People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

FrancieBrady

is_that_so wrote: »

That's pretty much what you've advocated.

National Executives/Ard Comhairle are not random people. Two clicks and I can look at who is on SF's for example.

efanton

is_that_so wrote: »

We have representative democracy, people elected to make these decisions and we get a say in who they are.

Wrong, totally wrong

Parties put forward policies and manifestos at elections.
The electorate then make the decisions as to what policies they want and a government is elected based on that.
The government then gets to implement those policies. Their should be no need for further decision making, the decision have already been made by the electorate.


Of course this doesn't count for FG or FF. Policies or manifestos put forward at an election to them are only candy in a shop window to get votes.
Neither have come close to actually delivering the policies that they were elected on, and more often than not they will try introduce policies that the lectorate never had a say in.

If you think for one minute that blindly voting for a party to make decisions for you is the way it is supposed to work no wonder FF and FG have been getting away with delivering nothing but failed policies for decades now.

Its you and every other voter that decides, its a governments job to implement those decisions.

Governments should only be representing you when they are in opposition

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's a nonsense comment. They are taking more for the top tier, sounds good.

And yet you've just pointed out that they are taxing tax payers, but only certain types. That top tier as you call it is a movable feast IMO, especially if they found it didn't bring in enough money.

FrancieBrady

is_that_so wrote: »

Except they want to tax the tax payer, well the ones who won't vote for them.

My partner and I are in the tax band they want to tax.
I have no objection, nor never had one, to paying taxes if they go towards the creation of a fair society.
I believe in a welfare state. I don't believe in the incompetent running of a welfare state though.

JohnnyFlash

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we sticking to this election and issues relating to it? Oh good. Sick of the troubles coming up.

RIC Commemoration - big issue even though it relates to an organisation from 100 years ago.

The Troubles - sitting members of SF made bombs and picked up cop killers - move on.

Ya, tremendous logic, Matthew.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

RIC Commemoration - big issue even though it relates to an organisation from 100 years ago.

The Troubles - sitting members of SF made bombs and picked up cop killers - move on.

Ya, tremendous logic, Matthew.

FG made an 'issue' of the RIC/DMP.

Not a single voice of objection was heard when appropriate commemoration was suggested, nor to yearly commemorations.

is_that_so

efanton wrote: »

Wrong, totally wrong

Parties put forward policies and manifestos at elections.
The electorate then make the decisions as to what policies they want and a government is elected based on that.
The government then gets to implement those policies. Their should be no need for further decision making, the decision have already been made by the electorate.


Of course this doesn't count for FG or FF. Policies or manifestos put forward at an election to them are only candy in a shop window to get votes.
Neither have come close to actually delivering the policies that they were elected on.

If you think for one minute that blindly voting for a party to make decisions for you is the way it is supposed to work no wonder FF and FG have been getting away with delivering nothing but failed policies for decades now.

Its you and every other voter that decides, its a governments job to implement those decisions.

Government should only be representing you when they are in opposition

That these parties with "failed policies" are continuously returned to power shows a lot of voters don't share your view. It's not our fault those who we choose to represent us disappoint. The logical solution is to replace them with other representatives.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

And yet you've just pointed out that they are taxing tax payers, but only certain types. That top tier as you call it is a movable feast IMO, especially if they found it didn't bring in enough money.

'certain types' you said people who don't vote for them like they are taxing on an individual basis. Not everyone is selfish. Some of us are fine paying a little more if they get quality and value for services provided. It's what a society is about, not a race to win and squirrel away your millions while the country is in crisis. If you choose to do that fine, but the government shouldn't be assisting.
We have had several years of policies favouring business. Time the working tax payer got some attention.

James Brown

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

RIC Commemoration - big issue even though it relates to an organisation from 100 years ago.

The Troubles - sitting members of SF made bombs and picked up cop killers - move on.

Ya, tremendous logic, Matthew.

This makes no sense. Did you read what I was commenting on? I quoted it in my post.

The RIC/Tans have commemorations. Not illegal, nobody cares.
The state having one on everybody's behalf, an issue.
The Troubles are over JF, we've a peace agreement and everything.
If we've a state commemoration for bombers still living, feel free to pipe up.
We'd a dissident made senator by FG/Lab, you must have been livid.

JohnnyFlash

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we sticking to this election and issues relating to it? Oh good. Sick of the troubles coming up.

RIC Commemoration - big issue even though it relates to an organisation from 100 years ago.

The Troubles - sitting members of SF made bombs and picked up cop killers - move on.

Ya, tremendous logic, Matthew.

James Brown

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

RIC Commemoration - big issue even though it relates to an organisation from 100 years ago.

The Troubles - sitting members of SF made bombs and picked up cop killers - move on.

Ya, tremendous logic, Matthew.

I expect the Jewish people will be all 'let bygones be bygones' in 25 years.
I'm sure family of the Gestapo have commemorations for their relatives died, and that's their right. But a state one? Not a great idea IMO.

You're the one needs move on JF. The conflict is in peace. People know, or should know, who they are voting for. If you run out of road on sensible election talk, just bow out until you have more relevant material.

Annasopra

I think SF might get all its candidates elected. The attacks from fg and ff are ridiculous and I think people wont buy the negative gutter politics from FF/FG. They want ff and fg to tell them why they are good not why sf are bad.

Phoebas

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I expect the Jewish people will be all 'let bygones be bygones' in 25 years.

I can't believe you just compared the RIC to the holocaust :eek:

James Brown

Phoebas wrote: »

I can't believe you just compared the RIC to the holocaust :eek:

It's right there. It's an analogy P. Different things effect different people at different levels. I think the holocaust was a tragedy, Charlie Tan-agains father may have not.

jimmycrackcorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There is no FG in Dublin Mid West - two SF, one PBP and only one fly in the 'working class ointment' with one FF.

SF aren't going to hold the second seat which was a by-election away where basically the Eoin O'Broin voters voted again. The seat will go back to FG in the election.

RandomName2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's right there. It's an analogy P. Different things effect different people at different levels. I think the holocaust was a tragedy, Charlie Tan-agains father may have not.

It's time to move on. You can't be dragging up stuff that happened 30 100 years ago. What the RIC did or didn't do doesn't matter. Everyone had blood on their hands at some point.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's a nonsense comment. They are taking more for the top tier, sounds good.

Relatively speaking that actually does sound good, but there aren't a huge number of people in the top bracket, and as such most of the money they are saying that they will get would be through corporation tax, and the taxing of multinationals' 'intangible assets'. This is an alarming statement given that our economy is mostly dependent on the presence of multinationals.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's time to move on. You can't be dragging up stuff that happened 30 100 years ago. What the RIC did or didn't do doesn't matter. Everyone had blood on their hands at some point.

Go to the yearly commemoration, nobody is stopping or hampering you.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Go to the yearly commemoration, nobody is stopping or hampering you.

I don't understand your comment, but either way I'm guessing my very obvious sarcasm must have gone over your head.

Don't mention the Troubles, talk about the War of Independence. Sounds about right.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't understand your comment, but either way I'm guessing my very obvious sarcasm must have gone over your head.

Don't mention the Troubles, talk about the War of Independence. Sounds about right.

No idea what you are talking about tbh.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's time to move on. You can't be dragging up stuff that happened 30 100 years ago. What the RIC did or didn't do doesn't matter. Everyone had blood on their hands at some point.



Relatively speaking that actually does sound good, but there aren't a huge number of people in the top bracket, and as such most of the money they are saying that they will get would be through corporation tax, and the taxing of multinationals' 'intangible assets'. This is an alarming statement given that our economy is mostly dependent on the presence of multinationals.

Look before you leap. That is my point. I didn't raise the RIC/Tans. One poster spoke on being current, I agreed and citing folk bringing up the troubles then another lad started on about the RIC/Tans/bombers.

The economy is two tier, so it needs looking at. We've Russian oil concerns using Ireland to reallocate funds from one source to another and vulture funds all paying low taxes likely with insignificant staff numbers. We need tip the scales more in the favour of the Irish taxpayer.

RandomName2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The economy is two tier, so it needs looking at. We've Russian oil concerns using Ireland to reallocate funds from one source to another and vulture funds all paying low taxes likely with insignificant staff numbers. We need tip the scales more in the favour of the Irish taxpayer.

On paper I agree about the vulture funds, though I do not know enough about the intricacies of how their assets work to have an informed opinion.

However, Sinn Féin is explicitly talking about 'intangible assets' in the form of Intellectual Property, and to this end we are talking about companies like Apple and Google.

Here is a good article talking about this today
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/explainer-what-is-the-row-about-sf-s-multinational-tax-plan-1.4155157

There seems to be two issues with Sinn Féin policy. One is that its immediate go-to of applying the 80 per cent rule on IP moved here between 2015 and 2017 would not actually generate any more revenue for the exchequer, merely when that money becomes available. The second, more serious issue is that if Sinn Fein was in a position to turn the screws on the large multinationals to fund their proposed large spending increases, that could potentially jeopardize a delicate and vital relationship that Ireland currently exercises.

facehugger99

If SF ever did get into power I have little doubt they would create a more equal society.

Unfortunately it would require us all being destitute.

There is definitely an large element of envy in their policies that appeals to those who wish to drag everyone down into the gutter.

Gutter-politics in its purest form.

Fann Linn

facehugger99 wrote: »

If SF ever did get into power I have little doubt they would create a more equal society.

Unfortunately it would require us all being destitute.

There is definitely an large element of envy in their policies that appeals to those who wish to drag everyone down into the gutter.

Gutter-politics in its purest form.

FF/Fg have invested in gutter politics since the foundation of the state. What's so different?

RandomName2

facehugger99 wrote: »

If SF ever did get into power I have little doubt they would create a more equal society.

Unfortunately it would require us all being destitute.

There is definitely an large element of envy in their policies that appeals to those who wish to drag everyone down into the gutter.

Gutter-politics in its purest form.

On paper this isn't the case. On paper they want to get additional funding just from top earners and large corporations. I don't think narrowing the tax base is likely to be very successful though. Large corporations anyway are more useful in the jobs they generate than the amount of tax we get directly from them.

In the same way that when Sinn Féin say that banks don't pay any tax is technically correct, it is an oversimplified analysis of the situation. For one thing, the fact that the banks don't pay any tax to the state doesn't mean that the state doesn't get any income from the banks (as the state has a large stake in a lot of the major banks).

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-fact-check-do-banks-in-ireland-pay-no-tax-1.4154466 wrote:

would it be possible – or wise – to change the law and force the banks to pay tax? It’s unclear whether this could be done in a targeted way that carved the banks out from all the other, smaller companies that use deferred tax assets. Also, the consensus among bank analysts is that any move to tax the banks would impact their value on the open market, and therefore the value that might be achieved in any further sale of the State’s (still significant) stake in the three banks.

This doesn't mean that the idea of forcing banks to pay tax now if necessarily a bad idea (as it currently stands they are unlikely to start paying tax for the next 10-15 years). What it does mean though is that it is not necessarily a good idea.

road_high

facehugger99 wrote: »

Pearse Doherty, as a qualified engineer, can probably come up with an innovative way to do it though.

Oh wait, - he dropped out of college.

Never mind.

Qualified Technician you meant to say!

McMurphy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think SF might get all its candidates elected. The attacks from fg and ff are ridiculous and I think people wont buy the negative gutter politics from FF/FG. They want ff and fg to tell them why they are good not why sf are bad.

Heard these exact sentiments being text/called in to Ciara Kelly show today on Newstalk.

People don't like being pissed on and told it's raining it would seem.

statesaver

I have voted for SF in local and county elections but never in general elections. That's not going to change this time either.

JohnnyFlash

McMurphy wrote: »

Heard these exact sentiments being text/called in to Ciara Kelly show today on Newstalk.

People don't like being pissed on and told it's raining it would seem.

They must have started drinking early. There isn’t a snowballs chance in hell that all SF candidates will be elected. They are running candidates in constituencies where they haven’t a chance. Absolute pipe dream sort of stuff from someone who obviously hasn’t the foggiest notion about politics.

road_high

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

As here everyday FG are bashed in newspapers and radio.

The victim mentality of SF is ridiculous.

Difference between SF supporters and FG is that they (SF) sit around on their holes all day whining about the “government “ not doing enough to improve their miserable lives. FG voters go out, work and strive to improve things themselves and only seek a stable economy to allow that happen. As well as paying for the aforementioned and their never ending “entitlements “ we’re back to banana republic territory if the SF “manifesto” ever gets implemented (obviously it won’t as it is utter fantasy but they may try some of it). An utter failure of media scrutiny here

road_high

statesaver wrote: »

I have voted for SF in local and county elections but never in general elections. That's not going to change this time either.

A very wise decision.