FF Voters - if the next election goes wrong...

black_jack

Angry Banana wrote:

There's a lot of good stuff in this thread but dear Lord please forgive the tripe. I'm picking on this post.

As depressing as it is to agree with a FG voter, I found the OP to echo the kind of tedious whingy arrogance that is indicative of FF.

The abuse of the FG Labour power share is mildly hilarious, considering how quickly FF were willing scurry up to labour not fifteen years ago

Achieving unification in the North through exclusively peaceful means? Releasing "IRA-martyrs" that shoot Gardái?

Sorry in case you've not noticed FF haven't done that. Yet. :rolleyes:

Unlikely. It is Fine Gael's stated aim to annihilate the PD's. I expect FG to take a step right quite soon and FF to edge back to the left; removing any need for the PD's.

The most disturbing part of Irish politics is the existance of the PDs that "we" feel we need this minority party with an unreasonable amount of power is depressing.

Fine Gael have 30,000 members. This will grow no matter which way the election goes. If we lose, people will float to us even more as people just really get sick of FF. If FG get elected this time we will grow even further also: a stint in government and a chance to show of some policies (and yes, there are some policies and I'll get to that) will attract the voters that think that we have so few policies we'll no longer bring in laws.

On our knees with 20% of the vote :rolleyes:. And even still we recovered to the mean of their representation within 5 years. Labour's recent pact had feck all difference about this. For the first time ever we matched FF (well, give or take 10 seats) in the local elections and that was way before any real pact.

And again it's just kind of funny someone sneering at FG when at the last two elections and by-elections they've (depressingly) garnered votes. They're (by their TDs in the dail proportion) over represented in the EP.

How could a Labour leader, of all leaders, finish us off? Pacts aside, Labour voters are not Fine Gael voters. It's not like they could have stepped up their game. And even had they, it would only have served the PD's as people like myself would have probably tried to centralise the PD's.

And again depressingly true, the level poltical naivity by the OP is just shocking, I mean here he's boasting about "his" party yet hasn't bothered to research the opposition.

Begin moving speech with altruistic music playing in background...

Begin searching for the sick bucket.

Fine Gael do have policies. In Ireland, nearly every party have a "slogan": FF are "Republican", Labour are "Socialist", the PD's "Liberal" and SF are "scumbags"; but Fine Gael are the only party to not tie their policy to catchphrases like this. FG's policy is not necessarily based on "Liberal" or "Republican" thinking, but on honesty, integrity and justice. I know that sounds like an absolute soundbite but that's the absolute reason we often sway either side of the Left/Right divide and people think we don't have policies.

With regard policies, both Deputy Kenny and Deputy Rabbitte have agreed to not formally publish full election policies yet. To me, there are three reasons for this:

1. What's the point in announcing your manifesto (and there will have to be a massive PR push for the manifestos) mid-term? The election will be in 2 years. The hype will have worn off.
2. It only gives time for FF/PD's to adapt to the policies, nit-pick them for two years and have a stronger chance to criticise (rightly or wrongly) said policies
3. Both FG and Labour have to finalise the policies and it's suicide to announce policies before they've been tried and tested and passed by each other's party members. I know, for example that policies such as a Flat Tax and a State Insurance body are kicking around Young Fine Gael (the senior parties' policies are far more secret)- but they have to go through the machinations first.

There will be policies. And strong ones at that. FG will come down hard on economic and justice issues such as taxes and the IRA, and Labour will kick in with child-care and their stuff. Fingers crossed the Greens will join us in the Dept of the Environment.

How wonderfully patronising; the bone thowing to labour and greens that respectively child care and the environment is "their kind of stuff", like some goit down the golf club talking about the lil woman back home and the hobbies that keep her busy, while you earn the crust. That kind of contempt and expectation that the other fella will do your work for you, the stuff you can't be bothered with is typical of FG unjustified and absurd arrogance (cause hey piddly little details, like "children" and "the planet" are mere trifles that big shots like FG can't be bothered with)

Jaysus and d'yknow what was fantastic, after talking about policies when you get around to mentioning policies you make a load of waffle and then mutter something about a flat tax and a state insurance body.

These arent policies, I mean they're the antithesis of each other. Muttering about such a socialist concept as a state insurance company while suggesting a Flat tax, the most extraordinary right wing form of taxation, sums FG right up. Scrambling for votes with whatever campaign promises (sod policies that'd be asking too much for them to think things that far through) they think will work. Hell Harney has done sweet FA with the insurance industry whats the easiest thing we can suggest to scrabble some votes away? State insurance! Never explain how it'll work, never justifiy how it gells with the rest of your promises, just keep yelling about FF failures, broken promises, and lies.

This thread does sums up why I have nothing but contempt for our two largest parties , the FFer isn't saying anything postive just "look how worse off you'd be under the other guy" and the FGer is like my gf playing tekken, just mashing policy buttons until she hits the right combo.

Cork

black_jack wrote:

Hell Harney has done sweet FA with the insurance industry whats the easiest thing we can suggest to scrabble some votes away? State insurance! Never explain how it'll work, never justifiy how it gells with the rest of your promises, just keep yelling about FF failures, broken promises, and lies.

Insurance premiums, unemployment, debt/GDP ratios just happened to fall by themselves.

Could anyboby name a more successful Irish government or provide links to any fully costed Fg/Labour policy documents?

There is over 10% unemployment in Germany. The economy is France is sluggish.

There is nothing worse than begrudgery and not giving credit where it is due.

Sure, the health system needs improvement. The Health Boards are gladly gone and new structures are now in place. I would prefer reform to happen quicker but reform takes time to implement.

The smoking ban was a measure than will be copied accross the EU. For once, this country has shown leadership.

If alternative government produced a policy document fully costed - then I'd consider it.

But FG/Labour have not even come up with an election platform of alternative policies. If partys were elected by soundbytes - Enda would already be Taoiseach.

Time Magazine

black_jack wrote:

How wonderfully patronising; the bone thowing to labour and greens that respectively child care and the environment is "their kind of stuff", like some goit down the golf club talking about the lil woman back home and the hobbies that keep her busy, while you earn the crust. That kind of contempt and expectation that the other fella will do your work for you, the stuff you can't be bothered with is typical of FG unjustified and absurd arrogance (cause hey piddly little details, like "children" and "the planet" are mere trifles that big shots like FG can't be bothered with)

You mis-interpreted me. I wasn't "throwing them a bone". Let's be realistic, if there's a FG/Lab/Green govt who will be the main pushers on environmental issues? And damn right. Greens know more about windmills than I do. Who'd really really push for fair/good/etc social welfare? And damn right. Labour know more about the welfare economy than I do. And who'd know more about international relations? And damn right that that would be our post. Now I'm not suggesting that FG would not/could not/want not to deal with these "bones" but in such a coalition it only makes sense to have Labour deal with "Labour" issues etc. Comparing the division of responsibilty to anything other than the division of responsibility, particularly to "keeping the women busy", is the kind of arrogance only Charlie McCreevey election workers could know. (Personal anecdote. You get the idea ).

Jaysus and d'yknow what was fantastic, after talking about policies when you get around to mentioning policies you make a load of waffle and then mutter something about a flat tax and a state insurance body.

No, I was giving two examples of potential policies that are in "the machine" (and calling a spade a spade I picked two that probably won't be picked up so that there's no major discussion) that we could talk about but there's no point as they're not finalised nor accepted yet. There are dozens of policies (I'm speaking exclusively from YFG here, not the senior party) that are knocking about that we don't really want to get into until we decide fully on them. There's 2 years until the election so there's plenty of time and (hands up) we've not focused on policy the last couple of years as much as we have saving the party. Now we're working on policies that will be the manifesto for the generals and hopefully government. To give you a rough example, but we are not getting into them are:
1) The effectual scrapping of budget day and enforcing targets on government
2) Streamlining the public service
3) Removing as much administration as possible from Gardaí, freeing up time for them to actually fight crime
4) Mandatory publication of annual school reports from each school, giving them ability to name and shame the services they're not being offered but also criticise schools who are not performing, by the what-you-didn't-mention principle.

And to show we do have genuine costed policies that would make a huge difference:
The basis of our Health Policy

These [flat-tax and state insurance] arent policies,

I agree. See above.

I mean they're the antithesis of each other.

Ah, another FF'er who thinks that there's no such thing as a synthesis; it's all in the original thesis aye? And actually, while we're on that topic, some policies are on different spectrums of each other I agree. But is this a bad thing? This is what I was getting at regarding the policy catchphrases "liberal" etc. Young Fine Gael are for low corporation taxes (right-wing). But are considering providing cheap state-backed insurance for community projects that are being choked by insurance costs (left-wing). What's wrong with that?

Muttering about such a socialist concept as a state insurance company while suggesting a Flat tax, the most extraordinary right wing form of taxation, sums FG right up.

In some respects you're right. We don't stick by the right/left thing. We do what we think is good and what is needed and that's what we're a party in the centre. Taxes on children's shoes and free third level education. There's no contradiction. But to be honest with you I completely agree about the flat-tax. I'm in the process of insuring its destruction.

Scrambling for votes with whatever campaign promises (sod policies that'd be asking too much for them to think things that far through) they think will work.

Right, Mr. Government, where's that awe-inspiring €10bn health plan that Micheál wheeled out before the last election? And those 2,000 extra gardaí? [It will take another six and a half years to train an extra 2,000 gardaí] And the 15,000 extra social housing units per annum? [Last year, higher than average, clocked in at 8,149]. The "permament end of hospital waiting lists by the end of 2004"? The reduction of poverty to below 2%? To lower the class:teacher ratio to 20:1? [It's 24:1]. The target that 80% of all earners will pay tax only at standard rate? The "costed" roads programme of €5.6bn that is currently clocking in at €16.4bn? The 0.7% of GNP for ODA by 2007?

Hell Harney has done sweet FA with the insurance industry whats the easiest thing we can suggest to scrabble some votes away? State insurance! Never explain how it'll work, never justifiy how it gells with the rest of your promises, just keep yelling about FF failures, broken promises, and lies.

Policies, they're just not done yet. 2 more years until election time lads. There'll be policies spilling out of our ears by then. If not, I'll simply leave the party.

If you want to see policies already finished have a look at the Policy/speeches section on www.finegael.ie.

This thread does sums up why I have nothing but contempt for our two largest parties , the FFer isn't saying anything postive just "look how worse off you'd be under the other guy" and the FGer is like my gf playing tekken, just mashing policy buttons until she hits the right combo.

Funny, but only true if your girlfriend is actually doing a combo that takes two years to work out. That would be one hell of a combo.

Time Magazine

Cork wrote:

Insurance premiums, unemployment, debt/GDP ratios just happened to fall by themselves.

Insurance premiums have soared.

Unemployment did come down by itself. FF can't claim to have made the Celtic Tiger. You kept it running by doing sweet feck all. Unemployment and debt ratios had very little to do with the govt. Yes growth is firing away

Could anyboby name a more successful Irish government

There has never been a richer Irish govt? It's not what you got, it's what you got with what you had.

or provide links to any fully costed Fg/Labour policy documents?

Cork, buddy, FG/Labour have only released one policy document together, this month. And it's a statement of goals regarding social partnership. FF have some cheek to talk about "costings" and policy has been address seven times over.

There is over 10% unemployment in Germany. The economy is France is sluggish.

Germany's economy is nothing like ours. At all. And they took in an impoverished communist state not so long ago. You simply can't compare them. Hint: what you'd be much better doing is comparing our growth to the OECD average than to a manufacturing economy with fifteen times our population. But I won't let you win, you'll have to do the research yourself .

There is nothing worse than begrudgery and not giving credit where it is due.

What about hypocricy? Costed plans? If FF want costed plans FG will just take a random figure out of our head and say it. Of course, we won't actually try to ensure that that price is matched, but we'll let it soar to our heart's content.

Sure, the health system needs improvement. The Health Boards are gladly gone and new structures are now in place. I would prefer reform to happen quicker but reform takes time to implement.

8 years in government. A lot done. More to do.

The smoking ban was a measure than will be copied accross the EU. For once, this country has shown leadership.

Indeed. Well done.

If alternative government produced a policy document fully costed - then I'd consider it.

How kind.

But FG/Labour have not even come up with an election platform of alternative policies. If partys were elected by soundbytes - Enda would already be Taoiseach.

There's two years left. Policies from both parties and joined statements will come. The election is not judged by soundbytes - and nor is it tomorrow. No policies are needed yet because the public have not made up their mind. They will come before they do, and I just hope you lads keep using that line when they're spilling out.

mickd

Earthman wrote:

It was not until the late 1980s that the country began to recover. Much of the credit for that recovery should go to Garret FitzGerald, who recognised that the economy was going to get worse if Fine Gael played politics as usual. He announced that if the new Haughey government introduced the necessary unpalatable economic reforms, Fine Gael would support them.

Alan Dukes then implemented what become known as the Tallaght Strategy by backing spending cuts.

I read this Examinier article two things come to mind
1) Fitzgearld was on the way out of politics as he lost the election so announcing support should be taken with a grain of salt
2) Fitzgearld had four years to introduce reforms. He failed so that statement of credit is rubbish
Dukes to his credit did persue this policy and he paid a political price for it. It amazing how selective some journalists are in their writing.

mickd

mickd wrote:

I read this Examinier article two things come to mind.

3). The Examiner is a strongly pro-FG paper.

Tuars

Here's the editorial from today's Independent, another rabidly pro-Fine Gael paper...

JUST in case anyone had forgotten how large consultants, spin doctors and "experts" of all varieties loom in our lives, the Fine Gael chief whip, Paul Kehoe, has performed a useful service by finding out what we pay to maintain one part of the jungle.

He has discovered that in eight years Fianna Fail and Progressive ministers have spent just under €100m of taxpayers' money commissioning 1,044 reports. The Departments of Health and Justice are spectacular practitioners, with 134 and 161 reports respectively.

We have a government that has substituted decision making for report commissioning.

mickd

IMO the lions share of the political credit for the celtic tiger goes to Fianna Fail. just as Lemass did similar in the 1960's FF did in the late 80's early 90's. The concept of social partnership(employers and unions), which provided industrial stablility (no strikes) was introduced by FF. This was crucial as no company would invest in a country where workers were downing tools everyday of the week and millions of manhours lost as was the case in the 1980's. Once this was acheived then the other facets came into place curbing public spending, the £6 biillion EU structual funds, lowering corporation tax, promoting investment, skilled workforce etc to kick start the boom. True the rainbow coalition were the first govt to bring in a budget surplus but they were only continuing polices started by the two previous FF administations


However the current issue is managing the success, have we made the best possible use of resources we have? This current FF/PD administration has been found wanting in several areas. E-voting, infrastructure, NAC, commissioning reports as a previous poster illustrated, stealth taxes, child care the list is long. Can another combination of parties do better? Has labour moved from being an idelogical driven party to a pragmatic one? Has Fine Gael learned the art of decision making instead of the flip/flop of the past? I believe we will have a change of government after the next election. The effect of the SSIAs has been overstated. I don't beleve that Bertie will get his three in a row. Personally I would not want to see the likes of Martin Cullen or Noel Dempsey in government for another five years, but the opposition will have to start behaving like one and not cynically relying on people's dissatisfaction with the current government to get elected. The last thing we need is a hung dail some form of stability is required.

DublinWriter

You know what? I'm basically with Bill Hicks on this one. It's basically one puppet master with a puppet on each hand and people debating over which puppet they prefare.

FF, FG and even Labour are so centerist now that you might as well be debating over McDonalds vs BurgerKing.

As for FF creating the Celtic Tiger, I beg to differ. Governments are always quick to claim the credit for global economic upturns. If anyone is to take the credit for the Celtic Tiger then it must be the IDA.

What is clear however is that generally Irish people aren't happy with their lot and there's a great deal of discontent at ground level. This will manifest itself at the next general election as an ABFF attitute.

Personally I believe that FF/PD will get a kicking and won't hold enough seats. A FG/LAB/IND coalition will scrape in with a tiny majority or there will be a hung-Dail.

Either way, plus ca change...

Cork

DublinWriter wrote:

.

As for FF creating the Celtic Tiger, I beg to differ. Governments are always quick to claim the credit for global economic upturns

What global unturn? The French & Germans would only love to benefit.

The ground work for the Celtic Tiger was done by CJH who implemented a social partnership model.

Fair play to Alan Duke's Tallaght Stratergy, It was a disgrace how this man was later treated by FG.

Economic Success is not achieved by accident or default.

Time Magazine

Cork wrote:

What global unturn? The French & Germans would only love to benefit.

The .com boom and the general economic growth experienced under Clintonian America that benefited modern economies. Germany is not a modern economy. France is too socialist to have benefitted; the limits on working hours etc hindered any potential.

The ground work for the Celtic Tiger was done by CJH who implemented a social partnership model.

As mentioned by previous poster, the IDA had just a tweency bit to do with it. Before CJH's time.

Economic Success is not achieved by accident or default.

No, but as a small, open economy much of it is to do with external and even exogenous factors.

mickd

Did anybody read the extracts from Ruaridh Quinn's memoirs in The Sunday Tribune last sunday. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious how cabinet meetings were conducted.

mickd

Angry Banana wrote:

As mentioned by previous poster, the IDA had just a tweency bit to do with it. Before CJH's time.

Nothing was done before 1987 FACT

Yes I could imagine the IDA trying to attract investment to a country that was an economic basket case with industrial unrest. Yes they played a major part but the political/social partnership had to be in place first.

mickd

DublinWriter wrote:

You know what? I'm basically with Bill Hicks on this one. It's basically one puppet master with a puppet on each hand and people debating over which puppet they prefare.

FF, FG and even Labour are so centerist now that you might as well be debating over McDonalds vs BurgerKing.

As for FF creating the Celtic Tiger, I beg to differ. Governments are always quick to claim the credit for global economic upturns. If anyone is to take the credit for the Celtic Tiger then it must be the IDA.

What is clear however is that generally Irish people aren't happy with their lot and there's a great deal of discontent at ground level. This will manifest itself at the next general election as an ABFF attitute.

Personally I believe that FF/PD will get a kicking and won't hold enough seats. A FG/LAB/IND coalition will scrape in with a tiny majority or there will be a hung-Dail.

Either way, plus ca change...

I am in broad agreement with your view here. However a global economic upturn isn't worth jack if your house isn't in order. Fortunately Ireland was poised to take advantage of an upturn because of the steps taken by govts in 1987-94. Another thing as well the introduction of the Euro has been a massive free lunch for this country with historically low interest rates.

Time Magazine

mickd wrote:

Nothing was done before 1987 FACT

I was laughing my head off at that until I realised you were serious.

ISAW

Angry Banana wrote:

The .com boom and the general economic growth experienced under Clintonian America that benefited modern economies.

It cant be just that since a downturn in the US did not cause a downturn in Ireland.

Germany is not a modern economy.

Germany last time I looked was a country in Europe. If it has an economy then by definition it is "modern". Whatever do you mean by it "is not a modern economy"? What is a "modern economy"?

France is too socialist to have benefitted; the limits on working hours etc hindered any potential.

Benefitted from what? the dot com boom? You cant seriously believe Irelands growth is due only to that? I mean it (Infromation technology including software) is at least second or third in terms of Irish exports. The real export growth has been elsewhere.

As mentioned by previous poster, the IDA had just a tweency bit to do with it. Before CJH's time.

Had you considered Lemass? And "le mass" of low paid workforce. The one that demands more money nowadays? Or the lag between The Euro economies and Irelands and how Ireland shifted dependence form massive dependance on the UK?
How about low taxation; educated english speaking workforce; EU funding;slashing national debt; time zone favourable to finance markets;
[/quote]

No, but as a small, open economy much of it is to do with external and even exogenous factors.

Yep. and maybe how government and social partners adjust to those factors?

RainyDay

Hobbes wrote:

I disagree. While they may do it sometimes they do actually agree sometimes and some of the policies being rubbished tend to get good reasons to (but rarely make the press). For example about the electronic voting machines, that was discussed in a dail session but nothing came of it.

It is factually incorrect to say that 'nothing came of it'. The dodgy eVoting system was shelved. Without the opposition attacks on the system, we would have all been pressing those little buttons for the 2002 local elections. Mind you, the attacks from Joe McCarthy and ICTE also played a huge role in blocking this attack on democracy.

Hobbes wrote:

Mind you the company that won the contract for the electronic voting (by bidding way higher then any of the others) was an ex FF guy. But then last I heard those machines were all scrapped at taxpayers expense.

I presume you're referring to the 4 million PR contract awarded to Q4 PR (Martin Mackin, ex-Gen Sec of FF is a Director) rather than the contract for the machines themselves.

The machines have not been scrapped, and are currently sitting in very expensive storage. Mind you. today's RTE News At One has predictions that they will be scrapped soon. A cynic might thing that releasing this news on the day of decommissioning was an attempt to bury the embarrassment & shame, but I couldn't possibly comment on that.

Hobbes

RainyDay wrote:

It is factually incorrect to say that 'nothing came of it'. The dodgy eVoting system was shelved.

It was shelved before this came to light and the removal of them was due to an independant investigation. The ex-FF guy still got his money from the taxpayer.

RainyDay

Hobbes wrote:

It was shelved before this came to light and the removal of them was due to an independant investigation. The ex-FF guy still got his money from the taxpayer.

Again, this is incorrect. The system has not been shelved yet. It is still under investigation.

And the setting up of the Commission on Electronic Voting was a direct response to the work done by the opposition and other groups to highlight the many flaws in the system. I'm pretty sure that the PR company got about €1m of the original €4m planned spend on PR.

DublinWriter

RainyDay wrote:

Again, this is incorrect. The system has not been shelved yet.

Dick Roche announced early today that they will not be used for the next general election. It was a very good day to bury bad news.

I wonder if he'll have to pay a recycling charge for them now? Oh, the irony.

RainyDay

DublinWriter wrote:

Dick Roche announced early today that they will not be used for the next general election. It was a very good day to bury bad news.

I've heard this referenced elsewhere, but I haven't seen any direct reports of the statement from Dick - Has anyone got a copy of exactly what he said?

Time Magazine

ISAW wrote:

It cant be just that since a downturn in the US did not cause a downturn in Ireland.

I know we're not just a function of the US economy, but I meant the time under Clintonian America worldwide. And, to paraphrase the governer of the Central Bank, circa September 30th, 2001: "The Celtic Tiger is dead". Our economy is, to a massive extent, a function of world trade. This much is indisputable; and as much irks me when Fianna Fáilers tell me to vote for them because "Intel have decided to expand in the town, and you might get a job there son". I know there are internal factors, and Fianna Fáíl have done well to keep them in touch; but I think that has been to the detriment of our poor (things like the SSIA's, just view our poverty rate).

Germany last time I looked was a country in Europe. If it has an economy then by definition it is "modern". Whatever do you mean by it "is not a modern economy"? What is a "modern economy"?

One that doesn't rely as much on Germany on Ruhr-like manufacturing.

I mean it (Infromation technology including software) is at least second or third in terms of Irish exports. The real export growth has been elsewhere.

If I'm not mistaken, IT and pharmacuetical companies were the biggest export growers; and have become our biggest exporters save food and drink.(?) But, it is widely understood that the IT industry drove the growth in the Parsonian-like web of interconnectivity that is the economy

Had you considered Lemass? And "le mass" of low paid workforce.

I was being sarcastic about pre-Haughey IDA. Of course Lemass had a substantial role in the creation of the Celtic Tiger. The one that demands more money nowadays?

How about low taxation; educated english speaking workforce; EU funding;slashing national debt; time zone favourable to finance markets;

Yes, all these truly helped. But how many of these were specifically FF moves? FG/Lab brought in 10% corpo tax; Elizabeth I brought in English; EU membership was at the very least a "part-FG" motion. Although FG didn't bring us in, they negotiated our way in. EU membership is just an further example of why Bertie can't say FF caused the Celtic Tiger; the slashing of the national debt has really been a function of relative growth to debt: as we grew its burden (less so than number) decreased and had little to do itself with increasing economic strength; but I concede FF can claim all responsibility our timezone.

Yep. and maybe how government and social partners adjust to those factors?

Our size (which affects are dependence on trade and "openness") has nothing to do with anything other than our population. The fact that we have free trade is really a function of EU membership, and for that see above. If FF want to go back as far as Lemass for votes today (which may or may not be fair enough) surely FG can mention Dev's likeness for protectionism?

Yes, FF have aided our economy, but if somebody was able to come up with an actual percentage of how much the growth in the economy was actually due to them I can't see it topping about 25%.

Angry Banana

Angry Banana wrote:

I can't see it topping about 25%.

I'd put it at about 67% myself.

Any other opinions out there?

ISAW

Angry Banana wrote:

I know we're not just a function of the US economy, but ...Our economy is, to a massive extent, a function of world trade. ...I know there are internal factors, and Fianna Fáíl have done well to keep them in touch; but I think that has been to the detriment of our poor (things like the SSIA's, just view our poverty rate).

You can not claim that the economy is totally unaffected (or just slightly tweaked) by the governemnt and dependant on world trade and also
claim government can assist the country. I mean at the exterme we are a vassal state of a homogenous world trade and should just forget about government abolish the Oireachtas and change with the wing of international markets. You do know that governments actually regulate these markets?
at the other extreme you can not claim that completly closing all trade and isolating the economy is going to give the government power.

One [an economy] that doesn't rely as much on [as?]Germany on Ruhr-like manufacturing.

So if you are not going to have your own manufacturing base you should depend on who else's base? Or are you suggesting that heavy industry and manufacturing like steel should be forgotten by Germany? I wonder what the chinese would do this year without steel?

If I'm not mistaken, IT and pharmacuetical companies were the biggest export growers; and have become our biggest exporters save food and drink.(?)

No you are not mistaken. IT is second or third as I state. But Pharmachem is far far bigger growing from 5 billion in 1995 to over 30 billion in 2005

But, it is widely understood that the IT industry drove the growth in the Parsonian-like web of interconnectivity that is the economy

It is NOT widely understood and IT creating economy had attached myths as you pointed to in you reference to dot com speculating and the resultant bust. Indeed one can be synical and claim that transfer pricing on products such as Windows make Ireland the largest exporter of software in the world but nobody is seriously going to claim the Ireland makes nearly as much as Microsoft windows and/or the Microsoft has much more R and D in Ireland
than localisation.

I was being sarcastic about pre-Haughey IDA. Of course Lemass had a substantial role in the creation of the Celtic Tiger. The one that demands more money nowadays?

so past political stances by governments HAS something to do with creating a growth economy?

Yes, all these truly helped. But how many of these were specifically FF moves? FG/Lab brought in 10% corpo tax;

Did they? when? surely only for certain economic zones? Bertie brought in 12 1/2per cent for ALL Irish business!

Elizabeth I brought in English;

She established a print alphabet in Irish and English and was not a monoglot! But todays Hiberno English and international english is distinctly different for Shakespearian english. It was mainly (in my opinion) planning by BBC World Service and Voice of America that globalised English in the post fifties and cold war era.

EU membership was at the very least a "part-FG" motion. Although FG didn't bring us in, they negotiated our way in. EU membership is just an further example of why Bertie can't say FF caused the Celtic Tiger;

I diodnt refer to who brought us in. we joind the EEC in 1974. the Celtic Tiger began around 1992! It was the negotiation and presidency which got us substantial cohesion funding in the years of the per Tiger early nineties I am referring to.

the slashing of the national debt has really been a function of relative growth to debt:

No it wasnt! Mac "the knife" Sharrys cuts were in 1987 and perceeded the Tiger by FIVE YEARS! Debt to GDP ratio was over 135 per cent. Servicing the debt was crippling possibilites for growth. Haughey was right whether or not he practiced in his personal life ewhat he preached in public. The country needed to "tighten it's belt"! That was FF policy!

as we grew its burden (less so than number) decreased and had little to do itself with increasing economic strength; but I concede FF can claim all responsibility our timezone.

It wasnt just Haughy saw the debt as fundamental. Dukes agreed with it. And look what FG did to him for that?

Our size (which affects are dependence on trade and "openness") has nothing to do with anything other than our population.

If that is true than why do other open economies with similar population NOT have similar growth?

The fact that we have free trade is really a function of EU membership, and for that see above.

It has something to do with it but we still trade (about a third) with the UK which we could have maintained even outside the EU. We also trade (about 25 percent?) to third countries. Indeed one can argue that free trade Zones like the EU actually close markets with tariff barriers. Why for example should the state subsidise farmers who cant compete with New Zeland farmers who get nothing from the state but have to pay tariffs to get into the EU market?
The open economists would have no trade barriers. That what G7 1/2 and Gatt are all about.

If FF want to go back as far as Lemass for votes today (which may or may not be fair enough) surely FG can mention Dev's likeness for protectionism?

they can but perctionism was not permanent! Education reforms in teh sixties under Hillary/Lemass/O malley caused PERMANENT change enabling educated thirty somethings in the nineties. that is the argument.

Yes, FF have aided our economy, but if somebody was able to come up with an actual percentage of how much the growth in the economy was actually due to them I can't see it topping about 25%.

This is a handwaving argument. But accepting that figure out of the air we can also say based on the time and perparation in goverment and subsequent results that FG+Lab+GP+WP+SF+DL over the same period totalled 5% or less and the PD's got more than 5%. thats about 30% FF/PD and less than 5% for the other parties.

[Jackass]

Deleted User wrote:

...as a FF voter myself, if they lose the next general Election, wonder how long you're going to give it before wringing your hands about the state of the country?

If contracts don't come within budget immediately I will start whinging about living in a rip off republic.

If people don't start getting operations the minute they request them within 6 months, I'll start making comments about a third world health service in a first world country.

If every town and village in Ireland doesn't have a brand spanking new school within 2/3 years, with a teacher for every student, I'll complain that we are doing nothing for the future of the country.

If house prices don't halve, I'll say that the Government has the interests of big developers at heart. If the price of a pint doesn't halve, I'll say they have the interests of publicans at heart.

If we don't put everyone working on bogs forthwith, I'll complain that we're in hock to multinationals. if we do I will comlpain that here is no future in fossil fuel and the government are doing nothing for the environment.

And if the (insert name of Minister for Justice) ever suggests there is any problem with immigrants or the Northern peace process, I will spend the remainder of his term calling him a jack booted Nazi fascist.

I'm looking forward to opposition already...

The irony of this post.

So let me understand you, are you saying this is something that dosen't exist and the oppostion is just looking for something to complain about?

In that case you are clearly have no clue about the state of this country.

Or, are you saying you can't wait to see how the opposition will cope if they get into power with all these problems?

Well what position are you in to complain the same as the oppostion did about problems your preferred goverment caused and (hopefully) my preferred government will go in and clean up.

It's really a typical FF attitude. :rolleyes: Sly Tricksters and Criminals.

Time Magazine

ISAW wrote:

You can not claim that the economy is totally unaffected (or just slightly tweaked) by the governemnt and dependant on world trade and also
claim government can assist the country. I mean at the exterme we are a vassal state of a homogenous world trade and should just forget about government abolish the Oireachtas and change with the wing of international markets. You do know that governments actually regulate these markets?
at the other extreme you can not claim that completly closing all trade and isolating the economy is going to give the government power.

Finished ranting endlessly now? I never said that our economy was only a function of one variable; nor did I say the government can/cannot/might not/should not/did not assist the economy. In fact in my post immediately prior to yours I gave a rough estimate. About 25%. And yes, 25% is a very substantial part of our economy, but pretty much since Lemass (with the exception of FG trying Keynesian economics and then FF coming in and continuing and then slashing) all major parliamentary parties have sought the same general economic policy and, even with that, over the decades given other factors, 25% is not a huge plus point for Fianna Fáil. Definitely not worth a third term.

So if you are not going to have your own manufacturing base you should depend on who else's base? Or are you suggesting that heavy industry and manufacturing like steel should be forgotten by Germany? I wonder what the chinese would do this year without steel?

No, of course I'm not suggesting that Germany should "forget" about manufacturing. But they're far to heavily reliant on a fairly low-value industry. En masse low value-chain industry is not really a viable long term staple diet for a country that wishes to keep up with knowledge-driven economies.

No you are not mistaken. IT is second or third as I state. But Pharmachem is far far bigger growing from 5 billion in 1995 to over 30 billion in 2005

Interconnectivity and world economic markets. The .com industry grew far far greater than 6x in 10 years in its height and it fostered other industries simply from its own success. Take the mobile phone as just one example cited by a D.U. lecturer recently. Mobile phone sales record profits in the telecommunication and technology industries, but greatly improve profits in other industries also. It's my assertion, and assertion of Prof. Ruane (who you know), that .com boom boomed the Celtic Tiger also, through its effect on the whole economy, including the pharmacuetical industry.

It is NOT widely understood and IT creating economy had attached myths as you pointed to in you reference to dot com speculating and the resultant bust.

And the resultant bust hurt us bad. A substantial part of our economy is trade and of course that's affected by exogenous factors. That's my point. Fianna Fáíl cannot be purely blamed for the decline in our economy c. 2001; nor can they be fully congratulated for its rise.

You cannot claim that Fianna Fáil take praise for our growth but shrug off that we had inflation of 5% at one point, the tax on poverty that is the SSIA's and the huge wealth gap that now exists.

If FG got into power it would be no different. Yes, the economy needs to be managed but so much of the economy's growth/decline/fluctuation/stagnation is not to do with any state body or controller, specific or general.

Indeed one can be synical and claim that transfer pricing on products such as Windows make Ireland the largest exporter of software in the world but nobody is seriously going to claim the Ireland makes nearly as much as Microsoft windows and/or the Microsoft has much more R and D in Ireland than localisation.

I'm not going to disagree with you there because it's right but yet also so hopelessly off the point. Transfer prices might lie about our productivity et al but it still reaps tax rewards. If you're going to make such off-topic assertions, I'd like to point out that the high profits recorded by firms via transfer prices greatly hindered the price of mushrooms in Slovakia.

Did they [bring in 10% corporation tax]? when? surely only for certain economic zones? Bertie brought in 12 1/2per cent for ALL Irish business!

Sorry, meant 12.5% But yes, it was the current alternative that brought in the 12.5% rate honey...

[QUOTE=Wikipedia, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_corporation_tax]During the Rainbow Government of 1994-7, Minister of Finance Ruairi Quinn reduced corporation tax to 12.5% on trading income, a policy that has been continued by subsequent Ministers of Finance. This is generally believed to have been an important stimuli for the Celtic Tiger.[/QUOTE]

She established a print alphabet in Irish and English and was not a monoglot! But todays Hiberno English and international english is distinctly different for Shakespearian english. It was mainly (in my opinion) planning by BBC World Service and Voice of America that globalised English in the post fifties and cold war era.

Right, the Elizabeth reference was a humourous one, and whether your assertion that the BBC's post-Cold War articulation aided our economy is true or not, I doubt Bertie can claim that one.

I diodnt refer to who brought us in. we joind the EEC in 1974. the Celtic Tiger began around 1992! It was the negotiation and presidency which got us substantial cohesion funding in the years of the per Tiger early nineties I am referring to.

Our membership of the now EU really only greatly furthered our goals through access to the markets as opposed to the funding. I think it was Paul Sweeney that says it would have been responsible for maybe 1% growth p/a. However the access to the markets that attracted firms surely accounted for subtantially more than that. If it was 1%, maybe even exponentially .

No it wasnt! Mac "the knife" Sharrys cuts were in 1987 and perceeded the Tiger by FIVE YEARS! Debt to GDP ratio was over 135 per cent. Servicing the debt was crippling possibilites for growth. Haughey was right whether or not he practiced in his personal life ewhat he preached in public. The country needed to "tighten it's belt"! That was FF policy!

Aye, debt repayments were crippling but so were tax revenues and inflation. Had they been alright the burden would have been fine anyway. And Haughey had some cheek on him tightening the belt - his personal life was one thing but bankrupting the f*cking state to win elections is another. Do you claim that that was FF policy as well?

It wasnt just Haughy saw the debt as fundamental. Dukes agreed with it. And look what FG did to him for that?

Dukes did not deserve what he got. But he got that for the support which FG had at the time of his departure; and views for FG's support were too high in the post-"heydays" Fitzgerald era.

If that is true than why do other open economies with similar population NOT have similar growth?

Sorry I thought you were refferring to the factors "small" and "open". And other small, open economies may not have similar growth for, for example, our natural ability. Or access to free markets. Or suitable location right in-between the two largest trading blocs in the world, with keen historical associations with both. Or the quality of institutions like our own to fine-tune great graduates with feck all cash. Or
maybe it's just that we're Catholic and our prayers seeking retribution for the famine worked. Yes FF had something to do with it, but in my eyes as an economics student they cannot play the economics card again without smirking like the jokers they are.

It has something to do with it but we still trade (about a third) with the UK which we could have maintained even outside the EU.

Not really, as access to other markets helped our individual companies and ultimately our macroeconomy which threw up (for example) economies of scale that aided our trade to the UK.

We also trade (about 25 percent?) to third countries.

See above.

Indeed one can argue that free trade Zones like the EU actually close markets with tariff barriers. Why for example should the state subsidise farmers who cant compete with New Zeland farmers who get nothing from the state but have to pay tariffs to get into the EU market?

Although the CAP "needs to be looked at", it's because food is not a truly tradable good in a fragile post-war economy. We've never been hungry. I know the EU's agri-policies have ensured others have been, but we never have. Barriers are allowable for food when there's a chance of its shortage.

The open economists would have no trade barriers. That what G7 1/2 and Gatt are all about.

Hear hear, but you cannot possibly even begin to argue that the EU has not opened our trade up. Please don't. I'll feel sorry for you.

they can but perctionism was not permanent! Education reforms in teh sixties under Hillary/Lemass/O malley caused PERMANENT change enabling educated thirty somethings in the nineties. that is the argument.

Aye, that's true. Education reforms were great, fair play to FF. But Christ, should that give Bertie a third term? I've counted that in in my ~25% figure If you're going on like that where's the governmental terms for Michael Collins' political descendents?

....

Time Magazine

....

This is a handwaving argument.

It's not. At worst, it's an educated guess. Having researched in fairly fine detail about our growth, it's a fair assessment.

But accepting that figure out of the air we can also say based on the time and perparation in goverment and subsequent results that FG+Lab+GP+WP+SF+DL over the same period totalled 5% or less and the PD's got more than 5%. thats about 30% FF/PD and less than 5% for the other parties.

Well prior to you discovering that FG+Lab brought in the low corporation tax which you seemed to place fairly high (which it was), I think that alone helped more than the PD's have. And come on, including the Greens and Democratic Left in a tale of economic history? .

ISAW

Angry Banana wrote:

....It's not. At worst, it's an educated guess. Having researched in fairly fine detail about our growth, it's a fair assessment.

And if FF are responsible 25 per cent of the economy what percent are other parties responsible for?

Well prior to you discovering that FG+Lab brought in the low corporation tax which you seemed to place fairly high (which it was),

I
suggest you redo some of your "fairly fine detail"

http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/Press_Releases/19971124/423.htm

Bertie wrote:

I know that the 10% rate of corporation tax is of major importance to US investors in Ireland. I want to state clearly that the Government is committed to maintaining Ireland's pro-enterprise taxation environment.

We have decided to introduce a single low rate of corporation tax to apply across the economy. This will be phased-in over the coming years to eventually replace the current regime. The structuring and time-tabling of the changes are being actively pursued at present, in consultation with the European Commission.

Note the above meant moving tax up for certain sectors from 10 to 12.5 but moving everything else down!

Here is a bit of trivial gossip. It was eventually finalised in a meeting with only four people there. Bertie the President of the EU Commission and their two secretaries. Prodi's secetary was David o sullivan so maybe he was outvoted three to one It could possibly be the finest economic achievement by an Irish Taoiseach in the last two decades.


http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Ireland

In January 2003, the Ahern government lowered the corporate tax rate from 16 percent to 12.5 percent—far below the European Union’s average of 30 percent

Which is why transfer pricing is anot an aside but a central issue.

I think that alone helped more than the PD's have.

But the rainbow and Quinn were not in government in 2003!

ISAW

I'm not going to disagree with you there because it's right but yet also so hopelessly off the point. Transfer prices might lie about our productivity et al but it still reaps tax rewards. If you're going to make such off-topic assertions, I'd like to point out that the high profits recorded by firms via transfer prices greatly hindered the price of mushrooms in Slovakia.

It is not off topic. see my other (last?) reply just above this.

Sorry, meant 12.5% But yes, it was the current alternative that brought in the 12.5% rate honey...

Please dont patronise me it wasn't the rainbow brought in the blanket 12.5 per cent tax rate. I stand by what I said about all itish business moving to the 12.5 rate. See my other reply. I would like to indulge in this discussion more but I am getting tired. I mean physically tired. I am not well at at the moment and shouldnt be doing this. So forgive me if I cry off.

DubGuy

DubGuy wrote:

In that case you are clearly have no clue about the state of this country.

It's really a typical FF attitude. :rolleyes: Sly Tricksters and Criminals.

I have a very good idea about the state of the country.

But either way you clearly have no clue about the state of this country before 1995.

It's a really typical 'I hate FF at all costs' attitude. :rolleyes:

Thomond Pk

Watching Martin Cullen on primetime last night I can understand why people feel that way towards FF

Cronus333

Fianna Fail ; the glamour, the diplomacy!!

Kill me now....

Cronus333

Cronus333 wrote:

Fianna Fail ; the glamour, the diplomacy!!

The very reasons I like them!! In Homer Simpson's words

'first you get the sugar,
then you get the power,
then you get the wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimen'

Cork

Deleted User wrote:

But either way you clearly have no clue about the state of this country before 1995.

This is the crux of it all. Never has there been a period of economic prosperity and political stability in this country.

The government has to improve the running of the health system. There has been a massive improvement on waiting lists - but similar improvement is needed on hospital trollys.

This one might be geting more relevant again...

Chakar

Conor, I can assure you that the topic of discussion in this thread is indeed a big 'if'.

EDIT: I thought my point was obvious given my signature. My point was that I think it is a big 'if' that Fianna Fáil will be defeated in the election.

miju

as in if FF dont get back into power. i think most people on the streets would say its more as in when they dont get back into power

sceptre

Deleted User wrote:

I have a very good idea about the state of the country.

But either way you clearly have no clue about the state of this country before 1995.

It's a really typical 'I hate FF at all costs' attitude. :rolleyes:

Whereas I can clearly remember the state of the country before 1982. It wasn't a pretty place at all.