The Fine Gael thread

[deiseach]

maybe the understatement of the century

I'll fulfill what I see as my civic duty and get off my butt to cast my vote. But why vote for something that I think is a terrible option? "Because it's not as bad as the others"? Cleisthenes would be proud.

[Maguire01]

maybe the understatement of the century

I'll fulfill what I see as my civic duty and get off my butt to cast my vote. But why vote for something that I think is a terrible option? "Because it's not as bad as the others"? Cleisthenes would be proud.

Well if someone's going to get in, surely the 'least worst' option is the 'best' potential outcome.

[deiseach]

Well if someone's going to get in, surely the 'least worst' option is the 'best' potential outcome.

If it were an either/or choice, then I'd agree. But it isn't. None of the likely winners have anything to say to me. Maybe I'll vote for some Natural Law-style kook. I remember the disappointment I felt when voting in Liverpool that there wasn't a candidate like that. In the end, I did something really bad - voted for the Lib Dems

[lynchbhoy]

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

[Maguire01]

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

I've seen it. At senior level - not admin / support staff, but at management level, yes.

[lynchbhoy]

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

I've seen it. At senior level - not admin / support staff, but at management level, yes.

south of the border?
ive not seen it. But it will happen. Just not yet. no need for it yet. wired network devices are more accurate and secure. Apart from presentation devices.
its not policy as of yet. Many senior people have devices but they are not 'work' devices even though work might have bought them.

by the way - no guarantee sf will be as good or bad if they ever got into power down here.
different setup and not the mickey mouse effort of the six counties.

[Maguire01]

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

I've seen it. At senior level - not admin / support staff, but at management level, yes.

south of the border?
ive not seen it. But it will happen. Just not yet. no need for it yet. wired network devices are more accurate and secure. Apart from presentation devices.
its not policy as of yet. Many senior people have devices but they are not 'work' devices even though work might have bought them.

No, in the north. It's moving with the times - it's not a "luxury" as you described it. I can't comment on the south, but don't see why it shouldn't happen, or why anyone should have difficulty with there being wifi in the civil service, as long as the proper controls are in place.

by the way - no guarantee sf will be as good or bad if they ever got into power down here.
different setup and not the mickey mouse effort of the six counties.

I was talking strictly in terms of the performance of the civil service, which is as relevant in the north as in the south. On other matters of government, yes, SF has yet to take charge of 'proper' powers, although some might say performance in managing the limited powers at Stormont doesn't bode well.

[Rossfan]

As of now SF in the 26 Cos sound like a rehash of FF1977 - abolish taxes and improve public services.
Not even SF can have that much money stashed away.

[muppet]

If you are going to refuse to pay, then do the decent thing and go outside and turn off your water. Put up a sign outside your house saying you won't pay for the water, nor will you use any, and you will have the empathy of most and admiration of some.

Bring Dublin to a standstill for something that was signed off 3 years ago is completely idiotic.

But since we were forced into a bailout, there is no point in protesting. Look at Greece. It causes chaos locally, spooks badly needed investors and tourists, and the austerity doesn't go away. Joe Higgins & co will gain a seat or two and that is about it.

Is is worth it?

Forced into a bailout. And it was accepted without question.
Forced to hand over water rights. accept without question?

If you knew that a water authority were going to do a job properly then it might be accepted. But you know it's another jobs for the boys/profit making exercise. Why's Denis O'Brien involved. For the good of the country?

expected better from you muppet.

What?

We accepted a guarantee of €500n of bank debts without a murmur (except some of us here - check the Bailout thread). Sinn Féin even voted for it.
We accepted the Troika Bailout without a word. And bailout means we were force fed high interest loans which we have to pay back along with some painful medicine. Again not a word from our heroic demonstrators.

But now it seems the straw that breaks the camels back is poxy water charges. 10s of thousands of people manage to get off work (how exactly do they always manage to do that?) to disrupt the rest of us who actually work and pay for everything - to demand that we pay more.

If they don't want to pay for water, fine. But they should be cut off. If it is a natural resource they will have no bother finding it.

Better than that me arse.

The general population aren't economics graduates so they trusted the governments of the time to get the best deals possible.
Had it been clearer what the deal on the table was exactly you'd have seen similar protests. Sure even Brian Lenihan didn't have the foggiest what was happening, how do you expect the ordinary punter to have such an insight.

Advocating cutting water supplies to the poorer people in society? Again, thought better of you than that.

I said nothing of the sort.

I said cut off those that don't want to pay, not those that can't pay.

[lynchbhoy]

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

I've seen it. At senior level - not admin / support staff, but at management level, yes.

south of the border?
ive not seen it. But it will happen. Just not yet. no need for it yet. wired network devices are more accurate and secure. Apart from presentation devices.
its not policy as of yet. Many senior people have devices but they are not 'work' devices even though work might have bought them.

No, in the north. It's moving with the times - it's not a "luxury" as you described it. I can't comment on the south, but don't see why it shouldn't happen, or why anyone should have difficulty with there being wifi in the civil service, as long as the proper controls are in place.

by the way - no guarantee sf will be as good or bad if they ever got into power down here.
different setup and not the mickey mouse effort of the six counties.

I was talking strictly in terms of the performance of the civil service, which is as relevant in the north as in the south. On other matters of government, yes, SF has yet to take charge of 'proper' powers, although some might say performance in managing the limited powers at Stormont doesn't bode well.

As long as the proper controls are in place?
What would those be?
No offense to you but a lot of things done in the northern 6 counties - esp in politics and public sector- are fur coat no knickers type of stunts.
Look at us look at us we've titanic quarter Ulster fry alstar skats - and not a fecking jot of revenue generation outside of selling whiskey and beads / sashes.... It's like the Wild West frontier of America in 1700's
The ultra modern public sector types might all be bedecked with tablet computers - but this belies the fact that it's all run from England !!
Waste of technology on those twits!

I'm sure sf will be at least as equally as useless as what's there now in Irish gov , as well as what's gone before.
Considering also spoiling my vote next time out. Unless we get a baldy leftie culchie dole scrounging druggie standing in this constituency instead of the whest- so I can effectively spoil my vote by giving it to him !

[macdanger2]

Deiseach, who do you advocate we vote for in the next election if we're going to give FG and Lab a kicking ? FF SF Looney  left  100 Independents...

As of now, I'll be spoiling my ballot paper.

Ahhh for fcuk sake......

Spoiling your vote is probably the best way of expressing your dissatisfaction with the entire system, if 40% of the electorate went out and spoiled their vote instead of sitting on the arse complaining it'd send a pretty powerful message

[Maguire01]

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

I've seen it. At senior level - not admin / support staff, but at management level, yes.

south of the border?
ive not seen it. But it will happen. Just not yet. no need for it yet. wired network devices are more accurate and secure. Apart from presentation devices.
its not policy as of yet. Many senior people have devices but they are not 'work' devices even though work might have bought them.

No, in the north. It's moving with the times - it's not a "luxury" as you described it. I can't comment on the south, but don't see why it shouldn't happen, or why anyone should have difficulty with there being wifi in the civil service, as long as the proper controls are in place.

As long as the proper controls are in place?
What would those be?

Whatever controls are expected to mitigate the security risks you alluded to. I'm not an IT expert, but even without a wireless network there are security risks, hence firewalls etc.
Sure why bother with computers at all - let's just do it all with pen and paper and lock it away in a cabinet each night.

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

I've seen it. At senior level - not admin / support staff, but at management level, yes.

south of the border?
ive not seen it. But it will happen. Just not yet. no need for it yet. wired network devices are more accurate and secure. Apart from presentation devices.
its not policy as of yet. Many senior people have devices but they are not 'work' devices even though work might have bought them.

No, in the north. It's moving with the times - it's not a "luxury" as you described it. I can't comment on the south, but don't see why it shouldn't happen, or why anyone should have difficulty with there being wifi in the civil service, as long as the proper controls are in place.

by the way - no guarantee sf will be as good or bad if they ever got into power down here.
different setup and not the mickey mouse effort of the six counties.

I was talking strictly in terms of the performance of the civil service, which is as relevant in the north as in the south. On other matters of government, yes, SF has yet to take charge of 'proper' powers, although some might say performance in managing the limited powers at Stormont doesn't bode well.

No offense to you but a lot of things done in the northern 6 counties - esp in politics and public sector- are fur coat no knickers type of stunts.
Look at us look at us we've titanic quarter Ulster fry alstar skats - and not a fecking jot of revenue generation outside of selling whiskey and beads / sashes.... It's like the Wild West frontier of America in 1700's
The ultra modern public sector types might all be bedecked with tablet computers - but this belies the fact that it's all run from England !!
Waste of technology on those twits!

I'm sure sf will be at least as equally as useless as what's there now in Irish gov , as well as what's gone before.
Considering also spoiling my vote next time out. Unless we get a baldy leftie culchie dole scrounging druggie standing in this constituency instead of the whest- so I can effectively spoil my vote by giving it to him !

Not sure why I should be offended.
The public sector in Northern Ireland employs around 220,000 people. And you might consider the likes of the Titanic project to be all "fur coat and no knickers", but the public sector in NI also runs health, education, pays benefits etc. - all those 'bread and butter' functions that exist in any country. It's irrelevant to this discussion that the economy isn't sophisticated, or that full government powers aren't in Belfast. My point is that SF is in power in NI, therefore consideration of how well they manage the public sector in the north is the best indication we have of how they might manage it in the south.

[Maguire01]

Deiseach, who do you advocate we vote for in the next election if we're going to give FG and Lab a kicking ? FF SF Looney  left  100 Independents...

As of now, I'll be spoiling my ballot paper.

Ahhh for fcuk sake......

Spoiling your vote is probably the best way of expressing your dissatisfaction with the entire system, if 40% of the electorate went out and spoiled their vote instead of sitting on the arse complaining it'd send a pretty powerful message

Wouldn't change anything though, would it? You'd still have the same people in power.
Also, if voting was mandatory, I doubt the 40% who don't vote now would all spoil their vote - i'd expect a good number of them to vote for the existing parties / candidates. Many people don't vote because they couldn't be bothered, or they don't think their vote will count, given the strength of parties  / candidates in their constituency.

[Rossfan]

Eveb if 90% spoiled their votes the electionwould be decided by the other 10%.

[macdanger2]

Eveb if 90% spoiled their votes the electionwould be decided by the other 10%.

Jesus, you don't miss much 

Obviously but the big outcome of such a result would be that 90% of people didn't want to vote for ANY of the current parties.

It would be impossible to write even a 10% spoiled vote result off as laziness. New parties would be formed on both right and left and the existing parties would be forced to change.