FF/FG/Green Next Government

namloc1980

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Is Ireland 2040 mentioned in the program for government?
I haven't read it

Yes multiple times. Why are you making big sweeping statements about the PfG and then saying you actually haven't read it?! :pac:

ExMachina1000

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes multiple times. Why are you making big sweeping statements about the PfG and then saying you actually haven't read it?! :pac:

Oh ok. Can you link me to the mention of Ireland 2040 in the programme. Thanks

Bannasidhe

namloc1980 wrote: »

And the numbers didn't work out and the crisis we're in was unforeseen. Personally I prefer politicians who can reflect on reality and compromise their position, as opposed to those who dogmatically insist on immoveable ideology.

Which would have included talking to SF.
So in some instances the ideology was immovable and dogmatically insisted upon.

If they had talked and been unable to reach an agreement fair enough. But refusing outright to enter negotiations combined with guff about SF being 'unfit' was dogmatic ideology at its worst and an insult to the mandate which, like it or not, SF received from the electorate.

FF and FG do not get to decide who is and is not 'fit' - especially when they seek the support of the likes of Lowry. If they can accept Lowry has a mandate- they can accept SF have one. And going on number of seats a stronger one than FG.

And once again before the 'shinnerbot' BS starts I did not give SF even a preference vote. I did give the Greens one and even though not elected that candidate spoke out against the PfG.

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look, you can pretend all you like that this kind of lying doesn't go on before every election.

It was a lie to gain votes. We knew it at the time and we know it for certain now.

It's annoying because his similar vow 'to not go in with SF' is touted as some sort of moral code he has.

He opened the door to them when he thought he had enough seats to ensure he got the the Taoiseach gig first.

He lied...stop using a pandemic to excuse it.

SF promised to build 100,000 council houses over five years at a cost of 6.5 billion. Good intentions just like Martin's good intentions. Had they got into government, that wasn't going to happen. Especially after the pandemic. So that would have been a lie. See how it works?

ExMachina1000

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

SF promised to build 100,000 council houses over five years at a cost of 6.5 billion. Good intentions just like Martin's good intentions. Had they got into government, that wasn't going to happen. Especially after the pandemic. So that would have been a lie. See how it works?

The greens want to spend 1.8 billion over 5 years on cycling.

That 1.8 billion would be better spent on housing

Professor Moriarty

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The greens want to spend 1.8 billion over 5 years on cycling.

That 1.8 billion would be better spent on housing

Depends on how important you think climate change is versus housing.

is_that_so

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which would have included talking to SF.
So in some instances the ideology was immovable and dogmatically insisted upon.

If they had talked and been unable to reach an agreement fair enough. But refusing outright to enter negotiations combined with guff about SF being 'unfit' was dogmatic ideology at its worst and an insult to the mandate which, like it or not, SF received from the electorate.

FF and FG do not get to decide who is and is not 'fit' - especially when they seek the support of the likes of Lowry. If they can accept Lowry has a mandate- they can accept SF have one. And going on number of seats a stronger one than FG.

And once again before the 'shinnerbot' BS starts I did not give SF even a preference vote. I did give the Greens one and even though not elected that candidate spoke out against the PfG.

No party is obliged to consider or talk to another one as a potential Coalition partner. FG with SF would neither work nor be approved so there's no point indulging in the pretence of being all-inclusive. Labour and SDs declined to get involved and for all the the victimisation claims from SF they couldn't get the numbers is why they are in opposition.

Loafing Oaf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most honest politician's don't say what Martin said for that reason.

Martin lied about SF and FG.

Pat Rabbitte showed how to walk this line in the runup to the 2007 general election. He needed to leave the door ajar to an FF-Labour deal as it was widely expected to be the only feasible government lineup after the election. So he absolutely lambasted FF in every interview, without ever - quite - ruling out going into government with them. The voters got the message. If he was a man of integrity Martin would have found a way to do the same re one or both of FG and SF.

Shefwedfan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which would have included talking to SF.
So in some instances the ideology was immovable and dogmatically insisted upon.

If they had talked and been unable to reach an agreement fair enough. But refusing outright to enter negotiations combined with guff about SF being 'unfit' was dogmatic ideology at its worst and an insult to the mandate which, like it or not, SF received from the electorate.

FF and FG do not get to decide who is and is not 'fit' - especially when they seek the support of the likes of Lowry. If they can accept Lowry has a mandate- they can accept SF have one. And going on number of seats a stronger one than FG.

And once again before the 'shinnerbot' BS starts I did not give SF even a preference vote. I did give the Greens one and even though not elected that candidate spoke out against the PfG.

One of Ireland many issue is the number of independents candidate which restrict parties getting a majority

FF and FG do have the right to pick who they want or do not want to partner with. Same as SF had the option to approach other parties to join with them. If SF has the Greens on board then they would have shut down the current alliance, the Greens went to SF first but got nowhere

FG came out and said they would go into opposition, they all waited then. Nothing happened

At some stage the politicians had to pull some sort of government together or we would end up with a situation like Northern Ireland and no government for 3 years

ExMachina1000

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Depends on how important you think climate change is versus housing.

Housing much more important to the electorate.
Healthcare also.

Cycling lanes only benefit bare minimum of people. More public transport infrastructure would be more beneficial to get people out of their cars.

People travelling from Meath, Kildare, wicklow to dublin for work wont be cycling.
People in rural Ireland travelling to supervalu for the weekend shop wont be cycling

It's a pet project to bring greens on board and keep them distracted. Leo and Micheal run the country.

Professor Moriarty

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Housing much more important to the electorate.
Healthcare also.

Cycling lanes only benefit bare minimum of people. More public transport infrastructure would be more beneficial to get people out of their cars.

People travelling from Meath, Kildare, wicklow to dublin for work wont be cycling.
People in rural Ireland travelling to supervalu for the weekend shop wont be cycling

It's a pet project to bring greens on board and keep them distracted. Leo and Micheal run the country.

Sure. But the Greens will get some policies implemented while FG and FF do the heavy lifting. That's politics for you.

namloc1980

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Oh ok. Can you link me to the mention of Ireland 2040 in the programme. Thanks

Google search for Programme for Government 2020. Easy as that.

ExMachina1000

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. But the Greens will get some policies implemented while FG and FF do the heavy lifting. That's politics for you.

So you do agree with my statement about cycling infrastructure?

It's a waste of money that could be spent on housing or healthcare or welfare or business support or renewable energy or education etc

Plenty of other options to spend 1.8 billion

Professor Moriarty

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

So you do agree with my statement about cycling infrastructure

It's not important. Any program for government today will be full of wishful thinking. There's an economic clusterfúck coming down the tracks.

StackSteevens

Bannasidhe wrote: »

FF and FG do not get to decide who is and is not 'fit' - especially when they seek the support of the likes of Lowry. If they can accept Lowry has a mandate- they can accept SF have one. And going on number of seats a stronger one than FG.

Have you been following the news? Because - and I hope this won't come as a major shock to you - that's exactly what FF and FG have just done. And the world didn't come to a shuddering end - not yet anyhow.

So perhaps you need to reassess how democracy works in the real world and put those textbooks away.

LawBoy2018

Darragh O'Brien & Michael McGrath en route to get their assignments! Who will be next...

namloc1980

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

So you do agree with my statement about cycling infrastructure?

It's a waste of money that could be spent on housing or healthcare or welfare or business support or renewable energy or education etc

Plenty of other options to spend 1.8 billion

It's also for walking and pedestrian infrastructure. Cycling and walking is very positive for health and wellbeing.

ExMachina1000

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's not important. Any program for government today will be full of wishful thinking. There's an economic clusterfúck coming down the tracks.

It is important. You asked if housing is more important than climate change.

Now you've completely dismissed both my point and your own!

Professor Moriarty

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It is important. You asked if housing is more important than climate change.

Now you've completely dismissed both my point and your own!

No, I didn't ask that. Read the post again.

robwen

If FF are taking the housing & health portfolios you kinda have to say fair play to Martin he's putting his money where his mouth is, it's a fair gamble on the future of FF

ExMachina1000

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's also for walking and pedestrian infrastructure. Cycling and walking is very positive for health and wellbeing.

Definitely. I agree. If you wanted to go for a walk right now do you need infrastructure put in?

1.8 billion euro worth

The_Brood

I just want to know why did voters decide they hate working class people? Why does Irish society have so much against people working every day of their lives to try and make a living but are not on google salaries?

Ireland has proven itslef as one of the most corporate capitalist friendly socieites on earth.

Professor Moriarty

robwen wrote: »

If FF are taking the housing & health portfolios you kinda have to say fair play to Martin he's putting his money where his mouth is, it's a fair gamble on the future of FF

Poisoned chalices, especially Health during a pandemic.

LawBoy2018

robwen wrote: »

If FF are taking the housing & health portfolios you kinda have to say fair play to Martin he's putting his money where his mouth is, it's a fair gamble on the future of FF

If it's true, then he made the ultimate blunder and solidified FF's doom imo.

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

So you do agree with my statement about cycling infrastructure?

It's a waste of money that could be spent on housing or healthcare or welfare or business support or renewable energy or education etc

Plenty of other options to spend 1.8 billion

More people cycle to work in Dublin than use DART, Luas and suburban rail combined. And that's with fairly appalling levels of provision to date.

We need to provide facilities so that cycling is safe for everyone. This will have considerable public health benefits, transport chaos benefits and environmental benefits.

LawBoy2018

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Darragh O'Brien & Michael McGrath en route to get their assignments! Who will be next...

Norma got the call up! 3 to go...

Bannasidhe

Shefwedfan wrote: »

One of Ireland many issue is the number of independents candidate which restrict parties getting a majority

FF and FG do have the right to pick who they want or do not want to partner with. Same as SF had the option to approach other parties to join with them. If SF has the Greens on board then they would have shut down the current alliance, the Greens went to SF first but got nowhere

FG came out and said they would go into opposition, they all waited then. Nothing happened

At some stage the politicians had to pull some sort of government together or we would end up with a situation like Northern Ireland and no government for 3 years

I would tend to agree about the Independents.

I disagree that either FG or FF have the right to declare another party as 'unfit' to be in govt. Disagree with their policies, attack their polices absolutely.
But to place themselves as judges based on a long over conflict (esp given their own histories) is reprehensible. If the DUP can work with SF so the least FF and FG could do is talk to them.
I agree FG and SF are incompatible btw. But a deal between FF and SF would have been possible.
We'll never know though as FF didn't respect the mandate SF received.

I fully expect that in years to come SF will replace FF, much as FF once replaced SF.
FF lost their way when Haughey came to power and openly became a party of dodgy deals and backhanders.
SF will take the place occupied by the Lemass era FF on the centre left but without the pro/anti treaty baggage that should have long been ditched.
And I still won't be voting SF

Truthvader

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

More people cycle to work in Dublin than use DART, Luas and suburban rail combined. And that's with fairly appalling levels of provision to date.

We need to provide facilities so that cycling is safe for everyone. This will have considerable public health benefits, transport chaos benefits and environmental benefits.

I do not want to cycle

namloc1980

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Definitely. I agree. If you wanted to go for a walk right now do you need infrastructure put in?

1.8 billion euro worth

In some places yes we do. And we certainly need cycling infrastructure in many places. There is significant demand for such infrastructure but it's pretty crap right now.

namloc1980

Truthvader wrote: »

I do not want to cycle

Pity for you that government don't tailor public policy just to what you want.