Eamon Ryan

ExMachina1000

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I'm genuinely so disappoined in the Greens. They've shown that they're no different from FG or FF and care more about f*cking bike lanes than workers' rights, animal welfare and most-likely the environment itself. Eamon Ryan is nothing more than a greedy snorelax and the level nepotism in the Green party genuinely makes me sick. How could we (young voters) have been so wrong about them?

SF are the only option from here onwards. *sigh* Hopefully if/when they take the reigns, they maintain at least a shred of integrity, unlike the Greens.

Young voters were warned about the greens by people who lived through the last part green government.

But young people being young people thought they knew better. You can tell the next group in years to come and they will also ignore your past experience.

I actually think that there are young people out there who think that the greens are left wing. Lol

Edgware

SeaFields wrote: »

Someone needs to tend to his window boxes while he sleeps

And set his alarm clock

StackSteevens

Allinall wrote: »

That’s shocking.

He actually had a job?

Nope. She did!

https://twitter.com/mwardjourno

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Young voters were warned about the greens by people who lived through the last part green government.

But young people being young people thought they knew better. You can tell the next group in years to come and they will also ignore your past experience.

I actually think that there are young people out there who think that the greens are left wing. Lol

It was older voters that returned FFG to us, yet again. Gluttons for punishment.

StackSteevens

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Vast sums? A percentage of 1 percent of total government spend is ‘vast sums’?

Stop quibbling. It's too much - and you know it. :mad:

StackSteevens

Deleted User wrote: »

It was older voters that returned FFG to us, yet again. Gluttons for punishment.

The two older voters in this house deserted FG and Labour and gave the Soc Dems a chance this time around.

Little did we realise that the two wise virgins hadn't any intention or wish to participate in governemnt. But we'll know next time.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was older voters that returned FFG to us, yet again. Gluttons for punishment.

Older voters know not to vote for sf.

That would be just silly

64869923

StackSteevens wrote: »

The two older voters in this house deserted FG and Labour and gave the Soc Dems a chance this time around.

Little did we realise that the two wise virgins hadn't any intention or wish to participate in governemnt. But we'll know next time.

Wise move, they have seen what happens to junior coalition parties when they get tied up with FF or FG, now the junior partner will get double the backlash!

KiKi III

How many do most Ministers have? I’d expect him to have about the same, maybe one extra to manage the relationship with the other coalition parties.

McMurphy

StackSteevens wrote: »

The two older voters in this house deserted FG and Labour and gave the Soc Dems a chance this time around.

Little did we realise that the two wise virgins hadn't any intention or wish to participate in governemnt. But we'll know next time.

Is there any reason why you would refer to Shorthall/Murphy as "two wise virgins" considering they are both mother's?

Apart from that, they had been fairly vocal as to insisting fg needed to be out of govt, and it was FG in particular that they had an issue with, in refusing to join any Coalition featuring them.

If they repeat their "objections to FG" in the next election campaign, take note of it next time.

64869923

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Part of Venezuela's collapse was because of Chavez giving his cronies positions that they didn't deserve, were qualified for, or were necessary [sound familiar?]

The real problem with this country is competency. Ministers have skills that see them through their ministries but we lack people who are competent and across their brief.

One bright light on the horizon is Stephen Donnelly, comes across very well and must be relatively intelligent as not everyone can get in with McKinsey. He also took the bold move of dumping the SDs to mix it up with the power players. Would actually vote for the guy except for the fact that he's not in my constituency and FF are a bunch of scumbags who bankrupted the country.

Icepick

Pocket change if the results are good.
You think people on say 40k with no advisors would be an ideal model to govern a country?

Beasty

Threads merged

64869923

Icepick wrote: »

Pocket change if the results are good.
You think people on say 40k with no advisors would be an ideal model to govern a country?

Agreed, but when did that last happen?

suicide_circus

until i know what a normal amount of advisors is i'll keep my powder dry on this one

StackSteevens

McMurphy wrote: »

Is there any reason why you would refer to Shorthall/Murphy as "two wise virgins" considering they are both mother's?

Apart from that, they had been fairly vocal as to insisting fg needed to be out of govt, and it was FG in particular that they had an issue with, in refusing to join any Coalition featuring them.

If they repeat their "objections to FG" in the next election campaign, take note of it.

In my family, we vote for politicians who want to serve in government - not for fence-sitting showboaters. The SDs had a real chance to make a difference, but they funked it. They didn't run enough candidates to form a government on their own, so their only options were to share power with the left - led by SF - which they refused to do, or with the centre (FF/FG/GP) which they also refused to do.

Hence they conned the people who voted for them. If I wrote here how much I loathe the two wise virgins for their chicanery then then I'd get a fully deserved red card.

Incidentally, is there any reason why you would feel the need to insert an apostrophe between the r and s of the word "mothers"?

McMurphy

StackSteevens wrote: »

In my family, we vote for politicians who want to serve in government - not for fence-sitting showboaters. The SDs had a real chance to make a difference, but they funked it. They didn't run enough candidates to form a government on their own, so their only options were to share power with the left - led by SF - which they refused to do, or with the centre (FF/FG/GP) which they also refused to do.

Are you saying the social democrats refused to enter a coalition with the shinners? Have you a source for that or are you talking out of your hoop?

Hence they conned the people who voted for them. If I wrote here how much I loathe the two wise virgins for their chicanery then then I'd get a fully deserved red card.

Dunno what the red card reference is about, but where I'm from virgin means something different to what you obviously think it means.

Incidentally, is there any reason why you would feel the need to insert an apostrophe between the r and s of the word "mothers"?

There's a very good reason, I'm using a phone and it auto completes words, I've never had a cause to even look at that word and whether or not an apostrophe is called for or not, but googling and it seems perfectly acceptable regardless.

Have you an issue with it?

ExMachina1000

McMurphy wrote: »

I'm using a phone and it auto completes words.

Have you an issue with it?

My phone auto completes worfs too.
Chinese phone. Somtimes it gets it wrong

Muahahaha

riffmongous wrote: »

I can only read the first paragraph but even there

I think the Indo have got their facts wrong here because Michael Martin stood up in the Dail and said that Chiefs of Staff are getting paid 180k and Deputy Chiefs of Staff just below that. The rest of the special advisors are getting paid circa 100k

suicide_circus wrote: »

until i know what a normal amount of advisors is i'll keep my powder dry on this one

Thread on it here, the three party leaders are employing a total of 17 special advisors and then across all of government between Ministers and Juniors there is somewhere in the order of 65 special advisors being employed. It is completely off the scale and never before has a government employed so many of them

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=114044243

Then the Chief Whip and 15 other ministers get two special advisors each. And then each of the 20 junior ministerw gets one each. All in all we are talking somewhere in the region of 65 special advisors to specially advise the party leaders and ministers. At salaries of up to 180k this is quite the gravy train and its no wonder print journalists have been flocking to these positions.

Im also wondering if the government is paying a small army of special advisors then what are the all the Secretary Generals and Principal Officers in the Civil Service doing. What was their job to research policy and advise Ministers is now being taken over by a bunch of special advisors yet they still have to be paid. This cottage industry is just adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our civil service. If politicians feel that senior civil servants are not competent enough to advise then they should be reforming the civil service to get competent people in there rather than adding a small army of special advisors with whopping pay cheques for the taxpayer to pick up. Ultimately the taxpayer is paying on the double here.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Chinese phone. Somtimes it gets it wong

FYP

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

FYP

Sum ting wong?

StackSteevens

McMurphy wrote: »

Are you saying the social democrats refused to enter a coalition with the shinners? Have you a source for that or are you talking out of your hoop?

Why not do your own research? You have the technology in the palm of your hand!

McMurphy

StackSteevens wrote: »

Why not do your own research? You have the technology in the palm of your hand!

Claims to have voted for the SDs who stood for election campaign publicly calling for FG to be replaced.

Feels betrayed by SDs refusing to enter a coalition that featured FG who they said they wanted to see out of govt.

Tells me to do my research.


Irony level = Grand master.

hotmail.com

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Vast sums? A percentage of 1 percent of total government spend is ‘vast sums’?

Yes.

hotmail.com

suicide_circus wrote: »

until i know what a normal amount of advisors is i'll keep my powder dry on this one

We are not a large country.

I can deduce that this is an excessive number of advisors particularly as there is already a civil service in place that advise anyway.

Rodney Bathgate

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes.

Ridiculous.

RandomViewer

Think the cost of advisors should come from party funds rather than citizens money, would clear a lot of useless cronies out of the system if the cost was on the parties.

Cyrus

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

SF are the only option from here onwards. *sigh* Hopefully if/when they take the reigns, they maintain at least a shred of integrity.

Integrity is not something I would associate with Sinn Fein

You will be sorely disappointed should that dark day ever come to pass

Del.Monte

KiKi III wrote: »

How many do most Ministers have? I’d expect him to have about the same, maybe one extra to manage the relationship with the other coalition parties.

Please don't try and inject common sense into this thread - it's for anti-Green ranting.

James Brown

Del.Monte wrote: »

Please don't try and inject common sense into this thread - it's for anti-Green ranting.

You say that like there's no reason