Socialist Party's policies

hatrickpatrick

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Nearly 100 people attended a packed Socialist Party public meeting addressed by Paul Murphy in Limerick last night. A significant number of those in attendance expressed an interest in joining the Socialist Party.

My SP branch has doubled in size in the past month. Even larger numbers are joining the wider Anti-Austerity Alliance.

My major gripe with the Irish left is the "People's Front of Judea" situation that's going on - we have the SP, the SWP, the ULA, the PBP movement, and now the AAA. Why so many different brandings and grouping following essentially identical core principles?
It would be far more powerful if they would agree an umbrella term and not change it every few years, IMO. What was wrong with the ULA for instance, why has that been subsumed by the AAA? Could it not have kept the same name to avoid confusing people?

garhjw

When is thermally in the Gresham hotel dublin? Was it not on this week with hogging and Murphy shouting for public disorder? Or is it next week?

Phoebas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My major gripe with the Irish left is the "People's Front of Judea" situation that's going on - we have the SP, the SWP, the ULA, the PBP movement, and now the AAA. Why so many different brandings and grouping following essentially identical core principles?
It would be far more powerful if they would agree an umbrella term and not change it every few years, IMO. What was wrong with the ULA for instance, why has that been subsumed by the AAA? Could it not have kept the same name to avoid confusing people?

There needs to be a party for each ego to lead.
These guys don't see the point being generous with other people's money if they can't claim the maximum credit for themselves.

hatrickpatrick

Phoebas wrote: »

There needs to be a party for each ego to lead.
These guys don't see the point being generous with other people's money if they can't claim the maximum credit for themselves.

Cheap jibes aside, the ego argument makes no sense as it's always the same people you see at the forefront of these groups. Richard Boyd Barrett for instance, who I'm a big supporter of, has been a vocal supporter and leading figure of first the SWP, then the PBP alliance, then the ULA. The latter two genuinely baffle me, I was at the original meeting at which the PBP alliance was formed years ago (mid 2000s, forget exactly when) but when and why did it morph into the ULA? Before you suggest that the ULA is an umbrella group designed to bring all the left leaning politicians together, don't forget that PBP itself was started as just such an umbrella. So essentially unless I'm missing something rather obvious, we basically have an umbrella within an umbrella, or umbrellaception if you will.

The branding doesn't really matter to me as they still operate as independents without a binding three line whip, but for those who aren't actually followers of politics and political debate, the period name changing must get a little confusing...?

BoJack Horseman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The branding doesn't really matter to me as they still operate as independents without a binding three line whip, but for those who aren't actually followers of politics and political debate, the period name changing must get a little confusing...?

I guess the frequent name changes are needed so people don't get too familiar with the repelling core message.

A new name may appear like new ideas.... But they aren't.

Barrett is still very clear on the horror he wants to deliver to Ireland...
https://twitter.com/JohnLyons2014/status/533360771422769152

Soldie

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, when you vote for FF or FG then it's your own fault if they lie to you and ship all your cash off to Germany. True.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Are you trying to peddle the line from Kenny that 'we all partied' - did we like f*ck - the people that partied were the people who created the property bubble (the Irish and European banks, the financial markets and the speculators) - everyone else got screwed.

The Irish electorate bears a collective responsibility for the Irish economy imploding. To suggest otherwise is just revisionism. It's a popular tactic of the left to treat people like innocent, gormless fools who are vulnerable to the bogeyman I alluded to in my previous post, in this case "speculators and bankers". It's extremely condescending. In 2007, on the cusp of the arse falling out of the economy, Irish voters had a choice between spend, spend, and spend. These options reflected Irish society, and that's why they were available. During the 'good times', the only MfF Ireland had that preached any kind of fiscal rectitude was Charlie McGreevy, and he was shipped off to the EU. Accepting that the cause of lots of our problems is closer to home is a tough pill to swallow, but I think it's really immature not to accept any accountability whatsoever and just blame it on someone else. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Nearly 100 people attended a packed Socialist Party public meeting addressed by Paul Murphy in Limerick last night. A significant number of those in attendance expressed an interest in joining the Socialist Party.

Given that the hard left typically multiplies the actual number of rally participants by around 10, we can accurately deduce that ten people were present, give or take one.

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

the only MfF Ireland had that preached any kind of fiscal rectitude was Charlie McGreevy, and he was shipped off to the EU.

There was also the more plausible theory that McCreevy jumped ship as he'd seen the books and knew what was coming.

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

Given that the hard left typically multiplies the actual number of rally participants by around 10, we can accurately deduce that ten people were present, give or take one.

Funny, that's exactly what AGS does when it reports protest sizes, so they're in good company!

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

In 2007, on the cusp of the arse falling out of the economy, Irish voters had a choice between spend, spend, and spend.

The only sensible option then, as now, is therefore to vote for none of these parties.

Jolly Red Giant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My major gripe with the Irish left is the "People's Front of Judea" situation that's going on - we have the SP, the SWP, the ULA, the PBP movement, and now the AAA. Why so many different brandings and grouping following essentially identical core principles?
It would be far more powerful if they would agree an umbrella term and not change it every few years, IMO. What was wrong with the ULA for instance, why has that been subsumed by the AAA? Could it not have kept the same name to avoid confusing people?

There is a lot of nonsense talked about this kind of stuff - yet we have three right-wing neo-liberal parties in FG/LP/FF all implementing the same pro-establishment policies and another 'new' neo-liberal party now being touted around Ross, Creighton or both.

The ULA was initially established as an electoral alliance to bring together a number of left groups and individuals. After the election of 5 TDs in 2011 it was decided to try and expand the ULA and see if the potential existed for to form it into a new party of the left. Nobody joined - so the ULA had served its purpose.

The PBPA has existed for 10 years so they decided to pursue their objective (as they are entitled to do) - the Anti-Austerity Alliance came out of the campaign against the Household Charge and LPT. It was initiated by the Socialist Party but has still taken on a character of its own with the Socialist Party affiliated and Socialist Party members actively participating. It has grown significantly over the past twelve months and now has three TDs and 14 councillors. The Socialist Party recognises that every activist who gets involved in left-wing politics will not agree that the capitalism system needs to be dumped in the dustbin of history, but acknowledge that there are large numbers of people willing to work with the Socialist Party on a wide variety of campaigns to improve the lives of working class people - the is what the AAA is for.

Jolly Red Giant

Soldie wrote: »

Given that the hard left typically multiplies the actual number of rally participants by around 10, we can accurately deduce that ten people were present, give or take one.

I will post a photo when I get home - the attendance sheet was signed by 94 people of which 10 were members of the Socialist Party.

Jolly Red Giant

Soldie wrote: »

The Irish electorate bears a collective responsibility for the Irish economy imploding. To suggest otherwise is just revisionism.

This is an absolute load of b*llocks - working class people had no hand, act or part in the crash or what led up to it. Irish society was, and continues to be run in the interests of the rich elites - we do not live in a democratic society, we live in a society where people put a pencil mark on a piece of paper once every five years (followed by the politicians going off and doing what ever they want) and do so under the weight of the propaganda from the government, the media, the banks, the EU and the entire establishment.

Soldie wrote: »

It's a popular tactic of the left to treat people like innocent, gormless fools who are vulnerable to the bogeyman I alluded to in my previous post, in this case "speculators and bankers". It's extremely condescending.

What is condescending is claiming that 'everyone partied' - claiming that somehow the vast majority of the population had any control over the policies that were implemented. All of the establishment parties lied through heir teeth to get votes - the banks lied and manipulated people, the developers, speculators and auctioneers lied and manipulated people and the EU lied and manipulated people (and they are still lying trying to manipulate people). It is an absolute disgrace to attempt to blame working class people for a crisis that they had no control over creating and no control over stopping when it happened. You cannot control what you do not own and working class people did not and do not own the banks, the property development companies, the hedge funds or the EU.

Soldie

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There was also the more plausible theory that McCreevy jumped ship as he'd seen the books and knew what was coming.

Are you sure that's not just speculation? If not, you'll have no trouble explaining since it's apparently so plausible.

hmmm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is an absolute load of b*llocks - working class people had no hand, act or part in the crash or what led up to it.

Who do you think voted FF into power for all those years, and encouraged "spend spend spend" policies? Stop trying to make out that the working class were poor innocents in everything that has happened, people aren't as stupid and naive as you condescendingly make them out to be - we don't all need rich D4 socialists fresh out of Trinity patting on our head and tell us that they'll protect us from the big bad wolf of capitalism.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I will post a photo when I get home - the attendance sheet was signed by 94 people of which 10 were members of the Socialist Party.

Save your energy. My comment was in jest.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is an absolute load of b*llocks - working class people had no hand, act or part in the crash or what led up to it. Irish society was, and continues to be run in the interests of the rich elites - we do not live in a democratic society, we live in a society where people put a pencil mark on a piece of paper once every five years (followed by the politicians going off and doing what ever they want) and do so under the weight of the propaganda from the government, the media, the banks, the EU and the entire establishment.

What is condescending is claiming that 'everyone partied' - claiming that somehow the vast majority of the population had any control over the policies that were implemented. All of the establishment parties lied through heir teeth to get votes - the banks lied and manipulated people, the developers, speculators and auctioneers lied and manipulated people and the EU lied and manipulated people (and they are still lying trying to manipulate people). It is an absolute disgrace to attempt to blame working class people for a crisis that they had no control over creating and no control over stopping when it happened. You cannot control what you do not own and working class people did not and do not own the banks, the property development companies, the hedge funds or the EU.

Dial it down. Behind all your bluster I'm seeing only a contradiction, not a refutation, of what I said. Please treat people with more respect instead of implying that they're all brain dead zombies with no agency, completely vulnerable to the whims of an evil cabal. People can think for themselves. Ireland ranks 14th in the worldwide press freedom index. In 2007, the state's three biggest parties ran for election on campaigns of runaway public spending and slashing taxes. People voted for this in their droves, therefore they bear some responsibility. If you vote for a party that's making no secret of the fact that it's fanning the flames of a massive property bubble then you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility when it pops. It's ridiculous to do so, and this "there there, it's not your fault, humble factory worker, it's the evil property developers" narrative the hard left peddles is pathetically childish.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

We should play a drinking game. Neo Liberal is worth 5 drinks, Working class 3 drinks, Establishment is worth 1 drink

Jolly Red Giant

Soldie wrote: »

Please treat people with more respect instead of implying that they're all brain dead zombies with no agency, completely vulnerable to the whims of an evil cabal.

If you look at what you are saying you will see that the people who treat working class people like dead zombies are the ruling elites - they regarded the population of the country as people who could be manipulated to their every whim so that they could make a quick buck.

Soldie wrote: »

People can think for themselves.

What do you expect people to do when they need somewhere to live? that have two choices - buy a house or rent one - not surprisingly, given our history, there is and has been a cultural imperative to own your own home. For decades homes were affordable because the government and local authorities built large numbers of social housing - that stopped in the 1990s - instead the provision of homes was handed over to the private sector who manipulated the property market (in conjunction with the banks) to drive up house prices (and as a consequence rents) to make quick profits. The government further contributed to this by numerous tax avoidance schemes that benefited developers and speculators. Kelly's recent announcement of a major social housing building programme is nonsense - even if the targets are met (which is very unlikely) the number of houses to be built will fall far short of the social housing numbers built in the 1970s

Soldie wrote: »

Ireland ranks 14th in the worldwide press freedom index.

Yea - right - and Denis O'Brien has no interest in manipulating the media output. The ranking is nonsense - in every country on the planet we have 'press freedom' for those who can afford to buy the press. For everyone else we have a barrage of propaganda that we 'have no other choice'.

Soldie wrote: »

In 2007, the state's three biggest parties ran for election on campaigns of runaway public spending and slashing taxes. People voted for this in their droves, therefore they bear some responsibility. If you vote for a party that's making no secret of the fact that it's fanning the flames of a massive property bubble then you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility when it pops.

To start with - a third of people didn't vote - and 20% of those that did didn't vote for the three main parties. But that belies a further problem - the system of government in this country inhibits the development of new parties and inhibits the propagation of new ideas. Those that did, did so based on promises that the establishment parties made - and the nature of our political system is that voters have nothing else to base their decision on. People cannot vote for change when the entire control of society is resisting change and the focus of the campaign is demonstrating a return to the norm.

Soldie wrote: »

It's ridiculous to do so, and this "there there, it's not your fault, humble factory worker, it's the evil property developers" narrative the hard left peddles is pathetically childish.

And I will return to the previous point above - you cannot control what you do not own - working class people do not own the political system in this country, it is owned lock, stock and barrel by the elites. Working class people have no control over what a government does once they mark a ballot paper.

The population had zero control over the fact that Brian Lenihan signed the bank guarantee, zero control over the bailout of the spivs and speculators, zero control over the massive austerity implemented by this and the previous government (and this government 'promised' to be different) and zero control 'politically' over the continuation of austerity today.

Working class people have, particularly in the past twelve months, undergone a major process of learning that the only impact they can have on the political system is not marking a ballot once every five years, but is in organising themselves, taking to the streets, rejecting the propaganda and bringing down the government - and that is what is happening at the moment.

Jolly Red Giant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You forget to mention that profits went through the roof, house prices went through the roof, the cost of goods and services went through the roof and the real benefit to working class people was minimal.

Since 2008 (in the worst financial crisis ever seen in the state) the richest 10% of the population have seen their incomes INCREASE year on year while the remaining 90% have seen massive drops in their living standards. The rich get richer whether the economy is booming or in crisis.

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

It's ridiculous to do so, and this "there there, it's not your fault, humble factory worker, it's the evil property developers" narrative the hard left peddles is pathetically childish.

I'm sure you know this one?
“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws” - Mayer Rothschild.

Dyr

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The PBPA has existed for 10 years so they decided to pursue their objective (as they are entitled to do) - the Anti-Austerity Alliance came out of the campaign against the Household Charge and LPT. It was initiated by the Socialist Party but has still taken on a character of its own with the Socialist Party affiliated and Socialist Party members actively participating. It has grown significantly over the past twelve months and now has three TDs and 14 councillors. The Socialist Party recognises that every activist who gets involved in left-wing politics will not agree that the capitalism system needs to be dumped in the dustbin of history, but acknowledge that there are large numbers of people willing to work with the Socialist Party on a wide variety of campaigns to improve the lives of working class people - the is what the AAA is for.

The AAA and PBP are beards, nothing more. A tactical front used by the socialist party and the SWP as they know that they are box office poison standing under their own name

Denying that just undermines your own credibility by assuming your audience is as gullible as you think the working class is.

FreudianSlippers

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The banks weren't nationalised - the banking debt was nationalised.

Jesus, you'd better get on the horn to AIB, I'm sure they'll be delighted with the news.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Nearly 100 people attended a packed Socialist Party public meeting addressed by Paul Murphy in Limerick last night. A significant number of those in attendance expressed an interest in joining the Socialist Party.

My SP branch has doubled in size in the past month. Even larger numbers are joining the wider Anti-Austerity Alliance.

So... what're your policies?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I will post a photo when I get home - the attendance sheet was signed by 94 people of which 10 were members of the Socialist Party.

Did you check how many were on the dole?

FreudianSlippers

jank wrote: »

We should play a drinking game. Neo Liberal is worth 5 drinks, Working class 3 drinks, Establishment is worth 1 drink

More like the barely-working class, AMIRITE?!



... don't leave me hangin'!

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm sure you know this one?
“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws” - Mayer Rothschild.

You know that "quote" from him was made over 20 years after he died right? I can't remember the specifics, but google it... apparently it's total BS.

Dyr

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Would you mind pointing out how increasing unemployment benefits caused our banking system to fail? Good chap.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Bambi wrote: »

Would you mind pointing out how increasing unemployment benefits caused our banking system to fail? Good chap.

I'm guessing you just randomly started reading that post and missed the part where Permabear said: "Between 2000 and 2008, state spending went up 140 percent."

Dyr

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm guessing you just randomly started reading that post and missed the part where Permabear said: "Between 2000 and 2008, state spending went up 140 percent."

I'm guessing our resident tea party refugee was using those stats to assert that ff and fg did not pursue a right wing, neo liberal economic agenda when in government.

They did. With bells on. The fact that bertie and fianna fail were left of centre socially and had no problem dishing out goodies to the electorate doesn't change that.

hmmm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Working class people have, particularly in the past twelve months, undergone a major process of learning that the only impact they can have on the political system is not marking a ballot once every five years.

It's nice to know we have a designated spokesperson for every working class person on boards. Is there any other insights into the working class mind you'd like to share? The community I grew up in is very much "working class", and they'd have run most of the "socialists" I've encountered over the years.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Since sloganeering replaced sound policy creation of the far-left.

So.... That could be a long time....who knows?

Its easier to shout misunderstood names than formulate a plan that might appeal to more than 3% of the electorate.

hatrickpatrick

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is a lot of nonsense talked about this kind of stuff - yet we have three right-wing neo-liberal parties in FG/LP/FF all implementing the same pro-establishment policies and another 'new' neo-liberal party now being touted around Ross, Creighton or both.

The ULA was initially established as an electoral alliance to bring together a number of left groups and individuals. After the election of 5 TDs in 2011 it was decided to try and expand the ULA and see if the potential existed for to form it into a new party of the left. Nobody joined - so the ULA had served its purpose.

The PBPA has existed for 10 years so they decided to pursue their objective (as they are entitled to do) - the Anti-Austerity Alliance came out of the campaign against the Household Charge and LPT. It was initiated by the Socialist Party but has still taken on a character of its own with the Socialist Party affiliated and Socialist Party members actively participating. It has grown significantly over the past twelve months and now has three TDs and 14 councillors. The Socialist Party recognises that every activist who gets involved in left-wing politics will not agree that the capitalism system needs to be dumped in the dustbin of history, but acknowledge that there are large numbers of people willing to work with the Socialist Party on a wide variety of campaigns to improve the lives of working class people - the is what the AAA is for.

But my point about PBP and ULA remains, the PBP was set up in the mid 2000s as an umbrella activist group to bring together a lot of the smaller left wing factions. Great idea. Now why create this new vehicle, the ULA, and have the PBP and others join its banner, as opposed to running with the already well known and well established PBP banner and having the rest of what became the ULA operate within that?

Again I may be missing something very obvious and I haven't been "on the scene" politically in a few years simply due to being too busy, but when PBP was formed and subsequently expanded, I was certainly of the impression that its purpose was to be exactly what the ULA is now.

Note that I'm not bashing or attacking any of the aforementioned, the name changes are a relatively minor issue, but I do worry that for people who don't have an interest in politics beyond elections, of which there are many, might find it a little confusing that the same people keep appearing on their ballot papers election after election, but with different initials next to their name. Minor enough issue, but I wonder if for those who don't follow politics closely, it becomes more than just a minor issue.

Just thinking out loud really.

Jolly Red Giant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

During the period of the Celtic Tiger (and the property bubble) the government handed over more than €47billion in tax cuts, tax breaks and a variety of other scams, to the elites, developers, spivs and speculators. Then they handed another €62billion over to the same spivs and speculators when the crash came.

Even with increased public spending during the same period, public services still didn't reach the normal levels for European economies because of the abject failure to fund public services since the foundation of the state.

Jolly Red Giant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But my point about PBP and ULA remains, the PBP was set up in the mid 2000s as an umbrella activist group to bring together a lot of the smaller left wing factions. Great idea. Now why create this new vehicle, the ULA, and have the PBP and others join its banner, as opposed to running with the already well known and well established PBP banner and having the rest of what became the ULA operate within that?

Again I may be missing something very obvious and I haven't been "on the scene" politically in a few years simply due to being too busy, but when PBP was formed and subsequently expanded, I was certainly of the impression that its purpose was to be exactly what the ULA is now.

Note that I'm not bashing or attacking any of the aforementioned, the name changes are a relatively minor issue, but I do worry that for people who don't have an interest in politics beyond elections, of which there are many, might find it a little confusing that the same people keep appearing on their ballot papers election after election, but with different initials next to their name. Minor enough issue, but I wonder if for those who don't follow politics closely, it becomes more than just a minor issue.

Just thinking out loud really.

This is a valid point to make - as I pointed out above, the primary reason why the ULA emerged was as an electoral alliance between pre-existing left organisations. The reality is that up until 2011 nobody joined the PBPA (I have no idea how many have joined since but there is little evidence in my area despite several efforts to establish a base) and despite it existing for ten years it did not have any real public profile (the Socialist Party has had a much higher profile over the past 20 years).

Since 2011 election the ULA proved that it couldn't attract any new activists - in part because of the lack of working class opposition to austerity. Seamus Healy's WUAG left over Clare Daly's support for Wallace, the PBPA stopped engaging with the ULA (in part because Joan Collins left the PBPA) and nobody joined. The ULA ran its course.

There is relatively little crossover between the AAA and the PBPA - the AAA is concentrated in North, West and South West Dublin and part of the North Inner City, the Midlands, Carlow, the Mid-West, Galway and Cork. The PBPA is concentrated in South County Dublin, part of he North and South Inner city and DunLaoghaire and the South East. I suspect there will be some discussions to try and avoid direct competition in the election (there will probably be only a couple of areas where both will run).

There is a difference in approach as well - the PBPA appear to be focussing more and more on electoral politics (from what I can see at a distance) while the AAA is primarily an activist party focussed on assisting working class people in struggle and building in communities - the AAA regard electoral politics as an additional tactic to use in mobilising working class people. Both the AAA and the PBPA are likely to increase their Dail representation after the next election - I expect at this time the AAA would have 5-6 seats in the next Dail (and if water charges are still existing and the current momentum continues to develop it could be more) and the PBPA could get something similar.

garhjw

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is a valid point to make - as I pointed out above, the primary reason why the ULA emerged was as an electoral alliance between pre-existing left organisations. The reality is that up until 2011 nobody joined the PBPA (I have no idea how many have joined since but there is little evidence in my area despite several efforts to establish a base) and despite it existing for ten years it did not have any real public profile (the Socialist Party has had a much higher profile over the past 20 years).

Since 2011 election the ULA proved that it couldn't attract any new activists - in part because of the lack of working class opposition to austerity. Seamus Healy's WUAG left over Clare Daly's support for Wallace, the PBPA stopped engaging with the ULA (in part because Joan Collins left the PBPA) and nobody joined. The ULA ran its course.

There is relatively little crossover between the AAA and the PBPA - the AAA is concentrated in North, West and South West Dublin and part of the North Inner City, the Midlands, Carlow, the Mid-West, Galway and Cork. The PBPA is concentrated in South County Dublin, part of he North and South Inner city and DunLaoghaire and the South East. I suspect there will be some discussions to try and avoid direct competition in the election (there will probably be only a couple of areas where both will run).

There is a difference in approach as well - the PBPA appear to be focussing more and more on electoral politics (from what I can see at a distance) while the AAA is primarily an activist party focussed on assisting working class people in struggle and building in communities - the AAA regard electoral politics as an additional tactic to use in mobilising working class people. Both the AAA and the PBPA are likely to increase their Dail representation after the next election - I expect at this time the AAA would have 5-6 seats in the next Dail (and if water charges are still existing and the current momentum continues to develop it could be more) and the PBPA could get something similar.

You are quite a bitter person who doesn't really know what hey are talking about. I suspect a communist has filled your head with a lot of talk about everything being the fault of the middles classes and "bankers" and "bond holders".

Did they not mention how the greed of the trade unions and "social partnership" contributed to the situation? I'd say they left that bit out.

Jolly Red Giant

garhjw wrote: »

You are quite a bitter person who doesn't really know what hey are talking about. I suspect a communist has filled your head with a lot of talk about everything being the fault of the middles classes and "bankers" and "bond holders".

Your psychological profile of me is welcome - and I have been a Marxist and a political activist for more than 35 years.

Did they not mention how the greed of the trade unions and "social partnership" contributed to the situation? I'd say they left that bit out.

so-called 'social partnership' resulted in the fact that workers in this country had their wages capped for 20 years - and were the only section of society that had their incomes severely limited during this time - while profits went through the roof.

In 1987 53% of national income was accounted for by wages and 47% by profits. 20 years later the profits had jumped to 57% despite the fact that an extra 1 million workers in the workforce. Social partnership did contribute to the crisis by virtue of the fact that it allowed the unbridled growth of profits - workers who had their wages limited year on year have no responsibility for what happened.

hmmm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

so-called 'social partnership' resulted in the fact that workers in this country had their wages capped for 20 years

Interesting. Can you point me towards the evidence that salaries have not increased in this country for 20 years?

Jolly Red Giant

hmmm wrote: »

Interesting. Can you point me towards the evidence that salaries have not increased in this country for 20 years?

Read the 'national programmes' - wage increases were capped at 5% per year or less. At the same time the cost of living continued to rise, house prices went through the roof and the cost of services increased significantly.

garhjw

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Read the 'national programmes' - wage increases were capped at 5% per year or less. At the same time the cost of living continued to rise, house prices went through the roof and the cost of services increased significantly.

Do you think performance should have been linked to pay increases? Probably not.

Do you think that people who work harder than others should get paid more? Do you think that people who invest money in starting businesses, employing people and risking everything should be rewarded?

Live in the real world.

Jolly Red Giant

garhjw wrote: »

Do you think performance should have been linked to pay increases? Probably not.

Do you think that people who work harder than others should get paid more? Do you think that people who invest money in starting businesses, employing people and risking everything should be rewarded?

Live in the real world.

That worked so well over the last 20 years - didn't it.

All those bankers whose performance warranted massive bonuses - all those speculators who took all those risks and then when they lost on their bets foisted their gambling debts on working class people.

I do live in the real world and every day I experience the consequences.

alias no.9

Bambi wrote: »

Would you mind pointing out how increasing unemployment benefits caused our banking system to fail? Good chap.

The expansion in public spending was financed by taxes on transactions paid for with borrowed money. Illusory surpluses were being reported because the government of the day financed their profligate spending with revenue from stamp duty, VAT, VRT, income tax from the construction industry, etc... much of which was paid with borrowed money.
That is the reason why Ireland caught pneumonia on the first chill wind of credit contraction and why tax revenues were wiped out overnight. The bank bailout merely served to bring the years of indirect borrowing (taxes on transactions financed by debt) onto the government balance sheet. Everyone who got a tax cut, benefits increase, new public sector job, benchmarking payment, etc... did so on the back of credit fueled taxes. It may not have been a party but it cost a lot and continues to cost a lot, so much so we're borrowing billions more to continue to pay for inflated public spending than we ever did for the banks.

garhjw

You commies don't have a clue. I feel sorry for you.

PeadarCo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Read the 'national programmes' - wage increases were capped at 5% per year or less. At the same time the cost of living continued to rise, house prices went through the roof and the cost of services increased significantly.

5% per year is still fairly substantial. Higher wages also push up house prices as they raise the amount of money people can pay for a house. It should be noted at the beginning of the housing boom higher prices were driven by higher wages. From 2002 roughly( where most commentators I read have drawn the line, we also had an election that year) it was suicidal bank lending that became the main driver.

Its this type of attitude that created the mess. No one was prepared to stay stop. Banks got away with stupid lending as the taxes from the property boom enabled lower taxes, higher social welfare and public sector wages. Banks could then justify the lending on the basis of the fact that wages and house prices were increasing. Higher wages led to higher property prices which lead to more stupid bank lending which lead to higher wages and the cycle repeated.

This all stopped when the sub-prime market went bust in the USA and people started looking around at other countries. Which lead to people looking at the Irish economy and the its crazy over-reliance on the construction sector. It should be noted from 2002/3 Ireland became a net importer trade wise something a small open economy can only sustain for a relatively limited amount of time.

Anyone was living in Ireland benefited from the banks stupid policies whether it was through lower taxes, better government services, higher wages, higher social welfare(which includes more than the dole). To single out any sector of society and say they were hoodwinked etc is very insulting and degrading. People voted for the policies because no one thought about the consequences and people were benefiting between 2002-2007.

hatrickpatrick

garhjw wrote: »

You are quite a bitter person who doesn't really know what hey are talking about. I suspect a communist has filled your head with a lot of talk about everything being the fault of the middles classes and "bankers" and "bond holders".

Did they not mention how the greed of the trade unions and "social partnership" contributed to the situation? I'd say they left that bit out.

The difference is that ordinary people represented by trade unions etc have suffered the consequences of the bubble. Banks were bailed out and allowed to continue paying their top brass obscene amounts of money, people like Drumm fled the jurisdiction and no attempts seem to be being made to extradite him, those found guilty in the Anglo case got a slap on the wrist, the golden circle remain untouched, the government still uses government cars, etc etc etc.

There's a perception out there that ordinary people have been punished for their electing of FF, but the people who had their hands directly on the tiller have not been punished at all. There's also a perception that ordinary people's money bailed out the banks and essentially saved their asses, and in that context the banks could be a little less aggressive in making people homeless over debts. Etc etc etc.

It's not about macroeconomics per se, it's about people, negligence, incompetence, corruption, and the complete and total lack of consequences for those belonging to a certain clique within the political hierarchy.

garhjw

PeadarCo wrote: »

5% per year is still fairly substantial. Higher wages also push up house prices as they raise the amount of money people can pay for a house. It should be noted at the beginning of the housing boom higher prices were driven by higher wages. From 2002 roughly( where most commentators I read have drawn the line, we also had an election that year) it was suicidal bank lending that became the main driver.

Its this type of attitude that created the mess. No one was prepared to stay stop. Banks got away with stupid lending as the taxes from the property boom enabled lower taxes, higher social welfare and public sector wages. Banks could then justify the lending on the basis of the fact that wages and house prices were increasing. Higher wages led to higher property prices which lead to more stupid bank lending which lead to higher wages and the cycle repeated.

This all stopped when the sub-prime market went bust in the USA and people started looking around at other countries. Which lead to people looking at the Irish economy and the its crazy over-reliance on the construction sector. It should be noted from 2002/3 Ireland became a net importer trade wise something a small open economy can only sustain for a relatively limited amount of time.

Anyone was living in Ireland benefited from the banks stupid policies whether it was through lower taxes, better government services, higher wages, higher social welfare(which includes more than the dole). To single out any sector of society and say they were hoodwinked etc is very insulting and degrading. People voted for the policies because no one thought about the consequences and people were benefiting between 2002-2007.

Sorry but I have to stop you there. That reads like you are talking sense. The commies don't like people talking sense

Dan_Solo

Sounds like even the establishment fan club can see the writing on the wall. The fear is palpable and the aggression is a reflexive instinct. It might not be the SWP, but you'll be getting socialist policies soon enough lads. Sorry about that!

Jolly Red Giant

PeadarCo wrote: »

5% per year is still fairly substantial. Higher wages also push up house prices as they raise the amount of money people can pay for a house. It should be noted at the beginning of the housing boom higher prices were driven by higher wages. From 2002 roughly( where most commentators I read have drawn the line, we also had an election that year) it was suicidal bank lending that became the main driver.

house prices were not driven higher in the initial stages by wages - they were driven higher by massive tax breaks from the government to spivs and speculators - the government was providing property tax breaks to the tune of €4 billion a year and the avarice of the speculators assisted by FF and FG councillors led to a massive increase in property prices

To single out any sector of society and say they were hoodwinked etc is very insulting and degrading. People voted for the policies because no one thought about the consequences and people were benefiting between 2002-2007.

yea yea - the Kenny line - we all partied - did we f*ck - we all got screwed by the spivs and the speculators and their political lapdogs and we had absolutely no control over the royal f*ck-job they did on us.

Dan_Solo

garhjw wrote: »

Sorry but I have to stop you there. That reads like you are talking sense. The commies don't like people talking sense

Couldn't find the Thanks button?

garhjw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Couldn't find the Thanks button?

Couldn't find anything sensible to say?