Dáil to vote on Bailout

[Purple]

Perhaps you missed the point. Labour wanted to see it voted DOWN, not voted through.

So they called for a vote knowing that they would lose and then said that the vote was cynical? Good to see Happy Gilmore up to his usual populist tricks.

 

[DerKaiser]

Wow one minute response time, you really are on an election footing Complainer!

Sorry, didn't realise they had lost interest once they realised they weren't going to win the vote.

But what's with the criticism of holding the vote?

 

[Complainer]

But what's with the criticism of holding the vote?

The criticism isn't on holding the vote. The criticism is on passing the vote.

There was a fair-to-middling chance that the vote would have failed, given the Govt's dependance on independents, and given the state of things within FF. There is also the trifling matter of the constitution. They were the good reasons for having the vote.

 

[DerKaiser]

There is also the trifling matter of the constitution. They were the good reasons for having the vote.

OK, so the political posturing was not a reference to holding the vote then?

Do I take it that the political posturing referred to was the winning of the vote?

If that's the case, you have to admit they're some shower alright with their 13 straight years winning dail votes.

Anyone would think they were running the country or something.

Imagine forming a government from TDs in the dail and ensuring you had enough votes to to pass whatever legislation you thought was needed.

Oh yeah, some pack of chancers with their dail majorities....

 

[Complainer]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. They don't have a Dail majority. They are dependant on the votes of independent TDs to get these votes through. But I'm sure you'll find yet something more to complain about, so I reckon I'll just leave you to get on with it now.

 

[DerKaiser]

Thanks for your input, it's 100% clear now

 

[shanegl]

Not sure if you noticed this, but Labour don't have a majority either. They can't even get independents to support them. That's why they're not in government by the way.

 

[onq]

Poor Eamonn.

Perhaps he's starting to realise that merely being a good public speaker cannot convince the electorate of Labour's competence.

[broken link removed]

Governments shouldn't come and go on the basis of opinion polls.

They're put in to do a job and sometimes the job is difficult and unpopular.

My concern is that none of the opposition look like they'd do a better job than FF.

We should have exams for politicians on important matters of governance, as opposed to whether they know the law [Barristers], serve papers [solicitors] or pull a pint [Publicans].

None of these abilities matter a damn when you're steering the ship of state through stormy seas.

They might get you some respect on your local resident's association [though even THAT is doubtful], but put them in power and you can expect a continuation of the backslapping croneyism they thrive on to suport their businesses and political advancement.

ONQ.

 

[Complainer]

Not sure if you noticed this, but Labour don't have a majority either. They can't even get independents to support them.

Congratulations on your 20/20 hindsight. It is a great skill to be able predict the outcome of a vote after it has happened. Unfortunately, those who actually do the politics don't have the luxury of waiting till afterwards to know the result.

There was a a fair-to-middling chance that some of the independents and/or FF backbenchers would vote against the deal. It didn't happen this time round. That doesn't mean the decision to push the Govt to put this to a vote was wrong.

Poor Eamonn.

Perhaps he's starting to realise that merely being a good public speaker cannot convince the electorate of Labour's competence.

[broken link removed]

Not a great poll for Labour all right. However, it is worth pointing out that Gilmore still has the highest satisfaction ration of all the party leaders, and Labour's numbers are still way, way up on previous elections.

Governments shouldn't come and go on the basis of opinion polls.

They're put in to do a job and sometimes the job is difficult and unpopular.

Fully agree. And if you think the current Govt is unpopular, just wait and see what happens when the next Govt gets a year or two into its term and has full visibility of all the messes left behind by FF.

My concern is that none of the opposition look like they'd do a better job than FF.

One of the opposition parties wouldn't have signed us up for the unlimited bank guarantee that has cost us about €50 billion.

We should have exams for politicians on important matters of governance, as opposed to whether they know the law [Barristers], serve papers [solicitors] or pull a pint [Publicans].

Not so sure about this. These folk do their exams in public view with every meeja interview. They do their job interviews in front of a panel of 100,000 decision makers every five years. If the voters can't make the right decision with all the information that is available, I'm not sure that we should be blaming the politicians.

 

[DerKaiser]

One of the opposition parties wouldn't have signed us up for the unlimited bank guarantee that has cost us about €50 billion.

Just to add the usual balance.

That €50bn was lost to us by the events prior to 29th September 2008. Loose credit and lax regulation that went unchecked throughout the boom left us in a position that there was no maneuvering out of on that night.

 

[Complainer]

left us in a position that there was no maneuvering out of on that night.

That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. There are plenty of experts who have pointed out alternative options for that night, that would not have cost the taxpayer €50 billion.

 

[Purple]

That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. There are plenty of experts who have pointed out alternative options for that night, that would not have cost the taxpayer €50 billion.

Can you point out the alternative that the Labour Party proposed and how they costed it?

 

[DerKaiser]

That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. There are plenty of experts who have pointed out alternative options for that night, that would not have cost the taxpayer €50 billion.

Yeah, me saying that the cost of the banking crisis was largely irreversible by September 2008 is an opinion, as much as your belief is an opinion (i.e. that a Labour solution, presumably involving letting Anglo collapse with depositors, bondholders and the ECB taking the hit and all the collateral damage along with that course of action, would have saved the state €50bn).

Or am I wrong and everything you state is fact (including your hypotheses on things that have never happened)? In which case I humbly apologise for expressing opinions in the ignorance that everything being said here was fact.

Just as an aside, I don't like you referring to the €50bn cost as being to the taxpayer. It is to the state. They're not the same thing.

 

[Complainer]

Yeah, me saying that the cost of the banking crisis was largely irreversible by September 2008 is an opinion, as much as your belief is an opinion (i.e. that a Labour solution, presumably involving letting Anglo collapse with depositors, bondholders and the ECB taking the hit and all the collateral damage along with that course of action, would have saved the state €50bn).

I'd pretty much concur with your view that the damage overseen by the Govt was irreversible by Sept 2008. The Labour solution would have ensured some degree of sharing of the cost amongst those who bought the risk, instead of putting the entire cost onto the State.

Or am I wrong and everything you state is fact (including your hypotheses on things that have never happened)? In which case I humbly apologise for expressing opinions in the ignorance that everything being said here was fact.

In fairness, I don't think I've ever claimed infallibility, but perhaps you'll prove me wrong on that. You're right in that I am talking about a hypothetical situation. The fact remains that FF did sign up to an unlimited guarantee, so no-one can speak with absolute certainty about what would have happened if other options were chosen. Still, €50billion worth of damage leaves a fair bit of wiggle room.

Just as an aside, I don't like you referring to the €50bn cost as being to the taxpayer. It is to the state. They're not the same thing.

True enough. It is a cost to all citizens of the state, not just to taxpayers. Though I'd guess that pretty much every citizen in the State, with the exception of young children are taxpayers of one form or another. Even if they're only buying a packet of Smarties, they are paying tax.