The Fine Gael thread

[foxcommander]

voting for responsible parties.

PMSL. Now you are on the wind-up.

[Rossfan]

Out of interest, do you have sources for the 80% for the Irish health expenditure and 60% for the UK?

Surely the figures will be distorted as the NHS pays for "free" GP care for all while the HSE pays for "free" GP care for Medical Card holders only.

[Maguire01]

Similar to my own questions. But also, we need to know:

Whether 60% of spend on salaries provides a better service. It's a comparison, but it still doesn't actually tell you which is better.
Similarly for the 70% to 80% increase - if this was as a result of negotiating better prices for medicines and using the saved money to hire extra nurses, then it's a result.

You tried to ridicule Lynchboy and now when there are comparisons given u ask "but do they provide a better service than the HSE?" it's the HSE ffs, described as Angola by a previous minister for health. As for your ridiculous statement about possible savings in medicine being used to hire extra nurses? There are so many holes in that statement I don't know where to start but here are a few pointers. Why do Irish patients go over the border to get their medication? Because it's cheaper and by a good distance (excuse the pun). NHS get cheaper drugs. And as for using these "savings" to hire extra nurses, I've already posted a link which states that front level staff numbers have diminished as the number of middle managers has increased. All your postings are hypothetical and far far away from reality.

The proof is in the figures. NHS are able to spend 40% of costs on non salary costs compared to 20% spent by the HSE. Services and facilities would have to be better with these figures. More resources available to invest in technology, drugs, research etc.

Do you have the source of those stats yet?

[mikehunt]

Similar to my own questions. But also, we need to know:

Whether 60% of spend on salaries provides a better service. It's a comparison, but it still doesn't actually tell you which is better.
Similarly for the 70% to 80% increase - if this was as a result of negotiating better prices for medicines and using the saved money to hire extra nurses, then it's a result.

You tried to ridicule Lynchboy and now when there are comparisons given u ask "but do they provide a better service than the HSE?" it's the HSE ffs, described as Angola by a previous minister for health. As for your ridiculous statement about possible savings in medicine being used to hire extra nurses? There are so many holes in that statement I don't know where to start but here are a few pointers. Why do Irish patients go over the border to get their medication? Because it's cheaper and by a good distance (excuse the pun). NHS get cheaper drugs. And as for using these "savings" to hire extra nurses, I've already posted a link which states that front level staff numbers have diminished as the number of middle managers has increased. All your postings are hypothetical and far far away from reality.

The proof is in the figures. NHS are able to spend 40% of costs on non salary costs compared to 20% spent by the HSE. Services and facilities would have to be better with these figures. More resources available to invest in technology, drugs, research etc.

Do you have the source of those stats yet?

Google is your friend. 

[armaghniac]

These 80% type figures need a breakdown before you can draw any conclusion from them. Some things are "current" expenditure and some "capital" expenditure, these definitions can vary hugely. If the health service outsources the transport of samples instead of paying drivers then "wages" go down and "transport" goes up, without any change whatsoever in the reality of the use of people.

[Maguire01]

Similar to my own questions. But also, we need to know:

Whether 60% of spend on salaries provides a better service. It's a comparison, but it still doesn't actually tell you which is better.
Similarly for the 70% to 80% increase - if this was as a result of negotiating better prices for medicines and using the saved money to hire extra nurses, then it's a result.

You tried to ridicule Lynchboy and now when there are comparisons given u ask "but do they provide a better service than the HSE?" it's the HSE ffs, described as Angola by a previous minister for health. As for your ridiculous statement about possible savings in medicine being used to hire extra nurses? There are so many holes in that statement I don't know where to start but here are a few pointers. Why do Irish patients go over the border to get their medication? Because it's cheaper and by a good distance (excuse the pun). NHS get cheaper drugs. And as for using these "savings" to hire extra nurses, I've already posted a link which states that front level staff numbers have diminished as the number of middle managers has increased. All your postings are hypothetical and far far away from reality.

The proof is in the figures. NHS are able to spend 40% of costs on non salary costs compared to 20% spent by the HSE. Services and facilities would have to be better with these figures. More resources available to invest in technology, drugs, research etc.

Do you have the source of those stats yet?

Google is your friend.

You're the one quoting the figures, it's not for me to prove you're not making things up.

[Lar Naparka]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...


oh..and RTE says there were 30,000 at the protest on Saturday. Someone from FG must have loaned them their calculator.
Impartial reporting??

??
The Sunday Mirror put the figure at 80,000. Both estimates can't be correct.

Nobody mentioning the 4,570,000 or 4,520,000 who didn't partake part in Ogle's march.

Not quite sure I understand what you are on about but I take it you are not suggesting that all who didn't join the march, don't agree with its aims.
If you or anyone else think that's the case, why not try to stage a pro-tax march and see how far  you get beyond the first available lamppost.
Being serious and going by the latest Dept figures, 60% of the number of households liable for water tax have already signed up so it's a foregone conclusion that the remaining 40% won't at this stage.

So 40% of your 4,570,000 comes to 1,828,000.
So far so good, but...
Can you really believe stats or figures of any sort from a government source?
What about yesterday's revelation in the Sindo that a senior official in the Dept of Environment emailed a counterpart in Finance telling him that
"We have been spinning that there is sufficient land with planning permission/zoned for housing circa 46,000 housing units... but the reality is that this figure includes land not yet zoned for housing and without planning permission,"
In an email obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, a senior officer in the Department of the Environment states the "real figure" is 30,000 units. But there is also doubt over that claim after the Department admitted yesterday the 30,000 unit figure was only a "reasonably accurate" assessment.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exposed-cabinets-spin-on-land-available-to-build-thousands-of-muchneeded-homes-31085473.html
So govt sources in this instance had, it appears, padded figures to suit their cause but at least 50%.
The only logical assumption is that it was govt policy to beef their election chances that led to this "spin.
(Anyone who thinks Enda Kenny & Co. don't lie, never heard of Roscommon  A&E)
So being generous to the pro-water tax brigade, I'd  say the number who have actually signed up would be 50% or thereabouts. The likelihood is that it is a good deal less.
So at 50%, the number who'd back Saturday's march comes to 2,285,000  at the very least.

Of the remaining 2,285,000, a large proportion signed up out of necessity rather than conviction. In other words, they signed up for practical reasons like medical necessity and not because they felt it was their moral duty to do so.
Being uber-generous to the proponents of water charges, I'd say no more than half the remainder support the aims of the marchers. That's erring on the generous I know but, in answer to the question I assume you were asking, at least 3,437,000  backed the march whilst,
at most,  1,145,666 opposed it.

[armaghniac]

Of the remaining 2,285,000, a large proportion signed up out of necessity rather than conviction. In other words, they signed up for practical reasons like medical necessity and not because they felt it was their moral duty to do so.
Being uber-generous to the proponents of water charges, I'd say no more than half the remainder support the aims of the marchers. That's erring on the generous I know but, in answer to the question I assume you were asking, at least 3,437,000  backed the march whilst,
at most,  1,145,666 opposed it.

Is Bertie Ahern lurking in this forum, even the children support the march, it seems?

[Lar Naparka]

Of the remaining 2,285,000, a large proportion signed up out of necessity rather than conviction. In other words, they signed up for practical reasons like medical necessity and not because they felt it was their moral duty to do so.
Being uber-generous to the proponents of water charges, I'd say no more than half the remainder support the aims of the marchers. That's erring on the generous I know but, in answer to the question I assume you were asking, at least 3,437,000  backed the march whilst,
at most,  1,145,666 opposed it.

Is Bertie Ahern lurking in this forum, even the children support the march, it seems?

Perhaps you'd care and go back and read Rossfan's original question before making an ass of yourself yet again.

"Nobody mentioning the 4,570,000 or 4,520,000 who didn't partake part in Ogle's march."
Better ask him if that includes children. I assumed it was the total number liable for water charges and I went to great lengths to state this. I thought what I wrote was idiot--proof but I guess I need to try harder...

[Rossfan]

The CSO reckon there are 4.6 million people living in this State.
30,000 or 80,000 took part in an Ogle inspired march and he and others were roaring and shouting about how much support they had.
Some of them claimed it was the biggest protest ever
There were around 900,000 in the PAYE protests back in the late 70s.
Saw on the News tonight they say 1m of the 1.5m eligible public water supplied houses had registered.

[muppet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrpUUzRPPAo

Brendan Ogle, leader of the ESB unions, slags off the ESB workers as 'privileged' and 'spoilt' at a speech to Éirigí. Some to the lads were probably there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrpUUzRPPAo

Meanwhile the ESB pays him €80,000 p/a, plus expenses, even though he doesn't work for them: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/esb-paying-80000-to-union-boss-who-called-members-spoilt-26766953.html

[Rossfan]

He's trying to set up some new left wing group - probably like Lucyloolah as a vehicle to get him into the Dàil without spending his own money.
UNITE and MANDATE seem to be jumping into it too - the fools the fools the fools.

[foxcommander]

the fools the fools the fools.

That's enough about you and armaniac 

Children, would you like something to drink or would you like to die of thirst?
I bet they'd vote for water charges.

[foxcommander]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...

Still nothing from the usual suspects on the board. Muppet, Maguire, Armaniac....you usually have something to counter with...

[Maguire01]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...

Still nothing from the usual suspects on the board. Muppet, Maguire, Armaniac....you usually have something to counter with...

What, do you want people to argue with you for the sake of it?