FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

smurgen

all about the mane wrote: »

You are wasting your time. At first I thought he just jumped on the headline but now it looks like he genuinely doesn't understand what the article says. leave him off. At least it provided a bit of comic relief.

There data is in here.page 25. Have a look when you stop laughing.

https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us-news/en/articles/news-and-expertise/global-investment-returns-yearbook-201902.html

FrancieBrady

road_high wrote: »

When you dont know your arse from your elbow I suppose it’s easier to return to the default position of blame. I’ve said it multiple times- sf have zero interest in governing. The last they’d want is a larger majority- they’d like some extra seats to be stronger in their usual cushy opposition mode but other than that they just want FF FG in together. The SF front bench is so breathtakingly lacking in ability they’re literally terrified of it. If MLM was serious about being Taoiseach she’d be doing serious government negotiations with the majority of lefties now in the Dáil. But alas no, easier park her arse in front of a megaphone whipping up the usual suspects around the SF circuit

Wish you guys and gals would make up your minds - it's an IRA plot to take over the south and create a commie brit-free paradise or SF don't want to go the next step and enter government.

smurgen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wish you guys and gals would make up your minds - it's an IRA plot to take over the south and create a commie brit-free paradise or SF don't want to go the next step and enter government.

They're literally posting in threads about how to stop SF getting into government while telling others that they want them to go in so they'll get found out.

Loafing Oaf

road_high wrote: »

majority of lefties now in the Dáil.

Huh?

blanch152

smurgen wrote: »

There data is in here.page 25. Have a look when you stop laughing.

https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us-news/en/articles/news-and-expertise/global-investment-returns-yearbook-201902.html

I haven't stopped laughing since you posted that.

The graph on page 25 illustrates the difference between two types of investment approaches in different countries, value versus growth, and has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the overall investment return and the point you make.

To be fair, your comprehension of economic data is probably on a par with Pearse Doherty's.

markodaly

I posted this before but, why are the same posters who were decrying FG in government the past 9 years now upset that they won't go back into government.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

I posted this before but, why are the same posters who were decrying FG in government the past 9 years now upset that they won't go back into government.

A statement of the obvious I know, but the criticism is, why are they wasting time.
If they have no interest in government, categorically rule out going into one. Stop treating the electorate with arrogant nonsense. Other wise known as telling the truth.

Yurt2

markodaly wrote: »

I posted this before but, why are the same posters who were decrying FG in government the past 9 years now upset that they won't go back into government.

Nobody's upset. We're just enjoying watching the finger wagging 'we know best' party squirm as they run for the hills to be the new party of protest.


It's delicious this ironing. We're not making escape goats out of ye, you're doing that to yourselves.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't stopped laughing since you posted that.

The graph on page 25 illustrates the difference between two types of investment approaches in different countries, value versus growth, and has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the overall investment return and the point you make.

To be fair, your comprehension of economic data is probably on a par with Pearse Doherty's.

It's the most negative in Ireland for short term and long term growth for value investing that's what figure 16 shows. Are you saying this is good from an investment point of view?

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't stopped laughing since you posted that.

The graph on page 25 illustrates the difference between two types of investment approaches in different countries, value versus growth, and has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the overall investment return and the point you make.

To be fair, your comprehension of economic data is probably on a par with Pearse Doherty's.

Simple question that will help me gauge your understanding.would you rather you had invested in Finland's stock as depicted in the graph or Ireland's?

Suckit

markodaly wrote: »

I posted this before but, why are the same posters who were decrying FG in government the past 9 years now upset that they won't go back into government.

I'm pretty sure nobody, not even FG want to see themselves back in government.
FG haven't ever been in power for 3 terms before, they would run out of companies to privatise, couldn't give all the contracts to DOB. Wouldn't be given the money to overspend ridiculous amounts, and their arrogance couldn't take that.
They wouldn't know what to do, they would most likely eventually come to the realisation that they suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Looking at them now, with the figures and the reasons for those figures in front of them, and they still can't see anything. It's laughable.

blanch152

smurgen wrote: »

It's the most negative in Ireland for short term and long term growth for value investing that's what figure 16 shows. Are you saying this is good from an investment point of view?

It doesn't show that!!!!!

smurgen wrote: »

Simple question that will help me gauge your understanding.would you rather you had invested in Finland's stock as depicted in the graph or Ireland's?

The graph doesn't tell me anything about that. It says nothing about investment in either country's stock.

If value investment in Ireland was 15%, but growth investment was 25%, the figure in the graph would be -10%.

If value investment in Finland was 8%, but growth investment was 2%, the figure in the graph would be +6%.

Now that is a gross over-simplification to explain it to you, but it seems necessary. Before you go attacking the numbers I have used for Ireland and Finland, the point is that there is absolutely nothing in that table that tells you anything at all about which country to invest in.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

I posted this before but, why are the same posters who were decrying FG in government the past 9 years now upset that they won't go back into government.

It was bullshyte then too.
We were/are discussing what formation a government might take. We are also comparing Leo relishing going into opposition, reaffirming that last week and reaffirming it again today, yet that's not him being a willing hurler from the ditch or a whinger who doesn't want to govern as we've heard about others in opposition in the past, for some reason.
I would suggest even normal humans who vote FG and dare I say ministers, are allowed and indeed may often criticise their party from time to time. It's healthy I would think.

If Leo thinks he's doing such a great job and has an interest in the country doing well, why does he 'relish' opposition so? I think it's because he's a petulant brat/sore loser myself.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

It was bullshyte then too.
We were/are discussing what formation a government might take. We are also comparing Leo relishing going into opposition, reaffirming that last week and reaffirming it again today, yet that's not him being a willing hurler from the ditch or a whinger who doesn't want to govern as we've heard about others in opposition in the past, for some reason.
I would suggest even normal humans who vote FG and dare I say ministers, are allowed and indeed may often criticise their party from time to time. It's healthy I would think.

If Leo thinks he's doing such a great job and has an interest in the country doing well, why does he 'relish' opposition so? I think it's because he's a petulant brat/sore loser myself.

Any party that gains votes and seats in an election or finishes with the highest number of votes or seats has to consider going into government. That applied to Sinn Fein in 2011 and 2016 and they hurled from the ditch, it applies to them now too, and they are making a complete hames of it, hurling insults left, right and centre, off rallying, instead of talking and compromising. It applied to FG in 2011 and 2016 and they stepped up to the plate.

A party that loses votes and seats in an election should head into opposition just like FF and Greens in 2011, Labour in 2016 and now FG in 2020. Government should only be an option as a last resort.

Apply those principles and you can see how SF can be criticised for 2016 and FG absolved for 2020. I don't recall you doing anything other than defending SF in 2016 and ever since.

If there is one thing worse than a sore loser, it is a sore winner. There seem to plenty of the SF variety of those around these days.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

Any party that gains votes and seats in an election or finishes with the highest number of votes or seats has to consider going into government. That applied to Sinn Fein in 2011 and 2016 and they hurled from the ditch, it applies to them now too, and they are making a complete hames of it, hurling insults left, right and centre, off rallying, instead of talking and compromising. It applied to FG in 2011 and 2016 and they stepped up to the plate.

A party that loses votes and seats in an election should head into opposition just like FF and Greens in 2011, Labour in 2016 and now FG in 2020. Government should only be an option as a last resort.

Apply those principles and you can see how SF can be criticised for 2016 and FG absolved for 2020. I don't recall you doing anything other than defending SF in 2016 and ever since.

If there is one thing worse than a sore loser, it is a sore winner. There seem to plenty of the SF variety of those around these days.

By that logic, both FF and FG should head into opposition as they both lost votes and seats.
It's nonsense. Pure and utter scutter.
FG and FF ran their campaign saying that they wouldn't go into government with SF.
Leo needs to step down, there should be another election. If FG don't have the balls for that, then try to form a government.
This spoiled brat nonsense to hold on to the caretaker seat isn't helping anyone, and more importantly it isn't for the good of the country.
How long does he intend on keeping up this charade? Is he waiting out for St. Patricks day? Or Easter? Summer?

blanch152

Suckit wrote: »

By that logic, both FF and FG should head into opposition as they both lost votes and seats.
It's nonsense. Pure and utter scutter.
FG and FF ran their campaign saying that they wouldn't go into government with SF.
Leo needs to step down, there should be another election. If FG don't have the balls for that, then try to form a government.
This spoiled brat nonsense to hold on to the caretaker seat isn't helping anyone, and more importantly it isn't for the good of the country.
How long does he intend on keeping up ths charade?

Read my first paragraph:

"Any party that gains votes and seats in an election or finishes with the highest number of votes or seats has to consider going into government"

You can apply my principles for the last five or six elections and see who hurled from the ditch and who stepped up. 125 TDs got elected on the "Get FG out" platform, so you and others need to stop making excuses for them.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

Read my first paragraph:

"Any party that gains votes and seats in an election or finishes with the highest number of votes or seats has to consider going into government"

You can apply my principles for the last five or six elections and see who hurled from the ditch and who stepped up. 125 TDs got elected on the "Get FG out" platform, so you and others need to stop making excuses for them.

That's true of every party. EVERY party has a duty whether they finish lose 12, 20 or whatever amount of seats to help form a government.

It is especially true id the party are holding almost half the seats required to form a majority government.

blanch152

Suckit wrote: »

That's true of every party. EVERY party has a duty whether they finish lose 12, 20 or whatever amount of seats to help form a government.

It is especially true id the party are holding almost half the seats required to form a majority government.

Nope, read my post again, it is pretty clear on how I see it. They are a set of sound principles that can be applied to most election results.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Read my first paragraph:

"Any party that gains votes and seats in an election or finishes with the highest number of votes or seats has to consider going into government"

You can apply my principles for the last five or six elections and see who hurled from the ditch and who stepped up. 125 TDs got elected on the "Get FG out" platform, so you and others need to stop making excuses for them.

That is part of the problem. Nobody wants a government of one of the power swap parties and the comfy seat hoggers anymore. Except maybe people like yourself.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is part of the problem. Nobody wants a government of one of the power swap parties and the comfy seat hoggers anymore. Except maybe people like yourself.

"has to consider" doesn't mean must do so.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, read my post again, it is pretty clear on how I see it. They are a set of sound principles that can be applied to most election results.

Who cares how you see it?
It's not how it actually works.

If any party cannot form a government for whatever reason, then it is left to the rest. SF cannot form a government because FF and FG ruled out of going in with them during their campaign.

How is this so hard to see?
Now it is up to them as the (your words) two parties who finished with the highest votes and seats that can form a government. If they are not willing to do that, then call another election.

blanch152

Suckit wrote: »

Who cares how you see it?
It's not how it actually works.

If any party cannot form a government for whatever reason, then it is left to the rest. SF cannot form a government because FF and FG ruled out of going in with them during their campaign.

How is this so hard to see?
Now it is up to them as the (your words) two parties who finished with the highest votes and seats that can form a government. If they are not willing to do that, then call another election.

I don't know. All I heard was Mary-Lou going around for a week or so telling everyone she was going for form a left-wing government. Now, all I see are her followers running for cover, making excuses.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know. All I heard was Mary-Lou going around for a week or so telling everyone she was going for form a left-wing government. Now, all I see are her followers running for cover, making excuses.

Try to form a left wing government is not the same as 'is going to form a left wing government'.

ThunbergsAreGo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is part of the problem. Nobody wants a government of one of the power swap parties and the comfy seat hoggers anymore. Except maybe people like yourself.

So 45 percent of the electorate is made up of "people like yourself"?

The Irish electorate doesn't know what it wants. One side are just alot louder

Indeed before the election the party whom most people didn't want in government was ..........SF

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know. All I heard was Mary-Lou going around for a week or so telling everyone she was going for form a left-wing government. Now, all I see are her followers running for cover, making excuses.

Who? Where?
SF are still there, when they started organising rallies, Leo et al accused them of trying to intimidate. What else can you possibly expect them to do?


FG can't keep pushing BS on everyone for much longer. Not just so Leo can be caretaker Taoiseach for a little longer.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

"has to consider" doesn't mean must do so.

But SF are the ones with a duty :rolleyes:
They don't have the numbers but they are trying at least.

Back to my initial point. FG are the only party that I'm aware of who are wilfully relishing going into the ditch. Even the greens are open to talks ffs...
Not so FG.
This is a talking point. They are the outgoing government party. They are a few seats shy of the leaders.
IMO Leo does not want to be court jester to Micheal's king.
If LV thought they (FG/FF) were doing such good works and cared about the country...they'd be looking to get back in. Pretty simple.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

If LV thought they (FG/FF) were doing such good works and cared about the country...they'd be looking to get back in. Pretty simple.

He could be also thinking let SF in and expose the stupidity of their promises, which might be better for the country long term. More likely IMO, is that he's playing some type of game like they all are.

all about the mane

Bowie wrote: »

But SF are the ones with a duty :rolleyes:
They don't have the numbers but they are trying at least.

Trying me arse. How are they trying?

all about the mane

christy c wrote: »

He could be also thinking let SF in and expose the stupidity of their promises, which might be better for the country long term. More likely IMO, is that he's playing some type of game like they all are.

Of course he’s playing a game. They are happy to go in to opposition if SF want to form a government (they don’t). But he is also happy to listen to what FF have to say about forming a government. Seems fairly logical.
I see now that SF can’t even commit to the bitching and moaning rallies they had promised. What a shower

fly_agaric

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know. All I heard was Mary-Lou going around for a week or so telling everyone she was going for form a left-wing government. Now, all I see are her followers running for cover, making excuses.

Were you not cringing a little inside when top FG ministers were saying it was incumbent on SF to form the "socialist republican government"?

Are they still doing that?:pac:

It was so just so yank, using the term "socialist" like its the beast of Revelations rising up out of the water!