Future University Students Interested in Politics

Mario007

Hey everyone(yet again). I have a little aspiration of starting up a movement or a political platform this summer. I would like it to be on the right of the political spectrum and at start it would be predominantly based for students, since I will be a student next year and I think it will be easiest for me to collect ideas for for and from students. However I do intend that this movement would be aimed at the middle-class people, business people and the intelligentsia. I have posted something similiar on boards.ie and here in the elections section but right now I want to get an answer from the young peolpe and students themselves. The movement would work mostly on the basis of changing old systems and rebuilding them for the future, if i could say that as popullistically as that.

Here are two main ideas:

1. Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs. The Taoiseach, who also would be a top expert, would be nominated by the coalition that will form within the Dail, and he will then pick out his cabinet. The cabinet will have to be approved by the Dail, along with its program.
This will make the cabinet apolitical, which means it will take decissions that will be good for the country, as based on their analitical expertise, not on the popular demand. Since every law will have to pass the Dail, this will ensure that that people's wishes will be still listened to.
Also since TDs have the power to produce new bills and acts in the Dail, it will but greater pressure on them from their electorate, who will demand that they shall draft out these bills.I do admit that explaining a fundamental change in one paragraph is short sighted so if you have any questions about it please do ask.

2.Flat rate of tax. Introduce a flat rate of tax across the board on all taxable items. This way some taxes will drop, others will increase. The main advantage of this system is that it is very simply and a flat rate is proved to reduce tax fraud, as people generally don't bother putting in the work to avoid tax payments anymore.
The decreased tax on incomes allows for more money for the citizen, which he can spend on goods, on which VAT will be taxed, giving the state more money in VAT payments and other such taxes and also supporting production and increasing employment ie more money for the state from new income taxes.
To ensure this system is fair I would propose the using of the Negative Income Tax. It can be used as a flat rate of tax across the spectrum with the untaxable minimum, a threshold that would be established and would constitute of the minimum a person needs to lead a quality life, depending whether they're single or married or with children. Above this threshold the income would be taxed(just like the tax credits in this respect) with a flat tax. If a person earns below this level of threshold, however, the difference is taxed and paid to the person from the state.
For example, let the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be €20,000 per adult and €7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making €54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making €74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.2(74,000-54,000) = €4,000, as under a flat tax with deductions. But families of four earning less than €54,000 per year would owe a "negative" amount of tax (that is, it would receive money from the government). E.g., if it earned €34,000 a year, it would receive a check for €4,000.
This way the administration process and the fraud risk will be reduced. It will also open doors for getting rid off the minimum wage as there is a guarantee of minimal income a person must get. Also this NIT acts as a subsidy for all the social welfare benefits that come to families with low income, reducing the social welfare paid and avoiding the welfare trap, as when the person moves up the ladder of wages his actual income increases.

Other points on the agenda of such a movement:
1. A complete reform of the education system, with continuous assessment rather than one exam to determine your life. This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU.

2.A foreign policy that supports the EU and the integration and well being of the EU members. This would include following the path of the Lisbon Treaty. A vital part for this would also be to create great exchange schemes for students in the secondary schools. On these exchanges they would gain the knowledge of other European cultures and hopefully will learn to accept them.

3.Selling off some semi state companies, such as the ESB, that the state doesn't need. In the case of ESB the state doesn't need it to regulate the prices of electricity as the state can still regulate the prices through Board Gais, which makes owning both companies a luxury that we can't afford at the moment.


For for reading this all I would just like to know who would be interested in these ideas, and which ones in particular. Thanks

Napoli

First off, fairplay to you for actually taking action to change the system rather than just complaining about it.

Your spelling isn't great though, which is something you'll need to work on if you intend on being in the political spotlight. eg. government is made up off top experts; popullistically (is that even a word?). These just take away from the credibility of your argument.

Next, you have some pretty radical ideas.

Have a political system where the government is made up off (sic) top experts in their field, not TDs.

Democracy is based on representatives elected by the people, whether or not they are "experts in their field". The public choose whether they see someone fit for the job.

The rest of your proposals seem fair enough.

A foreign policy that supports...great exchange schemes for students in the secondary schools

Don't we have this already?

Anyway, goodluck to you in your political career. The country needs fresh thinking.

andrew

Mario007 wrote: »

However I do intend that this movement would be aimed at the middle-class people, business people and the intelligentsia.

While I can see where you're coming from, that comes accross pretty badly. At the very least, don't be so obvious about it! If your policies suit those kind of people let them agree you rather than specifically targeting people. It come accross as (and i'm loath to use this word) really wayyy too elitist.

1. Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs..... This will make the cabinet apolitical, which means it will take decissions that will be good for the country, as based on their analitical expertise,..., this will ensure that that people's wishes will be still listened to. Also since TDs have the power to produce new bills and acts in the Dail, it will but greater pressure on them from their electorate, who will demand that they shall draft out these bills.I do admit that explaining a fundamental change in one paragraph is short sighted so if you have any questions about it please do ask.

a) The points highlighted in bold seem contradictory...no elected TD's, just experts, yet there'll still be an electorate?
b) Assuming there won't be an electorate what will incentivise these experts to work 'for the good of the country'? If there will still be elections, then how will the candidates be apolitical?

2.A foreign policy that supports the EU and the integration and well being of the EU members. This would include following the path of the Lisbon Treaty. A vital part for this would also be to create great exchange schemes for students in the secondary schools. On these exchanges they would gain the knowledge of other European cultures and hopefully will learn to accept them.

Isn't this the status quo pretty much?

I'd take you up on the tax thing, but I'm too tired I get the feeling it'd lower tax revenues a lot.

MrPirate

I would like it to be on the right of the political spectrum and at start it would be predominantly based for students, since I will be a student next year and I think it will be easiest for me to collect ideas for for and from students.

Do you not already think that there is enough of right-wing politics in Ireland? I would be interested but I'm on the left myself.

1. Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs. The Taoiseach, who also would be a top expert, would be nominated by the coalition that will form within the Dail, and he will then pick out his cabinet. The cabinet will have to be approved by the Dail, along with its program. This will make the cabinet apolitical, which means it will take decissions that will be good for the country, as based on their analitical expertise, not on the popular demand. Since every law will have to pass the Dail, this will ensure that that people's wishes will be still listened to. Also since TDs have the power to produce new bills and acts in the Dail, it will but greater pressure on them from their electorate, who will demand that they shall draft out these bills.I do admit that explaining a fundamental change in one paragraph is short sighted so if you have any questions about it please do ask.

In theory, it sounds like a good idea. What you basically mean is establish a sort of 2-teared government: one elected body (The Dail) and one elected body (Ministers) where the Dail would act like a house of commons to pass bills, etc and the ministers would take care of the actual day-to-day running of the nation, correct? How you would make it apolitical is something that would be very hard. I would imagine it would be similar to the US Supreme Court where the US president apoints a new member when one leaves. Ie, whatever the majority party in the Dail decides.

2.Flat rate of tax. Introduce a flat rate of tax across the board on all taxable items. This way some taxes will drop, others will increase. The main advantage of this system is that it is very simply and a flat rate is proved to reduce tax fraud, as people generally don't bother putting in the work to avoid tax payments anymore. The decreased tax on incomes allows for more money for the citizen, which he can spend on goods, on which VAT will be taxed, giving the state more money in VAT payments and other such taxes and also supporting production and increasing employment ie more money for the state from new income taxes.To ensure this system is fair I would propose the using of the Negative Income Tax. It can be used as a flat rate of tax across the spectrum with the untaxable minimum, a threshold that would be established and would constitute of the minimum a person needs to lead a quality life, depending whether they're single or married or with children. Above this threshold the income would be taxed(just like the tax credits in this respect) with a flat tax. If a person earns below this level of threshold, however, the difference is taxed and paid to the person from the state.
For example, let the flat rate be 20%, and let the deductions be €20,000 per adult and €7,000 per dependent. Under such a system, a family of four making €54,000 a year would owe no tax. A family of four making €74,000 a year would owe tax amounting to 0.2(74,000-54,000) = €4,000, as under a flat tax with deductions. But families of four earning less than €54,000 per year would owe a "negative" amount of tax (that is, it would receive money from the government). E.g., if it earned €34,000 a year, it would receive a check for €4,000.
This way the administration process and the fraud risk will be reduced. It will also open doors for getting rid off the minimum wage as there is a guarantee of minimal income a person must get. Also this NIT acts as a subsidy for all the social welfare benefits that come to families with low income, reducing the social welfare paid and avoiding the welfare trap, as when the person moves up the ladder of wages his actual income increases.

I had thought about the idea of a flat rate of taxation. But then I realized that it was highly regressive. For example, why should a married couple with an income of 30000euro with 3 children (age, 17, 12, 9) pay a proportionately higher sum of their wage than a married couple with an income of 300,000 with 3 children of the same age?

Mario007

Napoli wrote: »

First off, fairplay to you for actually taking action to change the system rather than just complaining about it.

Your spelling isn't great though, which is something you'll need to work on if you intend on being in the political spotlight. eg. government is made up off top experts; popullistically (is that even a word?). These just take away from the credibility of your argument.

ha thanks for pointing out those mistakes, i live in ireland for 5 years and I guess my english skills still need a tad bit more polishing to do:D

Napoli wrote: »

Next, you have some pretty radical ideas.


Democracy is based on representatives elected by the people, whether or not they are "experts in their field". The public choose whether they see someone fit for the job.

Under the system I propose the Dail would be still directly elected by the people and it would be these elected representatives that would appoint an expert for the Taoiseach. He would then create his cabinet of experts which would have to go through the approval of the Dail, along with its programme. Thus the will of people would still be acceptable

Napoli wrote: »

The rest of your proposals seem fair enough.

thanks glad you like them:)

Napoli wrote: »

Don't we have this already?

we do...sort of. there is a great trend of people coming to irish schools particulary from spain but also from other european countries. however we need to, export our own too, so to say:D

Napoli wrote: »

Anyway, goodluck to you in your political career. The country needs fresh thinking.

thanks again, when I feel that I have enough support I will certainly set up an internet site to represent the movement too and post a link to it here:D

Nihilist21

Mario007 wrote: »

However I do intend that this movement would be aimed at the middle-class people, business people and the intelligentsia.

I think this is the major failing of many political movements, aspiring to meet the needs/wants of segements of the populace. Policies should be amended to apply to the entire populace.

Have a political system where the government is made up off top experts in their field, not TDs.

I agree with this in essence, I have my own thoughts about how this would be achieved.

This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU.

I support the idea of giving primary school students more choice, but I don't think that they should be assessed anually. Perhaps at the end of sixth class - but that would be it. I would prefer to see the point of primary school as a way of students developing their interests in fields of academia, rather than having to - for the sake of exams.

Selling off some semi state companies, such as the ESB, that the state doesn't need. In the case of ESB the state doesn't need it to regulate the prices of electricity as the state can still regulate the prices through Board Gais, which makes owning both companies a luxury that we can't afford at the moment.

The reason the ESB and Bord Gais are state companies is due to security and economic reasons. The profit margin for the ESB is low, if enterprise were to be in control of the countries energy it would be seeking maximum profit. Furthermore, if the energy of a country is in the hands of enterprise - then it may abuse it's position. Whilst not being a totally accurate comparison, take Ukraine for example - when Russia cut off the gas supply (last year, I think it was), many vunerable people died and absentism rosed sharply, certain companies could not operate too.

---

In conclusion, if you're serious about this you need to sit down and lay out your views on all key aspects of managing the country (I choose that way of phrasing it as, like me, you'd probably amemd the duties of government etc.). Furthermore writing out an essay or book detailing these views would be a necessity, without that effort I can't see many people taking you seriously. As an aside I was actually contemplating writing a book laying out the principles I would adopt (it would be rather radical, encompassing some elements of the ideas you expressed). Anyhoo, good luck.

Mario007

andrew wrote: »

While I can see where you're coming from, that comes accross pretty badly. At the very least, don't be so obvious about it! If your policies suit those kind of people let them agree you rather than specifically targeting people. It come accross as (and i'm loath to use this word) really wayyy too elitist.

oh right, thanks i didnt realize that. and yes the last thing I want is this movment to be accused beingtoo elitist...that pretty much burries all its chances.

andrew wrote: »

a) The points highlighted in bold seem contradictory...no elected TD's, just experts, yet there'll still be an electorate?
b) Assuming there won't be an electorate what will incentivise these experts to work 'for the good of the country'? If there will still be elections, then how will the candidates be apolitical?

the TDs will still sit in the DAil and will still be elected by the people, with all their powers and responsibilities. They would then elected a an expert Taoiseach and he/she would then go on to pick his/hers cabinet of experts. Having selected all the candidates the cabinet would go back to the Dail to seek confidence for themselves and their programe from the TDs. This way there is an electorate, the TDs can still work hard to please their electors and the cabinet is still under close control from the TDs, which true would not make it completely apolitical, however they will be, hopefully, the very top experts who's ideas would be aimed 'for the good of the country'.

andrew wrote: »

Isn't this the status quo pretty much?

as i've said in asnwer to napoli, something like this does work, but not on a big scale to be honest, and only with only a few countries, so I would like to expand on this, maybe even make it compulsary for one year in school.

andrew wrote: »

I'd take you up on the tax thing, but I'm too tired I get the feeling it'd lower tax revenues a lot.

it wouldnt, similiar thing works in other countries where the lower income from income tax revenues is balanced out by the higher income from VAT and other indirect form of taxation as people have more money to spend

Mario007

MrPirate wrote: »

Do you not already think that there is enough of right-wing politics in Ireland? I would be interested but I'm on the left myself.

no i actually dont think there is any real right wing group out there. If you break it down to those in the Dail, for example: FF-they are pretty much at the centre, leaning a tad to the left over the past few years.
FG-center also, but leaning towards the right to appease some of its electorate that would formerly vote PDs.
Labour- Left, not extremly, but left nonetheless.
SF-nationalistic and left, a rather odd combination if I may say so.
Greens- they have their own green agenda, that fits a bit to the leftist ideaology, but I wouldnt read much into that.
Although I am quite surprised to see that you liked most of my ideas and yet you are on the left, its a fact that I need to revisit.

MrPirate wrote: »

In theory, it sounds like a good idea. What you basically mean is establish a sort of 2-teared government: one elected body (The Dail) and one elected body (Ministers) where the Dail would act like a house of commons to pass bills, etc and the ministers would take care of the actual day-to-day running of the nation, correct? How you would make it apolitical is something that would be very hard. I would imagine it would be similar to the US Supreme Court where the US president apoints a new member when one leaves. Ie, whatever the majority party in the Dail decides.

yes the two-tier system is exactly that what I am proposing. Yes the majority in the Dail would decide upon a Taoiseach, and he would then appoint his cabinet of experts.This cabinet would come back to the Dail to seek its mandate and also a manadate for its programe. It would still be a bit political, I admit, but there needs to be this kinda of safety net to ensure proper democracy, I think.

MrPirate wrote: »

I had thought about the idea of a flat rate of taxation. But then I realized that it was highly regressive. For example, why should a married couple with an income of 30000euro with 3 children (age, 17, 12, 9) pay a proportionately higher sum of their wage than a married couple with an income of 300,000 with 3 children of the same age?

with the system of Negative Income Tax you're working with a threshold, that allows for poorer people to receive tax back athus we'd have flat taxation that doesnt damage the poor, it's a sort of solidarity policy.

Mario007

Nihilist21 wrote: »

I think this is the major failing of many political movements, aspiring to meet the needs/wants of segements of the populace. Policies should be amended to apply to the entire populace.

i think it is not. if one is to set ones policies to appeal to everyone in the country, we'd haev one party majority and single party governments who could pretty much do what they want. having parties that target a particular part of the electorate is good in the way they can deal just with those few issues and incomporate them into a government policies should they form a coalition.
also it is almost unachievable to select policies that please everyone.

Nihilist21 wrote: »

I agree with this in essence, I have my own thoughts about how this would be achieved.

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking alongside similiar lines:D

Nihilist21 wrote: »

I support the idea of giving primary school students more choice, but I don't think that they should be assessed anually. Perhaps at the end of sixth class - but that would be it. I would prefer to see the point of primary school as a way of students developing their interests in fields of academia, rather than having to - for the sake of exams.

i think there is a need for assestment throughout. it forces kids to actually sit down and learn something. There are a few who take interest in school and academics naturaly, true, but there are only handful. We need to encourage kids to sit down and do some work as oppose to always kick a ball on the street everyday. Continuous assestment allows for this to happen. Some symbolic bursaries would probably be offered to students with good results to encourage this even further.

Nihilist21 wrote: »

The reason the ESB and Bord Gais are state companies is due to security and economic reasons. The profit margin for the ESB is low, if enterprise were to be in control of the countries energy it would be seeking maximum profit. Furthermore, if the energy of a country is in the hands of enterprise - then it may abuse it's position. Whilst not being a totally accurate comparison, take Ukraine for example - when Russia cut off the gas supply (last year, I think it was), many vunerable people died and absentism rosed sharply, certain companies could not operate too.

Yes and maxim profit it should seek. By innovative ways, not just increaseing electricity prices. With the state retaining Board Gais, it would retain control over the electricity prices. The Ukraine example is a bit extreme, there it was about the state refusing to pay Gazprom the prices for the gas and the logical conclusion was to cut off the gas. That kind of scenario cannot happen here to be honest. With privatisation you also open the market to new companies and thus monopolies are also destroyed which benefits the customer.

Nihilist21 wrote: »

In conclusion, if you're serious about this you need to sit down and lay out your views on all key aspects of managing the country (I choose that way of phrasing it as, like me, you'd probably amemd the duties of government etc.). Furthermore writing out an essay or book detailing these views would be a necessity, without that effort I can't see many people taking you seriously. As an aside I was actually contemplating writing a book laying out the principles I would adopt (it would be rather radical, encompassing some elements of the ideas you expressed). Anyhoo, good luck.

good luck to you too. Maybe one day we'll come together with our own ideas. I intend to publish mine, one at the time, on the internet where people would be able to reply to them. That would include not just forums here also social networks such as facebook, twitter or an internet blog

MrPirate

no i actually dont think there is any real right wing group out there. If you break it down to those in the Dail, for example: FF-they are pretty much at the centre, leaning a tad to the left over the past few years.
FG-center also, but leaning towards the right to appease some of its electorate that would formerly vote PDs.
Labour- Left, not extremly, but left nonetheless.
SF-nationalistic and left, a rather odd combination if I may say so.
Greens- they have their own green agenda, that fits a bit to the leftist ideaology, but I wouldnt read much into that.
Although I am quite surprised to see that you liked most of my ideas and yet you are on the left, its a fact that I need to revisit.

FF: Center-Right.
FG: Center-Right, but more to the right than FF.
Labour: Center-Left, but just barely.
SF: I agree. Ironic in a sense. Thankfully they're not like the UK version of that.:rolleyes:
Greens: Not really; the UK Greens, yes, are more left. But the Irish Greens.. Whatever element of the left they had they abolished with the coalition. I don't know too much into the greens.

Well your ideas are not all generally right-winged ideologies; just the way that they are implemented that makes the difference.

yes the two-tier system is exactly that what I am proposing. Yes the majority in the Dail would decide upon a Taoiseach, and he would then appoint his cabinet of experts.This cabinet would come back to the Dail to seek its mandate and also a manadate for its programe. It would still be a bit political, I admit, but there needs to be this kinda of safety net to ensure proper democracy, I think.

It would be very representative in that way. But it would also, potentially, ruin the PR system we have in place. The parties in the Dail would be trying to get a majority by coalitions, which would then have to go through the struggle of deciding who they want to be appointed. In that aspect, it would defeat the purpose of PR because whatever party(s) have a majority, would pretty much ensure whatever people they want to be in, gets in(if the party whip is used, however.)
It's this kind of thing that gives people a disincentive to vote. For example, in the US; they have one of the lowest voter turnout rates. It's due to a few factors though, one being the general trend of US politics (on the right-wing, generally both parties) which gives the impression that, whoever the people vote for, it will just be the same stuff being implemented.

with the system of Negative Income Tax you're working with a threshold, that allows for poorer people to receive tax back athus we'd have flat taxation that doesnt damage the poor, it's a sort of solidarity policy.

I understand that, but it would hit the middle-bracket income people rather hard. By that, I mean the people just over that threshold. It's like the system that they have in China. I think there they have a 30% flat rate of tax across the board. But as China is a free-market under a fascist title, this creates the vast difference between the poor, and the rich. So basically, if this was to be implemented in Ireland, it would widen that gap between rich and poor; the same gap I want to be eroded.


As my last reply was nearly at 2am, I was a bit tired and missed the rest of your points:

1. A complete reform of the education system, with continuous assessment rather than one exam to determine your life. This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU.

I agree completely. I'm from the US myself and the education system you're proposing, reminds me a lot of the system they have in place there (in NY anyway). I was lucky enough to go right into Secondary when I came over here, but my younger siblings had to go through some of the Irish primary school. My sister, has told me that, compared to the US education system, it's pathetic. She told me that she was learning things in 5th class here that she learnt in 3rd grade there. The assessment every so often would cause the students to actually learn as aposed to just do nothing at all. The gap between primary and secondary is too big! I feel sorry for any students going into secondary for the first time; the shock would be huge. By implementing your proposed system, it would help to erode that shock/difference as the students would be more used to exams, as well as having the wider range in subjects.

2.A foreign policy that supports the EU and the integration and well being of the EU members. This would include following the path of the Lisbon Treaty. A vital part for this would also be to create great exchange schemes for students in the secondary schools. On these exchanges they would gain the knowledge of other European cultures and hopefully will learn to accept them.

I like the EU; it creates the unity that this world needs. However, on the Lisbon Treaty, I'm split. So I won't answer about that. :P
But as far as the foreign exchange: I know that some schools in my local area have some sort of foreign exchange. But it was for the transition year students where it was going on. If more students were to participate in foreign exchance, it would definately benefit the students with the knowledge of the country's culture as well as language. Plus, it would help to eradicate that mild sense of racism that seems present within Ireland. It would help to stop it at the youth, which would definately help improve society.

3.Selling off some semi state companies, such as the ESB, that the state doesn't need. In the case of ESB the state doesn't need it to regulate the prices of electricity as the state can still regulate the prices through Board Gais, which makes owning both companies a luxury that we can't afford at the moment.

I would disagree. By selling off such essential semi-state bodies, you would send the strategic reasons for govt. ownership right into the free market. And generally when this happens, the private owners wants to maximise profits almost always in the short run. So investment into the future would be low. Look at what happened with Eircom: The selling it off was a horrible mistake! It's gone through so many owners since then, and all the while the quality of the services and materials(ex, telephone lines) have been depreciating rapidly. We have an Eircom phoneline and there's a good few times that the phone will just not work at all due to the lines after a light rain. Plus, the whole broadband situation too.
Yes, I know that semi-state bodies might not be the most profitable of companies with their policies, but the policies that they do have might be benefitial to the people and would be unwelcomed by society if it was to be removed.

If you're intending to have a sort of political platform set-up for this summer, I would be interested. Although my political ideals are not the same as yours, it would bring that bit of opposition that everything needs in order to survive. If you look at my CAO list, every single course involves politics; some more so than others. Let me know.

EDIT:

That would include not just forums here also social networks such as facebook, twitter or an internet blog

Look into wordpress, I find it very useful for these kind of blogs.

devereaux17

I went on an exchange to holland in 4th year, mario you're a bit of a legend, i support u all the way

nicola09

Mario007 wrote: »

Hey everyone(yet again). However I do intend that this movement would be aimed at the middle-class people, business people and the intelligentsia.

I don't think you should be as blunt as this. A truly effective party would seem to appear to all people in the country, how else can you get votes from a broad range of people? Being too specialised would limit your party, if you alienate certain groups of people, in effect you are committing political suicide, to make use of tabloid rhetoric. You need to give the impression that you are a "cure all government" (look at Hitler lol) and offer something for everyone, even if your main focus is the business class.

Secondly, I think rather than have an apolitical Oireachtas, it would be more effective to keep the Dail and use the Seanad as the place where the experts in their fields sit, and can be consulted by the Dail when necessary. This is not exactly a two-tier system, more a dual-government system, and gives a real function to the Seanad. That way, when bills are being debated, they are being reviewed by experts.

"But families of four earning less than €54,000 per year would owe a "negative" amount of tax (that is, it would receive money from the government). E.g., if it earned €34,000 a year, it would receive a check for €4,000."

I agree that the Irish taxation system is in need of reformation, but is your "Negative" tax really in line with your right-wing mandate? Would the business people and middle class be happy that you are giving public money away while they are paying tax? I know your system appears to be all about striking a balance, but surely giving away money instead of taxing people is very left wing? You are essentially taxing only the rich! This is alienating the very group which you intend to cater for.
Plus €54000 a year is hardly poor for a cut off point, it seems rather bizarre to give them money, it would be better to make sure their money is spent at a price in line with the rest of Europe i.e reducing the cost of living.


"A complete reform of the education system, with continuous assessment rather than one exam to determine your life. "
Not sure I agree with complete continuous assessment, there are some gaping holes in the concept. We debated this at length in school, and many people feel that it is open to corruption, for example teachers who have "pet" pupils, how do you regulate the system without spending vast amounts of money? Most people argee that a more spaced out Leaving Cert would be favourable, for example, some exams in each term, like put the Oral Irish at the start of 6th year and French Oral the following year. The same system should apply for the written language exams, have Irish near the Oral Irish and French near the Oral French. Then there are some subjects that do not suit the Leaving Certificate exam at all, such as History. This could be split into topics and examined in modules as opposed to one 400 mark exam with 35 minutes per 6 page essay! I could talk about the exam system for hours so if you require any more opinions from a student just let me know!

"This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU."

Completely agree with you here. Our primary system is pathetic. There is no incentive for gifted children to work harder. Teachers waste hours of time dealing with children who aren't as academic as others in the class and it is extremely frustrating for children who want to do more challenging work. Our science programme (or lack thereof) is laughable. Plenty of teachers have little or no Irish. I think that you should include streaming in primary schools in your mandate, based on an aptitude text taken in First Class and then revised in 4th class, that way, children can learn at a speed appropriate to their ability!


Finally, I am wondering what is your opinion on the dominance of the Catholic Church in Irish society, and it's position in the educational system? This is just curiosity, but where would your party stand on abortion? Speaking as a pro-choice female it is always a matter of interest, womens rights have come a long way in Ireland but we still have a final taboo!

(Mods feel free to remove that last part if you feel it isn't suitable/relevant, I'm not sure if I'm allowed ask?!)

Mario007

MrPirate wrote: »

FF: Center-Right.
FG: Center-Right, but more to the right than FF.
Labour: Center-Left, but just barely.
SF: I agree. Ironic in a sense. Thankfully they're not like the UK version of that.:rolleyes:
Greens: Not really; the UK Greens, yes, are more left. But the Irish Greens.. Whatever element of the left they had they abolished with the coalition. I don't know too much into the greens.

I think FF is center but it swings into left or right depending on which will get them more votes. With the boom they were leaning more towards the left as they had lots of money to spend, but then again you can also easily call that populism too.
I would say we can't really put greens here in ireland anywhere on the poltical axis of left and right.

MrPirate wrote: »

Well your ideas are not all generally right-winged ideologies; just the way that they are implemented that makes the difference.

yes i suppose its all about implemantation. For example in Hungary they have a Social Democratic party in power, and yet they were the ones to introduce college fees or decreasing pensions etc.

MrPirate wrote: »

It would be very representative in that way. But it would also, potentially, ruin the PR system we have in place. The parties in the Dail would be trying to get a majority by coalitions, which would then have to go through the struggle of deciding who they want to be appointed. In that aspect, it would defeat the purpose of PR because whatever party(s) have a majority, would pretty much ensure whatever people they want to be in, gets in(if the party whip is used, however.)
It's this kind of thing that gives people a disincentive to vote. For example, in the US; they have one of the lowest voter turnout rates. It's due to a few factors though, one being the general trend of US politics (on the right-wing, generally both parties) which gives the impression that, whoever the people vote for, it will just be the same stuff being implemented.

I can see where your concerns regarding the PR system come from. Personally I like the PR system, because I live in Slovakia and Czech republic for example and they had a system where a party had to achieve at least 5% in the whole country to gain mandates in the parliament. This created lots of 'lost votes' to smaller parties that got below 5% and didnt get into the parliament, and most of these 'lost votes' then were attributed automatically to the winning party. in effect a sistuation could be created when the winning party would get only 45% in the election but in the parliament it would get 79 out of 150 seats.
having said that the PR system doesnt encourage many new parties to be formed. People just candidate as Independents and that's it. That must be looked at.
The parties trying to get majorities in the Dail is ,I think, similiar what is really happening right now. I would hope that the system I am proposing would ensure that the TDs would do more work in Dail to work for their electorate, as right now we hear the excuse of 'Unfortunately it wasn't the government's policy' or 'I was busy trying to get the government out of the office'.
I suppose this would lead to a model of the EP with regards to independents being voted in and then forming a political group together in the dail, however don't take this suggestion seriously because I only thought of it now without any prior consideration.

MrPirate wrote: »

I understand that, but it would hit the middle-bracket income people rather hard. By that, I mean the people just over that threshold. It's like the system that they have in China. I think there they have a 30% flat rate of tax across the board. But as China is a free-market under a fascist title, this creates the vast difference between the poor, and the rich. So basically, if this was to be implemented in Ireland, it would widen that gap between rich and poor; the same gap I want to be eroded.

I wouldnt think the middle income would be particulary hit either, because say the threshold is 20 000 and a person earns 25 000, that person would only pay tax for those 5000, while someone earning 100 000 would pay tax for 80 000, all at a flat rate.
I do agree that the gap needs to be eroded, however I think this must be done by encouraging people to study and work and always strife higher.

MrPirate wrote: »

As my last reply was nearly at 2am, I was a bit tired and missed the rest of your points:

no problem, thanks for coming back to them:)

MrPirate wrote: »

I agree completely. I'm from the US myself and the education system you're proposing, reminds me a lot of the system they have in place there (in NY anyway). I was lucky enough to go right into Secondary when I came over here, but my younger siblings had to go through some of the Irish primary school. My sister, has told me that, compared to the US education system, it's pathetic. She told me that she was learning things in 5th class here that she learnt in 3rd grade there. The assessment every so often would cause the students to actually learn as aposed to just do nothing at all. The gap between primary and secondary is too big! I feel sorry for any students going into secondary for the first time; the shock would be huge. By implementing your proposed system, it would help to erode that shock/difference as the students would be more used to exams, as well as having the wider range in subjects.

I can relate to a similiar experience, I came from Czech republic and just went into first year in the secondary school. I was bored as I knew most of the stuff thanks to a good education quality from the early age back in Czech republic and Slovakia. My brother went to primary and said the two years he spent there were the most boring years of his life. So i am glad we agree on this issue.

MrPirate wrote: »

I like the EU; it creates the unity that this world needs. However, on the Lisbon Treaty, I'm split. So I won't answer about that. :P
But as far as the foreign exchange: I know that some schools in my local area have some sort of foreign exchange. But it was for the transition year students where it was going on. If more students were to participate in foreign exchance, it would definately benefit the students with the knowledge of the country's culture as well as language. Plus, it would help to eradicate that mild sense of racism that seems present within Ireland. It would help to stop it at the youth, which would definately help improve society.

I like the EU too and I think Lisbon make it much more efficient and effective, though I still havent finished reading the treaty and will soon.
Getting rid of racism and xenophobia is exactly what I wanted with the proposed system of exchanges. Another idea would be also to get the teachers to go on an exchange to different countries too, to learn different methods of teaching their subject. This wouldnt be against racism but more to improve the school system quality.

MrPirate wrote: »

I would disagree. By selling off such essential semi-state bodies, you would send the strategic reasons for govt. ownership right into the free market. And generally when this happens, the private owners wants to maximise profits almost always in the short run. So investment into the future would be low. Look at what happened with Eircom: The selling it off was a horrible mistake! It's gone through so many owners since then, and all the while the quality of the services and materials(ex, telephone lines) have been depreciating rapidly. We have an Eircom phoneline and there's a good few times that the phone will just not work at all due to the lines after a light rain. Plus, the whole broadband situation too.
Yes, I know that semi-state bodies might not be the most profitable of companies with their policies, but the policies that they do have might be benefitial to the people and would be unwelcomed by society if it was to be removed.

I would only advocate selling off the semi-state bodies that the governement doesnt need. The obvious example of ESB is because the state still owns Board Gais through which electricity prices can still be regulated. Selling off some semi-state companies also opens a door to break down monopolies and greater market competition which should benefit the customer. The money from these sales would go, hopefuly, towards small businesse in form of grants and to attracting multinational companies in form of subsidies to create more and more jobs. To be honest selling off semi-state is the only source of finance i could figure out for those grants and subsidies.

MrPirate wrote: »

If you're intending to have a sort of political platform set-up for this summer, I would be interested. Although my political ideals are not the same as yours, it would bring that bit of opposition that everything needs in order to survive. If you look at my CAO list, every single course involves politics; some more so than others. Let me know.

I'll be more than happy to have you on, when I'll set this up. It's always good to have two or more different opinions along as it helps to ensure the movement is not authotarian and about just one leader.
just curious where are you planning to go to college? i've put down politics or law to most of my cao too, mainly in cork:D

MrPirate wrote: »

EDIT: Look into wordpress, I find it very useful for these kind of blogs.

i actually have a very old blog on wordpress i kinda neglected it after the first few posts. I like blogspot as well, it allows you to have a little side panel chat with visitors which is always very good:D

Mario007

devereaux17 wrote: »

I went on an exchange to holland in 4th year, mario you're a bit of a legend, i support u all the way

thanks I'm glad you like the ideas and you are basically a proof the fact that the exchanges are the way forward. I'll keep you posted when I'll finally set up this movement:D

MrPirate

I can see where your concerns regarding the PR system come from. Personally I like the PR system, because I live in Slovakia and Czech republic for example and they had a system where a party had to achieve at least 5% in the whole country to gain mandates in the parliament. This created lots of 'lost votes' to smaller parties that got below 5% and didnt get into the parliament, and most of these 'lost votes' then were attributed automatically to the winning party. in effect a sistuation could be created when the winning party would get only 45% in the election but in the parliament it would get 79 out of 150 seats.
having said that the PR system doesnt encourage many new parties to be formed. People just candidate as Independents and that's it. That must be looked at.
The parties trying to get majorities in the Dail is ,I think, similiar what is really happening right now. I would hope that the system I am proposing would ensure that the TDs would do more work in Dail to work for their electorate, as right now we hear the excuse of 'Unfortunately it wasn't the government's policy' or 'I was busy trying to get the government out of the office'.
I suppose this would lead to a model of the EP with regards to independents being voted in and then forming a political group together in the dail, however don't take this suggestion seriously because I only thought of it now without any prior consideration.

Exactly, plus if this was to happen, the coalition would be more concerned about getting their guys in rather than who would REALLY be most beneficial to the country.
I disagree, PR does encourage new and smaller parties much more than the "first past the post" set-up. For example, Joe Higgins managed to get the 3rd seat of the Dublin Constituency in the Euro elections. A few weeks prior no one thought that it was possible due to the fact that the Socialist Party, compared to other parties here, is small.
Yeah, that is possibly what it could result in; although it's rather unlikely as there's a number of established parties here already. The reason it happens in the EP is because of the lack of parties across Europe. But regardless, it could still happen!

I wouldnt think the middle income would be particulary hit either, because say the threshold is 20 000 and a person earns 25 000, that person would only pay tax for those 5000, while someone earning 100 000 would pay tax for 80 000, all at a flat rate.
I do agree that the gap needs to be eroded, however I think this must be done by encouraging people to study and work and always strife higher.

But the thing is, yes, the lower income earner would, TECHNICALLY, be paying less. But that amount of money has a much higher value to them than the higher amount that is taxed from the high income earner. It's a bt of a paradox to be honest, but it's true.
What's your stance on 3rd level fees then?

I like the EU too and I think Lisbon make it much more efficient and effective, though I still havent finished reading the treaty and will soon.
Getting rid of racism and xenophobia is exactly what I wanted with the proposed system of exchanges. Another idea would be also to get the teachers to go on an exchange to different countries too, to learn different methods of teaching their subject. This wouldnt be against racism but more to improve the school system quality.

I'm still considering the pros and cons of it. Best have it finished before October 2nd!
I think the exchanges would definitely work. Not just that, it would help to improve the language of the student's participating in the exchange. I know for certain that if I was to have gone on a foreign exchange to Germany I would have benefited greatly. But instead, I had 9 teachers in the span of the first 3 years of it.
Yes, that would be good too; it would give a sort of "new blood" to their teaching methods so they can see how efficient/inefficient their teaching method is. But all the same, the courses/topics/general school days/setup varies from country to country.

I would only advocate selling off the semi-state bodies that the governement doesnt need. The obvious example of ESB is because the state still owns Board Gais through which electricity prices can still be regulated. Selling off some semi-state companies also opens a door to break down monopolies and greater market competition which should benefit the customer. The money from these sales would go, hopefuly, towards small businesse in form of grants and to attracting multinational companies in form of subsidies to create more and more jobs. To be honest selling off semi-state is the only source of finance i could figure out for those grants and subsidies.

I can understand the selling off of some semi-state bodies, but for something involving the provision of electricity to people, I wouldn't. If the ESB was to be privatized, those billions being invested in renewable energy sources could be never seen as it would be considered too much of an investment. It's not a monopoly as such, don't forget Airtricity is now in the electricity provision scene! I would say it's more of an oligopoly with a touch of monopoly. Because of the competition between ESB, Airtricity and Board Gais I have noticed that the price for electricity itself has fallen and will continue to fall too.

I'll be more than happy to have you on, when I'll set this up. It's always good to have two or more different opinions along as it helps to ensure the movement is not authotarian and about just one leader.
just curious where are you planning to go to college? i've put down politics or law to most of my cao too, mainly in cork

Exactly, otherwise it would eventually get boring. :P
I'm intending to go to DCU, but I've got courses in NUIGalway, NUIMaynooth, UCD, Trinity, and Limerick too. So that could be a bit of a hike. >_>

i actually have a very old blog on wordpress i kinda neglected it after the first few posts. I like blogspot as well, it allows you to have a little side panel chat with visitors which is always very good

I've neglected my wordpress since the day I set it up. :P I mostly do my writing on my bebo blog, but haven't done anything in a good while. Hmm, I must look into blogspot!

ALincoln

Yeah...basic problem with your model. Who exactly defines "expert"?

Mario007

nicola09 wrote: »

I don't think you should be as blunt as this. A truly effective party would seem to appear to all people in the country, how else can you get votes from a broad range of people? Being too specialised would limit your party, if you alienate certain groups of people, in effect you are committing political suicide, to make use of tabloid rhetoric. You need to give the impression that you are a "cure all government" (look at Hitler lol) and offer something for everyone, even if your main focus is the business class.

The 'cure all government' impression is, I suppose, something that I am going for. Thanks for advising me to not get too specialised, this has been brought to my attention by other posters as well and I suppose being openly truthful in this case doesnt pay off. To be honest I had the policies thought out before I figured out to whom they would appeal to.

nicola09 wrote: »

Secondly, I think rather than have an apolitical Oireachtas, it would be more effective to keep the Dail and use the Seanad as the place where the experts in their fields sit, and can be consulted by the Dail when necessary. This is not exactly a two-tier system, more a dual-government system, and gives a real function to the Seanad. That way, when bills are being debated, they are being reviewed by experts.

Sorry if I didnt make myself clear, the Oireachtas itself would still be political. The TDs would still be voted in by their people, with the same power and responsibilities. What would change is the that the cabinet of ministers and the Taoiseach would be apolitical and experts. I agree however, that the role of the Seanad should be revisited. Personally I would argue for an abolition of Seanad however I would be very open to suggestions on how to make it work better as well. I am glad that you too see the importance of experts at the top of our political ladder as a thing of importance.

nicola09 wrote: »

"But families of four earning less than €54,000 per year would owe a "negative" amount of tax (that is, it would receive money from the government). E.g., if it earned €34,000 a year, it would receive a check for €4,000."

I agree that the Irish taxation system is in need of reformation, but is your "Negative" tax really in line with your right-wing mandate? Would the business people and middle class be happy that you are giving public money away while they are paying tax? I know your system appears to be all about striking a balance, but surely giving away money instead of taxing people is very left wing? You are essentially taxing only the rich! This is alienating the very group which you intend to cater for.

It does pay the poor yes, but it is there instead of the welfare allowances that people get when their income is considered too low. This way we avoid the welfare trap, as with the person earning more and more it doesnt hinder their actual take home income, if anything it increases it.
There is also another model of Negative income tax, one which I am still researching a bit more and thus didn't put here. To quote wikipedia on it:

A flat rate income taxation with tax exemption implements a negative income tax as well as it maintains an actual tax rate progression at extremely low administrative cost: This is achieved by paying a tax on the tax exemption to all taxpayers, e.g. in monthly payments. The tax on the tax exemption is computed by applying the nominal flat tax rate to the exemption. The tax on the income is drawn directly from the source, e.g. from an employer. The tax on income is computed by applying the nominal flat tax rate to the income.
This simple method results in an effective progressive rate taxation (although the tax rate for the taxes drawn at the source is flat) which is positive once the income exceeds the tax exemption. If, however, the income is less than the tax exemption, the effective progressive rate actually becomes negative without any involvement by any tax authority. As for the positive progression, only very high incomes would lead to an actual tax rate which is close to the nominal flat tax rate.

nicola09 wrote: »

Plus €54000 a year is hardly poor for a cut off point, it seems rather bizarre to give them money, it would be better to make sure their money is spent at a price in line with the rest of Europe i.e reducing the cost of living.

yes i know 54000 was an off the wall example:D

nicola09 wrote: »

"A complete reform of the education system, with continuous assessment rather than one exam to determine your life. "
Not sure I agree with complete continuous assessment, there are some gaping holes in the concept. We debated this at length in school, and many people feel that it is open to corruption, for example teachers who have "pet" pupils, how do you regulate the system without spending vast amounts of money? Most people argee that a more spaced out Leaving Cert would be favourable, for example, some exams in each term, like put the Oral Irish at the start of 6th year and French Oral the following year. The same system should apply for the written language exams, have Irish near the Oral Irish and French near the Oral French. Then there are some subjects that do not suit the Leaving Certificate exam at all, such as History. This could be split into topics and examined in modules as opposed to one 400 mark exam with 35 minutes per 6 page essay! I could talk about the exam system for hours so if you require any more opinions from a student just let me know!

I would like to hear more opinions from a student, especially about the school system since it's still fresh in our memories! So do either send me a PM or comment here!
I was living in Slovakia and Czech republic and experienced continuous assestment. The pet student thing can be solved by a parental complaint to the principal(though that is not very likely) and also by allowing each student to have a repeat exam. There will also be oral examination before the class as such which ensures that other students see whether the student is a pet student or whether the teacher doesn't like him at all. Basically more examination both written or oral will have to be conducted throughout the year. The average mark would would be your end of the year grade.

nicola09 wrote: »

"This would include a change in the primary education as well, where children would also be assessed annually, with a greater selection of subject to increase the level of knowledge between the children in primary sector, which is among the lowest in the EU."

Completely agree with you here. Our primary system is pathetic. There is no incentive for gifted children to work harder. Teachers waste hours of time dealing with children who aren't as academic as others in the class and it is extremely frustrating for children who want to do more challenging work. Our science programme (or lack thereof) is laughable. Plenty of teachers have little or no Irish. I think that you should include streaming in primary schools in your mandate, based on an aptitude text taken in First Class and then revised in 4th class, that way, children can learn at a speed appropriate to their ability!

if i understood you properly you're proposing that the children would be taught differently, depending on their ability...basically introducing the honours and pass levels in primary school? it is an interesting idea and I must sit down and think it through, but right now I would say that children should be taught to the same level at least up until to fourth class in primary school, to get them used to having to study and sitting down and learning.

nicola09 wrote: »

Finally, I am wondering what is your opinion on the dominance of the Catholic Church in Irish society, and it's position in the educational system? This is just curiosity, but where would your party stand on abortion? Speaking as a pro-choice female it is always a matter of interest, womens rights have come a long way in Ireland but we still have a final taboo!

(Mods feel free to remove that last part if you feel it isn't suitable/relevant, I'm not sure if I'm allowed ask?!)

I am a practicing Roman Catholic, to start off with my answer to your questions.
I think, however, that it is a disgrace that state has almost no state owned primary schools! I think the lack of choice is astonishing. The state must have its network of schools as well as offer the chance for other types of school(private, religious) to be opened up.
As of now I can't tell you about where the party's stance would be on abortion, since many different people that join might have various ideas and it will need a long process of talks to shape out our position. I can, however, tell you my stance. I think abortion is up to the parents, though I do not agree with it. I dont like the idea that abortion can be preformed from week x and cant until that week x. It's almost like being 18, if you think about it, when state assumes that you're responsible when you reach your 18th birthday but not the night before. However as I said it is up to the parents, here I would also give a voice to the father as well(with the only exemption of a rapist). Also i would put in a clause saying that a doctor can refuse to preform abortion if it collides with his believes.

Mario007

MrPirate wrote: »

Exactly, plus if this was to happen, the coalition would be more concerned about getting their guys in rather than who would REALLY be most beneficial to the country.
I disagree, PR does encourage new and smaller parties much more than the "first past the post" set-up. For example, Joe Higgins managed to get the 3rd seat of the Dublin Constituency in the Euro elections. A few weeks prior no one thought that it was possible due to the fact that the Socialist Party, compared to other parties here, is small.
Yeah, that is possibly what it could result in; although it's rather unlikely as there's a number of established parties here already. The reason it happens in the EP is because of the lack of parties across Europe. But regardless, it could still happen!

I dunno about getting 'their guys in'. I'm sure they would have their preferences but you see the coalition only picks the Taoiseach. true the government would still have to vote confidence for the cabinet as selected by the taoiseach but unless it would be really worth it, the coalition would not risk getting embarrassed, voting out their own candidate(btw in the Czech republic they have a cabinet of experts right now, until the general elections in october and 55% of people trust in them, which is an increase from the previous cabinets which only had 20% confidence from the people).
Yes i agree the PR system is great for small parties to get in, but i think it prohibits many people who think maybe of starting up a party to leave the idea and instead get themselves voted in as Independents.
Yeah the EP idea was a bit far off, however it could happen, we never know:D

MrPirate wrote: »

But the thing is, yes, the lower income earner would, TECHNICALLY, be paying less. But that amount of money has a much higher value to them than the higher amount that is taxed from the high income earner. It's a bt of a paradox to be honest, but it's true.

ah the troubles with the marginal euro:D yes the argument is that one euro for someone who earns 300 a week and someone who earns 1000 a week is much more precious is made many times against a flat rate of tax. however this serves to avoid the income trap when someone doesnt wish to progress in work or to get a higher wage, because they would in fact, after taxing, be getting less money than they are now when they are on lower wages. this traps people in lower paid jobs and positions.

MrPirate wrote: »

What's your stance on 3rd level fees then?

i think 3rd level fees need to be introduced. this is coming from a guy who's both parents are recently unemployed. i simply think that college education is extra and thus must be regarded as such. students will cherish their time at university and their knowledge better if they know they are paying for it. thus i would say introduce the loan scheme where the loans would be repaid back. however i would expect the universities to offer top quality lectures and facilities for the students that are now paying for them. further i would increase the maintenance grant so that students dont have to meet financial difficulties while in college.

MrPirate wrote: »

I'm still considering the pros and cons of it. Best have it finished before October 2nd!
I think the exchanges would definitely work. Not just that, it would help to improve the language of the student's participating in the exchange. I know for certain that if I was to have gone on a foreign exchange to Germany I would have benefited greatly. But instead, I had 9 teachers in the span of the first 3 years of it.
Yes, that would be good too; it would give a sort of "new blood" to their teaching methods so they can see how efficient/inefficient their teaching method is. But all the same, the courses/topics/general school days/setup varies from country to country.

i agree completely on this point, plus new languages would also be spread and we could learn, say dutch or oortuguese rather than german or french only.

MrPirate wrote: »

I can understand the selling off of some semi-state bodies, but for something involving the provision of electricity to people, I wouldn't. If the ESB was to be privatized, those billions being invested in renewable energy sources could be never seen as it would be considered too much of an investment. It's not a monopoly as such, don't forget Airtricity is now in the electricity provision scene! I would say it's more of an oligopoly with a touch of monopoly. Because of the competition between ESB, Airtricity and Board Gais I have noticed that the price for electricity itself has fallen and will continue to fall too.

the green electricity is being provided by aitricity and is proving to be the cheapest so far, so i wouldn't be too afraid that ESB would not be going in similar direction. The thing is, it would have to be sold to some company that is already in the field of electricity like Enel or CEZ for example.
i was more talking about monopolies on other markets such as bus transport, train transport, post etc. I'm not saying sell all these, but open up the markets for competition.

MrPirate wrote: »

Exactly, otherwise it would eventually get boring. :P
I'm intending to go to DCU, but I've got courses in NUIGalway, NUIMaynooth, UCD, Trinity, and Limerick too. So that could be a bit of a hike. >_>

i agree:D
5 universities and none of which is UCC:D good luck in getting into your number course by the way!

MrPirate wrote: »

I've neglected my wordpress since the day I set it up. :P I mostly do my writing on my bebo blog, but haven't done anything in a good while. Hmm, I must look into blogspot!

i canceled by bebo account because i felt people didnt really get interested in politics there. i heard facebook is the site to use for politics, along with twitter.

Mario007

ALincoln wrote: »

Yeah...basic problem with your model. Who exactly defines "expert"?

an expert is a specialist in his or her field who has had experience with leading roles and his/hers past record has proven that he/she is successful in what they're doing

Piste

I'm moving this to Clearasil and Hormones as it has nothing to do with the Leaving Cert.

ALincoln

Mario007 wrote: »

an expert is a specialist in his or her field who has had experience with leading roles and his/hers past record has proven that he/she is successful in what they're doing

Yes, but the crucial point is who deems them successful? Take for instance healthcare management "expert" Brendan Drumm. He is considered by the government to be an expert. He is considered by the rest of the population to be an incompetent leech.

Stev_o

Please paragraph your points my head hurts just looking at that giant mush of words.

Mario007

ALincoln wrote: »

Yes, but the crucial point is who deems them successful? Take for instance healthcare management "expert" Brendan Drumm. He is considered by the government to be an expert. He is considered by the rest of the population to be an incompetent leech.

yes i can see what you mean, but yet again it will be the politicians deciding who to nominate and then, should their nomination be as you have suggested then the public will be the ones to turn away from such a dail majority. I suppose it would require to adopt the american system of replacing half of the dail midway through the government mandate to ensure greater control.

Mario007

Stev_o wrote: »

Please paragraph your points my head hurts just looking at that giant mush of words.

just done that, thanks for the suggestion

ALincoln

Mario007 wrote: »

yes i can see what you mean, but yet again it will be the politicians deciding who to nominate and then, should their nomination be as you have suggested then the public will be the ones to turn away from such a dail majority. I suppose it would require to adopt the american system of replacing half of the dail midway through the government mandate to ensure greater control.

That was so incoherent I have actually no idea exactly what you were trying to convey...or for that matter, even a vague idea of what you wanted to say.

Here's a point though...

Under your model, the politicians would be conferring expert status upon professionals and then deeming them ministers. Now why is this just the status quo worded differently?

Because the majority party control who is appointed. Therefore in a vote as to which expert is the most appropriate, the majority party will win and appoint that particular expert, therefore forming a government. To protect their own interests and position, as is the done thing in a partisan system, the majority party will install experts who are aligned to their cause.

That is exactly how the current system operates, albeit currently, ministers are not necessarily appointed in the guise of being experts.

You aren't really changing anything!

Mario007

ALincoln wrote: »

That was so incoherent I have actually no idea exactly what you were trying to convey...or for that matter, even a vague idea of what you wanted to say.

Here's a point though...

Under your model, the politicians would be conferring expert status upon professionals and then deeming them ministers. Now why is this just the status quo worded differently?

Because the majority party control who is appointed. Therefore in a vote as to which expert is the most appropriate, the majority party will win and appoint that particular expert, therefore forming a government. To protect their own interests and position, as is the done thing in a partisan system, the majority party will install experts who are aligned to their cause.

That is exactly how the current system operates, albeit currently, ministers are not necessarily appointed in the guise of being experts.

You aren't really changing anything!

All I want to change is to get experts running this country. I want people who know what they are doing . I want people who have a proven track record of being successful. I want people who dont look at the political capital coming out of such and such decision but look rather whether that decision is helpful to progress the country or not. The basic political system of elections and dail majority stays the same, true, but you have a cabinet of experts and that is the single and most important difference.

ALincoln

As already pointed out (and I think you provided no indicator that this point was wrong, in fact you agreed), the definition of "expert" is inherently subjective. Again; do you consider Brendan Drumm an expert? I certainly don't. Does Harney consider him an expert? She claims to. So there - one person, a lack of consensus as to whether to accord expert status to him. The same debate could be applied to any other person who vies for acclamation in their chosen field.

JC 2K3

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You haven't really explained why we need all these changes...

Mario007

ALincoln wrote: »

As already pointed out (and I think you provided no indicator that this point was wrong, in fact you agreed), the definition of "expert" is inherently subjective. Again; do you consider Brendan Drumm an expert? I certainly don't. Does Harney consider him an expert? She claims to. So there - one person, a lack of consensus as to whether to accord expert status to him. The same debate could be applied to any other person who vies for acclamation in their chosen field.

you are right there are huge difficulties with the word 'expert'; i admit that. I wouldn't consider Drumm to be an expert, because as head of the HSE he has failed to deliver. But say if you took the head of University Hospital Cork which has changed significantly for the better over the last couple of years there I think you would find an expert. With regards to Harney, i suppose she has to say Drumm is an expert otherwise she'd admit her own mistake and that is something unheard of in politics.
It is of course all about interpretation, but the beuty is that the political parties only actually nominate the Taoiseach. S/he then goes on to pick the cabinet which does have to go back to seek a mandate but unless serious issues were to be put forward against the chosen cabinet I would think there would be no problem with the confidence vote. So you do ensure that the cabinet is consisted of experts in the field not 'political experts'.

Mario007

JC 2K3 wrote: »

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You haven't really explained why we need all these changes...

The reform of political system- because the system up until now has failed, many times we are exposed to politicians evaluating their decisions on the basis of political capital that can be gained from them, rather than on the basis which decision is best for the country to survive, even if not seen good in public's eyes.
Negative Income Tax- to replace welfare state that is dragging down our economy, to stimulate people into wanting to get back into employment, to increase Ireland's competitiveness, to prevent fraud and money wasted on bureaucracy.
Reform of School System- because LC is putting too much pressure just on one day which is to determine your life, because we need to promote better understanding of other european cultures to prevent racism at early age and because our primary school system is near to useless as it stand.
Selling off semi-states- to increase competition on the market, to generate money to be used as small business grant, rural development grants and technology grants.
Support for lisbon- to make eu more efficient, to increase the national parliament's role in the eu, to help eu to progress forward and with it ireland will prosper too, to have an eu presidenct that doesnt change every 6 months and provides a lot of instability, to give the EP more powers(i am still not finished reading lisbon so that is all i can give you at the moment)

JC 2K3

How has the system failed? We've just come to the end of a huge economic boom... We're hardly a welfare state because in the last few months more people have signed on. Recessions happen. No country can sustain perpetual economic growth.

I'm in favour of the LC. It doesn't determine your life - you can repeat it as many times as you like. The excess pressure comes from the media hype, which I think should be regulated somewhat. And I think our primary schools are excellent. Near to useless my ass. As a counter to what MrPirate said, my mother was a primary teacher and taught in the US for 5 years. She does not look upon the US system favourably. For example, according to her, the level of maths taught in US schools is much lower than here.