Week in Politics - the Green Party Convention in Wexford

Eh?.... having a break from the all night negotiations? Well it was recorded well in advance of 9 o'clock this evening given that they showed clips of the interview on the news. So at 9 they had already had time to edit it.

FG just said that small businesspeople he knew had stopped paying themselves wages to keep their heads above water. That would be my definition of submersion.

It is also accurate.

Gilmore Lenihan

Bankers salaries
Dole
Social partners

Pat Breen didn't take a pay cut --- grrr

The levy will generate 1.8bn this year but the sums do not add up according to an economist on this who believes it will really be 1bn in Exchequer Savings

a very small step ... one giant leap left

Not sure how helpful it is to compare modern-day Ireland to post-WWII Japan?

There seems to be a very anti-Gov slide on the show tonight. TBH I think the PS pension levy, if it goes through, is going to be a source of much regret for FF in times to come.

Lenihan isn't the most fortunate to have taken up such a poisoned chalice as that.

Gilmore is electioneering though.

Electioneering is the opposition's job. At least Gilmore is doing his job as opposed to Kenny who has repeatedly shied away from any real attempt to assert himself as a viable alternative to the current leaders. Maybe it is down to naivety on Gilmore's part as undoubtedly he doesn't know the length and breadth of the challenges that the government will face in the next couple of years but as long as we have an active opposition and an adversarial political process, that in itself contributes to the political climate and the efficacy of government in the country.

evercloserunion wrote:

There seems to be a very anti-Gov slide on the show tonight. TBH I think the PS pension levy, if it goes through, is going to be a source of much regret for FF in times to come.

A small price to pay if so. Elections & the mind of the electorate come and go with time.

In any event a disconnect between FF and the public service unions in the future would be no bad thing, they have been far too close in the past.

evercloserunion wrote:

Electioneering is the opposition's job. At least Gilmore is doing his job as opposed to Kenny who has repeatedly shied away from any real attempt to assert himself as a viable alternative to the current leaders. Maybe it is down to naivety on Gilmore's part as undoubtedly he doesn't know the length and breadth of the challenges that the government will face in the next couple of years but as long as we have an active opposition and an adversarial political process, that in itself contributes to the political climate and the efficacy of government in the country.

Fair points and I think Gilmore is a little naive on this while I don't agree with you on Kenny really - maybe he's half afraid of the devastation that will be caused ... Imagine we have unemployment figures of 30k again in february and similar in March - we'd be close to 400k by April - David Davin Power looked genuinely concerned.

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

There seems to be a very anti-Gov slide on the show tonight. TBH I think the PS pension levy, if it goes through, is going to be a source of much regret for FF in times to come.

A small price to pay if so. Elections & the mind of the electorate come and go with time.

In any event a disconnect between FF and the public service unions in the future would be no bad thing, they have been far too close in the past.

The public service have traditionally been amongst the most loyal groups to FF but such measures leaving public servants in potentially serious financial trouble will sour that long-lasting and very beneficial (especially to FF) relationship. The government are relying on public hatred of the public service which may well carry them through but it's a bit of a tightrope.

evercloserunion wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

There seems to be a very anti-Gov slide on the show tonight. TBH I think the PS pension levy, if it goes through, is going to be a source of much regret for FF in times to come.

A small price to pay if so. Elections & the mind of the electorate come and go with time.

In any event a disconnect between FF and the public service unions in the future would be no bad thing, they have been far too close in the past.

The public service have traditionally been amongst the most loyal groups to FF but such measures leaving public servants in potentially serious financial trouble will sour that long-lasting and very beneficial (especially to FF) relationship. The government are relying on public hatred of the public service which may well carry them through but it's a bit of a tightrope.

Jaysus that's a fair point too about the Party taking a gamble on that sector .... the social welfare will be another tender one. I haven't read the papers on the bankers wage rise yet but there is also a very damning article in the Star on Sunday about the TDs who did and didn't take pay cuts.....

evercloserunion wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

There seems to be a very anti-Gov slide on the show tonight. TBH I think the PS pension levy, if it goes through, is going to be a source of much regret for FF in times to come.

A small price to pay if so. Elections & the mind of the electorate come and go with time.

In any event a disconnect between FF and the public service unions in the future would be no bad thing, they have been far too close in the past.

The government are relying on public hatred of the public service which may well carry them through but it's a bit of a tightrope.

Not so, the Government are relying on the fact that the union leaders now know that if this and more isn't done now, in six months time their members won't get paid at all.

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

There seems to be a very anti-Gov slide on the show tonight. TBH I think the PS pension levy, if it goes through, is going to be a source of much regret for FF in times to come.

A small price to pay if so. Elections & the mind of the electorate come and go with time.

In any event a disconnect between FF and the public service unions in the future would be no bad thing, they have been far too close in the past.

The government are relying on public hatred of the public service which may well carry them through but it's a bit of a tightrope.

Not so, the Government are relying on the fact that the union leaders now know that if this and more isn't done now, in six months time their members won't get paid at all.

Unfortunately for both them and the union leaders that kind of speculation (and that's what it is) isn't going to fly with the actual PS workers.

evercloserunion wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

There seems to be a very anti-Gov slide on the show tonight. TBH I think the PS pension levy, if it goes through, is going to be a source of much regret for FF in times to come.

A small price to pay if so. Elections & the mind of the electorate come and go with time.

In any event a disconnect between FF and the public service unions in the future would be no bad thing, they have been far too close in the past.

The government are relying on public hatred of the public service which may well carry them through but it's a bit of a tightrope.

Not so, the Government are relying on the fact that the union leaders now know that if this and more isn't done now, in six months time their members won't get paid at all.

Unfortunately for both them and the union leaders that kind of speculation (and that's what it is) isn't going to fly with the actual PS workers.

Who will lend to us if we're in free fall?

Unfortunately tonys (or perhaps fortunately?) the world is not so black and white as to sustain a mindset of pension levies = salvation, no pension levies = freefall. Indeed I imagine most PS workers would not object to cutbacks brought in in a more equitable way. Nobody on the ground is naive enough to think that they can escape the recession without a dent in their personal finances. The ones who are angriest are the ones who will be left really struggling just to get by under the new arrangements. An eased burden on them could be compensated by an increased one at the top. Of course, the government would have to be more realistic in their assessment of the situation and introduce a system that is more considerate of individual circumstances.

In general though I don't think the PS workers well buy that they must go through considerable financial hardship or else bear the responsibility of destroying the entire country - whether told this by considerably better paid union leaders, or by considerably better paid government ministers.

evercloserunion wrote:

Not sure how helpful it is to compare modern-day Ireland to post-WWII Japan?

It isn't Japan post WWII. It is Japan in the 1990s she was talking about and the comparisons between then and Ireland now are scarily apt. They did what the government here is doing and the decision came to be seen as disastrous. It became almost a carbon copy of what not to do

evercloserunion wrote:

Unfortunately tonys (or perhaps fortunately?) the world is not so black and white as to sustain a mindset of pension levies = salvation, no pension levies = freefall. Indeed I imagine most PS workers would not object to cutbacks brought in in a more equitable way. Nobody on the ground is naive enough to think that they can escape the recession without a dent in their personal finances. The ones who are angriest are the ones who will be left really struggling just to get by under the new arrangements. An eased burden on them could be compensated by an increased one at the top. Of course, the government would have to be more realistic in their assessment of the situation and introduce a system that is more considerate of individual circumstances.

In general though I don't think the PS workers well buy that they must go through considerable financial hardship or else bear the responsibility of destroying the entire country - whether told this by considerably better paid union leaders, or by considerably better paid government ministers.

It's this simple, PS workers are paid on average 20% more that the average private sector worker, on top of that they have a pension that would cost a private sector 30% over 40 years of their wages to acquire, in total they are on average 50% better off than their private sector counterpart. The fact is we, that is all of us, can no longer afford to subsidise this difference. By that I don't mean we don't want to or we think it's not fair that we should have to, I mean we no longer have the money to do it and even with strikes, work to rule situations or street protests, blood will not come from a stone.

So far the private sector has taken all the hit, reductions in pay and all the job loses, it's time now for the public service to step up to the plate. No one looks forward to doing it, but it has to be done.

Papal_knight Two wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Not sure how helpful it is to compare modern-day Ireland to post-WWII Japan?

It isn't Japan post WWII. It is Japan in the 1990s she was talking about and the comparisons between then and Ireland now are scarily apt. They did what the government here is doing and the decision came to be seen as disastrous. It became almost a carbon copy of what not to do

Sorry, misunderstood then.

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Unfortunately tonys (or perhaps fortunately?) the world is not so black and white as to sustain a mindset of pension levies = salvation, no pension levies = freefall. Indeed I imagine most PS workers would not object to cutbacks brought in in a more equitable way. Nobody on the ground is naive enough to think that they can escape the recession without a dent in their personal finances. The ones who are angriest are the ones who will be left really struggling just to get by under the new arrangements. An eased burden on them could be compensated by an increased one at the top. Of course, the government would have to be more realistic in their assessment of the situation and introduce a system that is more considerate of individual circumstances.

In general though I don't think the PS workers well buy that they must go through considerable financial hardship or else bear the responsibility of destroying the entire country - whether told this by considerably better paid union leaders, or by considerably better paid government ministers.

It's this simple, PS workers are paid on average 20% more that the average private sector worker, on top of that they have a pension that would cost a private sector 30% over 40 years of their wages to acquire, in total they are on average 50% better off than their private sector counterpart. The fact is we, that is all of us, can no longer afford to subsidise this difference. By that I don't mean we don't want to or we think it's not fair that we should have to, I mean we no longer have the money to do it and even with strikes, work to rule situations or street protests, blood will not come from a stone.

Sorry tonys but it's not as simple as that at all. We're going back to the black-and-white mindset here. This time it's private-good public-bad, or more accurately private-poor public-rich. Not the case, if it is the case then why do many families who rely on public sector salaries struggle while many families on private sector salaries continue to live coveted, protected lives? In many respects, trying to get blood from a stone is exactly what the pension levies are doing.

When we're talking about protecting the vulnerable and taking from those who can afford to give, the public-private line is an arbitrary and nonsensical one to draw.

evercloserunion wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Unfortunately tonys (or perhaps fortunately?) the world is not so black and white as to sustain a mindset of pension levies = salvation, no pension levies = freefall. Indeed I imagine most PS workers would not object to cutbacks brought in in a more equitable way. Nobody on the ground is naive enough to think that they can escape the recession without a dent in their personal finances. The ones who are angriest are the ones who will be left really struggling just to get by under the new arrangements. An eased burden on them could be compensated by an increased one at the top. Of course, the government would have to be more realistic in their assessment of the situation and introduce a system that is more considerate of individual circumstances.

In general though I don't think the PS workers well buy that they must go through considerable financial hardship or else bear the responsibility of destroying the entire country - whether told this by considerably better paid union leaders, or by considerably better paid government ministers.

It's this simple, PS workers are paid on average 20% more that the average private sector worker, on top of that they have a pension that would cost a private sector 30% over 40 years of their wages to acquire, in total they are on average 50% better off than their private sector counterpart. The fact is we, that is all of us, can no longer afford to subsidise this difference. By that I don't mean we don't want to or we think it's not fair that we should have to, I mean we no longer have the money to do it and even with strikes, work to rule situations or street protests, blood will not come from a stone.

Sorry tonys but it's not as simple as that at all. We're going back to the black-and-white mindset here. This time it's private-good public-bad, or more accurately private-poor public-rich. Not the case, if it is the case then why do many families who rely on public sector salaries struggle while many families on private sector salaries continue to live coveted, protected lives? In many respects, trying to get blood from a stone is exactly what the pension levies are doing.

When we're talking about protecting the vulnerable and taking from those who can afford to give, the public-private line is an arbitrary and nonsensical one to draw.

The averages I gave are accurate and there’s no getting away from that, Public Sector workers earn more, have a far better pension and are secure in their jobs, they have to get used to the new reality, it’s not pleasant, but there it is.

You rather sidestepped the issue there I'm afraid. I won't dispute your assertion that public workers are on average paid higher, and I haven't tried to dispute that. But those statistics mean relatively little when there are broad salary ranges in both sectors. Now which makes more sense, taking from those who can afford it or from those who can't? Well it is a fact that there are people in the public service who can't afford any heavy blows to their income, and there are people in the private sector who can.

And this, you see, is why those public sector workers are rather angry at having their incomes raided while private sector workers earning considerably more stand there laughing.

evercloserunion wrote:

You rather sidestepped the issue there I'm afraid. I won't dispute your assertion that public workers are on average paid higher, and I haven't tried to dispute that. But those statistics mean relatively little when there are broad salary ranges in both sectors. Now which makes more sense, taking from those who can afford it or from those who can't? Well it is a fact that there are people in the public service who can't afford any heavy blows to their income, and there are people in the private sector who can.

And this, you see, is why those public sector workers are rather angry at having their incomes raided while private sector workers earning considerably more stand there laughing.

1. How can you ask private sector workers to make a 25% contribution to their pension when the vast majority of them don’t have one and if they do they already pay in much more than 25%.

2. I can assure you there is no one in the private sector laughing, at this stage they are far to busy trying to hold on to their jobs, at almost any price or wage, something those in the public sector don’t have to worry about.

3. I'm sidestepping nothing here, there's no need.

Quote :

1. How can you ask private sector workers to
make a 25% contribution to their pension when the vast majority of them
don’t have one and if they do they already pay in much more than 25%.

They do, however, have incomes, in some cases quite substantial incomes, and as a levy on income is the form this pension tax is going to take then it is not at all impossible to ask private sector workers who can afford it to contribute in kind.

Quote :

2. I can assure you there is no one in the
private sector laughing, at this stage they are far to busy trying to
hold on to their jobs, at almost any price or wage, something those in
the public sector don’t have to worry about.

You carry on as if public sector workers have nothing to fear from this recession, which is not true.

Do you simply refuse outright to acknowledge that this levy will put some public sector workers in extremely difficult financial positions?