Socialist Party's policies

Dyr

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Apart from a cadre at the top, no one.

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

And yet you still seem to lack the memory to remember what was delivered in eastern europe, because it wasn't what the SP are shilling.

But then the peanut gallery has always been crowded in here

BoJack Horseman

Bambi wrote: »

And yet you still seem to lack the memory to remember what was delivered in eastern europe, because it wasn't what the SP are shilling

Manifestos are specific to states, as I'm hoping you've noticed.

The GDR weren't making any promises on defaulting on Irish national debt, nor nationalising the IFSC, or leaving the EU that they weren't part of...... so a silly strawman all round

But the principle of control runs through it all.

BoJack Horseman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

The article is OK..... doesn't really spell out how abandoning the concept of property ownership makes a nation richer.

There is no evidence of this anywhere.

(Also, corbynomics is affordable, to be fair to the old trot).

Godge

I have a question for the supporters of the Socialist Party.

Why does the Socialist Party support the abolition of LPT but isn't calling for the abolition of VAT?

VAT is a regressive tax that sees the poorest pay an unfair burden.

LPT is a progressive tax that sees wealthy people with the biggest houses pay the most.

It just does not make sense.

CramCycle

Godge wrote: »

I have a question for the supporters of the Socialist Party.

Why does the Socialist Party support the abolition of LPT but isn't calling for the abolition of VAT?

VAT is a regressive tax that sees the poorest pay an unfair burden.

LPT is a progressive tax that sees wealthy people with the biggest houses pay the most.

It just does not make sense.

Because people accept VAT and it doesn't enrage anyone, on the other hand, LPT does enrage some people therefore it is opposed.

It would also become quite difficult to regulate I imagine, a system where VAT rates were different depending on your earnings.

You can also argue that is not an unfair burden as presumably those who are richer will buy more expensive things than those who are poorer. Many essentials are VAT free but if anyone wants to buy a TV, they don't have to buy a 60inch curved screen, they can make do with something more in their budget. I don't have a 60inch TV for this very reason, within my budget, I make do with something smaller that does the job.

Godge

CramCycle wrote: »

Because people accept VAT and it doesn't enrage anyone, on the other hand, LPT does enrage some people therefore it is opposed.

It would also become quite difficult to regulate I imagine, a system where VAT rates were different depending on your earnings.

You can also argue that is not an unfair burden as presumably those who are richer will buy more expensive things than those who are poorer. Many essentials are VAT free but if anyone wants to buy a TV, they don't have to buy a 60inch curved screen, they can make do with something more in their budget. I don't have a 60inch TV for this very reason, within my budget, I make do with something smaller that does the job.

In essence, populism overrules principle.

I wasn't suggesting different VAT rates for different earnings, you could abolish VAT and make income tax even more progressive, now that would be a real socialist policy.

BoJack Horseman

CramCycle wrote: »

Because people accept VAT and it doesn't enrage anyone

So, if a regressive tax has been around a while, socialists accept it & its no longer regressive?

Strange abandonment of principle just because some time has passed.

Also assures us that over time IW & LPT will be 'grandfathered' into acceptability!

It would also become quite difficult to regulate I imagine, a system where VAT rates were different depending on your earnings.

"Sir, this coupon for chicken Kiev's has expired & I'm going to need to see your P60"
Slow, but progressive.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

education, healthcare,

IMHO education and healthcare are perfect examples in Ireland (at least) of how socialism does not work in these areas.

CramCycle

Godge wrote: »

In essence, populism overrules principle.

Pretty much what I meant, the populist parties would be a better description. It doesn't work because most people know that there has to be a balance between what they want and what will work.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, if a regressive tax has been around a while, socialists accept it & its no longer regressive?

I would not refer to many people in the various socialist parties as truly socialist. I suppose you could argue it is hard to be because if they want the state to be socialist, they have to adapt the current system but in my opinion, its more to do with the fact that its various forms don't work when worked through.

Strange abandonment of principle just because some time has passed.

I don't think its an abandonment, I think its that most will have grown up with VAT as a part and parcel of life, therefore don't fight it. IW and LPT are new and in some ways unjust due more to implementation and diversion of funds, among other things. I wouldn't fight either on the principle of socialism, I think in principle they are good ideas, in reality they are something else.

Also assures us that over time IW & LPT will be 'grandfathered' into acceptability!

It's already happening.

Jolly Red Giant

CramCycle wrote: »

Pretty much what I meant, the populist parties would be a better description. It doesn't work because most people know that there has to be a balance between what they want and what will work.

And the bible according to the new-liberals is that austerity is the only thing that will work (for the elites of course)

I would not refer to many people in the various socialist parties as truly socialist. I suppose you could argue it is hard to be because if they want the state to be socialist, they have to adapt the current system but in my opinion, its more to do with the fact that its various forms don't work when worked through.

Again - new-liberal austerity is working for the 1% - not the 99%.

And socialism is not about adapting the current system - it is about overthrowing the current system. Tinkering with capitalism still leaves the levers of power in the hands of the capitalist class - the objective of socialism is to put power in the hands of the working class.

I don't think its an abandonment, I think its that most will have grown up with VAT as a part and parcel of life, therefore don't fight it. IW and LPT are new and in some ways unjust due more to implementation and diversion of funds, among other things. I wouldn't fight either on the principle of socialism, I think in principle they are good ideas, in reality they are something else.

That is how the capitalist class impose regressive taxes.

It's already happening.

Yea - right - 57% non-payment - 19% of people who paid the first bill have cancelled their direct debit - 100,000 on the streets last Saturday - we can see what is happening alright.

Yiikes

Ah, JRG, welcome back to the thread.

Any chance you'd address some of the questions raised of the policies within the 2014 budget of the Socialist Party.

Yiikes wrote: »

Found these online after a bit of looking. Pretty hard to come by and only found by fluke on reddit ireland.
"Real Jobs programme by Paul Murphy"
d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/paulmurphy/pages/56/attachments/original/1393242432/Real_Jobs_Programme240214.pdf?1393242432

"2014 budget of the SP"
issuu.com/socialistparty/docs/budget_all_in_one_layout_1

What do you guys make of them?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Good find! Terrible format, though. Seriously, an eight-page brochure as a *Flash* file? Crazeh. Kudos to anyone that manages to convert it to PDF, or to plain text. (If it's in Google's (irony!) cache, it might have been autoconverted by them.) As it stands it's extremely hard to read.

But on a quick skim through:- they have four main measures: a wealth tax, more income tax, corpo tax, and a transactions tax. The second one is fair enough, though memo to anyone in a couple each earning €55K: you're The Rich. And they're not just saying "third band", like SF, they're proposing a range of measures on people above that household income level. Unspecified, though: I guess they don't have SF's lavish toner and researcher budget yet.

The other three might as well be "tax a ball of smoke". If you want to tax mobile wealth, you'd have to do it on an international basis. Granted a somewhat less cookie-cutter right-wing government in Ireland could stop being such a notable example of the problem, but there is no unilateral solution on those.

Oh, and they're repudiating debt according to the cover, but I'm not find the detail on that in the leaflet. Compare and contrast to Greece, as and when we find the specifics of this.

jank wrote: »

13 euro Min wage.. WTF?
They may as well rebrand themselves as the unemployment party with that carry on.

Deleted User wrote: »

Putting "Democratic" or "Democratised" before a word does not defuse that word.

Also, "taken out of private ownership". Do they mean the state issues CPOs for the toll roads and IFSC HEDGE FUNDS? Or does the state steal them?

Icepick wrote: »

Does he actually think that defaulting and then collecting additional billions from people and companies would work? That the economy wouldn't just implode and all these rich people and corporations wouldn't just avoid paying said taxes in the given fiscal year and leave asap? Does he not realize that this would quickly stop foreign investments from the corporations and people he wants to get all this money from?
Or is it just a lie for the simpletons that may vote for him?

I'm especially interested in the Hedge Funds 'acquisitions', thanks,

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMHO education and healthcare are perfect examples in Ireland (at least) of how socialism does not work in these areas.

I have no problem with the private sector being involved in these areas. I just don't want to see people worrying about paying for healthcare in hospital and the cost of their child's education.

ancapailldorcha

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

...

Please back up your claims with sources and engage with other posters as opposed to simply repeating yourself.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have no problem with the private sector being involved in these areas. I just don't want to see people worrying about paying for healthcare in hospital and the cost of their child's education.

Good thing there are 2 million + medical cards in circulation to take care of that....
Plus the €100 to €200 paid every July for each child of poor parents to assist in school costs.

Godge

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have no problem with the private sector being involved in these areas. I just don't want to see people worrying about paying for healthcare in hospital and the cost of their child's education.

Countries like France (which are often cited by lefties) impose small usage charges to discourage system abuse. So even those on social welfare (which is lower than Ireland) pay €20 to visit the GP.

We are facing a healthcare financial crisis and the only way to address it is to reduce the number of medical cards and/or move to a system where there are small usage charges. We have already done it for prescription medicine.

ancapailldorcha

Godge wrote: »

Countries like France (which are often cited by lefties) impose small usage charges to discourage system abuse. So even those on social welfare (which is lower than Ireland) pay €20 to visit the GP.

We are facing a healthcare financial crisis and the only way to address it is to reduce the number of medical cards and/or move to a system where there are small usage charges. We have already done it for prescription medicine.

While I'm pro-NHS, GP charges are definitely something I'd be in favour of.

micosoft

Godge wrote: »

Countries like France (which are often cited by lefties) impose small usage charges to discourage system abuse. So even those on social welfare (which is lower than Ireland) pay €20 to visit the GP.

We are facing a healthcare financial crisis and the only way to address it is to reduce the number of medical cards and/or move to a system where there are small usage charges. We have already done it for prescription medicine.

Absolutely agree. There is a massive tendency for any allowance created in this country to be completely abused over time as various lobby groups stick their oar in demanding their share of the pie. Look at public transport where 25% of the population don't pay. It's astonishing, immoral and an enormous transfer of wealth from one section of society to another without any view of relative wealth. Multimillionaires are entitled to free travel whereas the working poor have to struggle to pay...

Furthermore most of the experts in Healthcare economics agree that blanket free services increases spending on the well sick (Flu, minor ailments) at the cost of the seriously ill. There is no conflict between socialism and appropriate controls to stop service abuse.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have no problem with the private sector being involved in these areas. I just don't want to see people worrying about paying for healthcare in hospital and the cost of their child's education.

Totally agree - I think we have agreed as a State that we want to fund healthcare and education through various forms of taxation; my view is that this should continue, but the State should pay private companies to implement the actual service (i.e. in healthcare for example, the State is effectively paying for us all to have insurance).

The State is fairly good at collecting money and could be good at securing a good "deal" but they're obviously very poor at providing the services on the ground.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Totally agree - I think we have agreed as a State that we want to fund healthcare and education through various forms of taxation; my view is that this should continue, but the State should pay private companies to implement the actual service (i.e. in healthcare for example, the State is effectively paying for us all to have insurance).

The State is fairly good at collecting money and could be good at securing a good "deal" but they're obviously very poor at providing the services on the ground.

My main reason for favouring socialised healthcare is that I don't think that it's right for people to be denied healthcare on the basis of not being able to pay for it there and then or that their insurance has acted on their financial incentive to withhold a payout.

Given that Circle UK who were running the UK's only privately run NHS hospital had to pull out (1), it does not bode well. However, I don't think there's any huge issue with lab tests, MRIs and the like being carried out by the private sector.

JustTheOne

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Good thing there are 2 million + medical cards in circulation to take care of that....
Plus the €100 to €200 paid every July for each child of poor parents to assist in school costs.

2 million medical cards?

Jesus that's madness. No wonder our welfare bill is 20 billion a year.

ancapailldorcha

JustTheOne wrote: »

2 million medical cards?

Jesus that's madness. No wonder our welfare bill is 20 billion a year.

The population of Ireland is somewhere in the region of 4.5 million people. Can there really be just under half of the population carrying medical cards?

FreudianSlippers

JustTheOne wrote: »

2 million medical cards?

Jesus that's madness. No wonder our welfare bill is 20 billion a year.

Another reason why I think we'd be better off with a flat tax and negative income tax

micosoft

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My main reason for favouring socialised healthcare is that I don't think that it's right for people to be denied healthcare on the basis of not being able to pay for it there and then or that their insurance has acted on their financial incentive to withhold a payout.

Given that Circle UK who were running the UK's only privately run NHS hospital had to pull out (1), it does not bode well. However, I don't think there's any huge issue with lab tests, MRIs and the like being carried out by the private sector.

I think that for a country as small as Ireland there are serious challenges with diseconomies of scale. At the end of the day we have a population less then Manchester.

My unpopular view is that we actually merge the Irish Health Service into the NHS. That would have the benefit of depoliticising it as well as getting the huge economies of scale the NHS can achieve. It would mean a totally different environment (fewer bigger hospitals) and an all Island approach (already being done with certain specialities).

The problem with the current health service is not so much that it is in public or private ownership but that the employees are incredibly resistant to change at all levels (especially the consultants). If that could be cracked in a public health service I'd be OK with that. The major reason people but forward privatisation or private hospitals is that their workforce is not tied into the work practices and the structures of the health service as opposed to any ideology around profit etc.

oscarBravo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My main reason for favouring socialised healthcare is that I don't think that it's right for people to be denied healthcare on the basis of not being able to pay for it there and then or that their insurance has acted on their financial incentive to withhold a payout.

That, plus the idea of medical bankruptcy is morally repugnant - the idea that you can be financially ruined because of a medical condition or an accident is just plain wrong.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The population of Ireland is somewhere in the region of 4.5 million people. Can there really be just under half of the population carrying medical cards?

Hard to get up to date numbers, but up to a year ago it was 1.987 million.

It peaked at around 2.1m

This excludes the u6's & over70's GP visit cards, which would amount to an extra 7-800k users.

Free medical care costs the taxpayer around €2.4bn per year

There is no threat to the poorest not being able to afford care.

ancapailldorcha

micosoft wrote: »

I think that for a country as small as Ireland there are serious challenges with diseconomies of scale. At the end of the day we have a population less then Manchester.

My unpopular view is that we actually merge the Irish Health Service into the NHS. That would have the benefit of depoliticising it as well as getting the huge economies of scale the NHS can achieve. It would mean a totally different environment (fewer bigger hospitals) and an all Island approach (already being done with certain specialities).

The problem with the current health service is not so much that it is in public or private ownership but that the employees are incredibly resistant to change at all levels (especially the consultants). If that could be cracked in a public health service I'd be OK with that. The major reason people but forward privatisation or private hospitals is that their workforce is not tied into the work practices and the structures of the health service as opposed to any ideology around profit etc.

Greater Manchester has a population of 2.7 million. Anyway, you couldn't merge the 2 systems because we're talking about two different countries.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That, plus the idea of medical bankruptcy is morally repugnant - the idea that you can be financially ruined because of a medical condition or an accident is just plain wrong.

+1. There is someone at work who is at a very high risk of contracting several different types of cancer. She's the kind of person who'd suffer most under an insurance based system.

ancapailldorcha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hard to get up to date numbers, but up to a year ago it was 1.987 million.

It peaked at around 2.1m

This excludes the u6's & over70's GP visit cards.

There is no threat to the poorest not being able to afford care.

From 2013 but it looks like you may be right:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/almost-half-of-us-has-a-medical-card-222522.html

micosoft

micosoft wrote: »

I think that for a country as small as Ireland there are serious challenges with diseconomies of scale. At the end of the day we have a population less then Manchester.

My unpopular view is that we actually merge the Irish Health Service into the NHS. That would have the benefit of depoliticising it as well as getting the huge economies of scale the NHS can achieve. It would mean a totally different environment (fewer bigger hospitals) and an all Island approach (already being done with certain specialities).

The problem with the current health service is not so much that it is in public or private ownership but that the employees are incredibly resistant to change at all levels (especially the consultants). If that could be cracked in a public health service I'd be OK with that. The major reason people but forward privatisation or private hospitals is that their workforce is not tied into the work practices and the structures of the health service as opposed to any ideology around profit etc.

Population Source
Republic of Ireland 4,609,600 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland
Greater Manchester 2,732,854 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester
Manchester City 520,215 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hard to get up to date numbers, but up to a year ago it was 1.987 million.

It peaked at around 2.1m

This excludes the u6's & over70's GP visit cards, which would amount to an extra 7-800k users.

Free medical care costs the taxpayer around €2.4bn per year

There is no threat to the poorest not being able to afford care.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

From 2013 but it looks like you may be right:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/almost-half-of-us-has-a-medical-card-222522.html

The above article seems to include over 70's as it mentions them as likely to lose the full card and get the doctor only one instead.

I suppose if you take people who are unemployed, FAS courses, on FIS etc., their adult dependents and children, you could have well over a million people no bother, then add in the doctor only card and it wouldn't be far of 2 million people.

I'd guess the 2 million must include children and o-70's otherwise we'd be up on 3 Million cards.

Remember we also have about 1.2 Million income earners below €30,000.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2014/12/06/the-distribution-of-income-in-ireland/

Godge

micosoft wrote: »

Absolutely agree. There is a massive tendency for any allowance created in this country to be completely abused over time as various lobby groups stick their oar in demanding their share of the pie. Look at public transport where 25% of the population don't pay. It's astonishing, immoral and an enormous transfer of wealth from one section of society to another without any view of relative wealth. Multimillionaires are entitled to free travel whereas the working poor have to struggle to pay...

Furthermore most of the experts in Healthcare economics agree that blanket free services increases spending on the well sick (Flu, minor ailments) at the cost of the seriously ill. There is no conflict between socialism and appropriate controls to stop service abuse.

Up until about 15 years ago, the free transport scheme could not be used between 8.00 and 9.30 and 4.30 and 6.00 as that meant the services would be less congested for workers (who are paying for the transport cards) during the peak hours. That was abolished and the restrictions are gone, a step which made it so much easier to abuse.

Jolly Red Giant

JustTheOne wrote: »

2 million medical cards?

Jesus that's madness. No wonder our welfare bill is 20 billion a year.

You have to be pauperised to get a medical card - having 2million medical cards is an indictment of the fact that the austerity slash and burn has driven so many people into poverty.

BoJack Horseman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You have to be pauperised to get a medical card - having 2million medical cards is an indictment of the fact that the austerity slash and burn has driven so many people into poverty.

We await info on how the Hammer n'Sickles will raise us all to blissful wealth!
Drawing comparisons with the vast prosperity experienced by our eastern European cousins under "centrally planned" economies.

(medical card users are trending downwards though, a 70,000 YOY decrease, though with the advent of U6 & over 70 GP visit cards are way up, but thats politiking).

johnnyskeleton

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

We await info on how the Hammer n'Sickles will raise us all to blissful wealth!

Mod note:

This isnt the Cafe and a much higher standard of commentary is required.

FreudianSlippers

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You have to be pauperised to get a medical card - having 2million medical cards is an indictment of the fact that the austerity slash and burn has driven so many people into poverty.

Nonsense. Household wealth, although not at 2012 levels, is higher now due to a managed and controlled economy than it has been for years.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/household-wealth-at-highest-level-since-2008-1.2203542

See chart 7: http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/summarychart/documents/ie_financial_statistics_summary_chart_pack.pdf


It's also patently ridiculous to suggest that a country such as Ireland should live outside of its means - although I'm sure you have a rational explanation as to how best to fund excessive spending through taxation of certain groups of individuals? If not, your claims are nothing but unsupported and factually inaccurate rhetoric.

ancapailldorcha

Data aside, the reason I abandoned many of my Marxist leanings is the observation that quality of life has exploded for people in the Western world in the past 70-100 years and I ascribe that to Capitalism which has driven technological progress, research, collaborations, etc... The world's not perfect and I'm not saying that it is but poorer people in the West are better off today than they've ever been.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Data aside, the reason I abandoned many of my Marxist leanings is the observation that quality of life has exploded for people in the Western world in the past 70-100 years and I ascribe that to Capitalism which has driven technological progress, research, collaborations, etc... The world's not perfect and I'm not saying that it is but poorer people in the West are better off today than they've ever been.

+1

Capitalism certainly isn't perfect, but there is very little to suggest that a far-left system would function in any way in Western society. This is particularly true in the internet age, where the highest earners are not tied to one country - if a highly mobile workforce is taxed into oblivion (likewise a highly mobile company) they will move elsewhere. I like Ireland, but having lived abroad, I'd leave in a heartbeat if my taxes were increased exponentially (or even slightly at this stage).

The idea of excessive spending sounds good, but socialism fails to address where they get the money for this excessive spending and what happens when this money dries out.

Austerity is just living within your means. Simple as that.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The idea of excessive spending sounds good, but socialism fails to address where they get the money for this excessive spending and what happens when this money dries out.

It's a shame that the Irish government didn't see fit to invest in the rest of the country during the boom. Spending is one thing but prudent state investment is something that I wholeheartedly support.

micosoft

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a shame that the Irish government didn't see fit to invest in the rest of the country during the boom. Spending is one thing but prudent state investment is something that I wholeheartedly support.

It's a shame that the Irish Electorate consistently chooses politicians that will give them back money either in tax rebates or "buying" votes rather than long term investment. The Irish political system won't be fixed until we fix the electorate. Proper civic education and the idea that your vote is about more than your local [insert pet peeve/demand here] and about the good governance of our state for future generations is the long term solution.

That said democracy (and capitalism) are the worst way of governing/running an economy except for every other system tried...

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Data aside, the reason I abandoned many of my Marxist leanings is the observation that quality of life has exploded for people in the Western world in the past 70-100 years and I ascribe that to Capitalism which has driven technological progress, research, collaborations, etc... The world's not perfect and I'm not saying that it is but poorer people in the West are better off today than they've ever been.

Added with safety nets and social programmes provided by Government to address the deficiencies of Capitalism.
Sometimes that gets forgotten.

ancapailldorcha

micosoft wrote: »

It's a shame that the Irish Electorate consistently chooses politicians that will give them back money either in tax rebates or "buying" votes rather than long term investment. The Irish political system won't be fixed until we fix the electorate. Proper civic education and the idea that your vote is about more than your local [insert pet peeve/demand here] and about the good governance of our state for future generations is the long term solution.

That said democracy (and capitalism) are the worst way of governing/running an economy except for every other system tried...

Elected representatives in the UK & Ireland aren't accountable. Once elected then the only way to get rid of them is to vote them out at the next election. In the US these representatives can be recalled which is fantastic. I don't see it happening here any time soon though. In addition, politics just isn't that important to a lot of people which is a shame. Only 66.1% of people turned out at the UK election just gone by (1). Better education is a must and I think sites like this are quite useful in that regard.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a shame that the Irish government didn't see fit to invest in the rest of the country during the boom. Spending is one thing but prudent state investment is something that I wholeheartedly support.

Water, electricity (particularly renewables), trains/roads - agreed.

However, Dublin also needed to get mass transit like Metro North and DART Underground - as the economic hub, these projects would have increased tax take and trickled down to the rest of the country. People who object to spending in Dublin do not understand how much Dublin (and Cork for that matter) subsidise the rest of the country.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Water, electricity (particularly renewables), trains/roads - agreed.

However, Dublin also needed to get mass transit like Metro North and DART Underground - as the economic hub, these projects would have increased tax take and trickled down to the rest of the country. People who object to spending in Dublin do not understand how much Dublin (and Cork for that matter) subsidise the rest of the country.

Very true. However, surely it's unhealthy to have an entire nation so heavily dependent on one city. I would be very much in favour of such investment and it would create decent jobs and such. I don't object to investment in Dublin in and of itself, I would just like to see places like Donegal, where I am from receive some sort of incentive for companies to relocate there. There does seem to be some though as we've had roads and bypasses built and diagnostics firm Randox are setting up in Dungloe though how they'll staff that place is beyond me.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Very true. However, surely it's unhealthy to have an entire nation so heavily dependent on one city. I would be very much in favour of such investment and it would create decent jobs and such. I don't object to investment in Dublin in and of itself, I would just like to see places like Donegal, where I am from receive some sort of incentive for companies to relocate there. There does seem to be some though as .

That's up to the people.

Taking Donegal as an example..... 8th highest county population.
However after the largest town (Letterkenny, merely 19k people), the next largest town has a meagre 7,000 people.

Evidently the people of Donegal have opted against urbanisation.

Where I a company exec looking at candidate locations, knowing that I need population centres that will attract & retain education & commerce & the workforce I need... TBH Donegal with its collection of villages looks insufficient.

Investment is harder when everyone scatters to the 4 winds.

micosoft

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Elected representatives in the UK & Ireland aren't accountable. Once elected then the only way to get rid of them is to vote them out at the next election. In the US these representatives can be recalled which is fantastic. I don't see it happening here any time soon though. In addition, politics just isn't that important to a lot of people which is a shame. Only 66.1% of people turned out at the UK election just gone by (1). Better education is a must and I think sites like this are quite useful in that regard.

Actually I have the opposite view. Our politicians are too accountable at a local level. It makes it impossible for politicians to focus on national issues when everything gets pulled down to clientilism and populism. This creates two things
- Gombeen type local politicians who are responsible to every . Enda Kenny is a product of the Irish Political system.
- A refusal for professional or technocratic individuals to enter politics.

Personally I think a 50/50 distribution between constitutency politicans and a national List system would deliver a significantly better caliber of politician to run our country. Of course, our electorate are agin even the mildest of reforms such as powers for Dail Committees or eliminating the superfluous senate.

Recall in the US is only in a few states - notably California. I can't see that it has improved politics and forces Politicians into even shorter term decisions.

The reality is that the average voter rarely has all the facts to hand and tends to go for short term rather then the long term investments you talked about earlier.

Finally low voter turnout, along with parties that are very similar in nature in actual policy are symptomatic of mature wealthy democracies such as Ireland. There really isn't a lot getting people out of bed outside of single issues like hospitals and water charges. It's not actually a failure of democracy if a significant number of voters are so comfortable they don't care to vote.

demfad

micosoft wrote: »

It's a shame that the Irish Electorate consistently chooses politicians that will give them back money either in tax rebates or "buying" votes rather than long term investment. The Irish political system won't be fixed until we fix the electorate. Proper civic education and the idea that your vote is about more than your local [insert pet peeve/demand here] and about the good governance of our state for future generations is the long term solution.

That said democracy (and capitalism) are the worst way of governing/running an economy except for every other system tried...

I think that assessment is too simplistic.

The result of the equality referendum would be very much at odds with the results of a whipless secret Dail vote on the issue in margin of victory, if not in actual outcome.

The electorate is more sophisticated, but the political system is lagging behind. For example, the practical difficulties in new political ideas/parties being established contribute to the political system not keeping pace with the views of its electorate. Therefore, we don't know if the swing to independents (and Sinn Fein) are the result of a lack of trust in Party politics or a lack of trust in the existing traditional parties.

The profile of the 400-ish candidates that stand for election is very similar to the profile of the successfully elected TDs in outlook, age, profession, background, gender etc. The political system does not seem to be able to change fast enough to reflect its electorate. In fact, it ensures its own survival by placing undemocratic barriers to this change.

Major concerns of the electorate like education and child care are simply not everyday concerns for the vast majority of the out of touch parliament. These will be election concerns for sure, but only that, and half assed thereafter.

The reasons why the political system evolved from the colonial set up, into what it currently is now are complicated. No doubt the electorate played a role in that up until quite recently when the Dail accurately reflected them.

At the moment the Dail is a strange old beast representative of by-gone views of a by-gone electorate.

We ultimately have to vote in the candidates the old beasts choose for us, or independents.

The electorate is ever changing. The media is changing also. Political change is coming also Id hope. Not this election perhaps, and it wont be the electorates fault this time.

Jolly Red Giant

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Data aside, the reason I abandoned many of my Marxist leanings is the observation that quality of life has exploded for people in the Western world in the past 70-100 years and I ascribe that to Capitalism which has driven technological progress, research, collaborations, etc... The world's not perfect and I'm not saying that it is but poorer people in the West are better off today than they've ever been.

If you actually took any real interest in your Marxist leanings you would understand that capitalism was an important development in the evolution of human society. Capitalism played a progressive role in the development of the productive forces in society and was necessary to develop these productive forces. But capitalism no longe plays a progressive role in humans society, it now acts as a fetter in the development of human society and it is now in a prolonged death agony that if not overthrown opens up the long term prospect of human society descending into barbarism.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If you actually took any real interest in your Marxist leanings you would understand that capitalism was an important development in the evolution of human society. Capitalism played a progressive role in the development of the productive forces in society and was necessary to develop these productive forces. But capitalism no longe plays a progressive role in humans society, it now acts as a fetter in the development of human society and it is now in a prolonged death agony that if not overthrown opens up the long term prospect of human society descending into barbarism.

To be replaced by ....... ?

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If you actually took any real interest in your Marxist leanings you would understand that capitalism was an important development in the evolution of human society. Capitalism played a progressive role in the development of the productive forces in society and was necessary to develop these productive forces. But capitalism no longe plays a progressive role in humans society, it now acts as a fetter in the development of human society and it is now in a prolonged death agony that if not overthrown opens up the long term prospect of human society descending into barbarism.

Who says capitalism is broken?



This is what socialism causes, famine. Here is US food aid being delivered to North Korea to keep their people from starving.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who says capitalism is broken?



This is what socialism causes, famine. Here is US food aid being delivered to North Korea to keep their people from starving.

Socialism is a welfare state, free health services, education etc. All big players in that graph.

N. Korea is communism as you are well aware.

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

Socialism is a welfare state, free health services, education etc. All big players in that graph.

N. Korea is communism as you are well aware.

Nope. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. An intermediary stage between capitalism and communism as you are well aware.

North Korea, the Soviet Union etc. Were socialist countries. They would have never claimed to be communist. That was the goal. Hence soviet socialist union but communist party.