and profited while myriad crises worsen. Difficult to tell if I'm talking about FF or FG, I know.

Off the top of my head

LPT
VAT
Corp Tax
Euroscepticism
Special criminal court
Northern policies

FF's headline policies are broadly in line with FG. The confidence and supply arrangement keeps them out of the corridors of power. I dislike how popular they reamain - considering their past - as do you. But the electorate have spoken.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So, ethics and the well being of the country take second place to maintaining bums in seats. Got it.

As I say it's just hard to take anything FG say seriously in regard to their supposed abhorrence towards FF, their reasoning. FG made a great case, but sure the material was all around us. To get on their faux moral high horse about SF, is laughable.

Is SF were a majority party and offered FG a junior partnership, I would expect great division in FG.

I wouldn't, FG would reject it outright I would expect as would FF.
FG would do a confidence and supply with FF as a cobbled up govt before they would go in as a junior partner with either FF or SF IMO.
Political impasse will be our lot going on polls, whether we are better with that than strong govt with a clear majority is the big question.
I wonder how we would have coped from 2011 to 16 with the hobbled agreement we have now?

brabantje

Edward M wrote: »

I wouldn't, FG would reject it outright I would expect as would FF.
FG would do a confidence and supply with FF as a cobbled up govt before they would go in as a junior partner with either FF or SF IMO.
Political impasse will be our lot going on polls, whether we are better with that than strong govt with a clear majority is the big question.
I wonder how we would have coped from 2011 to 16 with the hobbled agreement we have now?

Given the state of the country in 2011 - I very much doubt that FG would have entered into a similar arrangement with FF, as at that time it would have been seen as electoral suicide. The whole focus of the 2011 GE was "Anyone But Fianna Fáil". Given the mood of the nation at the time, anyone seen to be enabling FF would become pariahs.

James Brown

It's not about the policies on paper, it's about character IMO. FF and FG may have similar policies, but when you look at the FF track record in government and FG campaign to power based heavily on that, it's tough to buy anything other than a concerted effort to hold on to power and keep SF out of the loop above anything else. The policies in agreement only come in as the price to pay.
Love or loathe them, SF (or any other party) coming in would upset the FF/FG monopoly. FG were willing to bring FF into the fold rather than let that happen. If you're bringing FF to the table and you've such low opinion of them, you can't be thinking of the country.

Edward M

brabantje wrote: »

Given the state of the country in 2011 - I very much doubt that FG would have entered into a similar arrangement with FF, as at that time it would have been seen as electoral suicide. The whole focus of the 2011 GE was "Anyone But Fianna Fáil". Given the mood of the nation at the time, anyone seen to be enabling FF would become pariahs.

I was speaking hypothetically, I fully appreciate what you're saying, but imagine if you will that SF had been in Labours position?
Even allowing they wouldn't go into coalition they might have been in a position to do a supply and confidence deal with FG and Labour.
Does anyone think that our transition back to recovery would have been as simple or as smooth as it was with a strong majority govt that didn't have to depend on third party approval?
I'm sure some will think we might have fared better with such an arrangement, but despite my original misgivings after some decisions that FG and Lab made, overall we didn't fare as badly as I would have thought we were going to at the time.
FG aren't perfect, but which party is, who could have done better and why?

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not about the policies on paper, it's about character IMO. FF and FG may have similar policies, but when you look at the FF track record in government and FG campaign to power based heavily on that, it's tough to buy anything other than a concerted effort to hold on to power and keep SF out of the loop above anything else. The policies in agreement only come in as the price to pay.

Character?

SF need not take it personally. It's not the individuals people want kept out. It's the lunatic policies.

I'm sorry but policies on paper are everything. Yes they can be changed, but we rely on the opposition to call out hypocrisy when they see it.

Winging for the sake of winging does not help the democratic process. Particularly if you can't stand over your own alternative fantasy budgets.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Character?

SF need not take it personally. It's not the individuals people want kept out. It's the lunatic policies.

I'm sorry but policies on paper are everything. Yes they can be changed, but we rely on the opposition to call out hypocrisy when they see it.

Winging for the sake of winging does not help the democratic process. Particularly if you can't stand over your own alternative fantasy budgets.

Trumpesque claims of whining aside; policies are a great read when you find yourself homeless or dying on a hospital trolley.

Edward M wrote: »

I was speaking hypothetically, I fully appreciate what you're saying, but imagine if you will that SF had been in Labours position?
Even allowing they wouldn't go into coalition they might have been in a position to do a supply and confidence deal with FG and Labour.
Does anyone think that our transition back to recovery would have been as simple or as smooth as it was with a strong majority govt that didn't have to depend on third party approval?
I'm sure some will think we might have fared better with such an arrangement, but despite my original misgivings after some decisions that FG and Lab made, overall we didn't fare as badly as I would have thought we were going to at the time.
FG aren't perfect, but which party is, who could have done better and why?

What recovery? Are you speaking on a purely economic numbers basis? We got a loan and prop up the 'economy' with incentives and subsidies funded by the tax payer. I know the housing/homeless crises and emergency accommodation bill are bothersome, but you can't have a cross the board recovery while sections of society are in continuous levels of record breaking crisis. The economic figures look good but do not translate to a recovery.

Another hypothetical; how much better might things have been had Labour showed some gumption and policed FG more effectively? Labour should have backed Shortall. Labour should have been open to claims by Daly and Wallace and other rather than jeering from the Royal box at the riff raff.
Maybe the government would have fallen, maybe the likes of the SD's or whom ever might have had a better showing? When the supposed establishment Left party backs the Irish version of the Tories, it kind of takes the wind out of any change. We might have seen a Labour majority, propped up by some indies?
FG came in on change, get right back to more of the same and sent out a diner invite to FF, the very party got them in. It's a circle of brass neck.

Colonel Claptrap

A labour majority propped up by Indies?
More fantasy.

The Dail is fractured. People need to accept that. The votes were cast and this is what we are left with.

Credit where credit is due to the parties who came forward for government forming negotiations. Some were more sincere than others.

Talk of Labour holding FG to account ignores the reality that a coalition program of government will always be one of compromise.

All policies for the forseable future will be diluted due to the makeup of our Dail. It softens the edges of some of the harsher policies. But sometimes too many cooks spoil the broth. Particularly when every rural TD wants an airport in their back garden.

Irish politics is paralysed. Is it any wonder our problems take so long to fix?

Nitrogan

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

A labour majority propped up by Indies?
More fantasy.

The Dail is fractured. People need to accept that. The votes were cast and this is what we are left with.

Credit where credit is due to the parties who came forward for government forming negotiations. Some were more sincere than others.

Talk of Labour holding FG to account ignores the reality that a coalition program of government will always be one of compromise.

All policies for the forseable future will be diluted due to the makeup of our Dail. It softens the edges of some of the harsher policies. But sometimes too many cooks spoil the broth. Particularly when every rural TD wants an airport in their back garden.

Irish politics is paralysed. Is it any wonder our problems take so long to fix?

If you look around the world these days we're actually one of the most stable and functional democracies.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

A labour majority propped up by Indies?
More fantasy.

The Dail is fractured. People need to accept that. The votes were cast and this is what we are left with.

Credit where credit is due to the parties who came forward for government forming negotiations. Some were more sincere than others.

Talk of Labour holding FG to account ignores the reality that a coalition program of government will always be one of compromise.

All policies for the forseable future will be diluted due to the makeup of our Dail. It softens the edges of some of the harsher policies. But sometimes too many cooks spoil the broth. Particularly when every rural TD wants an airport in their back garden.

Irish politics is paralysed. Is it any wonder our problems take so long to fix?

What part of hypothetical eludes you? Would you say telling FG voters in 2011 that FG would be in a power sharing relationship with FF by the next government would be hailed as fantasy?

I don't understand the rush or faith in strong government being able to enact their brand of policies if it includes poor management and a two tier society. Are we suggesting Labour are responsible for the record breaking worse by the year crises?

I remember the panic and disgust on the front of the FG contractor of Choice's newspaper; 'we voted for chaos!' after the last election.

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not credible. I would be very interested in seeing how FG weigh up FF compared to SF. What might the criteria be I wonder?
I would have reservations about SF holding the reins, but it beats better the devil you know when that devil has created generational debt and profited while myriad crises worsen. Difficult to tell if I'm talking about FF or FG, I know.

In the 2.5 year’s post the 2008 crash that FF remained in power, we all got to see how they reacted to the crisis. It could have been better, it it could have been a whole lot worse too.
SF, in the meantime, we’re busy telling everyone we should ape the policies of Syrzia in Greece, which took an already crappy situation over there and made it exponentially worse.
I’d imagine that FG would give plenty of consideration to that when trying to assess who was a more suitable party to negotiate with.

All your points are grounded in an assumption that SF couldn’t possibly have made things worse than FF did. The track record of the policies they were cheerleading suggests otherwise

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

In the 2.5 year’s post the 2008 crash that FF remained in power, we all got to see how they reacted to the crisis. It could have been better, it it could have been a whole lot worse too.
SF, in the meantime, we’re busy telling everyone we should ape the policies of Syrzia in Greece, which took an already crappy situation over there and made it exponentially worse.
I’d imagine that FG would give plenty of consideration to that when trying to assess who was a more suitable party to negotiate with.

All your points are grounded in an assumption that SF couldn’t possibly have made things worse than FF did. The track record of the policies they were cheerleading suggests otherwise

No. My points relate to FG telling us how bad FF were then choosing to align with them. In context with whatever, I suspect, Troubles related, faux moral issue they have with SF.
FG robbed us of the opportunity to, how was is sold? "Overhaul the way our political system works to stamp out cronyism and low standards."
It's about low ethics and doing an awful job of it. Would SF have made things worse? Certainly for the vulture funds, banks and developers. Not sure how they could go about breaking the child homeless record further or increasing the tax bill for hotels and B&B's.

Nitrogan

blackwhite wrote: »

SF, in the meantime, we’re busy telling everyone we should ape the policies of Syrzia in Greece, which took an already crappy situation over there and made it exponentially worse.

They even condemned the Greeks for not walking over the cliff edge in end.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. My points relate to FG telling us how bad FF were then choosing to align with them. In context with whatever, I suspect, Troubles related, faux moral issue they have with SF.
FG robbed us of the opportunity to, how was is sold? "Overhaul the way our political system works to stamp out cronyism and low standards."
It's about low ethics and doing an awful job of it. Would SF have made things worse? Certainly for the vulture funds, banks and developers. Not sure how they could go about breaking the child homeless record further or increasing the tax bill for hotels and B&B's.

That's all well and good, and surely FG and govts past here have tended to favour certain sectors and even individuals at times, bit there is evidence of "good republicans" in certain parts of the country too.
I live close enough to the border to know what organisations and individuals with alleged SF links are capable of too.
We are all hopeful of better standards from our politicians than we get from a lot of them, and its right we should get better from them than a lot have shown, but I don't put any one of them on a higher pedestal than the other that way.
If the price of total straight politics, straight down the line, is to cost the country economically more than a few shady deals then which ideal is better?
Frankly, I don't believe any of them are above it, in fact I believe some are worse than others, SF wouldn't be the top of my good list!

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

That's all well and good, and surely FG and govts past here have tended to favour certain sectors and even individuals at times, bit there is evidence of "good republicans" in certain parts of the country too.
I live close enough to the border to know what organisations and individuals with alleged SF links are capable of too.
We are all hopeful of better standards from our politicians than we get from a lot of them, and its right we should get better from them than a lot have shown, but I don't put any one of them on a higher pedestal than the other that way.
If the price of total straight politics, straight down the line, is to cost the country economically more than a few shady deals then which ideal is better?
Frankly, I don't believe any of them are above it, in fact I believe some are worse than others, SF wouldn't be the top of my good list!

I agree. All people are capable.
The trouble is, it's not a few shady deals. Yes we have rampant cronyism and the odd Councillor looking for a dig out, but there is something inherently wrong with policies that drive up child homeless figures to record breaking amounts, a growing 'emergency' accommodation bill and yet pats itself on the back regarding employment rates and the economy like it's all going great.
We've gone from 'these things take time', to 'sure it's worse elsewhere' to 'what problem? Sure half it's made up'.
I would rather a government favouring the tax payer and value for money head and shoulders above Vulture funds, banks, corporations and the housing industry, (rental and sale) to the detriment of the tax payers pocket.
If as you say, and I agree, they are all capable of a few strokes, I'd rather err on the side of a party that might possibly side with the working tax payer. And that certainly is not Fine Gael.

Nitrogan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would rather a government favouring the tax payer and value for money head and shoulders above Vulture funds, banks, corporations and the housing industry, (rental and sale) to the detriment of the tax payers pocket.
If as you say, and I agree, they are all capable of a few strokes, I'd rather err on the side of a party that might possibly side with the working tax payer. And that certainly is not Fine Gael.

A lot of people would agree with that but there needs to be some social responsiblity in housing management, you can't prioritise value for the tax payer over the requirements of the people in need of a home.

If we all pay more tax, and it was actually used for housing, the problem would be solved.

Will any political party put that in their manifesto?

beeno67

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree. All people are capable.
The trouble is, it's not a few shady deals. Yes we have rampant cronyism and the odd Councillor looking for a dig out, but there is something inherently wrong with policies that drive up child homeless figures to record breaking amounts, a growing 'emergency' accommodation bill and yet pats itself on the back regarding employment rates and the economy like it's all going great.
We've gone from 'these things take time', to 'sure it's worse elsewhere' to 'what problem? Sure half it's made up'.
I would rather a government favouring the tax payer and value for money head and shoulders above Vulture funds, banks, corporations and the housing industry, (rental and sale) to the detriment of the tax payers pocket.
If as you say, and I agree, they are all capable of a few strokes, I'd rather err on the side of a party that might possibly side with the working tax payer. And that certainly is not Fine Gael.

Sinn Fein & People before Profit essentially run Dublin City Council. They in combination with FG had a choice to make. Would they use the council tax money to improve services for the poorest people in Dublin, would they use the money to refurbish council properties to house homeless people or would they give it as a tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest people in Dublin.
SF & PBP chose to say fcuk the homeless, fcuk the working class and gave the money to the wealthiest instead

brabantje

Nitrogan wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would rather a government favouring the tax payer and value for money head and shoulders above Vulture funds, banks, corporations and the housing industry, (rental and sale) to the detriment of the tax payers pocket.
If as you say, and I agree, they are all capable of a few strokes, I'd rather err on the side of a party that might possibly side with the working tax payer. And that certainly is not Fine Gael.

A lot of people would agree with that but there needs to be some social responsiblity in housing management, you can't prioritise value for the tax payer over the requirements of the people in need of a home.

If we all pay more tax, and it was actually used for housing, the problem would be solved.

Will any political party put that in their manifesto?

This is actually a very valid point. In other places that I've lived, I've paid a higher rate of tax, but the benefits are tangible - excellent infrastructure, good quality housing stock (largely rented long term), quality pubic transport etc. One could be forgiven for thinking that we aren't getting good bang for our tax buck.

Nitrogan

brabantje wrote: »

This is actually a very valid point. In other places that I've lived, I've paid a higher rate of tax, but the benefits are tangible - excellent infrastructure, good quality housing stock (largely rented long term), quality pubic transport etc. One could be forgiven for thinking that we aren't getting good bang for our tax buck.

Put a number on it.

I'm sure someone here could guestimate but there must a figure civil servants have already been asked for.

How much extra tax do we need to pay to eliminate homelessness?

brabantje

I think you've missed my point somewhat. Tax isn't particularly related to homelessness except in the cases of failure to provide public housing stock. The largest factor in homelessness is a failure to cap rents or control housing costs. You have a situation where the bulk of employment is located in Dublin and the population follows suit whilst salaries do not. Even if, like I do, you choose to live in a cheaper past of Ireland, the choice is several hours of commute or rent midweek in Dublin.

To be blunt about this, you don't need additional taxes to deal will homelessness, you need - amongst other many other factors - to spend your taxes better and with less waste.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

How do you get over that?
Its the same in A&E I think, no doctor referral means a 100e payment unless you have a MC.
I agree with you BTW on some of it.
I don't know myself, but are there some cases where low income people get gp cards?
But its just if you're criticising for non provision of some things and giving out about the actual provision of others its hard to say why one is so wrong and the other is also so wrong?

In France, everyone pays a minimal charge for a visit to a GP.

In the UK, they have found that if GP visits are free for everyone, then you end up with six week waiting lists.

The best solution would be two free GP visits per year for everyone, with a small charge - €10-€20 - as in France for subsequent visits. That would allow everyone get a check-up twice a year.

Those with a disability could remain free.

McMurphy

_Puma_ wrote: »

According to Galway Bay FM the record 58 people on trolleys in UCHG magically disappeared last night, just in time for the Kings visit this morning.

Rumors members of the spin unit were seen arriving late yesterday evening after the INMO spokesperson went on national radio to call for the HSE to carry out emergency protocols

The King is to open a "new" ward that has already been in use for the past 6 months and has been chronically overcrowded since, due to the closure of other wards in the region.

**Update** During the Kings address to his enthralled subjects, he complimented the name used for the new ward. He quipped "we have lots of wards named after saints in this country, it nice to see a ward named after a watercourse for a change"**
Meanwhile it has emerged all outpatient appointments were cancelled last night for today to avoid any unsightly overcrowding in the hospital this morning.

Jesus puma, I thought your post was tongue in cheek.

Apparently not.

University Hospital Galway 'hid' trolley patients for Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's visit

brabantje

Podge_irl wrote: »

Until they "unrule it out" after an election while discussions about forming a government are happening (i.e. when it actually matters) I won't believe them. Still, I would argue the basic point still stands regardless, nobody has been keeping SF out of anything, they have not been attempting to get into government in the first place.

brabantje wrote: »

Except Micheal Martin and, previously Enda Kenny and Joan Burton have all specifically and explicitly ruled out coalition with SF. Which to me, is *somebody* other than SF ruling it out.

Just to come back on this point, yesterday on the Week in Politics, both the FF and FG Senators on the panel explicitly ruled out a coalition with SF.

Senator Neale Richmond of FG stated he would leave FG should they propose such a coalition, whilst Lorraine Clifford-Lee of FF stated that the majority of FF members would not accept a coalition with SF. So the question is - is this just posturing pre-election or do they actually mean it? Will the cold hard reality of the post election numbers cause a change to this stance from either FF or FG, or will they have to bite the bullet and coalesce?

Also, it puts to bed the lie that SF are excluding themselves from government when both of the other two main parties have explicitly and repeatedly stated they would exclude them.

oscarBravo

brabantje wrote: »

Also, it puts to bed the lie that SF are excluding themselves from government when both of the other two main parties have explicitly and repeatedly stated they would exclude them.

The fact that FF and FG would exclude SF from government is orthogonal to the question of whether SF are excluding themselves from government.