"Compulsory sick leave for Civil Servants"..statement by Michael O'Leary in SIndo

[Green]

I have never seen any information about the occupations of individual voters nor do I believe any exists except maybe private polls by parties.

No it was a joke. Private sector employees were implied to be a fault for FF remaining in power, so to use the logic, continually pushing for more money under benchmarking to keep pace with house prices, fuelled the bubble.

As I have said above earlier, I don't know what class or type of employee voted for FF, all I do know is that about 38% of the voters did so. There are many different and varied factors which fuelled the bubble to various degrees but I think that is a debate for a different thread.

 

[Green]

Latrade's logic is completely sound, if not encompassing the full spectrum of who is to blame. The unions have been at the top table of government for the last 10 years; they are one of the socialist partners.

Yes, his logic is sound but does not take all the factors into account and I would suggest that these others factors had a bigger affect on the bubble that wage inflation.

 

[Purple]

Yes, his logic is sound but does not take all the factors into account and I would suggest that these others factors had a bigger affect on the bubble that wage inflation.

Wage inflation and lending multiples are, IMO, the biggies.

 

[Sunny]

Even taking out the property bubble, wage inflation in this Country was unsustainable from a competitiveness point of view and yet not one member of the social partners came out and shouted stop. It was a cosy relationship between Government, Trade Unions and Big Business. ISME wasn't even allowed to negotiate as a full member and were the only ones saying enough is enough. Look around and see the people who are really suffering now. Small businesses who were not represented during those talks and are now paying the price.

 

[Latrade]

No, it didn't. My intention was to highlight one particular deliberate lie made by Michael O'Leary and to criticise the reporter in question for not checking his facts in this particular case, given that it would have been very,very easy to do so.

Mea culpa, though it did, quickly, come through that the view is there is an anti-PS/CS agenda. However not, as I gave the impression, in the original post.

Yes, his logic is sound but does not take all the factors into account and I would suggest that these others factors had a bigger affect on the bubble that wage inflation.

Which was a point I was trying to make several pages ago when the topic changed to how if there was disquiet against benchmarking prior to the collapse (which there was) people shouldn't have voted for FF. However, there are too many factors involved to justify the unjust (i.e. benchmarking, or the system established rather than the principle) on the basis of private sector employees voting for FF. As you said, 38% voted them in, hardly a ringing endorsement.