Who are these FF supporters?

[TarfHead]

Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?

One thing that FF have done, considerably better, than FG/LAB is to be an effective opposition.

When FG/LAB were last in power together, FF battered them from the Opposition benches, specifically the then Minister for Justice Nora Owen. Compare then to now, when the Opposition have much more ammunition, and the contrast is stark.

 

[csirl]

One thing that FF have done, considerably better, than FG/LAB is to be an effective opposition.

When FG/LAB were last in power together, FF battered them from the Opposition benches, specifically the then Minister for Justice Nora Owen. Compare then to now, when the Opposition have much more ammunition, and the contrast is stark.

If there were an election, the FF benches would be seriously depleted. They also would look bad for criticising whoever is trying to sort out their mess - no doubt that whoever is in Government next will use the "you created this mess" mantra in all their replies to FF questions and the public would have little tolerance for mud sligging from FF politicians. Its even possible that FF may not even be the biggest opposition party [nobody has considered that, with their current poll figures, if FG did some effective vote managent, they may be in a position to go into coalition with some of the lesser parties/independents rather than Labour].

 

[Mpsox]

Do posters think that a FG/Labour government would have taken such (any?) decisive action last year?

I'm not convinced they would have because of the idealogical differences between the parties.

Would the banks still need billions from the taxpayer?, absolutely. Would FG and Labour have agreed how to do it,? questionable. Even if they did, hard to see how they would agree to increase taxes enought to allow the country to avoid the cutbacks in public sector spending required. I could never see Labour standing up and voting for swinging pay cuts in the public sector. I could never see FG standing up and voting for massive (and I mean massive, not just 1% on income tax or a tweak to VAT) tax rises in order to avoid such cuts. I believe such a govt would have ripped itself apart by now

 

[cork]

Labour (apart from Sean Sherlock) lack the bottle to stand up againt public sector unions.

The offer nothing but glib comment.

Armchair generals

 

[gunnerfitzy]

Were FG/Lab in power I would imagine we would have got at the very least:

1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners.
2. Anglo wound up.
3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off.

 

[Purple]

Were FG/Lab in power I would imagine we would have got at the very least:

1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners.
2. Anglo wound up.
3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off.

Why do you think so?

 

[z107]

FG = FF.
At best I would call FG, 'FF lite'

 

[Arabella]

FG = FF.
At best I would call FG, 'FF lite'

My sentiments exactly.

 

[gunnerfitzy]

Why?

My personal views...

1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners = Its pretty obvious that FF have a 'special' relationship with senior civil servants. Of the top CS/PS earners who were in receipt of the performance related pay bonus that apparently now was an integral part of salary, how many would have been promoted by FF? No such relationship with FG/Lab. Lab more conscious of those on low pay.

2. Anglo wound up = again we seem to have a 'special' relationship with FF. loans contarty to leading policy given to senior FF officials. Would FG/Lab have formed the view that this bank was of 'systemic importance'? Does anyone else in the country other than FF believe this?

3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off. = I do believe FG would fire incompetent, negligent or dishonest ministers or public servants far quicker than FF. I remember some FG ministers getting the boot the last time they were in power. Last FF minister to get the sack?

 

[Lex Foutish]

Not sure I'd agree, Fitzy. FG are the very same as FF, in many ways. I remember John Bruton, as Taoiseach, twisting the truth one time and his way out of it was claiming that he didn't give the full story because he hadn't been asked the right questions.

Mpsox made a great post on Page 4 of this thread. I also voted FF last time round but who can I vote for next time? I'm in Cork South Central. Should I vote for FG? Deirdre Clune is an embarrassment and is only there because her father, Peter Barry, was a TD. Simon Coveney is also the son of a former TD, though he inspires a little more confidence. Ciarán Lynch of Labour comes across well but a vote for him is, ultimately, a vote to put Enda Kenny in as Taoiseach. Enda is a nice guy, I'm sure, though he's proven he's capable of of speaking out of both sides of his mouth also. I think he'd be a wishy washy Taoiseach and, to quote Jim Kemmy, If Enda attacked you, you'd probably feel like you'd been savaged by a dead sheep!

I went to see the Four Angry Men in The Opera House last week and the four of them were scathing in their criticism of the Opposition.

People are queueing up to vote FG and Labour next time round. Does anyone seriously think they'd be much different to the present shower?

What is understood doesn't need to be discussed!

 

[gunnerfitzy]

I do agree Lex that FG/Lab appear shaky. Is this caused by such a long time in opposition? I don't know. TarfHead made an excellent point that FF are much better in opposition than FG/Lab. I think there may be a mind set in the parties. FF view themselves as the natural party of power and any time in opposition is a failure and nothing must be spared in the effort to return to power. FG/Lab I feel view themselves as the natural parties of opposition who come to power occasionally when FF slip up but don't really seem that pushed about it.

 

[Caveat]

FG = FF.
At best I would call FG, 'FF lite'

Can't remember who right now, but there was a comedian who had a routine where the main political parties were compared to breakfasts. Something like: FF are 'the full Irish fry' - traditional, familiar, you've got everything there in the mix...but it's all a bit greasy.

FG - well, they're the same really except maybe grilled instead of fried?

Greens were meusli I think - all very modern and continental & you know it's good for you - but could you be bothered?

Etc - very good I thought.

I think there may be a mind set in the parties. FF view themselves as the natural party of power and any time in opposition is a failure and nothing must be spared in the effort to return to power. FG/Lab I feel view themselves as the natural parties of opposition who come to power occasionally when FF slip up but don't really seem that pushed about it.

I agree.

 

[csirl]

FG = FF.
At best I would call FG, 'FF lite'

I'm not sure I would agree with this. FG are clearly a conservative centre right party and their policies consistently sit in this area. FF are just a populist party. They have no consistency in their policies. FF promotes a gombeenman mentality which is bad for the country.

 

[Latrade]

Why?

My personal views...

1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners =

2. Anglo wound up = again we seem to have a 'special' relationship with FF.

3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off.

I think the only one I'd say was a possibility is the 2nd, however I have my doubts as to whether if in power and faced with the sudden situation, they would have. Let's not forget that most of their rhetoric is coming from a position of Government says or does one thing so we immediately say the opposite. I'm sceptical that their posturing on Anglo is only because it wasn't wound down. If the government had, I'm 100% sure the same people within FG and Labour would be putting forward economic experts to say why Anglo should have been saved and the government were wrong.

I'm not knocking you or your points directly, you at least put forward some examples. But...

As for 1 and 3, I'd say with some confidence they definitely wouldn't. 3 was out of anyone's hands given the pay offs, no matter how despicable, came from contracts of employment. The government couldn't do much about it.

As for 1, I think Gilmore's statements last week defending the higher paid Civil Servants and their salaries show that Labour aren't exactly the voice of the lower paid.

Having said that, there are things I think FG would have done differently and better.

While I think there would have been little difference in how the immediate storm of the banks would have been handled, I do think there would have been a more speedy process of establishing the whys and hows and dealing with that. It would have been in their interest as a newish government to show the blame lay with the FF governments. I also think they wouldn't have buckled so easily to the senior bankers and appointments of CEOs and CEO pay.

They're little things, but would have made a big difference.

I think we'd have had very little in the management of the crisis at a policy level and I don't think we'd have too much difference in how the PS pay had to be tackled. Again, it's fine to talk about reform and lengthy processes when you don't have the EU and IMF breathing down your necks looking for their money back.

 

[Complainer]

I'm not sure I would agree with this. FG are clearly a conservative centre right party and their policies consistently sit in this area. FF are just a populist party. They have no consistency in their policies. FF promotes a gombeenman mentality which is bad for the country.

Very true. I spoke to one Labour minister of the 92-97 who found that FF were pussycats to deal with on any policy issue, because they basically had none of their own. They were quite happy to let Labour get on with the policy stuff while they looked after their constituents. Dealing with FG ministers was another matter, though they did manage to work together successfully.

As for 1, I think Gilmore's statements last week defending the higher paid Civil Servants and their salaries show that Labour aren't exactly the voice of the lower paid.

So referring to it as a 'sweetheart deal' is now considered to be a defence?
[broken link removed]

 

[Bronte]

As for 1, I think Gilmore's statements last week defending the higher paid Civil Servants and their salaries show that Labour aren't exactly the voice of the lower paid.

.

What do politicians have to fear from higher paid civil servants? What power or knowledge do the civil servants have?

 

[Latrade]

So referring to it as a 'sweetheart deal' is now considered to be a defence?
[broken link removed]

Cheers. You're correct, I was way off with that statement, corrected in original. I can't even blame the media, I had completely mixed up my own interpretation of what he'd said and didn't bother to look over the text.

 

[gunnerfitzy]

What do politicians have to fear from higher paid civil servants? What power or knowledge do the civil servants have?

Please tell me there is scarcasm in there?

While idealists may think that the Government run the country the fact is that it is being run by the civil service. Governments come and go but the CS carry on running the country based on policy decisions from Government.

The government gets the information it requires to make policy decisions from the civil service. Ministers get information to answer parlimentary questions from the civil service. Civil servants are expected to advise an individual Minister on matters so he/she can make an informed decision. What happens if they 'forget' to include some information? Would it be hard to 'lead' a Minister a certain direction?

 

[cork]

Were FG/Lab in power I would imagine we would have got at the very least:

1. Higher income earners in the public sector taking a bigger hit than the lower income earners.
2. Anglo wound up.
3. People like Neary/Molloy getting the sack instead of a pay off.

Did Fg/Labour not over see the 2nd mobile phone licence?
How much would it have cost the state if Anglo was wound up?

Labour are typical armchair generals - always the glib comment.

No wonder they were rejected at the last election.

 

[Complainer]

How much would it have cost the state if Anglo was wound up?

Now that's a really great question - I guess you are implying that it would have cost the State more to let Anglo go bust? If so, perhaps you can clarify what costs would have arisen for the State in letting it fail, by comparison to the €4 billion to date pumped in to keep it alive?