o'keefe rolls back

bigstar

o'keefe rolled back some cuts for sub cover. is this proof the budget was a massive mistake? how can the government claim to be leading when they cant even stand by their own decisions.

genericgoon

bigstar wrote: »

o'keefe rolled back some cuts for sub cover. is this proof the budget was a massive mistake? how can the government claim to be leading when they cant even stand by their own decisions.

No its just proof our Government has no backbone.

Breezer

bigstar wrote: »

o'keefe rolled back some cuts for sub cover. is this proof the budget was a massive mistake? how can the government claim to be leading when they cant even stand by their own decisions.

Cowen has already said that the Government "didn't get everything right in the budget." Most people, even his own supporters, saw that from day 1. And it's not the first decision that's been rolled back either. Call me partisan, I'm sure some will, but it's blatantly obvious that the Government are not leading and haven't been for a long time.

ninty9er

The government is leading, which speaks volumes of the opposition in the current climate.

It's also not a u-turn, it's a postponement until the end of the academic year, which had already begun when the budget was announced.

implausible

It's blatantly obvious that O'Keefe didn't do his research and doesn't know how schools work. It was only when the implications of pulling sub cover for school business absences was made clear to him, that he realised the chaos that would ensue. This money will give schools the breathing space needed to operate until June.

He doesn't want the bad press that would have resulted from little Johnny arriving home complaining about his football match/school play/field trip being cancelled. This will buy him some badly-needed credibility.

bigstar

ninty9er wrote: »

It's also not a u-turn, it's a postponement until the end of the academic year.

just in time for the local elections. thats not leading thats pandering for votes

lostexpectation

stills lots of other cuts and schools to be built and fixed.

Breezer

ninty9er wrote: »

The government is leading

Please explain. A few months ago, its members refused to discuss the economy on the basis that all would be revealed in the early budget. The budget came, and was a fiasco, making cuts in all the wrong areas. After several rollbacks, Cowen effectively admitted this when he said that the Government "didn't get everything right in the budget," but he has not shown us how he is going to make the savings the budget promised now that it is in disarray. Meanwhile, we learn that even if the budget had been stuck to, the figures were out by €2 billion and counting. And in the midst of all of this, we have Lenihan saying one thing about the national pay deal, Cowen saying something else, and both answers being interchangeable depending on which paper is reporting it. Now where is the leadership in all of that?

Seth Brundle

ninty9er wrote: »

The government is leading, which speaks volumes of the opposition in the current climate.

It's also not a u-turn, it's a postponement until the end of the academic year, which had already begun when the budget was announced.

The government are not leading and don't convince yourself that they are. They may be better at stifling the oppositions rants but that does not constitute leadership. Is withdrawing finance from services for the more vulnerable in society good leadership?

As for O'Keeffe's claims against teachers, this was all a PR slur against them. The number of days he referred to is no more than most private sector workplaces. Many of the 'sick days' he was giving out about were where teachers were away with classes. Furthermore, IIRC the civil servants within the DoE take an average of nine sick days a year. Shouldn't he tidy up his own house before he looks elsewhere?

Lastly, what is the absenteeism rate from the Dáil? Are doctor's certificates mandatory to ensure that TDs who miss a days work still get paid?

Just because you are a FF supporter shouldn't automatically make you blind!

Breezer

kbannon wrote: »

They may be better at stifling the oppositions rants but that does not constitute leadership.

Admittedly the Opposition may sometimes be a bit hasty to jump on issues (even I'm getting a little tired of the constant calls for resignations and most of the time I agree with them!) But it is not as if everything they say is a rant. On Thursday Brain Hayes pointed out to Batt O'Keeffe that on average, teachers take 2 days uncertified sick leave a year, while officials in the DOE take 9. That's not a rant, it's statistical fact and proof that once again O'Keeffe is shouting his mouth off when he's got his figures wrong.

EDIT: Just read your post again kbannon and realised you quoted the same statistic. I wasn't really aiming my post at you anyway, just pointing out that there is substance behind the Opposition's arguments.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

But it is not as if everything they say is a rant.

Every time there's a rant it undermines any real substance that's in the next argument. Kenny and Gilmore need to rein in the idiots and leave the people who know what they're talking about do the rebuttals.

Breezer

nesf wrote: »

Every time there's a rant it undermines any real substance that's in the next argument. Kenny and Gilmore need to rein in the idiots and leave the people who know what they're talking about do the rebuttals.

Agreed. It shouldn't distract from the real substance that is there but in reality it does, because it's annoying to listen to. Unfortunately those who are ranting often hold "established seats" and a party is dependent on them if it ever wants its big hitters to be able to implement policy. But I'd be very grateful for a few less cringe moments alright.

eoinbn

bigstar wrote: »

o'keefe rolled back some cuts for sub cover. is this proof the budget was a massive mistake? how can the government claim to be leading when they cant even stand by their own decisions.

The massive mistake in the budget is the lack of cuts. The cuts that have been made are pretty minor compared to what will have to be made over the next 5 years. The 40,000 people out protesting today really need to educate themselves on how much trouble this country is in.

Seth Brundle

I don't think the protesters are misunderstanding the level of crap we are in - I think they are pissed off that the initial cuts seem to be directed towards the vulnerable within society e.g. I'm still waiting on civil service reforms, etc.

Also, whilst the IT are claiming 40,000, other media outlets are claiming a higher figure:
60,000 protesting
70,000 protesting

RiverWilde

Given the kid gloves that have been used in the handling of the banks - how many bankers have been given the sack? It is galling for the govt. to turn around and cut services to our children and elderly.

This govt. wants the people to don brand new hair shirts and live on beans and toast!

Riv

nesf

RiverWilde wrote: »

Given the kid gloves that have been used in the handling of the banks - how many bankers have been given the sack? It is galling for the govt. to turn around and cut services to our children and elderly.

The banks aren't public bodies and the Government isn't really in a position to be sacking them so I'm not sure what you're on about.

RiverWilde

nesf wrote: »

The banks aren't public bodies and the Government isn't really in a position to be sacking them so I'm not sure what you're on about.

The banks find that they need rescuing - Cowen immediately rows in with taxpayers money to bail them out - at that point he could very easily have said to them, 'if you want our help you sunder control of your business in key areas and explain why you're in this position.' He didn't do that, instead he said, 'okay lads let me just pull out the cheque book.'

The banks get to continue in exactly the same way as before, their mgt structure untouched by accountability etc etc. I could go on but I'm sure these points have been made over and over again. So, to reiterate what I said earlier, the banks and co. get a nice golden handshake whilst the children and the elderly and anyone else reliant on the state for something crucial get screwed.

Riv

Économiste Monétaire

RiverWilde wrote: »

The banks find that they need rescuing - Cowen immediately rows in with taxpayers money to bail them out - at that point he could very easily have said to them, 'if you want our help you sunder control of your business in key areas and explain why you're in this position.' He didn't do that, instead he said, 'okay lads let me just pull out the cheque book.'

The banks get to continue in exactly the same way as before, their mgt structure untouched by accountability etc etc. I could go on but I'm sure these points have been made over and over again. So, to reiterate what I said earlier, the banks and co. get a nice golden handshake whilst the children and the elderly and anyone else reliant on the state for something crucial get screwed.

Riv

The government didn't put any capital into any of the banks, and there hasn't been a 'bailout' (yet) of any Irish bank. A guarantee of liabilities and a bailout aren't interchangeable terms.

RiverWilde

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

The government didn't put any capital into any of the banks, and there hasn't been a 'bailout' (yet) of any Irish bank. A guarantee of liabilities and a bailout aren't interchangeable terms.

There may not have been an actual cash injection into the Irish banking system from the govt. However, the guarantee has allowed the banks to hoover up cash from otherwise probably unknown sources and has allowed them to continue, 'business as usual.' These same banks have been taking home rather nice profits for the past ten years or more. Now that the party is over they want to just shut up shop and let their customers pay. What is more galling is the fact that the govt. appears to be happy to allow this madness to continue.

Riv

Économiste Monétaire

RiverWilde wrote: »

There may not have been an actual cash injection into the Irish banking system from the govt. However, the guarantee has allowed the banks to hoover up cash from otherwise probably unknown sources and has allowed them to continue, 'business as usual.' These same banks have been taking home rather nice profits for the past ten years or more. Now that the party is over they want to just shut up shop and let their customers pay. What is more galling is the fact that the govt. appears to be happy to allow this madness to continue.

Riv

What have their profits for the last ten years got to do with the government's ability to dismiss staff of a private company/holding group? The guarantee on the banks' liabilities does not give the government any explicit say in the level of bank lending, only that they pay a specific fee and some cosmetic changes to executive pay (if I recall correctly.) The last figures for private sector credit don't show a dramatic fall. While I understand the frustration of businesses who have their business model based on easy access to short-term credit, there really is nothing the government can do. The British government is in the same predicament--and they're majority share holders in some banks.

RiverWilde

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

The guarantee on the banks' liabilities does not give the government any explicit say in the level of bank lending

If the banks want tax payers money it bloody well should. Underwriting their blunders seems to be the motto these days.

Riv

Économiste Monétaire

RiverWilde wrote: »

If the banks want tax payers money it bloody well should. Underwriting their blunders seems to be the motto these days.

Riv

They don't have tax payers money, though. It's very difficult for a government to set an effective floor on the level of lending--even if there was a capital injection.