You were very dismissive of SF pre election and also very supportive of FG.
I was of the impression that you werenât interested in anything which would change that narrative.
people donât change viewsâŚthey look for views that reinforce their own.
1 Like
Farmer is getting upset here because every time he jumps in he is painfully out of his depth.
I donât think Regan would have an issue with that description either- especially how loose he is himself with calling other people things.
1 Like
And I still would be broadly - but no one can deny that SF ran a super campaign and captured a zeitgeist that FG didnât.
My preference at this stage would be that they are part of the next gov. I donât believe a good chunk of their manifesto but I think it should be put to the testo. Thatâs democracy and the electorate can then decide subsequently if theyâre happy or not with the delivered performance vs promises.
Iâm deeply uncomfortable with some aspects of their handling of the past and I think if they were heading for gov that a good Quid pro quo would be to partially address some of that. But Iâm also aware that lots of people donât care about that nuance I.e #gaffs
1 Like
You can try as much as you wish but I am not going to engage.
A bit like FFG with SF.
Iâm no tax / economics man - But Iâll admit that SFâs tax policy doesnt quite add up.
This is the problem with Aidan Regan and his âfield of studyâ which is dumbed down economics.
I donât necessarily disagree with the goal of raising our public housing stocks to that level, however all of these things have to be put into the context of Ireland. It is easy to demand that, how do you implement it? There is a falsehood out there that we can mass build public housing again in large estates without the costs.
Denmark do not have large estates, they have loads of small ones. They also have a vastly superior PT network. For every cost of a house, there is a further infrastructure one. Building up on DCC lands is all very well, but are there the adequate PT links? For every estate there will be NIMBYs and planning rights intruding. It really is not as simple as they always make out, and there is a lie out there that we can just start building en masse and replicate the costs of a small housing project managed by an expert working pro bono everywhere.
Youâve quoted my posts over and over so you are quite nicely. 
They might add up for a year or two but wonât beyond that.
In fairness, I can see the same argument with the FG tax proposal on the USC. I personally think it should be cut, but I also think we need to cut spending from lots of others areas.
If you arguing for a âNordic Modelâ on tax, neither works that well
and how did FG deliver on their last 2 manifestos, being in govt and all they should surely have significantly delivered on them?
1 Like
If you say he has dumbed down economics, Iâm not sure why you quoted them.
Who has said anything will be simple? A straw man?
Of their key 2016 ones anyway on news jobs, âmaking work payâ and public services
200,000 new jobs by 2020, removal of 70k from being long term unemployed and unemployment to down to 6%: Beat that easily.
10% CGT for start ups: achieved
USC abolition: meant to be never 5 years but clearly would not have been met by 2021 so thatâs a fail and their biggest one by far
Free GP for all children by 2019: partial
2nd free preschool year: achieved
25k new homes p.a. by 2020: on target here
Minimum wage increase to âŹ10.50 by 2021: on target here
Welfare increases: âŹ5 per annum has been achieved, think thatâs ahead of what was planned due to the FF influence
Hard to be sure on the new numbers of key PS staff (was around 11k), anyone have data?
I actually think, considering that they had an Independent and FF influence (and Brexit), that they might have actually met as many election promises as any other government in the history of the state has. The USC one is the glaring failure there. You can argue that a lot of those were economic and that the manifesto wasnât âambitious enoughâ on public services (which have struggled with the economy exceeding expectations) certainly but thatâs an opinion on government spending generally. Plenty said their manifesto was uninspiring in 2016 which is partly why they got such a kicking.
1 Like
youve neatly ignored the 2011 manifesto when they had the numbers to do lots of good work.
Iâll leave both manifestos here and let others be the judge as to whether they succeeded or failed
Well Iâve given 2016 already and you donât have a response.
I can look at 2011 but I would be quite certain all job targets were met with loud pronouncements on plans for bond holders and banks not. The amount of planned PS spending would have been higher due to Labour.
They were in a coalition at the end of the day though so donât give the numbers argument. Itâs very funny for example that SF and their supporters slammed Labour for being in government. Apparently SF being in a mandatory coalition with restrictions in control due to Westminister absolves them from responsibility when Labour were in a coalition government themselves and had imposed on them mandatory spending cuts by the IMF. 
no, youve cherry picked some line items from 2016. like i said Iâll leave it up to others, but id imagine theres a significant number of non deliveries in both manifestos.
Nope, theyâre the key ones there I see from the opening pages on their 3 core areas.
You can be a malcontent all the time but the facts are the facts.
I personally have issues with their performance. I think spending has outpaced what they forecast and it has been mainly on consumption rather than paying down more expensive debt and genuine investment. We should have the shovel in the ground on the Metro already.
the issues go far further than that. and im not being a malcontent. the 2011 was hugely undelivered, with the exception of jobs which was down mostly to DBEI, EI and the IDA
The two of ye are like 2 bald men fighting over a comb. Fg campaigned in the election based on the general shape of the economyLooking back on past elections the state of the economy was always what decided who won the election. This election was different . The electorate was more concerned about âsocial issuesâ . While fg may have delivered on economy, they were perceived to have failed miserably on social issues.