FF and FG, what's the difference?

blanch152

Walter Bishop wrote: »

At this stage it just seems to be down to whose grandfather/great-grandfather shot who during the Civil War.

That was true up to a generation ago. Whatever vestiges of that tradition remained in this century, they were certainly blown away by the collapse of the FF vote following their disastrous decision to guarantee all the banks.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

...

As for FF/FG, I am following the debate with interest. Quite a few posters have pointed to significant differences between the two parties so I don't feel the need to add to (e.g. social policy, rural/urban divide, conservative catholic etc.). What does strike me is that these differences as suggested by others haven't really been rebutted but furthermore, they strike me as being more significant differences than the differences between parties such as the Socialist Party, People Before Profit, Independents for Change and the Social Democrats. To give another example, these differences also seem more significant than the ones between Sinn Fein and Aontu.

To conclude, if the thesis of the OP is that there should be an amalgamation between the two parties because they are similar, then I would respectfully suggest that the evidence presented on the thread isn't sufficient to back that up ahead of other prospective mergers.

You've a point about similarities between PBP and the Indies for change.
FF/FG being accepted as being very similar is a problem if we are looking for a healthy democracy. We don't have PBP in government and Indies for change in opposition for example. Lots of similar parties are, well similar. It neither adds not takes away from the similarities between FF/FG.
The OP is pointing out an RTE program about the similarities between FF/FG and agreeing. My commentary would be we might find ourselves with a healthier government and possibly system of government, (change the way we do business if you will) if the opposition were actually some form of opposite.

blanch152 wrote: »

That was true up to a generation ago. Whatever vestiges of that tradition remained in this century, they were certainly blown away by the collapse of the FF vote following their disastrous decision to guarantee all the banks.

It did indeed, but winning 20 seats despite their failings can't be attributed to random floating voters I'd imagine.

atticu

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My commentary would be we might find ourselves with a healthier government and possibly system of government, (change the way we do business if you will) if the opposition were actually some form of opposite.

What makes you think that?

If you had a strong government and a weak opposition, then the party in power could potentially do what they want as the opposition would be very weak.

We have seen this in many other countries around the world.

blanch152

atticu wrote: »

What makes you think that?

If you had a strong government and a weak opposition, then the party in power could potentially do what they want as the opposition would be very weak.

We have seen this in many other countries around the world.

Agreed.

An opposition made up purely of eight or nine small radical parties who cannot agree with one another and cannot produce sensible policies that gain more than 10% of the vote is not a strong opposition.

There will never be more than 20% real left-wing vote in Ireland, and it will always be fractured.

Nobelium

FF screw you while pretending to be your friend
FG just screw you

istooptoconcur

I read the Pheonix occasionally and from this one would get the impression that FG are centrist by design while FF are centrist only so long as it serves their traditional, often hereditary business associates (i.e. out and out popularism). the ends are largely the same save for technical stuff that goes over the heads of most (and is generally not reported anyway). I think it wrong to label FG 'rural' and FF 'urban' as one poster did, I always thought the opposite tendency applied (though I get a bit foggy beyond the pale). would anyone confirm or deny this for me, please? thank you

abcabc123123

blanch152 wrote: »

That was true up to a generation ago. Whatever vestiges of that tradition remained in this century, they were certainly blown away by the collapse of the FF vote following their disastrous decision to guarantee all the banks.

This might be true in an urban context but not in a rural one in my opinion. FF and FG voters still follow historical lines. They may not support their party explicitly because of a civil war allegiance, but you can trace a lot of family politics back to it.

The two parties are very deeply embedded in rural Ireland still and people don't necessarily follow them because of any particular political ideology.

Peregrinus

I think, of those still voting for FF and FG, a signficant chunk are still influenced by family tradition/heritage.

But that's not the whole story. The combined vote of these two parties is declining, and is now below 50%. Twenty years ago it was 67%; forty years ago, 80%. That tells us that there's a whole lot of people with a family tradition of voting FF/FG who are voting for neither of those parties.

The other point, of course, is that this isn't an either/or thing. There could be a lot of voters whose family tradition dictates their choice as between FF and FG, but whose political beliefs/principles mean that, even without any family tradition, they would likely vote for one of those parties anyway. It may be belief more than tradition which keeps them from voting SF or Labour or whoever.

James Brown

atticu wrote: »

What makes you think that?

If you had a strong government and a weak opposition, then the party in power could potentially do what they want as the opposition would be very weak.

We have seen this in many other countries around the world.

An opposition that supports the government for favours is pointless, no?
This is not a meeting of social policy. It would be great if government and opposition worked in such a manner. The role of the opposition is to call out bad policy, not call out bad policy and then support it.

When FF can still muster 20 seats after the meltdown and IMF etc., we're in trouble IMO. FG taking them on for 'stability' after castigating them for votes in the run up to the election is disgraceful.

markodaly

FF and FG are similar but also different in some ways.

Ireland is a cautious country and does not like change. Its why the likes of the PBP and Sinn Fein will always be on the side lines.

oceanman

markodaly wrote: »

FF and FG are similar but also different in some ways.

Ireland is a cautious country and does not like change. Its why the likes of the PBP and Sinn Fein will always be on the side lines.

that's not a bad thing …...you need someone on the side lines constantly stirring things up. otherwise whoever is in power thinks they can do what they like to the people. example..enda kenny

blanch152

oceanman wrote: »

that's not a bad thing …...you need someone on the side lines constantly stirring things up. otherwise whoever is in power thinks they can do what they like to the people. example..enda kenny

What did Enda Kenny ever do for the country?

Jobs.

What did Enda Kenny ever do for the country other than solve the unemployment problem?

Stabilise the public finances.

What did Enda Kenny ever do for the country other than solve the unemployment problem and stabilise the public finances?

Get the banks working again.

What did Enda Kenny ever do for the country other than solve the unemployment problem, stabilise the public finances and get the banks working again?

Oh, I could go on, but it the criticism of the 2011 government is Pythonesque at this stage.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What did Enda Kenny ever do for the country?

Jobs.

What did Enda Kenny ever do for the country other than solve the unemployment problem?

Stabilise the public finances.

What did Enda Kenny ever do for the country other than solve the unemployment problem and stabilise the public finances?

Get the banks working again.

What did Enda Kenny ever do for the country other than solve the unemployment problem, stabilise the public finances and get the banks working again?

Oh, I could go on, but it the criticism of the 2011 government is Pythonesque at this stage.

His bare faced lies aside, we are constantly told the current myriad crises may have been dealt with several years ago but we've no option but to carry out current policies.
The major disservice he did to the Irish people was continuing to do the way we do business, continue with cronyism and create the IW quango. All things he promised to address. Working and needing state aid to pay rent to vulture funds and securing ever worsening crises is his legacy not to mention the man with two pints, exploding wallets and the army at ATM's. Today we've the party responsible for everything he 'saved us' from in cahoots with FG. Great man all the same. He'll go down in history as the biggest waster, by waster I mean wasted opportunity, he had it, promised change, got in on change and wasted the opportunity.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

His bare faced lies aside, we are constantly told the current myriad crises may have been dealt with several years ago but we've no option but to carry out current policies.
The major disservice he did to the Irish people was continuing to do the way we do business, continue with cronyism and create the IW quango. All things he promised to address. Working and needing state aid to pay rent to vulture funds and securing ever worsening crises is his legacy not to mention the man with two pints, exploding wallets and the army at ATM's. Today we've the party responsible for everything he 'saved us' from in cahoots with FG. Great man all the same. He'll go down in history as the biggest waster, by waster I mean wasted opportunity, he had it, promised change, got in on change and wasted the opportunity.

It might just be me, but since we were getting weekly warnings in 2010 from experts like David McWilliams that the country would be bust by the end of the week, stabilising the public finances outweighs any amount of stories about men with pints.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It might just be me, but since we were getting weekly warnings in 2010 from experts like David McWilliams that the country would be bust by the end of the week, stabilising the public finances outweighs any amount of stories about men with pints.

I've news for you, we passed crises (plural) point some years ago. The important people aren't feeling it is all. The public finances are far from stable. Wasteful spending, lack of accountability and taking from the bottom to give to the lower bottom will be the downfall. Anything could tip the apple cart.
I'll give you a good one, likely we'll have some form of economic downturn and we may rightly attribute that to Brexit, however watch for them all acting like they only heard about Brexit the day of.
The fact remains FG said FF were the absolute worst in the run up to 2011 and now they are partners.
This says to the voter either FF weren't as bad as FG made out or they were bad but FG think they're fit for responsibility now.
That's one of the problems in having the two main parties so close.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I've news for you, we passed crises (plural) point some years ago. The important people aren't feeling it is all. The public finances are far from stable. Wasteful spending, lack of accountability and taking from the bottom to give to the lower bottom will be the downfall. Anything could tip the apple cart.
I'll give you a good one, likely we'll have some form of economic downturn and we may rightly attribute that to Brexit, however watch for them all acting like they only heard about Brexit the day of.
The fact remains FG said FF were the absolute worst in the run up to 2011 and now they are partners.
This says to the voter either FF weren't as bad as FG made out or they were bad but FG think they're fit for responsibility now.
That's one of the problems in having the two main parties so close.

It is not as simple as FG making FF partners.

Governments are formed because of the way people vote and the choices that people make. After the last election, the people elected a number of parties - Sinn Fein, PBP, Labour - who were not going to go into government for varying reasons, a plethora of independents - about 23 in total - who had about 23 different points of view and FF and FG.

Out of that result, the only possibility was FF supported by FG or FG supported by FF. Otherwise, we would have another election.

We got the government we voted for, and that is on all of us, not on FG partnering FF.

You are not happy with the make-up of this government, neither am I, but that is what the people voted for. If the people want a different government, they will vote en masse for someone else.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not as simple as FG making FF partners.

Governments are formed because of the way people vote and the choices that people make. After the last election, the people elected a number of parties - Sinn Fein, PBP, Labour - who were not going to go into government for varying reasons, a plethora of independents - about 23 in total - who had about 23 different points of view and FF and FG.

Out of that result, the only possibility was FF supported by FG or FG supported by FF. Otherwise, we would have another election.

We got the government we voted for, and that is on all of us, not on FG partnering FF.

You are not happy with the make-up of this government, neither am I, but that is what the people voted for. If the people want a different government, they will vote en masse for someone else.

I was very happy with the make up of government in 2011, what do I know?
That's not the case. FG weren't forced to look to FF. They chose to.
People didn't vote for a FF/FG coalition which is essentially what we have. If they ran on that, don't you think the votes may have landed differently?

Eric Cartman

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Where is my free house?

Not anywhere near where paul murphy or richard boyd barrets parents mansions are anyway

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

People didn't vote for a FF/FG coalition which is essentially what we have. If they ran on that, don't you think the votes may have landed differently?

If all of the parties had ran with their coalition partnerships on offer, we would still end up with FG and FF, because, as you'll recall, after the last election all of the other parties declined to do a deal.

And that included the parties that campaigned together under the common 'right2change' platform. They set out their stall and then dismantled it after the election.

micosoft

Matt Barrett wrote: »

His bare faced lies aside, we are constantly told the current myriad crises may have been dealt with several years ago but we've no option but to carry out current policies.
The major disservice he did to the Irish people was continuing to do the way we do business, continue with cronyism and create the IW quango. All things he promised to address. Working and needing state aid to pay rent to vulture funds and securing ever worsening crises is his legacy not to mention the man with two pints, exploding wallets and the army at ATM's. Today we've the party responsible for everything he 'saved us' from in cahoots with FG. Great man all the same. He'll go down in history as the biggest waster, by waster I mean wasted opportunity, he had it, promised change, got in on change and wasted the opportunity.

Irish water is not a quango anymore than the ESB is one. It delivers clean potable water to 4 million people daily and takes their waste away. The fact you and a group of people reject a reasonable usage charge that every other modern country supports (as an aside true left wingers support well funded public services) is a reflection that perhaps you are part of this problem you describe (housing). Creating no funding flow for IW is having real consequences in terms of investment and yes, creating one of the real reasons that we have a housing crisis in Dublin - lack of serviced land.

Whatever about Enda Kenny, and like all politicians he had his flaws, your meandering post demonstrates the difficulty of being a politician in Ireland. Using buzzwords you don't fully understand (Quangos, Vulture funds!) to smear quite worthy endeavours (Food Safety Authority of Ireland IS a Quango - is that bad? The "Vulture Funds" that bought debt off our banks, helping recapitalise them so they can lend again, wrote off debts and basically cleaning up the banking ecosystem just like real vultures who are essential) strike me as the blunt populism that actually does hold this country back.

Finally the hyperbolic statement. You saying that Enda Kenny will go down in history as the biggest waster is similar to Trump supporters blaming Obama for inheriting the mess Bush W left. That's interesting company.

McMurphy

micosoft wrote: »

Irish water is not a quango anymore than the ESB is one. It delivers clean potable water to 4 million people daily and takes their waste away. The fact you and a group of people reject a reasonable usage charge that every other modern country supports (as an aside true left wingers support well funded public services) is a reflection that perhaps you are part of this problem you describe (housing). Creating no funding flow for IW is having real consequences in terms of investment and yes, creating one of the real reasons that we have a housing crisis in Dublin - lack of serviced land.

Just for clarity, because you might have missed it.

FG created an "Expert Comission" to examine our water services, and how they're funded etc.

They (hand picked by Simon Coveney) came to the conclusion that

The final report says normal water usage for households should be paid through general taxation, with a charge being levied for “wasteful” usage.

An expert group established by FG, looked at the system FG tried to foist on the public and determined that they got many things completely wrong, including raised eyebrows over the meters that DOB benefited from.

The commission questions the rollout of water meters, which cost more than €500 million to install,and says that a referendum enshrining Irish Water in public ownership should be considered.

You can read more about it here

In hindsight, it looks like the people objecting to the way FG tried to implement the charges were correct in what they were saying.

That's not coming from me, that's coming from the FG hand picked expert commission.

The pros and cons of Enda are for another days chuckle.

Nobelium

Has anyone worked out any real difference yet between any of them ? They all do the same thing when they get in power . . look after themselves and their fat ministerial pension for life.

markodaly

The commission on Irish Water was a request by FF to try and put water charges to bed by 'bureaucratic means' as in, if a report is responsible for dumping water charges than no one is responsible. Let's not try and redraw history here.

Every.single.OECD.country.has.a.water.charge.
Apart from Ireland. You think we are behind the curve here or ahead of it.

That is actually a good indication on why we still have FF and FG dominating politics. We do not really do ideology. We do populism and whoever can deliver the goodies, will get the vote. We vote people in on perceived competence, not on ideology per say.

Sure, Irish socialists are against property tax. The only Socialists in the world who would say such a thing. Madness to be honest, but that is Irish politics.

McMurphy

Do you have a link showing that FF specifically requested the expert commission established by FG?

Regardless of who requested it to be set up, their findings still flew in the face of the people who established them to begin with.

That wasn't Brendan ogle, Paul Murphy, Gerry Adams or any other bogeyman, it was the very commission of experts that FG handpicked.

Some kick in the face.

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Do you have a link showing that FF specifically requested the expert commission established by FG?

It was part of the program for government agreed by FF and FG in 2016. It was the political equivalent of kicking the can down the road.

Regardless, again, the fact that we are the only OECD country that does not charge for water is a good indication of why FF and FG have dominated politics and the rest are has-beens.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

It was part of the program for government agreed by FF and FG in 2016. It was the political equivalent of kicking the can down the road.

So not a FF requirement?

Why the lie?

Regardless, again, the fact that we are the only OECD country that does not charge for water is a good indication of why FF and FG have dominated politics and the rest are has-beens.

The expert commission reached the conclusion that we fund our water services the way we're currently funding them (same as before Irish water rode into town)

Maybe if the rest of the OECD gets FG to appoint expert commissions to their respective countries, they'll conclude alternative funding methods there too.

Next they can start debating on Ireland and the UK driving on the left hand side. Maybe we're ahead of the curve in that regards too.

Sleeper12

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

The most social houses were built last year than any in the last 11 years.

Isn't it a shame it took 7 years of warnings and the biggest housing /homeless crisis in the history of the state for the government to get this many homes built.

Another side of your above comment is that the amount of social housing build 12 years ago, in proportion to the amount on the housing list, must be 100s of times more than last year. Proportionally the amount of social housing built last year is a tiny fraction of that 12 years ago.

micosoft

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Just for clarity, because you might have missed it.

FG created an "Expert Comission" to examine our water services, and how they're funded etc.

They (hand picked by Simon Coveney) came to the conclusion that



An expert group established by FG, looked at the system FG tried to foist on the public and determined that they got many things completely wrong, including raised eyebrows over the meters that DOB benefited from.



You can read more about it here

In hindsight, it looks like the people objecting to the way FG tried to implement the charges were correct in what they were saying.

That's not coming from me, that's coming from the FG hand picked expert commission.

The pros and cons of Enda are for another days chuckle.

Oh. I've read it. And I disagree with it as well as FG backing off of Water charges in the end. The report is a fudge that does not answer basic questions around the sustainability of water services or the impact on commercial charges. Plenty of critical analysis of it and of course, the mandate given to it which led to the outcome. There is plenty to critique those against the way water charges were introduced who still don't have any answers other than general taxation. And lets no forget this is an analysis not shared by any other developed country on the planet.

Fine Gael does not exist in a vacuum and after FF won it's third GE based on a populist McCreeynomincs, FG shifted to those same populist policies into the 2007 election. Likewise populists latching onto water charges and the civic disruption that caused it led to backing out and the escape route of "an independent commission". Not a proud day for Irish politics.

But IW remains (and delivering a far better programme of improvements than the councils ever did) and the meters installed remain. Charges will happen eventually. But by boiling the frog. Which goes back to the electorate.

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So not a FF requirement?

Educate yourself. Read the program for government.

The expert commission reached the conclusion that we fund our water services the way we're currently funding them (same as before Irish water rode into town)

Yeap, that is why we have one of the worst water quality in the EU, with all those boil notices. Nevermind that a third of the country already pay for water....
But don't tell that to urban Ireland.

Maybe if the rest of the OECD gets FG to appoint expert commissions to their respective countries, they'll conclude alternative funding methods there too.

Next they can start debating on Ireland and the UK driving on the left hand side. Maybe we're ahead of the curve in that regards too.

Faux humor used as a defensive mechanism to try and scurry away from actually debating the points raised. You get an A for effort, but alas your methods of running away from the debate is clear to all you follow.

If you are actually engaged in the point I raised, you do not think it's odd that we, Ireland are the only country in the OECD that does not pay for water. Is this Irish exceptionalism or are we special in another way.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Educate yourself. Read the program for government.

I'm asking you for a link, you're obviously not -

Actually you know what? Forget it, we know one isn't forthcoming because you told a lie and got called out on it.

This forum used to be fairly strict on making false statements and peddling them as fact.

Yeap, that is why we have one of the worst water quality in the EU, with all those boil notices. Nevermind that a third of the country already pay for water....
But don't tell that to urban Ireland.

Take that up with FGs (that they came up with entirely by themselves) expert commission, it was they that reached their conclusions not I.

As for the ⅓ already paying for water, presumably these are people not connected to the mains, they're enjoying lower LPT than urban dwellers, and also entitled to annual subsidies for the upkeep and maintenance.

Swings and roundabouts.

Faux humor used as a defensive mechanism to try and scurry away from actually debating the points raised. You get an A for effort, but alas your methods of running away from the debate is clear to all you follow.

If you are actually engaged in the point I raised, you do not think it's odd that we, Ireland are the only country in the OECD that does not pay for water. Is this Irish exceptionalism or are we special in another way.

Faux humour?

I'm pointing out to you that just because everyone else does something is a crap argument for a govt to subscribe to.