Fine Gael / Labour / Green Policies

ballooba

We have heard lots from Fine Gael and Labour in recent weeks and months on their joint policies on Health, Policing and Mental Health.We are likely to hear a lot more on these in the coming months as they move to the next stage of their campaign.

The Green Party has said that they are not going to tie themselves to another other party in advance of the election. As such we don't really know what sort of combined policies the three parties would offer together.

Michael Mc Dowell has been on the radio today saying all kinds of things about the Greens. One of which was that they would stop all road building projects. He is also spelling doom for the Celtic Tiger if Green's get into power.

We all know Micky Macky Dee isn't too fond of the Greens. Especially seeing as he insinuated they were responsible for the attack on the PDs offices in 2006.

What good policies do you guys think would come out of a FG/Lab/Green alliance specifically. Labour are at the moment proposing a standard fare of €1 for all Dublin Bus journeys. This is a great idea in my opinion, it would reduce boarding times on buses and encourage people to use the Bus. The greens would surely go for this.

The Greens aren't big into motorways, but what if there was rail built alongside all new motorway projects. This would save a huge amount of money in duplication of effort and would be similar to common practice in Japan, Scandinavia and other regions. They are likely to want to change the route of the M3 also. The people's of Meath and Cavan would be delighted if a rail line was incorporated into this project with Park and Ride faclities.

Any other ideas?

nesf

ballooba wrote:

Labour are at the moment proposing a standard fare of €1 for all Dublin Bus journeys. This is a great idea in my opinion, it would reduce boarding times on buses and encourage people to use the Bus. The greens would surely go for this.

Wouldn't that just heavily increase the subsidy needed for Dublin Bus? Would it necessarily encourage people to use the Bus more considering how relatively cheap it already is? It would definitely reduce boarding times, though how much of a factor is this for people who 'may' use the bus, for people who would use it anyway it would be a great boon but would it have much of an effect on people using cars? Essentially, how much of an incentive would a flat fare be for people who now would use a car? If it gets a lot of cars off the road would a lot of them decide to take the car out again because the traffic has died down and we'd return to an equilibrium of traffic chaos hopefully slightly lower than originally but with, as above, an increased subsidy needed for the buses?

I'm just curious really, this kind of transport infrastructure stuff is very interesting but I'd be interested to hear arguments for the above.

ballooba

The main incentive of standardised fare is reduced queuing, not cost. Reduced queuing would make journeys significantly faster and timetables more predictable. There also needs to be reform of timetabling. Labour has also promised live tracking of buses and displays of such at bus stops.

If there was an effective public transport system then I do think people would use it. The standardised fare works very well in Chicago. This is the only city where I have personal experience of it.

People don't bring cars to work because it's too much hassle to park etc.

You pay $1.50 for your first trip on Bus/Train. Any subsequent trip within 2 hours is 25c. Another further trip within the initial 2 hours is free. This relies on integrated ticketing of course. Commuter tickets in chicago are $20 per week I think.

flogen

From my experience with public transport, the things that delay my journey are rush hour traffic and drivers taking 30 minutes to swap over for lunch... boarding times don't even register.

On the slightly OT issue of McDowell hating the Greens, it's just because they share a voter base, specifically in Dublin, he'll say whatever it takes to convice his voters to give him their first and not the Greens.

nesf

ballooba wrote:

The main incentive of standardised fare is reduced queuing, not cost. Reduced queuing would make journeys significantly faster and timetables more predictable. There also needs to be reform of timetabling. Labour has also promised live tracking of buses and displays of such at bus stops.

I'm not sure if it'd make things significantly faster, as flogen suggested and I'd agree with him it's traffic that is the main limiting factor in journey times rather than boarding times. Plus you have to factor in people not bothering to find a euro until the last minute etc.

ballooba wrote:

If there was an effective public transport system then I do think people would use it. The standardised fare works very well in Chicago. This is the only city where I have personal experience of it.

People don't bring cars to work because it's too much hassle to park etc.

You pay $1.50 for your first trip on Bus/Train. Any subsequent trip within 2 hours is 25c. Another further trip within the initial 2 hours is free. This relies on integrated ticketing of course. Commuter tickets in chicago are $20 per week I think.

I'll look into it and see if I can find any studies that were done on it. How would you think introducing a congestion charge system into the city centre would work combined with a flat fare structure? I'm just thinking of articles I've read in books and the Economist where they found that people responded better when there was a distinct clear monetary cost to taking the car 'into the city' rather than nebulous stuff like traffic jams and lost time. Such systems, and they have some very advanced ones where the car type dictates the charge, achieves both a reduction in traffic in the worst affected areas and encourages both the use of public transport and the use of more environmentally friendly vehicles.

It would not be 'easy' to bring in though.

ballooba

flogen wrote:

From my experience with public transport, the things that delay my journey are rush hour traffic and drivers taking 30 minutes to swap over for lunch... boarding times don't even register.

Read here for insight into the life of a Dublin Bus driver. I don't want to regurgitate what he has already said.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055014290

Some problems lie with unions, some with management, some with government. Labour have made a few proposals to make Dublin bus work better.

The drivers don't want to be providing a **** service, if only for the amount of aggro they get as a result.

They are here:
http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/getting_dublin_moving_nov06.pdf

flogen

ballooba wrote:

Read here for insight into the life of a Dublin Bus driver. I don't want to regurgitate what he has already said.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055014290

Some problems lie with unions, some with management, some with government. Labour have made a few proposals to make Dublin bus work better.

The drivers don't want to be providing a **** service, if only for the amount of aggro they get as a result.

They are here:
http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/getting_dublin_moving_nov06.pdf

OK - so the problem from that account certainly doesn't lie with boarding times.

My comment on them swapping for lunch isn't to suggest that they don't deserve a lunch - it just seems to often take far longer than it should to swap drivers. Sometimes that's because the driver of the bus has to wait for his/her relief to arrive, but sometimes it's because the relief arrives and decides to have a smoke before starting the journey (or the two drivers have a quick chat before the original driver departs).
Anyway, back OT.

ballooba

flogen wrote:

OK - so the problem from that account certainly doesn't lie with boarding times.

I put that link up in response to your comment about driver's breaks. That deals with that. The bus can't leave before it's scheduled departure time. This is a timetabling/rostering issue. The bus driver in the above link explains all that.

Boarding times are the main delay on routes where an effective QBC is in use. If you think about it, there are only three sources of delay for your average commuter bus: Traffic (not an issue with QBC), Traffic Lights (Not much scope there), Stops (Boarding times).

The bus users interest groups are constantly pushing Dublin Bus to speed up boarding times. Some initiatives have included faster ticket printers and shorter tickets to enable faster printing. Some have even called for DB to cease printing it's logo on the tickets as it adds to printing time.

I have investigated this further and found that in London there is a standard bus fare of £2. This is pretty hefty you might agree. However, the prepaid fare using Oyster Card is £1. Thus encouraging people to use Oyster Card and speed up boarding times by using the automated system. Any regular bus user since the introduction of prepaid tickets in Dublin will advocate the time saving attached.

The idea behing the €1 fare is that it is a single coin. There is no fumbling for change. It could equally be €2 but this would likely go down like a rat sandwich with commuters. The €1 fare would probably require greater subvention for Dublin Bus, although if greater economies of scale could be proved in it's introduction, then this may not be necessary.

Other benefits of the single bus fare scheme would be:
-No more change receipts (Yay *\o/*).
-With electronic ticketing a reduction in waste paper, another bonus for the Greens. Electronic ticketing on a non-standard fare structure would be difficult, if not impossible.
-When integrated ticketing is introduced your standard fare could incorporate multiple routes and modes of transport.

ballooba

I've changed the thread title because the discussion seems to have focussed on transport policy.

nesf wrote:

How would you think introducing a congestion charge system into the city centre would work combined with a flat fare structure?

Congestion charges would be difficult to implement. The main deterrent from bringing cars into the City Centre at the moment is the cost of parking. If you introduce congestion charges then the availability of cheap on-street parking frees up and the penalty is diminished.

Our city would be an awful lot more pleasant a place if there was less traffic. Less fumes, less noise, more freedom of movement for pedestrian traffic. a lot of city centre traffic is unnecesssary. I myself am guilty of driving into city centre sometimes even though I live 20 minutes walk away. Hangover days etc.

The benefit of removal of HGV traffic will become apparent in the coming days. I do believe this will make a big difference and the Quays will be a lot safer for cyclists.

Dalfiatach

I lived in Boston in 1998. They had a great integrated ticketing system covering the "T" (the metro/tram system), buses, ferries, and the extensive commuter light rail system to outlying towns. I was working in an outlying town while living in the city, and my integrated swipe card to cover unlimited travel on all public transport was something like $90 a month. If you didn't need the outlying commuter rail option it was even cheaper again.

Anyway, point is that other cities have had integrated public transport networks, and integrated ticketing, for a decade now at least. But this government has arsed about for the last 6-7 years talking about integrated ticketing, and have spent over €11 million euro so far, to deliver precisely nothing.

It's not difficult, it has been done in literally dozens of cities worldwide without a problem, what's the problem here?

ballooba

The RPA is charged with integrated ticketing. They are having a few problems.

http://www.platform11.org/campaigns/integrated_ticketing/

Some RPA decisions don't make a lot of sense. I have dealt with them in the past, they seem very disorganised. The price I agreed with them was a multiple of what I should have got. I just calculated it to be 70 times cost. :eek:

The fragmented Electronic Tolling industry is another example of poor vision from the government. My EazyPass tag should work at any toll plaza. Similar case to boarding times on buses, if I have to stop to pay a toll then I am delaying other users.

For those that are interested:
Green Party Transport Policy Document:
http://www.eamonryan.ie/documents/TransportPolicy_Final_LR.pdf

Fine Gael Policy Statements from Olivia Mitchell:
http://www.finegael.ie/policy/index.cfm/area/information/pkey/671/PubCatID/19/type/details

Time Magazine

€1 bus fares is a ludicrous idea unless you're hoping to give a "pay-back" to the people who don't clog the city. It does not take a lot of time to throw your €1.80 or whatever it is into the box. Dispensing change is done via tickets, so it takes no more than two seconds per customer. A flat fee would reduce travelling times in the region of 1%, but these "extra passengers" you hope to attract will cancel that out by simply adding to the queues.

What we need is more buses at peak times and punctual buses during off-peak times. The former can be done by hiring the additional labour and skipping the administrative bullsh*t that exists. The latter can be achieved by the implementation of a regulator.

InFront

Ibid wrote:

these "extra passengers" you hope to attract will cancel that out by simply adding to the queues.

You don't seem to be taking into consideration that those extra passengers will equal less cars.

Time Magazine

InFront wrote:

You don't seem to be taking into consideration that those extra passengers will equal less cars.

I am. The marginal level of passengers that it will attract will cancel out the marginal level of time saved by people only having to put in €1. Traffic, on average, as an educated guess, adds 20% to travel times. Take 10% of people out of cars (not going to happen) you save 2% of the journey. Take a still very generous 5% and you're looking at 1% journey time.

A 1% journey time save, losing about half of your revenues, with additional costs.

I prefer my method.

ballooba

Ibid wrote:

It does not take a lot of time to throw your €1.80 or whatever it is into the box.

I think you are over simplifying there.

Boarding times are an issue. This is evident from initiatives in other countries, some initiatives by Dublin Bus and from feedback from commuter interest groups. Have you got evidence to suggest otherwise?

Ibid wrote:

Dispensing change is done via tickets, so it takes no more than two seconds per customer.

My comment on change tickets is unrelated to boarding times. The current system does not work, it was an ill-conceived knee-jerk reaction to attacks on drivers. It represents a further tax on users.

Ibid wrote:

A flat fee would reduce travelling times in the region of 1%, but these "extra passengers" you hope to attract will cancel that out by simply adding to the queues.

First of all where did you get that 1% figure? Second of all, are you saying we shouldn't be asking people to switch to public transport because it will add to queues.

brianthebard

A question that I feel will be best answered in this thread;

Do any of the parties plan to (re)establish a glass recycling facility in Ireland, or to improve other recycling facilities in the country? Presently they are exported which is a woeful way of dealing with waste imo.

ballooba

Ibid wrote:

Traffic, on average, as an educated guess, adds 20% to travel times.

Educated guess = made up statistic?

Traffic is not an issue with effective QBCs. Can you counter that?

Also you mentioned more buses. Buses were held back by Brennan until he got co-operation from drivers on certain issues. This kind of makes sense, but he seems not to have achieved much in the way of reform.

InFront

Ibid wrote:

Traffic, on average, as an educated guess, adds 20% to travel times.

What does that even mean? On the M50? In the city centre? In Swords? In Donnybrook, where?

That is complete guesswork, there's another word for guesswork, garbage.
I really don't see how you can pick 20% out of thin air, attempt to attach some sense to it and sell it. Perhaps we should stick to facts, if you have some factual suggestions with regard to the influence of traffic congestion on urban travelling maybe you would post them. Figures like that mean nothing, anyone can invent their own statistics.

ballooba

brianthebard wrote:

A question that I feel will be best answered in this thread;

Do any of the parties plan to (re)establish a glass recycling facility in Ireland, or to improve other recycling facilities in the country? Presently they are exported which is a woeful way of dealing with waste imo.

I have no idea on the glass plant front tbh.

The system for recycling at the moment is a bit of a shambles. We should be sorting our recyclables rather than lobbing it all in the green bin. Some poor unfortunate has to sort it all for us in a sorting centre. Nobody should have to do a job like that.

I don't think it's up to the government to establish facilities to process the recyclables in Ireland. This is done commercially in other countries. A lot of companies in ireland are making a healthy living off of waste. Perhaps incinerators are more profitable for companies like Indaver?

brianthebard

ballooba wrote:

I have no idea on the glass plant front tbh.

The system for recycling at the moment is a bit of a shambles. We should be sorting our recyclables rather than lobbing it all in the green bin. Some poor unfortunate has to sort it all for us in a sorting centre. Nobody should have to do a job like that.

I don't think it's up to the government to establish facilities to process the recyclables in Ireland. This is done commercially in other countries. A lot of companies in ireland are making a healthy living off of waste. Perhaps incinerators are more profitable for companies like Indaver?

If there is a facility needed in the country that is not provided then the government is obliged to provide it afaik. I realise that several companies exist to recycle and reuse waste, but that's a drop in the ocean when you consider the amount of recyclable waste that is being dumped in landfills, either with non-recyclable waste or on its own. In Germany they use glass to fill the bottom layer of roads but we aren't even doing that! Such an easy and effective way to do it. For me recycling would be a reason to vote or not vote for a party.

ballooba

brianthebard wrote:

If there is a facility needed in the country that is not provided then the government is obliged to provide it afaik.

Not sure what you mean there. Obliged by whom?

The Greens are the party with the most 'Green' policies as would be expected. They would be more environmentally motivated than others.

markpb

nesf wrote:

I'm not sure if it'd make things significantly faster, as flogen suggested and I'd agree with him it's traffic that is the main limiting factor in journey times rather than boarding times. Plus you have to factor in people not bothering to find a euro until the last minute etc.

Several other cities around the world are moving to a fixed fare because its easy for people to understand (no more worrying about having the right fare or asking the driver), it is usually set to one coin so there's no fumbling for the right change and the driver doesn't have to count it and it produces a definite observable decrease in dwell times. In the long run a well-implemented contactless smartcard system with artificially high cash fares would be much better.

It's definitely important to reduce dwell times but right now in Dublin traffic, bad bus lanes, lack of priority at junctions, etc almost definitely contribute more to bus delay than dwell times.

I'll look into it and see if I can find any studies that were done on it. How would you think introducing a congestion charge system into the city centre would work combined with a flat fare structure? I'm just thinking of articles I've read in books and the Economist where they found that people responded better when there was a distinct clear monetary cost to taking the car 'into the city' rather than nebulous stuff like traffic jams and lost time. Such systems, and they have some very advanced ones where the car type dictates the charge, achieves both a reduction in traffic in the worst affected areas and encourages both the use of public transport and the use of more environmentally friendly vehicles.

DCC have said, on several occasions that they're not opposed to a congestion charge in the city centre but it won't happen in the short term. The reasons they gave were a poor public transport system (which is true, hardly any train coverage and a lack of capacity on buses and trains) and more importantly, the number of bridges crossing the river forced a lot of cross-city traffic into the city centre area and until that's fixed a CG would be unfair.

It would not be 'easy' to bring in though.

This is probably the crux of the matter. FF haven't proven very good at introducing unpopular measures (the smoking ban is obviously an exception) to this so I can't see them supporting if it might cost them votes.

To keep it on topic, I don't think there's any real difference between FF/PD and FG/Labour and I'm not too impressed with either. The main thing I'll be voting on is public transport and FF have done too little too late. Olivia Mitchell doesn't seem great either and the last time I heard Richard Bruton talk about buses in my area, it was cringworthy rubbish. The Greens (several of them that I've communicated with) seem to be the most clued in so I'll probably vote for them.

ballooba

markpb wrote:

It's definitely important to reduce dwell times but right now in Dublin traffic, bad bus lanes, lack of priority at junctions, etc almost definitely contribute more to bus delay than dwell times.

These are also part of the Labour proposals. People on this thread have just homed in on the standard fare part.

markpb wrote:

To keep it on topic, I don't think there's any real difference between FF/PD and FG/Labour and I'm not too impressed with either.

From what I've seen, Labour have the most comprehensive policy document on this, so I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Greens are obviously in favour of getting more cars off the streets. Their transport document is quite heavy. I haven't yet found the Fine Gael policy myself.

Time Magazine

ballooba wrote:

I haven't yet found the Fine Gael policy myself.

I don't have time to reply more substantially, but here's FG policy on getting more buses on the road that were around for the Ryder Cup, while this is the Regulator policy.

ballooba

From that Fine Gael are advocating Integrated Ticketing, QBCs where practicable, Real Time tracking and info, Park & Ride and Integration with Rail Network.

bk

Ibid wrote:

I don't have time to reply more substantially, but here's FG policy on getting more buses on the road that were around for the Ryder Cup, while this is the Regulator policy.

What I find interesting about this is that it is almost the exact same policy as FF/PD. FF/PD has been trying to do this for the past few years, but the problem is that Dublin Bus management, staff and unions are all dead set against it. FF/PD have found it extremely difficult to get them to even agree to privatising just 10% of the new bus routes, never mind moving the whole lot under a bus regulator, London style.

This is a good example where it is easy to promise something when you are not in government, but far harder to implement in reality. Why would FG/Labour find it any easier to do then FF/PDs?

I'd say that it would actually be harder to do under a FG/Labour government as I'd assume Labour would actually be against it and side with the unions.

BTW FF/PDs policy on this is actually much grander then FGs. FF/PDs are setting up the Dublin Transport Authority, which is planned to not just take over the regulation of bus service, but also take over from the RPA (Luas, Metro) and probably take some control of Dart and commuter services from CIE. This would be far closer to the London model.

ballooba wrote:

From that Fine Gael are advocating Integrated Ticketing, QBCs where practicable, Real Time tracking and info, Park & Ride and Integration with Rail Network.

I have to laugh, must of these are already being done by the current government and Dublin Bus.

- Integrated Ticketing
All Dublin Buses are now carrying the new Wayfarer ticket machines which are compatible with the contact less card systems standard. *

http://www.dublinbus.ie/projects/integrated_ticketing_system.asp

- QBC
Already happening.

- Real Time tracking and info
Already happening, again part of DB's new Wayfarer ticketing machines:
http://www.dublinbus.ie/projects/real_time_passenger_information_system.asp
http://www.dublinbus.ie/projects/trunked_mobile_radio_system.asp

- Park & Ride and Integration with Rail Network.
The whole point of the Dublin Transport Authority

* Yes integrated ticketing doesn't currently work, not because of any technical reason, rather due to infighting between DB, RPA and CIE (Dart) over how they should divide up the revenue from it. That is why the DTA is so important, we badly need it to smash their heads together to get them to work together rather then seeing each other as competition.

ballooba

bk wrote:

What I find interesting about this is that it is almost the exact same policy as FF/PD. FF/PD has been trying to do this for the past few years, but the problem is that Dublin Bus management, staff and unions are all dead set against it. FF/PD have found it extremely difficult to get them to even agree to privatising just 10% of the new bus routes, never mind moving the whole lot under a bus regulator, London style.

People, Process, Technology. You have to be able to work with all three to manage change successfully. The government sees DB, it's staff and the unions as an inconvenience.

bk wrote:

BTW FF/PDs policy on this is actually much grander then FGs. FF/PDs are setting up the Dublin Transport Authority, which is planned to not just take over the regulation of bus service, but also take over from the RPA (Luas, Metro) and probably take some control of Dart and commuter services from CIE. This would be far closer to the London model.

As if there won't be resistance to this. FF/PD will never be able to achieve this. See above.

bk wrote:

Integrated Ticketing

This was recommended in the Dublin Transport Initiative report of 1994.

That was 13 years ago. Long before the RPA the agency failing to deliver it was set up.

bk wrote:

QBC

Lots of QBCs where there is no bus routes and no buses.

bk wrote:

Real Time tracking and info

They started a three-year pilot scheme in 2001. It's now 2007.

It might be finished in time for G.E. 2012. Niiiice!!!

bk wrote:

Yes integrated ticketing doesn't currently work, not because of any technical reason, rather due to infighting between DB, RPA and CIE (Dart) over how they should divide up the revenue from it. That is why the DTA is so important, we badly need it to smash their heads together to get them to work together rather then seeing each other as competition.

See above regarding People, Process & Technology.

bk

ballooba wrote:

People, Process, Technology. You have to be able to work with all three to manage change successfully. The government sees DB, it's staff and the unions as an inconvenience.

And you honestly believe it will be different for FG/Labour, why?

DB staff, management and unions are playing to maximise their control over the DTA, minimise their changes in work practices and maximise the amount of money they get for implementing those minimised changes.

As a person who has a very strong interest in public infrastructure and transport and has spent a long time watching the developments in it, I can tell you that this won't be any different if FG/Lab are in government.

The only way it could be any different for FG/Labour, is if they give into DB's demands and that would be a bad thing as we would end up with little real change.

nesf

bk wrote:

As a person who has a very strong interest in public infrastructure and transport and has spent a long time watching the developments in it, I can tell you that this won't be any different if FG/Lab are in government.

Well, most of the issues, to my mind anyways, are to a large extent independent of the Government. Bar breaking the unions Thatcher style it's going to take a long time to introduce substantial change.

John R

bk wrote:

What I find interesting about this is that it is almost the exact same policy as FF/PD. FF/PD has been trying to do this for the past few years, but the problem is that Dublin Bus management, staff and unions are all dead set against it. FF/PD have found it extremely difficult to get them to even agree to privatising just 10% of the new bus routes, never mind moving the whole lot under a bus regulator, London style.

That is simply NOT TRUE. Dublin Bus management, staff and unions agreed to most of the DTA draft plan, it has been the politicians (of all colours AFAIK) and senior civil servants in the shape of local authorities desperate not to loose certain planning powers to the DTA that have stalled the process with virulent opposition.

There was also a massive flaw in the proposal that DB and the unions did not agree with that left control of private bus operation outside the DTA and firmly in the grasp of the Minister of Transport and his minions in the department. This would mean that the DTA would have strong control over Dublin Bus, Irish Rail Bus Eireann and LUAS services across Dublin and surronding counties including integrated ticketing, fare structures, timetables, service levels and customer service but would have no powers to compel any private bus operators to adhere to these rules.

This was a 100% FF/PD sop to their Galway races buddies in the transport sector who do not wish to operate under strict controls as they would severely limit the potential for large profits.

bk wrote:

This is a good example where it is easy to promise something when you are not in government, but far harder to implement in reality. Why would FG/Labour find it any easier to do then FF/PDs?

I'd say that it would actually be harder to do under a FG/Labour government as I'd assume Labour would actually be against it and side with the unions.

BTW FF/PDs policy on this is actually much grander then FGs. FF/PDs are setting up the Dublin Transport Authority, which is planned to not just take over the regulation of bus service, but also take over from the RPA (Luas, Metro) and probably take some control of Dart and commuter services from CIE. This would be far closer to the London model.

It is very easy to trot out the big plans when you are in government as well, implementing them in a way that works is an entirely different matter.

The DTA plan did not include any commitment to providing the extra funding necessary to making it work. Following the London model is all very well but as the London transport heads themselves explicitly warned not too long ago, to do so without a huge amount of extra public funding (they are using the congestion charge) would be disastrous. It is a far more expensive model than the current system and will cost millions more to run before a penny is spent on any service improvements.

bk wrote:

* Yes integrated ticketing doesn't currently work, not because of any technical reason, rather due to infighting between DB, RPA and CIE (Dart) over how they should divide up the revenue from it. That is why the DTA is so important, we badly need it to smash their heads together to get them to work together rather then seeing each other as competition.

They have been forced to see each other as competition because that is what our current bunch of leaders have demanded of them. The RPA was set up on the basis of taking LUAS away from Irish Rail, a sort of de-integration if you will, as the PDs in particularly specifically wanted it to act as competition to IE/DB.

Although there was a lot of disagreeent over the revenue split regarding the integrated ticketing project (which was understandable as all three companies rely heavily on fare revenue to keep running their services and IT has the potential to leave them all very short of funds) it had nothng to do with the huge ongoing delay.

The simple fact is that the RPA who were given the project failed to complete the tendering process to appoint a company to design and implement the system.

ballooba

bk wrote:

And you honestly believe it will be different for FG/Labour, why?

Well, they can't do any worse. FF/PD have had ten years to do this and they have failed to reach their own targets by a considerable margin. It's time to give someone else a chance. They can't be much worse.

bk wrote:

DB staff, management and unions are playing to maximise their control over the DTA, minimise their changes in work practices and maximise the amount of money they get for implementing those minimised changes.

Any party to negotiations is going to try and maximise their hand. It's up to the government to negotiate on our behalf. FF/PD has failed in the last ten years to negotiate these changes.

bk wrote:

As a person who has a very strong interest in public infrastructure and transport and has spent a long time watching the developments in it, I can tell you that this won't be any different if FG/Lab are in government.

Thanks for your (perhaps informed) opinion. We haven't seen FG/Lab/Green try to tackle these problems so we don't actually know how they will handle them. So I'll have to disagree.

Sipaliwini

Originally Posted by bk
* Yes integrated ticketing doesn't currently work, not because of any technical reason, rather due to infighting between DB, RPA and CIE (Dart) over how they should divide up the revenue from it. That is why the DTA is so important, we badly need it to smash their heads together to get them to work together rather then seeing each other as competition.

John R replies:
They have been forced to see each other as competition because that is what our current bunch of leaders have demanded of them. The RPA was set up on the basis of taking LUAS away from Irish Rail, a sort of de-integration if you will, as the PDs in particularly specifically wanted it to act as competition to IE/DB.

John R correctly points to the crux of the matter: the government has an ideological commitment to fostering competition everywhere, including where it does not in fact work, as is the case in public transport.
This commitment is shared not only by FF and the PDs, but also by FG, the Greens and in recent years, Labour.

Public transport is a social service that deals with many externalities that the market cannot factor in, like:
-providing service to users on non-profitable routes
-removing nuisance for pedestrians
-accomodating the free-rider dilemna (if we all drive cars, there's gridlock, but if some take the bus, some can get away with driving)
-lowering the impact of transport on the environment

For this reason, there is no choice but to subsidise it. The amount to which it is subsidised is a political matter. There won't be good public transport if the state doesn't spend what it takes for it to happen.

Ranting at the public transport bodies' struggling when the government tries to squeeze more service out of them without increasing funding is not constructive. How would you feel if your boss increased your workload without raising your pay ? Ranting at them when they fight against privatisation is misguided. So is reproaching them to resist integration within a privatising agenda.

bk

Sipaliwini wrote:

For this reason, there is no choice but to subsidise it. The amount to which it is subsidised is a political matter. There won't be good public transport if the state doesn't spend what it takes for it to happen.

Yes public transport does need to be subsidised, but that does not mean it needs to be operated by a state body and all the difficulties related to that.

The Luas service under the RPA is a good example of the new model. The Luas is subsidised, but it is actually operated by a private company (Veolia Transport) under contract to the RPA. If Veolia don't meet the standards and benchmarks set down by the RPA, then the RPA can yank the contract and give it to someone else. IMO that is why the Luas is being run so well and interestingly it is now actually profitable.

Personally I'd love to see the same model being replicated with DB and Dart, these services would continue to be subsidised, but DB would have to compete with private bus operators to win routes, etc. while maintaining the standards and benchmarks laid down by the DTA.

I'd also love to see the same happen in cork, where the Cork bus service is frankly appalling, it should be directly under the control of Cork City and County Council and bus routes contracted out to private operators and Bus Eireann.

If you take this to it's logical conclusion, we might even get an unusual circumstance where you would have DB competing for bus routes in Cork and Bus Eireann competing for bus routes in Dublin!!!

ballooba

Sipaliwini wrote:

Ranting at the public transport bodies' struggling when the government tries to squeeze more service out of them without increasing funding is not constructive. How would you feel if your boss increased your workload without raising your pay ? Ranting at them when they fight against privatisation is misguided. So is reproaching them to resist integration within a privatising agenda.

It would be interesting if these union negotiations were completely open and publicly reported. After all, it is all of our money that is paying the wage increases.

I worked it out there from the Dublin Bus annual accounts for 2005. Dublin Bus employees earned on average €42,945 before tax in 2005. Check that out against other jobs in the salary survey below.

Dublin Bus Annual Accounts 2005

Brightwater Recruitment Salary Survey 2005

John R

bk wrote:

Yes public transport does need to be subsidised, but that does not mean it needs to be operated by a state body and all the difficulties related to that.

The Luas service under the RPA is a good example of the new model. The Luas is subsidised, but it is actually operated by a private company (Veolia Transport) under contract to the RPA. If Veolia don't meet the standards and benchmarks set down by the RPA, then the RPA can yank the contract and give it to someone else. IMO that is why the Luas is being run so well and interestingly it is now actually profitable.

Personally I'd love to see the same model being replicated with DB and Dart, these services would continue to be subsidised, but DB would have to compete with private bus operators to win routes, etc. while maintaining the standards and benchmarks laid down by the DTA.

Well unless you are standing for election then what you would like to happen is not really relevant to this thread.

As I have already stated FF/PD had the opportunity to make this happen with the DTA but did not follow through. You will be happy to know that strict service targets will (if the DTA happens at all) be applied to DB, IE and LUAS.

Wheras private bus operators will be seperately licenced by the DoT under their current obligation-free farce which currently includes dozens of licences being held by people not operating ANY services on routes while being able to block all other operators.

Not exactly a great omen for an integrated network under the leadership of Fianna Corruption and Progressive Greed.

John R

ballooba wrote:

It would be interesting if these union negotiations were completely open and publicly reported. After all, it is all of our money that is paying the wage increases.

And of course you would be perfectly happy for your employment arrangements and private discussions to be made public so that every mouthy gobsh!te that you come in contact with while you were trying to do your job can give their 2cents worth about your personal business?

ballooba wrote:

I worked it out there from the Dublin Bus annual accounts for 2005. Dublin Bus employees earned on average €42,945 before tax in 2005. Check that out against other jobs in the salary survey below.

Dublin Bus Annual Accounts 2005

Brightwater Recruitment Salary Survey 2005

And your point is?

ballooba

John R wrote:

And of course you would be perfectly happy for your employment arrangements and private discussions to be made public so that every mouthy gobsh!te that you come in contact with while you were trying to do your job can give their 2cents worth about your personal business

The way negotiations with unions are carried out is going to have to change. Public sector workers get considerably higher pay than their private sector couterparts with a lot nicer terms of employment.

If taxpayers are not getting value for money from the public sector then they are going to ask for that work to be allocated to the private sector. I don't personally want to see privatisation, but if the unions don't want to play ball then let someone else deal with their wage demands.

John R wrote:

And your point is?

Starting salary for a Dublin Bus driver is €502 p.w. (€620 p.w. with shift premium)

Starting salary for an IT Graduate these days is around €23,000 (€469 p.w. @ 49 weeks) with none of the benefits mentioned on the DB website.

Why bother going to college?

John R

ballooba wrote:

The way negotiations with unions are carried out is going to have to change. Public sector workers get considerably higher pay than their private sector couterparts with a lot nicer terms of employment.

If taxpayers are not getting value for money from the public sector then they are going to ask for that work to be allocated to the private sector. I don't personally want to see privatisation, but if the unions don't want to play ball then let someone else deal with their wage demands.

None of which however has anything to do with the question I asked. Just because someone is (partially in this case) paid out of taxpayers money does not mean every tax payer has a right to every detail of their employment.

ballooba wrote:

Starting salary for a Dublin Bus driver is €502 p.w. (€620 p.w. with shift premium)

Starting salary for an IT Graduate these days is around €23,000 (€469 p.w. @ 49 weeks) with none of the benefits mentioned on the DB website.

And what has the salary of an IT graduate got to do with the starting salary for a bus driver? Apart from the fact that someone who is an IT graduate may very well have a mistaken belief that they are somehow automatically entitled to more money than someone in a job they consider beneath them.

Oh and if you are going to compare like with like then a very quick look at online job sites would have given you this bus driving job starting at €580 p.w. plus commission, bonus and overtime.

ballooba wrote:

Why bother going to college?

Well I suppose that is a question everyone has to answer for themselves, but at a guess the big difference between the two examples you give is that an IT graduate would expect to rise considerably from the starting point with a great deal of options for career advancement and large increases in salary.

On the other hand the opportunities for advancement beyond driving in most bus companies including Dublin Bus are very limited and once the top pay scale is reached (4-5 years service in DB AFAIR) the salary rate is stagnant.

ballooba

John R wrote:

None of which however has anything to do with the question I asked. Just because someone is (partially in this case) paid out of taxpayers money does not mean every tax payer has a right to every detail of their employment.

The company is owned by the government i.e. in effect the taxpayer.

John R wrote:

And what has the salary of an IT graduate got to do with the starting salary for a bus driver? Apart from the fact that someone who is an IT graduate may very well have a mistaken belief that they are somehow automatically entitled to more money than someone in a job they consider beneath them.

An IT graduate has undergone 4 years training. The person joining Dublin Bus is only required to have a C class licence and theory test for a D class.

John R wrote:

Oh and if you are going to compare like with like then a very quick look at online job sites would have given you this bus driving job starting at €580 p.w. plus commission, bonus and overtime.

That adevertisement is for an experienced driver with a full D licence.

The job advertised by Dublin Bus is advertised as increasing to €582 p.w. (€718 including shift premium).

49 weeks @ €718 p.w. is €35,182. This is still considerably below the calculated average of €42,945 above.

John R wrote:

Well I suppose that is a question everyone has to answer for themselves, but at a guess the big difference between the two examples you give is that an IT graduate would expect to rise considerably from the starting point with a great deal of options for career advancement and large increases in salary.

The Dublin Bus driver has the same opportunities if only he was willing to go out into the big bad world of the private sector. He could maybe even eventually get equity in a private firm who knows. The fact is he won't because the public sector is too cushy.

John R wrote:

On the other hand the opportunities for advancement beyond driving in most bus companies including Dublin Bus are very limited and once the top pay scale is reached (4-5 years service in DB AFAIR) the salary rate is stagnant.

That doesn't take into account overtime. Don't try to pretend they don't want the overtime, because that would be laughable.

John R

ballooba wrote:

The company is owned by the government i.e. in effect the taxpayer.

And?

You still have not offered any reason why private contract details and discussions regarding people's employment conditions should be in the public domain.

For the record, if you refer back to the annual accounts you will see that 75% of the company's revenue comes from it's operations not the taxpayer. I can think of many private businesses who have a higher % of their revenue sourced directly from the taxpayer through government contracts and I am sure they would tell you to fukk right off if you demanded their internal dealings because "you pay their wages".

ballooba wrote:

An IT graduate has undergone 4 years training. The person joining Dublin Bus is only required to have a C class licence and theory test for a D class.

And to actually complete the recruitment process the candidate has to udergo a training programme to complete the statutory licencing test and various internal programmes.

The fact is that wages vary widely across different jobs for any number of reasons.

ballooba wrote:

That adevertisement is for an experienced driver with a full D licence.

Dublin Bus pay the same rate to fully licenced experienced drivers that they pay new recruits that pass their training programme.

ballooba wrote:

The job advertised by Dublin Bus is advertised as increasing to €582 p.w. (€718 including shift premium).

Yes, after 4-5 years in the job. Plenty of other employers increase pay in stages based on length of employment.

ballooba wrote:

49 weeks @ €718 p.w. is €35,182. This is still considerably below the calculated average of €42,945 above.

That average would include all employees up to Managing Director.

ballooba wrote:

The Dublin Bus driver has the same opportunities if only he was willing to go out into the big bad world of the private sector. He could maybe even eventually get equity in a private firm who knows. The fact is he won't because the public sector is too cushy.

Because EVERYONE has the opportunity to take 4 years off and complete a degree course. :rolleyes:

If you think the job is so cushy and so well paid then away you go.

Or could it be that the idea of being on your own in charge of a bus full of agressive drunks and junkie scangers while trying to dodge the bricks being thrown at you from the local pre-teen scum at 1am in some of the roughest areas of the country is in fact not cushy at all.

ballooba wrote:

That doesn't take into account overtime. Don't try to pretend they don't want the overtime, because that would be laughable.

Why would I want to pretend anything? Some people want to work as much overtime as possible and some don't want to know at all, I am sure it is much the same in DB as it is in any other company.

So now we have established that Dublin Bus driver's wages are comparable to other bus driving jobs in the private sector in Dublin and you have a massive chip on your shoulder that they are not on minimum wage. Does that about cover it?

There is one question I still don't have an answer to, well there are in fact lots because you have not given a straight answer to any of the questions I asked but only one that I can be bothered asking at this stage.

What does any of this have to do with the different transport policies of the various political parties?

ballooba

John R wrote:

For the record, if you refer back to the annual accounts you will see that 75% of the company's revenue comes from it's operations not the taxpayer. I can think of many private businesses who have a higher % of their revenue sourced directly from the taxpayer through government contracts and I am sure they would tell you to fukk right off if you demanded their internal dealings because "you pay their wages".

The taxpayer owns Dublin Bus. Each and every one of us owns a little part of it. Of course we should have a say in the running of the company. If the unions are making silly demands then we should have right to know.

John R wrote:

And to actually complete the recruitment process the candidate has to udergo a training programme to complete the statutory licencing test and various internal programmes.

College students don't get paid, they have to get a part time job while training.

John R wrote:

Yes, after 4-5 years in the job. Plenty of other employers increase pay in stages based on length of employment.

It still doesn't account for the average wage, there must be a lot of overtime in there.

John R wrote:

That average would include all employees up to Managing Director.

That still wouldn't explain it. Unless the organisation is seriously top-heavy or the execs are paying themselves a couple of hundred grand each.

John R wrote:

Because EVERYONE has the opportunity to take 4 years off and complete a degree course. :rolleyes:

Actually, they do. Third level education is free in this country.

John R wrote:

If you think the job is so cushy and so well paid then away you go.

Or could it be that the idea of being on your own in charge of a bus full of agressive drunks and junkie scangers while trying to dodge the bricks being thrown at you from the local pre-teen scum at 1am in some of the roughest areas of the country is in fact not cushy at all.

No thanks, I've worked in the public sector, I couldn't handle being idle all the time.

John R wrote:

Why would I want to pretend anything? Some people want to work as much overtime as possible and some don't want to know at all, I am sure it is much the same in DB as it is in any other company.

No it isn't because unions can't create an artificial situation where overtime is needed.

John R wrote:

So now we have established that Dublin Bus driver's wages are comparable to other bus driving jobs in the private sector in Dublin and you have a massive chip on your shoulder that they are not on minimum wage. Does that about cover it?

You haven't proved that. I still maintain that Dualway job is for experienced drivers.

I never said they should be on minimum wage. If not feeling happy about being ripped off by public sector workers is having a chip on my shoulder then I'm guilty as charged.

John R wrote:

What does any of this have to do with the different transport policies of the various political parties?

It has to do with privatisation. Sipaliwini mentioned that unions cannot be expected to accept privatisation without payrises. Public Sector Unions will use any little excuse to get a pay rise. Pay scales in the public sector have risen completely out of line with private sector wages. If a downturn comes, it will be the private sector workers who lose their jobs.

nesf

ballooba wrote:

Actually, they do. Third level education is free in this country.

And that makes it an option for everyone how? Not everyone has parents to bankroll them through second level nevermind third.

Sipaliwini

Balooba wrote:
Sipaliwini mentioned that unions cannot be expected to accept privatisation without payrises. Public Sector Unions will use any little excuse to get a pay rise. Pay scales in the public sector have risen completely out of line with private sector wages. If a downturn comes, it will be the private sector workers who lose their jobs.

I did not say anything like that, you are putting words in my mouth. Unions shouldn't be expected to accept privatisation at all, if by privatisation we mean transfer of ownership to private individuals who operate the institution on a for profit basis.

It is sad to see how effective bureaucrats and bosses are at dividing their employees. Here you are, whingeing at how effective some public sector workers are at improving their conditions. What interest do you have in advocating a race to the bottom ? It makes more sense to call on private sector workers to claim a bigger share of the wealth they produce. I'm assuming you're not a manager/ business owner, if you are, nice try but I'm not buying your propaganda.

Someone earlier used the Luas as a rosy example of why privatisation is a good idea. I don't know the exact details, but:
-I doubt the operating company shouldered much of the infrastructure costs, so there was a massive initial subsidy
-The Luas operates on a highly frequented route

Now let's say people in Dublin want more trams like that. (Since the Luas is private, none of its profits go towards building more trams). The goverment goes ahead and creates a tram route. It turns out it is more costly to operate (longer distances, steeper slopes, less favorable user patterns). Then the government privatizes it.
1) To what extent can you say that it is "competing" with the Luas ? It's a different route ! Since it doesn't, the benefits from competition are zippo.
2) Since it is more costly to operate, it either needs to be subsidised more, or users on the new route have to pay more.

If you take the view that users of that route should pay more, then pushing it to the limit, you're effectively saying that some people should not be served by public transport.
If on the other hand you choose higher subsidies, how do you tell whether the difference in subsidy to both private operators represents the real difference in cost of providing the same service, as opposed to being distorted by misconduct of either tram operators ? Remember, zippo competition effect.
The private operators being distinct, you don't have the option of using the profits of a route to subsidise the other. (In other words, you don't have the option of solidarity between users of the public transport.)

To top it off, you are loosing value for money anyway because both tram operator owners are pushing for higher profits. Just look at the UK: it does not work.

What works is putting money in the damn thing and desisting from threatening the workforce. People work better when they're treated like responsible persons. Drop the laissez-faire blinkers already.

ballooba

Sipaliwini wrote:

I did not say anything like that, you are putting words in my mouth. Unions shouldn't be expected to accept privatisation at all, if by privatisation we mean transfer of ownership to private individuals who operate the institution on a for profit basis.

That's not up to the unions. Look at Aerlingus. We all own it, not just the unions. If the unions won't play ball then privatise it and let it sink or swim

Sipaliwini wrote:

It is sad to see how effective bureaucrats and bosses are at dividing their employees. Here you are, whingeing at how effective some public sector workers are at improving their conditions. What interest do you have in advocating a race to the bottom ?

Race to the bottom my arse. It's an open market. Supply and Demand.

You talk about my propoganda, race to the bottom is typical trade union nonsense.

Sipaliwini wrote:

It makes more sense to call on private sector workers to claim a bigger share of the wealth they produce. I'm assuming you're not a manager/ business owner, if you are, nice try but I'm not buying your propaganda.

I'm not a manger/business owner, but I have the ambition to aspire to being an employer some day. I believe in a fair deal for workers. Unions used to do important work and they still do in some cases. I would hope to never be in the situation after all the risks I take and hard work I put in to be held to ransom by greedy unions.

Sipaliwini wrote:

What works is putting money in the damn thing and desisting from threatening the workforce. People work better when they're treated like responsible persons. Drop the laissez-faire blinkers already.

But Laissez Fair is what you are advocating?!?!?

No-one is going to give you free reign to do what you want with their money.

nesf

Sipaliwini wrote:

Now let's say people in Dublin want more trams like that. (Since the Luas is private, none of its profits go towards building more trams). The goverment goes ahead and creates a tram route. It turns out it is more costly to operate (longer distances, steeper slopes, less favorable user patterns). Then the government privatizes it.
1) To what extent can you say that it is "competing" with the Luas ? It's a different route ! Since it doesn't, the benefits from competition are zippo.
2) Since it is more costly to operate, it either needs to be subsidised more, or users on the new route have to pay more.

See, there is the argument that the government should supply public goods, transport etc, that the private sector would fail to provide, as in your tram scenario. Or at least heavily subsidise it.

We also don't 'lose' the profits by having a route privatised. We get to essentially take a cut of any profits made without having to deal with the actual running of the business. The other thing is that your tram wouldn't compete with the luas but would compete with taxis, cars, buses etc so there would be some competition.

Sipaliwini

To Ballooba:

Hehe I can't believe I let myself be suckered into this.

Get back to me about your belief in a "fair deal for workers" when the shareholders of your company threaten to have you sacked if you don't show a bit more zeal in minding the bottom line by keeping wages low.

It is your business to have the "ambition to aspire" to be an employer, does it mean that people who don't share that value should be made to accept the paternalistic edicts of their bosses without bargaining ?

Hehe, true, laissez-faire the workers, as opposed to laissez-faire the "ambitious to aspire" minority who have demonstrated over the centuries their eagerness to curtail workers' democratic right to collective bargaining.

Thinking about how this all started I realise that you never justified your belief that public transport workers in this country are paid more than they should be. Where does it come from ?

About the "race to the bottom" thing, I don't see what is propagandistic about it. It is a fact that there is enough supply of labour in this world to keep wages eternally low. If not for workers struggling collectively, this country would still be divided between potato growers and British barons. The race to the bottom is a proper phrase to talk about the process of returning to that condition.

Sipaliwini

To nesf:

I don't understand, I was advocating government funding and running from the start.

As to why the government would want to forfeit most of the profits of running the institution, after it has gone through the painstaking process of funding it, designing it, implementing it and even started to run it, the rationale eludes me.

Also, there is no reason why the government couldn't rationally allocate resources on the basis of how succesful different overlapping services it runs (buses, trams, whatever) are.

Big companies that work well are rationally planned economies inside, sometimes to impressive extent (cf Walmart). Running things well is not a matter of competition, it's a matter of culture.

Look at it this way: if you wanted to create a human-like robot, would you try and rationnally build it through science, or would you create sparks in a petri dish and wait for humans to evolve again out of it through natural competition ?

nesf

Sipaliwini wrote:

To nesf:

I don't understand, I was advocating government funding and running from the start.

As to why the government would want to forfeit most of the profits of running the institution, after it has gone through the painstaking process of funding it, designing it, implementing it and even started to run it, the rationale eludes me.

Also, there is no reason why the government couldn't rationally allocate resources on the basis of how succesful different overlapping services it runs (buses, trams, whatever) are.

Big companies that work well are rationally planned economies inside, sometimes to impressive extent (cf Walmart). Running things well is not a matter of competition, it's a matter of culture.

Look at it this way: if you wanted to create a human-like robot, would you try and rationnally build it through science, or would you create sparks in a petri dish and wait for humans to evolve again out of it through natural competition ?

Agreed mostly, I think I misread your post originally.

ballooba

Sipaliwini wrote:

"ambition to aspire"

Say what you like about entrepreneurs, but if it wasn't for them, we'd all be civil servants.

Sipaliwini wrote:

Hehe, true, laissez-faire the workers, as opposed to laissez-faire the "ambitious to aspire" minority who have demonstrated over the centuries their eagerness to curtail workers' democratic right to collective bargaining.

Bargaining is about reaching a compromise where BOTH sides coming away happy but feeling they could have got a better deal. Unions have been getting more than their FAIR deal in these negotiations for years. I agree unions have achieved a lot for workers and we would have been worse off without them. They have lost their way of late and gotten greedy.

Sipaliwini wrote:

Thinking about how this all started I realise that you never justified your belief that public transport workers in this country are paid more than they should be. Where does it come from ?

Not public transport workers, public transport workers in the public sector.
The average industrial wage in 2005 was €29,000.
The average wage of a Dublin Bus worker was €42,945.

Sipaliwini

Those figures are too broad to pass judgement.
Averages are notoriously good at concealing distribution imbalances.
At the very least you should quote medians, for lack of having rank divisions with corresponding headcount and pay interval.

The figures also abstract shift constraints, working conditions (not that great in DB I hear), overtime worked...

Dirk Gently

ballooba wrote:

There's another thread on this forum about FG/Labour/Green policy. I don't want to completely hi-jack this one.

Ballooba quiet rightly pointed me to this thread as I was dragging THIS THREAD off topic with some of my questions.

I am basically worried that FG are making alot of suggestive statements but have not actually said for sure that they are going to act on the issues they themselves raised.

I'm just looking for some clarification.

I've done a copy on paste job on the last post I made in that thread and reproduced it here in the appropriate thread.

---

ballooba wrote:

I don't know what you're looking for from Fine Gael. They do not have the resources or the PR spend of the NDP. They do not have the resources of the DOF to publish an alternative budget. They can publish policies and they can attempt to get Private Member's Bills through, but they're limited in what they can do until they actually have our money.

That shouldn't stop them from saying, "when in power this is what we are going to do....(a) .....(b).....(c).

So far from this thread the issues I asked about, some of which FG are promoting and the rendition flights, which FG are slating the government on, I have received no straight answer on.

All I have is...... "maybe we might search the planes but I can't say either way", and "we are looking into alternatives for young offenders and the defence forces but we don't know what we are going to do yet".

To be fair if FG can't commit to searching planes they should not be allowed to beat up the current government about it until they are sure they actually are going to make a positive change should they get elected.

Likewise all this talk about young offenders and a new role for the defence forces means nothing to me because FG have not said what they are actually going to do when in government.

As far as I can see, FG have not committed to searching planes, young offenders or the new role of defence forces and really should stop talking about the issues until they come out and clearly state that they definitely will make the changes should they get elected. At the moment I think "we are looking into making changes" amounts to trying to deceive the public with a lot of spin and no real firm plans. I've no doubt FG are "looking into" these areas but really it's time to put up or shut up as "looking into" amounts to good intentions without the accountability should nothing happen when they're in office.

Basically its a slick use of language impling something will happen when the truth is it may or may not happen.

If FG get into government will................

(A) military planes get searched using shannon

(b) The defence forces definetly be involved with planning civillian projects

(c) are boot camps for young offenders definetly going to be a reality of a new FG government.

Just answer yes or no to the questions above and I'll be happy. I'd be even happier with a detailed report on how each of them would be implemented and what they consist of but a YES or NO would be progress at this stage.

If you can't answer yes or no to any of the questions then the issues should be dropped by FG until such a point where they can confirm they will definetly go ahead if they are in power.