Fine Gael's 100,000 jobs !!

[An Gilladaker]

I posted the following in the Killarney thread but I really feel it deserves to be highlighted in a separate thread. I was quite shocked at how poor the FG job creation policy really is and what a poor grasp of the issue was displayed by the contributors:

"Has anybody been listening to Saturdayview? Bruton, Mitchell, Creed and Kelly were on. In fairness Bruton gave a fairly good account of himself on Anglo but when they moved onto the 100,000 jobs .....disaster. Rachael English didn't go too hard on them - she fairly gently asked them a few times where the jobs are going to come from ....they hadn't a clue. As one failed to answer another one of them tried to come to the rescue but it quickly became clear that there is no substance behind the idea. They are going to get savaged on this."

They need to up that by 7000 to replace Quinn jobs

[davehiggz]

Simon Coveney has said that well in excess of 100,000 jobs could be created with €18bn but that claiming 150,000 jobs would be politically unbelievable. He is working with conservative figures here.

If the people in Quinn become unemployed then they face uncertainty under this FF government. Under a FG government they'd have a good shot of securing one of the 100,000+ jobs on offer here.

[Sailor]

Simon Coveney has said that well in excess of 100,000 jobs could be created with €18bn but that claiming 150,000 jobs would be politically unbelievable. He is working with conservative figures here.

If the people in Quinn become unemployed then they face uncertainty under this FF government. Under a FG government they'd have a good shot of securing one of the 100,000+ jobs on offer here.

I started this thread when it became clear to me that half of the "jobs" were places on training programs and the other half were construction jobs - and, therefore, of little long-term value. I don't recall FG mentioning any jobs in insurance. The reality is that FG have never itemised any "real jobs". They may as well talk about 150,000 or half a million jobs - none of the figures have any credibility.

[davehiggz]

Simon Coveney went to the World Bank, The CIF and other institutions to see how many jobs could be created. NewERA has hard facts and figures behind it.

Some of the jobs will only be in construction for the short term but after that the spin-off industry will be huge plus the opportunity for investment is unimaginable. There will be 100,000 jobs if NewERA is implemented if not more

[Sailor]

Simon Coveney went to the World Bank, The CIF and other institutions to see how many jobs could be created. NewERA has hard facts and figures behind it.

Some of the jobs will only be in construction for the short term but after that the spin-off industry will be huge plus the opportunity for investment is unimaginable. There will be 100,000 jobs if NewERA is implemented if not more

Are you denying that half the jobs will be short-term construction and the other half are actually places on training programs - this was the point that was admitted by the FGers in the radio show I quoted in the OP.
To have any credibility, the jobs must be itemised by sector. And don't tell me telecoms - Eircom are trying to get rid of 1200 staff - for starters.

[DuineGael]

I posted the following in the Killarney thread but I really feel it deserves to be highlighted in a separate thread. I was quite shocked at how poor the FG job creation policy really is and what a poor grasp of the issue was displayed by the contributors:

"Has anybody been listening to Saturdayview? Bruton, Mitchell, Creed and Kelly were on. In fairness Bruton gave a fairly good account of himself on Anglo but when they moved onto the 100,000 jobs .....disaster. Rachael English didn't go too hard on them - she fairly gently asked them a few times where the jobs are going to come from ....they hadn't a clue. As one failed to answer another one of them tried to come to the rescue but it quickly became clear that there is no substance behind the idea. They are going to get savaged on this."

Doesn't surprise me that Bruton, Mitchell, Creed and Kelly didn't do great on this issue. It's Coveney's policy and is a quite large, in depth document. Although they really should know their party's policy! I was confused about it myself where these 100,000+ jobs were coming from. So I attended a NewERA talk with Simon Coveney (where these 100,000 jobs are planned to come from) and he explained that the 100,000 jobs was a conservative number given by independant companies and organisations( can't remember which ones,) which is a result of the physical work force(builders etc.), engineers, logistics and etc. and that's were the numbers come from but there is so much more to the policy than the 100,000 jobs. There is sensible long term economic investment in energy, water and infrastructure which I think is the better part of the policy, the 100,000 are just numbers needed to get the infrastucture built.