Fine Gael Mad NewERA Plan

[hiding behind a poster]

Its good to see SPN back from his self enforced hiatus after telling us that there would be no Nama as the Greens wouldn't support a haircut that was less than 60% I believe (it could have been 70%).

Welcome back SPN.

A handy tip HBAP, the next time SPN gets uppity, remind of his depity leader costing a text tax proposal as bringing in income of 1bn, when it was closer to 90m.
It always focuses his mind.

Goodness me, I'm shocked. I thought the Greens knew everything.

[meriwether]

Firstly I am a sinner (who isn't), but not a Shinner (not that this should matter) anyhow.

I only vaguely remember a document being launched in November, but now I see this was a reheat of a document launched in March 2009. Only main difference now is that the plan will cost about €7bn more or about 1bn a month. I don't have a difficulty with the fact that FG sought to reissue a plan and I welcome the fact they are producing ideas and proposals. However given that this country is virtually bankrupt because of reckless, feckless and populist policies pursued by FF, I think the taxpayers have a right to ask valid questions concerning the economic policies of all parties.

Thanks for the link to the discussion here last November, but to be honest it was a little limited, not your fault but hardly a thorough assessment of the proposals. I would welcome details of independent economists and analysts who welcomed the proposals. The only review I could find just now was by Richard Curran, who I would have a lot of respect for. He is rather scathing of the plan. The Inquisitor: ThePost.ie

You ask me to detail my concerns.

1. FG is proposing to borrow €18bn, the document is very vague and skirts around a range of issues.

2. I note your rather condensing point re borrowing for investment and borrowing for day to day spending. Yes I know the difference, but not all investment is money well spent. There are such things as bad investments, good money after lousy projects. I thought FG was the party of the private sector, they are proposing a huge Government project, the state does not have a very good record in that regard.

3. I don't like the concept of "Off the Government's balance sheet". This sounds all too FF and Enronomics for me. Its still debt that has to be paid off.

4. Lots of people are looking for stimulus plans and investment, however many of those who want a stimulus package are the vested interests. I worry that much of this plan has been driven by vested interests who will swallow up the money and taxpayer will pay for it.

5. Well Richard Curran raises other issues I hadn't thought of until now re NPRF and state sale of assets, it may well be a decade before value can be got for state companies, so does that mean more borrowing will be required.

There are some good things in there re regulatory reform, but that could be achieved without spending €18bn.

Point number 2 is very silly.
Because money has been squandered in the past does not mean we should not invest in the future. It means we should invest it more wisely in the future.

[stonethrower]

Point number 2 is very silly.
Because money has been squandered in the past does not mean we should not invest in the future. It means we should invest it more wisely in the future.

Yes of course, we all want wise and sound investment. My point is that FG are proposing to borrow another €18bn on a plan that is not well sketched out imho. That lack of detail and the fact they have skirted around some key issues is a matter of concern. I would like to think that in Government there would be a lot more detail.

[hiding behind a poster]

Yes of course, we all want wise and sound investment. My point is that FG are proposing to borrow another €18bn on a plan that is not well sketched out imho.

FG are not proposing that we borrow another €18bn. Read it again.

[adamirer]

The gist, as I recall, was sell off the old semi-states and use the funds to set up new greener semi states - particularly in renewables and broadband. Borrwing would be required (10bn?)

Eminently sensible concept and it was well received at the time on the radio I listen to (Hook/Cooper/keane)

The costings... well, totally depends on when/if FG get into power. No doubt that'll be clarified closer to an election when the precise costings are of more worth and not 2 years out of date. If a party like FF can't get a single revenue projection remotely correct with the Dept of Finances full help in over a decade (and we could go on, ppars, luas, port tunnel), then its abit rich to have accurate minute figures ready for an opposition proposal based on sale value of assets.

[SPN]

Its good to see SPN back from his self enforced hiatus after telling us that there would be no Nama as the Greens wouldn't support a haircut that was less than 60% I believe (it could have been 70%).

Welcome back SPN.

A handy tip HBAP, the next time SPN gets uppity, remind of his depity leader costing a text tax proposal as bringing in income of 1bn, when it was closer to 90m.
It always focuses his mind.

Lets wait and see what the NAMA haircut turns out to be, shall we?

The baseline figure when I made my forecast was €104 million, and that is before any interest roll-up in the intervening period.

Compare and contrast with the Fine Gael alternative that Karl Whelan dismissed as "a recipe for chaos".

Fine Gael couldn't organise the proverbial beer-up in a brewery - and that is before Comrade Gilmore gets the veto over FG Policy.


Mary White counted nine zeroes on the calculator instead of eight when she was having a hypothetical discussion.

Big swinging dicky!


You try telling the dairy sector that there will be no diesel for the silage harvest in May 2015 because Simple Simon f**ked up his sums.

A small mistake with a Text Tax vs no fodder for the dairy herd.

(and that's before we discuss no fuel for ambulances, bread vans, grain dryers, combine harvesters, fire engines, ESB line maintenance vehicles, etc., etc., ad infinitum)

..
.

[SPN]

And there we all were, thinking you were making some economic arguments that at least were worthy of debate. And then it came. "the inbreds in FG HQ".

If you want a debate, debate like an adult. If you want to spam the boards, at least be man enough to admit your motivation.

My motivation is to make sure there is diesel fuel available for our agriculture sector, our transport sector, and our services sector, on February 1st 2015.

Fine Gael's policy is to ban diesel (2,750,000 tonnes a year), and replace it with Biodiesel (150,000 tonnes a year).


I am happy to debate this as an adult, but you will forgive me for doubting whether this half assed policy was created by an adult.


Of course, you could import the other 2.6 million tonnes of biodiesel - but that would be vetoed by Labour as it goes against their policy.

..
.

[cyberianpan]

New Era got a very good review in all the newpapers, business shows and economists when it was launched - guess you must have missed that one aswell

Can you cite the prominent economists who give it good reviews ?

I can't help but be reminded about when FG lied about their banking plan being supported:

http://www.politics.ie/fine-gael/110...n-do-they.html

cYp

Any update on who those economists were ?

cYp

[hiding behind a poster]

Fine Gael couldn't organise the proverbial beer-up in a brewery - and that is before Comrade Gilmore gets the veto over FG Policy.

You mean like the current Green veto on FF policy? Don't make me laugh.

Anyway, why did your own party publicly state that its first preference was a FG/Labour/Green coalition, if the policies of the first two are so barmy? Surely those paragons of virtue that are the Greens didn't do that in order to protect the thousands of FG/Labour transfers that secure the seats of White, Ryan, Cuffe and Gogarty? Course not. They're far too honourable.

[SPN]

You mean like the current Green veto on FF policy? Don't make me laugh.

Anyway, why did your own party publicly state that its first preference was a FG/Labour/Green coalition, if the policies of the first two are so barmy? Surely those paragons of virtue that are the Greens didn't do that in order to protect the thousands of FG/Labour transfers that secure the seats of White, Ryan, Cuffe and Gogarty? Course not. They're far too honourable.

Any chance you might address the honest criticisms of the New Era proposal instead of trying to distract attention from its failings?


The Greens will happily provide any future FG/Lab Government with ready to go, fully thought out, policies across a range of subjects, and will throw in two and a half experienced Ministers to teach them how Government works.

All FG & Labour have to do is win enough seats to be able to take up the offer.

..
.