What happens if People decide enough is enough and take to the streets?

old hippy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Would 1916 not qualify as a revolution, though?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nice_very

While I am all for a revolution in this country, and agree with HTP on many points, I fear that it will never come due to apathy and the I'm all right Jack attitude of people sucked into and blinded by unimportant issues, sport and "celebs" What is needed is a revolution of the mind(s) of the nation, an awakening, if you will. Until then, you will not see any sort of political or social revolution, no mass protests. What exists and will continue is the stagnation, corruption, nepotism and fraud in Irish politics, the same few will continue to protest and be called "looney lefties" simply because they dare to stand up against the aforementioned.

To those who say they dont protest because of protests being hijacked by whoever... If all of you did turn up you would more than outnumber those you call hijackers and dilute their message, quite honestly its the same type of excuse as saying: Im not going cos - its raining/cold, football/rugby/gaa match is on TV, I liked the page on FB.. etc etc

jmayo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So is it only a revolution when they are successful as in Cuba, Russia, France ?

Radiosonde

jmayo wrote: »

So is it only a revolution when they are successful as in Cuba, Russia, France ?

Revolution is defined as the "forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system." So it's only a revolution if the government is overthrown. The War of Independence would have a better claim to being an Irish revolution than 1916, but even that wasn't a revolution, as it ended in a negotiated settlement (that perpetuated many laws and institutions established under British rule.)

I don't think the lack of an Irish revolution is exactly what discourages protest in this country; rather I think it's the cultural memory of the fractures and failures of rebellion and revolutionary movements in Ireland that puts people off. Why risk upsetting the apple cart when previous form suggests that the outcome could involve copious bloodshed and decades of ill-feeling and mistrust, all for a "revolution" that won't end up looking very revolutionary?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

nice_very wrote: »

While I am all for a revolution in this country, and agree with HTP on many points, I fear that it will never come due to apathy and the I'm all right Jack attitude of people sucked into and blinded by unimportant issues, sport and "celebs" What is needed is a revolution of the mind(s) of the nation, an awakening, if you will. Until then, you will not see any sort of political or social revolution, no mass protests. What exists and will continue is the stagnation, corruption, nepotism and fraud in Irish politics, the same few will continue to protest and be called "looney lefties" simply because they dare to stand up against the aforementioned.

To those who say they dont protest because of protests being hijacked by whoever... If all of you did turn up you would more than outnumber those you call hijackers and dilute their message, quite honestly its the same type of excuse as saying: Im not going cos - its raining/cold, football/rugby/gaa match is on TV, I liked the page on FB.. etc etc

Are you insinuating that people who don't want some sort of revolution are "lazy"?

What would this revolution realistically entail? for instance, would there be elections? would parties like FF and FG be barred from these elections? if so, by whom and on who's authority?

Hoffmans

Now when the other two anglo yokels get off this would/ should be the spark to ignite mass protests but it won't happen as it does in other countries ..
Why because we don't have a sponsor with vested interests on board yet....

Hoffmans

Now when the other two anglo yokels get off this would/ should be the spark to ignite mass protests but it won't happen as it does in other countries ..
Why because we don't have a sponsor with vested interests on board yet....

oscarBravo

Hoffmans wrote: »

Now when the other two anglo yokels get off this would/ should be the spark to ignite mass protests...

You think there should be mass protests about a jury's decision? You know something about the legalities of the case that they don't?

Marhay70

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can't argue with that but I will suggest that it's not going to come from FG/FF/ Labour.
The people of Ireland need to get off their arses and go to the polls, remove the rot where it exists. If this results in a parliament full of independents then so be it but one thing is for sure, there will be no change to the status quo while the present incumbents or their predecessors hold sway.

Good loser

Marhay70 wrote: »

Can't argue with that but I will suggest that it's not going to come from FG/FF/ Labour.
The people of Ireland need to get off their arses and go to the polls, remove the rot where it exists. If this results in a parliament full of independents then so be it but one thing is for sure, there will be no change to the status quo while the present incumbents or their predecessors hold sway.

I agree with Permabear too but the continuance of the mainstream parties is essential. No country in the world is run by 'independants'. How could it be, practically speaking? Imagine the electorate having to decide between 200/300 independant manifestos at a general election. The current crop in the Dail are a waste of space.

emo72

Marhay70 wrote: »

Can't argue with that but I will suggest that it's not going to come from FG/FF/ Labour.
The people of Ireland need to get off their arses and go to the polls, remove the rot where it exists. If this results in a parliament full of independents then so be it but one thing is for sure, there will be no change to the status quo while the present incumbents or their predecessors hold sway.

I agree with Marhay but the continuance of the mainstream parties is non essential. Every country in the world should be run by 'independants'. Imagine the electorate having to decide between 200/300 independant manifestos at a general election. It would be great. It would restore my faith in humanity and independent thinking. The current crop in the Dail are a waste of space.

Good loser

emo72 wrote: »

I agree with Marhay but the continuance of the mainstream parties is non essential. Every country in the world should be run by 'independants'. Imagine the electorate having to decide between 200/300 independant manifestos at a general election. It would be great. It would restore my faith in humanity and independent thinking. The current crop in the Dail are a waste of space.

With all independants it would probably be impossible to form a cabinet. The lifetime of a Dail would be 6 to 12 months. Widespread corruption. Think of Italy and Greece.
You make the mistake of thinking such a Dail would follow your policies but they would be just as likely to follow mine!

Marhay70

I'm not suggesting that a parliament of independents would be a good thing. I agree that getting cohesive policies would be extremely difficult but something needs to be done to shake the current cartel to their roots.
I laugh at the suggestion that there would be many diverse manifestos, think back to the last election when FG/Lab both campaigned vigorously and vociferously on their manifestos only to tear them up on their first day in office.
As for corruption, surely it hasn't escaped peoples' notice, the levels of corruption that have been exposed in the Garda, Judiciary, Civil Service, Public Service and the administration itself, but our leaders seek to cover this up rather than root out the offenders, so much for the promised transparency. We have seen the public maligning and undermining of individuals within these institutions, for daring to bring them to public notice.
We are now faced with the prospect of seeing crooked bankers walk free from the courts with a cursory slap on the wrist, not because they are not guilty but because the law is framed in such a way as to make finding them guilty almost impossible, is this not also corruption, would this happen in the case of the general public?.
Truth is, Governments in Ireland govern, not for the people as democracy dictates, but in spite of them. Within the last fifty years, little legislation has been passed which is designed to improve the lot of the general public; most, if not all legislation in this respect has come from Europe. Any pretence that the public have any role to play in the running of what was once a sovereign state, was lost with the re-running of the Lisbon referendum.
So, how much worse off could we be? Since the banking crash we are no longer a sovereign state, we are effectively governed from Brussels. The only function of our government is to act as go-fors for the EU. Sure we can enact laws to screw more tax out of the public, the imposition of a standing charge on water supplies is an example, what happened to "the more you use the more you pay" principle, much preached by Kenny and Gilmore along with the false promise of equity and fairness, now you pay whether you use or not, this has now been exposed purely as a revenue extracting mechanism, but really we just have to toe the line. The only function, as I see it, of our public representatives is to keep themselves in their seats for long enough to qualify for a juicy pension.

Jonny7

emo72 wrote: »

Imagine the electorate having to decide between 200/300 independant manifestos at a general election. It would be great. It would restore my faith in humanity and independent thinking. The current crop in the Dail are a waste of space.

It would be a nightmare

A bit like a large company e.g. Microsoft having 200 CEO's. It would just be one giant perpetual rudderless squabble-fest

Some ideas sound great on paper.. but then you add in the human element

For Forks Sake

Marhay70 wrote: »

I laugh at the suggestion that there would be many diverse manifestos, think back to the last election when FG/Lab both campaigned vigorously and vociferously on their manifestos only to tear them up on their first day in office.
.

Off and research Coalition Government and Programme for Government. They didn't get elected on a single manifesto.

Marhay70

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Off and research Coalition Government and Programme for Government. They didn't get elected on a single manifesto.

Off and learn to read English, I used a plural not singular form of the word manifesto plus plural pronouns.

For Reals

People are beyond apathy. They seem to be letting politicians and theirs carry on, well at least to the point of not turning over cars.
The likes of Labour will suffer more than Fianna Fáil in the next election. Whatever about the socialist inaction, it'll be strange to see them shoulder more blame than the architects of destruction themselves.
Would we get even 20,000 at an anti-austerity rally?
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/more-than-40000-spectators-to-attend-battle-of-clontarf-millennial-reenactment-30195609.html

old hippy

Radiosonde wrote: »

Revolution is defined as the "forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system." So it's only a revolution if the government is overthrown. The War of Independence would have a better claim to being an Irish revolution than 1916, but even that wasn't a revolution, as it ended in a negotiated settlement (that perpetuated many laws and institutions established under British rule.)

I don't think the lack of an Irish revolution is exactly what discourages protest in this country; rather I think it's the cultural memory of the fractures and failures of rebellion and revolutionary movements in Ireland that puts people off. Why risk upsetting the apple cart when previous form suggests that the outcome could involve copious bloodshed and decades of ill-feeling and mistrust, all for a "revolution" that won't end up looking very revolutionary?

I think the Republic is pretty divided, as it is. Socially and politically.

renegademaster

For Reals wrote: »

Would we get even 20,000 at an anti-austerity rally?

more showed up to last years arthurs day than have showed to an anti austerity march!!

nice_very

not exactly thousands taking to the streets, but in Togher, Cork residents of an estate are in the second day of a stand off with water meter installers. In Raheny Dublin a similar protest was held this morning, both protests succeeded in resisting the installations.

nice_very

nice_very wrote: »

not exactly thousands taking to the streets, but in Togher, Cork residents of an estate are in the second day of a stand off with water meter installers. In Raheny Dublin a similar protest was held this morning, both protests succeeded in resisting the installations.

Listening to a resident on the radio this morning, he didn't know what he was protesting about! Was on about "protesters" coming and encouraging them to block the workers. Then was on about radiation from the meters damaging peoples health! He had no objection to paying - once he gets a signed contract between himself and the water company. Made a bit of a prat of himself, really. What will they have to moan about when their water is turned off? Where will their new friends be then?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to a resident on the radio this morning, he didn't know what he was protesting about! Was on about "protesters" coming and encouraging them to block the workers. Then was on about radiation from the meters damaging peoples health! He had no objection to paying - once he gets a signed contract between himself and the water company. Made a bit of a prat of himself, really. What will they have to moan about when their water is turned off? Where will their new friends be then?

Sounds like your regular CT/Freeman nonsense. Poor workers having their day messed about.

turnikett1

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to a resident on the radio this morning, he didn't know what he was protesting about! Was on about "protesters" coming and encouraging them to block the workers. Then was on about radiation from the meters damaging peoples health! He had no objection to paying - once he gets a signed contract between himself and the water company. Made a bit of a prat of himself, really. What will they have to moan about when their water is turned off? Where will their new friends be then?

I agree... I was happy to see people protesting and taking action but then saying stuff like "the meters are radioactive" and the like is just cringey. Come January 2015 their mouths will be zipped shut and they'll be paying their water taxes.

Ireland is just that. So much talk, so much anger and annoyance and potential but so little understanding and even less action. I love this country in many ways and want to stay here but the more I think about it the more it just seems so much better to leave. The way this country is run is fairly appalling to be honest. It makes me a bit embarassed to be from here sometimes. Everyone agrees with me, everyone wants change but no one does. Just why?

Now I'm not saying I even do anything but I just don't know WHAT to do. Join the local SWP/SP and hand out archaic leaflets on "Trotskyism" and convince people of a mass worker's revolution that will change the foundations of society and shake the Earth? :rolleyes: Do I go out and join these Anti-Water/Property Tax protestors with my wee signs, shout some slogans, then go home have a cup tea and pay my bloody water and household tax?
Maybe I vote for Sinn Fein and hope they can offer something else beyond this despicable RUBBISH that is FF/FG?

Or just bloody emigrate and leave Ireland in this stinking mess... Sorry for going on a rant but I am sick to teeth of how this country is run but I just don't know what I can do. I work at a stressful job on behalf of some government services and I get abuse day in day out and am constantly reminded what an absolute sham the government is - much like these poor Irish Water workers who are just doing their job and getting abuse. I had a very bad experience today and I just thought "this is too much, I can't take it anymore"...

BuilderPlumber

I think we need to reform the current system. Revolutions can be risky and the wrong people can hijack them. We can see a whole country descend into chaos very quickly with confrontations, civil war and the assumption of a military regime for a time.

Revolutions have gone totally wrong elsewhere such as in Iran. In 1979, Iran ditched its corrupt monarchy but replaced it with a voodoo military dictatorship who were to religion what the Khmer Rouge was to communism. The people did not want this and then others like Saddam's Iraq invaded to take advantage of Iran's poor state. War, repression, corruption and all that was what the 1979 revolution brought. The revolution is unfinished and unelected monarch-like figures still exist there to this day. Things are improving under the new, moderate president but the damage done by a succession of ill-suited and poor governments from 1979 to 2013 will take years to rectify. Poverty is rife there. And they have oil!

So, imagine then if some fanatics took over here? Famine, war, military rule, etc. for years? Yes, perhaps this could be the case.

I am no fan of the way the current parties in this country are run but these parties all need to be reformed. Stupid ministers, uncaring policies, thicko TDs, egoist Taoisigh, cult followings of certain parties, etc. all need to go.

The simple truth is if we were to take FF, FG and Labour out, we'd leave a huge void. Extremists would thrive on the confusion and with no real leadership from the moderates, extremists could divide and conquer their way to the top and capitalise on the weaknesses.

We need to make politicians more accountable to the people. State services like public transport, post offices, health services, etc. all should not be run as 'profit making businesses'. This is precisely what's wrong with extreme capitalism. Traditionally, these are government services provided by tax revenue. In recent times, Ireland copied all that US Reagan/Bush stuff and we all know it never works. A more people as distinct from big business friendly government is thus needed. The attitude I get from FF, FG, Labour and probably all parties is that what matters is networking with big businessmen and exchanging favours and what does not matter is the people and their rights to employment and services.

realweirdo

So which is better then?

(1) A government popular with the people that throws money at every problem and lets someone else worry about picking up the tab?

(2) An unpopular government that makes tough decisions in the interests of getting the national finances back to normality, even if it means hardship for many people, usually a gilded elite in the public sector?

We can go back to (1) above, but that's a backwards step and just starting the cycle all over again which will eventually lead to the IMF returning and so on.

I'd rather a responsible unpopular government to an irresponsible popular one which gives the people everything they want - we had that government already from 1997-2011 and look where it got us.

It's time we all grew up and acted like a proper European country, where water taxes and the like have been the norm for decades.

turnikett1

realweirdo wrote: »

(2) An unpopular government that makes tough decisions in the interests of getting the national finances back to normality, even if it means hardship for many people, usually a gilded elite in the public sector?

We can go back to (1) above, but that's a backwards step and just starting the cycle all over again which will eventually lead to the IMF returning and so on.

I'd rather a responsible unpopular government to an irresponsible popular one which gives the people everything they want - we had that government already from 1997-2011 and look where it got us.

It's time we all grew up and acted like a proper European country, where water taxes and the like have been the norm for decades.

Yes that's all fine and all, but the Irish government needs to start with some serious basics before they can even learn how to begin acting like a "proper European country". Let's start with buses running on time, for one. Maybe after that they can look into how to efficiently tax people (I don't know if you own a property or not but trying to deal with Revenue with regards to the LPT/HHC is absolute hell). After that we'l see

FF/FG are a shower of idiots. I understand necessities and hardships, and I agree with what you said with regards to (2), but the way they are implementing these hardships and austerities is so mismanaged and inefficient it's almost cringeworthy.

hatrickpatrick

Regardless of the admittedly cringeworthy interview from a protester, the main fact here is that a group has succeeded in preventing the installation of water meters, and a similar group has protested in Dublin (can't confirm whether or not they've succeeded yet) - so all those who said protesters can't achieve anything are already proven wrong. The installation of the meters was prevented, even if only for one day - all that's required is for that to spread nationwide, and the water charge policy will be in serious trouble.

Bottom line is, protesters set out to stop something and they succeeded. Where are the "protesting is a waste of time" brigade now?

jmayo

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think we need to reform the current system. Revolutions can be risky and the wrong people can hijack them. We can see a whole country descend into chaos very quickly with confrontations, civil war and the assumption of a military regime for a time.

So, imagine then if some fanatics took over here? Famine, war, military rule, etc. for years? Yes, perhaps this could be the case.

I don't think we ever did fanaticism.
Sure they were a few religious fanatics, there were a few socialist fanatics and there were a few republican fanatics, but they never really gained wholesale traction.
The nearest to fanaticism was the church who controlled the thought process in this country for so long.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I am no fan of the way the current parties in this country are run but these parties all need to be reformed. Stupid ministers, uncaring policies, thicko TDs, egoist Taoisigh, cult followings of certain parties, etc. all need to go.

It is not much use the parties reforming when the people themselves keep backing the shysters.
If the people of Mayo refused to vote for anyone with anything to do with the flynns, if the people of Tipp refused to vote for lowry, if the people of Wexford refused to vote for wallace, if the people of Dublin North Central refused to vote for people with lying CVs and wads of unexplained cash, if the people of Limerick refused to vote for a liar, that would send a clear message to the parties.
Instead most of these top the bloody polls.

A fairly sizable chunk of Irish people are happy enough with shysters, particularly if they are doing dodgy deals that benefit them.
As Dara O'Briain said to an English audience in one of his shows, the Irish don't do black and white when it comes to legality.
They do shades of grey.
They do "that's all right, now you are pushing it but go ahead and you can't do that.".
The problem in Ireland is that the "now you are pushing it" is too wide a scope and is used by everyone from the guy on the dole doing nixers to the bank ceo and financial regulator agreeing dodgy bank transfers/deposits worth billions.

It is ok to have a laugh about it, but we are now broke up to our eyeballs, have wasted one of our best opportunities to make the country something and have consigned generations to emigration and penury.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

We need to make politicians more accountable to the people. State services like public transport, post offices, health services, etc. all should not be run as 'profit making businesses'. This is precisely what's wrong with extreme capitalism. Traditionally, these are government services provided by tax revenue.

But we can't go to the other extreme which is that these services are there to provide cushy well paid unanswerable jobs to some at the expense of their customers and the taxpayer.
We have had some of the best paid teachers, lecturers, police, state legal professionals, doctors, nurses, financial regulatory staff in the world and frankly those services are sh**e when compared to some other countries.

alastair

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The installation of the meters was prevented, even if only for one day - all that's required is for that to spread nationwide, and the water charge policy will be in serious trouble.

Bottom line is, protesters set out to stop something and they succeeded. Where are the "protesting is a waste of time" brigade now?

They are wasting their time - because delaying installation by a day, or a week, or a month, isn't actually going to achieve anything beyond the short term. It's not going to save them a cent in water charges, and just piles on additional costs to installation - to be absorbed by the taxpayer - themselves included.

hatrickpatrick

alastair wrote: »

They are wasting their time - because delaying installation by a day, or a week, or a month, isn't actually going to achieve anything beyond the short term. It's not going to save them a cent in water charges, and just piles on additional costs to installation - to be absorbed by the taxpayer - themselves included.

If this becomes more widespread and serious problems are encountered installing meters up to and including the supposed start of the charges, what exactly are Irish Water going to do about it? By itself this protest doesn't change much, if it becomes more widespread however...

People seem to forget that it was campaigning which got rid of water charges in the first place.

old hippy

alastair wrote: »

They are wasting their time - because delaying installation by a day, or a week, or a month, isn't actually going to achieve anything beyond the short term. It's not going to save them a cent in water charges, and just piles on additional costs to installation - to be absorbed by the taxpayer - themselves included.

Bit of a grim message. Give in and accept the inevitable.

BuilderPlumber

realweirdo wrote: »

So which is better then?

(1) A government popular with the people that throws money at every problem and lets someone else worry about picking up the tab?

(2) An unpopular government that makes tough decisions in the interests of getting the national finances back to normality, even if it means hardship for many people, usually a gilded elite in the public sector?

We can go back to (1) above, but that's a backwards step and just starting the cycle all over again which will eventually lead to the IMF returning and so on.

I'd rather a responsible unpopular government to an irresponsible popular one which gives the people everything they want - we had that government already from 1997-2011 and look where it got us.

It's time we all grew up and acted like a proper European country, where water taxes and the like have been the norm for decades.

I'd introduce a third option (clearly, neither of the above 2 are worth our votes). A government who listens to the people and cares, spends the money on the right things, tackles waste and creates opportunity. Admittedly, there is no magic wand or silver bullet and things take a while. But talent and genuine interest in the people are often lacking.

With regard to this present government. Enda Kenny probably cares, Michael D does care, Eamon Gilmore ??, Ruari Quinn is too much into unnecessary change, O'Reilly does not care, Howlin is completely unnecessary, Noonan seems to know what he is doing with regard to keeping Europe happy. Some of the current government members are good, some are very poor.

With regard to Bertie Ahern's 'throw money at the people' government, I think there are many issues we overlook. The so-called Celtic Tiger years (1994-1999 and 2003-2009) were never as 'great' as we were lead to believe. Unemployment and stagnation in many sectors remained and even was worse in that time. Really, unless you were in some way connected to certain sectors (construction, IT, the legal profession) at that time, things weren't great. Also, a whole lot of money was made and spent on foolish things and gimmicks rather than creating sustainable employment and industries. Bertie oversaw a government where prices rose and made the cost of living so unaffordable that people had to borrow, where house prices were beyond everyone's means, etc. If that was not enough, these very policies are what contributed hugely to the 2009-2013 recession/IMF era.

I think cutback policies (cutbacks meaning reducing numbers of employees and services NOT water charges, etc.) are totally wrong so therefore to avoid these, the reality is increased taxes. BUT our increased taxes need to provide us with good services, jobs, opportunities and so on.

The jury is out on the current government and there is a mix of good and bad ministers in them. We need not to concentrate on 'booms' and eggs in the one basket. The initial Celtic Tiger came on the back of the 1994-1998 Peace Process era (MNCs don't know the difference between ROI and NI) with MNCs investing here and a concentration on the IT/computer/dot com markets. That all came crashing down in 2000, leading to the comparatively mild but all but forgotten 2000-2003 recession. 1997-2003 was the buildup to the building boom era, so 2000-2003 was sold as a mild setback by Bertie and nothing to be worried about despite that era having such worrying events as 9/11, foot and mouth disease and the Iraq war. 2003 to 2009 was sold by FF and Bertie as a time when Ireland was the 'richest country' and 'immune to all the chaos and trouble' in the world that affected everywhere else. Germany was in stagnation, Japan too, the US had a massive deficit and was squandering money on a war, and most of all Ireland was doing better than the UK!! BUT it was all built on credit, borrowing and malpractice in our banks. By July 2008, it all felt apart and we were officially in recession but sold again as a minor setback. September 2008 showed us the problem was much worse and the banking guarantee set things in motion. Yes, 2008 and early 2009 may have not felt really like a recession because people still had money and still believed the lies. But, 6 months into the post-bank bailout era, that's when we all knew things were very wrong. A culture of negativity in the media did not help either. The IMF came in, FF fell, and then things stabilised. Things may well improve in the coming years and hopefully we don't see the same mistakes made again.

Tabnabs

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I'd introduce a third option (clearly, neither of the above 2 are worth our votes). A government who listens to the people and cares, spends the money on the right things, tackles waste and creates opportunity. Admittedly, there is no magic wand or silver bullet and things take a while. But talent and genuine interest in the people are often lacking.

You started out so well. A government who are there for the benefit of all its people and not those so ensconced in their lifestyles and practices that they never undergo any meaningful change or evolution. More than parish pump politics or EU kowtowing. A government of the people, by the people, for the people sort of revolutionary thinking...

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think cutback policies (cutbacks meaning reducing numbers of employees and services NOT water charges, etc.) are totally wrong so therefore to avoid these, the reality is increased taxes. BUT our increased taxes need to provide us with good services, jobs, opportunities and so on.

But then you come out with this clanger.

The top rate of tax on employees in Ireland (including PRSI and Universal Social Charge) is 52% (OECD Average 46%). How much more blood do you want to get out of this stone?

How about as part of that third option, the State starts giving out fewer subsidies to private companies, dramatically cut quango numbers, re-evaluate foreign aid targets etc. etc.? Cut spending overall. Once we are able to balance the books again, then all that extra taxation revenue won't be required and we can look at cutting taxes. If they don't need my money in the form of direct and indirect taxation, can I have it back please and be free to do with it as I please?

We need less government, not more!

jmayo

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I'd introduce a third option (clearly, neither of the above 2 are worth our votes). A government who listens to the people and cares, spends the money on the right things, tackles waste and creates opportunity. Admittedly, there is no magic wand or silver bullet and things take a while. But talent and genuine interest in the people are often lacking.

With regard to this present government. Enda Kenny probably cares, Michael D does care, Eamon Gilmore ??, Ruari Quinn is too much into unnecessary change, O'Reilly does not care, Howlin is completely unnecessary, Noonan seems to know what he is doing with regard to keeping Europe happy. Some of the current government members are good, some are very poor.

With regard to Bertie Ahern's 'throw money at the people' government, I think there are many issues we overlook. The so-called Celtic Tiger years (1994-1999 and 2003-2009) were never as 'great' as we were lead to believe.

Firstly I always take issue with fact people claim 2002 onwards was a celtic tiger economy. There wasn't sustainable export driven industry growth, all of the real growth was in construction and retail which was all really funded through cheap lending.
The real economic growth through the mid nineties and upto 2001, not 1999 as you claim, resulted in job creation and export growth.
Yes if you worked in IT or technology then you probably benefitted most, but the increased employment, the increased disposable income filtered down to others.
Of course public sector used it as an excuse to demand to be benchmarked against people who were for the most part working way longer hours, and with way less job security as it became transparent in 2001.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Unemployment and stagnation in many sectors remained and even was worse in that time. Really, unless you were in some way connected to certain sectors (construction, IT, the legal profession) at that time, things weren't great. Also, a whole lot of money was made and spent on foolish things and gimmicks rather than creating sustainable employment and industries. Bertie oversaw a government where prices rose and made the cost of living so unaffordable that people had to borrow, where house prices were beyond everyone's means, etc.

Ah come on a lot of people borrowed not for basic living, as in basic housing, but for extra holidays, new luxury cars, parties, horses, etc.
We had muppets who were bog standard builders buying racehorses, we had other normal people throwing Hollywood/MTV style parties for first communions/confirmations.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think cutback policies (cutbacks meaning reducing numbers of employees and services NOT water charges, etc.) are totally wrong so therefore to avoid these, the reality is increased taxes. BUT our increased taxes need to provide us with good services, jobs, opportunities and so on.

Equating numbers employed with level of service is often a bulls*** excuse used by a certain sector.
We had a huge volume increase in the numbers employed in healthcare after 1997 (conincidence bertie arriving in power) yet we had waiting lists, people on trolleys, people dying in private unregulated nursing homes, misdiagnosis of illnesses resulting in deaths way before any health cutbacks and 2008.

I think we had too many people employed pushing paper to one another and too few really at the front customer facing end.
Then when we do cutback it is the frontline staff that leave or retire and they aren't replaced.

A big lavishly paid and perked public sector, or even private sector for that matter e.g see banks, does not equate to better service and better long term viability.

alastair

old hippy wrote: »

Bit of a grim message. Give in and accept the inevitable.

Death and taxes. Best to be realistic about how far obstructing installation of meters is going get you in the face of a democratically mandated government initiative.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Regardless of the admittedly cringeworthy interview from a protester, the main fact here is that a group has succeeded in preventing the installation of water meters, and a similar group has protested in Dublin (can't confirm whether or not they've succeeded yet) - so all those who said protesters can't achieve anything are already proven wrong. The installation of the meters was prevented, even if only for one day - all that's required is for that to spread nationwide, and the water charge policy will be in serious trouble.

Bottom line is, protesters set out to stop something and they succeeded. Where are the "protesting is a waste of time" brigade now?

They only succeeded in deferring the installation. The protesters are not even residents! They are troublemakers who get their kicks out of disrupting council meetings. They are going to cost the country more by their antics. One of the residents said that the "protesters" came and more or less told them what to do and the eegits did as these "protesters" told them!

BuilderPlumber

I take on board a lot of the above but there are some issues that are needed in any state. There are many issues where we do need to have a plan.

The 'less not more government' theory: I have seen this trotted out by many extreme left and right wingers time and time again. And it does work in certain countries. But it requires a LOT of people who CARE !!!! From what I can see in Ireland, greed and 'me fein' culture would mean that complete privatisation of say hospitals would reduce the service and would be uncaring. Plus, who is going to fund it?

The cutting employees issue: employees are people and public sector employees are NOT all the fat cats those who oppose them brand them as!! The argument of cutting public sector employees and then expecting the jobs to be recreated in the private sector is no viable at all. The government does need to create their share of the jobs and a lot of very qualified people are only suited to state jobs.

The private sector does enough as it is. They are doing their very best in very unforgiving environments. You realise that for every one successful business, there are dozens of failures and just about afloat ones. Rent, rates, insurance, lack of finance, etc. Most entrepreneurs cannot afford to succeed themselves let alone take on others to achieve their goals.

The US under the Republicans in the 1980s and 2000s is the most famous example of 'reduced government'. We all know where this lead in the end: the policy was to reduce taxes and replace it with robbed Iraqi, Iranian, Russian, Eastern European, etc. money instead!!! We all know how this went for them in the end!

Ireland would not survive with small government. Things are not equipped at all for that culturally. As said, there are too many greedy people who care more about high profits than the good of their fellow man and doing a good service. Just listen to the likes of Bill Cullen and Michael O'Leary for proof. Their policies are good for themselves and their families ONLY!! And besides, Ireland is hardly in the position to decide to cut all taxes and invade Iran next year!!!!

Tabnabs

The Soviet Union is the most well known example of maximising public sector numbers, how did that work out in the end again? You could be here all day citing examples of failed or damaging political outlooks.

'Less is more' as you put it would mean people would have to take on a lot more personal responsibility. To me that sounds like an adult relationship rather than one of dependency on elected and un-elected officials to provide opportunities and services. As we see today, there is far too much sectional interest and privilege in the current set-up. Unless the status quo changes, then this will remain a rotten part of our political culture.

The Government only needs to create enough employment to fulfil the requirements of its citizens. What I see is 'jobs for the boys' as well as projects and initiatives to keep people in employment, year after year, and allow photo opportunities for politicians.

The private sector is no guarantee of honesty, integrity and efficiency, but that is no reason to pile yet more bodies into an already bulging public sector.

The government can't meet everyone's needs and requirements, it must hand back those responsibilities to the individual. A smaller centralised government that requires less financing means a stronger citizenship with the ability to choose how they fund their individual requirement through increased take home pay.

alastair

Tabnabs wrote: »

The private sector is no guarantee of honesty, integrity and efficiency, but that is no reason to pile yet more bodies into an already bulging public sector.

The public sector here isn't particularly large. The OECD said in 2008:

Ireland has a relatively low level of total Public Service Employment in international terms

jmayo

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I take on board a lot of the above but there are some issues that are needed in any state. There are many issues where we do need to have a plan.

We never have a bloody plan and when we do it is planning for today or even yesterday, nevermind for tomorrow.
See M50 as prime example of this.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The 'less not more government' theory: I have seen this trotted out by many extreme left and right wingers time and time again. And it does work in certain countries. But it requires a LOT of people who CARE !!!! From what I can see in Ireland, greed and 'me fein' culture would mean that complete privatisation of say hospitals would reduce the service and would be uncaring. Plus, who is going to fund it?

Actually I take exception to that last comment.
I have see far more humanity and a far greater level of care in a private hospital than I have in a public one.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The cutting employees issue: employees are people and public sector employees are NOT all the fat cats those who oppose them brand them as!!

No one is saying fat cats, maybe "lazy incompetent unresponsible cats" would be more correct term.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The argument of cutting public sector employees and then expecting the jobs to be recreated in the private sector is no viable at all. The government does need to create their share of the jobs and a lot of very qualified people are only suited to state jobs.

It is not the function of government to actually provide jobs and that is what you are saying they should do.
The argument for cutting public sector employees is to cut the public expenditure and wastage.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The US under the Republicans in the 1980s and 2000s is the most famous example of 'reduced government'. We all know where this lead in the end: the policy was to reduce taxes and replace it with robbed Iraqi, Iranian, Russian, Eastern European, etc. money instead!!! We all know how this went for them in the end!

It is not alone the Republicans.
The Democrats would make the most right wing of our parties look positively socialist.
And the sad thing is that middle Americans buy into the bullcr** about cutting taxes for the wealty when ultimately they will be the ones funding things.
If people like Paul Ryan get their way the US will lurch towards social meltdown where the American dream will be the American nightmare for those at the bottom and even those in the middle.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Ireland would not survive with small government. Things are not equipped at all for that culturally. As said, there are too many greedy people who care more about high profits than the good of their fellow man and doing a good service. Just listen to the likes of Bill Cullen and Michael O'Leary for proof. Their policies are good for themselves and their families ONLY!! And besides, Ireland is hardly in the position to decide to cut all taxes and invade Iran next year!!!!

We are not equipped to survive large government either.
There has to be a happy medium.
And the state needs the likes of O'Leary.
I wouldn't count cullen as being on the same level or anywhere near.

marc_faber

alastair wrote: »

The public sector here isn't particularly large. The OECD said in 2008:

our public sector is large when you consider we have an extrordinarily small millitary

plus our public sector is ( on average ) much higher paid than the EU average

alastair

marc_faber wrote: »

our public sector is large when you consider we have an extrordinarily small millitary

Not really - Denmark has about twice the percentage employed in the public sector as we do - around 30% of workforce as compared to 14% here. The military and foreign service comprises just 14% of the Danish Public sector workforce - and the numbers in the military there are around the same as the overall public sector employment differences between us and them - we've around 9,500 in the defence forces, they've about 25,000 in their military.

marc_faber wrote: »

plus our public sector is ( on average ) much higher paid than the EU average

At the top end - yes, but otherwise - not so much:
http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/public-sector-pay-at-a-glance

hatrickpatrick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They only succeeded in deferring the installation.

And if they keep doing it, it will continue to be delayed.
Then it simply becomes a matter of who caves first.

The protesters are not even residents!

They're Irish citizens objecting to a national policy.

They are troublemakers who get their kicks out of disrupting council meetings.

Of course, to those who approve of government policy, those attempting to obstruct it will always be viewed as "troublemakers".

They are going to cost the country more by their antics.

Explain?

One of the residents said that the "protesters" came and more or less told them what to do and the eegits did as these "protesters" told them!

Residents asked the protesters to come and help them. Referring to said residents as "eejits" doesn't do anything to help your argument - they are citizens who are tired of being powerless to control their so-called representatives except for a meaningless bed of lies once every five years.

BuilderPlumber

Clearly, what Ireland lacks is a plan. Small government without a plan does not work, either does a sprawling large government work either. We need to get things in place and use our resources to get the country efficient and viable. That includes government, business and individuals to work as a team. Yes, it means an end to 'political football' point scoring and civil war nonsense politics.

The Soviet Union and the Western capitalist style of the modern times BOTH fell. Supposed opposites, they actually were more alike than one would think only in the former, the govt controlled business whereas in the latter the business controlled govt. A huge sprawling mess though in both cases. I think why both failed was a lack of new ideas, the same people and ideas being the only ones accepted and the paradox of both a fear of innovation but not of excessive risk taking.

Yes, sometimes private hospitals are kinder than public ones. As I said, it depends on who is running them and the attitude. Healthcare should be run as healthcare is the important issue here.

We hear talk of social partnership, public private partnership, etc but it is just all talk. Some real action on setting up a government and business platform that works and is sustainable and suits the needs of Ireland's workforce, businesses, people and government needs to be implemented.

marc_faber

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Clearly, what Ireland lacks is a plan. Small government without a plan does not work, either does a sprawling large government work either. We need to get things in place and use our resources to get the country efficient and viable. That includes government, business and individuals to work as a team. Yes, it means an end to 'political football' point scoring and civil war nonsense politics.

The Soviet Union and the Western capitalist style of the modern times BOTH fell. Supposed opposites, they actually were more alike than one would think only in the former, the govt controlled business whereas in the latter the business controlled govt. A huge sprawling mess though in both cases. I think why both failed was a lack of new ideas, the same people and ideas being the only ones accepted and the paradox of both a fear of innovation but not of excessive risk taking.

Yes, sometimes private hospitals are kinder than public ones. As I said, it depends on who is running them and the attitude. Healthcare should be run as healthcare is the important issue here.

We hear talk of social partnership, public private partnership, etc but it is just all talk. Some real action on setting up a government and business platform that works and is sustainable and suits the needs of Ireland's workforce, businesses, people and government needs to be implemented.

irish people ( for the most part ) dont go in for large idealogical transformational ideas so forget about huge asspirational change because the public dont want it


local goverment needs very serious reform however , its more or less powerless , ireland is governed in an incredibly centralised manner

hmmm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The Soviet Union and the Western capitalist style of the modern times BOTH fell.

Capitalism did not "fall". An economic bubble formed, for reasons that have been well discussed, and economies are now on the mend and are recovering - while still being a capitalist system.

The countries that suffered the most through this period are those that half-heartedly embraced a mix of socialism/capitalism, who had bloated government and welfare budgets and a population that believed they were entitled to live far beyond their means.

BuilderPlumber

hmmm wrote: »

Capitalism did not "fall". An economic bubble formed, for reasons that have been well discussed, and economies are now on the mend and are recovering - while still being a capitalist system.

The countries that suffered the most through this period are those that half-heartedly embraced a mix of socialism/capitalism, who had bloated government and welfare budgets and a population that believed they were entitled to live far beyond their means.

Capitalism did not fall, but the type of capitalism practised up until 2008 did. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive and both are needed but not in the stupid mash up we often get. We obviously need to wean ourselves off a borrowing culture too because that's what contributed so much to people getting into extreme debt. All easier said than done though.

realweirdo

There are 2 types of economic models in europe. One is the boom and bust model favoured by the uk and ireland and which depends massively on the property market. It usually goes in 10 year cycles. For 10 years these countries experience a property led boom and the coffers are flush with cash. Then comes the crash and 10 years of cutbacks and downturn.

The other model is the even keel economies such as germany where growth depends on manufacturing and sustainability and the there are no booms and busts in the property markets. More reliant on reliable forms of taxation such as water charges harsh though they may be it means there are no boom and bust periods to government spending.

Party and hangover or german like sobriety all the time...you cant have both.