Local Elections

arcadegame2004

How will you vote in the upcoming Local Government Elections?

I feel that it would be unhealthy to continue the 75-year tenure of FF-majority councils. Most of the corruption in this country goes on in the town/county hall in respect of planning-decisions, if what we have heard from the Flood/Mahon Tribunals is anything to go by.

I will probably vote for the PDs or Independents but definitely not for Labour, SF or the Greens. I object to Left-wing parties because I feel that they are wasteful of taxpayers' money. I feel that taxpayers' money at local-level should be used more efficiently, especially via the outsourcing of traditional local-government services such as bin-collection to the private-sector, and the Left-wing parties oppose this.

What do you think?

MrPudding

Arcade, you must be gutted that there is no BNP type party to vote for. I mean, out of that bunch who is going to keep Ireland for thr Irish?


r

arcadegame2004

MrPudding, your post is the latest example of the "No" side in the Citizenship referendum tarring all the "Yes" supporters (55% in the Red C poll in today's Sunday Independent) with the "racist" tag. Racism is not my grounds for supporting this amendment. If I were, then I would be opposing legal-migration via work-permits, which has allowed 150,000 migrant workers to come here legally - instead of living off the State. I do not believe in the superiority of a race above another or others. However, people like you are not going to be convinced because you substitute namecalling for rational argument and I guess I'm just going to have to realise that. I doubt the moderate majority share your outlook.

garthv

i dont know who im goin to vote for,
tbh i havent heard what any of the other party's plans are(well except for FG and their lower insurance "promise" )so i dont even know if ill bother voting.....

Villain

Local elections are very different to the General elections in that I vote for the local councillor who I know will get things done around my area.

Anyone that knows me on this board will know I'm a SF supporter and I will be giving them a vote, but my preference in my local area will be for the councillors I know will actually get off their ass and try to get and things done.

It doesn't really bother me if their FF or FG as long as the local area they represent gains from their election.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I object to Left-wing parties because I feel that they are wasteful of taxpayers' money.

Would you care to enlighten us with an example or two?

Cork

Originally posted by arcadegame2004


I feel that it would be unhealthy to continue the 75-year tenure of FF-majority councils.

What areas have had FF-majority councils for 75 years?

I think local elections will be decided on local issues. The live register is at an 18 month low and government finances are strong - but we will still see an anti government vote.

It is not unusual for this to happen in local elections.

chewy

i dunno if ill vote at all... ach i probably will

its there any logic in voting for the smaller parties/independents who ever they may be just to level the playing field...?

ill admit that the racist tag is thrown around a bit too much...

but i reckon arcade is pretty close to the line

if it not race that drives him his deciding on thing purely on money and tax terms makes me pity hiim as if that the only thing to consider in government and life

AngelofFire

Labour and Green party for me.

I am opposed to bin charges and the posiblility of water charges at it is just a way of transferring much of the cost of services from the rich to the poor. Under the standard taxation system. the more income one has the larger portion of that income they pay as tax which is the fairest way. Under the bin charge system everyone with the exception of those who qualify for waivers pays the same amount. this means that the highest earners are only paying 0.2% of their income whilst the average earners are paying 2% of their income. its hardly a fair system is it. Its clear that the governments reason for bringing in the refuse tax are not environmental, they are not even economic but political. Refuse charges, college fees, price hikes from dublin bus, Increase VHI premiums, water charges etc are a back door routes into mass privatisation of all our public services.

The governments policy of "low taxation" is not really in effect low taxation. These stealth taxes are worth 3-5 more percentage points to the standard taxation system.

Valentia

I feel that they are wasteful of taxpayers' money

Interesting observation. So spending money on the poor, disabled, on education for socially excluded and on the health service would be "wasteful".

Better spend in on redundant voting machines, horse boxes in Punchestown and fly overs at the Red Cow.

Jazus how could it be possible to have a meaningful discussion when someone is so blinkered and ill informed.

Valentia

with the exception of those who qualify for waivers

There are no waivers available here in Meath. Amazing but true.

Better not let the pinko lefties in here or thr poor unfortunates might just get some relief.

Wouldn't that just throw McCreevys plans into turmoil

AngelofFire

Originally posted by Valentia
Interesting observation. So spending money on the poor, disabled, on education for socially excluded and on the health service would be "wasteful".

Better spend in on redundant voting machines, horse boxes in Punchestown and fly overs at the Red Cow.

Jazus how could it be possible to have a meaningful discussion when someone is so blinkered and ill informed.

couldnt agree with you more. people have just become too comfortable these days as a result of the celtic tiger. they now think that progressive economic policies that ultimatley serve the interests of private companies are more important than policies that provide for the people.

arcadegame2004

What I mean by the Left-Wing parties being wasteful of taxpayers' money is their deeply-engrained opposition to privatisation and their preference for "Big-Government", whererby the State intervenes too much and throws money at every problem or more than needs to be thrown at it.

For example, their opposition to the privatisation of refuse-services in Dublin. I think that the taxpayers' interests are better served when the contract for this service is put up for tender. Under EU-rules, when this happens, the bidders offering to provide the service for the lowest price is supposed to get the contract, irrespective of what country their company originates from. I think this ensures better value for the taxpayer than a local-government or national monopoly with no competition and as such no incentive to become more efficient with their expenditure.

arcadegame2004

"couldnt agree with you more. people have just become too comfortable these days as a result of the celtic tiger. they now think that progressive economic policies that ultimatley serve the interests of private companies are more important than policies that provide for the people." (Angelofire)

I strongly dispute the claim that there is always a contradiction between the interest of a private-sector company and those of the consumer. The fall in call-charges after Eircom was privatised, and in air-fares after Ryanair was allowed to compete with Aer Lingus show that it can actually result in a more efficent service for the consumer. And at local level I feel that the privatisation of some local-services can also result in a cheaper service in terms of the amounts of taxpayers' money being expended on those services.

arcadegame2004

Valentia, I don't accept the implication of your statement that somehow the Left have a monopoly on concern for those groups. I too am very concerned for those groups.

AngelofFire

The efficency of a public service depends on how well its run by the government. this government isnt famous for running are public services. well that doesn`t mean a private company should take it over- thats just a lazy form of governing. Having public services means that the government is obliged to provide health, education and a decent transport system to everyone. A private company will reduce the service as much as possible so as to maximise their profits.

The EU rules you are referring to arcardegame2004 are called the lisbon agenda. something this government is keen on pushing as they want their friends in the multinational corporations to make a profit out of essential public service. The lisbon agenda was planned by the CRT who are made up of major international corporation such as FIAT, Carlsberg and Vodafone. What gives them the right to orchestrate european economic policy. we elect leaders not multinational corporations.

arcadegame2004

"A private company will reduce the service as much as possible so as to maximise their profits." (Angelofire)

Alternatively, they may maintain profits by slashing waste.

Valentia

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Valentia, I don't accept the implication of your statement that somehow the Left have a monopoly on concern for those groups. I too am very concerned for those groups.

What in the name of jazus are you talking about?

Do you read your posts before pressing "Reply"


How could anyone that read my post draw that conclusion?

And your post about privatisation is so full of wool and jargon it is practically meaningless.

Have you any idea of the real effect of Eircom's privitasation? It has been a complete disaster for the consumer from an infrastructural and value for money point of view. We have gone from having one of the best telecom systems in the world to one of the worst in a few short years. A chosen few have ran off with the millions, the millions that will never be invested in this country.

Look at the trains and water companies in Britain for examples of hoe "effective" your philosophy is.

I would suggest that you read "The Greatest Democracy Money can Buy" by Greg Pallast. It will give you a small taste of what the real world is like.

Oh and do a little more research. I think you will find that there actually is no right side or wrong side in this arguement, economically that is. Just people that think money is more important than people and those that don't. I'm one of the latter!

sceptre

And another thread is hijacked for use as a soapbox. I'd recommend brains on before posting.

The two extreme views that tend to exist with regard to public service provision are both wrong. A dogma that all public services should be provided by the State is as dumb as a dogma that all public services should be provided by private concerns. Let's look at the classic recent case in Ireland: that of Eircom. Before privatisation the company was a monolithic entity with a substantial monopoly, overstaffed, inefficient and without an ethos of providing a satisfactory service to citizens/customers. After privatisation the situation is exactly the same but with the added bonus that the company has undergone a period of asset-stripping and -sweating as well. Looking at the UK and the companies that were privatised at all costs in the monetarist eighties, some companies are better, most are worse and on the whole they've neither gained nor lost, though the cost of services from any of these companies is on the whole rather higher. I can provide links if required but I doubt anyone will disagree with the above obviously true assessment so I'll only do it if required.

I'm sick and tired of people making sweeping statements on this board and presenting them as fact without the copon to back up any statements presented as fact with actual facts. There's nothing in the charter against stupidity, which is rather a good thing in some ways as everyone gets their spake in if they like but is rather a bad thing in other ways as some of us have to wade through waste of space "but they might" posts[1].

Moving back to the topic at hand, examples can be found of public services that, when privatised, benefitted the State as bookkeeper, the citizens of that State and resulted in a more efficient service for those citizens. Conversely, examples can be found of public services that once privatised, cost the State an arm and a leg, screwed the citizens of that State financially and resulted in a service that could be described only as a laughing-stock. We've had limited privatisation here but these examples can still be found here on a limited basis, as well as a long list of examples internationally on both sides of the semantic argument, as without actual examples, that's what the argument is. Even with real examples, the argument might be esoteric but I'd rather have that discussion than a rattle-throwing session.

I'm not a member of any left-wing party, or indeed any party, so I don't know for a fact that Irish left-wing parties all have a deep-grained opposition to all privatisation of any kind. Obviously, neither do I know for a fact that they all haven'ta deep-grained opposition to all privatisation. Hence I'm not going to base an argument on the assumption of one or the other. Prospective posters would be well-advised to do likewise should they with to remain in a position where they might be taken half-seriously. It's your dime, spend it wisely.

Moving on to the actual purpose of a government, their ultimate duty has to be seen to be a duty of care towards the people they govern. It's not an absolute duty of care but neither is it an extreme libertarian lack of duty of care. Any good government should govern with a touch of utilitarianism, providing care and services to all who have paid for it, all who need it and perhaps a special consideration for those who really need it. This is a view that mightn't suit those who misinterpret Darwin's works and mistake what he actually meant by survival of the fittestbut people who still believe in a monetarist philosophy despite education that should indicate to them that they should know better deserve special consideration too.

And as for where the thread ostensibly started, I haven't made up my mind what to do with my vote in the local elections yet. Living in the middle of a city as I do, there's a touch of anonymity between local representatives and their constituents in the same way that there's always a touch of anonymity between residents and their neighbours, moreso than in suburban or country areas. I'm sure they're available if needed but the government of central Limerick obviously has quite a bit of input from those in less central wards and consequently it's a little more difficult to decide who's actually good and who's not in the absence of actual personal contact with a particular representative. I've known a few representatives from other wards for quite some time as I was in college with a few of the more able ones but none of them are in my ward so I've not decided.

edit: As Velentia said in the last line of his post above, there isn't an economics answer that can prove that privatisation is inherently better or that state-funded is inherently better. It depends on the particular case involved and the requirements from a particular service with regard to the potential changes wrought as a result of privatisation. Vagueness on such a topic with an attached assertion is a waste of good electrons.

[1]"But They Might" posts are fine as a means to demonstrate that an answer can't be verified one way or the other. It doesn't demonstrate the opposite position to the original post to be any more correct however and no sane person would actually change an economic or fiscal policy on the basis of a "but they might" view, though the current Irish government has done it a few times

Valentia

Well I went for election to the local Town Council last time out and got elected. I have been involved in community work for years and particularly with the local arts groups trying to get a theatre/arts centre.

I was asked by our local Fianna Fail minister to run for Fianna Fail. My conscience wouldn't let me even though I knew that with their power base here it would be the best route to go to progress the project.

Labour asked me and because I like what they stand for I accepted. We don't have our theatre but we have €500,000 committed to the project and the promise of a site from the County Council. It's interesting to read the Fianna Fail local election literature. You would sware that they have done all the work and that they have been behind this project from the start. But hey, that's politics and we are getting our theatre so we'll live with the crap.

I won't bore you all with all the reasons why a theatre is now on the agenda, but pressure from the people, the tourism sector (tourism has grown ten fold in four years), and the appointment of a new County Manager who is not a philistine have been contributary factors.

The last five years have been facinating for someone like me who was described by a lecturer in college as apolitical.

The political games, the way central government starves local authorities of cash so that it can dictate policy and the brutish lust for power on every board (VEC, Health Board etc) is stomach churning. We asked the Dept. of Environment for a loan of €5m to resurface the roads and footpaths. They wouldn't give it unless we brought in paid parking. So much for autonomy.

Anyway I could go on. One thing I will say though, and I believe this intensely, is that if Fianna Fail didn't have strong opposition on local councils I fear for what they would do.

Needless to say my canvas( no pun intended) has grown well beyond the theatre issue. If anyone saw the Primetime programme on the building of a hotel near Trim Castle they wouldn't know, because for some reason they didn't mention it, that I was the only person in the town to pay my €20 and object.

Now with the local elections coming up the anti hotel bandwagon is filling with outgoing and prospective councillors.

Politics is mighty crack!!

P.S. I would urge people to inform themselves and vote. I does make a difference. Not voting helps maintain the status quo. I suppose if that's what you want, fair enough.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

Alternatively, they may maintain profits by slashing waste.

To be honest i would rather have my income tax pay for the public service than see a private company get rich out of the waste i dispose. Im not apposed to all privatisation. it wasnt a bad idea to break up telecom. i just think essential services such as waste disposal, transport, electricity, water works, education and health care should remain in the hands of the state. that means everyone can get access. for example a private company operating our bus service would not give concessions to schoolchildren and the elderly.

arcadegame2004

State-owned monopolies, including in the electricity sector, are generally a bad idea. I If I am dissatisfied with how much the ESB is charging me, then I want to be able to choose a different supplier. The Left would deny me that right, thereby imposing higher prices on me. I don't see how that helps anyone, especially the poorer members of our society Labour always claim to champion.

On the health-care issue I say that the lack of return for the 50% increase in investment in the Health-Service (as shown by Niamh Brennan's report) is testament to the tendency of State-owned companies to waste money.

AngelofFire

I would have no problem semi- privatising electricity so that people may turn to other companies for a wider choice. But i do think that the esb should still exist so as to provide electricity for non profitable areas.

Valentia

You may find this strange but I haven't met one person on the canvas who brought up privatisation

Is this thread about Local Elections?

arcadegame2004

Well Valentia, a lot of voters don't necessarily reveal their true feelings on certain issues to a candidate knocking on their doors, and prefer to just hear what he/she has to say, and tell him/her what they want them to say just so they'll go away, imho!:p

bonkey

Originally posted by Valentia
Is this thread about Local Elections?

Well, the topic says it is, but other than that.....


jc

Valentia

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Valentia, a lot of voters don't necessarily reveal their true feelings on certain issues to a candidate knocking on their doors, and prefer to just hear what he/she has to say, and tell him/her what they want them to say just so they'll go away, imho!:p

Really? Jeez I must remember that. Can't wait to go out this evening armoured with this incisive observation.

Thanks arcade. Any other tips you can pass on

Villain

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Valentia, a lot of voters don't necessarily reveal their true feelings on certain issues to a candidate knocking on their doors, and prefer to just hear what he/she has to say, and tell him/her what they want them to say just so they'll go away, imho!:p

LOL so true, my ma used to tell anyone who came to the door looking for a vote she would vote from them just to get some peace, but now she just stops them before they start to rant and says she will be on holidays when the voting is taken place.

Any politican that believes what they hear on a doorstep needs to open his eyes and ears a little more.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
State-owned monopolies, including in the electricity sector, are generally a bad idea. I If I am dissatisfied with how much the ESB is charging me, then I want to be able to choose a different supplier.

Just shows you how much you know about the industry - prices are going *up* to facilitate competition. How does that suit the consumer? "Wahoo! I can get a bigger bill, bit it will be on different paper."

ixoy

Originally posted by Victor
Just shows you how much you know about the industry - prices are going *up* to facilitate competition. How does that suit the consumer? "Wahoo! I can get a bigger bill, bit it will be on different paper."

Ah but if we had competition in the electricity market, we wouldn't have to worry so much about workers demaning 20% company stakes and 25-30% insanely high wage increases, as we do now.

Stark

I'll probably vote Greens first preference with some hesitation. Although I like that they're against the tide of putting poison into food in the name of profit, I'd be a bit worried that they wouldn't have sufficient expertise to make decisions on healthy food. For example they seem to adopt the "GM is bad m'okay" attitude (not all GM is bad, without GM diabetics would still be injecting themselves with pig insulin you hemp-wearing eejits). They adopt the stance that vegeterian food is best, but I don't agree with this, not for everyone anyway. I like having a focus on providing unrefined foods though.

Likewise I like that Labour acknowledges the problem with alcohol, but will they try to solve the problem through even more regulation (not in favour of this) or through actually encouraging alternatives to going on the piss? Maybe even force pub owners to reduce the prices on soft drinks/bottled water.

Villain

Originally posted by Stark
Maybe even force pub owners to reduce the prices on soft drinks/bottled water.

LOL I think you are living in dream land if you think that will happen.

2 Chances Bob Hope and No Hope

Theres only one way to address the alcohol situation, that is more Gardai on the streets late at night and loads of arrests for Public order offences, and of course a lot of people voted for FF and the PD's because they promised 2000 more gardai but where are they?? pack of lying twats. Take everything that is promised at election time with a pinch of salt.

AngelofFire

I agree with irish1.Gardai patrolling the streets at closing times is the best way to prevent fights from breaking out.

Reducing the closing hours and banning happy hour does nothin to curb alcohol related violence. the pub around the corner from me used to have great entertainment on a thursday nite until the intoxicating liqour act was brought in. Its just an attack on peoples liberties.

Victor

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Gardai patrolling the streets at closing times is the best way to prevent fights from breaking out.

How about people taking responsibility for their actions and drinking?

How about making clubs serve food again?

Villain

Originally posted by Victor
How about people taking responsibility for their actions and drinking?

We'r talking about Ireland here:D

Mighty_Mouse

I'm a SF supporter and I will be giving them a vote, but my preference in my local area will be for the councillors I know will actually get off their ass and try to get and things done...................FF , FG ........doesnt matter

can I just say :eek:

Villain

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
can I just say :eek:

LOL, theres no Sinn Fein counillors in my area, didn't really want to say that but thats the truth, but they will be getting my NO1 in Europe.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
State-owned monopolies, including in the electricity sector, are generally a bad idea. I If I am dissatisfied with how much the ESB is charging me, then I want to be able to choose a different supplier. The Left would deny me that right, thereby imposing higher prices on me. I don't see how that helps anyone, especially the poorer members of our society Labour always claim to champion.

On the health-care issue I say that the lack of return for the 50% increase in investment in the Health-Service (as shown by Niamh Brennan's report) is testament to the tendency of State-owned companies to waste money.

I agree increasing investment in the health service often means bringing in another layer of management or setting up a commitee of enquiry to give people cushy jobs the service itself is often neglected. this is due to corruption within the authorities but its not sufficent cause for privatisation as it is physically possible for state agencies to run efficently. for example in norway the state owned company statoil has huge profits. the money made has cleared norway`s national debt and has helped to develop preipheral regions in the north of the country.

Whilst the state acknowledges that people should have the right to choose what services they wanna use, the right to choose should be balanced with the need to provide efficent public service to everybody. For example privatisation of transport in the uk was a disaster. fares doubled in the space of 4 years.

Back to election issues. mary harney said that she`d walk away from government if the transport minister refused to privatise dublin bus. Harney loves serving the interests of big business even the interests that contradict those of the consumer. As i said before a private company would refuse to grant concessions to school children the elderly and the handicapped. Big business will refuse to operate non profitable routes and will cut jobs in order to maximise their profit. it would lead to a national transportation disaster.

arcadegame2004

AngelofFire I think that the railways are probably the only example of an area of business best left under state-control, simply because it is hard to see how effective competition can be brought about in this area. The privatisation of the railways in the UK was a mistake, especially with onver 200 regulatory bodies being responsible for enforcing safety standards, leading to many of them passing the buck to another body.

However, I take issue with your apparent opinion that privatisation is always bad for the transport sector. Look at Ryanair. It has forced Aer Lingus, through price-competition, to lower their prices.

"As i said before a private company would refuse to grant concessions to school children the elderly and the handicapped. Big business will refuse to operate non profitable routes and will cut jobs in order to maximise their profit. it would lead to a national transportation disaster." (AngelofFire)

I disagree. A bus-regulator could lay down certain minimum standards such as providing the concessions you refer to in relation to the handicapped, the elderly and school-children. I recall the chaos of previous Bus Eireann strikes in this country. I don't think it is healthy to allow the trade-unions to determine that I cannot travel by bus to a particular destination. I want the power to choose what bus-company I use to get to a particular destination. Competition can clearly be implemented effectively in the bus-industry. I don't think it is right that Dublin Bus has a monopoly on bus-services in Dublin. Monopolies always charge higher prices than the private-sector because they have no incentive to do otherwise. They are used to being bailed out of their financial problems by taxpayers' money and that encourages wasteful expenditure of money by them. A privatised bus-industry with full competition could only make profits by charging lower prices than their competitors and improving their quality of service. In a democracy we should have choice. I am particularly concerned here with breaking the power of the trade-unions to hold the country to ransom.

AngelofFire

another testiment to the governments subservience to big business is the prioritisation of the lisbon agenda which calls for the mass privatisation of all our public services in order for big business to make a profit out of them. The government have refused to adress the barcelona declaration which calls for the provision of better services for people with special needs. one of the major special needs service centres was closed down last year therefore the government have completely ignored the declaration. also the government have refused to implement the temporary agency workers act 2002 which calls for the extension of the minimun wage and just working conditions for temporary workers.

AngelofFire

arcadegame2004 the fares that dublin bus charge isnt even enough to cover the cost of the service. it must rely on subsidies from the government to do that. Therefore there is no way a private company could charge less and still make a profit. complete privatisation of the transport network means that the lowest a company willing to bid for the service could charge would be around 2 euro per fare. i mean its expensive enough having to pay €1.65 to get into town. Privatisation of dublin bus is unworkable and unnessesarry. I would have no problem allowing private companies to operate on profitable routes. but dublin bus/bus eireann should remain a state agency. i mean a private company would not want to taxi 4 elderlies 12 miles across donegal as they would loose a fortune.

bonkey

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Therefore there is no way a private company could charge less and still make a profit.

This is based on the unbelievably faulty assumption that Dublin Bus are as efficient as possible and have no costs that could not be reduced.

jc

arcadegame2004

"another testiment to the governments subservience to big business is the prioritisation of the lisbon agenda which calls for the mass privatisation of all our public services in order for big business to make a profit out of them."

I contend that the lack of a profit motive in much of the State sector is one of the reasons they tend to be more wasteful in their spending of taxpayer's money. The reliance on State bailouts/subsidies reduces the motivation to spend the money efficiently, because they complacently realise that the State will always be there to bail them out/reward their failures.

In the private-sector, companies that provide customers with what they want will be profitable and survive. If some companies in the private-sector die out it is because they are not providing the standard of service the customer desires and as such they don't really deserve to survive. The consumer must come first. Call it consumer-democracy if you like.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
However, I take issue with your apparent opinion that privatisation is always bad for the transport sector. Look at Ryanair. It has forced Aer Lingus, through price-competition, to lower their prices.

Are flights to London an essential service like getting to work in the morning?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A bus-regulator could lay down certain minimum standards such as providing the concessions

Like in the telecommunications business? Which has been a spectacular regulation failure.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I recall the chaos of previous Bus Eireann strikes in this country. I don't think it is healthy to allow the trade-unions to determine that I cannot travel by bus to a particular destination.

Any examples of "sorry boss, we don't do Lucan."?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I want the power to choose what bus-company I use to get to a particular destination.

A power you should not have. If you want price or service competition then have it, infrastructure competition has never works.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Monopolies always charge higher prices than the private-sector because they have no incentive to do otherwise.

And what about private monopolies?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A privatised bus-industry with full competition could only make profits by charging lower prices than their competitors and improving their quality of service.

Lower prices - increase profits. Hmmm, where did you do economics again?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
In a democracy we should have choice. I am particularly concerned here with breaking the power of the trade-unions to hold the country to ransom.

So how are councillors going to achieve this? But to be honest just shows your (PD blue?) colours.

If privatisation is such a panacea, why are Luas fares so much higher than Dublin Bus fares, when Luas has had all their infrastructure, vehicles and maintainence paid for them separately?

sceptre

Originally posted by Victor
Are flights to London an essential service like getting to work in the morning?Like in the telecommunications business?

Competition obviously isn't inherently linked to privatisation in any case:)

arcadegame2004

"Lower prices - increase profits. Hmmm, where did you do economics again?" (Victor)

Well Victor, lower prices can still bring higher profits if it attracts significantly more consumers to do business with that company.

"And what about private monopolies?" (Victor)

At least there is NO law conferring monopoly-status on private-sector companies, unlike the situation pertaining to Aer Rianta, the ESB, Bord Gais, Bord na Mona etc.

I agree that monopolies in general are bad, including in the private-sector. But the Dept. of Enterprise and Employment has the power to break up private-sector monopolies. There are safeguards to protect against that.

"If privatisation is such a panacea, why are Luas fares so much higher than Dublin Bus fares, when Luas has had all their infrastructure, vehicles and maintainence paid for them separately?" (Victor)

I have already made it clear that I don't include rail-transport in the categories of business I consider privatisation as necessarily a good idea, primarily because it's hard to see how you bring about competition in this sector, unlike most other sectors.

This is relevant to the local-elections because I believe the taxpayer could get better value from money by franchising out some council services e.g. bin collection, to the private sector. Tendering entails getting the cheapest price offered by companies bidding for contracts, and so can save the council (and hence taxpayers) money. And yes, I express no shame in admitting that the PDs are the closest to my political thinking. This is a democracy after all and I am entitled to support a political party.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Victor, lower prices can still bring higher profits if it attracts significantly more consumers to do business with that company.

But this usually isn't the case with transport. Demand change is relatively slow (although modal shift can be much quicker). However, even if you only have one passenger per bus paying nothing, you can't magically increase demand.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
At least there is NO law conferring monopoly-status on private-sector companies, unlike .....

Well that’s the problem, there is no (effective) law when it come to the likes of eircom, which is a fundamental failure by the relevant ministers (Dermot Ahern and Mary Harney).

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I agree that monopolies in general are bad, including in the private-sector. But the Dept. of Enterprise and Employment has the power to break up private-sector monopolies. There are safeguards to protect against that.

So how many cartels and monopolies have been broken up in the last five years? How many people have been convicted of breaching competition law? (Answer: none)

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I have already made it clear that I don't include rail-transport in the categories of business I consider privatisation as necessarily a good idea

Would this be because the government's flag ship PPP project (Luas and it's cost overruns) is a rail project?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
it's hard to see how you bring about competition in this sector, unlike most other sectors.

Would this be because it is hard to make a profit there as a private company or because a benevolent, but competent (usually public) monopoly is better?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
This is relevant to the local-elections because I believe the taxpayer could get better value from money by franchising out some council services e.g. bin collection, to the private sector.

Then go discuss bin collecting.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Tendering entails getting the cheapest price offered by companies bidding for contracts

And often an adversarial relationship, where the contractor does their damndest to make money and to hell with fulfilling the intention of the service. Of all industries in this country, waste disposal is probably the least competent despite years of competition (takes a lot of beating when you have a comms industry like ours).

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
so can save the council (and hence taxpayers) money.

You should really change the "can save money" into "might save money".

Trebor

i'm going to vote green/labour only because they have a good rep in my area.

regarding the privatisation bit:
Ireland is such a small country with a tiny population that the more companies you have competing in one industry means that they have to share the market this means that few can profit from economies of scale. although the competition will make sure that they are efficient this means that they can not lower their prices and we will end up with several companies charging us the same price as none of them can afford to go lower. with economies of scale one company supplying the entire market would be able to spread cost more thus letting them lower prices. also in a competitive market the consumer ends up paying for advertising.

thegills

Lower prices - increase profits. Hmmm, where did you do economics again

But this usually isn't the case with transport

What about the Aer Lingus School of Economics. They have turned around massive losses by lowering fares and increasing customers whilst reducing their overheads. Could the same not be done at Dublin Bus??

Dublin Bus got rid of the bus conductor years ago and they should have retraining the conductors to drive buses and then say doubled the bus fleet or used the same buses twice as long each day. There is a demand for it if the routes were better planned. eg: How many buses go from say West Dublin over to Sandyford Ind Est. (none) and how many people drive that route every morning clogging up the M50 (thousands). Dublin Bus have been given a free ride for years, jobs for the boys and all that, they need some competion and like Aer Lingus (faced with the Ryanair threat) I'm sure they could react positively.

I'll be voting Fianna Fail in Clondalkin coz' my brother is running there.

thegills

arcadegame2004

"regarding the privatisation bit:
Ireland is such a small country with a tiny population that the more companies you have competing in one industry means that they have to share the market this means that few can profit from economies of scale. although the competition will make sure that they are efficient this means that they can not lower their prices and we will end up with several companies charging us the same price as none of them can afford to go lower. with economies of scale one company supplying the entire market would be able to spread cost more thus letting them lower prices. also in a competitive market the consumer ends up paying for advertising." (Trebor)

Trebor, I don't really understand that logic. That sounds almost like the kind of argument that the Irish Insurance-industry might use to justify the lack of competitors in the insurance-market in Ireland.

We are unquestionably paying scandalously high premiums in the motor-insurance industry in this country, especially compared to other countries in the Eurozone.

Competition, without one semi-state company continuing to get rewarded with state-injections of cash in response to their failure to attract customers with lower prices or better services, means that each competitor has to lower prices and/or improve their quality of service to attract consumers. I reject totally the idea that Ireland's market is too small for competition. Look how far telephone call-per-minute charges fell after Eircom/Telecom Eireann was privatised (by 17%). Also, you used to have to week 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed before Telecom Eireann was privatised.
There is definitely further scope for such price-reductions in the area of electricity. Let the Irish people choose for themselves who provides their electricity.

The profit-motive is actually a reason for a private-sector company to provide a good quality of service at a low price. And Victor, regarding what criticism you maee on the private-sector waste-disposal companies, I point out that an advantage of private-sector waste-disposal industry is that if the Council is unhappy with the quality of service provided they can simply confer the next contract on another company. Whereas with a monopoly there could be no change no matter how bad the service was.

Let the people choose. Let them not have something forced on them. We are a demcracy after all - or are supposed to be. It is largely the controlling-mindset of the Irish Left that makes them so hostile to letting people choose who they get their services from. They are as interfering in people's commercial choices as the religious right were in people's sexual/social/religious choices, in Irish days gone by.

sceptre

Holy crap, I've never heard such kindergarten economics in my entire life. At least not since I knew people who were in kindergarten.

Mentioning of insurance companies and linking them to high prices (correctly) without admitting that they're theoretically in competition with each other, bringing up of call price drops from Eircom since competition without recognising (or perhaps being aware) of the cross-subsidisation from increased line rental, linking of profit motive to increased standards of service without a single example to demonstrate the possibility, let alone demonstrate it as a fact, mentioning of a six-week wait to get a phone line without mentioning either the fact that there was a 21-day customer charter in place a number of years before privatisation nor the fact that it hasn't made any actual difference to waiting times since the late 80s (in the early 80s the waiting period was over a year in some places, this dropped dramatically /long/ before privatisation was even mooted) and more rubbish that isn't worth addressing. Oh and the mentioning of possible further price drops in electricity (again) even though it's already been mentioned by someone that the wholesale and retail prices of electricity in Ireland have been raised specifically to draw in non-ESB companies to attempt to comply with EU directives.

And the continual linking of privatisation to competition without any formal basis for demonstrating an inherent or tangiable link. And this is the key point I'll leave y'all with. Apart from the asinine examples given of why privatisation of "everything except the railways" is inherently good and inherently necessary, there has been no link provided between competition and privatisation, either in particular or in general. Coherency is not this thread's strong suit (either of argument or direction).

Waste of time arguing with wobbly-man posts. Regardless of what coherent points you make you get the same reformatted drivel bounced back. Call me when this thread passes the competent level.