Is it really uncool to support Fianna Fail

BolBill

Whether its ever "cool" to support a political party in this country is another argument, they are ALL gangsters, the lot of them.

FF, and more especially Ahern, are a joke. Haughey showed how to ruin a country and get rich doing so. Nobody in there right mind would vote for Ahern "A lot done, more to do", ah go and f**k off, a lot my arse unless you mean becoming richer that is Bertie. You think Ahern would have done some sort of course in public speaking by now instaed of eeeeeehhhhhhh.... aaaaahhhhh. ing his way through speeches, with his hand in his pocket and slouched over to one side. Also see his yellow suit ?

Hate him (you may have guessed)

leeroybrown

Regardless of whether it is 'uncool' to support Fianna Fáil or not I find it funny the number of people who can't accept that others might think less of them because they support/defend the party.

Victor

Cork wrote:

Well across the EU the socialist governments are not match Irelands growth or employment rates.

But isn't Bertie a socialist?

Cork

Victor wrote:

But isn't Bertie a socialist?

One of the finest.

Thats why they (SF) supported Public Private Partnerships in the health and education system when in government up North?

Compared to that lot - Bertie is the worlds greatest socialist.

Ireland is also now economically and politically(see Nothern Ireland and Good Friday Agreement!!!) better under Fianna Fáil, just accept it

This is the best Government this country has ever had.

Economically and Politically.

Hotblack Desiato

AngelofFire wrote:

I dont support FG, but at least when they were in gov with Labour 10 years ago, first time buyers on modest income could afford houses

I was a potential first time buyer then. Housing might have been half the price but so was my income (and it was taxed at 48%).

the A&E wasnt half as bad as it is now.

I think you mean the reporting of A&E wasn't half as bad as it is now. I don't think we've ever had a fantastic health service in this country.

3rd level grants supported the cost of living, tuition fees were abolished

Obviously you weren't a student then. Grants were a pittance and few sons or daughters of PAYE workers could qualify anyway. Abolishing fees was a tremendous mistake, an obvious ploy to buy upper middle class votes, instead there should have been grant reform.

rsynnott

ninja900 wrote:

I think you mean the reporting of A&E wasn't half as bad as it is now. I don't think we've ever had a fantastic health service in this country.

Since then, we've lost a handful of beds, and the population has gone up by 500,000 or so.

gandalf

ninja900 wrote:

I was a potential first time buyer then. Housing might have been half the price but so was my income (and it was taxed at 48%).

Actually in most cases housing was a third of price or even a quarter of the price now, most people on the average industrial wage could afford to get on the property ladder if they so desired. That is not the case today especially in Dublin!

I think you mean the reporting of A&E wasn't half as bad as it is now. I don't think we've ever had a fantastic health service in this country.

Again from first hand experience from my parents going into hospital over the past 10 years it has gotten dramitically worse. I take it from these comments you have not had first hand experience of the health service. How those gougers from FF can sit there and think they are managing the country while people suffer and die in A&E's, understaffed wards (and I have seen these first hand over the last 4 months because of my fathers serious illness) is beyond me.

AngelofFire

Abolishing fees was a tremendous mistake, an obvious ploy to buy upper middle class

As a third level student whos parents are P.A.Y.E workers i take offence to that.

Hotblack Desiato

gandalf wrote:

Actually in most cases housing was a third of price or even a quarter of the price now, most people on the average industrial wage could afford to get on the property ladder if they so desired.

In 1995 I was earning £130 a week. An apartment in city centre Dublin was "only" £40,000, but that was still unaffordable and mortgages were far harder to get then - and personal taxation was far higher then particularly for the lower paid. If housing really were less affordable now, then prices and demand would be falling, not rising.

Again from first hand experience from my parents going into hospital over the past 10 years it has gotten dramitically worse.

I'm not going to argue with your first-hand experience. But my comments were on the reporting of the health service. There was a dramatic increase in A&E stories in the media when Harney took over from Micheal Martin. The health service didn't dramatically disimprove overnight but suddenly it was taking up acres of newsprint. Martin got a free ride over the smoking ban, Harney is a hate figure for many in the media.

How those gougers from FF can sit there and think they are managing the country while people suffer and die in A&E's, understaffed wards (and I have seen these first hand over the last 4 months because of my fathers serious illness) is beyond me.

Local campaigners have a lot to answer for. They have derailed every attempt at reform for decades.

rsynott wrote:

Since then, we've lost a handful of beds, and the population has gone up by 500,000 or so.

The population has grown very rapidly and unfortunately health isn't the only area feeling the strain. I doubt any of the opposition parties would have done much better though.

AngelofFire wrote:

As a third level student whos parents are P.A.Y.E workers i take offence to that.

Why? The Rainbow had a choice - reform the means test for grants so it no longer favoured the self-employed, and increase the grant to a meaningful level - or leave the grant system alone and just blow the money on abolishing fees.

Abolishing fees was no help to those who qualified for a grant. It was very little help to those on moderate incomes just above the threshold for a grant who could not afford to subsidise their children going to college.

Those who benefited most were the well-off who send their whole families to third level. Not those going to schools like my old one, where 2 or 3 a year made it to third level.

Why do you think the working classes are so under-represented in third level? Abolishing fees hasn't helped, it was a huge opportunity missed for real reform. Unfortunately it's now political suicide to contemplate reintroducing fees for those who can afford to pay them.

Cork

ninja900 wrote:

Local campaigners have a lot to answer for. They have derailed every attempt at reform for decades.

Local campainers and consultants need to be taken on. The media hype up the down grading of country hospitals. The system needs urgent reform.

The reports have been done. There is now a need for reform together with vast impovements in areas like A + E.

I know areas (from personal experience) where small amounts of money will indeed make vast improvements.

The opposition seem to have no alternative fully costed health plans. We need to implement existing reports in this area.

Abolishing fees hasn't helped

It has not helped at all. Free 3rd level has not been as effective as free 2nd level.

But again, it anything is going to be done here - the media will launch another campaign.

Another area that needs reform is tax - people bemoan house prices and then when the government decided to tax property - this was also attacked.

AngelofFire

Abolishing fees was a tremendous mistake, an obvious ploy to buy upper middle class votes, instead there should have been grant reform.

You`ll find that a lot of students around the country including those from working class backgrounds are involved in student activism to maintain universal free education, many of the proponents of free fees argue that the rich should pay higher taxes to fund free education, this is hardly an attempt to subsidise the middle class or save them money.

Why do you think the working classes are so under-represented in third level? Abolishing fees hasn't helped, it was a huge opportunity missed for real reform. Unfortunately it's now political suicide to contemplate reintroducing fees for those who can afford to pay them.

Many proponents of free education are people who call on them government to improve access to 3rd level, the reason why the working class are so underrepresented at 3rd level is because of disadvantages that exist in the education system from primary school upwards and a stigma that 3rd level education is not for them (which exists because for years people had to pay high fees for 3rd level), secondly many proponents of free education are the ones calling on the government to improve access schemes, so that there is more of a socio economic balance in our universities.

I vote Fianna Fail. That's not to say I don't think the health system is in crisis, or that I am a great admirer of Bertie Ahern, or I am blind to the corruption that has taken place. But the country is, by and large, doing well. And until someone can demonstrate, preferably by pointing to examples from previous administrations, that the country would do appreciably better under an alternative government, I will continue to vote FF. There are serious issues that have to be tackled, but I just don't remember the place being a land of milk and honey when Labour and FG last had power, and I agree with that old line about not fixing things that are not broke.

Hotblack Desiato

AngelofFire wrote:

many of the proponents of free fees argue that the rich should pay higher taxes to fund free education, this is hardly an attempt to subsidise the middle class or save them money.

OK, so with one hand we take more tax off the rich, with the other hand we give it back to them in free fees? What's the point? I still don't understand why those who can well afford to pay fees should not have to do so.

disadvantages that exist in the education system from primary school upwards and a stigma that 3rd level education is not for them (which exists because for years people had to pay high fees for 3rd level)

I agree. But this does not address the point I was making. The Rainbow had the opportunity of spending a given sum on reforming the grants system and ensuring better equality of access to third level. Instead they spent this sum of money on a vote-getting scheme which primarily benefits the well off.

AngelofFire

OK, so with one hand we take more tax off the rich, with the other hand we give it back to them in free fees? What's the point? I still don't understand why those who can well afford to pay fees should not have to do so.

The tax we take off the rich, pays for free education and improves the grants and access programmes, the problem with making the rich pay for education in the form of fees, is that it doesn`t judge a student as independent of their parents until they turn 23 and does not take into account the willingness of the parents to pay fees. A good mate of mine in college fell out with his parents a long time ago, he gets no support from the whatsoever, he doesn`t get a grant because his eligibility is assessed on his parents income, he works during the summer to pay for his reg fee, im pretty sure if he had to pay tuition fees he wouldn`t even be in college.

agree. But this does not address the point I was making. The Rainbow had the opportunity of spending a given sum on reforming the grants system and ensuring better equality of access to third level. Instead they spent this sum of money on a vote-getting scheme which primarily benefits the well off.

The rainbow made unprecedented amounts of money available to help improve school buildings, they also initiated the break the cycle programme to tackle educational disadvantage.

ISAW

AngelofFire wrote:

You`ll find that a lot of students around the country including those from working class backgrounds are involved in student activism to maintain universal free education,

there are a number of fallicies in this reasoning.

First you might also find that many many more working class students who would not have to pay fees and would be on grants and did not benefit from middle class and richer students also not paying fees oppose the present system and favour the re introduction of fees for rich people.

Second, even if all students thought it was a good idea that does not mean it is a good idea. furthermore University students represent a small minority of Irish people.

many of the proponents of free fees argue that the rich should pay higher taxes to fund free education, this is hardly an attempt to subsidise the middle class or save them money.

Those who want fees suggest that it is those who actually get education who benefit the most from it. so they argue that the cost should be deducted at source from the user who gets the direct benefit. It is not unlike suggesting that the budget for road transport should have money not from increasing income tax and taxing those who cycle to work but by increasing the tax on fuel and taxing the user of the roads.

Many proponents of free education are people who call on them government to improve access to 3rd level, the reason why the working class are so underrepresented at 3rd level is because of disadvantages that exist in the education system from primary school upwards

But the argument is about whether third level fees should be introduced not whether second or primary level fees should nor whether there is a disparity between the level of funding for third level and the other levels. There may well be a disparity but that is a wholly different argument!

and a stigma that 3rd level education is not for them (which exists because for years people had to pay high fees for 3rd level),

this is just not true! Less well off people had the grant for fees and maintainance. they still have the maintainance! In the US ( and I do not advocate the system there 100 per cent but only to illustrate a point) everyone pays fees! sometimes it is paid by scholarships. Excellence is rewarded. The idea is no one who is not performing gets a free ride. The point is that in spite of the much greater disparity of rich and poor in the US the social stigma of those who perform in education does not seem to deter them from taking up grants and scholarships nor make them feel inferior.

secondly many proponents of free education are the ones calling on the government to improve access schemes, so that there is more of a socio economic balance in our universities.

So what? Those who want fees reintroduced want improved access as well.
Indeed with fees introduces we could double the budget at third level! The difference is that the "free" fees people (and nothing is free someone has to pay) want all the taxpayers to pay whether they use the thing or not. the "reintroduce fees" people want the rich people who actually use the system to pay for themselves and to pay for the poorer people as well instead of taxing everyone more including some poorer people who would be on maintainance and fees grants and would not have to pay.

ISAW

Original question was : why those who can well afford to pay fees should not have to do so.

AngelofFire wrote:

The tax we take off the rich, pays for free education and improves the grants and access programmes,

Tax is not just taken from the rich. It is taken from the middle and working classes. Under your proposal poorer people who dont even use the system would be paying extra tax! Under the fees system the rich would pay this directly into the education budget of each college instead of taking this from
everyone and giving it to the department of finance and seeing how much they allot!

the problem with making the rich pay for education in the form of fees, is that it doesn`t judge a student as independent of their parents until they turn 23 and does not take into account the willingness of the parents to pay fees.

If the parents wont pay then the student can go and get a job. If he is still living in the home then he is not independent is he? I think you would find many of them will pay. since the third level fees went they switched to paying 5000 to 10000 a year for second level schools. They can afford that!

A good mate of mine in college fell out with his parents a long time ago, he gets no support from the whatsoever, he doesn`t get a grant because his eligibility is assessed on his parents income, he works during the summer to pay for his reg fee, im pretty sure if he had to pay tuition fees he wouldn`t even be in college.

Family breakdown is a terrible and separate matter. If your friend moved out and got a job for a year and paid tax then he could claim for fees and maintainance. Why did he not do that and become independent if he thinks it is so bad at home where he "gets no support" according to you?

The rainbow made unprecedented amounts of money available to help improve school buildings, they also initiated the break the cycle programme to tackle educational disadvantage.

But the questioner asked about why the rainbow abolished fees as a sop to the middle class voters? He didnt ask about other different and separate initiaves at primary and second level did he? He asked that even if other things were being done elsewhere why did the rainbow in this independent third level sector decide to do something which primarily benefitted middle class voters?

The idea that "well we helped poor people elsewhere" is just as ludicrous as the idea that "well we are taxing other people elsewhere". Removing the fees helped the rich and putting tham back would tax the rich. But while you claim you want to tax everyone more you dont want to tax the rich in exactly the area that they benefit the most. why is that?

AngelofFire

Family breakdown is a terrible and separate matter. If your friend moved out and got a job for a year and paid tax then he could claim for fees and maintainance. Why did he not do that and become independent if he thinks it is so bad at home where he "gets no support" according to you?

I dont see how moving out and getting a job for a year would be better for people in his position, it would be a disincenvtive to go into third level, all your doing is suggesting an alternative system to free education, rather than one that is better.

since the third level fees went they switched to paying 5000 to 10000 a year for second level schools. They can afford that!

Thats a blatant generalisation, i went to a public primary and secondary school, so did a large percentage of people in university.

First you might also find that many many more working class students who would not have to pay fees and would be on grants and did not benefit from middle class and richer students also not paying fees oppose the present system and favour the re introduction of fees for rich people

There are many working class people whos parents earn just above the eligibilty threshold for grants, these people can hardly be expected to fork out 5000 per year.

Removing the fees helped the rich and putting tham back would tax the rich. But while you claim you want to tax everyone more you dont want to tax the rich in exactly the area that they benefit the most. why is that?

I never claimed that i wanted to tax everybody more, i said that people earning in excess of a certain amount should pay higher tax, im not going to get into any arguments about aritihmithic and at what rate that people should be taxed, thats for another day, i find it even more ironic that many people in favour of more well off students paying for university frees abhor the thought of rich people paying more tax.

So what? Those who want fees reintroduced want improved access

Ministers Dempsey and Hanafin, have floated the ideas of re-introducing fees, whilst at the same time have slashed funding for the student assistance fund (government funded scheme that helps less well of students), the payments that each student gets has actually decreased in the last two years. UCD students union (abviously anti fees) invested part of its budget in running access initiatives.

ISAW

AngelofFire wrote:

I dont see how moving out and getting a job for a year would be better for people in his position, it would be a disincenvtive to go into third level, all your doing is suggesting an alternative system to free education, rather than one that is better.

If there were fees and he was "independent" and had no money then he would be on a grant.

Thats a blatant generalisation, i went to a public primary and secondary school, so did a large percentage of people in university.

So? My point is large percentage can afford to pay high fees at second level which were not as high when third level fees were there.

There are many working class people whos parents earn just above the eligibilty threshold for grants, these people can hardly be expected to fork out 5000 per year.

so change the eligibility treshold or introduce a sliding scale or give points for dependants in the home. If they are "working class" and in a council house paying no rent and the family income is say 70,000 a year then they why shouldnt they pay fees?

I never claimed that i wanted to tax everybody more, i said that people earning in excess of a certain amount should pay higher tax, im not going to get into any arguments about aritihmithic and at what rate that people should be taxed, thats for another day, i find it even more ironic that many people in favour of more well off students paying for university frees abhor the thought of rich people paying more tax.

So you are saying that the rich should pay more income tax? But really you would only hit the middle classes with that. and all the votes Labour hoped to gain by dumping fees would fly away.why? because people who earn in excess of say 250,000 a year and dont actually have to go to a specific place of work or can telework can afford to buy a house elsewhere say they dont live here leaving the people who have to go to work to pay more tax. Those people living abroad could send their children here free of charge to them but a big whack will come from the state to pay for them! If they paid fees then one could charge the likes of these say 30000 to 50ooo for fees and they could not avoid it except by getting educated in another country.
If you refuse to cut back and want more money for education but wont bring in a direct payment then you have to raise the money! Now if you are not going to tax the mega rich you have to put it onto the middle and working class even those who will not use the system!

Ministers Dempsey and Hanafin, have floated the ideas of re-introducing fees, whilst at the same time have slashed funding for the student assistance fund (government funded scheme that helps less well of students), the payments that each student gets has actually decreased in the last two years. UCD students union (abviously anti fees) invested part of its budget in running access initiatives.

The overall budget for third level education has INCREASED over the last ten years much in advance of inflation. I mean astronomically more. Access in Particular has had major increases.

Just since last year you can look at the Current governm,ent book of estimates
Education 7 billion Euro. Have you any idea what thet was ten years ago?

even since last year ... b1 adult ed orgs up 3 per cent
b5 ... RandD up 19
b6 career development ... up 15
b25 special education council ... up 154
E.1 - STUDENT SUPPORT (b) …. up 3%
Student support grant allocations are being consolidated into subhead E.1. In 2005 this subhead will contain the allocations previously contained in the
following subheads: Higher Education Grants; Grants to Vocational Education Committees in Respect of Scholarship Students; Grants to Institutes of
Technology in Support of Students on the MLT/ HTBS programmes; Alleviation of Disadvantage (E.13 part) and Post Leaving Certificate Maintenance Grants
(D.6 part). The 2004 Estimates figure is amended in order to facilitate a year-on-year comparison.


E.4 - CURRENT GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES AND
COLLEGES AND DESIGNATED INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION (GRANT-IN-AID) …. 7%
E.5 - GRANT IN RESPECT OF THE RUNNING COSTS
OF THE INSTITUTES OF TECHNOLOGY AND ONE
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
COLLEGE (c) …. 9%
E.6 - TRAINING COLLEGES FOR PRIMARY TEACHERS
EXCLUDING THOSE FUNDED THROUGH THE
HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY …. 5%
E.7 - TRAINING COLLEGES FOR TEACHERS OF HOME
ECONOMICS ….5%
E.8 - DUBLIN DENTAL HOSPITAL - DENTAL EDUCATION
GRANT (GRANT-IN-AID) ….11%
E.9 - DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES
(GRANT-IN-AID) …. 7%
E.10 - GRANT IN RESPECT OF TUITION FEES TO
DESIGNATED NON-HIGHER EDUCATION
AUTHORITY THIRD-LEVEL INSTITUTIONS …. 4%

E.12 - GRANTS TO CERTAIN THIRD LEVEL
INSTITUTIONS …. 5%
E.14 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES …. 29%

That is only percentage increases over lasts years amount. Inflation figures out today might reach about 2.5 per cent!

source (july extimates form here): http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=-1&CatID=13&StartDate=1+January+2005

Know how much was spent in 1997 when they abolished fees?
all this above in spite of the fact that student numbers are declining
see section 5 in the following:
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/statistical_yearbook_ireland_2004.htm

You have picked out a single small decrease in the education budget which admittedly affects students but does nothing to support the idea that third level education has suffered massive cutbacks. Indeed the finance problem stems from the problem of paying public servants much more
oney - something Labour support - for the same job while getting rid of fees or keeping other expenses level. Cut backs result from needing more money to pay increased wages.

You have not shown how bringing back fees would in any way hurt the poor.

ISAW

AngelofFire wrote:

I never claimed that i wanted to tax everybody more, i said that people earning in excess of a certain amount should pay higher tax, im not going to get into any arguments about aritihmithic and at what rate that people should be taxed, thats for another day, i find it even more ironic that many people in favour of more well off students paying for university frees abhor the thought of rich people paying more tax.

Well this is central to the issue. You sound like a Sinn Feiner. YOu want more money spent on everything but when you are asked where it will come from you say "tax the rich" and supply no figures.

I dont abhor rich people paying more tax. I just see no need for endlessly complicated tax systems which keep beaurocrats in jobs. I think the user should pay. If the user cant pay then the richer users should pay for them as well. I would like the same applied to fuel. If you have a big car you pay more in fuel tax. I dont believe increasing income tax to cover fuel costs is the way to go. Do you not accept the pronciple of "polluter pays" or that there should be a tax on carbon?

AngelofFire

Well this is central to the issue. You sound like a Sinn Feiner. YOu want more money spent on everything but when you are asked where it will come from you say "tax the rich" and supply no figures.

I am NOT a supporter or member of Sinn Fein/IRA

The overall budget for third level education has INCREASED over the last ten years much in advance of inflation. I mean astronomically more. Access in Particular has had major increases.

In real terms it has not, in 2003 UCD cut back on library opening hours due to a lack of funding (which was eventually overturned due to student protests) The funding for the back to education allowence stood at 15 million before budget 2002, in that budget it was decimated as part of a series of cutbacks, total funding was 5 million in 2003 and the qualifying period for it was increased from 6 months to 18 months. In last years book of estimates the increase in spending for education was 6%, even UCD president Hugh Brady said that in real terms that it amounted to a cutback.

As for fees bringing now disadvantage to students from lower income backgrounds take a look at this report.

The report also suggests as an alternative to fees the introduction of a Graduate Contribution Scheme. This is explicitly modelled on the Australian Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS); one of the members of the report team was John Dawkins, the former Minister for Education who introduced the HECS in Australia. The damaging social effects of this measure must be pointed out.

Before Dawkins became education minister, Australia had a free fees scheme similar to the Irish one. This was replaced with the HECS. At first, students were expected to pay 20% of the average cost of their courses; these payments would be deferred until graduates were earning the average wage. Subsequently, a “differential” HECS was introduced. Courses were divided into 3 bands. In all 3 bands, the amount students were expected to pay increased dramatically, to an average of 40% of costs (including research costs not related to teaching). Over time, the government reduced the income threshold below which graduates would not have to begin repayments as far as it possibly could without hitting benefit recipients (this would have meant taking money from itself - obviously a nonsensical policy). Repayment is now triggered when a graduate earns a measly 77% of the average weekly wage.

This has discouraged participation by students from working-class backgrounds, who are more likely to be “debt averse” because of personal experience of debt. Those who do reach third-level are saddled with huge debts for many years after graduating. Australian economists and financial papers now refer routinely to the so-called “Generation HECS” of under-40s who have been unable to buy their own homes because of student debts (this in turn pushes rent levels upwards).

(For a more detailed account of the Australian experience, see: http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=161&results_offset=40)

We should learn from this experience. When free fees were abolished in Australia, the move was accompanied by firm promises that the amount paid by students would be modest, and all possible steps would be taken to ensure disadvantaged students were looked after. But once the floodgates were opened, charges on students rose and rose (between 1995 and 2001, HECS charges rose by 70%), while the disadvantaged were left to fend for themselves. The prospect of massive debts has discouraged many from ever attending college, while those who do find their course choices limited by financial barriers, and are saddled with repayments that lock them out of home ownership indefinitely. It is scarcely believable that the OECD should claim that the HECS “has been market tested successfully in Australia”.

ISAW

AngelofFire wrote:

I am NOT a supporter or member of Sinn Fein/IRA

I didnt say you were. I stated you sound like one of them on economic grounds. You seem like a "more money for all public employees/works/departments" but short on the where this money will come from. The economic wing of SF are of a similar mindset to Labour. I mean tell me where Labour differ from SF on economic grounds. Please exclude economics to do with soldiers the border etc. Tell me where they differ on how the national accounts should be run.

This is germane to the discussion since one can have all sort of marxist/socialist or other theories and not consider what one will do when one has to make decisions about education in the real world.

In real terms it has not, in 2003 UCD cut back on library opening hours due to a lack of funding (which was eventually overturned due to student protests)

In real terms it has. UCD PAID more money to library services than ever before. But most of the increase went into paying workers more money. If you want the libraries open 24 hours then why not allow students work in them? I will tell you why. It is because SIPTU wont allow it! They dont want cheap student labour working in their libraries. The increased costs are mainly for the full time staffers.

The funding for the back to education allowence stood at 15 million before budget 2002, in that budget it was decimated as part of a series of cutbacks, total funding was 5 million in 2003 and the qualifying period for it was increased from 6 months to 18 months.

the back to Education allowance is a social welfare payment and not part of the Education Budget! Next you will be saying we should have kept all the community employment schemes. But how can you do that and also claim postgrads should not work in libraries?

In last years book of estimates the increase in spending for education was 6%, even UCD president Hugh Brady said that in real terms that it amounted to a cutback.

I pointed this out before. The spending for third level is what we were discussing and not the spending at other levels! If you are claiming that Universities got six per cent and that inflation was more than this then you are wrong! Even if Hugh Brady says you are right (and I have yet to see what he said since you didnt produce a source) then you are still wrong!

As for fees bringing now disadvantage to students from lower income backgrounds take a look at this report.

Dont see a link here. But please dont refer to something and not quote directly from it to support a point you are making. I do not see what you are getting at. Are you claiming fees bring new disadvantage to students who will not have to pay them? How so?

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Dont see a link here. But please dont refer to something and not quote directly from it to support a point you are making. I do not see what you are getting at. Are you claiming fees bring new disadvantage to students who will not have to pay them? How so?

It was the way yuo posted the following:

We should learn from this experience. When free fees were abolished in Australia, the move was accompanied by firm promises that the amount paid by students would be modest, and all possible steps would be taken to ensure disadvantaged students were looked after. But once the floodgates were opened, charges on students rose and rose (between 1995 and 2001, HECS charges rose by 70%), while the disadvantaged were left to fend for themselves. The prospect of massive debts has discouraged many from ever attending college, while those who do find their course choices limited by financial barriers, and are saddled with repayments that lock them out of home ownership indefinitely. It is scarcely believable that the OECD should claim that the HECS “has been market tested successfully in Australia”.

first the fees were not free! Australia also introduces a loans schems. I did not suggest that. I suggested low income students not have to pay.

I must laugh at you saying that the rich dont want to pay more tax as if they were being selfish . Let me ask you this you are a student arent you? If fees came in would you have to pay them? as for me. I already did! I paid them before they were abolished and I paid them as a post grad after they were. I also paid them as a part time night time and distance education student. Now if you want to follow your principle and abolish all these fees how are you going to pay for it?

Time Magazine

segaBOY wrote:

Ah Fine Gael, a combination of the outlawed fascist Blueshirts (The National Guard) and Cumann na Gael, what a party, HEIL! HEIL!

Correction: Fine Gael was really formed from that side of the Civil War (we won, remember? ) who, like the irrefutably brilliant Michael Collins, sought to establish democratic governance peacefully as soon as possible, and use the Treaty as a stepping stone to our full freedom.

The immediate entity was Cumman na Gaedheal who established democracy; got the groundwork down for the economy which had been starved (sometimes, unfortunately, literally) for centuries; set up an unarmed well-respected police force that has not really changed since; got both the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminister which essentially gave us the ability to set up our own constitution and declare a Republic.

As it happens, it was Cumman na Gaedheal who forced de Valera and his pals to take their seats in the Dáil and to cement democracy - ultimately forcing themselves out of Government and to perenially sit in the electoral shadow of the party who refused to sit in the Dáil. You call Fine Gael "fascist" when our party was the group that sold its seat to secure democracy and Fianna Fáil's grandfathers were refusing to co-operate with the legitimate State that it now runs. Frankly, f*ck off.

The Blueshirts had, in their early days, extremely bad elements. I completely agree that the banning of Jews and their militant tendencies were deplorable. But they were not Fascist - they were a Church-loving group of anti-Communists. Which in fairness, is what de Valera and everyone else in Ireland was. By the time the reality of fascism reared its ugly head, they had the sense to shut up. Granted it's a partisan view, but Fine Gael rationalised and un-radicalised them.

Look simple as this, can anyone remember John Bruton forcing the IRA to end it's first ceasefire?

No, because that did not happen.

Can anyone remember Bertie Ahern negogiating a second Ceasefire within weeks of being brought into power?

So the only factor affecting the IRA's campaign is the government down South?! Nothing to do with developments up North or anything, no?

Ireland is also now economically ... better under Fianna Fáil, just accept it.

To be honest, as an economics student, the Ahern government had very little to do with the Celtic Tiger. Its foundations go back as long as the establishment of the ESB and the IDA. The Celtic Tiger was infinitely more a product of access to the E.U. market, the .com boom, the availablilty of mobile phones (seriously, think about it), and the good trade that we shared with Clintonian America.
Would you like to explain the exponential rise in poverty rates, and the greatest shift in income distribution upwards this State has ever seen?
The ridiculous overspending on everything?
How about Ireland being the first country ever to get a reprimand from Europe over the way we're handling our economy?

[Ireland is now] politically ... better under Fianna Fáil

E-voting?
Appointing yer ex to a position while she refuses to explain her abilities for the job?
Hiring yer mate for some PR and paying her more than the Taoiseach?
Attempting to forbid the taking and publication of opinion polls in the run-up to elections?
The Freedom of Information repeal, against the advice and wishes of the Commissioner?
The failure of anyone to resign over anything, ever?
The tribunals?
Flirting with Gerry McCabe's killers? What happened to that "happy day" of going down and informing his wife that they'd changed their mind?
The constant flirting with Sinn Féin that has caused a serious threat to our democracy and governmental institutions? Do you expect me to accept Martin Ferris as a Minister for Justice? Up until yesterday they didn't even accept our Dáil, but then again ye had your qualms with that too. You forget to mention that.

Jealous

He was in government??

anti-republican

I quote Arthur Griffith, founding member of Sinn Féin: "if my name goes down in history, I want it to be associated with Michael Collins".

LOSER!!!!!!-->

Point out the loser in this pic

Having a good time Enda?????????

Well seeing as Fine Gael have more seats in Europe than Fianna Fáil, are within 10 council seats of them, and ten of the last twelve opinion polls puts the Rainbow ahead of the government, I think he's having a ball.



I notice Fianna Fáil speak of better "economics" and "politics" but they never mention how our society is getting on. Strange that.

This post (partly because I had to leave half-way through for a little while) has taken me 45 minutes. On average, somebody has attempted to kill themselves in Ireland in this time. In 1997, 11% of health spending went on mental health. Today that figure stands at 6.9%, a drop of nearly 40%.

Please do not tell me that Fianna Fáil have done well with that they have been given.

Calina

Angry Banana wrote:

This post (partly because I had to leave half-way through for a little while) has taken me 45 minutes. On average, somebody has attempted to kill themselves in Ireland in this time. In 1997, 11% of health spending went on mental health. Today that figure stands at 6.9%, a drop of nearly 40%.

Please do not tell me that Fianna Fáil have done well with that they have been given.

Please provide the sums of money rather than the budget percentages as in real terms, they are meaningless without knowing the actual figures beyind them.

Angry Banana

Angry Banana wrote:

the irrefutably brilliant Michael Collins

Hmmmm. Dunno about 'irrefutably', I mean evidently as the country found out very painfully, the guy couldn't use a telephone or telegram to run the old Treaty past the lads back home.

Although in fairness he very quickly got the hang of how to use British guns and ammo to kill those who had fought by his side against a common enemy just a few short years before.

I will refrain from going into his bisexuality. It's a cheap shot.

Whatever about 'brilliant', he was perhaps 'lucky' in the sense that his epitaph was not sullied by the decision of his brand new comrades to execute 77 political prisoners in cold blood and mimic the actions of the British in 1916. Then again, to paraphrase Animal Farm, I guess when dealing with the Free State during the Civil War and th British Army in 1916, one could have looked from man to beast and beast to man and realised how alike they all were...

...can open, worms everywhere...

ISAW

Calina wrote:

Please provide the sums of money rather than the budget percentages as in real terms, they are meaningless without knowing the actual figures beyind them.

Original claim was:

In 1997, 11% of health spending went on mental health. Today that figure stands at 6.9%, a drop of nearly 40%.

Not alone that but this type of argument is the anthesis of what one hears from Student Organisations. they want more money for third level but wont say what they want to cut. I explain that if you want a bigger slice of pie then you have to make other peoples slilces smaller. Even if true all that is being claimd is that mental health got a smaller piece of pie in the health budget. Now this is a vacuous argument. I mean if it is true what slice got more? Hearth operations, public health? Is the poster going to suggest that is wrong?
the type of economic thinking here is the "hands off no drastic changes no bravery. Let the civil servants deal with the 95 per cent of the budget they have and the minister can toy about with five percent tweaking a half of a per cent here and there. It is an ecomonics without courage or vision. Furthermore I suspect most of any money (and there were VAST PILES of it went into health) went into the creation of more civil servant office types and not into doctors and nurses. But I doubt the main opposition parties would announce any courageous stroke to cut the paper pushers. I doubt the Government will either though harneys crowd are more likely to than any other party. After that I would have thought FG would follow those sort of brave strokes but I am surprised to see reticence for brave strokes from a FGer. there have been a few in FF as well who were risk takers. the problem in politics in ireland is that you usually can only make one mistake. After that you profile plummets.

Time Magazine

I only have 2 minutes, but:

Yes, Fine Gael do want the ridiculous overspending on in the public sector. I can't guarantee this as I do not have a list at hand, but I strongly suspect this includes the ridiculous methods of administration within the health system.

I'm aware percentages are fairly useless on their own, and I can get figures, but I do not have them at hand. The point was that suicide rates, and attempted suicide rates, and depression/anomie at large have risen significantly and that relatively, the health system is paying less. And yes, I know it's relative, but the figures will back up my point.

And Conor74, you're dead when I have time to rip up that post .

Calina

Angry Banana wrote:

I'm aware percentages are fairly useless on their own, and I can get figures, but I do not have them at hand. The point was that suicide rates, and attempted suicide rates, and depression/anomie at large have risen significantly and that relatively, the health system is paying less. And yes, I know it's relative, but the figures will back up my point.

Then provide the figures. Without the cold hard cash figures, the relative percentages are meaningless. Would you prefer 6.9% of a much bigger pie, or 11% of a much smaller pie? The whole issue and problem with health services is that what they encompass is growing on an ongoing basis. More heart surgery. More cancer services. More paediatric services.

Declaration of interest: my brother committed suicide when he was 19 years old. I'm not completely unaware of what it involves.

ISAW

Angry Banana wrote:

The point was that suicide rates, and attempted suicide rates, and depression/anomie at large have risen significantly and that relatively, the health system is paying less.

You seem to contradict the general thrust of your arguemt here. On one hand above you are claiming that suicide is increasing directly because FF are in government. You are also claiming that you accept the huge admin costs of Health that the PD's want to cut. Even FF who have had nearly half the votes would not claim to have such control. They in turn are as they see it only a social partner with business workers and other social and cultural interests.

But earlier you claimed FG were an amalgamation of various interests. Now how can you claim that FF can have such power (even when in coalation with the PD's ) as to change the suicide rate of a country and then claim that as an alternative a multi faceted party with at best less than a third of the vote is going to effect change?
Also earlier you stated:

To be honest, as an economics student, the Ahern government had very little to do with the Celtic Tiger. Its foundations go back as long as the establishment of the ESB and the IDA. The Celtic Tiger was infinitely more a product of access to the E.U. market, the .com boom, the availablilty of mobile phones (seriously, think about it), and the good trade that we shared with Clintonian America.

Now abovew you claim FF are not responsible for anything at all. it is the good work done by FG and the yanks, the EU the ESB? ( founded by a precursor of FG in the twenties I believe - and I wont knock that the shannon scheme was a great thing the Free State government did but it was 80 years ago- but you fail to inculde rural electrification or other things under Lemass who probably did more development than anyone else, but then again he was FF wasnt he?)
Anyway you cant have it both ways. You cant claim that FF are not responsible for economic growth and it was all FG and others before them and also claim that FF have total responsibility for suicide!

By the way you also stated:

How about Ireland being the first country ever to get a reprimand from Europe over the way we're handling our economy?

I forgot to mention that it appears that Charlie Mc Creevy was right on that (even if FF didnt want him as Finance minister) and the EU was wrong!

Surely anomie is because people got more materialistic as they got richer? they wanted to have things rather than be people. Whatever the reason you cant seriously blame FF for it can you? there are a whole host of variables. Half of the population of a massively expanding Dublin being under 30 for example? and how do you know that suicide was lower in 1928 under a Free State government? If so you are suggesting people turn to FF rather than say the church for moral guidance, that is something no party claims!

Wheely

Deleted User wrote:

I mean evidently as the country found out very painfully, the guy couldn't use a telephone or telegram to run the old Treaty past the lads back home.

I dont think thats what was painful for them seeing as how the country votd overwhelmingly in favour of that treaty! I think the painful part happened when "the lads back home" decided not to stand by the democratic wishes as expressed by the country they claimed to represent and started a civil war!

Deleted User wrote:

Although in fairness he very quickly got the hang of how to use British guns and ammo to kill those who had fought by his side against a common enemy just a few short years before.

Well as i just said, he was dealing with a bunch of "lads who decided not to stand by the democratic wishes as expressed by the country they claimed to represent and started a civil war!

Deleted User wrote:

I will refrain from going into his bisexuality. It's a cheap shot.

No, not a cheap shot. Just a completely irrelevant one. On the other hand if you dont think its irrelevant and are trying to inject some form of legitimacy into it as regards its place in this argument then its a biggoted, small-minded, nazi, facist, and so on, "shot". By the way werent the guys that you're sympathetic towards attempting to carry on the wishes of Padraic Pearse?

Deleted User wrote:

Whatever about 'brilliant', he was perhaps 'lucky' in the sense that his epitaph was not sullied by the decision of his brand new comrades to execute 77 political prisoners in cold blood and mimic the actions of the British in 1916. Then again, to paraphrase Animal Farm, I guess when dealing with the Free State during the Civil War and th British Army in 1916, one could have looked from man to beast and beast to man and realised how alike they all were....

While I have to slow down a little bit here in my opposition of your argument, in that I dont agree with the death penalty in any shape or form and I agree that the methods pursued by the Free State govt were harsh and maybe axcessive, they have to be put in context. They were fighting against an illegal, undemocratic, terrorist orginisation in the midsts of a Civil War so bitter that it turnde brother on brother and tore failys apart. And in retrospect, their tactics worked. Whatever you want to say about the Free State and their tactics they brought an end to the Irish Civil War, and the stood by, consistently, the priciples of democracy that De Valera and his cronies claimed to hold dear. Maybe there was another way to do it but nonetheless what they did worked. And the Free State did transform Ireland into the Republic it is today, and it ended British Rule completely and without further resort to armed struggle

...can open, worms everywhere...[/QUOTE]