Leo is the new king of Ireland.

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Folks side stepping the inconvenient 90% of your post to try score points can be frustrating, aye.

90%?
I could have sworn there was only a single link in your post - and that’s what was addressed - and funnily enough it didn’t back up a single thing you had claimed.

If you want to be able to make false claims without the inaccuracies being called out on it then you’re probably posting in the wrong place TBH.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I am not Leo Varadkar. It's about time you put some answers out there. Why do you think they are not right wing despite their actions over the years?
The Social protection spend is a necessity not some sign of FG being the conservative workers party

Why is it about time? I was probably one of the first ones to give my opinion on why I think they are not right wing.

You say social protection is a necessity and nothing to do with being left wing as that is some sort of fact. It's not, it's your opinion.

It is precisely because of their actions over the years that I have the opinion that they are not right wing- huge social welfare budget, ridiculous marginal rates of tax, and other non fiscal things such as abortion referendum, marriage, etc.

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

90%?
I could have sworn there was only a single link in your post - and that’s what was addressed - and funnily enough it didn’t back up a single thing you had claimed.

If you want to be able to make false claims without the inaccuracies being called out on it then you’re probably posting in the wrong place TBH.

I quoted from a newspaper article I had linked to earlier in the thread. I appreciate your holding off on the debate up until you felt the need to come in on that one point. Understood, read, accepted. Fourth currently, got it.
The idea that anyone purposefully posts inaccuracies is beyond me, we all obviously have access to the internet. However you have my heart felt appreciation on the matter.

From the Gene Kerrigan article on letting the past go, re the irony of SF not being good enough to knock boots with FG, to FG not being right wing because of the tax spend on the poor, elderly, sick, employers, carers and bereaved, to this. Stick a fork in me cause....

McMurphy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I quoted from a newspaper article I had linked to earlier in the thread. I appreciate your holding off on the debate up until you felt the need to come in on that one point. Understood, read, accepted. Fourth currently, got it.
The idea that anyone purposefully posts inaccuracies is beyond me, we all obviously have access to the internet. However you have my heart felt appreciation on the matter.

From the Gene Kerrigan article on letting the past go, re the irony of SF not being good enough to knock boots with FG, to FG not being right wing because of the tax spend on the poor, elderly, sick, employers, carers and bereaved, to this. Stick a fork in me cause....

This.

To think this all started because of the Gene Kerrigan article that questioned FGs right to say who is or is not fit for govern, considering it too had its own early days.

Very few questioned the hypocrisy, one lad went on to basically imply FG are part of de left.

The other guy started to do exactly what the article said not to do.

The last lad mentioned his own personal boogeymen.

Lol

christy c

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This.

To think this all started because of the Gene Kerrigan article that questioned FGs right to say who is or is not fit for govern, considering it too had its own early days.

Very few questioned the hypocrisy, one lad went on to basically imply FG are part of de left.

The other guy started to do exactly what the article said not to do.

The last lad mentioned his own personal boogeymen.

Lol

If yourself and Matt had checked what ye wrote when the inaccuracies were pointed out it would have saved a lot of posts. Or better yet, stick to facts and not something that makes a good soundbite.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

If yourself and Matt had checked what ye wrote when the inaccuracies were pointed out it would have saved a lot of posts. Or better yet, stick to facts and not something that makes a good soundbite.

It was something Gene Kerrigan wrote that you took exception to, if my memory serves me correctly..

Didn't you get the ball rolling with your question about whether or not FG were actually right wing

christy c

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It was something Gene Kerrigan wrote that you took exception to, if my memory serves me correctly..

Didn't you get the ball rolling with your question about whether or not FG were actually right wing

He wrote about FG being right wing, I gave reasons why I don't think they are right wing. Not much wrong there as far as I can see, and obviously some disagreed with my view of FG as is their right.

If anyone wants to discuss the rest of his article fire away, I won't be stopping them.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

He wrote about FG being right wing, I gave reasons why I don't think they are right wing. Not much wrong there as far as I can see, and obviously some disagreed with my view of FG as is their right.

If anyone wants to discuss the rest of his article fire away, I won't be stopping them.

Fair enough. I don't think using tax monies to finance private developers is particularly leftie.
As regards the FG faux outrage from some in the party on the prospect of partnering with SF, we'll it's a bit rich coming from them. As Kerrigan says the ceasefire was many years ago. Fianna Fails last time in resulted in a national disaster but hey ho they're good enough to bed with.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why do they persist despite worsening crises? More concerned about a few making a profit than anything else? It certainly hasn't helped any of the crises, if you care to pick one. There's a few to choose from. That's pinkos for ya





I wouldn't get very far telling porkies now would I, what with some parts of the country having access to the internet.
Just to note, the Social Protection budget or welfare as you put it, is a spend on job seekers, employers, the sick, the poor, the retired, the bereaved, carers and most importantly, renters.

There is a huge difference between government debt per person, and levels of personal debt.

You said, incorrectly, that Irish people had the highest level of personal debt in the EU. This was explained to you pages ago, yet you continue to repeat a falsehood.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-household-debt-falls-but-still-among-highest-in-europe-1.3216828

I provided this exact same link to you already that demonstrates that personal debt per person is only fourth highest in the EU. It is absolutely amazing that this forum considers itself to be a serious place of debate when there are fundamentally incorrect economic statements being repeated ad nauseum.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fair enough. I don't think using tax monies to finance private developers is particularly leftie.
.

Please explain to me, using extracts from the Budget 2018 documents (see link I have provided to you) how tax monies are being used in 2018 to finance private developers.

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2018/2018.aspx

I am really interested in an analysis based on fact rather than fiction.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As regards the FG faux outrage from some in the party on the prospect of partnering with SF, we'll it's a bit rich coming from them. As Kerrigan says the ceasefire was many years ago. Fianna Fails last time in resulted in a national disaster but hey ho they're good enough to bed with.

FG haven't let FF into government, they have let them support the government from outside, a key difference to coalition.

As someone who gave a third preference to FG in the last election, they would get my second-last preference if they ever went into coalition with SF. That is a reality, and there are many more ordinary voters out there like me who would think like that.

Wanderer78

blanch152 wrote:

You said, incorrectly, that Irish people had the highest level of personal debt in the EU. This was explained to you pages ago, yet you continue to repeat a falsehood.

Steve keen is spot on with calling countries such as Ireland 'the walking dead of debt'! The EU is toast if we don't start dealing with the levels of private debt within it.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It was something Gene Kerrigan wrote that you took exception to, if my memory serves me correctly..

Didn't you get the ball rolling with your question about whether or not FG were actually right wing

With a generation of voters born after the GFA, how long do you think some members of FG can credibly reference the Troubles as a reason not to partner with SF? I mean every sensible politician commended the peace process and those on all sides who took part. To try dismiss that now because it doesn't suit a particular brand of political protectionism, that being dismissing a party completely off the bat, is really a bit much to swallow in my view.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With a generation of voters born after the GFA, how long do you think some members of FG can credibly reference the Troubles as a reason not to partner with SF? I mean every sensible politician commended the peace process and those on all sides who took part. To try dismiss that now because it doesn't suit a particular brand of political protectionism, that being dismissing a party completely off the bat, is really a bit much to swallow in my view.

In politics everybody else is your enemy, everybody else is your friend, depends on your need at a particular time.
2016 SF disappeared after the election results, not interested in talking to anyone else.
They had declared they wouldn't go into govt unless they were the leading party. They seem to have changed their mind since, but I will wait with baited breadth to see if they are amenable to negotiate after the next.
FG, FF, others will be willing to talk I'd say, it'll be interesting to see if SF will be flexible enough to deal with either of the big two, but it will be FGs fault if they don't deal I'd say no matter what happens, even if SF bring back in FF.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With a generation of voters born after the GFA, how long do you think some members of FG can credibly reference the Troubles as a reason not to partner with SF?

As long as SF have convicted terrorists amongst their ranks and especially in leadership positions then of course people will have very credible reasons not to partner with them..

Aside from that, it's perfectly reasonable for parties with fundamentally different values not to want to partner with each other. For example, I could see why AAA-PBP might refuse to partner with Renua.

McMurphy

Edward M wrote: »

In politics everybody else is your enemy, everybody else is your friend, depends on your need at a particular time.
2016 SF disappeared after the election results, not interested in talking to anyone else.
They had declared they wouldn't go into govt unless they were the leading party. They seem to have changed their mind since, but I will wait with baited breadth to see if they are amenable to negotiate after the next.
FG, FF, others will be willing to talk I'd say, it'll be interesting to see if SF will be flexible enough to deal with either of the big two, but it will be FGs fault if they don't deal I'd say no matter what happens, even if SF bring back in FF.

A wise strategic move when you look at the fate of the Greens, PDs and Labour.

Besides this (As the article in question discussed) both FG/FF categorically ruled out doing business with them anyway, both pre and post election.

Now, unless anyone's suggesting that the former was the only one who was serious, and the other two were spoofing, I keep being mystified as to why this keeps getting brought up.

blanch152

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Steve keen is spot on with calling countries such as Ireland 'the walking dead of debt'! The EU is toast if we don't start dealing with the levels of private debt within it.

That has nothing to do with the falsehood that Irish people have the highest levels of personal debt in the EU.

I am not criticising anyone for arguing that personal and private debt in Ireland is too high, I am just asking that when people make grandiose statements about Ireland being the most indebted etc., they either know what they are talking about or can back it up with relevant statistical facts, rather than soundbites repeated from slogans.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With a generation of voters born after the GFA, how long do you think some members of FG can credibly reference the Troubles as a reason not to partner with SF? I mean every sensible politician commended the peace process and those on all sides who took part. To try dismiss that now because it doesn't suit a particular brand of political protectionism, that being dismissing a party completely off the bat, is really a bit much to swallow in my view.

It took 100 years for Fianna Fail to support Fine Gael. That sort of time-period would suit me.

Wanderer78

blanch152 wrote:

That has nothing to do with the falsehood that Irish people have the highest levels of personal debt in the EU.

I've posted keens graph of Irish private and public debt before, I ll post it again later, it's very telling and somewhat disturbing to see, I can link his other graphs of global debt so people can view and compare, I'd agree with many of his arguments regarding global debt levels

Edward M

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

A wise strategic move when you look at the fate of the Greens, PDs and Labour.

Besides this (As the article in question discussed) both FG/FF categorically ruled out doing business with them anyway, both pre and post election.

Now, unless anyone's suggesting that the former was the only one who was serious, and the other two were spoofing, I keep being mystified as to why this keeps getting brought up.

Not arguing their decision at all, or the other party's either re not talking to them, but what has suddenly changed in SF for them to now say they are open to negotiations without the aforementioned precursor.
The political landscape has changed dramatically here in the last 40/50 years, I can't see a majority govt of one party being in place here again and we will have coalitions going on.
If you're serious about governing then you have to be pliable to negotiations and indeed compromise maybe SF are getting to grips with that.
For the electorate unfortunately, that means most manifestos before elections aren't going to be worth the paper they are written on as they will be mingled with inconsistencies as to actual progs for govt.
Of course if you want to stay absolutely true to your promises then stepping back and doing nothing but is the way to go, the only way to go, but then your promises aren't worth anything at all.
I'd say SF would get it hard to agree a program for govt with FG personally, it would more than likely be FF if it came to it, but who knows?
The aftermath of the next election should be fascinating if the results go as the polls suggest.
Leo and Mary Lou or Michael and Mary Lou, or even Leo and Michael?
Will Michael still be FF leader even given the unrest in FF over abortion?
An interesting year ahead I'd say!

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

Not arguing their decision at all, or the other party's either re not talking to them, but what has suddenly changed in SF for them to now say they are open to negotiations without the aforementioned precursor.
The political landscape has changed dramatically here in the last 40/50 years, I can't see a majority govt of one party being in place here again and we will have coalitions going on.
If you're serious about governing then you have to be pliable to negotiations and indeed compromise maybe SF are getting to grips with that.
For the electorate unfortunately, that means most manifestos before elections aren't going to be worth the paper they are written on as they will be mingled with inconsistencies as to actual progs for govt.
Of course if you want to stay absolutely true to your promises then stepping back and doing nothing but is the way to go, the only way to go, but then your promises aren't worth anything at all.
I'd say SF would get it hard to agree a program for govt with FG personally, it would more than likely be FF if it came to it, but who knows?
The aftermath of the next election should be fascinating if the results go as the polls suggest.
Leo and Mary Lou or Michael and Mary Lou, or even Leo and Michael?
Will Michael still be FF leader even given the unrest in FF over abortion?
An interesting year ahead I'd say!

The onus will be to stick to your core principles if in coalition IMO.

The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that Labour abandoned theirs and their core voters. That is welcoming disaster.

James Brown

I think if push came to shove some elements would rightly consider partnering with SF. I understand there is the political ideology differences, but I can't take either FG or FF serious on that. It's economics, (where the money goes) would be the big divide and how economic policy plays out. I can understand and accept that, however any moral or ideological gripes are complete bull IMO. Case in point FF and FG.
After the last FF terms, it's tough to see because, well on paper we say we're similar. FG were willing to be seen as similar to FF to justify the current set up. I recall talk of the people obviously gave support to FF so FG are only really respecting that. Well then we've SF don't we?

I mean with;

SIPO has issued three statements this morning announcing that it will hold public hearings for the purposes of its investigation into the alleged contraventions of the Ethical Frameworks for the Local Government Service by Councillor John O'Donnell of Donegal County Council, Councillor Hugh McElvaney of Monaghan County Council and Councillor Joe Queenan of Sligo County Council..
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0427/958641-sipo/

The FG moral high ground is tough to take seriously. Not bothering to mention FF at all.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Not arguing their decision at all, or the other party's either re not talking to them, but what has suddenly changed in SF for them to now say they are open to negotiations without the aforementioned precursor.
The political landscape has changed dramatically here in the last 40/50 years, I can't see a majority govt of one party being in place here again and we will have coalitions going on.
If you're serious about governing then you have to be pliable to negotiations and indeed compromise maybe SF are getting to grips with that.
For the electorate unfortunately, that means most manifestos before elections aren't going to be worth the paper they are written on as they will be mingled with inconsistencies as to actual progs for govt.
Of course if you want to stay absolutely true to your promises then stepping back and doing nothing but is the way to go, the only way to go, but then your promises aren't worth anything at all.
I'd say SF would get it hard to agree a program for govt with FG personally, it would more than likely be FF if it came to it, but who knows?
The aftermath of the next election should be fascinating if the results go as the polls suggest.
Leo and Mary Lou or Michael and Mary Lou, or even Leo and Michael?
Will Michael still be FF leader even given the unrest in FF over abortion?
An interesting year ahead I'd say!

As it stands manifestos haven't been worth much. It's not a case of having high hopes scuttled by a disagreeing partner. The manifesto seems to be 'just something you say...'. I would say leeway is expected, but a complete turnaround frowned upon. Give and take would be accepted between partners, but Labour got swallowed by FG. Any Junior partner needs to take a stand on some core issues.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Give and take would be accepted between partners, but Labour got swallowed by FG.

As has been pointed out in this very thread, Labour got a disproportionate amount of their manifesto implemented, including very high profile items like the SSM referendum.

Then they got destroyed by the electorate anyway.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As has been pointed out in this very thread, Labour got a disproportionate amount of their manifesto implemented, including very high profile items like the SSM referendum.

Then they got destroyed by the electorate anyway.

As has been pointed out they should have backed Shortall as regards Reilly's clinic allocations, the crony appointments, (See IW, among others) and possibly worse of all Labour adopted a Fine Gael attitude of pompous proportions. We'd the leader slagging off protesters for owning smart phones. That churlish manner is common from FG but seeing a Labour leader drop to that petty level was tough to take.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As has been pointed out they should have backed Shortall as regards Reilly's clinic allocations, the crony appointments, (See IW, among others) and possibly worse of all Labour adopted a Fine Gael attitude of pompous proportions.

Yeah, that totally proves your point about their manifesto.

????

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yeah, that totally proves your point about their manifesto.

????

I was explaining why they got hammered by the electorate. Any good done from the manifestos was lost under the return to cronyism, keeping the way we do business, more quangos. The heart of both party manifestos reversed. I don't understand the constant mystery on this.

McMurphy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As has been pointed out in this very thread, Labour got a disproportionate amount of their manifesto implemented, including very high profile items like the SSM referendum.

Then they got destroyed by the electorate anyway.

The Tesco style advertisement did them no favours one would imagine.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I was explaining why they got hammered by the electorate. Any good done from the manifestos was lost under the return to cronyism, keeping the way we do business, more quangos. The heart of both party manifestos reversed. I don't understand the constant mystery on this.

The constant mystery on this is that the facts about the manifesto do not back up your statements.

You repeatedly state that Labour got swallowed up, reversed their policies, carried out u-turns. When you are challenged with hard facts on this, you revert to soundbites about quangos and cronyism. Even those soundbites have little to back them up. For a start, that FG/Labour government abolished far more quangos than it created, thereby reducing the number of posts available for cronyism. That is a fact.

Idbatterim

Are you joking in relation to the tesco type propaganda? the "every little hurts" line and scaremongering, was what got them into coalition with FG! Also in terms of burton talking about the smartphones, she is human and we have our limits. she spoke the truth, but we dont like hearing the truth in this country! Those people that couldnt pay for water, you think they werent paying for expensive smart phones, tv and broadband packages, regulars down in the aul local and bookies! Safe to say that the majority of them, had no problem paying for those particular "needs"... :rolleyes:

Idbatterim

I think it can be put down to something far simpler. I think on the whole, the FG voters would be more pragmatic and realistic. I think the Labour voters were totally delusional, "Labours way or frankfurts way" etc, comedy gold. They kept welfare payments high, no forced PS redundancies, nobody thrown out of the family PPP. Tens of billions borrowed, to be paid back by the people that got us though the recession, at the time and also now and into the future. What else did they want?