Socialist Party's policies

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Patser

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow! Just wow!

No wonder Paul Murphy is the main voice of the Socialist Party and Coppinger is mostly kept hidden. Everytime they try and say what they would do, as opposed to what they disagree with, they just dig a big hole for themselves.

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

She does? The only direct quote is this:

Ruthy wrote:

If you had a Socialist government presumably you’d have much better trade union strength, trade union rights and recognition.

I love the way she says "presumably". Rather gives away the game that she never expects such a thing to happen, and thus will be essentially spending her entire career simply complaining about it not happening. Modest and all as it might actually be.

alaimacerc

alaimacerc wrote: »

She does? The only direct quote is this:

I love the way she says "presumably". Rather gives away the game that she never expects such a thing to happen, and thus will be essentially spending her entire career simply complaining about it not happening. Modest and all as it might actually be.

In the video clip of the interview she says "eh.. okay.. well it is something you'd have to consider" (00:18->00:23).

It is tenuous, and she has been led there, but she does say that they'd consider it (as the headline says, but not what the 'want' the Permabear has said)

FreudianSlippers

alaimacerc wrote: »

She does? The only direct quote is this:

I love the way she says "presumably". Rather gives away the game that she never expects such a thing to happen, and thus will be essentially spending her entire career simply complaining about it not happening. Modest and all as it might actually be.

The last thing this country needs is more trade union strength.

BoJack Horseman

But she does want Dunne's (& all businesses) ran by worker soviet councils (as per her interview with NewsTalk last year.

So, whether through government purchase (via infinite money) or forced appropriation, private businesses will all but cease to exist in her dystopia

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

In the video clip of the interview she says "eh.. okay.. well it is something you'd have to consider" (00:18->00:23).

It is tenuous, and she has been led there, but she does say that they'd consider it (as the headline says, but not what the 'want' the Permabear has said)

The problem for Ruth is that it is easy to get populist opinion behind a notion that we should nationalise those nasty American MNCs who are pulling out of the country and cutting jobs.

Much more difficult to get people nodding their heads when you talk about nationalising a successful Irish business.

As a result she gets vague and waffly when asked about it. The worst nightmare would be to actually win an election and have to implement your policies - Syriza is a great example of that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not for a second am I standing up for her , but 'interests of their shareholders' should not be the only interest of business .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

frankbrett

Don't worry about small fry like Dunnes. Coppinger and the lads can save us €160bn by defaulting on all debt owed to non-donestic financial institutions. This is 'odious' debt. On the other hand, debt owed to pension funds or anything tenuously connected to the downtrodden workers is 'good' debt and will be repaid. sadly the lads don't know which is which so will have a 'debt audit' to separate the good from bad. Perhaps the new state seized IFSC hedge funds can buy this debt on the secondary market and cleanse it??



In 2007, Irish general government debt was €47.4 billion. Today it is €204 billion. This increase results from the costs of the bank bailout combined with the precipitous decline in tax revenue as a result of the bursting of the property bubble and the economic crash. The responsibility for this massive increase does not lie with working people who are being asked to shoulder the burden – it lies with developers, bankers and establishment party politicians.
The Socialist Party argues that an immediate moratorium on payment of debt is imposed, with repayment of debt only to those with proven needs (pension funds, private savings of workers etc). Because who this debt is owed to is not publicly available, it would be necessary to establish a debt audit commission to investigate this odious debt to decide who would be paid.
Nonetheless, previous work that has been done in examining who is owed Irish debt suggests that the vast bulk of debt is not owed to ordinary households, but rather to banks and financial institutions, the large majority of which are located outside the state. It is reasonable to estimate that this would result in a reduction of the total debt to at least the pre-crisis figure of €47.7 billion. At an average interest rate of 4%, this would result in interest payments of €1.9 billion next year, as opposed to the €8.5 billion which the government is budgeting for.

whippet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt


the problem with even the notion of what they are talking about is the definition of the term 'odious debt' .. the socialists and other fantasy land wannabe politicians seem to miss out the bit of the legal theory on odious debt that insists that the debt was used to prop up a regime and not for the use of the state. Agree with or disagree with the bailout of the banks it is impossible to argue that the guarantee wasn't put in place for national economic reasons .. its just the reasoning behind the decision was incorrect.

So when I hear the likes of the Socialists following the language of Ben of the Family Gilroy about 'odious' debt it really is just populist fools clutching at straws.

frankbrett

whippet wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt


the problem with even the notion of what they are talking about is the definition of the term 'odious debt' .. the socialists and other fantasy land wannabe politicians seem to miss out the bit of the legal theory on odious debt that insists that the debt was used to prop up a regime and not for the use of the state. Agree with or disagree with the bailout of the banks it is impossible to argue that the guarantee wasn't put in place for national economic reasons .. its just the reasoning behind the decision was incorrect.

So when I hear the likes of the Socialists following the language of Ben of the Family Gilroy about 'odious' debt it really is just populist fools clutching at straws.

Their interpretation is even more creative. It is the ultimate holder of the debt upon maturity (and presumably coupon payment dates) that determines if the debt is valid. As all Irish bonds are issued through the primary dealer system they start life as illegitimate. If, via the secondary market, they find their way into a workers pension fund then they are now OK, if the pension fund sells them on to a bank or hedge fund then they become odious. A repo transaction between an Irish institution and an evil foreign bank could see the same debt swapping legitimacy status twice in the space of a few days. Anyway, that's an issue for the debt audit committee

Idbatterim

I read something about the oft spouted wealth tax a few pages back, dont we have one, the 51% marginal rate that our elite on 33k plus are paying?

BoJack Horseman

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read something about the oft spouted wealth tax a few pages back, dont we have one, the 51% marginal rate that our elite on 33k plus are paying?

Wealth tax =/= income tax.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whippet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

have you any source for that? or is it just the usual anti-austerity soundbite?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Idbatterim

51% marginal income tax rate on average earners.
33% capital gains tax rate.
41% DIRT tax.

Try building wealth in a country with a regime like that.

Kenny was quoted the other day as saying they want to prioritise the 35-70k ish bracket for income tax reductions in the upcoming budget. These middle income earners, shouldnt be paying any more than somewhere in the 30's in my opinion and that is bloody more than enough.

Where will all this money come from to get down to these sort of rates, no more money thrown at welfare and other election buying gimmicks!

world class welfare and world class income taxes and they wonder why there is a jobs crisis! This is a large part of it!

I work in the family business, say we make 10k profit after selling 100k worth of service, at the marginal rate + employers PRSI, I would take home €3825 on €10,000!!! What is worse about that is, what I get paid out, is not based at all on what I paid in and right along side it, the absolute waste and wasters it goes to fund...

I also believe FG want to take more out of the tax net, the way FF would proudly proclaim at the end of the boom years budget speech, can I ask, what is the ultimate goal, remove everyone from the income tax net eventually?!

feargale

The Socialist party has a wonderful opportunity to mop up votes now that Sinn Féin has declared itself a pro-business party.

alaimacerc

feargale wrote: »

The Socialist party has a wonderful opportunity to mop up votes now that Sinn Féin has declared itself a pro-business party.

SF has declared itself a pro-everything party. The SP has announced policies that would give the occasional person pause to thing "hang on, that might cost me or someone I know some money", which SF carefully avoid doing amid their plausibly deniable "anti-austerity" guff.

RobertKK

The only good thing about this country is there is not enough stupid people in this country to put the Socialist party into power.

They haven't a clue about business and how to run a business. Most Irish people want to create wealth for themselves, try and make their lives a bit easier, they don't want the poverty that the Socialist party offers.

We need tax reform: a higher limit before you pay the top rate of tax and capital gains tax needs to be reduced, not increased as the left including SF want.

I don't know why the left seems to hate people who try and make their lives better. People have dreams and wants to make their dreams a reality, only idiots dream of a Soviet type existence.

Potential for the party's policies to change if there is a "re-alignment" with the AAA & PBP?

http://www.thejournal.ie/anti-austerity-alliance-people-before-profit-2259896-Aug2015/

I wonder if the IFSC hedgefund takeover will still remain a big part of the manifesto?

Have we any party members about that might be willing to answer any questions?

BoJack Horseman

Is that not more of a vote pact rather than a merger?

Dyr

The thing is that the SP and SWP know that they're vying for the same limited number of votes in a limited number of constituencies, So the only way either of them can grow is to eat the other parties support. That's why the mergers/vote pacts/pseudo platforms always break down, as soon as one party feels they're being upstaged they pull out rather than risk being consumed.


That and the usual Judean Peoples Front mindset that's prevalent in dolly mixture circles.

alaimacerc

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is that not more of a vote pact rather than a merger?

Clear as mud. But recall that the AAA is a party, (notionally!) distinct from the SP. So one could imagine a "merger" of the AAA and PBP than keeps the SP and the SWP as separate entities.

Indeed, the fact that this hasn't already happened, when both AAA and PBP are expressly supposed to be these broader groupings, speaks volumes that this hasn't actually happened yet, and that PBP is essentially "SWP trading as", and likewise with the AAA.

BoJack Horseman

All very confusing.

I assume thats on purpose though.

more entities.... several name changes..... pretend that equals groundswell, when instead all combined barely beat the margin of error.

creedp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

All very confusing.

I assume thats on purpose though.

more entities.... several name changes..... pretend that equals groundswell, when instead all combined barely beat the margin of error.

While at the same time the pro-entrepreneurial party that is FG is busy promising pay increases to low the paid and pensioners

BoJack Horseman

creedp wrote: »

While at the same time the pro-entrepreneurial party that is FG is busy promising pay increases to low the paid and pensioners

Great..... What has this got to do with the price of bread?

creedp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Great..... What has this got to do with the price of bread?

What has the price of bread got to do with a discussion on why the Govt parties are so anxious to pursue policies which compete strongly with the policies of the socialist leaning parties much maligned by many posters on here.

FreudianSlippers

creedp wrote: »

While at the same time the pro-entrepreneurial party that is FG is busy promising pay increases to low the paid and pensioners

I don't like the concept that social welfare (pensions and the dole) would be considered "pay" - I think it gives the wrong mental impression on people.

clear thinking

Never mind detailed policy, it would be great to see some broad strokes from the SP - a few expenditure starters they could edit:

Expenditure
Health - €30bn
Welfare - €20bn
Education - €15bn
Other - €5bn

Income
Taxes - €47bn*

Shortfall - €23bn

Assuming there is a big increase in public sector workers, and being generous, they'd claw back 30% of the shortfall. So where will the €17bn in tax come from to fund the socialist spending bonanza?

Any SP heads on here who know what their plans are if they get into government should be able to edit the above handily enough...

Puts the €1bn worth of water charges into context.

(*source http://www.oecd.org/ireland/revenue-statistics-and-consumption-tax-trends-2014-ireland.pdf)

clear thinking

clear thinking wrote: »

Never mind detailed policy, it would be great to see some broad strokes from the SP - a few expenditure starters they could edit:

Expenditure
Health - €30bn
Welfare - €20bn
Education - €15bn
Other - €5bn

Income
Taxes - €47bn*

Shortfall - €23bn

Assuming there is a big increase in public sector workers, and being generous, they'd claw back 30% of the shortfall. So where will the €17bn in tax come from to fund the socialist spending bonanza?

Any SP heads on here who know what their plans are if they get into government should be able to edit the above handily enough...

Puts the €1bn worth of water charges into context.

(*source http://www.oecd.org/ireland/revenue-statistics-and-consumption-tax-trends-2014-ireland.pdf)

Jolly Red Giant did answer some questions at one stage in this thread, but seems to have given up on it altogether now, which is a pity. I'm not sure of any other Socialist Party members that post on boards.ie, but I'd absolutely love for one of them to come and talk us through some of the policies, and through robust debate we can assess their viability.

RobertKK

Sorry if this has been posted earlier in the thread, but Paul Murphy paid his water charges when he was living in Brussels as an MEP.
Socialist party policy in Ireland is simply to be populous.

BoJack Horseman

clear thinking wrote: »

Never mind detailed policy, it would be great to see some broad strokes from the SP - a few expenditure starters they could edit:

Expenditure
Health - €30bn
Welfare - €20bn
Education - €15bn
Other - €5bn

Income
Taxes - €47bn*

Shortfall - €23bn

Assuming there is a big increase in public sector workers, and being generous, they'd claw back 30% of the shortfall. So where will the €17bn in tax come from to fund the socialist spending bonanza?

Any SP heads on here who know what their plans are if they get into government should be able to edit the above handily enough...

Puts the €1bn worth of water charges into context.

(*source http://www.oecd.org/ireland/revenue-statistics-and-consumption-tax-trends-2014-ireland.pdf)

It's hard to pin down the massive cost of the SP in power.

They themselves make zero attempt at doing so.

It's important to realise that the biggest aspects of their promised disaster don't appear in the budget day headlines.

Consider the truely massive cost of the following:
- The voluntary default on national debt.
- Exit from the Eurozone.
- Exit from the WTO.
- The forced nationalisation of the IFSC
- The nationalisation of the domestic financial services industry.
The subsequent & understandable destruction of FDI.
- The nationalisation of companies the SP arbitrarily deem "nationally important".


As it stands the government we have will not be reelected.

We should be very aware of what awaits us.

ON ZEE BRIDLE

sinn fein need to lose adams if they are to make any head way down south,put sxy lou as leader

Seth Brundle

ON ZEE BRIDLE wrote: »

sinn fein need to lose adams if they are to make any head way down south,put sxy lou as leader

Sinn Féin need to do a lot more. Despite everything over recent years , they barely reach the mid to high twenties.
Their support base is largely a hardcore element which support SF despite any dirt and this puts many people off - to the point that they would even support FF or FG or Lab

Dyr

kbannon wrote: »

Sinn Féin need to do a lot more. Despite everything over recent years , they barely reach the mid to high twenties.
Their support base is largely a hardcore element which support SF despite any dirt and this puts many people off - to the point that they would even support FF or FG or Lab

Hardcore element my hat.

The high teens is the very most that the Labour party have gotten in elections over the decades while peddling a far more centrist brand of socialism than SF, Labour have usually polled closer to the 10 per cent mark so the shinners would be delighted to hit 20% in an election. Essentially replacing labour as the party of the left and then hoping to eat into FF's now moribund vote from that point on would be their best case scenario.

Seth Brundle

Bambi wrote: »

Hardcore element my hat.

The high teens is the very most that the Labour party have gotten in elections over the decades while peddling a far more centrist brand of socialism than SF, Labour have usually polled closer to the 10 per cent mark so the shinners would be delighted to hit 20% in an election. Essentially replacing labour as the party of the left and then hoping to eat into FF's now moribund vote from that point on would be their best case scenario.

So why aren't they doing better that they are currently? The biggest sense of disillusionment in Irish politics and SF can't muster anything stronger?
As for my comment about a hardcore element, there is a hardcore voterbase there, as there is with other parties. The big difference between them is that the SF hardcore following don't seem to mind allegations or murder, rape, paedophilia and so on whereas.

ancapailldorcha

ON ZEE BRIDLE wrote: »

sinn fein need to lose adams if they are to make any head way down south,put sxy lou as leader

Please familiarise yourself with the charter before posting again.

Dyr

kbannon wrote: »

So why aren't they doing better that they are currently? The biggest sense of disillusionment in Irish politics and SF can't muster anything stronger?
As for my comment about a hardcore element, there is a hardcore voterbase there, as there is with other parties. The big difference between them is that the SF hardcore following don't seem to mind allegations or murder, rape, paedophilia and so on whereas.

You just don't seem to get it. The complete left wing vote in Ireland is is around the twenties. Labour got under 20% in 2011, Their best result in living memory.

that was at a time when disillusionment with politics was at its highest and it was considered a massive achievement for them. They managed it with the benefit of very strong support in the media, the backing of trade unions, a centrist policy platform and no harping on about past links to paramiltarism. None of which Sinn Fein will ever enjoy.

I'm going to wager you weren't on here in 2011 demanding to know why Labour had not done better, yet here you are wanting to know why the shinners aren't over 20%.

Seth Brundle

Bambi wrote: »

I'm going to wager you weren't on here in 2011 demanding to know why Labour had not done better, yet here you are wanting to know why the shinners aren't over 20%.

erm, you're right. I wasn't on here demanding why Lab didn't do better. However. why would I have? I have no political affiliations.

Also I'm not on wondering why the shinners are not "over 20%". I've already said why they aren't doing better. That was my whole point.

Matt Holck

in the US,

labor lives in a fire at will environment

further labor has lost political ground due to automation

labor is not needed from a majority of the people

A Primal Nut

Who would actually benefit under SP policies? Many people in multinationals would lose their job. Less tax revenue as a result means it would be harder to take care of the most vulnerable.

BoJack Horseman

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Who would actually benefit under SP policies? Many people in multinationals would lose their job. Less tax revenue as a result means it would be harder to take care of the most vulnerable.

Apart from a cadre at the top, no one.

You don't need a long memory to remember what it delivered for eastern Europe.

ancapailldorcha

I've become somewhat cynical regarding socialism myself. While I am in favour of socialised education, healthcare, policing, etc I believe that true socialism would prove infeasible due to self-interest and corruption. There is no shortage of examples of corrupt, avaricious regimes to corroborate this notion.

related to UK and Jeremy Corbyn, but a must read for the Socialist Party (and other less left parties)

FT Article

The lack of credibility of the overall solution that's presented just never goes away. So much so that even the Socialist Party members on here refused to stand over the policies when questioned on them.

ancapailldorcha

There's a paywall. Could you quote the article?

I've wrapped it in a google link, any use?

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

I've wrapped it in a google link, any use?

Yeah, thanks. Decent article.