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

BuilderPlumber

marc_faber wrote: »

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

True. There again has been so much idle talk about local government but I don't see any real local government at all here. Unless councillors attending GAA matches in the locality counts!

BuilderPlumber

realweirdo wrote: »

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.

True. I think we need to follow the German model and implement it properly. Risky booms and inevitable busts are what makes our economy and banking system go wrong. The worst economies are those that are reckless risk takers and squander money on very risky ventures. Like excessive reliance on property or unrealistic visions of technology sectors.

Reliable taxation is the only way to go. Like it or not, tax is necessary and it is also important that tax works both ways: people pay it and then see the benefits of doing so. Low tax economies are a pipe dream and realistically can only work for countries that have huge natural resources. Even here, Norway still has huge taxes as well and is the only oil rich country that is wealthy society wise.

Tabnabs

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.

The problem with that is that some of the most socialist/capitalist States (i.e. Scandinavia) weathered the storm very well and felt little of the stress and trauma of other less socialist ideologies.

hmmm

Tabnabs wrote: »

The problem with that is that some of the most socialist/capitalist States (i.e. Scandinavia) weathered the storm very well and felt little of the stress and trauma of other less socialist ideologies.

I would say because most of these countries are well developed economies who have lived within their means, even while adopting their economic models. During the height of the crisis, Denmark & Sweden both elected right-leaning governments with a mandate to cut back on social supports, so their electorates weren't entirely happy with the way things were going.

The difference between Sweden/Norway and countries like Ireland/Greece is that the latter wanted Scandinavian levels of government spending which could only be sustained on boom level tax income.

on the river

The problem in irish society is we don't hold the government to account for their practices. when elecions come around

we revert back to old style politics and vote in either FG or FF . That means we are voting in the same government as

both share similar belief. It seems the majority of irish people have no interset in staging protects on the new taxition .

For the most part the Irish people are self serving individuals ,which reflect on are political ,legal and social sectors where

personal gain is the upmost importance. Although the head of former governments resigned or were voted out , the core

self interest still is embedded in irish society. It seems the collective support has fallen to give rise to the indivdual in their

pursuit of their own aims.

What are these people actually protesting against? Paying for water or concerns over the possible risks of radiation?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/protests-against-water-meters-continue-but-irish-water-say-pace-of-installation-on-target-266487.html#

hatrickpatrick

^ I suspect some of them are trying to find a line which will garner most sympathy. Seeing as so many people are resigned to the cost of living going up, they feel that isn't a good enough argument on its own and they need something more sensational.

I don't agree with it as a marketing ploy - it'd be far better to try and convince people that cost of living increases are not good for the economy - but the fact is, these people are taking direct action and succeeding in delaying, however temporarily, the implementation of a government policy they don't agree with. Proof of concept that democracy doesn't have to be a spectator sport.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ I suspect some of them are trying to find a line which will garner most sympathy. Seeing as so many people are resigned to the cost of living going up, they feel that isn't a good enough argument on its own and they need something more sensational.

I don't agree with it as a marketing ploy - it'd be far better to try and convince people that cost of living increases are not good for the economy - but the fact is, these people are taking direct action and succeeding in delaying, however temporarily, the implementation of a government policy they don't agree with. Proof of concept that democracy doesn't have to be a spectator sport.

Delaying and thus increasing the costs - the contractors won't lose anything for this and I don't think it will cause sleepless nights for any minister either.

If these protestors came to my estate I'd tell them to p*ss off out of here.

Remember protesting is not cost free even for the protestors.

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

Delaying and thus increasing the costs - the contractors won't lose anything for this and I don't think it will cause sleepless nights for any minister either.

If these protestors came to my estate I'd tell them to p*ss off out of here.

Remember protesting is not cost free even for the protestors.

The protests are isolated at this stage. If they become nationwide protests and manage to prevent a sizable chunk of areas from being metered, what exactly can the government do?

Jonny7

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The protests are isolated at this stage. If they become nationwide protests and manage to prevent a sizable chunk of areas from being metered, what exactly can the government do?

The protests are isolated for a reason.

Most people don't want to pay for water, but they understand the rationale behind it

Phoebas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The protests are isolated at this stage. If they become nationwide protests and manage to prevent a sizable chunk of areas from being metered, what exactly can the government do?

People have been predicting the start of the big protests over various charges and taxes for a couple of years now, but they've never materialised; the biggest protest over an economic issue in recent years that I can remember was the pensioners protesting over potential pension cuts.

I think people need to face facts; water charges are here and they're not going to be overturned. The protesters should focus their efforts into something achievable like trying to soften the blow for less well off households or demanding guarantees of water quality, rather than jumping into holes in the ground and disrupting contractors doing their jobs.

hatrickpatrick

Phoebas wrote: »

People have been predicting the start of the big protests over various charges and taxes for a couple of years now, but they've never materialised; the biggest protest over an economic issue in recent years that I can remember was the pensioners protesting over potential pension cuts.

I'm not predicting it, I'm merely speculating on what effects it would have if it did happen.

I think people need to face facts; water charges are here and they're not going to be overturned.

Well they certainly will be if we adopt that sort of defeatist attitude...

The protesters should focus their efforts into something achievable like trying to soften the blow for less well off households or demanding guarantees of water quality, rather than jumping into holes in the ground and disrupting contractors doing their jobs.

Why? It's worked so far, despite everyone who claimed it wouldn't. The meters haven't been installed in those estates.

alastair

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why? It's worked so far, despite everyone who claimed it wouldn't. The meters haven't been installed in those estates.

...yet. But they will be.

See the various attempts by freemen and their fellow travellers to block property evictions etc. Disruption isn't any sort of success.

_Kaiser_

Jonny7 wrote: »

The protests are isolated for a reason.

Most people don't want to pay for water, but they understand the rationale behind it

Nope.. most people feel that there's no point in protesting because they'll go ahead anyway or if it came to it, deduct from source as they have with the property taxes.

hatrickpatrick

alastair wrote: »

...yet. But they will be.

You sound very sure of yourself.

See the various attempts by freemen and their fellow travellers to block property evictions etc.

That's very clearly different because evictions are isolated and case-by-case. Water billing will affect everybody, so I'd imagine there'll be far wider support for trying to block it. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

Disruption isn't any sort of success.

It is if it eventually leads to abandonment of the project.

Several weeks ago everyone demanded to see evidence that those who advocated protests were doing something concrete about it. Now something concrete is happening and it's being dismissed. :rolleyes:

bumper234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not predicting it, I'm merely speculating on what effects it would have if it did happen.



Well they certainly will be if we adopt that sort of defeatist attitude...



Why? It's worked so far, despite everyone who claimed it wouldn't. The meters haven't been installed in those estates.

Yet.

alastair

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You sound very sure of yourself.

I am.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You That's very clearly different because evictions are isolated and case-by-case. Water billing will affect everybody, so I'd imagine there'll be far wider support for trying to block it. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

You might imagine that - but there's no evidence of it. The underlying principle of attempting to obstruct people enforcing the rule of law is much the same, and some of the protesters are one and the same.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It is if it eventually leads to abandonment of the project.

It won't.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Several weeks ago everyone demanded to see evidence that those who advocated protests were doing something concrete about it. Now something concrete is happening and it's being dismissed. :rolleyes:

Everyone was, were they? I don't recall demanding any such thing. Bothering water meter installers is not particularly useful, and only serves to drive up costs for all of us.

hatrickpatrick

alastair wrote: »

I am.



You might imagine that - but there's no evidence of it. The underlying principle of attempting to obstruct people enforcing the rule of law is much the same, and some of the protesters are one and the same.



It won't.


Everyone was, were they? I don't recall demanding any such thing. Bothering water meter installers is not particularly useful, and only serves to drive up costs for all of us.

This argument hinges on two factors, one being that you may support water charges and two being that you may feel there's no way to stop them. I fear that in either case, attempting to argue otherwise is a futile waste of time.

To sum up: I object to water charges and I believe that widespread boycotting and obstruction of the implementation of a government policy has at least some possibility of succeeding in getting it abandoned. You clearly disagree on both of these points, ergo I feel the two of us should simply agree to disagree at this stage. We'll wait and see which of us turns out to be right, loser buys the winner a pint. k?

This video says it all! It's NOT the residents protesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOO3VWDUziY

nice_very

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Nope.. most people feel that there's no point in protesting because they'll go ahead anyway or if it came to it, deduct from source as they have with the property taxes.

wrong.

uisce eireann is a private company, revenue can not intervene

Foxhound38

Deleted User wrote: »

This video says it all! It's NOT the residents protesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOO3VWDUziY

Who are these idiots?

Jonny7

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Who are these idiots?

4 people who really, really don't want to pay for water apparently

For Forks Sake

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Who are these idiots?

Ah, Ballyphehane, or translated 'Village of the Freemen'. Home to a wide variety of headbangers.

There has been plenty of mention of them in the Freemen thread in Legal Discussion.. They've even been known to hold their own trials

Foxhound38

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Ah, Ballyphehane, or translated 'Village of the Freemen'. Home to a wide variety of headbangers.

There has been plenty of mention of them in the Freemen thread in Legal Discussion.. They've even been known to hold their own trials

Ah, these lads so!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRCD54tWBQ

washman3

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 now this charleten Bill Cullen reckons he doesn't have to pay back €8.2 million he borrowed during the 'Celtic Tiger'
His brass neck and arrogance just beggars belief. And to think that this guy was constantly wheeled out as, an example by the media, as to how we should all aspire to become. Still makes my blood boil when I remember him telling people to work for free. Indeed it often looks like our Government got their Job-bridge brainwave from the great Bill, young people stacking shelves in Tesco etc allowing these capitalist companies to make even more millions..:mad:

Greenmachine

washman3 wrote: »

And now this charleten Bill Cullen reckons he doesn't have to pay back €8.2 million he borrowed during the 'Celtic Tiger'
His brass neck and arrogance just beggars belief. And to think that this guy was constantly wheeled out as, an example by the media, as to how we should all aspire to become. Still makes my blood boil when I remember him telling people to work for free. Indeed it often looks like our Government got their Job-bridge brainwave from the great Bill, young people stacking shelves in Tesco etc allowing these capitalist companies to make even more millions..:mad:

Cut from a similar cloth as Charles J. Haughey, and Bertie Ahern. Let the muppet stay in a hostel.

washman3

Greenmachine wrote: »

Cut from a similar cloth as Charles J. Haughey, and Bertie Ahern. Let the muppet stay in a hostel.

He would probably expect the taxpayer to pay for the hostel too.
But no worries, his cronies in power, whom he has always been a cheerleader for, will look after him...!!

micosoft

emo72 wrote: »

thats the message that the government are trying to get out,that things are improving. i can honestly say that since the new year i have never seen the retail sector as bad. im talking the worse ive seen since ever. im shocked when figures are released showing improvements.

as for unemployment figures, they should also release jobsbridge and other such schemes also. the true figure may be closer to 500k?

remember a couple of weeks ago FG spent a week of dail time pushing the positives they had achieved? that was to try impress on us how good things are coming up to the locals. well things are dire. and the true state of things will be hidden for as long as possible. i never realised spin had gotten so big in ireland.

So I must be imagining the extra traffic on the roads everyday. Imaging I saw enormous queues for the Christmas village on Stephens Green. Imagining the crowds in Kildare village travelling from all over for the luxury goods shopping.

You're as bad as the Government when it comes to spin. But at least when the Government/political parties exaggerate it's arguably for the good - consumer confidence = jobs. When people like you exaggerate negatively it is entirely for negative reasons and helps nobody. And I'm not talking about cheerleading. I'm talking about making up "negative" views when everyone I've spoken in the hospitality and retail sector is quickly pleased at how the economy is doing. The figures factually back that up.

hatrickpatrick

To answer the question posed by this thread when it was initially started, I think we have now established that what happens when people finally take to the streets and protest is that we win and the government backs down spectacularly.

NIMAN

Wondering how these people think the country is meant to function?

They don't want to pay for water, or for a household charge or for anything else, they want free healthcare, increased child benefit, increased minimum wage, increase benefits etc.

The Troika already hinted today that if the money is not gathered from the promised water charges then it might have to be got from further austerity.

I just just like a straight answer to where all this money is meant to come from?

kikidelvin

NIMAN wrote: »

Wondering how these people think the country is meant to function?

They don't want to pay for water, or for a household charge or for anything else, they want free healthcare, increased child benefit, increased minimum wage, increase benefits etc.

The Troika already hinted today that if the money is not gathered from the promised water charges then it might have to be got from further austerity.

I just just like a straight answer to where all this money is meant to come from?

We have been paying high taxes that has paid for all of these things mentioned,now they want us to pay again .:(

Essien

kikidelvin wrote: »

We have been paying high taxes that has paid for all of these things mentioned,now they want us to pay again .:(

You'd imagine we wouldn't have several billion euros of a deficit in our national budget then.

relax carry on

kikidelvin wrote: »

We have been paying high taxes that has paid for all of these things mentioned,now they want us to pay again .:(

Not enough. We spend far more than we take in, hence we have to keep borrowing to keep the country running.

A better argument to have would be are getting value for the money we are spending to run the country and can it be done more cost effectively.

kartoonhead

roll on the 10th december ...dont pay not a cent

Love this piece in todays Sindo - an apology to Paul Murphy TD http://www.independent.ie/news/paul-murphy-td-an-apology-30765893.html

Icepick

Deleted User wrote: »

Love this piece in todays Sindo - an apology to Paul Murphy TD http://www.independent.ie/news/paul-murphy-td-an-apology-30765893.html

€1,343,117 in salary, expenses, staff costs and various other outgoings in 3 years

Yet these socialists would have you believe they all live like hermits, who understand what it is to be poor.

ThunbergsAreGo

Icepick wrote: »

€1,343,117 in salary, expenses, staff costs and various other outgoings in 3 years

Yet these socialists would have you believe they all live like hermits, who understand what it is to be poor.

For some reason i read that as €1,343 initally. That is mental money!!

lol

I'd love to see the breakdown in that 1.3mn

Maybe spent on all that champagne?

Or how about you have educated people that could make more but instead want to help a community? Look at the issues they stand for.

Icepick

NIMAN wrote: »

Wondering how these people think the country is meant to function?

They don't want to pay for water, or for a household charge or for anything else, they want free healthcare, increased child benefit, increased minimum wage, increase benefits etc.

The Troika already hinted today that if the money is not gathered from the promised water charges then it might have to be got from further austerity.

I just just like a straight answer to where all this money is meant to come from?

Billionaries are gonna pay for everything. At least that's what SF and the other socialists tell us all the time.

fr336

Icepick wrote: »

Billionaries are gonna pay for everything. At least that's what SF and the other socialists tell us all the time.

Don't call me a socialist but nobody's 'work' is worth billions, let alone the vast majority of billionaires. That is obscene wealth and it should be banned. Nobody on the planet gets by completely independently, and in any organised society they do so very much with that society's assistance either directly or indirectly.

BuilderPlumber

Icepick wrote: »

€1,343,117 in salary, expenses, staff costs and various other outgoings in 3 years

Yet these socialists would have you believe they all live like hermits, who understand what it is to be poor.

Yes. No mistake about it, these guys are 100% capitalist. Just like some of these so-called socialists 'on the side of the poor':

Joseph Stalin: practically industrialised the USSR/Russia. Under the banner of collective farms, he continued the Tsarist landlord system and he and his cronies did extremely well and made his country the second most powerful in the world. But wealth was not distributed equally: Stalin and his friends/supporters did well but the regime also presided over a system that was brutal to opponents and where extreme poverty lived side by side with extreme wealth. The Red Tsar.

Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei: 2 former priests, they fronted the Islamic Revolutionary Guards controlled Republic of Iran. Only thing, there was no Republic. Both occupied the position of Shah/King and were unelected. Both were officially said to live in poverty and both voiced support for the poor across the world. Only thing is: black South Africans were entitled to their freedoms, Western governments were on the side of the rich and all the world's population deserved democracy, freedom and equal distribution of wealth. Apart from Iranians that is! The reality was a regime that imposed almost Taliban like laws on the poor while the regime and its rich Bazaar friends lived in luxury.

Nicolai Ceaucescu: Ironically, Ceaucescu was cosying up to Shah Khamenei on a visit to Tehran days before he was killed on his return to Romania. On hindsight, he should have joined Iran's 'Islamic socialist' regime! Instead, he returned home to face execution. Ceaucescu like the others acted like a king and again imposed repressive laws on his people (a communist Taliban you could say albeit nothing like those of Pol Pot) inspired by that lovely gentleman Kim Il Sung of that lovely lovely paradise of North Korea. Meanwhile, he and his wife lived in luxury.

Of course, Pol Pot, the Taliban, the Kims, Milosevic, etc. all likewise voiced their support for the poor. Yet all created more poverty. Apart from Stalin and Russia, they other countries (Romania, Iran, Serbia, Korea, Cambodia and Afghanistan became poorer because of the great socialists who gained power).

Coppinger and Murphy sound very like what many of the above said. Rather scary too is they act the same too.

theNooge

A thoroughly well researched and accurate piece by the Sindo....no doubt that's why it's been taken down!!!!!! (There's no icon with an extended middle finger.)