Congrats to the Government...

Victor

Deleted User wrote:

Yes. On the basis of that whole 'a butterfly flaps its wings' theory one could link the government to almost everything.

Indeed, they are the ones who put themselves up for election, to govern. They are abdicating on quite a few of their responsibilities.

Do you think that drivers should sometimes accept responsibility for their actions?

I hold each and every driver responsible for the road incidents they are involved in. However, one can't really hold them responsible for incidents not of their making. I can however blame the government, when the don't do enough about the systematic nature of road deaths.

They put in place a penalty points sytem, that so focused drivers on coping on, that we had the lowest annual death total in 40 years. For three months deaths were down 30-50%. However, for the last 3 years they have let the system wallow in unfinished paperwork and most of the offences intended to attact points, haven't been added yet. One wonders were they trying to protect Jim McDaid and GV Wright?

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics98/nroadstats.html

BERTIE! GO GOVERN!

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote:

The suggestion that somehow road carnage is FF policy is just a cheap shot.

The policy seems to be one not of of saving lives
but of making grand but empty statements & having great photo-ops.

Thus, we have sub-standard cycle facilites that have to be shared with cars, & token enforcement of road safety regulations.

Whatever happened to the ban on using hand-phones while driving or cycling?

Cork

Calina wrote:

What sickens me about this country is the total abdication of personal responsibility.

If idiots sit in drunk into a car & drive. There should be pessonal responsibility.

Blaming government for the stupid wrecklessness of idiots is wrong.

In no country, do you have garda checkpoints on every road.

Don't equate participation in the SSIA scheme with support/agreement for the scheme

Well - It shows that you are supporting the scheme. Hopefully they'll launch a pensions iniatative soon.

Victor

You are confusing individual and group responsibility.

Cork wrote:

Blaming government for the stupid wrecklessness of idiots is wrong.

How about I go postal and murder someone every day for a week, or a month or a year. 365 murders a years caused by me alone.

Do you think the Garda Commissioner would still have his job? Even if he said "us gardaí didn't commit these murders, we are not responsible"?

murphaph

Conor, the funny thing here is that you'll happily give credit to FF when things go well, but seem ill at ease blaming them for things that go badly. You can't have your cake and eat it. They are the government, they are not governing all that well. I also voted FF last time :mad:

Cork

Victor wrote:

Do you think the Garda Commissioner would still have his job? Even if he said "us gardaí didn't commit these murders, we are not responsible"?

OK If we are serious about drink driving - let us ban drinking and driving.

Irish people cannot have it every way.

Victor

Victor wrote:

I hold each and every driver responsible for the road incidents they are involved in. However, one can't really hold them responsible for incidents not of their making. I can however blame the government, when the don't do enough about the systematic nature of road deaths.

Fair enough. I certainly appreciate the points you make. But what is your judgment on the abilities of Brendan Howlin, Labour TD and Minister for the Environment, when he presided over the worst carnage ever in 1996? Why is that year omitted from you list? Is the suggestion that FF may not do it to your liking, but still a sight better than the opposition, just too unpalatable?

Would it not suggest - perhaps, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - but would it not suggest to you that this crowd are bad, but the others were even worse? I suspect that one could also compare car numbers between now and 1996 and discover that the volume of traffic has increased considerably in that time. Would you really vote against FF on this issue and happily see perhaps another Labour Minister try out the same role again? I mean, given their past performance, one could suggest that you are gambling with real lives...

bonkey

Cork wrote:

If idiots sit in drunk into a car & drive. There should be pessonal responsibility.

There is. Thats why the law punishes people who break it.

However, the government's responsibility here is twofold - firstly to try and control issues (prevention) and secondly to ensure those who remain out of control are brought to account (punishment).

There is a problem. There is insufficient action being taken (or at least the perception of such inaction exists) to try and control this problem.

So either the government is remiss in its duties, or there isn't really a problem but merely the perception of one.

To defend the government in this regard is to suggest the latter is the case. Victor's figures - to me at least - would suggest that it is more a case of the former.

Blaming government for the stupid wrecklessness of idiots is wrong.

As has been (at least partially) pointed out, there is gaping flaw in that logic when drivers on a provisional licence are allowed to drive alone, drivers can gain a license without having formal or legal experience on an entire class of road (motorway), and (arguably) where drivers are not subject to subsequent retesting given sufficient provocation.

I'm not going to comment on the implementation of the points system in Ireland because I don't have enough information to judge it.

In no country, do you have garda checkpoints on every road.

No, you don't.

Consider though that the Swiss have introduced (or have tried to, or are about to...not 100% sure) a measure to say that if you are exceeding the posted speed limit by a certain amount (which is dependant on the posted limit), you stand to lose your license for life.

Why did they do this? Because of the increase of "boy racer" incidents. They didn't stand back and say "we're not responsible for the growing problem these idiots are causing". They said "what can we do to stop them".

Agree or disagree with the draconianism of the measure, I can only applaud them for identifying a problem and tackling it head-on before it reached monumental proportions.

Your stance would suggest that you would say the Swiss government wasted their time because its not their problem that idiots are killing and/or putting at risk innocents simply because they like drving stupidly fast.

Well - It shows that you are supporting the scheme. Hopefully they'll launch a pensions iniatative soon.

And if, like the SSIA, its a scheme which benefits the moderately-well-off-or-better, will people also deciding not to lose out be equally applauded for ignoring the plight of those less well off than them?

There is a distinction between taking advantage of something and supporting it. Unfortunately.

jc

Calina

bonkey wrote:

There is a distinction between taking advantage of something and supporting it.

jc,

that's only your opinion. For my part if I felt something was wrong or scandalous, I wouldn't exploit it to my benefit. If you think taking cash filled envelopes is scandalous, would you take advantage of any that came your way? The fact that the SSIA might be legal is of no major relevance if you have a principled objection to it based on it benefitting a particularly section of society. If you take advantage of it - or exploit it - you're tacitly supporting it.

Calina

Victor wrote:

You are confusing individual and group responsibility.How about I go postal and murder someone every day for a week, or a month or a year. 365 murders a years caused by me alone.

Do you think the Garda Commissioner would still have his job? Even if he said "us gardaí didn't commit these murders, we are not responsible"?

I don't think this is a good analogy. The point is not that the GC is abdicating responsibility because he didn't commit the murders. In this case, his responsbility is to catch you. His abdication in responsibility here would be to not even try. The question of the gardaí not committing the murders is of no importance here.

Regarding the road carnage/responsibility thing, it strikes me that there are too many people out there whinging that there's not enough enforcement. To a certain extent that is true. But enforcement of traffic regulations starts with self, and frankly, I think it's obscene that there are people who think that it's the government's job to stop them killing themselves and other people.

I've spent some time in Finland where, with the total absence of any speed controls on wide empty roads, cars are stuck to the 100kph speed limit.
"Just because you can" is not a good excuse for driving recklessly there. Here, it appears to be.

Personally I'd like to see life driving bans for repeated driving offences. And I'd like them to be unappealable. Sky high insurance doesn't appear to be enough of a deterrent for some people.

Tuars

Calina wrote:

frankly, I think it's obscene that there are people who think that it's the government's job to stop them killing themselves and other people.

Calina wrote:

Personally I'd like to see life driving bans for repeated driving offences.

Should we "self enforce" these life bans on ourselves or should we debase ourselves with the obscene thoughts that maybe the state might do its duty and enforce them. Or is that just more whinging?

Calina

Tuars wrote:

Should we "self enforce" these life bans on ourselves or should we debase ourselves with the obscene thoughts that maybe the state might do its duty and enforce them. Or is that just more whinging?

On your part you mean?

Let me try and put this simply.

Currently, a lot of people are whinging that it is the state's fault that they break traffic regulations. If the state would only prevent them from it, the world would be much, much better.

I think that if they only recognised that the buck stopped with them, and behaved accordingly, the world would be much, much better. Do you really think that every person needs a watcher to prevent them from breaking the law, or is that just too 1984ish for me?

That said, the idea that people might just take responsibility for their driving is not incompatible with the idea that the state might just police and enforce traffic regulations. Do you have a problem with this idea?

Tuars

Calina wrote:

That said, the idea that people might just take responsibility for their driving is not incompatible with the idea that the state might just police and enforce traffic regulations. Do you have a problem with this idea?

No, but you seem to be absolving the state of its responsibility for enforcing the laws of the land.

If I drive within the law then I believe I have the right to some protection from the state against those people who are a danger to me on the roads. I cannot guarantee my safety on the road by just obeying the law myself. My only recourse against the dangers posed by others is through the mechanism of the state (or maybe by buying a HumVee).

As you say the two ideas are not incompatible but as this thread is focusing on the brilliant performance of our glorious government it is probably more on-topic to point out its shortcomings in providing the resources to enforce the law.

As regards people taking responsibility for their driving, the reality is that there is a significant minority who are not doing so. We can wish all we like that it was otherwise. Lack of enforcement of traffic law plays a huge part in this attitude.

There are two ways to approach this: one is to wash our hands of it and say that the level of carnage is an acceptable trade-off for the savings on law enforcement costs, the other is to invest more in law enforcement to try and reduce the level of carnage.

MrPudding

Cork wrote:

OK If we are serious about drink driving - let us ban drinking and driving.

Irish people cannot have it every way.

Ban whatever you like but unless the government suppply the resources who will enforce it?

The government cannot have it everyway either. I am sure I am not alone in being fed up watching minister after minister wringing his hands after each screw up promising this and that and delivering nothing.

On the subject of SSIAs, I have one. Do I support this government? No. Will I vote for them? No. Do I think the SSIAs were a good idea? Maybe. Would I have been an idiot to not take one out? Yes.

Calina

Tuars wrote:

No, but you seem to be absolving the state of its responsibility for enforcing the laws of the land.

As it happens, no I'm not and to suggest so is to take a very simplistic view of things.

Tuars wrote:

If I drive within the law then I believe I have the right to some protection from the state against those people who are a danger to me on the roads. I cannot guarantee my safety on the road by just obeying the law myself. My only recourse against the dangers posed by others is through the mechanism of the state (or maybe by buying a HumVee).

I haven't suggested otherwise. Incidentally, there are no Euro NCAP ratings for the HumVee that I can find, and if you're going for a large SUV, it looks like the Volvo XC90 is probably the best, being slightly less lethal on pedestrians than, say the VW Touareg, which has the advantage of better child protection (albeit lousy environmental stats from what I remember). As an anecdotal note though, my experience is the the worst drivers on the road are the ones driving large SUVs.

Tuars wrote:

As you say the two ideas are not incompatible but as this thread is focusing on the brilliant performance of our glorious government it is probably more on-topic to point out its shortcomings in providing the resources to enforce the law.

That said, I would venture to say that an additional issue is not merely funds for enforcement. I could be wrong in this, but I understand that there is occasion on which people get driving bans rescinded or at least reduced on appeal due to heartfelt pleas involving job loss and the like. I thought the judiciary was independent of the government. What's the point in policing if the judiciary is consistently lenient? And the fact that a significant number of drivers spend their time trying to get off their driving charges only emphasises my point that a significant number of drivers are trying to abdicate their own responsibility.

Tuars wrote:

As regards people taking responsibility for their driving, the reality is that there is a significant minority who are not doing so. We can wish all we like that it was otherwise. Lack of enforcement of traffic law plays a huge part in this attitude.

Although my experience is purely anecdotal I would question "significant minority". I would venture to suggest it's closer to "significant majority" actually.

Tuars wrote:

There are two ways to approach this: one is to wash our hands of it and say that the level of carnage is an acceptable trade-off for the savings on law enforcement costs, the other is to invest more in law enforcement to try and reduce the level of carnage.

At no point have I stated that I was against your second option there and in fact, over on the commuting board I've argued in favour of the introduction of more, and more obvious speed cameras, a practice, which in France, will lead to a cut in road deaths of approximately 2000 this year in comparison to five years ago.

It is only by compelling people to take responsibility for their actions will you get them to learn to be responsible for them. I've no principled objections against enforcement. I do, however, see a nuancical difference between blaming the instruments of the state for drivers' actions and blaming the instruments of the state for not enforcing regulations in place. It is your average driver who makes a conscious decision to run a red light, or cut people up on roundabouts, or fly down the M7 at 200kph. He or she cannot rationally plead that "it's not my fault cos the government didn't stop me."

Unfortunately, by putting all of the burden of prevention on the government, I get the impression that you're absolving said driver of responsibility. But surely, I must be wrong.

Still no sign of a comment about Brendan Howlin's record?

I am surprised...

What's next on the 'we hate FF at all costs' agenda today then?

tba

A billion euro deficit, or surplus is not bad, evil, great, super, mega, bogus or a government conspiracy. It is, quite simply inefficient. The government is not a profit making group, neither is it a charity however.

The budget set out is a spending plan, incomes and out goings are calculated on its inception. Compulsory taxes such as income tax can be estimated within reason, however secondary taxes are harder to pinpoint, as public spending dictates its level. Government expenditure would seem to be a simple equation, spend more if you have a surplus, less if visa-versa. However a "valve for money" concept coupled with the PD desire to drop taxes means that the current administration wants less money to pass through its hands.

As such The concept that the FF/PD coalition should be commended for returning a profit is a corporate response, they should be as close to on budget as possible.

This thread appears from its origins to be a political fan boy parade, thinly veiled beneath a barrage of statistics, dates and irrelevant examples.

The topic of discussion is "Budget under runs, and their political implications", not "I love/hate/undecided FF"

Tuars

Calina wrote:

I do, however, see a nuancical difference between blaming the instruments of the state for drivers' actions and blaming the instruments of the state for not enforcing regulations in place. It is your average driver who makes a conscious decision to run a red light, or cut people up on roundabouts, or fly down the M7 at 200kph. He or she cannot rationally plead that "it's not my fault cos the government didn't stop me."

For me the nuancical difference, as you put it, is between me taking responsibility for my own actions on the road and having to - by some means unknown - somehow take responsibility for the actions of others as well in order to guarantee my safety.

Calina wrote:

It is only by compelling people to take responsibility for their actions will you get them to learn to be responsible for them.

Calina wrote:

Unfortunately, by putting all of the burden of prevention on the government, I get the impression that you're absolving said driver of responsibility.

But if it's not the state then who will do the compelling? What means do I have as a private citizen to compell others to drive responsibly? Abosolving the said driver of responsibility is irrelevant since they have already absolved themselves of it.

bonkey

I do, however, see a nuancical difference between blaming the instruments of the state for drivers' actions and blaming the instruments of the state for not enforcing regulations in place.

Not to mention that both of these are also different to blaming the state for not modifying regulations when it becomes clear the current set are insufficient.

Unfortunately, by putting all of the burden of prevention on the government, I get the impression that you're absolving said driver of responsibility. But surely, I must be wrong.

I dunno if you're wrong, but I haven't seen a single poster here suggest that the driver comitting the infraction is not at fault, nor that the lack of action by the government in dealing with a clearly serious problem means the drivers are excused from their actions.

Its not a binary equation. its not "the driver is wrong or the government is wrong". Both are wrong. The driver is at fault for his/her personal choice to drive in accordance with the law. The government is at fault for not reacting to what is clearly a serious societal problem caused by such drivers. As has been pointed out, the courts are possible also somewhat at fault for being overly-lenient on drivers, although I withhold judgement on that until I saw figures showing a clear relationship between sentence leniency and the probability of repeat offence.

So maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen people put all burden of prevention on the government. They have simply refused to accept that the government is without blame. Saying that the government carries a responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the driver also carries responsibility, but that seems to be the logic being (ab)used here.

jc

tba

tba wrote:

Compulsory taxes such as income tax can be estimated within reason

As such The concept that the FF/PD coalition should be commended for returning a profit is a corporate response, they should be as close to on budget as possible.

But Capital Taxes are presumably harder to guage, as they will be based on matters such as the bouyancy of the market and feel good factors. For example, one could suggest that on the face of it a wealth tax would add to the revenue income, but imho such a tax would see the complete collapse of stamp duty and CGT in this country as people will race to invest all their money overseas.

I don't agree that the Government are mere bookkeepers. In fact, a differing analogy is that running a country is like running a busines, and if that business realises a massive profit then those in charge deserve a pat on the back, not criticism for underestimating returns.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Saying that the government carries a responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the driver also carries responsibility, but that seems to be the logic being (ab)used here.

Not by me. My logic is simple. How do the present figures compare with those under the last Government?

Culchie

Deleted User wrote:

Still no sign of a comment about Brendan Howlin's record?

I am surprised...

What's next on the 'we hate FF at all costs' agenda today then?

What about Brendan Howlin, who cares? I certainly don't.

Arguing or debating a point with you Conor is absolutely impossible. You are too smart for me, I can't win, I'm only stressing myself trying to get any reasonable point of view accross.
You're like the 3 wise monkeys all rolled into one, see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil (about the government).

Traffic, Hospitals, Schools, Childcare, Bertie Bowl, National Aquatic Centre, E-Voting Machines, P-Pars, PULSE, Digital Hub, Donegal Garda Corruption, Kebab Slurring, Michael Kelly fiasco, Cecilia to consumer Council the list goes on, no-body held responsible for anything...it makes me sick.
However your debating skills are better than mine, like Bertie the Teflon man, I can't lay a finger on you, I admire your slipperyness !

So, I 'll sign off my short political career here with the only words that hopefully will get this government's attention. Maybe not now, but soon.

I'll be damned if I ever give another vote to them, and I swear that, over my dead body, never will I ever vote FF again.

I just hope hundreds of thousands of people think the same, and act on it.

I have my vote at least, if not a voice that will be listened to.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Not by me. My logic is simple. How do the present figures compare with those under the last Government?

I don't know. I suspect by your continued asking of the question that you do know, and that they are lower under the current lot. Indeed, you've asked so often that I'm not inclined to go and look it up, because if you care that much and don't actually know you can google for it yourself. If you do know, you can tell me. Anyway... Being "slightly less sh1tty" wouldn't rank as a very high accolade in my book, however, so I'm not entirely sure where the logic is in your line of questioning. You're not qualitatively judging them, simply seeing whether they're relatively better or worse. If you see that as a good enough benchmark, fair enough, but I would ask that you at least have the honesty to applaud the government only for being "not as crappy as the last guys" rather than for actually doing a good job. jc jc

Culchie

Culchie wrote:

What about Brendan Howlin, who cares? I certainly don't.

Thank you.

Finally, someone has had the courage to stand up and say they don't really care about the opposition, the track record of others, the comparison between this Government and the last, whether figures have gone up, down or sideways. This is the point I was making, that people are just consumed by antipathy towards this government and don't care about the facts. So pointing out matters such as the fact that road safety has improved on the basis of the stats linked by Victor ar entirely irrelevant to them.

murphaph

Conor, how do you think the government has handled the transport crisis, given that they have been in power throughout it's development?

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Thank you.

Finally, someone has had the courage to stand up and say they don't really care about the opposition, the track record of others, the comparison between this Government and the last, whether figures have gone up, down or sideways.

I'd readily admit it had you asked for it in a straightforward manner. As I've already said, I don't believe being "the least worst option" is in any way laudable, but thats all that such comparative analysis will give you. I'll applaud any and every action taken which I believe to be a genuine improvement, and will weigh those up against the number of areas where clearly-needed action is not being taken, or where idiocy is reigning in order to come to an overall assessment of any government. jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

I'd readily admit it had you asked for it in a straightforward manner.

Deleted User wrote:

Still no sign of a comment about Brendan Howlin's record?

I am surprised...

What's next on the 'we hate FF at all costs' agenda today then?

Didn't think I could be more straightforward.

bonkey

I'm sorry, but I still don't equate

a comment about Brendan Howlin's record

with

the opposition, the track record of others, the comparison between this Government and the last, whether figures have gone up, down or sideways.

If I were to comment on Howlin's record, I would do so in a manner consistent with how I have been insisting is the only sensible way to judge the current government - not by comparative judgement, but by a qualitative one.
So its only straightforward if - as you apparently do - one believes that comparative and not qualitative judgement is the benchmark by which we judge the merit of action/inaction.
Me, I'm still trying to understand how being better than Howlin would actually have any bearing on whether or not the current government was doing a good job.....unless one were to show that Howlin did a good job in the first place. And how can you figure out that if you're only going to ust comparative analysis?
Face it Conor....your basic argument boils down to "we should applaud the least worst option", and mine boils down to "we should applaud people for doing laudable things, not for merely being the least worst option".
If two doctors killed patients through negligence, but one of them only killed every second patient while the other was killing three in four, your logic would applaud the former for not being quite as negligent as the latter. Mine would want both sanctioned for being unacceptably crap.
Your Howlin reference, and your belief that it was a clear suggestion that we should judge by comparison both only serve to confirm that.

Cork

We have better roads today. We have a pelenty points systems and lower drink driving limits. Comparing Howlins record is crazy. Are we do see Howlins record as a yard stick of success?

In 2003, 336 people were killed on Irish roads, relecting the impact of
penalty points in changing driver behaviour. This is the lowest figure for
road deaths since 1964, and

This clearly shows that pelety points work.

But motorists have become complacent.

bonkey

Cork wrote:

We have better roads today.

Arguably we don't.
The increase of motor-vehicle quantify and performance over the past 30 years has vastly outstripped any change in our road-system.
Thus, one could readily argue that the roads we had in the 60s and 70s were less of a problem for the traffic of the day than the roads we have today are for today's traffic.
Unfortunately, most of the improvements on the roads seem to be all about bringing them to a late-20th-century standard...and should be completed just in time to become obsolete and in need of upgrading.
Its better than nothing, but it still smacks of a government throwing money at a problem rather than a governent investing in a solution.
At a guess, in 10 years or so, we'll have Cork2010 telling us :
a) How the government has ploughed more money into the roads than any other
and
b) How pouring money at a problem isn't enough, and that we need to spend it wisely and get value.
...bit like the current Cork tells us about the Health System