What have we come to

votecounts

maccored wrote: »

Because theres many people with good education and jobs (people i know) who vote sf. To pretend only poor people (and ‘scumbags’) vote sf is a pretty thick assumption to make. Its an assumptiin quite a few seem to make.

Ever wonder who gave people such a generous social welfare system? Wasnt SF

This is the one of the stereotypes that I hate. Plenty of educated, professional and hard working people vote for SF, sure they got 24.5% of the vote. If 24.5% of the country were "layabout scumbags",the country would be fcuked.:D Some people would say it's the stupid ones that keep electing FF and FG and expecting different results.

screamer

votecounts wrote: »

This is the one of the stereotypes that I hate. Plenty of educated, professional and hard working people vote for SF, sure they got 24.5% of the vote. If 24.5% of the country were "layabout scumbags", the the country would be fcuked.:D Some people would say it's the stupid ones that keep electing FF and FG and expecting different results.

Better the dog you know and all that. I know I wouldn’t vote for SF if there was no other choice. My conscience is clear, to grub a few quid for myself putting the political wing of the ira into power..... and their terrorist background. Never ever ever. So they’re worried being called names, LOOK at the deeds of those behind who they voted for..... idiots

maccored

screamer wrote: »

Better the dog you know and all that. I know I wouldn’t vote for SF if there was no other choice. My conscience is clear, to grub a few quid for myself putting the political wing of the ira into power..... and their terrorist background. Never ever ever. So they’re worried being called names, LOOK at the deeds of those behind who they voted for..... idiots

find me anywhere throughout the world that has parties who evolved from conflict (FF, FG and SF in our context), that didnt have horrible pasts? I vote SF quite a bit and I vote for their current TDs and what they might be able to do for us.

The fact that the horrible treatment to those of different views of the unionist Govn in the 60s caused a conflict in which SF came out of (50 odd years ago) doesnt effect why or who I vote for.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A week after the election 'What have we come to'?;

FF/FG with the aid of a whipping boy/girl back in government, looks like where we are at.

They have the mandate - SF don't simple as. Once the grand coalition idea of the left fell on its ass that was it. FG FF and Labour promised pre election they would not go in with SF. Plus fair dues to them they are sticking to it.

The irony is that SF's lack of openness and honesty, means they are still toxic to the majority of the traditional parties and justifiably so.

maccored

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They have the mandate - SF don't simple as. Once the grand coalition idea of the left fell on its ass that was it. FG FF and Labour promised pre election they would not go in with SF. Plus fair dues to them they are sticking to it.

The irony is that SF's lack of openness and honesty, means they are still toxic to the majority of the traditional parties and justifiably so.

they were more popular than the other two. they arent 'toxic' - they're too much of a threat and too hard for either to bully.

The real problem is too many idiots voted for FF.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They have the mandate -

How do they have a 'mandate'?

Here is what Martin told the electorate in January:

Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has said his party will not form a “grand coalition” with Fine Gael after the general election.

If you confidently say the electorate endorsed his view on not governing with SF are you saying they accepted a nod and a wee wink about going in to government with FG?

joeguevara

maccored wrote: »

they were more popular than the other two. they arent 'toxic' - they're too much of a threat and too hard for either to bully.

The real problem is too many idiots voted for FF.

They weren’t more popular than the other two. The other two were more popular than them. That’s the reality no matter what way you cut it up,

With your last line, is it your contention that democracy is the problem?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do they have a 'mandate'?

Here is what Martin told the electorate in January:


If you confidently say the electorate endorsed his view on not governing with SF are you saying they accepted a nod and a wee wink about going in to government with FG?

Well over 1.1m of the popular vote went to parties which said they would not go in government with SF Labour FF.

Yes, I am saying they had a nod and wink. No other choice other then that besides call a another election. Circumstances dictate it.

FG and FF are the two most compatible parties throw in the Greens and job done.

gormdubhgorm

votecounts wrote: »

This is the one of the stereotypes that I hate. Plenty of educated, professional and hard working people vote for SF, sure they got 24.5% of the vote. If 24.5% of the country were "layabout scumbags", the the country would be fcuked.:D Some people would say it's the stupid ones that keep electing FF and FG and expecting different results.

Plenty meaning the odd few here or there. It is no coincidence that Denise Mitchell got 80% of the vote in priorswood in Dublin Bay North. She was barely seen outside her own patch bar a few leaflets from her campaign team.
She went where she knew she could get the vote beyond the Tonlegee road towards Edenmore.

jimmycrackcorm

Steyr 556 wrote: »

Can someone tell me what is the difference between FF and FG? Voting for one is voting for the other, considering they will either go into government together or prop the other one up.

I don't buy this whole civil war parties thing. Nobody cares about that these days. It's said about family's being FF or FF voters because that's how their ancestors voted. But it isn't true any more. In contrast though if your family is republican then you vote for SF just as your parents do.

From a practical perspective, I've seen FF increase public spending massively on wages without delivering remotely anything better in levels of service. Berties placation of the unions being the most obvious but pensions also increased East it of line of inflation since the 90s.

In contrast, FG have been castigated more recently for massive spending on the NCH and rural broadband. But these are both things that we will have decades from now. Their costs spread over decades is small. Ardnacrusha was one fifth of the countrys budget when it was built.

FG wanted to implement water charges, FF went the populist route and objected. No matter what your view on Irish water is. The fact that no other party cannot try to implement what every other European country has, makes FG stand out.

But populism seems to be what you need in this country to get into power and it seems to be FGs job to fix up the mess after, 2011 isn't the first time this has happened.

The Irish electorate is largely centrist unlike clearer left / right divides in other countries. Both FF and FG are right and left variations of that but not by a swinging margin.

I'm amused by people talking about the the FFG moniker, why not just lump SF, labour, PBP SOl together as v the SFPBPLABSOL or is it just too many letters for the lazy?

jimmycrackcorm

maccored wrote: »

Because theres many people with good education and jobs (people i know) who vote sf. To pretend only poor people (and ‘scumbags’) vote sf is a pretty thick assumption to make. Its an assumptiin quite a few seem to make.

Ever wonder who gave people such a generous social welfare system? Wasnt SF

I've a sibling who for various reasons is on long term unemployment. But they have now had to go out and get some work because of seetec. I'm glad about this because they needed to her out of the rut they were in for decades.

But Sinn Fein are promising to get rid of this so that the people can happily stay on welfare.

JP Liz V1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A week after the election 'What have we come to'?;

FF/FG with the aid of a whipping boy/girl back in government, looks like where we are at.

FF/FG/GP grand coalition looking likely, so same shower of ****es back in, no change

Kermit.de.frog

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

FF/FG/GP grand coalition looking likely, so same shower of ****es back in, no change

Some keep saying there is no change.

But it is a fact that house building is ramping up now and there will be much more supply in the next two years.

Shinner voters seem to think all this happens overnight and that houses just sprout like magic.

That is not the way the world operates unfortunately.

It takes time.

It's only now the results of the previous governments efforts are being seen. I wouldn't want the shinners taking credit for something that had nothing to do with them.

This country would be broken beyond repair today if we took their advice to "burn the bondholders" in 2010. A busted wreck and for decades to come if we took them up on that.

votecounts

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've a sibling who for various reasons is on long term unemployment. But they have now had to go out and get some work because of seetec. I'm glad about this because they needed to her out of the rut they were in for decades.

But Sinn Fein are promising to get rid of this so that the people can happily stay on welfare.

FF voted also to get rid of this scheme also.

https://www.thejournal.ie/jobpath-dail-vote-4480186-Feb2019/

maccored

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Some keep saying there is no change.

But it is a fact that house building is ramping up now and there will be much more supply in the next two years.

Shinner voters seem to think all this happens overnight and that houses just sprout like magic.

That is not the way the world operates unfortunately.

It takes time.

It's only now the results of the previous governments efforts are being seen. I wouldn't want the shinners taking credit for something that had nothing to do with them.

This country would be broken beyond repair today if we took their advice to "burn the bondholders" in 2010. A busted wreck and for decades to come if we took them up on that.

Burning bondholders ‘could have saved the State €9bn’

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/burning-bondholders-could-have-saved-the-state-9bn-1.2513067

maccored

joeguevara wrote: »

They weren’t more popular than the other two. The other two were more popular than them. That’s the reality no matter what way you cut it up,

With your last line, is it your contention that democracy is the problem?

i forgot this was boards where you have to explain the obvious - they got more of the first preference votes

My last line was saying exactly what it said - if you complain about the social security system, blame FF, FG and their various partners over the years, not SF. Ive no idea how you read that as having an issue with democracy

Kermit.de.frog

maccored wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/burning-bondholders-could-have-saved-the-state-9bn-1.2513067

A state saving €9bn and unable to borrow a cent again in the lifetime of anyone wouldn't survive.

The country would today be locked out of the international bond markets. It would have meant immediate and fatal belt tightening of 10's of billions of euro in a single year in 2010.

Add to that the country would have been expelled from the eurozone as a sovereign defaulter (the same way Greece was going to be expelled before they accepted reality).

It would be Venezuala only worse. That is what the shinners wanted.

maccored

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A state saving €9bn and unable to borrow a cent again in the lifetime of anyone wouldn't survive.

The country would today be locked out of the international bond markets. It would have meant immediate and fatal belt tightening of 10's of billions of euro in a single year in 2010.

Add to that the country would have been expelled from the eurozone as a sovereign defaulter.

It would be Venezuala only worse. That is what the shinners wanted.

you were wrong in your last post so Im not about to start believing what your posting now. google 'hubris'.

Kermit.de.frog

maccored wrote: »

you were wrong in your last post so Im not about to start believing what your posting now. google 'hubris'.

I am 100% right.

Continue inhabiting fantasy land if you wish.

jimmycrackcorm

votecounts wrote: »

FF voted also to get rid of this scheme also.

https://www.thejournal.ie/jobpath-dail-vote-4480186-Feb2019/

Just goes to show that SF and FF are gene pool compatible. The populism is strong in these

jimmycrackcorm

maccored wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/burning-bondholders-could-have-saved-the-state-9bn-1.2513067

Have you any examples of governments burning bondholders in the EU?
Because we have the example of Ireland getting back the fastest on track of all the PIIGS since the crash.

jimmycrackcorm

maccored wrote: »

i forgot this was boards where you have to explain the obvious - they got more of the first preference votes

All we've heard about for the last few years was this FFG grouping and vote against it.

So what vote share did this FFG get in comparison?

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/burning-bondholders-could-have-saved-the-state-9bn-1.2513067

SF voted for the bank guarantee. I would not be using anything related to the banks as a pro-SF message.

Shefwedfan

SF got the vote and are now trying to same sure they don’t get into power because they have a f**king clue how to and the “manifesto” they released is a load of lies which they can never deliver

Easier to go in as opposition and throw poo at the people doing the real work than doing it themselves.

So the 25% who voted for SF it was a waste of time, they will do nothing for your vote....

Kermit.de.frog

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Have you any examples of governments burning bondholders in the EU?
Because we have the example of Ireland getting back the fastest on track of all the PIIGS since the crash.

I'm also interested in what the poster would see Sinn Fein doing about the corporate run, as well as the high street run, on the banks as depositors flocked to take their funds out in terror as a result of "burning the bondholders".

The market would have been closed to the banks. They would have faced insolvency.

It would have been complete collapse of the financial system and back to barter.

Easy to be populist when you don't have to implement the populism.

Yurt2

Not that I'm necessarily recommending their course of action, but Iceland more or less told their debtors to f*ck off around the same time Enda was giving handjobs to everyone in Brussels didn't they?

Was there a couple of years ago, the sky was still where you'd expect it to be.

7 percent economic growth last year there too.

If Greece and Ireland weren't tied to euro, that probably would have been the correct course of action for us also. Give them the middle finger and devalue like hell.

Feisar

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A state saving €9bn and unable to borrow a cent again in the lifetime of anyone wouldn't survive.

The country would today be locked out of the international bond markets. It would have meant immediate and fatal belt tightening of 10's of billions of euro in a single year in 2010.

Add to that the country would have been expelled from the eurozone as a sovereign defaulter (the same way Greece was going to be expelled before they accepted reality).

It would be Venezuala only worse. That is what the shinners wanted.

Is it not the reality of investing money that your asset may go up and down and all that. Does the same reasoning not apply to bondholders? Why are they held sacrosanct?

Yurt2

Feisar wrote: »

Is it not the reality of investing money tht your asset may go up and down and all that. Does the same reasoning not apply to bondholders? Why are they held sacrosanct?

Actually just this week Argentina is in a very interesting tussle with bondholders and IMF. They are in technical default (just paying interest) and are having a stare-down in Buenos Aries with a lot of pinstripe suited Wall St types trying to give them a significant haircut

Kermit.de.frog

Feisar wrote: »

Is it not the reality of investing money tht your asset may go up and down and all that. Does the same reasoning not apply to bondholders? Why are they held sacrosanct?

These are sovereign bonds - supposed to provide the very safest investment with the lowest returns in the world.

Ireland only has a tiny pool of investors in our bonds.

You may get a way with it if you are the United States. The United Kingdom wouldn't get away with it for example.

You can't intentionally burn creditors who, in good faith, lent the country money on the basis that it was a properly managed country.

Do that and you will be locked out of the market completely. There are serious consequences to those actions which are not understood by some.

If you want a practical example of the consequences look at Argentina.

Feisar

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

These are sovereign bonds - supposed to provide the very safest investment with the lowest returns in the world.

Ireland only has a tiny pool of investors in our bonds.

You may get a way with it if you are the United States. The United Kingdom wouldn't get away with it for example.

You can't intentionally burn creditors who, in good faith, lent the country money on the basis that it was a properly managed country.

Do that and you will be locked out of the market completely. There are serious consequences to those actions which are not understood by some.

Thank you, I'm trying to break free of the apathy I have towards all things political, as a consequence I have been fairly light on all things political.