SU Council Motions, Wed 1st November 2006

gubbie

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

In other words, there is nothing wrong with or undemocratic about group voting, its just a different way of thinking about it

There is when you're not supposed to block vote on how your party vote, but as to how your class wants ie the people you represent, hence the name class representative and not party representative... although that does sound pretty cool...

panda100

gubbie wrote:

pandas glossy lips and the fact that I have never had to look back at singingstranger cos he was always sitting at the front of the room.

I do like my lip gloss!:)
Was nice to see singingstranger there.We should set up a webcam at council so gav can keep an eye on us while he's on erasmus.
I really liked happycrackheads speech on the smoking motion,really summed up what I thought.

Red Alert

Actually a webcam would be a good idea. People might actually go and log on. Seriously it might be something to be looked into. All the theatres are wired for sound already so that part of it's taken care of already.

Stabshauptmann

gubbie wrote:

There is when you're not supposed to block vote on how your party vote, but as to how your class wants ie the people you represent, hence the name class representative and not party representative... although that does sound pretty cool...

.

Well again thats where it comes down to a different interpretation of how things should work. I think it was ss who had a long post about his ideal where class reps would straw poll there class on every motion and vote accordingly.

The system which I feel more practical is where the class elects the person who they feel most closely matches their views. Most importantly their view as to what constitutes a contentious issue. This person is then free to act for the most part as they normally would. I dont see why anyone should give up a lot of their time and efforts if they must also give up their own free will. Obviously there class should be able to mandate them to vote a certain way or propose a certain motion, and contentious issues should be discussed with them. But I think councilors should be free to make the majority of decisions on their own initiative.

panda100

Red Alert wrote:

Actually a webcam would be a good idea. People might actually go and log on. Seriously it might be something to be looked into. All the theatres are wired for sound already so that part of it's taken care of already.

Good point red alert.I suppose if theres enough intrest in this the union should look in to it.

Also I agree with what Kaptainredeye about class reps using their initative. I think thats what most class reps did on Wedensday night and the voting worked out well.

Chakar

AngelOfFire wrote:

The Labour Youth members on Council are there in their own capacity and not in a Labour Youth Capacity, contrast that to Fianna Fail who need to go around in their huddies at class rep training and who's members have and still are trying to prevent our union from campaigning for better grants and against third level fees.

That was a new hoodie which I got on Friday and I was happy with it so I wore it for the day.Anyway thats nothing to do with Council.I don't think we're trying to stop the Union from campaigning on better grants or maintaining our opposition to fees do you care to give an example?

Vainglory wrote:

There were more members of the KBC on Council than there were of Labour Youth - that is simply a fact.

Thats true.But don't forget the socialists.

Vainglory wrote:

I also take issue with you saying in a previous post that we forced or pushed through motions..What exactly do you mean by this? Did we hold guns to councillors heads and make them vote with us?

I thought Council last year it was more emotive appealing to people's weaker natures rather than focusing on the facts of the motion.It was like emotional blackmail such as Niall Dolan's motion which was obviously difficult given that people knew him personally and that was focused on rather than the relation of the Union to this and the facts surrounding the motion which fully came to light after Council.

Anyway doesn't matter now.I think Council better's this year though.

And to answer speculation we as members of the KBC don't block vote.We vote according to our views but the views shared are usually the same with exceptions in some areas.

Also Fianna Fail is generally considered in coalition with the PDs to be a right wing government.

The_Minister

Chakar wrote:

Also Fianna Fail is generally considered in coalition with the PDs to be a right wing government.

Only with the PDs. FG are further right then FF. FF are acually pretty close to Labour (real Labour, not Labour jnr)

Chakar

The_Minister wrote:

Only with the PDs. FG are further right then FF. FF are acually pretty close to Labour (real Labour, not Labour jnr)

Thats what I said.

Fianna Fail is in the centre.I think FF is a bit right of centre.

Het-Field

Sure things would just be a helluva lot better if people just voted for the Progressive Democrats.

I would simply hate to see anybody but McDowell as Justice Minister. The last thing we need is the likes of Rory Quinn (the bully ignoramus) taking over the Justice Portfolio or that wierdo Tormey of Fine Gael taking over health. Sure Bruton would pull Ireland's financial situation back towards the pre celtic tiger days. All the Labour Fine Gael coalition offers is an alternative in personel, not in terms of ideologies.

Another worry would be FF/ Labour. Dont want that. Nothing would ever get done.

Stabshauptmann

Interesting, I was just talking to Chris about degrees of left and right. Heres my take on the current attitudes of the main players, perhaps it would be useful

The current FF administration have Keynesian leanings an policies from what I can tell, they try to supervise and regulate the market and intervene non directly (eg tax, inflation, public spending)in the national interest ie Maintain steady growth and full employment.
That makes them
Center right, control the economy by controlling the parameters of the market.

Though thats the gov as a whole since they came to power, McCreevy for example was of the Neoclassical school, right of Keynesism but left of Classicalism.

I laughed when Berite called himself a socialist.

PDs are Free market classical economists, that’s as far right as one can go*. If they had their own way you could count on the absolute minimum of state interference and regulation. Look at how they deregulated taxis and attempted to deregulate alcohol licenses. Cutting out the bureaucracy of insurance claims. Privatising state companies.
So they're extreme right, want the market to control itself


Labour are self proclaimed socialists, mixed economy socialists I presume. Supervise and regulate the market and intervene directly when in the broader national interest (free education, state companies to provide essential services). Though I can see a shift to more subtle economic thinking if they were to get back into power. Direct intervention just isnt practical or possible any more.
I havent read any recent policy documents but Im going with
Center left, control the economy through entering into the market.

FG are conservative classical economists. I have read their policies. They favour a Laissez faire economic management. Simple direct taxes spent on basic national services, basic regulations. Reactionalist economic policy (but then again they are in opposition). They're harping on about entrepreneurship and rewarding the indivisdual.

Distant right, the market is good in theory but needs patch work here and there




*Defining whats left and right, economically speaking, is difficult and there are no perfect definitions. I like to think that the further left the more control each individual in society has over the economy (in theory - a theory I just cant believe) and the further right the less control the ordinary member of society has. So in my opinion, classical economic theory, total free markets with no government intervention (not even tax or health and safety regulations) should in theory be guided by in invisible hand, no one person or group can control anything.
So Free Marker economics is further right than feudalism, because at least *someone* had control over the economy (in theory).

Edited where sentences were choppy, some more examples and better spelling

GusherING

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The current FF administration would be Keynesian economists from what I can tell, suprivise and regulate the market and intervene non directly (eg tax, inflation, public spending)in the national interest.
Center right, control the economy by controling the parameters of the market.

Though thats the gov as a whole since they came to power, McCreevy for example was of the Neoclassical school, right of Keynesism but left of Classicalism.

I laughed when Berite called himself a socialist.

PDs are Free market classical economists, thats as far right as one can go*. Absolute minimum of state interfereence and regulation. Deregulating taxis and attempting to deregulate alcohol licenses. Cutting out the beurocracy of insurance claims. Privatising state companies.
Extreme right, want the market to control itself


Labour are self proclaimed socialists, mixed economy socialists I presume. Suprivise and regulate the market and intervene directly when in the broader national interest (free education, state companies to privide essential services). Though I can see a shift to more subtle economic thinking if they were to get back into power. Direct intervention just isnt practical or possible any more.
Center left, control the economy through entering into the market.

FG are conservative classical economists.
Laissez faire economic management. Simple direct taxes spent on basic national services, basic regulations. Reactionalist economic policy (but then again they are in opposition).
Distant right, the market is good in theory but needs patch work here and there




*Defining whats left and right, economically speaking, is difficult and there are no perfect definitions. I like to think that the further left the more control each individual in society has over the economy (in theory - a theory I just cant believe) and the furhter right the less control the ordinary member of society has. So in my opinion, classical economic theory, total free markets with no government intervention (not even tax or health and safty regulations) should in theory be guided by in invisible hand, no one person or group can control anything.
So Free Marker economics is further right than feudalism, because at least *someone* had control over the economy (in theory).

You're wrong with regard to categorising economic policy of the government. The Irish economy is most certainly a laissez faire one, not Keynesian. Keynesian economics dictate that government should spend into debt in times of depresssion to create jobs rather than cut back to balance the budget.

A good example of this was FDR's management of the US economy in the 1930's during the Depression. An example of laissez faire being dominant during hard times is Weimar Germany after the Wall Street Crash. Hitler himself also used a Keynesian policy, he led massive state investment in the autobahns and the armaments industry to prepare his war machine! Government spent to create jobs for people and this gradually led to the economy picking up.

It worked in these countries but not in Ireland, when we tried that in the 1980's. Our debts spiralled but unemployment did not fall and inflation rose. The reason is because our economy was and still is (thus making this whole arguments point!) a small and open one. Any fool worth his salt (btw, I don't study economics, but I have read up on this extensively) knows that Ireland is heavily dependent on inward investment from foreign capital to fund its economic development. An open economy is neccessary for us to attract investment. Keynesian economics don't work unless the economy is relatively closed. The USA in the 1930's exports were a tiny component of its economy, Germany too had a large internal market. Thus, if we did use Keynesian economics, we would probably all still be emigrating!

Your interpretation of Keynesian policies is completely off in this regard, and anyway, your use of 'non-intervention' is laissez-faire. Keynesian policies require active state interference in our economy. So, you have the right idea, just the wrong term!

As for your descripition of the political parties various economic policies, I think you're finding too many differences, tbh. There is cross party support for this broad type of economic policy. You never saw FG/Lab/DL try to change our model of economy between 1994 and 1997, now did you? I think you're descriptions have some loose merit, but there is a large degree of unanimity on how our economy should be run. Where the parties differ, I believe is most contrastable on social policy and the role of the Welfare State to redistribute the fruits of our economic prosperity.

Stabshauptmann

GusherING wrote:

You're wrong with regard to categorising economic policy of the government. The Irish economy is most certainly a laissez faire one, not Keynesian.

I said the collective thinking of the current Irish administration, not the economy.
Not that that distinction cause a huge problem straight away.
I am 100% positive that we are not laissez faire. Jesus H christ if we were laissez faire there would be no question of there being a nanny state.

Keynesian economics dictate that government should spend into debt in times of depresssion to create jobs rather than cut back to balance the budget.

Yup thats one part of it. Was there a point to go with that?
It also says that the government should aim to control a boom, to make sure the economy doesnt over heat. Believe it or not but FF have done a lot to intentionally limit the growth of the irish economy in some ways.

It worked in these countries but not in Ireland, when we tried that in the 1980's. ...

What the hell has the 80s got to do with my post. Stay focused. We live in the here and the now. We're talking about the potential after the next election.

Any fool worth his salt (btw, I don't study economics, but I have read up on this extensively)

Nice little qualifier. This "fool" will shortly rehasah the points given to him by his lectureres that earned him a selection of 1sts and 2.1s last summer on the subject

... Keynesian economics don't work unless the economy is relatively closed...

Because you would end up with high GDP but relativly low GNP. But thats not the ireland we all know and love.:p

Any way, this is where that very important correction I made at the start of the post comes in, I said the thinking in FF atm has keynesian leanings, not the economy past present and future has and will always be keynesian.

Pure, absolute Keynesian economics is losing favour because of globalisation and free loader problems, but many of the concepts and ideas are still useful.

Your interpretation of Keynesian policies is completely off in this regard

Better get my exams rechecked so.

and anyway, your use of 'non-intervention' is laissez-faire.

I cant help you if you cant read.
I said non-direct intervention. There is a huge difference. Im saying the governement intervenes in the market quite a bit, just in a subtle non direct way.

Keynesian policies require active state interference in our economy.
So, you have the right idea, just the wrong term!

This governement does activly interfere in the economy, so you have the right terms you just dont know anything about what the government does or doesnt do.

As for your descripition of the political parties various economic policies, I think you're finding too many differences, tbh.

Wouldnt be much point to my post if I didnt:rolleyes:

I think you're descriptions have some loose merit

Oh why thank you:p
The real merit is to be found in having an honours commerce degree.

but there is a large degree of unanimity on how our economy should be run. Where the parties differ, I believe is most contrastable on social policy and the role of the Welfare State to redistribute the fruits of our economic prosperity.

The fact that you are drawing that distinction shows you know nothing about the subject at hand. Part of the national pay talks center around gov spending on healthcare for example. The point is to negotiate the standard of living, not just the take home pay. Welfare policy is most certainly not seperate to economic policy in this country.

Where liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism and socialism differ, fundamentally, is how the social surplus and capital surplus should be distributed. Since you say you didnt study economics let me just give a quick explanation,
You've been talking through your arse.


I could be wrong, but considering that I just did a full semester where several lectureres in different modules where the governments recent keynesian policies came up and I did quite well in my exams, im glad you put in the qualifier that you dont study economics.

Im talking about the last decade, during which time the governement implemented a clear keynsian economic policy. Im not talking about a different government of the same party before I was born.

Here are some off the top of my head examlpes of recent FF initiatve government keynsian policy:
The inclusive national pay deals with the social partners

The manipulating wages and currency values in real terms in order to let heat out of the economy through stealth taxes and messing with inflation.

The SIA for example to try and stimulate private investment.

I could go on, but I dont have too. There is a summary in my previous post of the general aims and methods of economic policies of the main irish parties. Dont be such an arrogant n00b, even when you are certain your the definitive expert on the subject.
:cool:

humbert

Due to a strict policy of not reading posts longer than ten lines(I've been burned too many times) I can't be certain but I suspect we've wandered somewhat off topic...

So most of the sane motions went through and the crazy ones didn't, woo-hoo.

singingstranger

humbert wrote:

Due to a strict policy of not reading posts longer than ten lines(I've been burned too many times) I can't be certain but I suspect we've wandered somewhat off topic...

QFT. To be honest I think this almost merits lockage now, as there'll be a new thread for next Council by next Monday evening.

GusherING

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I said the collective thinking of the current Irish administration, not the economy.
Not that that distinction cause a huge problem straight away.
I am 100% positive that we are not laissez faire. Jesus H christ if we were laissez faire there would be no question of there being a nanny state.

I believe Ireland has a laissez faire economy, albeit, and I take your point, with some Keynesian features. No economy is completely one or the other (i know we have a welfare state, social partnership, etc), but I feel the presence of more laissez faire features than Keynesian merits its labelling as a laissez faire one is justified.

Keynesian economics dictate that government should spend into debt in times of depresssion to create jobs rather than cut back to balance the budget.

Yup thats one part of it. Was there a point to go with that?
It also says that the government should aim to control a boom, to make sure the economy doesnt over heat. Believe it or not but FF have done a lot to intentionally limit the growth of the irish economy in some ways.

I know, sure isn't that purpose of SSIA's? Controlling inflation is an important aspect of our economy. FF have done that, but so would every other party if neccessary. All parties have a similar enough opinion on how to manage the economy. Your distinctions are based on vague and lack evidence. If they are true, the onus is on you to prove them. Does the use of SSIA's make us more Keynesian than laissez-faire?

What the hell has the 80s got to do with my post. Stay focused. We live in the here and the now. We're talking about the potential after the next election.

The eighties is an example of when Keynsian policies were implemented full scale by the government, ie. high spending on services and so on since Lynch's giveaway election manifesto of 1977. Both Fine Gael and Labour continued this policy throughout the 1980's. Where is the distinction here? Where does your typology suddenly gain currency??

The policy failed as inflation spiralled and unemployment remained high. The policy of high spending by the state to create jobs does not work in the Irish context and that is not the policy today. We rely upon FDI in Ireland to create jobs. That is certainly a more laissez faire apporach than Keynesian, is it not?

Nice little qualifier. This "fool" will shortly rehasah the points given to him by his lectureres that earned him a selection of 1sts and 2.1s last summer on the subject

Apoligies if I caused offence. I didn't mean to infer you were a fool. Instead, I meant, everybody knows FDI is extremely important to the Irish economy. Do you not agree?? Does FDI create more jobs in Ireland, or does the state through its spending? You tell me?

Because you would end up with high GDP but relativly low GNP. But thats not the ireland we all know and love.:p

Any way, this is where that very important correction I made at the start of the post comes in, I said the thinking in FF atm has keynesian leanings, not the economy past present and future has and will always be keynesian.

Pure, absolute Keynesian economics is losing favour because of globalisation and free loader problems, but many of the concepts and ideas are still useful.

Oh, so if FF are keynesian now, does that mean FF wasn't Keynesian in the 1980's? If not, what were they? Laissez-faire? :rolleyes: What were all the parties economic policies both then and now? I admit, your knowledge of economics is excellent, indeed far better than mine, as a lay man. However, your knowledge of history is poor.

Better get my exams rechecked so.

Don't be flippant. Its not called for, and wreaks of the arrogance you accuse me of having. I just want a debate, not a personal vendetta!

The fact that you are drawing that distinction shows you know nothing about the subject at hand. Part of the national pay talks center around gov spending on healthcare for example. The point is to negotiate the standard of living, not just the take home pay. Welfare policy is most certainly not seperate to economic policy in this country.

Where liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism and socialism differ, fundamentally, is how the social surplus and capital surplus should be distributed. Since you say you didnt study economics let me just give a quick explanation,
You've been talking through your arse.

But Social Partnership pacts date from 1987. The eighties!!! Didn't the FF/PD government cut spending during this period on. Thats not Keynesian is it? Only in the last 10 years has spending been increased hugely, through budget surpluses, rather than running the exchequer into debt.

They are merely a pay deal, with tax incentives thrown in to increase the likelyhood of deals, at the prerogative of government. True, the talks are a Keynesian idea, but aren't these tax cuts often associated with them a laissez faire idea? Anything else in Social Partnership agreements is rarely linked to the budget at all. The programme for government instead takes precedent. How do you explain the 2004 tax cuts in the budget by Charlie McCreevy for the middle and higher incomes, when Sustaining Progress called for tax cuts for those at the bottom of the income bracket? How is Keynesian policy dictating the direction of a budget under an FF minister? What about the use of the social partnership process to assist in meeting our needs for the Maastricht Treaty and EMU?

Im talking about the last decade, during which time the governement implemented a clear keynsian economic policy. Im not talking about a different government of the same party before I was born.

Ya see, as far as I can tell the economic policies of FF were Keynsian in the 1980's, as were every other party's. They changed to laissez fiare (with some Keynsian leftovers) in the late 1980s and continue till the present day. All parties have been in power siince 1987 and have contiuned the same policies. Thus your categorization is flawed.

With regard my point about welfare state spending, the differences are whether tax cuts go to higher or lower incomes, whether the pension goes up by a tenner a week or not, whether we use regressive policies like giving 1000e a year to all families for childcare or just to those who need it most. The means tested nature of our welfare state certainly reflects a market approach.The difference of opinons as to how this should be run is the best illustration of party policy difference, not the fundamental approach to running the economy. Of course, the welfare state has an effect on our economy, but the little details like who gets more money are up for decision, not the general direction of our economy which I believe could be termed more laissez faire than Keynesian.

hullaballoo

Ok, I think this is going to be headed towards Politics soon enough.

panda100

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Dont be such an arrogant n00b, even when you are certain your the definitive expert on the subject.
:cool:

Gushering isnt a noob!He's been knocking round the UCD forum for almost three years!

AngelofFire

Chakar wrote:

That was a new hoodie which I got on Friday and I was happy with it so I wore it for the day.Anyway thats nothing to do with Council.I don't think we're trying to stop the Union from campaigning on better grants or maintaining our opposition to fees do you care to give an example?.

Last years SU president a very active member of Fianna Fail, deliberatley cancelled a meeting with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Councillors with regard to 3rd level grants, as a result certain members of that council voted against a motion in support of centralisation of the grant system. The reason why he cancelled a meeting because he didn't want to be embarrassed or have his future prospects in the Fianna Fail party damaged by being seen to be supportive of Labour party motion which supported the UCDSU's occupation of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown HQ.

As for the socialist party ,i have a lot of criticism of them and indeed a few run ins with them in the past, and i dont like their towards S.U. council but many of their members have been very active on key student issues like grants and cutbacks more so than any Fianna Fail members.

gubbie

singingstranger wrote:

QFT. To be honest I think this almost merits lockage now, as there'll be a new thread for next Council by next Monday evening.

Wednesday-the submission date for motions was pushed back as last council was only last wednesday... I think

Chakar

AngelofFire wrote:

Last years SU president a very active member of Fianna Fail, deliberatley cancelled a meeting with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Councillors with regard to 3rd level grants, as a result certain members of that council voted against a motion in support of centralisation of the grant system. The reason why he cancelled a meeting because he didn't want to be embarrassed or have his future prospects in the Fianna Fail party damaged by being seen to be supportive of Labour party motion which supported the UCDSU's occupation of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown HQ.

Well you obviously have no proof.Thats your opinion.

The_Minister

gubbie wrote:

Wednesday-the submission date for motions was pushed back as last council was only last wednesday... I think

That sucks, it should be Monday. The whole point is to give us a week to inform our class, not to give us a week to prepare motions.

EDIT: I ment monday, sorry dejaffa.

dajaffa

The_Minister wrote:

That sucks, it should be Wednesday. The whole point is to give us a week to inform our class, not to give us a week to prepare motions.

It is Wednesday....... Anyway it just worked out badly cause of the bank holiday + Hallowe'en. Generally it'll be the Monday between the councils. If it had been this Monday for close of motions we'd have none cause the notice for council didn't go up until Friday as things got messy with the sec resigning n stuff

Chakar

dajaffa wrote:

It is Wednesday....... Anyway it just worked out badly cause of the bank holiday + Hallowe'en. Generally it'll be the Monday between the councils. If it had been this Monday for close of motions we'd have none cause the notice for council didn't go up until Friday as things got messy with the sec resigning n stuff

Yeah thats the second year in a row.Hopefully it won't happen again.

Methinks dajaffa might go for it and get it as she ran for Secretary too.Also even if there's a election dajaffa will be in a good position to secure it.

gubbie

Chakar wrote:

Yeah thats the second year in a row.Hopefully it won't happen again.

Methinks dajaffa might go for it and get it as she ran for Secretary too.Also even if there's a election dajaffa will be in a good position to secure it.

Me thinks so too

Infact me knows so

Edit to say:
I'm thinking about going for it myself. I was bitten by the bug last week

And then again to say:
Hopefully Dajaffa won't mind. It'll be fun I think

dajaffa

Chakar wrote:

Yeah thats the second year in a row.Hopefully it won't happen again.

Methinks dajaffa might go for it and get it as she ran for Secretary too.Also even if there's a election dajaffa will be in a good position to secure it.

I'll say it now. My official line is "maybe"

gubbie

dajaffa wrote:

I'll say it now. My official line is "maybe"

No it isn't. You told me yesterday that you'd be mad not going for it. That all you wanted to do was get the position so that you could bring it down from the inside...*

*last bit may not be true but she does want the position

Scraggs

gubbie wrote:

No it isn't. You told me yesterday that you'd be mad not going for it. That all you wanted to do was get the position so that you could bring it down from the inside...*

*last bit may not be true but she does want the position

Jaysus, Gubbie you didn't half blow her cover there:p

gubbie

And I'm not trying to give people false hope

Edit to say:
She tells me now its a secret...
sssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh

The_Minister

*Hints that he may run for a position*

cast_iron

And i thought this was a thread on SU Council Motions....