Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Minister for education attends a private meeting with the SU.
-
05-05-2009 12:37pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
As a matter of interest what have FEE being doing to whip up a movement? I have seen the odd poster and that newspaper article on the noticeboards but nothing that would push the student body into unified action or debate. What about organising a bus for students when the student union failed? I do remember you mentioning something in a post some time back. Do you guys go to the Union Council meetings? (I've never been)
all fair questions, to answer them:
1) Reponse letters from FEE to The Spoke were rarely published. A response to a letter attacking us as a movement for the approach we took to University Presidents (Hugh Brady in UCD and John Hughes in Maynooth) was never published. This meant that the space for debate was never there. This is something the Uni Paper should give.
2) We call our meetings publically, and always poster for them. It was out of one of these meetings the decision was made to take a direct action against the Dept. of Finance. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0416/breaking31.html http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/students-occupy-dept-of-finance-offices-in-dublin-1710975.html) So in relation to what FEE have done to build a national campaign, we've constantly emphasised that we are a grassroots, open movement willing to take that form of action. It was out of people saying 'Well what are YOU'SE going to do' that that action took place. Many of the faces there that day were new. So FEE, I would hope, presented itself as an open organisation and actions like that one were our way or trying to build a national movement (After the sitdown at the Dail, the occupation of Paul Gogartys office, and the Dept. occupation, we seen growth in our numbers- I think these things are connected, saying that we don't keep track of 'membership' - we have people that go to one meeting in six and people who never miss one.
3) As for Debate, after our national conference (Attended by NUIM, NUIG, UCD, NUIG, UCC, UL, TCD) we held a discussion with a representative from t he U.S.I where we debated the way forward. FEE has written articles in Maynooth and has openly called for the debate on NUIM rejoining the USI to be re-opened. We've constantly pushed the line talking with the Fianna Fail ministers at this stage is pointless. I think a mass-campaign of direct action would get the goods. That ever-quotable line from the UL SU that "no government minister will come on this campus unimpeded" to me said it all.
After a meeting between student representatives and a senior Department official, at which the students submitted a written of list concerns, the protest ended.
As tokenistic as the ending to the action was, the action itself was worth much more than what happened in NUIM today with the SU 'voicing concerns' to the same man they already did, just last semester.
4)We've tried to engage with groups we don't feel the S.Us have, education workers in particular. We've recieved huge support from several lecturers and so on in Maynooth. We've also attended Education cuts demos about primary and secondary level education, something achknowledged on the day by the organisers. In UCD, FEE attended several SIPTU meetings of the workers. In NUIM we made efforts to get in touch with the canteen workers (...which brings us back to this 'Maynooth Experience/Community' ****e they peddle around here) but nothing came of that for various reasons (Though they constantly told us they appreciated the efforts, we would have loved something concrete to come out of this)
5) One member has gone to Union Council a few times, but as a group we've not been great on this front I admit. We'll be there tomorrow night though. I think the importance of U.C is one lesson we'll take away from all this. We're not perfect!
On the media front, FEE NUIM in particular have done well. The Sunday World, Northside People, Irish Indepdent, Irish Times and Irish Examiner all carried pieces that made reference to FEE NUIM. There's only so far that stuff can take you though.
Its very positive to see USI and SUs (UL, UCD, TCD) protesting against O' Keefe in new ways (USI occupied a Government Dept. too not too long ago, are they 'too militant' for the SU :rolleyes: ) and actually taking it to the government. Do I think FEE played any part in this change of tactics. A *small* bit, yes.
I think all in all FEE did well this year, I hope you can see from the above I'm critical of some of what we did in retrospect but all in all I think we did bring new people into the campaign nationally. Little things like you said (A bus for Feb4) should have been done, but such is life... I would argue our campaign of direct actions were our attempts to push the student body towards unified action, obviously we didn't succeed to the extent we would have liked to but I know USI and the sort see where we were coming from and I don't think our actions were a waste.
In the event of protests on campus, FEE has worked WITH SU's (See the report on the Lenihan blockade in UCD) but I think the obvious problem in Maynooth was that while FEE wouldn't be seen as some sort of militant threat in a college where the S.U themselves were willing to take direct action (UL,UCD) in a college like Maynooth were the S.U adopted a much different approach they couldn't get their head around our attitude. Nationally however, I think FEE is now on the same, or a very similar wavelength, to the 'Student Movement' I've thought this since UCD SU and USI started having sitdowns
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Well done NUIM SU - the only reason you are annoyed is because you wanted to ensure that there was no possibility for a discussion and an exchange of views - what you wanted was the opportunity to throw eggs (either literally or metaphorically) and prevent the discussion.
A real exchange of views will have to happen formally with representation from all Student Unions over intense discussion with the Minister/Department for Education.
This won't happen on a campus, and it won't happen before some photo-shoot. He came here for that purpose on Tuesday, not to talk to our S.U.
Having such ridicolous 'talks' without informing the Student Body do nto help put the neccesary pressure on O' Keefe/his Dept. to push for real talks between Student Reps. and O' Keefe.
I wouldn't (I don't think the rest of FEE would either, either here or nationwide) oppose O' Keefe talking withthe S.Us (As in multiple S.Us) and hammering it out on the issue. That has to happen. The problem is the nature of the 'talks' NUIMSU have had with O' Keefe. He came here for a photo-op, you didn't oppose his visit and ultimately that's a failure.
As for throwing eggs?
I didn't see anyone from the USI/UL SU/TCD SU/UCD SU chuck eggs.
When FEE occupied the Dept. of Finance I can promise you we didn't throw anything around either :rolleyes:
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As already pointed out (maybe), the Minister was on campus primarily to turn the sod on the new NIRSA/NCG/An Foras Feasa building site (beside John Hume). A photo-op and a quick chance for him to have a few words with the 100 or so who turned up - most of whom were staff from NCG/NIRSA/An Foras Feasa and executive types like the President, Vice Presidents, PR crowd and Ministerial staff (Was There. Got T-Shirt, and morning off work
)
I didn't hear about the sekrit meeting until later, I can assume it's srs bsns though. The confirmation of attendance from the Minister's Office didn't come through until Friday I believe, which leaves it very short notice to get anything going. With the 4 gardai present, one of whom looked like he couldn't handle the stiff breeze, you wouldn't of had a hard time getting near enough to throw some eggs
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
So who pays the debt? The system is f*cked up but thats capitalism and greed for you, we can only learn from our mistakes. Hopefully this crisis will bring in effective regulation and boundaries to the amount of risk banks can take on.
Declare indebted capitalists bankrupt, (liquidate the debt) and nationalize/expropriate any remaining assets. The people of this nation should not be made pay for the criminal actions of an elite minority, they should be compensated.The medical card is/was another ridiculous social welfare payment, how is it right that someone that earns over 200k gets "free" education system and health care and the rest of society has to pay for it. Policies like these cripple a countries finances, especially when such vast amounts of money could be put to much more useful causes.
Health like education is right - not a privillige. I think healthcare should be socialized. In relation to funding, I support the implimentation of progressive taxation to the extent that the most wealthy in society will (in effect) pay their own bill ''through tax''. The wealthiest groups in this nation pay very little as it stands.So do you think the government should have let Irish banks collapse? Where are your savings? Where is you or your parents mortgage held? That would be a complete disaster for the whole economy and the people within it.
Im in the credit union but thats off topic, I advoate socialization - (not collapse). The notion that alternatives to FFs program dont exist is neo liberal propaganda at its worst. The est 21 billion in corib gas should be nationalized - the 103 million a year sub to exclusive private schools should be scrapped and the corp tax brought to the EU average.
As for that ridicules article - the term ''knowledge economy'' is little more than a buzzword designed to alleviate the fears of the naive, this economy is ****ed. As far as im aware Indian/Lithuanian computer programmers are just as well educated as Irish ones. The Celtic boom was a result of Irelands (low tax) - however eastern European states are now adopting the same approach.Wage reductions in the region of 10% arnt going to place us in competitive relation with such markets. Neo Liberal economists seem to be suggesting that we undercut third world labor rates in order to pay off the class who caused the crisis to begin with LOL. 0 -
Declare indebted capitalists bankrupt, (liquidate the debt) and nationalize/expropriate any remaining assets. The people of this nation should not be made pay for the criminal actions of an elite minority, they should be compensated.
I presume you are talking about the Swedish approach? It could go either way really, in theory its not a bad solution but "the assets" aren't even close to being worth what they were paid for so the government just takes on bad debt and certainly not even close to leaving any compensation. I just don't think the government are the right people to be running the banks or the economy. Generally government run operations aren't efficient and wasteful. I know what you are going to say but thats where regulation comes in. Bashing the government for their incompetencies and then advocating socialisation in contradictory. You are probably right though in this case as the government has taken on all the debt with this guarantee anyway and nationalisation could be a way of getting a return in the future. blah blah
Health like education is right - not a privillige. I think healthcare should be socialized. In relation to funding, I support the implimentation of progressive taxation to the extent that the most wealthy in society will (in effect) pay their own bill ''through tax''. The wealthiest groups in this nation pay very little as it stands.
So nobody becomes wealthy and motivation goes out the window. You are limiting peoples choices on what they do with their well earned money. While I agree that our taxes could be increased I don't believe in this notion that the all high earners are bad and should be punished for it. I hate this idea of a welfare state, everyone has a right to health and education but lines have to be crossed somewhere. We actually have a similar viewpoint only you are forcing people to throw their money at these things and limiting choice.
This is getting off topic.
Oh right, its ridiculous, why? You go on to suggest that it doesn't matter what our colleges are like because 'the knowledge economy' is BS and that cheaper labour can be found somewhere else, so why bother with uni's at all and neither the government or students will have to pay fees. Issue sorted.As for that ridicules article - the term ''knowledge economy'' is little more than a buzzword designed to alleviate the fears of the naive, this economy is ****ed. As far as im aware Indian/Lithuanian computer programmers are just as well educated as Irish ones.0 -
-
-
I presume you are talking about the Swedish approach? It could go either way really, in theory its not a bad solution but "the assets" aren't even close to being worth what they were paid for so the government just takes on bad debt and certainly not even close to leaving any compensation. I just don't think the government are the right people to be running the banks or the economy. Generally government run operations aren't efficient and wasteful. I know what you are going to say but thats where regulation comes in. Bashing the government for their incompetencies and then advocating socialisation in contradictory. You are probably right though in this case as the government has taken on all the debt with this guarantee anyway and nationalisation could be a way of getting a return in the future. blah blah
No, not the Sweedish approach. Im aware the assets are not worth as much in market terms, however they can be used for social projects, job creation ect. I advocate complete divorce from the debt, not ''re-configuration'' of the terms of payment.So nobody becomes wealthy and motivation goes out the window. You are limiting peoples choices on what they do with their well earned money. While I agree that our taxes could be increased I don't believe in this notion that the all high earners are bad and should be punished for it. I hate this idea of a welfare state, everyone has a right to health and education but lines have to be crossed somewhere. We actually have a similar viewpoint only you are forcing people to throw their money at these things and limiting choice.
Its the ordinary taxpayer who has ''no choice'' in relation to the payment of ''upper class'' debt. The current situation entails proposals that public assets be privatized, wages reduced and social supports removed, accumulation through dispossession, a form of upward re-distribution.Oh right, its ridiculous, why? You go on to suggest that it doesn't matter what our colleges are like because 'the knowledge economy' is BS and that cheaper labour can be found somewhere else, so why bother with uni's at all and neither the government or students will have to pay fees. Issue sorted.
The term ''knowledge economy'' is a bull**** buzzword designed to circumvent serious socio-economic analysis. The debt when broken down = 100,000 for every person in country. The Govs only solution is the implementation of neo-liberal ''structural adjustment'', austerity ect - on the premise that it will stimulate economic growth, however in (reality) all it will do is further transfer public assets into the hands of the economic elite who in turn will invest in the stock market. Furthermore, capital being mobile will go where tax's are low and labor is cheap - thats just the way it works.
If people want to change the overall condition then capital should be taken under public ownership and organized in a democratic manner, the alternative is debt bondage.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj2slh_YOfQ
Advertisement