Machine Nation Irish Politician of the Year - Last Day for Nominations - Polling Starts Tomorrow

I've been thinking about this thread since it started. I've seesawed between throwing a major amount of muck and settling on gentlemen like Michael D. and Joe Higgins. But gentlemen, to me, just don't reach the spot - my politics are vastly different.

There's nobody that represents me. I'm unrepresentable. And that's scary, because I'm quite easygoing, I'd put up with quite a lot and would be willing to meet most folks somewhere in the middle, just to get stuff done. I'm not saying that I'd be as flexible with regard to being represented, but damn it, I'm not that rigid!

As an anarchist, I've only ever voted once (in a referendum, when I was a lot younger and even then it followed a decent period of not having voted). And I regret even doing that.

Political mandates and models aside, I wan't what most others want: decent educational system, decent justice system, decent healthcare service and a general caring for my fellow people. I'm not so different to the majority. It's my honestly held belief that there's not a politician in Ireland who can help achieve these things. The political party system, I feel, is part of the root of this issue (myself and Ibis touched on this a while ago).

The party system must go. And the man or the woman who can achieve this is more than worthy of my vote. Alas, I don't think I'll be exercising my right to vote anytime soon.

Here are your amendments evercloserunion.

Most of these people have only one vote each. Only those with two or more will go forward into a poll on the portal - everyone will be able to vote again for the short list. We'll close the nominations at the end of this week - so if you want to see your best and worst on the portal, and you haven't voted yet, now is the time.

cactus flower wrote:

Time for a running total -

Nominated as best:

Joan Burton
Bertie Ahern
Richard Bruton
Joe Higgins
Leo Varadkar
Declan Ganley
Eamon Ryan
John Gormley
Patricia McKenna
Batt O'Keefe
Noel Dempsey
Eamon O'Cuiv
Eamon Gilmore
Kerrynorth (!)
Michael D. Higgins
David Norris
Mary Lou McDonald
J. O'Reilly
Sean Sherlock
Joe Casey
Brian Hayes
Ciaran Cannon
Mary Harney

Nominated as worst:

Bertie Ahern
Brian Cowen
Richard Bruton
Mary Harney
James O'Reilly
John Gormley
Mary O'Rourke
Declan Ganley

A very thin spread - but a few of the above have more than one vote and are heading for the short list.

Brian Lenihan has managed to achieve invisibility so far.

toxic avenger wrote:

I agree entirely about the education cuts, priorities all wrong, bloated public sector untouched, quangos untouched, not good at all. But from their point of view, not mine, O'Keeffe did the right thing, he took the argument head on and wouldn't budge, the first to do so. That, and again I stress from their point of view, was a good example of political backbone. It doesn't mean I applaud what they're doing on health, welfare, and education.

But this astonishes me toxic. What the guy said and did was patently wrong, inhumane and offensive. Why translate those qualities into their inverse in order to make them up as being somehow laudable? Are politicians to be exempt from the norms of ordinary decent behaviour? This is exactly the phenomenon I was trying to get at earlier. Time was when a nasty person was simply a nasty person whether they were a politician or a farmer. When it comes to political commentary there seems now to be some sort of inverted logic at work whereby the more unpleasant and aggressive a person is the more he or she will be described as e.g. 'firm' (a bully) or 'pragmatic' (ruthless about negative consequences for the vulnerable) - or whatever.

This stuff is pernicious - a corruption of morality and fairness that the media in particular has managed to persuade itself is clever - and out through which so much political viciousness is escaping with little more than a complacent smirk by way of media commentary. Journalists have invented this language of political euphemism when discussing politicians and the reason is not difficult to understand: it allows them to escape the necessity to tell the unadorned truth so they won't upset anyone important and to be thought of as a safely clubbable member of the political/media/big business party. Thus we had the total sell out of the Green Party to get into government being described as 'political maturity' - and screeds more vomit-making evasions of reality by the fourth estate.

In plain ordinary meaning, Batt O' Keeffe behaved like an ignorant bully - intimidating a group of people who did not deserve it and who had every reason to be outraged. It makes me sick to think that anyone could find a way to actually admire that. Will we find him speaking in the same terms to the bankers, stock brokers, investment analysts and others who so richly deserve it? Will we hell! Contrast and compare the infuriating condescension with which the electorate are being made to eat up their greens - and the fawning tones with which the government and the media address themselves to the reprobates who got us into this mess. It wasn't teachers and it was not the public sector who did this. Why are these people being scapegoated now? Easy. Because it takes the spotlight off what the neocons are getting up to under our noses, which is an insidious programme of further incursions onto the principle of social provision under cover of the financial crisis. In other words these bastards are busily cementing into place even more extreme versions of the very policies that have already brought the world to its knees - things they could only have dreamed of even a few of months ago. I was struck while watching the budget by the revolting slyness on the faces of Lenihan, Harney et al - they know exactly what they are doing. The medical card fiasco was a bad judgment call but the fact is they are getting off scott free with most of it. We can't afford to be simpering coyly about any of this - pretending that there is any sense in which any of it can seriously be thought of as having worth. It's neither funny nor clever.

As for the 'bloated public sector'!!! Jesus, we've just witnessed the handing over of 500billion euro to the seriously messed up private sector! There was no 'shirking' the 'necessity' for this when previously the government has refused paltry sums to projects such as rape crisis - has spent millions taking the parents of autistic children through the courts to ensure they are denied a decent education. The money has all gone to the same bastards who had all the while been enjoying outrageous largesse from the public purse over the last 15 years and more. Subsidies, grants, tax concessions, start up funds - you name it - billions have gone out the door, no questions asked. Much if not most of that money is unaccounted for because the captains of industry are very testy about having to prove whether or not this expenditure is value for money in terms of the economy as a whole. And yet here we are describing Batt O' Keeffe as having 'spine' because he is so arrogant and unconcerned in the face of all of this that he can seriously think of beating up on teachers! WTF!!!! It's unreal!

There is only one section of the public sector which I'd reserve anger for and that's the quangos set up by our government to bring in privatisation - to undermine the public service ethos of the public sector. No amount of money is spared on employing these raping gangster-managers - even while recruitment freezes were being imposed on nurses, doctors, social workers etc - long before this 'crisis' hit. They have huge salaries and achieve nothing in terms of improved service. That's not what they're there for. But that's a whole other subject worthy of close scrutiny. But for now can we all, puh-leeze, at least give over admiring the offensive crap spewing from government mouths at the moment. It makes me want to top myself when I see this stuff being described as politically admirable.

cactus flower wrote:

Time for a running total -

Nominated as best:

Joan Burton
Richard Bruton
Joe Higgins
Leo Varadkar
Declan Ganley
Eamon Ryan
John Gormley
Patricia McKenna
Batt O'Keefe
Noel Dempsey
Eamon O'Cuiv
Eamon Gilmore
Kerrynorth (!)
Michael D. Higgins
David Norris
Mary Lou McDonald
J. O'Reilly
Sean Sherlock
Joe Casey
Brian Hayes
Ciaran Cannon
Mary Harney

Nominated as worst:

Bertie Ahern
Brian Cowen
Richard Bruton
Mary Harney
James O'Reilly
John Gormley
Mary O'Rourke

A very thin spread - but a few of the above have more than one vote and are heading for the short list.

Brian Lenihan has managed to achieve invisibility so far.

Interestingly, Richard Bruton, John Gormley, James O'Reilly and Mary Harney get a place on both the "Best" and "Worst" lists. I guess that these were more in the public eye than many of the one-list nominees. Personally, I would put Bruton on the best list, Harney on the worst and the other two would find a place on neither list. The case for Bruton is that he understands the extent of the problems we are facing better than anyone else in the Oireachtas. The case against Harney is so clear as to be self-explanatory. She has failed in a government department where the consequences of failure are dramatic. She has pursued the aims of a dead economic ideology with little or no understanding of the damage it can do and finally, and most pointedly, she is part of the most obvious ongoing conflict of interest that I remember any politician being party to in the recent history of this blighted Republic.

I've split off some posts on a topic started by Hermes that seemed well worth its own thread - now called "The Party System Must Go"

Aragon wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

I agree entirely about the education cuts, priorities all wrong, bloated public sector untouched, quangos untouched, not good at all. But from their point of view, not mine, O'Keeffe did the right thing, he took the argument head on and wouldn't budge, the first to do so. That, and again I stress from their point of view, was a good example of political backbone. It doesn't mean I applaud what they're doing on health, welfare, and education.

But this astonishes me toxic. What the guy said and did was patently wrong, inhumane and offensive. Why translate those qualities into their inverse in order to make them up as being somehow laudable? Are politicians to be exempt from the norms of ordinary decent behaviour? This is exactly the phenomenon I was trying to get at earlier. Time was when a fucker was simply a fucker whether they were a politician or a farmer. When it comes to political commentary there seems now to be some sort of inverted logic at work whereby the more unpleasant and aggressive a person is the more he or she will be described as e.g. 'firm' (a complete ****) or 'pragmatic' (ruthless about negative consequences for the vulnerable) - or whatever.

This stuff is pernicious bullshit - a corruption of morality and fairness that the media in particular has managed to persuade itself is clever - and out through which so much political viciousness is escaping with little more than a complacent smirk by way of media commentary. Journalists have invented this language of political euphemism when discussing politicians and the reason is not difficult to understand: it allows them to escape the necessity to tell the unadorned truth so they won't upset anyone important and to be thought of as a safely clubbable member of the political/media/big business party. Thus we had the total sell out of the Green Party to get into government being described as 'political maturity' - and screeds more vomit-making evasions of reality by the fourth estate.

In plain ordinary meaning, Batt O' Keeffe behaved like an ignorant bully - intimidating a group of people who did not deserve it and who had every reason to be outraged. It makes me sick to think that anyone could find a way to actually admire that. Will we find him speaking in the same terms to the bankers, stock brokers, investment analysts and others who so richly deserve it? Will we fuck! Contrast and compare the infuriating condescension with which the electorate are being made to eat up their greens - and the fawning tones with which the government and the media address themselves to the arseholes who got us into this mess. It wasn't teachers and it was not the public sector who did this. Why are these people being scapegoated now? Easy. Because it takes the spotlight off what the neocons are getting up to under our noses, which is an insidious programme of further incursions onto the principle of social provision under cover of the financial crisis. In other words these bastards are busily cementing into place even more extreme versions of the very policies that have already brought the world to its knees - things they could only have dreamed of even a few of months ago. I was struck while watching the budget by the revolting slyness on the faces of Lenihan, Harney et al - they know exactly what they are doing. The medical card fiasco was a bad judgment call but the fact is they are getting off scott free with most of it. We can't afford to be simpering coyly about any of this - pretending that there is any sense in which any of it can seriously be thought of as having worth. It's neither funny nor clever.

As for the 'bloated public sector'!!! Jesus, we've just witnessed the handing over of 500billion euro to the seriously fucked up private sector! There was no 'shirking' the 'necessity' for this when for the last ten years the government has refused paltry sums to projects such as rape crisis - has spent millions taking the parents of autistic children through the courts to ensure they are denied a decent education. The money has all gone to the same bastards who had all the while been enjoying outrageous largesse from the public purse over the last 15 years and more. Subsidies, grants, tax concessions, start up funds - you name it - billions have gone out the door, no questions asked. Much if not most of that money is unaccounted for because the captains of industry are very testy about having to prove whether or not this expenditure is value for money in terms of the economy as a whole. And yet here we are describing Batt O' Keeffe as having 'spine' because he is so arrogant and unconcerned in the face of all of this that he can seriously think of beating up on teachers! WTF!!!! It's unreal!

There is only one section of the public sector which I'd reserve anger for and that's the quangos set up by our government to bring in privatisation - to undermine the public service ethos of the public sector. No amount of money is spared on employing these raping gangster-managers - even while recruitment freezes were being imposed on nurses, doctors, social workers etc - long before this 'crisis' hit. They have huge salaries and achieve nothing in terms of improved service. That's not what they're there for. But that's a whole other subject worthy of close scrutiny. But for now can we all, puh-leeze, at least give over admiring the offensive crap spewing from government mouths at the moment. It makes me want to top myself when I see this shite being described as politically admirable.

When I speak of a bloated public sector, I specifically mean quangos, unnecessary management enforcing 'targets', assorted pen-pushers, etc. These people are employed to demoralise and obstruct proper nursing, teaching etc. Employ more doctors, more nurses, less bureaucrats. The cuts in education are wrong, the cuts in health are wrong, precisely because they are targeted in the wrong places. The poor, the sick, the disadvantaged are targeted, the people who provide the most benefit to them are targeted, the petty managers and bureaucrats are sitting pretty.

In relation to O'Keeffe, I've already said, in my first post, I have absolutely no time for the man. I've also said I disagree completely with what he's enforcing. But, a previous poster mentioned his name in relation to his refusing to back down, which I averred to. Despite what you or I might think, from his and FF's point of view he did the correct thing, he refused to give an inch, knowing that it would only motivate further attempts to chip away at what they had decided. He was indeed, and remember it's not something I'm happy about, the first in the Cabinet to show backbone and refuse to give way. And that, from their point of view, was a good political approach. It doesn't mean that I admire him, or admire the 'hard man' approach, only that I understand the approach from their point of view. He was right to do it that way from his own standpoint, he saved himself a lot of further grief. It does not mean I either admire or agree with it.

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes, rather than hard-neck. Perhaps there should be a special brass award for that ?

cactus flower wrote:

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes, rather than hard-neck. Perhaps there should be a special brass award for that ?

Well, no, O'Keeffe is far from acting in the 'common good', only in the Government's good. It's the same as Ahern. He put up a brass-necked and tough fight at the Tribunal, he handled it politically almost to perfection, his PR campaign during and afterwards was a masterclass. He was the ultimate politician, a formidable force. It does not mean that I don't think the man is a con-man, a coward, and a malevolent force in Irish politics, utterly without principle (I believe by contrast that Cowen is not a good politician, not good at PR, not a good strategist, yet is a decent and honest man in his own personal conduct).

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes, rather than hard-neck. Perhaps there should be a special brass award for that ?

Well, no, O'Keeffe is far from acting in the 'common good', only in the Government's good. It's the same as Ahern. He put up a brass-necked and tough fight at the Tribunal, he handled it politically almost to perfection, his PR campaign during and afterwards was a masterclass. He was the ultimate politician, a formidable force. It does not mean that I don't think the man isn't a con-man, a coward, and a malevolent force in Irish politics, utterly without principle (I believe by contrast that Cowen is not a good politician, not good at PR, not a good strategist, yet is a decent and honest man in his own personal conduct).

It would be a lucky day that we got tough, strategic and principled in the one suit.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes, rather than hard-neck. Perhaps there should be a special brass award for that ?

Well, no, O'Keeffe is far from acting in the 'common good', only in the Government's good. It's the same as Ahern. He put up a brass-necked and tough fight at the Tribunal, he handled it politically almost to perfection, his PR campaign during and afterwards was a masterclass. He was the ultimate politician, a formidable force. It does not mean that I don't think the man is a con-man, a coward, and a malevolent force in Irish politics, utterly without principle (I believe by contrast that Cowen is not a good politician, not good at PR, not a good strategist, yet is a decent and honest man in his own personal conduct).

By this logic TA we might as well be assessing the brilliance of a serial killer's strategy for both executing and covering up his crimes. There's no difference in principle. Most sane, decent people would say it was just plain sick - and so it is with these same guys that you seem adamant about finding something to admire in. So they are a lot of accomplished and brazen effing liars. Don't bloody euologise the fact! Man, I'm amazed at this! We need urgently to rid the body politic here of this sort of intellectual and moral malaise. Why detach your sense of right and wrong from the issue? You were my hero on p.ie for a good while - don't spoil the thing for me now

Aragon wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes, rather than hard-neck. Perhaps there should be a special brass award for that ?

Well, no, O'Keeffe is far from acting in the 'common good', only in the Government's good. It's the same as Ahern. He put up a brass-necked and tough fight at the Tribunal, he handled it politically almost to perfection, his PR campaign during and afterwards was a masterclass. He was the ultimate politician, a formidable force. It does not mean that I don't think the man is a con-man, a coward, and a malevolent force in Irish politics, utterly without principle (I believe by contrast that Cowen is not a good politician, not good at PR, not a good strategist, yet is a decent and honest man in his own personal conduct).

By this logic TA we might as well be assessing the brilliance of a serial killer's strategy for both executing and covering up his crimes. There's no difference in principle. Most sane, decent people would say it was just plain sick - and so it is with these same guys that you seem adamant about finding something to admire in. So they are a lot of accomplished and brazen effing liars. Don't bloody euologise the fact! Man, I'm amazed at this! We need urgently to rid the body politic here of this sort of intellectual and moral malaise. Why detach your sense of right and wrong from the issue? You were my hero on p.ie for a good while - don't spoil the thing for me now

I said, clearly, twice now, that I did not admire the hard man routine. I don't eulogise him or anyone else, and I don't agree with it. I agreed with a previous poster that, from his own point of view, he did the politically savvy thing, that's all. It's not a symptom of intellectual or moral malaise, any more than it would be to recognise that Liam Lawlor had an absolutely brilliant mind, or that Ahern was the master of a formidable political machine. I have very personal reasons for never, ever voting for Fianna Fail in my life, and my record has been one of continuous, sustained exposure of lies and spin by certain of their number. That does not mean I can not express an objective opinion about the wisdom of a politician's actions in terms of what they themselves are looking to do, despise or object to both the politician and the objective as I might...

cactus flower wrote:

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes,

CF,
Would that not be a subjective judgement or am I to believe that all here have been blessed with an infallible sense of the common good?

Hello to you TA old sausage, my airborne wing reported significant enemy movement, I came for a look and lo & behold there’s yourself.
Hostilities may resume anytime you feel disposed, or not, as you see fit.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes,

CF,
Would that not be a subjective judgement or am I to believe that all here have been blessed with an infallible sense of the common good?

Hello to you TA old sausage, my airborne wing reported significant enemy movement, I came for a look and lo & behold there’s yourself.
Hostilities may resume anytime you feel disposed, or not, as you see fit.

I've just read a post about a politician (McDaid) by Ibis that was so witheringly cynical that I fear to look for a good motive in a living elected soul.

All I meant was that we should try to nominate politicians that we feel might have done the country, and not just themselves, some good. Subjective ? It depends what we base our judgement on.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes,

CF,
Would that not be a subjective judgement or am I to believe that all here have been blessed with an infallible sense of the common good?

Hello to you TA old sausage, my airborne wing reported significant enemy movement, I came for a look and lo & behold there’s yourself.
Hostilities may resume anytime you feel disposed, or not, as you see fit.

Greetings, lost one...

I had sent out a search party for you, missing overboard, from the other island, apparently you said something to get you chucked over the side. Nobody would spill, though...

Anyway I'm a calmer and mellower man now, learning to find the merit in even the most objectively deranged dribblings, so, barring an emergency such as an Ahernian assault on the Park, I will be the picture of politeness. Your Me-109 is free to roam the skies, my Spitfire is taking a rest...

I know I'm coming at you a bit like a determined wasp here TA but 'politically savvy'? Why is political savvy not equated with behaving well, being honest or such like? It's not enough to claim personal morality about something like this while effectively endorsing - however qualified that endorsement may be - the very opposite of what you know to be right. This is important. Our political discourse is massively infected with this unreal-politic - at huge cost to us all - especially the most vulnerable. The likes of Batt O Keeffe witnessing a discussion like this one would only draw solace and inspiration from your comments. All the more so because they come from an avowed opponent.

toxic avenger wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

That's an interesting debate. From the point of view of the nominations though, the OP asked us to give credit for "common good" outcomes,

CF,
Would that not be a subjective judgement or am I to believe that all here have been blessed with an infallible sense of the common good?

Hello to you TA old sausage, my airborne wing reported significant enemy movement, I came for a look and lo & behold there’s yourself.
Hostilities may resume anytime you feel disposed, or not, as you see fit.

Greetings, lost one...

I had sent out a search party for you, missing overboard, from the other island, apparently you said something to get you chucked over the side. Nobody would spill, though...

Anyway I'm a calmer and mellower man now, learning to find the merit in even the most objectively deranged dribblings, so, barring an emergency such as an Ahernian assault on the Park, I will be the picture of politeness. Your Me-109 is free to roam the skies, my Spitfire is taking a rest...

More of a Sopwith Camel man myself, like to see the whites of your eyes………,
We could go for tea afterwards and live to fight another day.

It’s good to talk.

Aragon wrote:

I know I'm coming at you a bit like a determined wasp here TA but 'politically savvy'? To fuck over a group of innocent people? Why is political savvy not equated with behaving well, being honest or such like? It's not enough to claim personal morality about something like this while effectively endorsing - however qualified that endorsement may be - the very opposite of what you know to be right. This is important. Our political discourse is massively infected with this unreal-politic - at huge cost to us all - especially the most vulnerable. A bollix is a bollix is a bollix - no? The likes of Batt O Keeffe witnessing a discussion like this one would only draw solace and inspiration from your comments. All the more so because they come from an avowed opponent.

The likes of Batt O’Keeffe is doing his job, that which he was elected to do. You may not like what he has decided to do, you may not like the way he has decided to do it, but he has to do it anyway, that’s what we pay him for.

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I know I'm coming at you a bit like a determined wasp here TA but 'politically savvy'? To fuck over a group of innocent people? Why is political savvy not equated with behaving well, being honest or such like? It's not enough to claim personal morality about something like this while effectively endorsing - however qualified that endorsement may be - the very opposite of what you know to be right. This is important. Our political discourse is massively infected with this unreal-politic - at huge cost to us all - especially the most vulnerable. A bollix is a bollix is a bollix - no? The likes of Batt O Keeffe witnessing a discussion like this one would only draw solace and inspiration from your comments. All the more so because they come from an avowed opponent.

The likes of Batt O’Keeffe is doing his job, that which he was elected to do. You may not like what he has decided to do, you may not like the way he has decided to do it, but he has to do it anyway, that’s what we pay him for.

We don't pay him to abdicate responsibility for treating pupils and teachers fairly - to brazenly and insultingly front up the vicious incompetence of Fianna Fail/Harney/IBEC. We pay our politicians to manage things well not to lie to and attack us when they get it so seriously wrong. Hats off everybody - lets put him up there on a pedestal - he may be destroying our education system but isn't he a great bully! What a consolation to us all! Is that seriously how we measure his ability to do the job we pay him for? What about the little matter of the education system - isnt it his performance in that regard what we are actually paying him for?

Most voters did not vote for Batt O' Keeffe's party and most of us resent the fact that, along with every single one of his party colleagues, he draws a massive salary merely to twist his interpretation of his role into nothing more than defending the indefensible. To my mind your attitude in this respect is the flip side of the cute hoorism with which Ireland is riven. It's the complicit smile and pat on the back which the gangsters of Irish politics know they can safely rely on no matter what they do and which sees this disgustingly corrupt and savagely incompetent party elected again and again - even by the very people they are shafting most of all. There's an astounding moral vacuum in your reasoning. I'd challenge you to sit in front of an audience of teachers and pupils and tell them how you have rationalised O' Keeffe's behaviour into something positive - nay admirable - that you put aside the educational welfare of students and the standard of working conditions of teachers as two of the major benchmarks of how the Minister for Education's performance ought to be judged and asked them instead to see something praiseworthy in behaviour which is a total abdication of his responsibility for the role he was given. So the measure of a good politician is how successfully they can bully the electorate? We're sick of bullies. The FF cabinet is stuffed with them. It's not the public sector that's bloated - it's this line up of gargoyles that are bloated, arrogant and complacent. Did you not see them openly laughing their way through a budget that was inflicting egregious harm on our society? I wonder how clever Batt O' Keeffe will be feeling when he thinks of all those teachers at the ballot box next time round remembering the words 'teachers must take their punishment'. Very politically savvy of him, I'm sure.

toxic avenger wrote:

Employ more doctors, more nurses, less bureaucrats.

Just to play devil's advocate here..
I know someone who has been recently employed as a bureaucrat for An Garda Siochana. The desk job he'll be doing, allows the Garda that was doing it to go out on the beat.
Also, he's qualified for this job, the Garda was not. And he is paid less than the Garda.

So bureaucrats can have their uses!

Aragon wrote:

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I know I'm coming at you a bit like a determined wasp here TA but 'politically savvy'? To fuck over a group of innocent people? Why is political savvy not equated with behaving well, being honest or such like? It's not enough to claim personal morality about something like this while effectively endorsing - however qualified that endorsement may be - the very opposite of what you know to be right. This is important. Our political discourse is massively infected with this unreal-politic - at huge cost to us all - especially the most vulnerable. A bollix is a bollix is a bollix - no? The likes of Batt O Keeffe witnessing a discussion like this one would only draw solace and inspiration from your comments. All the more so because they come from an avowed opponent.

The likes of Batt O’Keeffe is doing his job, that which he was elected to do. You may not like what he has decided to do, you may not like the way he has decided to do it, but he has to do it anyway, that’s what we pay him for.

We don't pay him to abdicate responsibility for treating pupils and teachers fairly - to brazenly and insultingly front up the vicious incompetence of Fianna Fail/Harney/IBEC. We pay our politicians to manage things well not to lie to and attack us when they get it so seriously wrong. Hats off everybody - lets put him up there on a pedestal - he may be destroying our education system but isn't he a great bully! What a consolation to us all! Is that seriously how we measure his ability to do the job we pay him for? What about the little matter of the education system - isnt it his performance in that regard what we are actually paying him for?

Most voters did not vote for Batt O' Keeffe's party and most of us resent the fact that, along with every single one of his party colleagues, he draws a massive salary merely to twist his interpretation of his role into nothing more than defending the indefensible. To my mind your attitude in this respect is the flip side of the cute hoorism with which Ireland is riven. It's the complicit smile and pat on the back which the gangsters of Irish politics know they can safely rely on no matter what they do and which sees this disgustingly corrupt and savagely incompetent party elected again and again - even by the very people they are shafting most of all. There's an astounding moral vacuum in your reasoning. I'd challenge you to sit in front of an audience of teachers and pupils and tell them how you have rationalised O' Keeffe's behaviour into something positive - nay admirable - that you put aside the educational welfare of students and the standard of working conditions of teachers as two of the major benchmarks of how the Minister for Education's performance ought to be judged and asked them instead to see something praiseworthy in behaviour which is a total abdication of his responsibility for the role he was given. So the measure of a good politician is how successfully they can bully the electorate? We're sick of bullies. The FF cabinet is stuffed with them. It's not the public sector that's bloated - it's this line up of gargoyles that are bloated, arrogant and complacent. Did you not see them openly laughing their way through a budget that was inflicting egregious harm on our society? I wonder how clever Batt O' Keeffe will be feeling when he thinks of all those teachers at the ballot box next time round remembering the words 'teachers must take their punishment'. Very politically savvy of him, I'm sure.

“Did you not see them openly laughing their way through a budget that was inflicting egregious harm on our society?”
I did indeed and was not surprised, evil laughing is practised at FF cumann meetings across the country and a B + in this subject is a minimum requirement before a candidate is allowed go forward for election. (This BTW stands in stark contrast to the SWP where laughing is banned, banned I say!!)

You have no idea the torture it has been over the last 10 years to have to pile more money into Health, Education, Public Transport and anything else the public thought it was entitled to, but our day has come now, as our founder, praise be his name, always said it would.
The unbridled joy (one of the very few times I myself would go unbridled) of telling the electorate that we cannot spend more money than we earn, well at least not beyond 6 or 7 billion, is what this great party was founded for, the look on their bewildered faces as you kick them in the teeth is worth all the practice, corruption, planning & conniving we have to put in over the last 82 years.

Yes, today is our day in the Sun and we will have it.

Well spotted Sir (or Madam as the case may be).

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I know I'm coming at you a bit like a determined wasp here TA but 'politically savvy'? To fuck over a group of innocent people? Why is political savvy not equated with behaving well, being honest or such like? It's not enough to claim personal morality about something like this while effectively endorsing - however qualified that endorsement may be - the very opposite of what you know to be right. This is important. Our political discourse is massively infected with this unreal-politic - at huge cost to us all - especially the most vulnerable. A bollix is a bollix is a bollix - no? The likes of Batt O Keeffe witnessing a discussion like this one would only draw solace and inspiration from your comments. All the more so because they come from an avowed opponent.

The likes of Batt O’Keeffe is doing his job, that which he was elected to do. You may not like what he has decided to do, you may not like the way he has decided to do it, but he has to do it anyway, that’s what we pay him for.

We don't pay him to abdicate responsibility for treating pupils and teachers fairly - to brazenly and insultingly front up the vicious incompetence of Fianna Fail/Harney/IBEC. We pay our politicians to manage things well not to lie to and attack us when they get it so seriously wrong. Hats off everybody - lets put him up there on a pedestal - he may be destroying our education system but isn't he a great bully! What a consolation to us all! Is that seriously how we measure his ability to do the job we pay him for? What about the little matter of the education system - isnt it his performance in that regard what we are actually paying him for?

Most voters did not vote for Batt O' Keeffe's party and most of us resent the fact that, along with every single one of his party colleagues, he draws a massive salary merely to twist his interpretation of his role into nothing more than defending the indefensible. To my mind your attitude in this respect is the flip side of the cute hoorism with which Ireland is riven. It's the complicit smile and pat on the back which the gangsters of Irish politics know they can safely rely on no matter what they do and which sees this disgustingly corrupt and savagely incompetent party elected again and again - even by the very people they are shafting most of all. There's an astounding moral vacuum in your reasoning. I'd challenge you to sit in front of an audience of teachers and pupils and tell them how you have rationalised O' Keeffe's behaviour into something positive - nay admirable - that you put aside the educational welfare of students and the standard of working conditions of teachers as two of the major benchmarks of how the Minister for Education's performance ought to be judged and asked them instead to see something praiseworthy in behaviour which is a total abdication of his responsibility for the role he was given. So the measure of a good politician is how successfully they can bully the electorate? We're sick of bullies. The FF cabinet is stuffed with them. It's not the public sector that's bloated - it's this line up of gargoyles that are bloated, arrogant and complacent. Did you not see them openly laughing their way through a budget that was inflicting egregious harm on our society? I wonder how clever Batt O' Keeffe will be feeling when he thinks of all those teachers at the ballot box next time round remembering the words 'teachers must take their punishment'. Very politically savvy of him, I'm sure.

“Did you not see them openly laughing their way through a budget that was inflicting egregious harm on our society?”
I did indeed and was not surprised, evil laughing is practised at FF cumann meetings across the country and a B + in this subject is a minimum requirement before a candidate is allowed go forward for election. (This BTW stands in stark contrast to the SWP where laughing is banned, banned I say!!)

You have no idea the torture it has been over the last 10 years to have to pile more money into Health, Education, Public Transport and anything else the public thought it was entitled to, but our day has come now, as our founder, praise be his name, always said it would.
The unbridled joy (one of the very few times I myself would go unbridled) of telling the electorate that we cannot spend more money than we earn, well at least not beyond 6 or 7 billion, is what this great party was founded for, the look on their bewildered faces as you kick them in the teeth is worth all the practice, corruption, planning & conniving we have to put in over the last 82 years.

Yes, today is our day in the Sun and we will have it.

Well spotted Sir (or Madam as the case may be).

The money was not spent on us - it was spent on 'investors' and property developers and a milion different forms of corporate welfare. Our infrastructure and public services were disgracefully neglected at service point. It's bankers and brokers who have been living beyond their means. Have you not been reading the news in recent weeks? For the last several years Harney has been cutting back on desperately needed service staff while doling out huge cash prizes and presents to her corporate chums. Children with special educational needs have had their resources cut -at a time when Cowen and Ahern were positively boasting about how fantastically we were doing - telling us about the 33,000 newly made b/millionaires. Billions wasted on overspends on uncompleted road development - at least 10b of it unaccounted for. A collossal amount of money was given away on the insane SSIA scheme - funded by the working poor to line the pockets of the filthy rich. All the people who scrimped and saved to make that work for them are now quadruply clobbered. Poor fools. Did they seriously think it was going to be for free? You're absolutely right, we don't find any of this funny at all. It's facilitating the high end of the private sector that has caused all of this damage. Renegotiate the oil and gas deals - we can't afford that outrageous giveaway - it was almost certainly illegal anyway. You're on the losing side of this argument Tonys, just as you were when you wre trying to defend Ahern on the other site.

Don't mention That Place

Have any of you noticed that you can't post a MachineNation link on the site that shall not be named?
It translates MachineNation into *******

All very interesting... but I am going take our my moderator stick and demand that we bring this thread back on topic. Whilst conversation on this matter is interesting and indeed often very funny, it does have the potential to lead us down paths which we do not particularly enjoy. Particularly those of us on the content team who then have to deal with the resulting farce.

Okie dokie.

Aragon wrote:

The money was not spent on us - it was spent on 'investors' and property developers and a milion different forms of corporate welfare. Our infrastructure and public services were disgracefully neglected at service point. It's bankers and brokers who have been living beyond their means. Have you not been reading the news in recent weeks? For the last several years Harney has been cutting back on desperately needed service staff while doling out huge cash prizes and presents to her corporate chums. Children with special educational needs have had their resources cut -at a time when Cowen and Ahern were positively boasting about how fantastically we were doing - telling us about the 33,000 newly made b/millionaires. Billions wasted on overspends on uncompleted road development - at least 10b of it unaccounted for. A collossal amount of money was given away on the insane SSIA scheme - funded by the working poor to line the pockets of the filthy rich. All the people who scrimped and saved to make that work for them are now quadruply clobbered. Poor fools. Did they seriously think it was going to be for free? You're absolutely right, we don't find any of this funny at all. It's facilitating the high end of the private sector that has caused all of this damage. Renegotiate the oil and gas deals - we can't afford that outrageous giveaway - it was almost certainly illegal anyway. You're on the losing side of this argument Tonys, just as you were when you wre trying to defend Ahern on the other site.

Anyone who thinks, as you do, in black & white terms or who believes there is only one point of view and it just happens to be yours, in my opinion, doesn’t get to the starting line of an argument much less be in with a chance of winning or even losing one.
Your argument is a purely ideological one without reason or even common sense to back it up. You don’t like what you perceive Harney or O’Keeffe stand for, therefore everything they do is wrong and inherently evil, an argument, in my opinion, so obviously irrational it’s not worth the time of day.