Robbed again

[micls]

When voting you are essentially voting as to whether the outgoing government have done their job well and to the nation's satisfaction.

This is where Id disagree. When voting I think your voting as to who you think will do the best job out of the candidates available. Obviously you would factor in previous performance but if I felt the 'other option' would do an even worse job then I would vote in the not so satisfactory outgoing government.

[jebus]

This is where Id disagree. When voting I think your voting as to who you think will do the best job out of the candidates available. Obviously you would factor in previous performance but if I felt the 'other option' would do an even worse job then I would vote in the not so satisfactory outgoing government.

But won't there always be doubts about the opposition? No matter where it is, or how badly a job the current government has done there will always remain the doubt that the opposition just wouldn't be able to cut it in government, it's what kept the friggin Tories in power for so long, and Fianna Fail voters are doing the exact same thing to us. Point is though, that if you are voting based on your doubts then we may as well do away with elections and just keep Fianna Fail there all the time, because there will always be doubts about Fine Gael. At least we know Fianna Fail can't govern a country ffs

[micls]

But won't there always be doubts about the opposition? No matter where it is, or how badly a job the current government has done there will always remain the doubt that the opposition just wouldn't be able to cut it in government, it's what kept the friggin Tories in power for so long, and Fianna Fail voters are doing the exact same thing to us. Point is though, that if you are voting based on your doubts then we may as well do away with elections and just keep Fianna Fail there all the time, because there will always be doubts about Fine Gael. At least we know Fianna Fail can't govern a country ffs

There will always be slight doubts based on them not having governed in a while on whether they can implement what they are saying they will and its not on that basis I wouldnt vote for them. It would be on the basis that I don't agree(think their any good) with what their trying to implement i.e. their policies.

I didnt vote Fine Gael as I had no confidence in some of their policies and as a leader Enda doesnt convince me in the slightest. Now I didnt vote Fianna Fáil either but if Fine Gael can be more convincing of their abilities then they might swing the votes of those who vote outside the big 2.

I still wouldnt vote for one major partly solely based on the inadequacy of another. They would still have to win my vote themselves

[Macy]

I don't agree with this at all. She's trying to build a lot of public services like the cancer centres and a new children's hospital and she's facing just as much opposition there as anywhere else.

Could you point me to the plan that gives the timescale for these new cancer centres rather than aspirations? She and Drumm certainly can't yet they're quite happy to run down the existing services in the mean time. Put in place the new centres, then close the existing ones, not close the existing ones with only bloody pipedreams as to when the centres of excellence will be open. While this is all going on, it gives the for profit private facilities a chance to get going, and sure then they'll be no need for public ones...

Frankly, I'm astounded that anyone would hold up the Children's Hospital as an example of Harney doing good and trying to do the right thing!

[Lionel Ritchie]

Disagree...
1) it suits her "vision" of Private healthcare to run down the public health system and make people desperate for an(y) alternative.
2) We'll wait and see where she goes after she leaves office. Afterall she's already quite literally in bed with IBEC, and look at where their chairperson ended up after booted out of the OPW. The Party against vested interests indeed...

I suspect we agree on more than we disagree on in the broader issue. Mary Harney has a "default setting" that private and privatised in general means slicker, faster, more efficient, more cost effective delivery of service to consumers.
It's not a view I roundly concur with as the primary responsibility of private and privatised is the generation of profit and dividend for shareholders. All else is froth and side-effect. This frequently leads to curtailment, degrading and termination of services as part of cost cutting/profit maximisation.

As for where she'll end up afterwards ...there's scarcely a former cabinet member who won't end up in a "consultancy" role for someone or other when their day in the sun ends.

[Clifford]

I don't agree with this at all. She's trying to build a lot of public services like the cancer centres and a new children's hospital and she's facing just as much opposition there as anywhere else.

She's not facing opposition to the Cancer centres, they are 10 years overdue. It's the fact they are closing 13 centres currently operating well in the main, on a promise that in 4/5 years these excellence places will be open. It beggars belief to be honest.

Edit, sorry only just saw Macy's much better destruction of this invalid point.

[pete]

It's not a view I roundly concur with as the primary responsibility of private and privatised is the generation of profit and dividend for shareholders. All else is froth and side-effect. This frequently leads to curtailment, degrading and termination of services as part of cost cutting/profit maximisation.

We already have private hospitals in this country & no evidence that their services so bad that you claim. Any chance of facts to back that up? I am not familiar with the full details of the current private hospital plans but it does seem strange to give large tax breaks for their construction but I suppose it no different than privatising the roads...

[Macy]

We already have private hospitals in this country & no evidence that their services so bad that you claim.

We don't have "for profit" private hospitals. Well I think the Beacon is, but hardly around long enough to judge (and btw who opened that?). The likes of the Mater and Blackrock etc are not for profit private hospitals - i.e. they're not driven by the bottom line.

I am not familiar with the full details of the current private hospital plans but it does seem strange to give large tax breaks for their construction but I suppose it no different than privatising the roads

Plus the land to build them on, plus public patients via the national treatment purchase fund. We also get the roads back after a fixed period of time.

[monutdfc]

Heard a good suggestion on the radio last week: if all members of the Oireachtas were barred from holding private health insurance the public hosptials would soon be in order!

That's why there is always such a fuss over A&E - it is one of the only parts of the hospital system where there is no differentiation between public and private and the middle class are shocked when they see how bad the public hospital service is.

[GavinZac]

Ah this little chestnut of a point. We don't know if they would or they wouldn't have. When voting you are essentially voting as to whether the outgoing government have done their job well and to the nation's satisfaction. It was obvious they hadn't and so should have been shown the door

No, that is not how you vote. You vote for who you think will best serve the nation for the future term. You're advocating a premiership-manager "someone else has to do better" style rotation of governments that would ruin this country.

but then again Irish people tend not to see the obvious do they? I mean you still think you're right most of the time don't you?

gah, not worth it.

[mypost]

Every election is a referendum on those in power, be it a President, or a Parliament. Looking at the waste of (our) money, time, resources and promises made by the last government, you have to ask, is it right for that government to continue doing the same to us for another 5 years?? If you think no, then you have an alternative to vote for. Then at the end of the next term, you analyse their performance again. That's the way elections work. They're not there to simply ratify the status quo. That's what happens in places like Zimbabwe. We haven't quite got that far.....yet!!

[GavinZac]

Every election is a referendum on those in power, be it a President, or a Parliament. Looking at the waste of (our) money, time, resources and promises made by the last government, you have to ask, is it right for that government to continue doing the same to us for another 5 years?? If you think no, then you have an alternative to vote for.

And you have to analyse the alternative. If the alternative is no better, or worse, simply voting the opposition because of the imperfect performance of the incumbants is idiocy.

[A face]

Honestly lads i think they deserve figures like this for their jobs. They are charged with running the country yet they earn less than directors of large companies, they are constantly in the public eye, work 15 hours a day 7 days a week, lead a relatively short life at the top of their profession and even an Taoiseach earns less than Stan was on!

Right, what you need to be asking yourself here is "Who is paying for it?"

And deserve doesn't come into the equation when you are under achieving.

[pete]

We (collectively) get the government we deserve. The fact that a few months after a general election 25% of FF voters responded to a poll saying they would not vote for them shows how we have a fickle & stupid electorate. You vote for someone to put into government for 5 years but change your mind a few months later - Health & Transport have not got any worse since the election.

[John83]

And you have to analyse the alternative. If the alternative is no better, or worse, simply voting the opposition because of the imperfect performance of the incumbants is idiocy.

And insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something different to occur.

See, I can label too.

[osarusan]

If the alternative is no better, or worse, simply voting the opposition because of the imperfect performance of the incumbants is idiocy.

No it isn't. If Fianna Fail were voted out, it would tell them that while the electorate doesn't really have much faith in the opposition, they (the voters) will not tolerate such contempt for the electorate that Fianna Fail has shown.

By voting them back in, using the argument that the opposition would be just the same, the electorate is condoning the behaviour of the government, which means the government will be under little pressure to rectify their errors.



oh, and seeing as you're such a crusader on spelling issues, I'm sure you won't mind me correcting you about the word "incumbent."

[mypost]

We (collectively) get the government we deserve. The fact that a few months after a general election 25% of FF voters responded to a poll saying they would not vote for them shows how we have a fickle & stupid electorate. You vote for someone to put into government for 5 years but change your mind a few months later - Health & Transport have not got any worse since the election.

People don't care about Health & Transport. What they do care about is cash. They were told that by voting FF again, Santa Cowen would come calling with a big bag of money for them in the first Wednesday of December. FG were seen to be not capable of it you see. Instead he's turned out to be Scrooge Cowen, warning us not to expect a giveaway budget, while awarding himself a hefty pay rise. So it's only now that people won't vote FF, when it's too late to do anything about it.

Why don't we hold elections in October/November next time, and people might actually make the correct X mark on the paper??

[GavinZac]

No it isn't. If Fianna Fail were voted out, it would tell them that while the electorate doesn't really have much faith in the opposition, they (the voters) will not tolerate such contempt for the electorate that Fianna Fail has shown.

Contempt? You want to know what contempt for the voters is?

By voting them back in, using the argument that the opposition would be just the same, the electorate is condoning the behaviour of the government, which means the government will be under little pressure to rectify their errors.

if my estimation of the opposition is that they will do no better, and can do worse, than the government in power, why would i vote them in? Fine Gael/Labour did not convince voters otherwise, and they should stop trying to blame their inadequacies on "dumb voters not doing whats best for them". That is contempt and a crushing show of weakness that will taint their party further.

oh, and seeing as you're such a crusader on spelling issues, I'm sure you won't mind me correcting you about the word "incumbent."

i am?

[osarusan]

Your original post-

And you have to analyse the alternative. If the alternative is no better, or worse, simply voting the opposition because of the imperfect performance of the incumbants is idiocy.

I take this to mean that if the opposition presents offers more of the same - "no better, or worse", you see no reason.

it would tell them that while the electorate doesn't really have much faith in the opposition, they (the voters) will not tolerate such contempt for the electorate that Fianna Fail has shown.

My post says that if the opposition, who offer "no better, no worse" were voted in, we would be no worse off in terms of government, but the party voted out would be forced to realise that they have to clean up their act, and not take electorate support for granted. Such an election result would show hem they will be held accountable for their actions.

if my estimation of the opposition is that they will do no better, and can do worse, than the government in power, why would i vote them in?
i am?

good effort, you just changed a few words, but the meaning is entirely different, as it allows for concerns based on opposition policy that were absent in your original post.

i am?

You are, "apparantly."

[GavinZac]

Your original post-
I take this to mean that if the opposition presents offers more of the same - "no better, or worse", you see no reason.

That would be "no better nor worse".

My post says that if the opposition, who offer "no better, no worse" were voted in, we would be no worse off in terms of government, but the party voted out would be forced to realise that they have to clean up their act, and not take electorate support for granted. Such an election result would show hem they will be held accountable for their actions.

Well, apart from that not being what I meant, why would change necessarily be good? I mean, if they're capable of doing the same job, that doesnt mean that they'd immediately be ready. There is something to be said for continuity and stability.

good effort, you just changed a few words, but the meaning is entirely different, as it allows for concerns based on opposition policy that were absent in your original post.

Its not my fault if you read the initial statement wrong. Its probably not yours either, right? Blame the education system or something...

You are, "apparantly."

You don't get irony either it seems.