QuoteWas very disappointed in Gerry this morning. A **** poor performance. Varadkar was very cool.
Actually having had a look on politics.ie I see that Adams was on Morning Ireland and seems to have performed very poorly, even Shinners are saying so. He could again prove to be one of SF's biggest liabilities.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Was very disappointed in Gerry this morning. A **** poor performance. Varadkar was very cool.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Varadkar is excellent in front of cameras and with the public, never gets flustered and always has answers. Very capable to trying sly digs in to his opponents whilst making proper points too.
People may say he's too young for the FG leadership but he'd honestly win them more votes than Kenny I believe
Surprised to hear that about Adams, I've never seen him so much as raise his voice in a debate.
I'd trust Varadkar as much as I'd trust Eamon Ryan, which is to say not at all. Douchebags both.
He'd cost them a lot too - although he's toned down the right wing stuff a bit recently, people have memories. They'd get no preference from me with him in charge.Originally Posted by jebus
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Varadkar thinks too highly of himself, is useless at football (horribly so) and believes that the world revolves around him. I have never voted or wanted to vote for him, he will be an embarrassment if he gets any decent role. Not to mention he's a two faced hypocrite. He backed Enda Kenny, then a day later went against him, then suddenly was back on side. It may have been orchestrated, however it's not far from his own personality.
Adams isn't the best leader, imo, he was dreadful in the debates in 2007, making himself look very uninformed at times. I think he can lead, but he did cost SF in the last election.
From the few prime time / newstalk political debates I have heard so far I have yet to hear anyone give a response to SF on their assertion that we should not have to pay bank debt? They all seem to switch to talking about soveriegn debt. Now I know people are going to say because of the steps the gov have taken they are one in the same. Which begs the question how can people who have brought us to that position accuse SF of being naieve economically? Am talking about the Greens,FF and FG here(as fg supported the measures.)
Couldn't agree more.
The panel seemed to scoff at Pearce Doherty last night, yet came up with nothing substantial in response.
No one has ever been able to tell me why we cannot get all these bondholders together and say:
1. We are sorry, but we cannot pay all of this money back.
2. You must accept a portion of the blame , as you lent irresponsibly.
3. We must negotiate.
We as a people, are being hoodwinked, by the majority of the main political parties into this " we must pay back all this debt or otherwise were dead " rubbish.
Our politicians guarenteed the banks over 2 years ago, and instead of getting in there and trying to fix them, they sat on thier hands and did nothing - waiting for the armageddon.
And they accuse SF of being naive ? Brilliant!
Real Ale and Billsthoughts, you've both woken my brain up to a point that I'd been missing despite it being obvious. I almost believe and I'm being deathly serious) that I've had my bs meter washed by the media. Okay, so JA isn't the most articulate at times, though this morning I read articles ridiculing him over his "naivete". I saw the same done to Pearse Doherty. I'd heard the same leveled against Caoimhin O'Caolain - despite his brilliance in matching the constitution, law and financial realities.
Labour voted against the guarantee, SF voted for it. I would have voted for it, in essence, though in a limited form, which is what the government said it would be. However they ignored the law and continued to dump cash into a black hole, destroying the economy. Yet SF get beaten for supporting it.
It has already been proved that by taking steps to pay back part of the debt, the markets move on.
Example - in 1998-9 foreign investors and companies were wiped out in Russia - the rouble went from parity with the dollar to 100/200 to 1 over night, actually. It took a while to settle and then the companies came rushing back in. BP got burned twice in Russia, the last time severely so. Yet they're back in with a JV, stating - "we're here to make money." The same would happen with Ireland. The German, French, UK and other banks are able to take the hit, so let them have it. Instead there are too many making millions off the debt burden on the Irish taxpayer.
I don't think that's quite fair. As has been pointed out on another thread, SF voted for the guarantee, which is what effectively tied bank debt to soveriegn debt.
Lenihan has already paid back alot of the bondholders, so that horse has bolted. The main opposition parties long advocated negotiated settlements with bondholders and a wind down of Anglo. There is also a question of how much of the bonds are now held by the ecb anyway, or banks under the ecb's remit (which was our big card in the IMF/EU bailout negotiations also fecked up by this Government). The main opposition parties also continually criticised the fact that the banks hadn't been sorted out.
Bottom line remains, that the main mistake was the blanket guarantee, particularly including Anglo, which the financial genius shinners voted for.
I'll be giving SF a pretty high preference, but they are saying what could've been done two years ago rather than dealing with the mess the next Government will have to try and clear up now.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
This is a slight twisting of events which has been peddled by the other parties since it happened. (in particular a terrified Labour) My understanding is Sinn Fein agreed to back the guarantee as an emergency measure but once the detail was revealed and the banks were found to be telling porkies they then withdrew their support and voted against the bill ratifying the Gaurantee, some weeks later??
Even if this isn't the case and Sinn Fein are being duplicitous, is it any less honest than Labours voting against the guarantee before hopping into the finance bill bed??
FF's(and the PDs tbf) economic policies ruined the country.
Labour gave the people of Donegal SW Frank "8 euro bonds" McBrearty as their by election candidate.
I don't think any one party has the monopoly on economic stoopid.
In bold is the point bank debt became sovereign debt. Not the the guarantee.
Thanks Lim, the guarantee, as an initial response, had to be done. It was needed to keep the public calm and to ensure that the banks (thanks to their stupidity) didn't go bust. Labour were well within their rights to vote against it, and SF were right, along with FG, FF and the others, to vote for it. It was expressly stated that this was a response to the situation and that it would be a blanket guarantee that would be for a set amount of money (up to 3billion I think). It was to be reviewed and measures taken. However Lenihan and co, and their backers, then obfuscated the situation and brought us to where we are today. SF consistently called for a halt and so too Labour and FG.
No party, as you say, is above recrimination. But it won't stop the media from peddling half truths to keep any sort of threats to the paymasters out of substantial government.
I find VB one of the most honest political shows in Ireland, not that it is much of an achievement.
He does sometimes wind up his guests, he knocks them off balance and takes them out of their comfort zone so that they arent as comfortable manafcturing their generic responses.
It is in no way Jerry Springer like, its alot more Paxmanesque.
He doesnt stand for the politicians bull**** and makes alot better viewing than RTE massaging FF's ego.
As for Joan Burton last night, like another poster said I wasnt sure what to make of her before seeing that.
But after viewing that, what an embaressment, she was a disgrace on the show.
I don't want to duplicate again, but the reason Labour voted against was because it was a blank cheque and they didn't have the full facts and full cost of the "cheapest bail out in the world" (copyright B Lenihan). The SF stance is the same as the FG, who also did the same.
Once the Government stood over the debt, it became tied to the sovereign. They could have withdrawn the guarantee, but whilst that was in place they were tied together.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I wouldn't call VB paxmanesque by any stretch of the imagination, he hasn't half the talent of Paxman. I'd put him somewhere in the middle. I'd still prefer to watch his show though, everything else is just a love-in, the pols involved might as well strip off and get into it.
That'd give FF's suddenly rejuvenated candidates an unfair advantage.
You keep your Mary O'Rourke fantasies to yourself!
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I was thinking of Michael Martin's referring to himself as "a young man" on TV last night. I forget the programme - Frontline probably. Hands up who thinks 50 is "young"?
His style of interviewing is alot more confrontational than the tame RTE product.
Granted he is nowhere near the quality of Paxman but it is of the same school where both Brown and Paxman take politicans out of their comfort zones with regurgitated lines and actually get some level of truth that the farcical RTE could never manage.
But he is in no way Jerry Springer like, that is fairly ridiculous tbf.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks