New Dail / New Taoiseach

Runaways

All the regulars complaining about anyone voting for SF are lifelong dole scroungers have gone strangely quiet.

Odd that.

efanton

Bobtheman wrote: »

There are a lot of delusional people out there who think we could have avoided any cutbacks . Most of our debt is from day to day stuff not bank debt. Bank debt made up about 40 billion of the 200 billion we now owe. The Trokia did over do the austerity but only a moron would say we could have avoided no cutbacks
The labour party made Sure that there was more of a balance between tax increases and Publix expenditure cuts.
It failed however to do anything radical in the health service. There should have been mandatory redundancies across the public sector where needed. Emphasis where needed
I didn't vote for labour in 2016 because of the bull**** they started peddling in education. It's noteworthy that ex minister Quinn is now on the board of a private education company and educated his kids in black rock college

The problem is the labour party actually stands for nothing now. It has no identity, nor does it have a manifesto aimed to garner support from its traditional supporters.

Not only did they not bring in any measures for their core voters but they actually enthusiastically enabled some legislation and measures that are still hurting till this day. Pay cuts for civil servants might have sounded like a good temporary measure in the aftermath of the crash, but Labour made no effort whatsoever to reverse those measures once austerity was over and the economy had significantly recovered. A dual wage system where new teachers earn significantly less than existing teachers yet another measure brought in by a Labour minister. A ban on recruitment in the Gardai and the health service that is now hurting the country, yet again supported by Labour but they made no effort to reverse those decisions once the economy showed significant signs of recovery.

No party throws away the support and trust of their core voters, but that's exactly what Labour did, so why should anyone be surprised that they have been punished severely for it.

Good loser

efanton wrote: »

The problem is the labour party actually stands for nothing now. It has no identity, nor does it have a manifesto aimed to garner support from its traditional supporters.

Not only did they not bring in any measures for their core voters but they actually enthusiastically enabled some legislation and measures that are still hurting till this day. Pay cuts for civil servants might have sounded like a good temporary measure in the aftermath of the crash, but Labour made no effort whatsoever to reverse those measures once austerity was over and the economy had significantly recovered. A dual wage system where new teachers earn significantly less than existing teachers yet another measure brought in by a Labour minister. A ban on recruitment in the Gardai and the health service that is now hurting the country, yet again supported by Labour but they made no effort to reverse those decisions once the economy showed significant signs of recovery.

No party throws away the support and trust of their core voters, but that's exactly what Labour did, so why should anyone be surprised that they have been punished severely for it.

The sectional interests of the civil service, teachers, guards and health workers are not co-terminous with the interests of the country. Quite the reverse in fact. The more they gouge from the public purse the less is available for everyone else. The cuts to their wages etc should have been permanent, not merely a temporary measure. [In Ireland state workers earn 50% more than private sector; in the UK both are on a par.]

Labour Party insisted that there were to be no cuts to core payments for SW welfare recipients and used up their political capital for this measure. That measure also was not in the national interest.
By sustaining current spending the capital budget was eviscerated so that from 2010 to 2017 all the capital projects which could have sustained the building industry, while providing cheap infrastructure for the State, were left on the shelf.

efanton

Good loser wrote: »

The sectional interests of the civil service, teachers, guards and health workers are not co-terminous with the interests of the country. Quite the reverse in fact. The more they gouge from the public purse the less is available for everyone else. The cuts to their wages etc should have been permanent, not merely a temporary measure. [In Ireland state workers earn 50% more than private sector; in the UK both are on a par.]

Labour Party insisted that there were to be no cuts to core payments for SW welfare recipients and used up their political capital for this measure. That measure also was not in the national interest.
By sustaining current spending the capital budget was eviscerated so that from 2010 to 2017 all the capital projects which could have sustained the building industry, while providing cheap infrastructure for the State, were left on the shelf.

You are obviously living in a different country.

The building industry has been doing very nicely thank you very much.
Lots of large developers sitting on land that could be developed but they refuse to do so because they know a house shortage drives up their profits.

Cheap infrastructure for the state? Every infrastructure project in the last 10 years has been way over budget.

Most civil servants spend the majority, if not all, their wage packet. One way or another a very large portion of that pay makes its way back to the government via the various forms of taxation.

Trying to compare wages here to those in the UK is not a fair comparison.
In most parts of the UK the cost of living is far lower for civil servants than it is here.

BonnieSituation

efanton wrote: »

You are obviously living in a different country.

The building industry has been doing very nicely thank you very much.
Lots of large developers sitting on land that could be developed but they refuse to do so because they know a house shortage drives up their profits.

Cheap infrastructure for the state? Every infrastructure project in the last 10 years has been way over budget.

Most civil servants spend the majority, if not all, their wage packet. One way or another a very large portion of that pay makes its way back to the government via the various forms of taxation.

Trying to compare wages here to those in the UK is not a fair comparison.
In most parts of the UK the cost of living is far lower for civil servants than it is here.

I don't think you understood what he said there.

The likes of Dart Underground and Metro North gathered dust while the construction industry withered away.

Sure, of late it is doing well building student accommodation and hotels, but they aren't "capital projects".

---

Most parts of the UK are post-industrial crap holes. Of course cost of living is lower there.

Good loser

efanton wrote: »

You are obviously living in a different country.

The building industry has been doing very nicely thank you very much.
Lots of large developers sitting on land that could be developed but they refuse to do so because they know a house shortage drives up their profits.

Cheap infrastructure for the state? Every infrastructure project in the last 10 years has been way over budget.

Most civil servants spend the majority, if not all, their wage packet. One way or another a very large portion of that pay makes its way back to the government via the various forms of taxation.

Trying to compare wages here to those in the UK is not a fair comparison.
In most parts of the UK the cost of living is far lower for civil servants than it is here.

It's the ratios that matter; the cost of living does not come into it.
In the recession 50/80,000 building workers lost their jobs out of total job losses of 200,000 - all from the private sector. Putting it another way they lost 100% of their wages - not 10%. Was that not a greater injustice?

If the Govt gave money to the building industry/workers they too would have spent their money in the economy.

Runaways

Good loser wrote: »

It's the ratios that matter; the cost of living does not come into it.
In the recession 50/80,000 building workers lost their jobs out of total job losses of 200,000 - all from the private sector. Putting it another way they lost 100% of their wages - not 10%. Was that not a greater injustice?

If the Govt gave money to the building industry/workers they too would have spent their money in the economy.

No. Cos they’re mostly from Eastern Europe. I work on sites. We’re overrun and for far cheaper and no lads from here coming through learning the trades. And I don’t say that in the way you might think through boards goggles. It’s that boss and that boss cutting corners and saving quids as ever. as usual
And forget about apprenticeships or even fathers and sons.
You have the latvian or Estonian kid doing it now.


They’re getting hired now as they’re cheaper even though they’re often unskilled and shouldn’t be onsite but intreo gave them a one day course and voila they have a safe pass. Yay

Screwed up part is it balances out and gets done.

efanton

Good loser wrote: »

It's the ratios that matter; the cost of living does not come into it.
In the recession 50/80,000 building workers lost their jobs out of total job losses of 200,000 - all from the private sector. Putting it another way they lost 100% of their wages - not 10%. Was that not a greater injustice?

If the Govt gave money to the building industry/workers they too would have spent their money in the economy.

So the government are going to directly employ construction workers now?

During the recession thousand more lost their jobs, so whats your point. We should subsidise the construction industry but forget about everyone else?

And yes the cost of living DOES matter. If you are asking people to work and all they achieve after a months work is to just barely pay for their monthly expenses why would anyone want to work and do a good job.

If you think the civil service are getting fantastic pay why have you not applied yourself? Surely that's the solution to your problem.

Good loser

efanton wrote: »

So the government are going to directly employ construction workers now?

During the recession thousand more lost their jobs, so whats your point. We should subsidise the construction industry but forget about everyone else?

And yes the cost of living DOES matter. If you are asking people to work and all they achieve after a months work is to just barely pay for their monthly expenses why would anyone want to work and do a good job.

If you think the civil service are getting fantastic pay why have you not applied yourself? Surely that's the solution to your problem.

Obviously you completely misunderstand the points I'm making.
As proved by your last speculative point; I worked in the civil service for 36 years. I know it from the inside out.
By your 'logic' that alone validates all the points I've made!

efanton

Good loser wrote: »

Obviously you completely misunderstand the points I'm making.
As proved by your last speculative point; I worked in the civil service for 36 years. I know it from the inside out.
By your 'logic' that alone validates all the points I've made!

I obviously have missed your point.

What point were you trying to make?

Bass Reeves

Bowie wrote: »

I'd like to think the brains behind it are not Leo, Coveney, Paschal and Harris.

So the brains behind what is happening in the US and the UK is not Donald's and Borris's. As Harry Truman said the ''buck stops here''. All politician's get advice they make the.political decision's. It is interesting that Eamon Ryan made a point that due to present crisis that even if a new Government is formed it was his opinion that Leo, Simon H and Paschal should stay in place for the duration of the crisis. Someone else added Simon Covney.

There performance is way ahead of what is happening in most countries. While many may fault them the top table of the present Government fared well with Brexit and are doing very well at present. You can have people with all the brains in the world but unless you have a capable and coherent leadership you might as well flush it down the drain.

Will they make mistakes yes but as long as they do not keep repeating them they will be effective.

Bobtheman

The fecking Greens chickening out of Government!

Runaways

Bobtheman wrote: »

The fecking Greens chickening out of Government!

After last time can you blame them?

They got their balls burned last time taxing all fvck on us.

I’m sure blanch can give us a breakdown

hotmail.com

None of the election promises can be met now surely. The abolition of the Property Tax etc. All gone.

Water John

Property Tax was never going to be abolished. What's totally strange is that it's left leaning parties in this country have been advocating it.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

Property Tax was never going to be abolished. What's totally strange is that it's left leaning parties in this country have been advocating it.

I think the 'left leaning' parties are actually populist parties chasing any issue that might win the votes of the gullible.

The LPT is at too low a level at 0.18%, and should be at about 1% of value. Now one can argue about how it is assessed, e.g. perhaps a site value might be better, and perhaps all building sites should be included, but the tax base needs broadening so that the PAYE workers are not paying the largest share of tax.

The Covid 19 is burning up all our hard won recovery. Hopefully, it is only a temporary blip.

hotmail.com

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the 'left leaning' parties are actually populist parties chasing any issue that might win the votes of the gullible.

The LPT is at too low a level at 0.18%, and should be at about 1% of value. Now one can argue about how it is assessed, e.g. perhaps a site value might be better, and perhaps all building sites should be included, but the tax base needs broadening so that the PAYE workers are not paying the largest share of tax.

The Covid 19 is burning up all our hard won recovery. Hopefully, it is only a temporary blip.

The two right leaving parties also had ridiculous promises. Are they considered populist?

Scoondal

Ireland needs to be like other normal E.U. countries.
We need a proper health system and a proper justice system.
Invest in new hospitals and good staff contracts.
Flood the streets with a no nonsense police force like every other E.U. country.
No more Gardai saying " Ah now Jim, ye can't be smashing windows and sellin drugs, can ye just go on away home. Good man".

Panda Killa

Does anyone else remember that episode of Killinaskully ?

Scoondal

Panda Killa wrote: »

Does anyone else remember that episode of Killinaskully ?

Off Topic.

Sam Russell

hotmail.com wrote: »

The two right leaving parties also had ridiculous promises. Are they considered populist?

Yes of course they are. Parish pump is where it is at.

But the left leaning ones are in favour of policies that are not left leaning but could be popular with their target audience. That is trying to get it both ways.

Nevin Parsnipp

Water John wrote: »

Property Tax was never going to be abolished. What's totally strange is that it's left leaning parties in this country have been advocating it.

Local Authoritiy houses do not have to pay it.....only the hard working young folk who provide their own housing.

Not strange at all really .......

tobsey

hotmail.com wrote: »

The two right leaving parties also had ridiculous promises. Are they considered populist?

SF went massively further in their promises for extra public spending. €25bn over five years while also cutting taxes. Without the pandemic or any even minor blip it was completely unsustainable. Other parties budgeted on the basis of the economy to continue to grow so they did promise extras, but not near as much.

CrabRevolution

Can anyone tell me how the nuts and bolts of a "National Unity Government" as demanded by the greens would work?

Say the big 3 +SD +Labour +Greens all held hands and carved out a big group between them. I don't see independents being involved or too influential since there'd be an overwhelming majority in place without them,so nobody to hold to ransom. Also PBPAAA etc. wouldn't join, just because.

Who makes the decisions? Do the decisions go to a vote between the parties involved, and get divided along party lines?

Say one party wants the Covid-19 benefit increased to €600 a week Or one party wants a 10 year rent freeze, or one party wants a Chinese style prefab concrete hospital thrown up in Athlone. Other parties will not agree to these measures, so what happens the "unity" government?

They might be united against the pandemic crisis, but they would be in no way united in their policies and actions, which is the purpose of having a stable government.

Quin_Dub

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how the nuts and bolts of a "National Unity Government" as demanded by the greens would work?

Say the big 3 +SD +Labour +Greens all held hands and carved out a big group between them. I don't see independents being involved or too influential since there'd be an overwhelming majority in place without them,so nobody to hold to ransom. Also PBPAAA etc. wouldn't join, just because.

Who makes the decisions? Do the decisions go to a vote between the parties involved, and get divided along party lines?

Say one party wants the Covid-19 benefit increased to €600 a week Or one party wants a 10 year rent freeze, or one party wants a Chinese style prefab concrete hospital thrown up in Athlone. Other parties will not agree to these measures, so what happens the "unity" government?

They might be united against the pandemic crisis, but they would be in no way united in their policies and actions, which is the purpose of having a stable government.

In Practice, a National Unity Government means - "Look somebody throw together a government and we all promise to play nice on the understanding that when this is all over we'll have another Election"

On some levels it's a reasonable suggestion - Let's put aside all the negotiations for a new Government for the moment , let's fill the blanks in the Senate and Cabinet - e.g. Replace people like Regina Doherty , Shane Ross etc. and move forward for now , but this Dail will only last until such time as this crisis is over - 6 Months , 12 Months or whatever the agreement is.

CrabRevolution

Quin_Dub wrote: »

In Practice, a National Unity Government means - "Look somebody throw together a government and we all promise to play nice on the understanding that when this is all over we'll have another Election"

On some levels it's a reasonable suggestion - Let's put aside all the negotiations for a new Government for the moment , let's fill the blanks in the Senate and Cabinet - e.g. Replace people like Regina Doherty , Shane Ross etc. and move forward for now , but this Dail will only last until such time as this crisis is over - 6 Months , 12 Months or whatever the agreement is.

Yeah I can see the benefits from a procedural sense. But in actions I can't see them agreeing. How will it be possible to "play nice" if they have totally different plans for the country?

What happens when inevitably the parties involve try to hijack the situation and use the "emergency" excuse to push through their normal policies that other parties might disagree with? Like I said, say one party demands the rent freeze last for years? Or normal jobseekers to be moved up to €350 a week?

Peregrinus

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Yeah I can see the benefits from a procedural sense. But in actions I can't see them agreeing. How will it be possible to "play nice" if they have totally different plans for the country?

What happens when inevitably the parties involve try to hijack the situation and use the "emergency" excuse to push through their normal policies that other parties might disagree with? Like I said, say one party demands the rent freeze last for years? Or normal jobseekers to be moved up to €350 a week?

Obviously, a party would only do that if its objective was to crash the national government. And no national government can possibly work if the parties don't want it to. So the question is, is it possible to devise a feasible plan for a national government, assuming the major parties actually want one?

The UK had a national government from 1939-1945. It worked on the basis that the parties would support everything necessary to fight and win the war and all other agendas would be deferred until after the war. You could use your position in government to research, to plan, to debate - but nothing would actually be implemented until after the first postwar general election. So for instance the Beveridge Report, laying the groundwork for what we now know as the UK's national insurance system and National Health Service, was produced in 1942 (by Liberal ministers, interestingly, not Labour) but nothing was done to implement it - and there was no commitment to implement it - until Labour won the 1945 general election.

Something similar would have to happen here. Parties who haven't won an election (and none of them have) who are brought into government to fight the coronavirus would have to accept that they are being brought into government only to fight the coronavirus, and that they had no mandate to use their position in government to advance any other policy or agenda.

zell12

Leo is probably wishing he had not called an election for February.
If he'd done so this summer, FG would win a landslide, as the electorate would've forgotten the A&E trolley saga, swing-gate, homelessness, various garda scandals, climate issues, etc. Leo the medic would look like a hero

beggars_bush

zell12 wrote: »

Leo is probably wishing he had not called an election for February.
If he'd done so this summer, FG would win a landslide, as the electorate would've forgotten the A&E trolley saga, swing-gate, homelessness, various garda scandals, climate issues, etc. Leo the medic would look like a hero

He had to. They had lost a workable majority in the Dail

Phoebas

zell12 wrote: »

Leo the medic would look like a hero

That's a very optimistic view; I'd be very doubtful that this thing will be nearly sorted by the summer or that when it is sorted we'll be in a congratulatory mood.