FF, FG and Labour - Spot The Difference.

I've decided to follow my own advice and start a thread on this subject.

The idea is that we arrive at some concrete differences between the three main parties: FF, FG and Labour.

Also, it might be an idea to explore the concept of 'talking the talk and walking the walk.' We're living at a time when words are becoming very cheap and meaningless. A party might say something about the current government selling out the old and children, but we cannot help but recall the Rainbow Coalition's misadventure with shoes. So, to put it mildly, in spotting the difference, mere words and rhetoric are not enough. Each party has a long history and each party has been in government. In what ways are their behaviours different and indeed, do their performances put a lie to their words?

I'm at a genuine loss to point out any substantive difference between the parties. I know each has a different personality, but to me, this is more indicative of a person suffering with multiple personality disorder, whilst only possessing the one body who at the same time is suffering from a compulsive obsessive disorder that's common to all three personalities, than it is of genuine differing methodologies and philosophies.

So, what are the differences, and how have they been demonstrated by actions?

Well, it depends on who is looking, Hermes.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Well, it depends on who is looking, Hermes.

Surely that's the case only if we're talking of beauty?

Was the issue with the shoes not Garret Fitzgeralds govt. in 198...2?

We'd need proper Dáil TV to be able to judge too - impressions are hard to form when FF have been in Govt. most of our lives.

Hermes wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Well, it depends on who is looking, Hermes.

Surely that's the case only if we're talking of beauty?

No, it applies to Governments as well.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Was the issue with the shoes not Garret Fitzgeralds govt. in 198...2?

We'd need proper Dáil TV to be able to judge too - impressions are hard to form when FF have been in Govt. most of our lives.

Twas Audi, 27th Jan 1982, Jim Kemmy voted against the government budget - VAT on kids' shoes. Brought the house down.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Hermes wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Well, it depends on who is looking, Hermes.

Surely that's the case only if we're talking of beauty?

No, it applies to Governments as well.

I'm sure it applies to anything that might be considered ugly or beautiful. Still, we'd need to know more, in order to consider which one would be worth marrying. What are her virtuous qualities?

Hermes wrote:

I've decided to follow my own advice and start a thread on this subject.

The idea is that we arrive at some concrete differences between the three main parties: FF, FG and Labour.

Also, it might be an idea to explore the concept of 'talking the talk and walking the walk.' We're living at a time when words are becoming very cheap and meaningless. A party might say something about the current government selling out the old and children, but we cannot help but recall the Rainbow Coalition's misadventure with shoes. So, to put it mildly, in spotting the difference, mere words and rhetoric are not enough. Each party has a long history and each party has been in government. In what ways are their behaviours different and indeed, do their performances put a lie to their words?

I'm at a genuine loss to point out any substantive difference between the parties. I know each has a different personality, but to me, this is more indicative of a person suffering with multiple personality disorder, whilst only possessing the one body who at the same time is suffering from a compulsive obsessive disorder that's common to all three personalities, than it is of genuine differing methodologies and philosophies.

So, what are the differences, and how have they been demonstrated by actions?

So what does that tell you about how totally useless "The Real Left" have been in getting their message across?

Or-or - it could just be that the Irish people ,in general, prefer their coffee "medium roast" - not really that hot about either extremities of the political spectrum - but of course - that view is coloured by where you stand on the spectrum youself

Edo- member of FG - the Neo liberal/Nazi/Jew Loving/conservative party

I give up.....what's the answer?

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

I give up.....what's the answer?

Níl aon fhios agam

Edo wrote:

So what does that tell you about how totally useless "The Real Left" have been in getting their message across?

It tells me nothing and I'm not posting on behalf of the left. I'm posting on behalf of myself. The fact that I've a leftist disposition shouldn't be taken to mean that I support or respect any particular leftist political party - I don't. Besides, aren't Labour supposed to be leftist?

Edo wrote:

Or-or - it could just be that the Irish people ,in general, prefer their coffee "medium roast" - not really that hot about either extremities of the political spectrum - but of course - that view is coloured by where you stand on the spectrum youself

To be honest, I'm hoping to avoid a 'let's blame the pawns' type of discussion. I'm genuinely interested in whether any actual difference between the three named parties can be produced. Of course my view is coloured, that's a given - nonetheless, factual differences would be independent of any bias on my part and on anyone else's part for that matter.

Edo wrote:

Edo- member of FG - the Neo liberal/Nazi/Jew Loving/conservative party

Ah come on now Edo, you're a decent bloke. I'm not on a witch hunt I'm on a simple search for the truth. And I believe the truth is anything but simple in this case. It's something I've thought about for years and indeed have discussed at many times. I've even discussed it at various opportunities with many folks who'd be considered to be 'high up' in each of the parties. My opinion has never even wavered and it's nothing to do with an inability to listen on my part or an unwillingness to be shown that I'm wrong. Indeed I'd love to be wrong.

You are deliberately wasting time Hermes, you know very well that there is zero difference between them. Labour can pretend to be different because their bluff will not be called.

youngdan wrote:

You are deliberately wasting time Hermes, you know very well that there is zero difference between them. Labour can pretend to be different because their bluff will not be called.

And suddenly Mr. Boston Mass. man is an expert on the Irish Labour Party ? What's all that Dan ?

I will be the first to admit my weaknesses EVM. Labour can say what they like now and none will be the wiser. What little I saw of Gilmore convinced me that he thinks money grows on trees.

So if someone would be kind enough to paste up how Gilmore would tackle the problem I am all ears and eyes. No point in calling Lenahan a Dunce without pointing out what he would do.

The major decision taken was the bank guarantee so are you saying that Labour was against it. Bleating in the Dail for the sake of bleating is fine but what would Gilmore have done when the banking system was on the verge of collapse.

Worth listening to Bruton in the Dáil now - he's talking about the idea of the Bad Bank gaining currency in other countries and could we try this here or consider it. What are the processes by which this idea could be voted on by the Dáil at all?

He sounds very socialistic by the way ...

edit
It's being discussed on other threads here
https://machinenation.forumakers.com/national-politics-f32/lenihan-facing-crisis-t1989.htm#68337

and here
https://machinenation.forumakers.com/economy-business-and-finance-f8/the-7bn-recapitalisation-of-boi-and-aib-boi-s-bad-debts-may-go-from-38-to-6-billion-t1928-25.htm#68322

Hermes wrote:

I've decided to follow my own advice and start a thread on this subject.

The idea is that we arrive at some concrete differences between the three main parties: FF, FG and Labour.

Also, it might be an idea to explore the concept of 'talking the talk and walking the walk.' We're living at a time when words are becoming very cheap and meaningless. A party might say something about the current government selling out the old and children, but we cannot help but recall the Rainbow Coalition's misadventure with shoes. So, to put it mildly, in spotting the difference, mere words and rhetoric are not enough. Each party has a long history and each party has been in government. In what ways are their behaviours different and indeed, do their performances put a lie to their words?

I'm at a genuine loss to point out any substantive difference between the parties. I know each has a different personality, but to me, this is more indicative of a person suffering with multiple personality disorder, whilst only possessing the one body who at the same time is suffering from a compulsive obsessive disorder that's common to all three personalities, than it is of genuine differing methodologies and philosophies.

So, what are the differences, and how have they been demonstrated by actions?

As a matter of interest, why do you expect there to be major differences? After all, the underlying economic situation and budgetary arithmetic (such as it is), doesn't change based on which party is in office, therefore they are inevitably highly constrained in what they can do in practice. Also, the electoral system here does not reward people who adopt strong ideological positions, much less the positions of the various "extremists" who see themselves as the solution to our problems.

Arthur Morgan of SF asking for a State Bank which people might have trust in. ... How different is that from Richard Bruton's ideas?

Morgan thinks the bankers should get no more than ministerial salaries and definitely no bonuses. In fact they should hand back their bonuses for the last 3 or 4 years.

In fact they should hand back 50% of their salaries for the last 3 or 4 years he says, because they didn't earn it.

How many people in the country are thinking along these lines now ? And would FF and FG people agree with that? It sounds like Labour do a bit.....

Paul R wrote:

Hermes wrote:

I've decided to follow my own advice and start a thread on this subject.

The idea is that we arrive at some concrete differences between the three main parties: FF, FG and Labour.

Also, it might be an idea to explore the concept of 'talking the talk and walking the walk.' We're living at a time when words are becoming very cheap and meaningless. A party might say something about the current government selling out the old and children, but we cannot help but recall the Rainbow Coalition's misadventure with shoes. So, to put it mildly, in spotting the difference, mere words and rhetoric are not enough. Each party has a long history and each party has been in government. In what ways are their behaviours different and indeed, do their performances put a lie to their words?

I'm at a genuine loss to point out any substantive difference between the parties. I know each has a different personality, but to me, this is more indicative of a person suffering with multiple personality disorder, whilst only possessing the one body who at the same time is suffering from a compulsive obsessive disorder that's common to all three personalities, than it is of genuine differing methodologies and philosophies.

So, what are the differences, and how have they been demonstrated by actions?

As a matter of interest, why do you expect there to be major differences? After all, the underlying economic situation and budgetary arithmetic (such as it is), doesn't change based on which party is in office, therefore they are inevitably highly constrained in what they can do in practice. Also, the electoral system here does not reward people who adopt strong ideological positions, much less the positions of the various "extremists" who see themselves as the solution to our problems.

You make an interesting case Paul. But it is not something that I've not heard before.

There have been a few posts thus far that point to the truth of the situation, as I see it. Politics in Ireland, is a beauty contest. It is personality politics. And the very first politician that will admit to it (as you suggest in your point about our electoral system), will be given a set of concrete boots (made elsewhere) and will be fed to the fish. It is in effect a monarchy.

It is my opinion that Bunreacht na hÉireann gives a very wide scope to any government that'd potentially use it. The fact that all three parties practice the same modus operandi, does not show the limitations imposed upon any particular government, it points to them having the exact same ethos. If it were as simple as mathematics, we'd have no need of ethos, or as hopefuls call it: "vision."

I agree with you when you say that the electoral system does not reward those who take strong, or rather, different, ideological positions (afterall none of these parties can be accused of having weak ideological positions). But I do not agree with what you imply that it means. Our electoral system promotes more of the same and stifles evolution. It is its own root cause for what I believe will be its own demise. It pretends to be a system that facilitates representation. Yet I've met nobody (and I move in a wide circle - I don't confine myself to those who think and act like myself), who feels represented. This is a failure at the very core. Parties and politicians lay out their vision (such as it is) before each election. The popularity competition then ensues and the new king is crowned. This is not representation and just because a vote occurs, doesn't make it a democracy.

On top of saying that we practice popularity politics, I'd also say that this popularity contest takes absolutely no notice of competency, or in this particular case, incompetency.

Now to answer you question - finally. The first reason that I expect differences to exist is because each and every party swears blind that they are different and I want to be absolutely sure that there are no differences before I call them liars. Secondly, and more importantly, any system that is populated by only one variety of creature that cannot cope with its environment, is doomed to extinction. I don't want to be extinct, especially when I can put my hand on my heart and say that those who claim to represent me, do not.