Fine Gael / Labour / Green Policies

Sipaliwini

Originally Posted by bk
* Yes integrated ticketing doesn't currently work, not because of any technical reason, rather due to infighting between DB, RPA and CIE (Dart) over how they should divide up the revenue from it. That is why the DTA is so important, we badly need it to smash their heads together to get them to work together rather then seeing each other as competition.

John R replies:
They have been forced to see each other as competition because that is what our current bunch of leaders have demanded of them. The RPA was set up on the basis of taking LUAS away from Irish Rail, a sort of de-integration if you will, as the PDs in particularly specifically wanted it to act as competition to IE/DB.

John R correctly points to the crux of the matter: the government has an ideological commitment to fostering competition everywhere, including where it does not in fact work, as is the case in public transport.
This commitment is shared not only by FF and the PDs, but also by FG, the Greens and in recent years, Labour.

Public transport is a social service that deals with many externalities that the market cannot factor in, like:
-providing service to users on non-profitable routes
-removing nuisance for pedestrians
-accomodating the free-rider dilemna (if we all drive cars, there's gridlock, but if some take the bus, some can get away with driving)
-lowering the impact of transport on the environment

For this reason, there is no choice but to subsidise it. The amount to which it is subsidised is a political matter. There won't be good public transport if the state doesn't spend what it takes for it to happen.

Ranting at the public transport bodies' struggling when the government tries to squeeze more service out of them without increasing funding is not constructive. How would you feel if your boss increased your workload without raising your pay ? Ranting at them when they fight against privatisation is misguided. So is reproaching them to resist integration within a privatising agenda.

bk

Sipaliwini wrote:

For this reason, there is no choice but to subsidise it. The amount to which it is subsidised is a political matter. There won't be good public transport if the state doesn't spend what it takes for it to happen.

Yes public transport does need to be subsidised, but that does not mean it needs to be operated by a state body and all the difficulties related to that.

The Luas service under the RPA is a good example of the new model. The Luas is subsidised, but it is actually operated by a private company (Veolia Transport) under contract to the RPA. If Veolia don't meet the standards and benchmarks set down by the RPA, then the RPA can yank the contract and give it to someone else. IMO that is why the Luas is being run so well and interestingly it is now actually profitable.

Personally I'd love to see the same model being replicated with DB and Dart, these services would continue to be subsidised, but DB would have to compete with private bus operators to win routes, etc. while maintaining the standards and benchmarks laid down by the DTA.

I'd also love to see the same happen in cork, where the Cork bus service is frankly appalling, it should be directly under the control of Cork City and County Council and bus routes contracted out to private operators and Bus Eireann.

If you take this to it's logical conclusion, we might even get an unusual circumstance where you would have DB competing for bus routes in Cork and Bus Eireann competing for bus routes in Dublin!!!

ballooba

Sipaliwini wrote:

Ranting at the public transport bodies' struggling when the government tries to squeeze more service out of them without increasing funding is not constructive. How would you feel if your boss increased your workload without raising your pay ? Ranting at them when they fight against privatisation is misguided. So is reproaching them to resist integration within a privatising agenda.

It would be interesting if these union negotiations were completely open and publicly reported. After all, it is all of our money that is paying the wage increases.

I worked it out there from the Dublin Bus annual accounts for 2005. Dublin Bus employees earned on average €42,945 before tax in 2005. Check that out against other jobs in the salary survey below.

Dublin Bus Annual Accounts 2005

Brightwater Recruitment Salary Survey 2005

John R

bk wrote:

Yes public transport does need to be subsidised, but that does not mean it needs to be operated by a state body and all the difficulties related to that.

The Luas service under the RPA is a good example of the new model. The Luas is subsidised, but it is actually operated by a private company (Veolia Transport) under contract to the RPA. If Veolia don't meet the standards and benchmarks set down by the RPA, then the RPA can yank the contract and give it to someone else. IMO that is why the Luas is being run so well and interestingly it is now actually profitable.

Personally I'd love to see the same model being replicated with DB and Dart, these services would continue to be subsidised, but DB would have to compete with private bus operators to win routes, etc. while maintaining the standards and benchmarks laid down by the DTA.

Well unless you are standing for election then what you would like to happen is not really relevant to this thread.

As I have already stated FF/PD had the opportunity to make this happen with the DTA but did not follow through. You will be happy to know that strict service targets will (if the DTA happens at all) be applied to DB, IE and LUAS.

Wheras private bus operators will be seperately licenced by the DoT under their current obligation-free farce which currently includes dozens of licences being held by people not operating ANY services on routes while being able to block all other operators.

Not exactly a great omen for an integrated network under the leadership of Fianna Corruption and Progressive Greed.

John R

ballooba wrote:

It would be interesting if these union negotiations were completely open and publicly reported. After all, it is all of our money that is paying the wage increases.

And of course you would be perfectly happy for your employment arrangements and private discussions to be made public so that every mouthy gobsh!te that you come in contact with while you were trying to do your job can give their 2cents worth about your personal business?

ballooba wrote:

I worked it out there from the Dublin Bus annual accounts for 2005. Dublin Bus employees earned on average €42,945 before tax in 2005. Check that out against other jobs in the salary survey below.

Dublin Bus Annual Accounts 2005

Brightwater Recruitment Salary Survey 2005

And your point is?

ballooba

John R wrote:

And of course you would be perfectly happy for your employment arrangements and private discussions to be made public so that every mouthy gobsh!te that you come in contact with while you were trying to do your job can give their 2cents worth about your personal business

The way negotiations with unions are carried out is going to have to change. Public sector workers get considerably higher pay than their private sector couterparts with a lot nicer terms of employment.

If taxpayers are not getting value for money from the public sector then they are going to ask for that work to be allocated to the private sector. I don't personally want to see privatisation, but if the unions don't want to play ball then let someone else deal with their wage demands.

John R wrote:

And your point is?

Starting salary for a Dublin Bus driver is €502 p.w. (€620 p.w. with shift premium)

Starting salary for an IT Graduate these days is around €23,000 (€469 p.w. @ 49 weeks) with none of the benefits mentioned on the DB website.

Why bother going to college?

John R

ballooba wrote:

The way negotiations with unions are carried out is going to have to change. Public sector workers get considerably higher pay than their private sector couterparts with a lot nicer terms of employment.

If taxpayers are not getting value for money from the public sector then they are going to ask for that work to be allocated to the private sector. I don't personally want to see privatisation, but if the unions don't want to play ball then let someone else deal with their wage demands.

None of which however has anything to do with the question I asked. Just because someone is (partially in this case) paid out of taxpayers money does not mean every tax payer has a right to every detail of their employment.

ballooba wrote:

Starting salary for a Dublin Bus driver is €502 p.w. (€620 p.w. with shift premium)

Starting salary for an IT Graduate these days is around €23,000 (€469 p.w. @ 49 weeks) with none of the benefits mentioned on the DB website.

And what has the salary of an IT graduate got to do with the starting salary for a bus driver? Apart from the fact that someone who is an IT graduate may very well have a mistaken belief that they are somehow automatically entitled to more money than someone in a job they consider beneath them.

Oh and if you are going to compare like with like then a very quick look at online job sites would have given you this bus driving job starting at €580 p.w. plus commission, bonus and overtime.

ballooba wrote:

Why bother going to college?

Well I suppose that is a question everyone has to answer for themselves, but at a guess the big difference between the two examples you give is that an IT graduate would expect to rise considerably from the starting point with a great deal of options for career advancement and large increases in salary.

On the other hand the opportunities for advancement beyond driving in most bus companies including Dublin Bus are very limited and once the top pay scale is reached (4-5 years service in DB AFAIR) the salary rate is stagnant.

ballooba

John R wrote:

None of which however has anything to do with the question I asked. Just because someone is (partially in this case) paid out of taxpayers money does not mean every tax payer has a right to every detail of their employment.

The company is owned by the government i.e. in effect the taxpayer.

John R wrote:

And what has the salary of an IT graduate got to do with the starting salary for a bus driver? Apart from the fact that someone who is an IT graduate may very well have a mistaken belief that they are somehow automatically entitled to more money than someone in a job they consider beneath them.

An IT graduate has undergone 4 years training. The person joining Dublin Bus is only required to have a C class licence and theory test for a D class.

John R wrote:

Oh and if you are going to compare like with like then a very quick look at online job sites would have given you this bus driving job starting at €580 p.w. plus commission, bonus and overtime.

That adevertisement is for an experienced driver with a full D licence.

The job advertised by Dublin Bus is advertised as increasing to €582 p.w. (€718 including shift premium).

49 weeks @ €718 p.w. is €35,182. This is still considerably below the calculated average of €42,945 above.

John R wrote:

Well I suppose that is a question everyone has to answer for themselves, but at a guess the big difference between the two examples you give is that an IT graduate would expect to rise considerably from the starting point with a great deal of options for career advancement and large increases in salary.

The Dublin Bus driver has the same opportunities if only he was willing to go out into the big bad world of the private sector. He could maybe even eventually get equity in a private firm who knows. The fact is he won't because the public sector is too cushy.

John R wrote:

On the other hand the opportunities for advancement beyond driving in most bus companies including Dublin Bus are very limited and once the top pay scale is reached (4-5 years service in DB AFAIR) the salary rate is stagnant.

That doesn't take into account overtime. Don't try to pretend they don't want the overtime, because that would be laughable.

John R

ballooba wrote:

The company is owned by the government i.e. in effect the taxpayer.

And?

You still have not offered any reason why private contract details and discussions regarding people's employment conditions should be in the public domain.

For the record, if you refer back to the annual accounts you will see that 75% of the company's revenue comes from it's operations not the taxpayer. I can think of many private businesses who have a higher % of their revenue sourced directly from the taxpayer through government contracts and I am sure they would tell you to fukk right off if you demanded their internal dealings because "you pay their wages".

ballooba wrote:

An IT graduate has undergone 4 years training. The person joining Dublin Bus is only required to have a C class licence and theory test for a D class.

And to actually complete the recruitment process the candidate has to udergo a training programme to complete the statutory licencing test and various internal programmes.

The fact is that wages vary widely across different jobs for any number of reasons.

ballooba wrote:

That adevertisement is for an experienced driver with a full D licence.

Dublin Bus pay the same rate to fully licenced experienced drivers that they pay new recruits that pass their training programme.

ballooba wrote:

The job advertised by Dublin Bus is advertised as increasing to €582 p.w. (€718 including shift premium).

Yes, after 4-5 years in the job. Plenty of other employers increase pay in stages based on length of employment.

ballooba wrote:

49 weeks @ €718 p.w. is €35,182. This is still considerably below the calculated average of €42,945 above.

That average would include all employees up to Managing Director.

ballooba wrote:

The Dublin Bus driver has the same opportunities if only he was willing to go out into the big bad world of the private sector. He could maybe even eventually get equity in a private firm who knows. The fact is he won't because the public sector is too cushy.

Because EVERYONE has the opportunity to take 4 years off and complete a degree course. :rolleyes:

If you think the job is so cushy and so well paid then away you go.

Or could it be that the idea of being on your own in charge of a bus full of agressive drunks and junkie scangers while trying to dodge the bricks being thrown at you from the local pre-teen scum at 1am in some of the roughest areas of the country is in fact not cushy at all.

ballooba wrote:

That doesn't take into account overtime. Don't try to pretend they don't want the overtime, because that would be laughable.

Why would I want to pretend anything? Some people want to work as much overtime as possible and some don't want to know at all, I am sure it is much the same in DB as it is in any other company.

So now we have established that Dublin Bus driver's wages are comparable to other bus driving jobs in the private sector in Dublin and you have a massive chip on your shoulder that they are not on minimum wage. Does that about cover it?

There is one question I still don't have an answer to, well there are in fact lots because you have not given a straight answer to any of the questions I asked but only one that I can be bothered asking at this stage.

What does any of this have to do with the different transport policies of the various political parties?

ballooba

John R wrote:

For the record, if you refer back to the annual accounts you will see that 75% of the company's revenue comes from it's operations not the taxpayer. I can think of many private businesses who have a higher % of their revenue sourced directly from the taxpayer through government contracts and I am sure they would tell you to fukk right off if you demanded their internal dealings because "you pay their wages".

The taxpayer owns Dublin Bus. Each and every one of us owns a little part of it. Of course we should have a say in the running of the company. If the unions are making silly demands then we should have right to know.

John R wrote:

And to actually complete the recruitment process the candidate has to udergo a training programme to complete the statutory licencing test and various internal programmes.

College students don't get paid, they have to get a part time job while training.

John R wrote:

Yes, after 4-5 years in the job. Plenty of other employers increase pay in stages based on length of employment.

It still doesn't account for the average wage, there must be a lot of overtime in there.

John R wrote:

That average would include all employees up to Managing Director.

That still wouldn't explain it. Unless the organisation is seriously top-heavy or the execs are paying themselves a couple of hundred grand each.

John R wrote:

Because EVERYONE has the opportunity to take 4 years off and complete a degree course. :rolleyes:

Actually, they do. Third level education is free in this country.

John R wrote:

If you think the job is so cushy and so well paid then away you go.

Or could it be that the idea of being on your own in charge of a bus full of agressive drunks and junkie scangers while trying to dodge the bricks being thrown at you from the local pre-teen scum at 1am in some of the roughest areas of the country is in fact not cushy at all.

No thanks, I've worked in the public sector, I couldn't handle being idle all the time.

John R wrote:

Why would I want to pretend anything? Some people want to work as much overtime as possible and some don't want to know at all, I am sure it is much the same in DB as it is in any other company.

No it isn't because unions can't create an artificial situation where overtime is needed.

John R wrote:

So now we have established that Dublin Bus driver's wages are comparable to other bus driving jobs in the private sector in Dublin and you have a massive chip on your shoulder that they are not on minimum wage. Does that about cover it?

You haven't proved that. I still maintain that Dualway job is for experienced drivers.

I never said they should be on minimum wage. If not feeling happy about being ripped off by public sector workers is having a chip on my shoulder then I'm guilty as charged.

John R wrote:

What does any of this have to do with the different transport policies of the various political parties?

It has to do with privatisation. Sipaliwini mentioned that unions cannot be expected to accept privatisation without payrises. Public Sector Unions will use any little excuse to get a pay rise. Pay scales in the public sector have risen completely out of line with private sector wages. If a downturn comes, it will be the private sector workers who lose their jobs.

nesf

ballooba wrote:

Actually, they do. Third level education is free in this country.

And that makes it an option for everyone how? Not everyone has parents to bankroll them through second level nevermind third.

Sipaliwini

Balooba wrote:
Sipaliwini mentioned that unions cannot be expected to accept privatisation without payrises. Public Sector Unions will use any little excuse to get a pay rise. Pay scales in the public sector have risen completely out of line with private sector wages. If a downturn comes, it will be the private sector workers who lose their jobs.

I did not say anything like that, you are putting words in my mouth. Unions shouldn't be expected to accept privatisation at all, if by privatisation we mean transfer of ownership to private individuals who operate the institution on a for profit basis.

It is sad to see how effective bureaucrats and bosses are at dividing their employees. Here you are, whingeing at how effective some public sector workers are at improving their conditions. What interest do you have in advocating a race to the bottom ? It makes more sense to call on private sector workers to claim a bigger share of the wealth they produce. I'm assuming you're not a manager/ business owner, if you are, nice try but I'm not buying your propaganda.

Someone earlier used the Luas as a rosy example of why privatisation is a good idea. I don't know the exact details, but:
-I doubt the operating company shouldered much of the infrastructure costs, so there was a massive initial subsidy
-The Luas operates on a highly frequented route

Now let's say people in Dublin want more trams like that. (Since the Luas is private, none of its profits go towards building more trams). The goverment goes ahead and creates a tram route. It turns out it is more costly to operate (longer distances, steeper slopes, less favorable user patterns). Then the government privatizes it.
1) To what extent can you say that it is "competing" with the Luas ? It's a different route ! Since it doesn't, the benefits from competition are zippo.
2) Since it is more costly to operate, it either needs to be subsidised more, or users on the new route have to pay more.

If you take the view that users of that route should pay more, then pushing it to the limit, you're effectively saying that some people should not be served by public transport.
If on the other hand you choose higher subsidies, how do you tell whether the difference in subsidy to both private operators represents the real difference in cost of providing the same service, as opposed to being distorted by misconduct of either tram operators ? Remember, zippo competition effect.
The private operators being distinct, you don't have the option of using the profits of a route to subsidise the other. (In other words, you don't have the option of solidarity between users of the public transport.)

To top it off, you are loosing value for money anyway because both tram operator owners are pushing for higher profits. Just look at the UK: it does not work.

What works is putting money in the damn thing and desisting from threatening the workforce. People work better when they're treated like responsible persons. Drop the laissez-faire blinkers already.

ballooba

Sipaliwini wrote:

I did not say anything like that, you are putting words in my mouth. Unions shouldn't be expected to accept privatisation at all, if by privatisation we mean transfer of ownership to private individuals who operate the institution on a for profit basis.

That's not up to the unions. Look at Aerlingus. We all own it, not just the unions. If the unions won't play ball then privatise it and let it sink or swim

Sipaliwini wrote:

It is sad to see how effective bureaucrats and bosses are at dividing their employees. Here you are, whingeing at how effective some public sector workers are at improving their conditions. What interest do you have in advocating a race to the bottom ?

Race to the bottom my arse. It's an open market. Supply and Demand.

You talk about my propoganda, race to the bottom is typical trade union nonsense.

Sipaliwini wrote:

It makes more sense to call on private sector workers to claim a bigger share of the wealth they produce. I'm assuming you're not a manager/ business owner, if you are, nice try but I'm not buying your propaganda.

I'm not a manger/business owner, but I have the ambition to aspire to being an employer some day. I believe in a fair deal for workers. Unions used to do important work and they still do in some cases. I would hope to never be in the situation after all the risks I take and hard work I put in to be held to ransom by greedy unions.

Sipaliwini wrote:

What works is putting money in the damn thing and desisting from threatening the workforce. People work better when they're treated like responsible persons. Drop the laissez-faire blinkers already.

But Laissez Fair is what you are advocating?!?!?

No-one is going to give you free reign to do what you want with their money.

nesf

Sipaliwini wrote:

Now let's say people in Dublin want more trams like that. (Since the Luas is private, none of its profits go towards building more trams). The goverment goes ahead and creates a tram route. It turns out it is more costly to operate (longer distances, steeper slopes, less favorable user patterns). Then the government privatizes it.
1) To what extent can you say that it is "competing" with the Luas ? It's a different route ! Since it doesn't, the benefits from competition are zippo.
2) Since it is more costly to operate, it either needs to be subsidised more, or users on the new route have to pay more.

See, there is the argument that the government should supply public goods, transport etc, that the private sector would fail to provide, as in your tram scenario. Or at least heavily subsidise it.

We also don't 'lose' the profits by having a route privatised. We get to essentially take a cut of any profits made without having to deal with the actual running of the business. The other thing is that your tram wouldn't compete with the luas but would compete with taxis, cars, buses etc so there would be some competition.

Sipaliwini

To Ballooba:

Hehe I can't believe I let myself be suckered into this.

Get back to me about your belief in a "fair deal for workers" when the shareholders of your company threaten to have you sacked if you don't show a bit more zeal in minding the bottom line by keeping wages low.

It is your business to have the "ambition to aspire" to be an employer, does it mean that people who don't share that value should be made to accept the paternalistic edicts of their bosses without bargaining ?

Hehe, true, laissez-faire the workers, as opposed to laissez-faire the "ambitious to aspire" minority who have demonstrated over the centuries their eagerness to curtail workers' democratic right to collective bargaining.

Thinking about how this all started I realise that you never justified your belief that public transport workers in this country are paid more than they should be. Where does it come from ?

About the "race to the bottom" thing, I don't see what is propagandistic about it. It is a fact that there is enough supply of labour in this world to keep wages eternally low. If not for workers struggling collectively, this country would still be divided between potato growers and British barons. The race to the bottom is a proper phrase to talk about the process of returning to that condition.

Sipaliwini

To nesf:

I don't understand, I was advocating government funding and running from the start.

As to why the government would want to forfeit most of the profits of running the institution, after it has gone through the painstaking process of funding it, designing it, implementing it and even started to run it, the rationale eludes me.

Also, there is no reason why the government couldn't rationally allocate resources on the basis of how succesful different overlapping services it runs (buses, trams, whatever) are.

Big companies that work well are rationally planned economies inside, sometimes to impressive extent (cf Walmart). Running things well is not a matter of competition, it's a matter of culture.

Look at it this way: if you wanted to create a human-like robot, would you try and rationnally build it through science, or would you create sparks in a petri dish and wait for humans to evolve again out of it through natural competition ?

nesf

Sipaliwini wrote:

To nesf:

I don't understand, I was advocating government funding and running from the start.

As to why the government would want to forfeit most of the profits of running the institution, after it has gone through the painstaking process of funding it, designing it, implementing it and even started to run it, the rationale eludes me.

Also, there is no reason why the government couldn't rationally allocate resources on the basis of how succesful different overlapping services it runs (buses, trams, whatever) are.

Big companies that work well are rationally planned economies inside, sometimes to impressive extent (cf Walmart). Running things well is not a matter of competition, it's a matter of culture.

Look at it this way: if you wanted to create a human-like robot, would you try and rationnally build it through science, or would you create sparks in a petri dish and wait for humans to evolve again out of it through natural competition ?

Agreed mostly, I think I misread your post originally.

ballooba

Sipaliwini wrote:

"ambition to aspire"

Say what you like about entrepreneurs, but if it wasn't for them, we'd all be civil servants.

Sipaliwini wrote:

Hehe, true, laissez-faire the workers, as opposed to laissez-faire the "ambitious to aspire" minority who have demonstrated over the centuries their eagerness to curtail workers' democratic right to collective bargaining.

Bargaining is about reaching a compromise where BOTH sides coming away happy but feeling they could have got a better deal. Unions have been getting more than their FAIR deal in these negotiations for years. I agree unions have achieved a lot for workers and we would have been worse off without them. They have lost their way of late and gotten greedy.

Sipaliwini wrote:

Thinking about how this all started I realise that you never justified your belief that public transport workers in this country are paid more than they should be. Where does it come from ?

Not public transport workers, public transport workers in the public sector.
The average industrial wage in 2005 was €29,000.
The average wage of a Dublin Bus worker was €42,945.

Sipaliwini

Those figures are too broad to pass judgement.
Averages are notoriously good at concealing distribution imbalances.
At the very least you should quote medians, for lack of having rank divisions with corresponding headcount and pay interval.

The figures also abstract shift constraints, working conditions (not that great in DB I hear), overtime worked...

Dirk Gently

ballooba wrote:

There's another thread on this forum about FG/Labour/Green policy. I don't want to completely hi-jack this one.

Ballooba quiet rightly pointed me to this thread as I was dragging THIS THREAD off topic with some of my questions.

I am basically worried that FG are making alot of suggestive statements but have not actually said for sure that they are going to act on the issues they themselves raised.

I'm just looking for some clarification.

I've done a copy on paste job on the last post I made in that thread and reproduced it here in the appropriate thread.

---

ballooba wrote:

I don't know what you're looking for from Fine Gael. They do not have the resources or the PR spend of the NDP. They do not have the resources of the DOF to publish an alternative budget. They can publish policies and they can attempt to get Private Member's Bills through, but they're limited in what they can do until they actually have our money.

That shouldn't stop them from saying, "when in power this is what we are going to do....(a) .....(b).....(c).

So far from this thread the issues I asked about, some of which FG are promoting and the rendition flights, which FG are slating the government on, I have received no straight answer on.

All I have is...... "maybe we might search the planes but I can't say either way", and "we are looking into alternatives for young offenders and the defence forces but we don't know what we are going to do yet".

To be fair if FG can't commit to searching planes they should not be allowed to beat up the current government about it until they are sure they actually are going to make a positive change should they get elected.

Likewise all this talk about young offenders and a new role for the defence forces means nothing to me because FG have not said what they are actually going to do when in government.

As far as I can see, FG have not committed to searching planes, young offenders or the new role of defence forces and really should stop talking about the issues until they come out and clearly state that they definitely will make the changes should they get elected. At the moment I think "we are looking into making changes" amounts to trying to deceive the public with a lot of spin and no real firm plans. I've no doubt FG are "looking into" these areas but really it's time to put up or shut up as "looking into" amounts to good intentions without the accountability should nothing happen when they're in office.

Basically its a slick use of language impling something will happen when the truth is it may or may not happen.

If FG get into government will................

(A) military planes get searched using shannon

(b) The defence forces definetly be involved with planning civillian projects

(c) are boot camps for young offenders definetly going to be a reality of a new FG government.

Just answer yes or no to the questions above and I'll be happy. I'd be even happier with a detailed report on how each of them would be implemented and what they consist of but a YES or NO would be progress at this stage.

If you can't answer yes or no to any of the questions then the issues should be dropped by FG until such a point where they can confirm they will definetly go ahead if they are in power.

ballooba

clown bag wrote:

If FG get into government will................

I realise your question was wrt Fine Gael, so I will answer in that context. Remember though that A FG overall majority is not on the cards. FG/Lab have published several joint policies. Greens will likely be involved too, so an agreed agenda for governement would have to be a concensus/compromise among the three.

clown bag wrote:

(A) military planes get searched using shannon

I don't know. I will email FG press office. I do hope so though.

clown bag wrote:

(b) The defence forces definitely be involved with planning civillian projects

Yes. Billy Timmons TD Ex-Defence forces is committed to this.

clown bag wrote:

(c) are boot camps for young offenders definetly going to be a reality of a new FG government.

Yes. Jim O'Keefe is committed to this. Billy Timmons wants the Defence Forces involved, but I think this is highly unlikely.

Dirk Gently

ok, thanks for the answers.

Now, the only thing is the young offenders idea and the defence forces idea seem to be in some sort of think tank stage and dont appear to have developed into anything tangible as of yet.

How do I know what I will be voting for, or even will I know the details of these plans come election time.

It is cutting it a bit fine to bring these ideas from the concept stage to a workable stage in time for the elections. I just dont want to vote for some vague notion of boot camps or an increased role for the defence forces until I can examine the proposals in full and see exactly how much more of a role the defence forces will play and also how these boot camps will operate in reality. It's just these proposals can be either good or bad, depending on the detail. I'd hate to vote to resurrect the blueshirts

ballooba

The thread on the "Boot Camps" is here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055052357

Billy Timmons really wants to see the Defence Forces involved, but I think it's fairly clear this won't happen. They are more likely to be along the lines of Thorn Cross.

As for Defence Forces involvement in community initiatives, I haven't heard any concrete proposals on this yet.

Dirk Gently

Fair enough.

All I can say is I'll wait and see what updates happen between now and the election. At the moment I'm unconvinced.

I'm not just picking on FG by the way. Labour have failed to convince me of anything either. I want FF/PD out as much as anyone else and I will not be voting FF or PD but I'm not prepared to vote for the opposition just for the hell of it.

At the moment, if there was a "none of the above" option I would be ticking that box.