RTE:This week: Shortall vs Bruton

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
On rte1 now. They're being pretty polite about things, but it's hard to see how fg and lab will work together after the next election. Bruton's trying to avoid using the word "lie" about what she's saying so he's sticking with "misrepresentation". They're fundamentally opposed on too many aspects of tax. You can certainly see how FF end up in power so often.

No agreement on tax bands, tax rates, credits, ps redundancies or the longterm future of the tax system. Bruton's done a very good job, on point and dealing with specifics. Shortall was also present.....
 


darkknight

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,853
At he end, Mr. Crowley thanked "Richard Burton". I was waiting for him to refer to Roisin as "Liz Taylor"! :cool:
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,668
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
Interesting that Labour put Shorthall on and not Joan (nails on a blackboard) Burton. I thought Shortall did well, but Bruton won hands down. The key passage was the last couple of minutes when Shortall sang from her paymasters' (the public sector unions) hymn sheet.
 
Last edited:

PUFF DADDY

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
3,002
Interesting that Labour put Shorthall on and not Joan (nails on a blackboard) Burton. I thought Shortall did well, but Bruton won hands down. The key part passage was the last couple of minutes when Shortall sang from her paymasters' (the public sector unions) hymn sheet.
+1
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
Very assured performance from Róisín Shortall. Richard Bruton surprisingly uncertain.

Shortall's explanation that the 48% tax on individuals earning over €100,000 a year amounts only to an extra €13 a week was impressive.
It's made up though, the same way her figure of 18 euro a week from the dole under fg was made up. I don't think Bruton was uncertain so much as he was trying to be polite in the face of an opinion he patently thinks is juvenile.

Interestingly on the paymaster comment above, pat rabbit was on today fm earlier saying that FF were much better for the unions that lab would be as FF just gave out cash for nothing whenever asked.

Tony Killeen getting skewered on the economy, only really interesting thingwas his unambiguous support for cowen as the man to lead them in the next election.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,420
Shortall made a nice point on the way FF/FG see incentives - They believe that you incentivise poor people by taking money from them but you incentivise wealthy people by giving money to them.
 

bprob

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
678
Interesting that Labour put Shorthall on and not Joan (nails on a blackboard) Burton. I thought Shortall did well, but Bruton won hands down. The key part passage was the last couple of minutes when Shortall sang from her paymasters' (the public sector unions) hymn sheet.
the reality is that the only labour frontbenchers who appear to have the capability to hold a senior ministry are gilmore, quinn, rabbitte and burton. could anyone honestly see roisin shorthall as minister for social and family affairs, on which she is currently party spokesperson?

compare to FG. i'd be happy for noonan, bruton, varadkar, hayes, shatter hogan and reilly to hold senior ministries.

they are more equal when it comes to the less senior roles
 
Last edited:

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
It gave the impression that they had pre-agreed how to run this. Terribly polite stuff overall.
 

LiberalFG

Active member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
293
Twitter
@dmvmurphy
the reality is that the only labour frontbenchers who appear to have the capability to hold a senior ministry are gilmore, quinn and burton. could anyone honestly see roisin shorthall as minister for social and family affairs, on which she is currently party spokesperson?

compare to FG. i'd be happy for noonan, bruton, varadkar, hayes and reilly to hold senior ministries.

they are more equal when it comes to the less senior roles
And Rabitte!
 

bprob

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
678

civilserpant

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
674
On rte1 now. They're being pretty polite about things, but it's hard to see how fg and lab will work together after the next election. Bruton's trying to avoid using the word "lie" about what she's saying so he's sticking with "misrepresentation". They're fundamentally opposed on too many aspects of tax. You can certainly see how FF end up in power so often.

No agreement on tax bands, tax rates, credits, ps redundancies or the longterm future of the tax system. Bruton's done a very good job, on point and dealing with specifics. Shortall was also present.....
See, here's what I don't get. FG in their budget plan had 20k redundancies and a saving of 260m, yet labour have public sector savings of 400m without mentioning 'how' (ie: I asusme the redundancies Rabbittee mentioned on VinV a month ago).

So I actually see them as sharing the same ground here, but FG upfront about it and Lab not. As for Joan, the lady needs a day off, she's been on every media programme this week, there's more than her, Rabbitte and Gilmore.. even if it rarely seems so.
 

Bismarck

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
444
Shortall made a nice point on the way FF/FG see incentives - They believe that you incentivise poor people by taking money from them but you incentivise wealthy people by giving money to them.
This is rubbish - where do social welfare payments come from?
Who pays the most tax?
What are Labour proposing but taking money off rich people? Who gives them money?
 

civilserpant

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
674
Very assured performance from Róisín Shortall. Richard Bruton surprisingly uncertain.

Shortall's explanation that the 48% tax on individuals earning over €100,000 a year amounts only to an extra €13 a week was impressive.
I'd LOVE to see that, thats patently impossible unless she suggested someone on €100,250 a year would only pay €13 more a week.
 

H.R. Haldeman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,425
Roisin Shortall is single handedly making me disinclined to give Lab any pref at all. Her performance on VB a few months ago was so bad it was almost unbelievable, and here this morning she wasn't much better IMO. Labour seem totally unwilling to accept that anyone except for a mythical group of the super rich have to take pain. This seems delusional to me. And I am very disturbed by their dozy Keynesianism - this guff about not taking too much out of the economy for fear of killing the patient might be reasonable in a normal cyclical downturn, but to diagnose and treat our current maladies as if they were as a result of a cyclical downturn seems to be missing the big picture by a wide margin.

At the end of the day I'll probably end up putting numbers in some order or other beside FG and Labour names, but I'll be holding my nose doing it.
 

bprob

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
678
Jan O'Sullivan will make a much better Minister for Health than James Reilly, who is a world historical huffer and puffer.
he does himself no favours in presentation, but read the health policy he wrote.

also, i'd venture that if you asked posters here who are the opposition health spokespersons on health, more would recall reilly than o'sullivan. no indication of ability i know, but her profile is poor.

that backs up my point: labour fall back on the same few spokespersons all the time, as indicated by civilserpent who mentioned burton was on programs all week.

FG, in contrast, have spread around the speaking duties, and all the speakers were competent.

shorthall, on the otherhand, didn't know the brief. a 6th class student could figure out that the percentage tax increase she quoted was ludicrous
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,002
that the current employment crisis (which is causing the fiscal crisis) is being caused by too little money circulating in the economy. .
I suspect it is more complicated. A huge number of the unemployed were involved in the constructio industry or providing services to construction and even within that group, a large proportion were house builders. Even if we start upgrading water and sewage schemes, the skill set will be different. I'm afraid we are faced with the problem of how to eat an elephant - one bite at a time.
 

H.R. Haldeman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,425
What's your take on the big picture? It seems fairly obvious that the debt crisis was caused by too much money circulating in the economy and that the current employment crisis (which is causing the fiscal crisis) is being caused by too little money circulating in the economy. The macroeconomic issues have never been clearer.

My take is that we need a period of massive internal deflation. To try and avoid that by implementing policies to keep things buoyant until the situation improves (a Keynesian approach if my understanding is correct) assumes that we will at some point bounce back to...what? 2007 levels of tax, staffing and spending? 2006? 2005? Those were all bubble years that can clearly now be seen as such and should in no way indicate where we need to be.

The sad reality for me is that we were a poor country before the fake boom, and we'll return to being a poor country after it. So I don't buy your contention that too little money in the economy is causing harm to jobs (or, at least, that is is causing harm to long-term sustainable jobs). Lack of money in the economy is primarily squeezing jobs that were only sustained by the bubble anyway. Keeping money in the system now (whether by stimulus or a refusal to reduce government spending) simply prolongs the denial.

I am not an economist, so this is just a layman's take. But I feel very strongly that shooting for 2005 is utterly unrealistic. We need to set our sights on where we were in 2000 or 2001 and get there as fast as we can. Only at that point we can think of growth.
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
Shortall made a nice point on the way FF/FG see incentives - They believe that you incentivise poor people by taking money from them but you incentivise wealthy people by giving money to them.
The incentives of rich and 'poor' aren't uniform, therefore to apply a uniform incentive strategy across all sectors would be...................stupid.

I presume by poor we are referring to those on the dole. Not that I think its overly necessary, but the incentive to work should always be greater than the incentive to stay on social welfare. This is acheived by ensuring wages are higher than social welfare payments. One way FG are achieving this is by maintaining the minimum wage, and cutting employers PRSI instead.

I presume rich people are not on the dole. We need to incentivise them to work more and pay more tax, and or spend more, and pay more tax.
Of course, they must also pay their share of tax, and the tax burden should be greater on those who have more than those who have least.

I'm sure yourself, Roisin Shorthall and Dolores Ibrahimovic (sic) on this thread will soon get this nuance.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Shortall dithered about whether the 4.5bn was negotiable - Bruton was much more confident and stuck to his guns on the 6 bn figure. Now that they are going to have to debate actual policy issues FG will gain the upper hand - at least as long as they can keep Enda locked up.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top