Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)
Options
Comments
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »I have no idea why they delayed.
Speculating that they 'made off with it' is speculation. Insisting that they did is a lie, as the money is now back where it belongs.
Speculate away to your hearts content, but don't lie about theft being a fact.
SPOOFER0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »I have no idea why they delayed.
Speculating that they 'made off with it' is speculation. Insisting that they did is a lie, as the money is now back where it belongs.
Speculate away to your hearts content, but don't lie about theft being a fact.
I'm sure you've a few ideas why they delayed tbh, who doesn't? Are you a completely blank slate as to what to do with an unexpected 10k? well for you if so, would love to have a spare 10k myself.
Far more interesting to me is if the resignations will be enough to prevent closer examination of the various bank accounts here. Were politicians using private personal accounts for their offices etc.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I'm sure you've a few ideas why they delayed tbh, who doesn't? Are you a completely blank slate as to what to do with an unexpected 10k? well for you if so, would love to have a spare 10k myself.
Far more interesting to me is if the resignations will be enough to prevent closer examination of the various bank accounts here. Were politicians using private personal accounts for their offices etc.
Pretty dire indictment of those vested with the responsibility here.
Are you saying politicians can take steps to 'avoid scrutiny'? If not, what are you saying?
I presume there are agencies vested with checking these things and laws around this?0 -
Truthvader wrote: »SPOOFER
Not a word of a 'spoof' Truth.
We can all state something and claim it to be fact...try this. They simply overlooked it. The account wasn't monitored and as the money was unsolicited nobody noticed it had been lodged.
That is speculation too and just as valid as yours. More so even, as your speculation has been ruled out by the fact that the money is now returned to it's rightful place. Nobody 'made off with it'. If they had the department would NOT have it.
My 'speculation' has not been ruled out and may explain why it happened.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
dundalkfc10 wrote: »What's the chances tomorrow Leo will try and have a go at Sinn Féin when trying to explain the corruption he has been upto?
Zero, I'd say
Horns in wings clipped etc
He won't dare
He'll be all apologetic,full of humility,extol the virtues of the gp contract and compliment Mary Lou on her blazer, maybe asking for her stylists number0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Not a word of a 'spoof' Truth.
We can all state something and claim it to be fact...try this. They simply overlooked it. The account wasn't monitored and as the money was unsolicited nobody noticed it had been lodged.
That is speculation too and just as valid as yours. More so even, as your speculation has been ruled out by the fact that the money is now returned to it's rightful place. Nobody 'made off with it'. If they had the department would NOT have it.
My 'speculation' has not been ruled out and may explain why it happened.
3 accounts money lodged in, nobody noticed then all of a sudden, bang all noticed at the, same time.
What about the lad that noticed it months ago and reported it but it still wasn't returned till last week?
That doesn't wash.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »3 accounts money lodged in, nobody noticed then all of a sudden, bang all noticed at the, same time.
What about the lad that noticed it months ago and reported it but it still wasn't returned till last week?
That doesn't wash.
Did he 'make off with it'? Where is the money now?0 -
-
He says it's paid back granted.FrancieBrady wrote: »Did he 'make off with it'? Where is the money now?
But why so long a wait?
Nonexof it was paid back till the expose, that's, the point, despite the fact they were aware of one of them anyway.
The didn't realise story is gone, they did know of Mc Hughes but still held on to it.
Made off is just an excusal you're using to deflect from the fact that all the evidence points to well being aware of the donations, hoping it wouldn't be noticed.
Hence the sackings/resignations.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bishop of hope wrote: »He says it's paid back granted.
But why so long a wait?
Nonexof it was paid back till the expose, that's, the point, despite the fact they were aware of one of them anyway.
The didn't realise story is gone, they did know of Mc Hughes but still held on to it.
Made off is just an excusal you're using to deflect from the fact that all the evidence points to well being aware of the donations, hoping it wouldn't be noticed.
Hence the sackings/resignations.
I don't know why it was delayed. That is why anything I have to say on it is speculation.
Stating that the money was 'made off with' is wrong. It wasn't, the money is with the department.
Speculate all you want but couch it as 'speculation'. Don't berate me for wanting to point out lies about it.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »3 accounts money lodged in, nobody noticed then all of a sudden, bang all noticed at the, same time.
What about the lad that noticed it months ago and reported it but it still wasn't returned till last week?
That doesn't wash.
Think Francie is on the payroll of the party he is not a member of. He will just keep repeating the same stupid nonsensical argument forever. Cant be stopped.0 -
Truthvader wrote: »Think Francie is on the payroll of the party he is not a member of. He will just keep repeating the same stupid nonsensical argument forever. Cant be stopped.
Very soon Truth, if the 380 approx people and businesses referred to here, have to be taken to court for recovery of the funds, you will be able to truthfully say they have 'made off with the money'.
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/dup-minister-diane-dodds-wont-say-if-she-can-force-repayment-millions-wrongly-paid-out-covid-cash-3022842
Sorry for your troubles, but if you would simply stop lying about things you wouldn't be called out for it.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »I don't know why it was delayed. That is why anything I have to say on it is speculation.
Stating that the money was 'made off with' is wrong. It wasn't, the money is with the department.
Speculate all you want but couch it as 'speculation'. Don't berate me for wanting to point out lies about it.
How, do you know, they're lies?
Maybe they made off with it but refunded when they got caught.
Specualting they didn't is speculation too.
I'm not berating, just talking.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »How, do you know, they're lies?
Maybe they made off with it but refunded when they got caught.
Specualting they didn't is speculation too.
I'm not berating, just talking.
Correct, now you are getting it...speculation to begin with.
Do you agree that nobody 'made off with the money'?
If you don't, how do you distinguish between the SF people and the 380 approx who still have not repaid it and who may need to be forced or taken to court?0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Doesn't look to me that either Michael or Leo will lead FF and FG into the next election.
Can't see FF under anyone else in the party resisting going into a coalition with SF anymore.
Either way, I don't think they can resist the will of the electorate again and both will talk if SF end up with most seats.
I don't think FG will talk to SF if it is clear FF are willing to do so; it would compromise their main selling point as the anti-SF party going forward. I don't see any particular necessity for FG and SF to indicate a willingness to do business with each other; the numbers will surely be there for some other government to be formed. It's arguably healthier for democracy to have two major parties diametrically opposed to each other and ruling out going into government together; gives the electorate a clear choice.0 -
Loafing Oaf wrote: »I don't think FG will talk to SF if it is clear FF are willing to do so; it would compromise their main selling point as the anti-SF party going forward. I don't see any particular necessity for FG and SF to indicate a willingness to do business with each other; the numbers will surely be there for some other government to be formed. It's arguably healthier for democracy to have two major parties diametrically opposed to each other and ruling out going into government together; gives the electorate a clear choice.
It got them 22% and 24% of the vote at the last election. I don't think it has much life left as a vote getter for either of them tbh.
I kinda agree with your first sentence, that is how the climbdown will happen. FG will try and take the high moral ground.
Presupposing that FG don't go down in a blaze of sleaze and corruption in the next while. Would be hard to take any high moral ground in a fresh election f that happens.0 -
Truthvader wrote: »Think Francie is on the payroll of the party he is not a member of. He will just keep repeating the same stupid nonsensical argument forever. Cant be stopped.
Just a typical Ulsterman (same as myself) stubborn to the end ;-)
There’s not an app for that, but there is a button.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »It got them 22% and 24% of the vote at the last election. I don't think it has much life left as a vote getter for either of them tbh.
Well going forward the selling point won't be "We won't putting SF into government under any circumstances"; once FF have conceded that they are prepared to do a deal with SF that kind of loses its force anyway. It will be more "We are the fiscally responsible party; our policies are the polar opposite of SF's." There's certainly a clear identity for FG in that, whereas FF will be struggling to find a niche as some sort of (potential) adjunct of SF.0 -
Loafing Oaf wrote: »Well going forward the selling point won't be "We won't putting SF into government under any circumstances"; once FF have conceded that they are prepared to do a deal with SF that kind of loses its force anyway. It will be more "We are the fiscally responsible party; our policies are the polar opposite of SF's." There's certainly a clear identity for FG in that, whereas FF will be struggling to find a niche as some sort of (potential) adjunct of SF.
Being an adjunct of FG isn't exactly going well is it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Prediction. At some point the worst elements of Fianna Fail will go into government with Sinn Fein. The result will be the most corrupt, criminalised, incompetent and polarising government in the history of the state resulting in economic meltdown and provoking a new outbreak of sectarian violence in the North. It will finish Fianna Fail for good.
The only other alternative is that the grown ups (of which there are very few) in FF and FG merge now to make a strong centre party to securr some kind of future. Very unlikely so prepare for first paragraph.0 -
Truthvader wrote: »Prediction. At some point the worst elements of Fianna Fail will go into government with Sinn Fein. The result will be the most corrupt, criminalised, incompetent and polarising government in the history of the state resulting in economic meltdown and provoking a new outbreak of sectarian violence in the North. It will finish Fianna Fail for good.
The only other alternative is that the grown ups (of which there are very few) in FF and FG merge now to make a strong centre party to securr some kind of future. Very unlikely so prepare for first paragraph.
Mate ....your dreamteam FF and FG government is going on now....and all its senior members are on prime time defending corruption
Fear-mongoring has to have a basis in reality0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Mate ....your dreamteam FF and FG government is going on now....and all its senior members are on prime time defending corruption
Fear-mongoring has to have a basis in reality
Corruption? Buy a dictionary. You dont know the meaning of the word. Anyway lets see how it pans out over the next 5 years and who ends up in a daydream.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Mate ....your dreamteam FF and FG government is going on now....and all its senior members are on prime time defending corruption
Fear-mongoring has to have a basis in reality
Corruption?
Quit the spoofing!!!0 -
-
Truthvader wrote: »Prediction. At some point the worst elements of Fianna Fail will go into government with Sinn Fein. The result will be the most corrupt, criminalised, incompetent and polarising government in the history of the state resulting in economic meltdown and provoking a new outbreak of sectarian violence in the North. It will finish Fianna Fail for good.
The only other alternative is that the grown ups (of which there are very few) in FF and FG merge now to make a strong centre party to securr some kind of future. Very unlikely so prepare for first paragraph.
I presume you reckon a return to the kind of genuine social democracy Ireland used to have, resulting in a reasonably satisfied electorate and a consequent period of relative political stability, is completely out of the question?
Literally all it would take to stem the haemorrhaging of young voters to the far left would be a concerted effort to reduce the cost of living relative to average income from an incoming government. That's all it would take. There are so many ways in which this could be achieved if literally any government was willing to put the needs and desires of the majority ahead of those of vested interests.
Forget about social housing and rent control for a moment because I know this solution is anathema to those who think it's acceptable to price gouge.
How about meaningful reform of liability legislation so that people couldn't sue businesses into the ground for injuries to themselves by their own clumsy hand?
How about a move away from having one of the lowest levels of state subvention to public transport of any EU country, thus causing moronically high bus and rail fares which increase every single Winter without exception?
How about a commitment to punitively slash RTE's public funding to bare-bones only if it doesn't tackle the issue of moronically highly paid celebrities on salaries which frankly belong to a bygone era in which television studios held a monopoly on visual entertainment?
How about a commitment to reform licensing and excise laws so it doesn't cost an arm and a leg for licensed premises to operate after hours, thus contributing obscenely high food and drink prices?
How about a commitment to radically reform procurement in this country so as to cut down on corruption and deal with constant overspending and incompetence?
How about a commitment to restructure how the health service operates, looking at well-run health systems in other EU countries and attempting to emulate them?
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that the cost of living relative to take home pay is the reason so many are flocking to the left, particularly young voters who are being absolutely hammered by out of control inflation with little to no counterbalance on the income side. The most obvious solution to this is to tackle housing, but if the idea of passive income for doing nothing being an acceptable "occupation" for those who happen to own vast amounts of residential property they don't need is so entrenched as to be absolutely untouchable in the eyes of neoliberals, there are other ways to skin the cat.
Bring down the cost of living relative to average incomes and the leftist surge will rapidly stabilise. It's that simple. The reason FG are not being rewarded for their "recovery" is because it is an unbalanced recovery in which the macroeconomy and thus consumer prices and the cost of living booms, while peoples' income stagnates or even declines. Others here objected to my use of the term "stagflation" earlier this year since technically this merely refers to inflation combined with low employment - in Ireland it's less about employment and more about employment offering diminishing returns while inflation continues to soar. Fair enough, "stagflation" is off the table as as word to describe this if you insist, but whatever you want to call it, it's a very, very simple and easy to understand problem.
You cannot have a macroeconomic boom which increases the cost of living without increasing average take home pay for an entire generation and call it a "recovery". Doing so is the reason young people weren't just disappointed in FG, we were downright furious at the condescending and heartless way in which we were communicated with by those in government, using sickening newspeak-style language to essentially tell us "your quality of life will continue to decline, you should learn to love it and thank us for it" ("boutique hotels" anyone?) and subsequently lashing out at us as "uninformed" or other euphemisms for "too stupid to understand that FG's policies which have decimated our quality of life are what's best for us, deep down".
If you accept my summary of why young people rejected the status quo, understanding why young people flocked to SF as the alternative should be easy enough to understand. The options on the table were thus:
FG: Spent the last nine years in power and seem sickeningly proud of how their unbalanced recovery has harmed hundreds of thousands of young Irish people. Big nope.
FF: Spent the 2000s destroying our prospects, spent the last four years propping up the aforementioned disastrous FG government and siding with them on the most fundamental issues relating to the cost of living / income imbalance. Big nope.
Labour: Stood by FG from 2011-2016 even when FG were embroiled in scandal after scandal, and the roots of the cost of living / income imbalance were beginning to become obvious and bear horrendously poisoned fruit.
Greens: Stood by FF when they were destroying the economy in the 2000s. Many of my generation nonetheless gave them a second chance this time. Most will categorically refuse to do so again after they helped give birth to this neoliberal nightmare of a government.
Sol/PBP: Supported by many young people, but viewed by many others as too divided to be the staple of a future government. Some of their members also alienated many of my generation with their antics during the Repeal referendum; Despite supporting Repeal by and large, many at least in my own circle were horrified by PBP members openly bragging about silencing the opposition by vandalising campaign posters, harassing businesses into cancelling pro-life meetings, etc.
SocDems: The only puzzler for me. They should have done better in the general election and I'm not entirely sure why. My uncle is 70 and so definitely not a millennial expert but he reckons the chaotic split with Stephen Donnelly tainted the view of the SocDems among many people, showing them as too chaotic and petty or, in essence, just playing at being a party. Personally I feel this is a very harsh reading of the situation but it's the only analysis I have, if anyone else has an alternative I'd be interested to hear it. Regardless, after almost immediately ruling out partaking in alternative government formation talks, they've pissed off a huge number of young people and I would have serious doubts about their prospects with this demographic next election, unless they radically alter their messaging between now and then.
Sinn Fein: The only party to credibly spell out why FFG's policies were so harmful to and unpopular with young people. That's what keeps coming up again and again whenever I talk to people about this: It's not just opposition to the status quo, but Mary Lou in particular tapped in to why young people are so opposed to it in a way which no other party managed to do. She (or her team) saw through the macroeconomic indicators and understood just how much young peoples' quality of life has declined during the lifetime of the FFG confidence and supply agreement, and she called them out on this time and time again during not only the election campaign but the three years prior to it.
None of this seems ridiculously complicated to me but it amazes me that SF's success among the young generation continues to cause so much head scratching among so many here.
If I could offer a simple analogy: Let's suppose you have a bleeding injury to the stomach. There are three doctors who are offering to treat it.
One of them is the doctor whose incompetence caused your injury in the first place and left you a bleeding mess.
One of them ignores that your problem is a bleeding wound, deduces that you have low blood pressure, and instead of treating the bleed, gives you a drug to raise your blood pressure - which of course leaves you bleeding even more heavily and causes you to lose more blood than you were before he attempted to treat you. And he watches you bleed to death at a faster rate than before his intervention, and tells you that you should be thanking him for treating your low blood pressure despite the fact that the treatment made your blood loss problem worse. The first doctor cheers this bungling treatment on.
The third of them looks at the damage the second one has done with the support of the first, and correctly diagnoses that you are now bleeding more heavily because your blood pressure has been raised while your wound remains open and untreated. This doctor not only admonishes the other two for their moronic "treatments" of you, but tells you exactly how you will be treated in order to stop the blood loss and therefore save your life.
Which doctor do you think the average person is going to choose as their preferred doctor going forward?
Sure, the third one is untested. You've never been to their surgery before or seen them at work. But the other two have certifiably f*cked you up beyond believe and this third one at least talks like somebody who knows what they're doing, understands the nature of your injury and has a desire to fix it.
All you need to add in to this analogy to make it a perfect representation of why SF is doing well with young voters is the idea that the first and second doctors are intentionally allowing you to bleed to death because one of their other patients needs a blood transfusion for an elective surgery. That would analogise FFG allowing the cost of living to spiral out of control because their investment property buddies are raking it in on the backs of everyone else's haemorrhaging of income to that class.
Either way, none of your arguments against SF actually address this problem. And that's why, at least in my view, all of those arguments are failures. You're completely ignoring the fact that of the big three parties, most young people genuinely and sincerely believe that it's intentional malice on the part of two of them - not mere incompetence or helplessness - which has resulted in the cost of living / income imbalance which is driving the political upheaval. And that the third one is at least willing to take a stab at fixing the problem, as opposed to allowing it to worsen because another cohort are benefitting from it.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I presume you reckon a return to the kind of genuine social democracy Ireland used to have, resulting in a reasonably satisfied electorate and a consequent period of relative political stability, is completely out of the question?
Literally all it would take to stem the haemorrhaging of young voters to the far left would be a concerted effort to reduce the cost of living relative to average income from an incoming government. That's all it would take. There are so many ways in which this could be achieved if literally any government was willing to put the needs and desires of the majority ahead of those of vested interests.
Forget about social housing and rent control for a moment because I know this solution is anathema to those who think it's acceptable to price gouge.
How about meaningful reform of liability legislation so that people couldn't sue businesses into the ground for injuries to themselves by their own clumsy hand?
How about a move away from having one of the lowest levels of state subvention to public transport of any EU country, thus causing moronically high bus and rail fares which increase every single Winter without exception?
How about a commitment to punitively slash RTE's public funding to bare-bones only if it doesn't tackle the issue of moronically highly paid celebrities on salaries which frankly belong to a bygone era in which television studios held a monopoly on visual entertainment?
How about a commitment to reform licensing and excise laws so it doesn't cost an arm and a leg for licensed premises to operate after hours, thus contributing obscenely high food and drink prices?
How about a commitment to radically reform procurement in this country so as to cut down on corruption and deal with constant overspending and incompetence?
How about a commitment to restructure how the health service operates, looking at well-run health systems in other EU countries and attempting to emulate them?
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that the cost of living relative to take home pay is the reason so many are flocking to the left, particularly young voters who are being absolutely hammered by out of control inflation with little to no counterbalance on the income side. The most obvious solution to this is to tackle housing, but if the idea of passive income for doing nothing being an acceptable "occupation" for those who happen to own vast amounts of residential property they don't need is so entrenched as to be absolutely untouchable in the eyes of neoliberals, there are other ways to skin the cat.
Bring down the cost of living relative to average incomes and the leftist surge will rapidly stabilise. It's that simple. The reason FG are not being rewarded for their "recovery" is because it is an unbalanced recovery in which the macroeconomy and thus consumer prices and the cost of living booms, while peoples' income stagnates or even declines. Others here objected to my use of the term "stagflation" earlier this year since technically this merely refers to inflation combined with low employment - in Ireland it's less about employment and more about employment offering diminishing returns while inflation continues to soar. Fair enough, "stagflation" is off the table as as word to describe this if you insist, but whatever you want to call it, it's a very, very simple and easy to understand problem.
You cannot have a macroeconomic boom which increases the cost of living without increasing average take home pay for an entire generation and call it a "recovery". Doing so is the reason young people weren't just disappointed in FG, we were downright furious at the condescending and heartless way in which we were communicated with by those in government, using sickening newspeak-style language to essentially tell us "your quality of life will continue to decline, you should learn to love it and thank us for it" ("boutique hotels" anyone?) and subsequently lashing out at us as "uninformed" or other euphemisms for "too stupid to understand that FG's policies which have decimated our quality of life are what's best for us, deep down".
If you accept my summary of why young people rejected the status quo, understanding why young people flocked to SF as the alternative should be easy enough to understand. The options on the table were thus:
FG: Spent the last nine years in power and seem sickeningly proud of how their unbalanced recovery has harmed hundreds of thousands of young Irish people. Big nope.
FF: Spent the 2000s destroying our prospects, spent the last four years propping up the aforementioned disastrous FG government and siding with them on the most fundamental issues relating to the cost of living / income imbalance. Big nope.
Labour: Stood by FG from 2011-2016 even when FG were embroiled in scandal after scandal, and the roots of the cost of living / income imbalance were beginning to become obvious and bear horrendously poisoned fruit.
Greens: Stood by FF when they were destroying the economy in the 2000s. Many of my generation nonetheless gave them a second chance this time. Most will categorically refuse to do so again after they helped give birth to this neoliberal nightmare of a government.
Sol/PBP: Supported by many young people, but viewed by many others as too divided to be the staple of a future government. Some of their members also alienated many of my generation with their antics during the Repeal referendum; Despite supporting Repeal by and large, many at least in my own circle were horrified by PBP members openly bragging about silencing the opposition by vandalising campaign posters, harassing businesses into cancelling pro-life meetings, etc.
SocDems: The only puzzler for me. They should have done better in the general election and I'm not entirely sure why. My uncle is 70 and so definitely not a millennial expert but he reckons the chaotic split with Stephen Donnelly tainted the view of the SocDems among many people, showing them as too chaotic and petty or, in essence, just playing at being a party. Personally I feel this is a very harsh reading of the situation but it's the only analysis I have, if anyone else has an alternative I'd be interested to hear it. Regardless, after almost immediately ruling out partaking in alternative government formation talks, they've pissed off a huge number of young people and I would have serious doubts about their prospects with this demographic next election, unless they radically alter their messaging between now and then.
Sinn Fein: The only party to credibly spell out why FFG's policies were so harmful to and unpopular with young people. That's what keeps coming up again and again whenever I talk to people about this: It's not just opposition to the status quo, but Mary Lou in particular tapped in to why young people are so opposed to it in a way which no other party managed to do. She (or her team) saw through the macroeconomic indicators and understood just how much young peoples' quality of life has declined during the lifetime of the FFG confidence and supply agreement, and she called them out on this time and time again during not only the election campaign but the three years prior to it.
None of this seems ridiculously complicated to me but it amazes me that SF's success among the young generation continues to cause so much head scratching among so many here.
If I could offer a simple analogy: Let's suppose you have a bleeding injury to the stomach. There are three doctors who are offering to treat it.
One of them is the doctor whose incompetence caused your injury in the first place and left you a bleeding mess.
One of them ignores that your problem is a bleeding wound, deduces that you have low blood pressure, and instead of treating the bleed, gives you a drug to raise your blood pressure - which of course leaves you bleeding even more heavily and causes you to lose more blood than you were before he attempted to treat you. And he watches you bleed to death at a faster rate than before his intervention, and tells you that you should be thanking him for treating your low blood pressure despite the fact that the treatment made your blood loss problem worse. The first doctor cheers this bungling treatment on.
The third of them looks at the damage the second one has done with the support of the first, and correctly diagnoses that you are now bleeding more heavily because your blood pressure has been raised while your wound remains open and untreated. This doctor not only admonishes the other two for their moronic "treatments" of you, but tells you exactly how you will be treated in order to stop the blood loss and therefore save your life.
Which doctor do you think the average person is going to choose as their preferred doctor going forward?
Sure, the third one is untested. You've never been to their surgery before or seen them at work. But the other two have certifiably f*cked you up beyond believe and this third one at least talks like somebody who knows what they're doing, understands the nature of your injury and has a desire to fix it.
All you need to add in to this analogy to make it a perfect representation of why SF is doing well with young voters is the idea that the first and second doctors are intentionally allowing you to bleed to death because one of their other patients needs a blood transfusion for an elective surgery. That would analogise FFG allowing the cost of living to spiral out of control because their investment property buddies are raking it in on the backs of everyone else's haemorrhaging of income to that class.
Either way, none of your arguments against SF actually address this problem. And that's why, at least in my view, all of those arguments are failures. You're completely ignoring the fact that of the big three parties, most young people genuinely and sincerely believe that it's intentional malice on the part of two of them - not mere incompetence or helplessness - which has resulted in the cost of living / income imbalance which is driving the political upheaval. And that the third one is at least willing to take a stab at fixing the problem, as opposed to allowing it to worsen because another cohort are benefitting from it.
would the same analogy apply to gunshot wounds to the kneecaps ?0 -
mynamejeff wrote: »would the same analogy apply to gunshot wounds to the kneecaps ?
And there we have it.....lad geos to effort to explain quite deeply the flaws in irish politics and the rapid rise of a centre left party
The response start screaming/insuinating about the ira,which majority of its voters dont remember,nor care about....while each month they are forking over upto 40% of their wages to landlords for rent0 -
mynamejeff wrote: »would the same analogy apply to gunshot wounds to the kneecaps ?
Young people are suffering now, today. Getting worse every day, indeed. They couldn't give a f*ck about whatever happened years before they were born. That argument is never, ever, ever going to work on them. What they care about is dealing with the cost of living to income inflation imbalance, and literally no amount of deflection is ever going to change that.
I never personally agreed with the "it's the economy, stupid" hypothesis as a general description politics at all times, but when the economic situation is utterly dire, it describes politics perfectly.0 -
Advertisement
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I presume you reckon a return to the kind of genuine social democracy Ireland used to have, resulting in a reasonably satisfied electorate and a consequent period of relative political stability, is completely out of the question?
Literally all it would take to stem the haemorrhaging of young voters to the far left would be a concerted effort to reduce the cost of living relative to average income from an incoming government. That's all it would take. There are so many ways in which this could be achieved if literally any government was willing to put the needs and desires of the majority ahead of those of vested interests.
Forget about social housing and rent control for a moment because I know this solution is anathema to those who think it's acceptable to price gouge.
How about meaningful reform of liability legislation so that people couldn't sue businesses into the ground for injuries to themselves by their own clumsy hand?
How about a move away from having one of the lowest levels of state subvention to public transport of any EU country, thus causing moronically high bus and rail fares which increase every single Winter without exception?
How about a commitment to punitively slash RTE's public funding to bare-bones only if it doesn't tackle the issue of moronically highly paid celebrities on salaries which frankly belong to a bygone era in which television studios held a monopoly on visual entertainment?
How about a commitment to reform licensing and excise laws so it doesn't cost an arm and a leg for licensed premises to operate after hours, thus contributing obscenely high food and drink prices?
How about a commitment to radically reform procurement in this country so as to cut down on corruption and deal with constant overspending and incompetence?
How about a commitment to restructure how the health service operates, looking at well-run health systems in other EU countries and attempting to emulate them?
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that the cost of living relative to take home pay is the reason so many are flocking to the left, particularly young voters who are being absolutely hammered by out of control inflation with little to no counterbalance on the income side. The most obvious solution to this is to tackle housing, but if the idea of passive income for doing nothing being an acceptable "occupation" for those who happen to own vast amounts of residential property they don't need is so entrenched as to be absolutely untouchable in the eyes of neoliberals, there are other ways to skin the cat.
Bring down the cost of living relative to average incomes and the leftist surge will rapidly stabilise. It's that simple. The reason FG are not being rewarded for their "recovery" is because it is an unbalanced recovery in which the macroeconomy and thus consumer prices and the cost of living booms, while peoples' income stagnates or even declines. Others here objected to my use of the term "stagflation" earlier this year since technically this merely refers to inflation combined with low employment - in Ireland it's less about employment and more about employment offering diminishing returns while inflation continues to soar. Fair enough, "stagflation" is off the table as as word to describe this if you insist, but whatever you want to call it, it's a very, very simple and easy to understand problem.
You cannot have a macroeconomic boom which increases the cost of living without increasing average take home pay for an entire generation and call it a "recovery". Doing so is the reason young people weren't just disappointed in FG, we were downright furious at the condescending and heartless way in which we were communicated with by those in government, using sickening newspeak-style language to essentially tell us "your quality of life will continue to decline, you should learn to love it and thank us for it" ("boutique hotels" anyone?) and subsequently lashing out at us as "uninformed" or other euphemisms for "too stupid to understand that FG's policies which have decimated our quality of life are what's best for us, deep down".
If you accept my summary of why young people rejected the status quo, understanding why young people flocked to SF as the alternative should be easy enough to understand. The options on the table were thus:
FG: Spent the last nine years in power and seem sickeningly proud of how their unbalanced recovery has harmed hundreds of thousands of young Irish people. Big nope.
FF: Spent the 2000s destroying our prospects, spent the last four years propping up the aforementioned disastrous FG government and siding with them on the most fundamental issues relating to the cost of living / income imbalance. Big nope.
Labour: Stood by FG from 2011-2016 even when FG were embroiled in scandal after scandal, and the roots of the cost of living / income imbalance were beginning to become obvious and bear horrendously poisoned fruit.
Greens: Stood by FF when they were destroying the economy in the 2000s. Many of my generation nonetheless gave them a second chance this time. Most will categorically refuse to do so again after they helped give birth to this neoliberal nightmare of a government.
Sol/PBP: Supported by many young people, but viewed by many others as too divided to be the staple of a future government. Some of their members also alienated many of my generation with their antics during the Repeal referendum; Despite supporting Repeal by and large, many at least in my own circle were horrified by PBP members openly bragging about silencing the opposition by vandalising campaign posters, harassing businesses into cancelling pro-life meetings, etc.
SocDems: The only puzzler for me. They should have done better in the general election and I'm not entirely sure why. My uncle is 70 and so definitely not a millennial expert but he reckons the chaotic split with Stephen Donnelly tainted the view of the SocDems among many people, showing them as too chaotic and petty or, in essence, just playing at being a party. Personally I feel this is a very harsh reading of the situation but it's the only analysis I have, if anyone else has an alternative I'd be interested to hear it. Regardless, after almost immediately ruling out partaking in alternative government formation talks, they've pissed off a huge number of young people and I would have serious doubts about their prospects with this demographic next election, unless they radically alter their messaging between now and then.
Sinn Fein: The only party to credibly spell out why FFG's policies were so harmful to and unpopular with young people. That's what keeps coming up again and again whenever I talk to people about this: It's not just opposition to the status quo, but Mary Lou in particular tapped in to why young people are so opposed to it in a way which no other party managed to do. She (or her team) saw through the macroeconomic indicators and understood just how much young peoples' quality of life has declined during the lifetime of the FFG confidence and supply agreement, and she called them out on this time and time again during not only the election campaign but the three years prior to it.
None of this seems ridiculously complicated to me but it amazes me that SF's success among the young generation continues to cause so much head scratching among so many here.
If I could offer a simple analogy: Let's suppose you have a bleeding injury to the stomach. There are three doctors who are offering to treat it.
One of them is the doctor whose incompetence caused your injury in the first place and left you a bleeding mess.
One of them ignores that your problem is a bleeding wound, deduces that you have low blood pressure, and instead of treating the bleed, gives you a drug to raise your blood pressure - which of course leaves you bleeding even more heavily and causes you to lose more blood than you were before he attempted to treat you. And he watches you bleed to death at a faster rate than before his intervention, and tells you that you should be thanking him for treating your low blood pressure despite the fact that the treatment made your blood loss problem worse. The first doctor cheers this bungling treatment on.
The third of them looks at the damage the second one has done with the support of the first, and correctly diagnoses that you are now bleeding more heavily because your blood pressure has been raised while your wound remains open and untreated. This doctor not only admonishes the other two for their moronic "treatments" of you, but tells you exactly how you will be treated in order to stop the blood loss and therefore save your life.
Which doctor do you think the average person is going to choose as their preferred doctor going forward?
Sure, the third one is untested. You've never been to their surgery before or seen them at work. But the other two have certifiably f*cked you up beyond believe and this third one at least talks like somebody who knows what they're doing, understands the nature of your injury and has a desire to fix it.
All you need to add in to this analogy to make it a perfect representation of why SF is doing well with young voters is the idea that the first and second doctors are intentionally allowing you to bleed to death because one of their other patients needs a blood transfusion for an elective surgery. That would analogise FFG allowing the cost of living to spiral out of control because their investment property buddies are raking it in on the backs of everyone else's haemorrhaging of income to that class.
Either way, none of your arguments against SF actually address this problem. And that's why, at least in my view, all of those arguments are failures. You're completely ignoring the fact that of the big three parties, most young people genuinely and sincerely believe that it's intentional malice on the part of two of them - not mere incompetence or helplessness - which has resulted in the cost of living / income imbalance which is driving the political upheaval. And that the third one is at least willing to take a stab at fixing the problem, as opposed to allowing it to worsen because another cohort are benefitting from it.
Will have to give this more consideration in the morning. Agree with a lot but some is irrelevant. Plus think our best interests are collectively served by a centre left government. Main point of disagreement. Sinn Fein are not a left wing party at all. They are a populist fascist party relying on a stupid and dangerous cocktail of nationalism and infantile economic policies. Plus a huge criminal element behind ( and indeed in front of the scenes)0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement