Joe Higgins MEP: McDonald & Ganley finished!

lostexpectation

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

He claims he's pro-EU, but not in it's current form.

is this an impossible position, like voting no at all.

conchubhar1

no its quite an acceptable posistion ^

P. Breathnach

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no its quite an acceptable posistion ^

Feel free to accept it if you like. I won't, because I understand the code.

conchubhar1

the eu cant and shouldnt be changed if someone think it should be?

fair


he is elected an mep - he can advocate change.
there is no code. you can pretend there is to justify you opposistion to him if you so wish

Nodin

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Ah! Uncle Joseph !! The "thinking skangers politician" as some have described him..

Considering theres a great deal there that one could take issue with in regards to his policies, I fail to see the need or reasoning behind remarks such as "thinking skangers politician".

Fulton Crown wrote: »

I have no doubt that some decent people voted for him ..

As above.

Fulton Crown wrote: »

- but to vote a guy into Europe on stuff like income levies an college fees...I'm well .....nonplussed ..

Haven't Fianna Fail imposed an income levy and proposed bringing back college fees?

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Watch for the guy poppin up on every TV talk show to peddle his leftie views

...and he'll be joined by others, who will be 'peddling' their left/right/confused views, because thats the way it works.

Fulton Crown

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the Crown doesn't refrain from engaging in slagging posters rather than posts, the Crown will be calling it elsewhere.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Clean Headshot ! Apologies all round.

Fulton Crown

livingtargets wrote: »

"thinking skangers politician".

Once again you insult the people who voted Joe by dismissing them as "silly peasants".As a matter of interest,who did you vote for?

"to vote a guy into Europe on stuff like income levies an college fees...I'm well .....nonplussed"

They voted Joe because they certainly weren`t going to vote for the same party of chancers who have the cheek not only to ask people to put up with levies and fees,but to then ask the very same people they have attacked to send them to Europe.Nothing too confusing about that,in my opinion.

In the European elections I voted for Gay Mitchell - based on his record in EUROPE - not on his stance on National issues.

In the local elections I voted for the sitting Labour councillor because he is local and has a good track record on LOCAL issues - gave my other preferences to various Independant candidates.

With regard to the levies and fees - as said in a previous post:

The country is in a mess

Running at a substantial daily deficit.

Credit rating going down - cost of borrowing going up.


Nobody likes levies, nobody likes college fees....but extra revenue is needed - like ...yesterday - the levies and fees area a quick and dirty way of doing it.

We are between a rock and a hard place.

Likewise people talk about not supporting the Banks - completely ignoring the fact that to Nationalise the Banks would cause a flood of investor money to leave the country and severly curtail inward investment ?

Lenihan (and I'm no supporterof his) has, in fairness, outlined this ad nauseum in the media.

And still people don't get it....

Joycey

wildswan wrote: »

It would be a disgrace to pay water rates in this country. It would be a bit like paying for sand in a desert!

Thats one area I actually disagree with JH.

People dont die for lack of sand. They do from water. While Im undecided about an individual or household water levy, I think industry and businesses should most definitely have to pay for their wasteful practises.

Geography doesnt excuse wasteful behaviour.

asdasd

Geography doesnt excuse wasteful behaviour.

People who want free water should put out a container or some sort to collect rain.

The cost of water is in the storage, cleaning, infrastructure and tranport. It is not free.

Rabble

asdasd wrote: »

People who want free water should put out a container or some sort to collect rain.

The cost of water is in the storage, cleaning, infrastructure and tranport. It is not free.

In Galway the stuff that comes out of the tap is not worth paying for!

P. Breathnach

Rabble wrote: »

In Galway the stuff that comes out of the tap is not worth paying for!

That point can be used in favour of charging for water. One of the reasons why the water was bad is that money was not spend on updating and upgrading treatment facilities. Good drinking water costs money to produce and deliver.

makl

djpbarry - many of the unemployed are people who want to work, as i made very clear in first post. joe represents these

also please reference these - "frequent references to “the working class” during the course of his campaign". should at least back up your points. not gonna argue some random statement. also let us know how they are classist, thanks.

fulton - fair play to you. you say you have a fair idea of what's going on. as it happens, most people who are arsed not just readin a politics thread but also replyin to it probably have a fair idea too. but fair play for lettin us all know that you know.

bantam - "people who are actually trying to do something for this country" - who? fianna fail?


Also, on the water charges, this from candidatewatch - agree or not, as least have his opinion straight before debatin it or rippin it apart etc etc

Dear _____,

Thanks for your letter and query on the bin tax. The bin tax is primarily seen by the Government and Council officials as a revenue gathering exercise rather than an environment measure. That is why in Fingal, for example, as well as a bin tag, householders now also have a yearly charge for recycling and composting. There is now a big push to bring back water charges on the ground of water conservation. This is utter hypocrisy. In the last twelve years hundreds of thousands of new houses have been built without such simple measures for water conservation as dual flush toilets and rainwater tanks being included because the Department of the Environment and Councils did not include such measures in building regulations. Yet they preach that families must pay water charges to ´help conserve water´.

When we fought and defeated water charges in Dublin in 1994, ´95, ´96, we callled back then for such measures to conserve treated water. They did not listen or act. The economic burden that water charges would be on ordinary people was shown when Minister Mary Hanafin said a year ago that if we hadn´t forced their abolition, every household would now be paying between €700 and €800 per year! Lastly with regard to reducing waste and recycling, we believe that most people are very willing got do this out of a sense of responsibility to the environment. People were doing this before they started to charge. In case there was a minority which didn´t give a damn we would have Bye Laws requiring people to separate their waste and having sanctions if anybody didn´t do so. But the biggest changes would be made in manufacturing and retail where we would oblige by law a massive reduction on packaging which is only there to try and make products look better than other products in competition. Hope all this is of some interest and thanks again. Look in my Euro website joehiggins.eu and also the Socialist Party website for more of our ideas. All the best, joe higgins

MikeC101

Just to clear up something - who specifically are we referring to when using the term "working class"?

My own understanding is that the common definition of working class would be those who are involved in physical labour, and work for a wage. Blue collar workers I suppose?

Or would it be defined more in terms of income / access to education?

Or a bit more Marxist, ie the creators of wealth in an economy, but who don't own land / the means of production?

Fulton Crown

MikeC101 wrote: »

Just to clear up something - who specifically are we referring to when using the term "working class"?

My own understanding is that the common definition of working class would be those who are involved in physical labour, and work for a wage. Blue collar workers I suppose?

Or would it be defined more in terms of income / access to education?

Or a bit more Marxist, ie the creators of wealth in an economy, but who don't own land / the means of production?

Ummm ....a difficult one,,my thinkin is that working class is those that are not in a managerial or team leader capacity.

Nothing wrong with that - these class divisions are esemtial how the world works.

However..I do not believe that working class are the CREATORS of wealth..developers of wealth maybe..not creators.

There is an essential difference between being a passanger in life and a driver.

CiaranC

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Ummm ....a difficult one,,my thinkin is that working class is those that are not in a managerial or team leader capacity.

Nothing wrong with that - these class divisions are esemtial how the world works.

However..I do not believe that working class are the CREATORS of wealth..developers of wealth maybe..not creators.

There is an essential difference between being a passanger in life and a driver.

Youre some boyo fulton. I dont think youve thought this through. Labour creates wealth. Without labour, wed have a load of your "team leaders" ordering themselves around. "Listen guys, seeing as we dont actually produce and saleable goods or services, we should organise exactly how we are going to starve"

Fulton Crown

CiaranC wrote: »

Youre some boyo fulton. I dont think youve thought this through. Labour creates wealth. Without labour, wed have a load of your "team leaders" ordering themselves around. "Listen guys, seeing as we dont actually produce and saleable goods or services, we should organise exactly how we are going to starve"

Nice one Ciaran ! Interesting angle,,not one I would have thought of.

The key is in the meaning of the verb "create".

Now take the scenario of a person who has the idea to develop a new snack food.

He organises the finance,,builds the factory,,,,,hires the production staff,,and proceeds to make himself a mint and provide valuable eplopyment in the locality.

A "win win" as they say in Sheepmoor.

Now - who is the CREATOR of wealth in that scenario ?

I say the person who came up with the idea,,,,sure the workers contributed and should be adequately rewarded - but the creator is the person with the idea,

Agreed ??

CiaranC

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Nice one Ciaran ! Interesting angle,,not one I would have thought of.

The key is in the meaning of the verb "create".

Now take the scenario of a person who has the idea to develop a new snack food.

He organises the finance,,builds the factory,,,,,hires the production staff,,and proceeds to make himself a mint and provide valuable eplopyment in the locality.

A "win win" as they say in Sheepmoor.

Now - who is the CREATOR of wealth in that scenario ?

I say the person who came up with the idea,,,,sure the workers contributed and should be adequately rewarded - but the creator is the person with the idea,

Agreed ??

Ideas dont make snack food fulton. Why, if they did, Id be eating a doner kebab right now.

Fulton Crown

CiaranC wrote: »

Ideas dont make snack food fulton. Why, if they did, Id be eating a doner kebab right now.

Ah C ,,,failed to address the issue.

I said person has the idea...organises the finance... builds the factory.

I underlined the relevant bits to help you.

Wouldn't mind a Doner myself right now TBH ?

feel free to fudge a reply to this if you like

conchubhar1

no fulton you missed the point

but if that person built the building as in laboured on it, maybe i can kinda see your point.

otherwise without the workers - he has a nifty idea, premises and money. wow - but useless on the whole

PopeBuckfastXVI

One might also say that workers, without an idea, are merely spinning wheels to no great end.

Personally I believe the enablers of the product should be entitled to a reasonably fair share of it's earnings.

I get the distinct impression, however, that papa Joe doesn't consider anyone who doesn't make with their hands, as opposed to their minds, to be a 'worker'.

I'm open to correction on that, of course.

conchubhar1

didnt make that point to clear but obviuosly i misinterpretated buckfasts comment

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

my sweet ****ing jesus
you cant be serious

''spinning wheels to no end'' - your taking the piss, seriously?

they come out with a product at the end - there is an end

the ''enablers'' get a very high portion of credit and money..... unproportionalty high

if there was a thumbs down button that post would get it - really the mind boggles

*sigh*

Spinning wheels to no end, if they don't have a product, that someone has invented, to make.

The enablers I'm referring to are the people who actually do the manufacturing, i.e. the workers.

conchubhar1

i misinterpretaed you - why use workers and then enablers in the next line that is bound to lead to confusion on what you meant

i doubt joe only believes workers do physical work..... but they wouldnt be working class - that would be obvious from what party he is of and his political outlook

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i misinterpretaed you - why use workers and then enablers in the next line that is bound to lead to confusion on what you meant

i doubt joe only believes workers do physical work..... but they wouldnt be working class - that would be obvious from what party he is of and his political outlook

My apologies if my post was ambiguous.

Like I say, it's just the impression I get of him, and I remain open to correction.

conchubhar1

he is a socialist^

he has the working class people at heart and first - that is not to say her or other socialist dont value or rate the work of others

djpbarry

makl wrote: »

also please reference these - "frequent references to “the working class” during the course of his campaign". should at least back up your points. not gonna argue some random statement.

Each of the following statements can be found at [url]www.joehiggins.eu:[/url]

joehiggins.eu wrote:

The Socialist Party has a proven track record of campaigning and fighting for the rights of working class people.

joehiggins.eu wrote:

Certainly anybody idiotic enough to stay on as a rank and file member of Fianna Fail will need to suffer from amnesia or be otherwise anaesthetised before they have the neck to go out canvassing among working class people for the party in the upcoming Local and Euro Elections.

joehiggins.eu wrote:

Constructive means that its solidarity with the working class will evaporate and labour will join with Fine Gael in carrying on the savage attacks deemed by conservative economists and journalists to be necessary to allow market capitalism to crawl out of the chasm into which its own contradictions have pushed it.

joehiggins.eu wrote:

Traditional working class communities are bearing a heavy burden.

joehiggins.eu wrote:

For solidarity amongst working class people across Europe in the fight to defend decent living standards for all.

I could go on.

conchubhar1

a socialist is for the working class

hot damn
can i qoute stuff that says sinn féin is for a 32 county republic - or that the sky is blue?


i am giving you a thumb up because you are right he is for working class people - duh he is a socialist.....

Piste

What I find ridiculous is his selling point is that he's for "workers and the unemployed"


...surely every citizen of Ireland, from a newborn to someone on their deathbead is either working or unemployed?

What about someone who paid their way through college, had a fantastic idea, set up a company and is now a millionaire...does Joe stand for him/her too?

conchubhar1

people
look up socialism - please......

its not a dificult thing to grasp

Piste

My point wasn't about socialsm, it's about who Joe Higgins believes he is representing.