Lack of debate on opposition's budget proposals

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,668
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
I'm a little surprised and quite disappointed by the lack of debate on p.ie on the opposition's budget proposals. We seem to be more concerned by a failed stunt by a SF TD than the economic future of the country, when the current government are removed.

Here is the FG proposal.
http://www.finegael.ie/polcol/a/36/article

While I don't agree with everything in it, for me this a well balanced, well thought out documeent, addressing the key issues and actually covering the four years (at a minimum) that it will take us to recover from the current mess.

As for Labour.
Blog archive » Labour Blog » The Labour Party

This is a shambolic, effort, barely covering a year, full of vague statements and failing to address key issues like the featherbedding in the public service.

More disturbing are the differences between he two parties that are almost certain to form the next government. It's very difficult to see them squaring the circle and coming out with any form of cohesive plan.
 


bobbysands81

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
946
The focus at the moment should be entirely on Fianna Fáil and how they've FF'ed this country.

By the way, as a self confessed Brit wannabe, what interest do you have in Irish elections given that you look to London on a constant basis?
 

mido

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
3,355
I am disappointed that the tooth fairy isn't real and I am starting to question the existence of Santa-opposition budget plans are irrelevant given the sell out by the greeds and ff
 

JMcGynty

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
278
I'm a little surprised and quite disappointed by the lack of debate on p.ie on the opposition's budget proposals. We seem to be more concerned by a failed stunt by a SF TD than the economic future of the country, when the current government are removed.

Here is the FG proposal.
http://www.finegael.ie/polcol/a/36/article

While I don't agree with everything in it, for me this a well balanced, well thought out documeent, addressing the key issues and actually covering the four years (at a minimum) that it will take us to recover from the current mess.

As for Labour.
Blog archive » Labour Blog » The Labour Party

This is a shambolic, effort, barely covering a year, full of vague statements and failing to address key issues like the featherbedding in the public service.

More disturbing are the differences between he two parties that are almost certain to form the next government. It's very difficult to see them squaring the circle and coming out with any form of cohesive plan.
Theres not much point in discussing them when they are not actually the real budget of the next government, Labour and Fine Gael are allready at loggerheads with each other over 6 billion and 4 billion, and over 4 years and 1 year, who knows what they will come up with when the are in government
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
I'm a little surprised and quite disappointed by the lack of debate on p.ie on the opposition's budget proposals. We seem to be more concerned by a failed stunt by a SF TD than the economic future of the country, when the current government are removed.

Here is the FG proposal.
http://www.finegael.ie/polcol/a/36/article

While I don't agree with everything in it, for me this a well balanced, well thought out documeent, addressing the key issues and actually covering the four years (at a minimum) that it will take us to recover from the current mess.

As for Labour.
Blog archive » Labour Blog » The Labour Party

This is a shambolic, effort, barely covering a year, full of vague statements and failing to address key issues like the featherbedding in the public service.

More disturbing are the differences between he two parties that are almost certain to form the next government. It's very difficult to see them squaring the circle and coming out with any form of cohesive plan.
There were 2 longish threads last friday
http://www.politics.ie/labour/144892-irelands-interests-labours-proposals-budget-2011-a.html
http://www.politics.ie/fine-gael/144884-fine-gael-2011-budget-plan-jobs-economic-growth-fairer-way-tackle-deficit.html

However I agree that much of the site is lately taken up by hysterical anti FF rants (a home for those that wouldn't be printed in the IT and too irrational for even the Duffy whine line, have a look at the comments about Lenihan on the civil war in FF thread to dee what I mean)

Your final point is interesting .... FG have made radical PS reform a central tenant for Government whilst Labour are trying to mop up the disaffected FF PS vote whilst lurching to the left to combat SF's rise ... if anything the two seem further apart than previous coalitions ...They will form a coalition without doubt but I personally cant see a Lab/FG coalition going more than 3 years
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
8,001
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
I also started a thread here giving people the opportunity to discuss teh SF proposal, and SF economic policies in general

The non SF posters just reverted to type calling SF baby killers and blood drinkers etc.. because they couldn't really manage a cogent economic argument against them
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,668
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
FG's proposals have 28 pages of comment since Friday (273 comments and 7,978 views) - http://www.politics.ie/fine-gael/144884-fine-gael-2011-budget-plan-jobs-economic-growth-fairer-way-tackle-deficit.html

Labour's proposals got 9 pages (82 comments and 3,929 views) Politics.ie - The Irish Politics Website labours-proposals-budget-2011-a.html

I fail to see your point.
Dave half the posts on the Labour thread seem to be from you just C+P the details, there was no meaningful debate.

The FG thread did get more traction, but we really haven't seen any engagement on the key issue of how two such disparate documents could be reconciled.

We're a couple of months away from these parties being in power and we seem to have no idea what we're going to get. I would have expected some issues but FG are far closer to FF and Labour to SF (and more especially their trade union paymasters)
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
Next government could exclude Labour

I'm a little surprised and quite disappointed by the lack of debate on p.ie on the opposition's budget proposals. We seem to be more concerned by a failed stunt by a SF TD than the economic future of the country, when the current government are removed.

Here is the FG proposal.
http://www.finegael.ie/polcol/a/36/article

While I don't agree with everything in it, for me this a well balanced, well thought out documeent, addressing the key issues and actually covering the four years (at a minimum) that it will take us to recover from the current mess.

As for Labour.
Blog archive » Labour Blog » The Labour Party

This is a shambolic, effort, barely covering a year, full of vague statements and failing to address key issues like the featherbedding in the public service.

More disturbing are the differences between he two parties that are almost certain to form the next government. It's very difficult to see them squaring the circle and coming out with any form of cohesive plan.
Maybe there will be a Fine Gael/Independents/Fianna Fail coalition given that Labour's traditional featherbedding of the public sector would lead to default on the bailout terms once interest on the national debt swamps the tax take in a few years.
 

bobbysands81

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
946
Maybe there will be a Fine Gael/Independents/Fianna Fail coalition given that Labour's traditional featherbedding of the public sector would lead to default on the bailout terms once interest on the national debt swamps the tax take in a few years.
Or maybe folk in the private sector could pay their taxes in full and on time.
 

adrem

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
924
I also started a thread here giving people the opportunity to discuss teh SF proposal, and SF economic policies in general

The non SF posters just reverted to type calling SF baby killers and blood drinkers etc.. because they couldn't really manage a cogent economic argument against them
SF don't kill babies !!! They had a private army to do that for them.
 
G

Gimpanzee

The non SF posters just reverted to type calling SF baby killers and blood drinkers etc.. because they couldn't really manage a cogent economic argument against them
In fairness, they were just gunmen and bombers who's bomb making buddies killed kids. Its a subtle distinction and I think you are right to point it out.

Now, I know you have difficulty with this, but is fair enough for people to take a hard line against those who blow people and stuff up in their name, when they really aren't cool with that sort of thing, and it is perfectly reasonable that they are unwilling to accept economic solutions put forward by these people.

But aside from all that, there really isn't much point in arguing the merit of SF's economic proposals when they pick their economic spokesman based on how many votes he got from hill billies who are used to sending Mary Coughlan to the Dáil. Or the fact that this spokesman thinks that developers will make a killing when property prices go back up to peak in 10 years time. But as SF's answer to Joe Behan, you seem desperate for an excuse to slink back to the comfort of the party and eulogising their economic proposals, that you know fully well are based on finding an unoccupied niche or contrarian position relative to the other parties rather than any real economic reality, is simply a case of saving face. You know they are bullsh!t but you promote them just like any other party hack here.
 

CptSternn

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
3,920
I also started a thread here giving people the opportunity to discuss teh SF proposal, and SF economic policies in general

The non SF posters just reverted to type calling SF baby killers and blood drinkers etc.. because they couldn't really manage a cogent economic argument against them
+1

That seems to be the norm in many threads here.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
8,001
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
In fairness, they were just gunmen and bombers who's bomb making buddies killed kids. Its a subtle distinction and I think you are right to point it out.

Now, I know you have difficulty with this, but is fair enough for people to take a hard line against those who blow people and stuff up in their name, when they really aren't cool with that sort of thing, and it is perfectly reasonable that they are unwilling to accept economic solutions put forward by these people.

But aside from all that, there really isn't much point in arguing the merit of SF's economic proposals when they pick their economic spokesman based on how many votes he got from hill billies who are used to sending Mary Coughlan to the Dáil. Or the fact that this spokesman thinks that developers will make a killing when property prices go back up to peak in 10 years time. But as SF's answer to Joe Behan, you seem desperate for an excuse to slink back to the comfort of the party and eulogising their economic proposals, that you know fully well are based on finding an unoccupied niche or contrarian position relative to the other parties rather than any real economic reality, is simply a case of saving face. You know they are bullsh!t but you promote them just like any other party hack here.
So SF leading the way for Labour to countenance increasing taxation for those earning over 100k was just a "contrarian position"..

SF's call for a universal healthcare system similar to the NHS is a bad thing ?

Or their call to cap salaries in the public sector ?

I left SF a few years ago, and made it clear why at the time. I still broadly agree with many of their policies.. but not all, otherwise I would rejoin.

However, unlike people such as yourself, I have moved on. I am not stuck in some 1970's Ireland, where the IRA still carry on their campaign.

Tis time for you to move on Gimp
 

CptSternn

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
3,920
It never ceases to amaze me that even loyalists in the North have moved on more than some people in the South.

It is of course fear which causes this. They fear losing the brown envelopes, back-door deals, and cozy relationships that parties like FF thrive on.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,644
Dave half the posts on the Labour thread seem to be from you just C+P the details, there was no meaningful debate.
What meaningful debate is possible? They came up with 1/4 of the required work. We can all take turns saying "That's stupid" but it's not really constructive.

The FG thread did get more traction, but we really haven't seen any engagement on the key issue of how two such disparate documents could be reconciled.
They can't. be reconciled. Trying to do so will make your head hurt. And it doesn't matter. You've a choice between a coalition which will probably collapse within 3 years or the party who have led the country to the IMF. Lab/FG could have a pro-puppy clubbing policy and still form the next govt.

We're a couple of months away from these parties being in power and we seem to have no idea what we're going to get. I would have expected some issues but FG are far closer to FF and Labour to SF (and more especially their trade union paymasters)
It's not the parties job to give you an idea of what you'll get. It's their job to get elected. In years where educating the voters will help them, then sure, discuss issues. It's not relevant here. FG and Lab fans here won't talk about how the coalition's going to work because no one knows if it will work, and if it does for how long.
 
G

Gimpanzee

SF's call for a universal healthcare system similar to the NHS is a bad thing ?
How does it weigh up against say, FG's plan for the health service - the Dutch model? Not just in the finished product but in how to get there? FG have set out a 5 year plan to get there. SF's are even more ambitious. Suspiciously so. Aside from vague references to 'genuine partnership and shared ownership' the isn't even an attempt to map out how this hugely ambitious revolution in the biggest and most expensive department would be achieved. Safe enough when you know you have no prospect of being asked to actually do it. That's finding a niche and exploiting it for votes, and has absolutely no effect what so ever on health policy.

Or their call to cap salaries in the public sector ?
Eh, who has a problem with that? Are you starting threads about other parties who advocate this?

However, unlike people such as yourself, I have moved on. I am not stuck in some 1970's Ireland, where the IRA still carry on their campaign.

Tis time for you to move on Gimp
Rock, if it was the 70's all over again, you'd be a supporter. Just like the FFers, it is all about faith and doctrine. You haven't moved on. Otherwise you wouldn't be looking back over your shoulder hoping to see if SF had managed to progress their economic credibility from Gerry's poor performance in 2007, so you can tick enough boxes to justify going back home. None of the other party economic policies are perfect, but I defy you to match up SF's and FG's against one another and honestly say that SF's are better when measured by the following criteria

1) designed to be workable as opposed to attractive to a voting segment

2) designed to stabilise public finances rapidly and provide for sustainability in the future

These are not ideological criteria, but they are fundamental. Everything else is pie in the sky without them and SF have been worse than Labour when it comes to detailing how they would manage this. And there is a reason for it. Labour know well that SF are only acting the maggot and they can't afford to provide a map for SF to position themselves. SF don't have to provide realistic solutions. Like someone at an auction who knows they will be the underbidder they won't be asked to see the colour of their money. It is nothing more than a vote sucking escapade. You know this. You have pointed out time and again recently what SF should do from a strategic perspective. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but there is no point in then pretending to be impressed at how SF are focused on providing a workable solution to the situation the country finds itself in. Move on Rock, and admit that FG's economic plan is better and don't be like the shy FFer's, always looking for reasons to support the party and not the country.
 

adrem

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
924
However, unlike people such as yourself, I have moved on. I am not stuck in some 1970's Ireland, where the IRA still carry on their campaign.

Tis time for you to move on Gimp
Rock - the problem is SF haven't moved on.

Moving on requires you to stop and review the past, realise that what was done was wrong, apologise for it and feel real remorse, condemn unequivocally their "colleagues" who (for example) killed garda Gerry McCabe in cold blood, blew up children in cold blood and resolve never to have anything to do with anyone who would be involved in such activities.

SF on the other hand have still never condemned the killers of Garda McCabe but want to be taken seriously as a party of government.

Prattling on about their great economic policies is simple a ruse to distract people from their position on the rights and wrongs of killing members of an Garda Siochana and innocent kids.
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,668
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
It's not the parties job to give you an idea of what you'll get. It's their job to get elected. In years where educating the voters will help them, then sure, discuss issues. It's not relevant here. FG and Lab fans here won't talk about how the coalition's going to work because no one knows if it will work, and if it does for how long.
I agree with most of what you have said but I take issue here. What's the point of a manifesto?

It's all well and good with two coalition parties having some difference in policy, but FG and Labour are MILES apart. The onlly thing that they seen to have in common is not tyouching the minimum wage and IMHO that should be a cornerstone in ANY four year plan.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,564
They can't. be reconciled. Trying to do so will make your head hurt. And it doesn't matter. You've a choice between a coalition which will probably collapse within 3 years or the party who have led the country to the IMF. Lab/FG could have a pro-puppy clubbing policy and still form the next govt.
Of course they can, all that matters is if the political will is there. Leaving aside a few examples like FG/Labour in 1977 (and they did just did it a month early), in every successful coalition (and there's been many both here and abroad) parties with different polices have managed to reconcile their differences and work together. An obvious example is the current Conservatives/Lib Dem government in the UK.

It's the nature of coalition governments, as if the parties forming the coalition had the exact same polices or close to it, then they'd be the same party.
 
Last edited:


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top