Just lost respect for Kenny

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well as I said there were 2 priorities; 1 was to ensure that FF were out, ending the culture of corruption, and 2 was a hope that they might have some balls and represent the country.

I take your point on the independents (it's far too variable, with a few decent ones and a few vultures like Healy-Rae and the likes of Lowry)

But the only other option is to not vote, and that's wrong too.

We really do not have anyone in this country prepared to do what's required, and that sickens me.

I've been asked about running for election and I've said no on the basis that I would probably last a week due to intolerance for the self-serving nature of what passes for a politician in this country.....promise everything and change nothing.

It sickens me that we are not only screwed by FF, but also by the lack of a party prepared to buck the trend and act towards a better, fair country.

There are other options .. you could choose to join one of the political parties and try to influence change from the inside . . or you could form your own party

Of course, one person cannot influence change but if enough good people chose to engage in the process then change could be brought about . .

Change will not come from the bulletin boards !

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If you hire a builder to demolish your shed, and he builds you a conservatory instead - you give him his marching orders.
If you elect a politician to cut expenses, and they increases taxes instead - you are powerless to do anything until the next General Election.

Caveat Emptor was fine when you could hold politicians accountable.
Like the Ancient Greeks or Romans did.
I was listening to Dan Carlin's podcast on the Roman Republic, they were frequently assassinating politicians for corruption, for lies, for populism.

Caveat Emptor no longer really applies in business.
The Sale of Goods Act; enhanced consumer rights; legal standards of acceptance and so on.
Business has moved on.

We have nothing like that in Irish politics.
Irish politics has moved backwards if anything.

Our political system is broken; politics is one of the only professions where you can lie through your teeth to get a job, admit you have lied when you have the job, then get to keep the job anyway.

We can and do fire politicians, though - and just did so. Fine Gael know that the mismatch between what they promised and what they'll deliver will cost them votes at the next election - and that's how the system works.

Short of tying political parties to a literal, legally-enforceable contract, I'm not sure what other system would work better. And who exactly would judge whether they had performed the contract? Surely that has to be the electorate, who would vote on their performance...oh...hold on a moment...

Crippling the state with unsustainable levels of debt, by paying off unguaranteed bondholders is not in the interests of the country. The only way we can return to the markets is by having sustainable levels of debt. That is the single most important clause.

So stop pretending that this is in the best interests of the state. It isn't.

We can all agree that having high debt levels is certainly not in the interests of the State...but we do...and as long as we're running a deficit in the public finances...which we are...we need to acquire more debt. And as long as we need to acquire more debt...which we do...the question is whether it is cheaper in the long term to repudiate some of the debt at the expense of potentially higher costs for the acquisition of more, or not. You can call for the debt to be repudiated simply on the basis that you consider it odious, but that has nothing to do with the long-term benefits of doing so, and hence the long-term good of the country.

If repudiating these relatively small amounts of debt means another, say, two years not able to return to the markets, and spending those two years having our policies dictated at least in outline by the troika, then repudiating the debt produces the opposite of the sovereignty Sinn Fein are supposed to be advocating - which suggests that it's simply populist sloganeering, and would be abandoned if ever they found themselves in government. That's the joy of opposition - the ability to make unrealistic promises that you would no more be able to fulfil in government than any other party. The problem comes when you actually get into government...as per the thread. Sinn Fein's promises are no more realistic - indeed, a good deal less so - than Fine Gael's, and the gap between promise and action would be correspondingly larger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Completely backwards.

Instead of lowering people's expectations and telling them they should accept that politics is caveat emptor, we should kick out those who lie and make empty promises, thereby making everything above board and acceptable.

Then the politicians will become honest in their claims and say "we WILL do X and we will TRY to do Y", and people can make and informed decision, rather than basing the running of the country on "who is the most convincing bull****er".

We should . . but that requires that we have others who will step up to take their place. . not a bunch of ragbag independents like Luke Flanagan and Mick Wallace who will achieve nothing, but a structured and organised group of capable and principled politicians. .

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well there's none that even represents me, so joining one isn't an option.

I might look at the latter option - I know that Biggins was contemplating starting one for the most recent election, and I might just tie in with that to avoid it being "just one person".

Its an option if you make it one . . Honestly Liam, having followed your views on boards for a number of years I doubt any party could represent you 100% . . but a parties 'representation' is developed by its membership . . If you choose to become involved, you get to influence that 'representation' . . It requires compromise of course but nothing was ever achieved without compromise

anymore wrote: »

I dont think anyone is suggesting repudiating the entire indebtedness ! Am I correct in saying that ? Indeed I seem to remember a former FG leader,( and an economist to boot ) now deceased who was happy to accpet a partial debt write off - no doubt I will get some stick for mentioning that rather inconvenient fact

Both this government and the last have written off whatever debt they've considered to be burnable without serious consequences. That which isn't being burned isn't being burned because the government sees there as being consequences to doing so which outweigh the savings made by doing so. We have had a partial debt write-off already courtesy of junior bonds.

One can certainly argue that the government is being excessively cautious, much like the ECB - but to claim that there simply isn't any question about whether it should be done is short-sighted and thoughtless.

Politicians don't want to do things that are unpopular. Making the bondholders suffer instead of taxpayers would be wildly popular, as well as improving the government's financial position. That both the previous government and this government have pursued this unpopular path suggests that there are strong reasons for doing so. Because, amazingly enough, politicians would like even Liam to be happy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Now that FF have already set it in motion, no.

My point was that if FF had "achieved nothing" we'd all be better off.

Part of the problem was the achieving nothing. . particularly where it comes to banking regulation.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah yes - your old friend Bertie's mate, appointed nepotistically because he was "my friend".

If only Bertie had "done nothing" instead of appointing that useless twit.

If only the smokescreen of those "financial regulator" ads wasn't just a pathetic attempt to be seen to do something, lulling people into a false sense of security.

If only whoever manufactured those ads had "done nothing", allowing us to actively question whether banks were behaving instead of giving us the false impression that Mr Mahon Tribunal's mate was acting in our interests.

But having done nothing about that, FF proceeded to NOT "do nothing" on that secretive September night.

'If only' indeed . . . 'If only's' are of little value at this stage. . I am more focused on looking forward . .

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

How I imagine it would work:
1) If a certain percentage of the population are unhappy with politician x, a petition requiring y% signatures from the electorate is conducted.
2) If the petition meets the criteria, people vote on a recall.
3) If the vote is successful, that politician is ousted - be it 4 months or 4 years into the job.

And replaced by...? I don't see how it changes the basic problem, and it does have the downside of continuous populism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Replaced by: By-election

No, replaced by: other politician, if you see what I mean.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I believe it would reduce continuous populism: If a politician knows he/she can't deliver on a promise, he is far less likely to make that promise, because there are consequences.

I'll admit I'm a cynic, but the current system merely offers continuous populism anyway, the rare exception being to satisfy insiders/vested interests (even worse imo).

Actually, it doesn't, quite. Fianna Fáil's regular habit was to make a lot of promises in the election campaign, make cuts and unpopular decisions as soon as they were in power, then ramp up spending and populism in the election year again.

I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying that we can assume a couple of things as constants:

1. people like to hear that they will get nice things
2. politicians like people to like them
3. everyone knows it's easier to promise than deliver
4. people forget exactly what nice thing was promised
5. people often object to things only in the short term

That, to me, means that the politician's reaction to constant threat of recall will be to make continual promises, lay claim to everything positive, and never do anything that runs even the slightest risk of being taken badly in the short term.

Should a government not have the ability to make decisions that are unpopular?

cordially,
Scofflaw