Your News Updates and Photos Here Please ! - johnfas, Ard-Taoiseach and Hermes report from the Dail

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

tonys wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

tonys wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

NO TO FEES!!!

Why?
Are the people who pay for a third level students education and thereby increased lifelong earning potential not entitled to some relief from their costs, I’m thinking in particular of workers who can’t afford to put their own children through third level but nonetheless contribute through their taxes to the benefit of all third level students.

Third level students pay for university education through the taxes they pay on the part time jobs they have to get because of the exorbitant costs of rent, food, transport, books and writing materials. Many students are barely subsisting and to add several thousand euros' worth of expense onto each and every academic year would condemn many to penury and force many to leave the third level sector altogether as it would be unaffordable.

If students have part time jobs on the basis of low earnings, the chances are they don’t pay tax at all. It should not be beyond us to put in place a system whereby payment can be made at a later date as earning flow.

If they're not paying taxes on their earnings then they must be on such a low and measly income that the imposition of several thousands of euro in annual fees would destroy these students abilities to live during college. Payment does come at a later date for university education as earnings flow, it's called PAYE.

Re the registration fee increase, I think it's a very positive move. 600 over 52 weeks is less than twelve Euro a week. Less than the price of forty cigarettes a week, or two pints ish. If students had to delve into their own pockets - or indeed their parents, there might be a considerably lower level of dropout. Those who are entitled to grants will still get them.

I haven't much sympathy for the majority of students.


Re Senator Feeney. I read that when it came out and heard the re-run of Joe Duffy's discussion of it on Playback this morning. I accept the legitimate anger of the elderly in the church but cannot condone their behaviour or their rudeness to John Moloney and Fiona O'Malley who had both been invited, who both were as entitled as anyone to speak in this democracy they keep reminding us of. The wrong behaviour of the elderly that day doesn't make anything right.

'The wrong behaviour of the elderly' is as nothing compared to the atrocious behaviour of our politicians, the bankers and the property developers. Senator Feeney has made a complete ass of herself imo with her ill-considered, patronising finger-wagging at people whose well being has been jeopardised by the incompetnce of her own party. She'd do better to turn her condescension on Lenihan, Cowen, Ahern et al. I only wish she had been there herself so someone might have told her to **** right off. That might have shut her up. It's a bit rich to get antsy about failing to observe drawing room decorum in the circumstances. The pensioners did nothing wrong - some of them will almost certainly die unnecessarily because of these cuts. Others will have to endure untreated health problems. It was a necessary signal to send to an arrogant, ruthless government. People do get angry when they are abused. Senator Feeney should get over it - and get over herself too while she's at it. What a twit.

Aragon wrote:

'The wrong behaviour of the elderly' is as nothing compared to the atrocious behaviour of our politicians, the bankers and the property developers. Senator Feeney has made a complete ass of herself imo with her ill-considered, patronising finger-wagging at people whose well being has been jeopardised by the incompetnce of her own party. She'd do better to turn her condescension on Lenihan, Cowen, Ahern et al. I only wish she had been there herself so someone might have told her to **** right off. That might have shut her up. It's a bit rich to get antsy about failing to observe drawing room decorum in the circumstances. The pensioners did nothing wrong - some of them will almost certainly die unnecessarily because of these cuts. Others will have to endure untreated health problems. It was a necessary signal to send to an arrogant, ruthless government. People do get angry when they are abused. Senator Feeney should get over it - and get over herself too while she's at it. What a twit.

*sigh* we never agree, do we Aragon?

Firstly Feeney isn't the only person who was annoyed by it.To call her comments 'ill-considered patronising finger-wagging' is just as patronising, if you don't mind me saying so, because the truth it, she was pointing out behaviour that was offensive to some in the audience there and to some onlookers. The lefties and the elderly don't have a monopoly on 'patronising finger-wagging,' you know. Nor do they have a monopoly on expecting to be treated with respect and dignity.

I know this isn't a widely held view on mediabite and on indymedia, but when protestors are hypocritical and ignorant, it does their cause and the public's perception of them no good whatsoever.

Secondly, John Moloney was very decent in the way that he dealt with it and his response on local radio to the prospect of a protest outside his home or his constituency office in Mountmellick was to say that people are entitled to protest and make their point - and this, alas is more than he was allowed to do. As it happens, he's worth hearing.

Like I say, Kate, it's a bit rich to make a silly, patronising fuss about how provoked people are when you have deliberately set out to provoke them - by putting their health and their very lives in danger. One marcher outside the Dail this week had a placard saying 'Why don't you just shoot us - it would be easier.' I'm sure there are indeed lots of other twits like Feeney out there, gasping for a non-issue to distract from the real one. The government has made a complete arse of itself and nothing would serve it so well now as to turn its victims into the villains of the piece. Nice try, but nobody sensible will fall for it. I'd wager there are many people in Fianna Fail who could cheerfully strangle Feeney for her interventions.

I listened to that Joe Duffy show the other day and found it strange that people were being told they had no right to feel angry indignation. There's some truth in that that anger can often be more destructive than constructive but when people are genuinely at the end of their tether then nothing will stop the tide.

Were they genuinely at the end of their tether though? We can hold them to it at the next election.

What happened in the Church? Were the FF politicians shouted down?

Correct, they were not permitted to speak despite being invited. I disagree with it to. If you invite someone you should allow them to speak. By all means boo them after their speech if you don't like it.

It sounds like it was almost a lynching ! or linching ?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/protest-women-refuse-to-say-sorry-1510479.html

Here is a story about one of the protestors.

Auditor #9 wrote:

I listened to that Joe Duffy show the other day and found it strange that people were being told they had no right to feel angry indignation. There's some truth in that that anger can often be more destructive than constructive but when people are genuinely at the end of their tether then nothing will stop the tide.

Were they genuinely at the end of their tether though? We can hold them to it at the next election.

Did we listen to the same programme? Nobody said they didn't have the right to feel angry indignation. The discussion centred on two issues. One was whether the sanctity of the church was breached by the behaviour of elderly and the other was the acceptability of how their ire was transmitted. One of the points made was that students would never have been allowed into the church and secondly we'd all be up in arms if they behaved as the elderly did - and rightly so, in my opinion. There was no dispute about the right of the elderly to hold their opinion or experience the feelings they did.

Kate P wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I listened to that Joe Duffy show the other day and found it strange that people were being told they had no right to feel angry indignation. There's some truth in that that anger can often be more destructive than constructive but when people are genuinely at the end of their tether then nothing will stop the tide.

Were they genuinely at the end of their tether though? We can hold them to it at the next election.

Did we listen to the same programme? Nobody said they didn't have the right to feel angry indignation. The discussion centred on two issues. One was whether the sanctity of the church was breached by the behaviour of elderly and the other was the acceptability of how their ire was transmitted. One of the points made was that students would never have been allowed into the church and secondly we'd all be up in arms if they behaved as the elderly did - and rightly so, in my opinion. There was no dispute about the right of the elderly to hold their opinion or experience the feelings they did.

I'm sure I heard them discuss about expressing anger in the way they did - shouting down the politicians - but generally it was a northern lad expressing disgust at the idea of the church being used as a gathering hall for a mob.

The priest sounded very sorry for his sins - it must have been fierce raucous - are there any videos of it at all ?

johnfás wrote:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/protest-women-refuse-to-say-sorry-1510479.html

Here is a story about one of the protestors.

That's interesting. And it puts the lie to all the nonsense about 'mobs' etc. A couple of sassy gals stood up and spoke some truth to power - a phenomenon so unfamiliar to our elitist politicians their only recourse is to their outraged vanity, it seems. Big deal. The contrived reaction to it is laughable - it remins me of the 'please sir, may I have some more' scene out of Olivr Twist. Good to see people stepping outside the role alotted them by politicians and asserting some authority over the issues that affect them. And where better than a church for some righteous indignation. It's not just Fianna Fail either - they are all as arrogant and condescending as each other - as soon as they get elected most of therm seem to acquire embarrassingly stupid superiority complexes. The social worker was right - Moloney et al should have been there to listen to what people had to say - not to insult them further with excuses for what had been done. The leaders of social voluntary agencies like Age Concern are often not much better, either (though it may not be the case with AC). A lot of them are government appointed placemen installed to quell any true engagement from the grassroots they are supposed to represent. The appalling 'Social Partnership' has been virulently effective at gagging legitimate expressions of concern - setting up faux consultations with the voluntary sector and relying on a deliberate policy of delay and procrastination so as to disillusion people and make them feel hopeless. Politicians should be paid the national average wage - which I believe is approx 37K - still well above what the lowest paid are earning. They should be recalled every six months to their constituencies to account to local voters' on what they have been doing. Private companies usually run appraisal schemes to assess performance. You certainly don't get put into a responsible job and left to your own devices for 5 years. As their employers, we need proper citizen appraisals for politicians.

What many people don't seem to fully appreciate until they have a reason to get close to it, is just how viciously calculating Fianna Fail are. They know exactly how to get things past people with what are often downright lies. Good people will usually give others the benefit of the doubt - they will trust them as they know they can be trusted themselves - so that when they are told, for example, that disability legislation guarantees rights for the disabled -even though it does nothing of the sort - they will want to believe it and are reluctant to think they are being told lies. Reading the legislation itself won't help much either because it's difficult to get past the deliberately confusing and unhelpful drafting which makes it hard even for experienced lawyers to understand. (A tried and trusted FF strategy right across the policy spectrum.) When ministers stand up in the Dail with earnest Daddy expressions arranged on their faces and voices modulated to gently patronising tones, the only choice most people have is to hope that the politicians mean at least some of what they say. Fianna Fail has sold all of its economic and social policy to the public by using and abusing this sort of trust, with the ever compliant and obliging mainstream media a willing and frequently dulwitted handmaiden in the con. It's been going on for so long and is now so insultingly blatant that people are beginning, rightly, to be angry about it. Look at the horrific mess they have made of things. Let the experience of Moloney and his crony be a warning to Fianna Fail: stop ****ing us around. We're tired of it and will continue to be angry - as we have every right to be.

Aragon wrote:

johnfás wrote:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/protest-women-refuse-to-say-sorry-1510479.html

Here is a story about one of the protestors.

That's interesting. And it puts the lie to all the nonsense about 'mobs' etc. A couple of sassy gals stood up and spoke some truth to power - a phenomenon so unfamiliar to our elitist politicians their only recourse is to their outraged vanity, it seems. Big deal. The contrived reaction to it is laughable - it remins me of the 'please sir, may I have some more' scene out of Olivr Twist. Good to see people stepping outside the role alotted them by politicians and asserting some authority over the issues that affect them. And where better than a church for some righteous indignation. It's not just Fianna Fail either - they are all as arrogant and condescending as each other - as soon as they get elected most of therm seem to acquire embarrassingly stupid superiority complexes. The social worker was right - Moloney et al should have been there to listen to what people had to say - not to insult them further with excuses for what had been done. The leaders of social voluntary agencies like Age Concern are often not much better, either (though it may not be the case with AC). A lot of them are government appointed placemen installed to quell any true engagement from the grassroots they are supposed to represent. The appalling 'Social Partnership' has been virulently effective at gagging legitimate expressions of concern - setting up faux consultations with the voluntary sector and relying on a deliberate policy of delay and procrastination so as to disillusion people and make them feel hopeless. Politicians should be paid the national average wage - which I believe is approx 37K - still well above what the lowest paid are earning. They should be recalled every six months to their constituencies to account to local voters' on what they have been doing. Private companies usually run appraisal schemes to assess performance. You certainly don't get put into a responsible job and left to your own devices for 5 years. As their employers, we need proper citizen appraisals for politicians.
What many people don't seem to fully appreciate until they have a reason to get close to it, is just how viciously calculating Fianna Fail are. They know exactly how to get things past people with what are often downright lies. Good people will usually give others the benefit of the doubt - they will trust them as they know they can be trusted themselves - so that when they are told, for example, that disability legislation guarantees rights for the disabled -even though it does nothing of the sort - they will want to believe it and are reluctant to think they are being told lies. Reading the legislation itself won't help much either because it's difficult to get past the deliberately confusing and unhelpful drafting which makes it hard even for experienced lawyers to understand. (A tried and trusted FF strategy right across the policy spectrum.) When ministers stand up in the Dail with earnest Daddy expressions arranged on their faces and voices modulated to gently patronising tones, the only choice most people have is to hope that the politicians mean at least some of what they say. Fianna Fail has sold all of its economic and social policy to the public by using and abusing this sort of trust, with the ever compliant and obliging mainstream media a willing and frequently dulwitted handmaiden in the con. It's been going on for so long and is now so insultingly blatant that people are beginning, rightly, to be angry about it. Look at the horrific mess they have made of things. Let the experience of Moloney and his crony be a warning to Fianna Fail: stop ****ing us around. We're tired of it and will continue to be angry - as we have every right to be.

The words in bold get to the nub of it I think. Five years is way too long for a government to be able to run the country with no right of recall.
In the smallest company in Ireland shareholders have the right to call an Emergency General Meeting and look for replacement or censure of the Board.
Governments feel immune at the beginning of their term and for two experienced politicians the occasional shouting down is water off a ducks back.
Governments assume that they can do what they like in the first years of their term and then in the last year manipulate the budget to flush money into people's pockets just before the elections. SSIAs how are you.

With a system like this people feel powerless and all they can do is shout.

The Independent interviews were well done I thought and went beyond the soundbite level. As far as I remember, and it may say further up this thread, the meeting was called so that older people could speak their views and polititicans were invited to listen.

Edit: From the Age Action website:

Quote :

Age Action will stage a public meeting at the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel, Fenian Street, Off Merrion Square, Dublin 2, at 11am on Tuesday, October 21. We are holding the meeting to enable older people tell our politicians the impact which the proposed changes to their entitlement will have on them. Ministers, TDs and Senators will be invited.

http://www.ncbi.ie/news/press-releases/2008-10-16_public-meeting-regarding-the-withdrawal-of-medical-cards-for-over-70s

This fits in with my recall of what Age Action Ireland said on RTE before the meeting - politians were invited to listen to the over 70s give their reasons for objecting to the changes. That would also explain why John Moloney was so quick to step back from speaking. The television footage was cut to convey the anger of people in the meeting, but on Joe Duffy's programme it was mentioned that the meeting as a whole ( a long meeting) was orderly. I wouldn't criticise RTE for showing the most dramatic part, but there was obviously a lot more to the meeting than those few minutes.

I have to say I have no problem with a Church being used for political activism. We need only look to the history books to discover that some of the most important social and political movements were devised in and effected from churches whether it be the abolitionists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or the vast social movements sparked by John Wesley.

That said, use of a church as a place to censure people with whom you disagree or to show total disrespect for other's opinions, however different from your own, is not something which I can agree with.

What a shot:

Kate P wrote:

Re the registration fee increase, I think it's a very positive move. 600 over 52 weeks is less than twelve Euro a week. Less than the price of forty cigarettes a week, or two pints ish. If students had to delve into their own pockets - or indeed their parents, there might be a considerably lower level of dropout. Those who are entitled to grants will still get them.

But if tuition fees come back then grants won't cover the expense and with the actual sum of money for grants frozen, there's no guarantee that the €600 extra will be covered next year. A lot of students will be pushed to pay that €600 with rent, travel, food, clothing, books and stationery expenses, never mind the drink and cigarettes.

Quote :

I haven't much sympathy for the majority of students.

Well students in third level go on to pay significantly higher levels of PAYE than those without a degree since a degree commands a higher pay scale. Indeed the approximate €4200 of tuition fees currently paid by the Minister for Education is more than paid back by the tens of thousands of euro in extra taxable income created by third level education. Fees would undo a significant portion of that creation, to the extent that the measure would become self-defeating. No to fees!

I came across an OECD Report that said that students should not have to get into debt to get further education: fees and low grants were associated with countries with lower levels of third level participation.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/56/41494435.pdf

I have a lot of sympathy for students, the majority of whom are not gadding about on gap years or indulging themselves in wildly hedonistic excess. I wish we could get away from constantly caricaturing young people like this. Getting into third level in the first place requires application and dedication and most are deadly serious about it and do not squander the opportunity lightly - evenif they do enjoy their Friday and Saturday nights. We ought to invest in this intellectual capital or else we are doomed as a country. The cost of books alone is astronomical for many courses - textbooks may cost as much as 80-100 euro each. University libraries are poorly stocked and there are never enough second hand books to go around - besides the books keep being revised. For a majority, third level will involve accommodation and subsistence costs since they cannot commute daily from their parents' homes - and this is prohibitive for most families. There are very few students who do not deserve our sympathy in this respect - with all but a minority having to worry very much about how it is all to be paid for. I dont see why individuals should take on the burden of subsidising the acquisition of skills that the country will avail itself of to the hilt. If we can supply generous tax subsidies to investors in privatising the health service, why can we not provide comparable supports to our own students. The return on the investment will be a lot more.

No money whatsoever for 3rd level. Give them a loan. If the degree that a student seeks is not worth say the 40 grand he needs to spend to get it then don't bother doing the course. Why should future poor people pay the costs of future rich people. Grow a set of balls or take a hike

youngdan wrote:

No money whatsoever for 3rd level. Give them a loan. If the degree that a student seeks is not worth say the 40 grand he needs to spend to get it then don't bother doing the course. Why should future poor people pay the costs of future rich people. Grow a set of balls or take a hike

sorry, I'm following you around now yd - nothing personal.

I'd like to know a bit more of what you believe is at the root of economics ? This is for example what I roughly believe:-

80% of us do sweet f&ck all in terms of vital production value in our economic societies
20% of us work to produce stuff
That 20% of production is enough to feed, house and clothe everyone so what do we do in the meantime ?

We prioritise education, we provide for the elderly, we help the needy.

That is a sweet system for the 80% but the problem now is the 20% are all tapped out.

How about this being a better description. 50% slaving and taxed to death. 49 .99% wasters. That is those not working and working in or for government eg dole, grannies, teachers, pencil pushers.

That leaves .01% of people who run the show.

Have a read http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/25/osborne-rothschild-deripaska-corfu

This article explains clearly that the politicians are well below the elite in the power structure of the real world. Anyone that thinks Brown is the boss is a complete dunce

youngdan wrote:

That is a sweet system for the 80% but the problem now is the 20% are all tapped out.

How about this being a better description. 50% slaving and taxed to death. 49 .99% wasters. That is those not working and working in or for government eg dole, grannies, teachers, pencil pushers.

That leaves .01% of people who run the show.

Have a read http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/25/osborne-rothschild-deripaska-corfu

This article explains clearly that the politicians are well below the elite in the power structure of the real world. Anyone that thinks Brown is the boss is a complete dunce

Doesn't our economic system not produce enough of the basics efficiently enough as it is thus leaving a swathe of service and leisure and welfare classes etc. who yeah do feck all really. Now, what are they supposed to do ? If everyone worked on the land then we'd have too much food and similarly for houses and clothing etc. as we see what is happening with flooding of markets with shite at present. There are plenty of people out there who can't find work and I'd say there are plenty who don't need to find it either.

Don't you think the system we live produces what we need efficiently enough so that there can be services on top of it ? It's a matter of organising it so those services on top best suit the needs of people - education, leisure, entertainment, travel, hunting wild game at the weekend etc.

Thats the problem with parliamentary democracy. The levers of power are concentrated ina few people that can easily indentified by those with the big bucks. Many of those big billionaires really are deserving of the guillotine.
What make me mad is that the people who go one about this injustice are the present left-wing which besically attempts to remove the concentrated power from one set of individuals and place it in the hands of another set without addresing th ereal problem which is staring them in the face. Therefore Mandelson, the socialist, is the ideal pawn of people like Rothchild. What we need is a system that those not allow these polictical idiots any chance to get in charge, and so stopthe influence of the rich and the interest groups. I'm a republican because I believe in puer contitutional equality.

The system in place now of course encourages the opposite. Take for example Bertie Ahern - a man who was basically in charge of deciding how much money the state would pay for public contracts, what the expenditure would be and what the national policy would be. In 1997, 2002 and 2007 we essentially handed him dictactorial powers because there apparently was no other choice. Bertie Ahern, like Mandelson, however was utterly inappropriate for this task. Basically he rose to the top of his party due to his ability to make favours, get things donw for the people in a part of dublin, and intrigue and backstab enough to get ahead in a certain exclusive social organisation called Fianna Fail , whose own goal is simply power. These characteristics do not however guarantee a perfect financial manger and arbitrator of justice. In fact it does the opposite.
I would argue that the Americans were semi-wise in only allowing their presidents two terms of office, but not wise enough to only allow them one term.
Our system inherently leads itself to corruption. These are bought men that we have as leaders. Its time we woke up to the fact and applied the appropriate remedy.

Auditor #9 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

That is a sweet system for the 80% but the problem now is the 20% are all tapped out.

How about this being a better description. 50% slaving and taxed to death. 49 .99% wasters. That is those not working and working in or for government eg dole, grannies, teachers, pencil pushers.

That leaves .01% of people who run the show.

Have a read http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/25/osborne-rothschild-deripaska-corfu

This article explains clearly that the politicians are well below the elite in the power structure of the real world. Anyone that thinks Brown is the boss is a complete dunce

Doesn't our economic system not produce enough of the basics efficiently enough as it is thus leaving a swathe of service and leisure and welfare classes etc. who yeah do feck all really. Now, what are they supposed to do ? If everyone worked on the land then we'd have too much food and similarly for houses and clothing etc. as we see what is happening with flooding of markets with shite at present. There are plenty of people out there who can't find work and I'd say there are plenty who don't need to find it either.

Don't you think the system we live produces what we need efficiently enough so that there can be services on top of it ? It's a matter of organising it so those services on top best suit the needs of people - education, leisure, entertainment, travel, hunting wild game at the weekend etc.

The hunter gatherers work about 2 hours a day. Half the reason for the economic crisis is overproduction. The more stuff is produced, the harder it is to make a profit - you see this with agriculture, where prices collapse if there is a good harvest. China has produced so much stuff so cheaply that the US gave up producing and lived on the tick. If we had worker co-ops we could work until enough is produced and then go home and play with the baby, or play football or plant veg.

Respvblica. You are a republican in the sense of favouring a republic I assume. That is a fine bit of clear thinking. I am listening to a series of lectures on ancient Greece. They had the right idea. Only a man of means gets to vote. Having halfwits looking for a handout voting does not work.