Civil unrest may force June election...

Darragh29

Now before you go locking this on me, these are not my thoughts but the thoughts of Fianna Fail strategist Noel Whelan, who aired these views on TV3's The Political Party.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/civil-unrest-may-force-june-poll-1673559.html

I'm getting wary about this budget, if they cut social welfare payments, or childrens allowance, will people just flame up???

kerry4sam

That article was interesting reading there but I can, unfortunately, see Fianna Fail wethering this upcoming storm somehow and actually manage to avoid a General Election.

I believe FG don't actually want to be in Government at these harsh times and would just prefer to let FF carry the can and watch from across the Dail floor especially since their numbers are as good as they are atm.

But in saying that though, they might feel more confident about leading the country if the locals/EU elections go their way.

oscarBravo

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm getting wary about this budget, if they cut social welfare payments, or childrens allowance, will people just flame up???

What do people suggest instead, to fill in the multi-billion euro hole in the public finances?

yoshytoshy

Some payments on the social welfare are ridiculous ,there should be a much broader range of payment levels.
Some people should get a little more and some a lot less.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

What do people suggest instead, to fill in the multi-billion euro hole in the public finances?

The standard suggestions are
- that the pay of public servants be cut (a suggestion not at all agreed by those employed in the public service)
- that the wealthy (meaning anybody with more resources than the person posting) should pay more taxes.

Interpretation: "somebody else must pay, not me".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ejmaztec

oscarBravo wrote: »

What do people suggest instead, to fill in the multi-billion euro hole in the public finances?

It would be very easy for the government to hammer the tax-payer, both directly and indirectly, but if they do do that, the non-food and cheap clothing retail sector will be deceased. Lenihan's already admitted that the vat increase was a mistake, something that even the dogs on the street knew.

I don't think that there is any way in which the government can make up the huge difference by expecting the population to fund it.

Then it's down to the IMF or a miracle.

AlekSmart

What do people suggest instead, to fill in the multi-billion euro hole in the public finances?

OscarBravo,I think Daragh29 was just underlining the lack of alternative to MAJOR cuts in the Social Welfare budget which are IMO now Inevitable.

The continued payment of significant amounts of Benefit to certain groups of claimants cannot be reconsiled with a rapidly decreasing amount of contributions froman equally decreasing number of contributors.

Somewhere within the past two decades the Republic decided to rewrite the basic rule of ALL Insurance schemes...Social or Commercial.

"The contributions of the Many shall pay for the Claims of the Few"

It`s a simplistic and pithy description of what SHOULD have been a Social Support system designed to SUPPORT rather than MAINTAIN a claimants particular Lifestyle,whatever that may have been.

The real threat comes in this case not from OAP`s or those recieveing Short Term CONTRIBUTORY payments who,in the main,have funded through their many years of such payments their own Insurance.

However, the huge Pink Elephant now sitting the the Social Welfare waiting room is hundreds of thousands of Claimants who have NEVER contributed a cent into any of the PRSI classifications and who have simply been accepted intop membership of a unique club which has funded a parallell existence.

This is the group which will be attracting the attention of the "Activists","Agitators"and "Motivators" each of whom have their own agenda`s to pursue.
I agree with Darragh29..these are dangerous times and we seem to be totally unaware of just how unstable a society we now inhabit !!!

yoshytoshy

Racism is going to play a big part in this argument ,as time goes by.
Theres going to be violence ,but theres nothing we can do about it. Just try and be prepared for it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's one way to cope with hard times: think about how much worse they might be.

Satire can be good for the spirit.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....everything?

While I would agree that the system is way too bloated (especially in relation to the size of the country) what you're suggestion sounds more like anarchy to me than reform.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do that and the brightest people will leave the country and you'll be left with the crap that lived off the stated during the boom times because everyone else will have emigrated :P

One problem of taking social welfare away from people who haven't contributed is you'll need increased policing to cope with all the new crime.

So is it cheaper to have more police or to pay these people their benefits?

I'm not against taking away their benefits and I do realise the size of the hole in the budget but I'm not sure we can keep policing levels at their current level and maintain civil order in many small towns and villages if benefits are cut to these people.

thebigcheese22

God donegalfella will use any opportunity to spread that libertarian bull****...gotta respect him for that at least!

ejmaztec

thebman wrote: »

Do that and the brightest people will leave the country and you'll be left with the crap that lived off the stated during the boom times because everyone else will have emigrated :P

One problem of taking social welfare away from people who haven't contributed is you'll need increased policing to cope with all the new crime.

So is it cheaper to have more police or to pay these people their benefits?

I'm not against taking away their benefits and I do realise the size of the hole in the budget but I'm not sure we can keep policing levels at their current level and maintain civil order in many small towns and villages if benefits are cut to these people.

It may be cheaper to maintain current policing levels and leave it up to the individual to pay protection monies to the local "thug" to keep the starving people away from your property.

thebman

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

God donegalfella will use any opportunity to spread that libertarian bull****...gotta respect him for that at least!

In fairness, if there were ever a time to call for the abolition of government and unions, it is now.

Assuming you believe it would work of course.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I like that idea donegalfella.

yoshytoshy

Ah lads come on ,who would pay for the buildings that need building ,roads ,immigration control etc.

Next we'll be all driving around in multicolor volkswagen vans.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fear, most notably fear of extreme change in the way the country is run. The reason people on benefits wouldn't leave is because they can't afford to and probably wouldn't be entitled to benefits anywhere else since they aren't citizens of those countries and haven not worked there in their lives. More likely to stay behind and rob anyone who is working that did stay in the country.

So we should pay people not to become criminals? Regardless, I don't find a historical justification for your argument. Even during the Famine, we didn't see a widespread breakdown of civil order.

There will most definitely be an increase in crime if you take away the benefits from people that have never contributed to society. They have a sense of entitlement to their payments and if you take it away, they will most likely find another way to support their lifestyle. Crime has already gone up since we entered recession. People that have lost out in society will inevitably feel they should get their own back on society. It is only natural, it is revenge.

I'm not sure if we have proper records of famine time crime rates.

I don't want to pay them to not become criminals. I just want the cheaper option. If we have to get more police to arrest people then we will have to pay for them and pay for the courts to give them a fair trial and pay for the prisons to house them should they be convicted.

Is this cheaper than giving them the dole or a substantially reduce dole payment? I don't know, it should be examined is all I'm saying. We should try to work out in advance what the consequences of our actions will be. No point walking head first into something and then learning the lesson if we can find the answer before hand.

I wouldn't be against a situation where people who have not worked for a certain period of time that indicates they have no interest in working are requested to perform state duties such as street cleaning in an effort to at least get them out of the house.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Moral problems are a nice luxury to have ...but not for much longer

What exactly do you propose to do with half a million jobless people suddenly without income ...(keeping in mind that most of those would have built up an entitlement to some sort of governement help)?

Foodstamps? Butter vouchers?

Or are you just quietly trying to promote your new Rottweiler & shotgun dealership? :D:D

mikemac

Foodstamps are good enough for 28 million Americans. Source

Wouldn't be a shock to see them introduced here though that's a brand new scheme to administer so possibly not

silverharp

peasant wrote: »

Moral problems are a nice luxury to have ...but not for much longer

What exactly do you propose to do with half a million jobless people suddenly without income ...(keeping in mind that most of those would have built up an entitlement to some sort of governement help)?

Foodstamps? Butter vouchers?

Or are you just quietly trying to promote your new Rottweiler & shotgun dealership? :D:D

its obviously part of a bigger picture , every client of the state wants their part of the pie left alone but doesnt mind others taking the hit. We signed up to not having deficits bigger then 3% , at a minimum this should be the line in sand wrt to current spending. As far as I'm concerned there are whole departments that dont serve the average persons interests , these should be closed straight away.
When reality dawns that additional debt will increase borrowing rates for the gov. and everyone else (quite rightly) at somepoint the "state" will have to decide if it wants to be subprime where it ends up canabilising the assets of the people or taking tough measures now

NewDubliner

silverharp wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned there are whole departments that dont serve the average persons interests , these should be closed straight away.

Name them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dresden8

Hope you've got a gun with 500,000 round of ammunition DF, they'll all be coming for your private sector riches.

Sorry, make that 800,000 after you've sacked all the public sector.

Dr Galen

while I don't agree with some of your more right leaning principles I can definitely agree that urgent reform of the Social Welfare system is needed.

As you rightly point out, the social is almost like a career option for many people out there. Thats not its purpose at all. It's meant to be a stopgap, something to get you by, not to live off for the rest of your life. Unless you have some physical incapacity to work that is, then I'd feel that the state has a role to play in your support, likewise with things like say maternity benefit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the problem is, that in order to solve situations like this that happen all over the country it will take a lot more time than we've got. It's pretty much going to take a generation for this to go away.

really this sort of thing should have been done during the boom years, when we had the cash to double fund, i.e continue to pay single mothers allowance, but get a real and effective program togehter allowing them to get out to work, including government sponsored childcare, training allowances etc. Now we don't have the proverbial pot, so none of this can happen.

Aprils gonna be a tough month for a lot of people out there

dresden8

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? You want to cut off all social and income supports for hundreds of thousands of people and you expect them to say that DF is right, I'm an uneconomic unit and should eff off and die, or maybe Bangladesh will take me in.

You might be sorely disappointed if the Army and Gardai step aside and say "Go for it lads".

(I noticed you kept them because protecting you and your wealth is one of the few true and worthwhile functions of the state.)

Zynks

I lived in the country with the second worst distribution of wealth in the world for many years. It is amazing how ethics and pride go down the drain, and the value of human life collapses. DF, your dream country exists, but it is not in Europe.

I've been there, and I prefer a socially conscious system, though many changes are needed around here to stop abuse and plain stupidity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dresden8

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good luck with that. The Gardai might be happy to be over zealous at Rossport protestors but I don't think they and the army will be prepared to machine gun those 800,000 people for you.

Blackwater maybe?

Zynks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Read this report from Oxfam. It will give you some idea of what comes to my mind when I read your argumentation.

Darragh29

Can we really see civil unrest though on or after 7th April??? It is hard to see this budget being harsh enough to be effective... They could try to cut social welfare payments claiming that it can be done without pain due to a falling cost of living, basically claiming that the decision would be "cost neutral" to the claimant, but I can't see people on social welfare agreeing with that analysis.

If he isn't going to put VAT up, and it seems that he won't, and Corporation Tax is untouchable in case the MNC's start wetting themselves, then to make any serious impact on the figures, it looks like either a substantial property tax is on the way back, and the PAYE workers will be queuing up at chemists up and down the country for KY Jelly on 6th April...

thebman

I think property tax is the fairest way to do it TBH. It should probably be on the value of the property as the more well off will usually have bigger homes in better areas so they will be of higher value.

The obvious disadvantage of this is that house value isn't stable and is going in the wrong direction and how to calculate worth for each house over a blanket tax which has lower administration costs.

However a blanket tax could be the final nail in the coffin on payments for some mortgage holders.

I think maybe base it off the mortgage the person currently has. Add some kind of tax or levy to the interest being charged by the bank to increase revenue that way so the bank does a lot of the administration which it is doing anyway when charging the interest on the account or find another way but I don't think a blanket tax is wise as it will force certain people out of their homes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

givyjoe81

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please dont take this as a personal attack but i feel the need to address this nonsense as its now becoming clear.. you're NOT actually takin the p1ss. Up until you have droned on quite a bit and up to a point have given the illusion of some intelligent comments, however your suggestion that we privatise the above, including health is absolutely ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting we follow a privatised health system such as the unmitigated disaster that is the US health 'service'..Christ if you want unrest thats a sure fire way to go about it.

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Please dont take this as a personal attack but i feel the need to address this nonsense as its now becoming clear.. you're NOT actually takin the p1ss. Up until you have droned on quite a bit and up to a point have given the illusion of some intelligent comments, however your suggestion that we privatise the above, including health is absolutely ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting we follow a privatised health system such as the unmitigated disaster that is the US health 'service'..Christ if you want unrest thats a sure fire way to go about it.

There are merits to a private health care system too. I'll be the first to say it would be more efficient and would probably create more jobs in our health care system.

I think we should privatise it but I can't condone leaving people to die because they don't have health insurance. I think those who can afford to pay should pay and the rest should get free health insurance from the state (i.e unemployed etc...)

There is an inherit problem with this however. Private interests would charge different rates to private and public patients which would waste the states money as they shouldn't need to do this.

To prevent this, an independent payment system would need to exist to try to stop this. A system would need to be put in place so the private hospital does not know if the patient is a public or private patient. This removes any bias in treatment and prevents price gouging the taxpayer picking up the bill.

It also reduces administration costs for the hospitals as they don't have to work out which health insurance company to charge to or do any of that work. They just have an automated system that sends the bill to this system. As the state is doing the administration, it could recoup the costs of this administration by charging a percent on each charge (admittedly killing the benefit I just stated if you do this) or else it would have to come from standard tax.

gurramok

On the topic in question, its damn obvious when you have a huge proportion of young men unemployed, some of them(maybe a minority) will resort to violent protest out of whatever desire they have. This is recognised in other countries as a source of their unrest problems. Give them jobs and the problem goes away or in the Irish context, lets hope they emigrate like alot of them did in the late 80's.

This has happened before, primarily in 1985. Widespread anti-social crime by these very same type of men who had nothing to do but hang around street corners brought chaos to Irish society.(if anyone here remembers!)

All it takes is for them to be sufficiently organised in this internet arena for them to take their frustrations on lack of hope on the rest of us. It just takes a spark. And i'm just talking about the unemployed ones. There is alot of anger by those that still have jobs so yes, the possibility of civil unrest is there, its just needs a spark.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

givyjoe81

thebman wrote: »

There are merits to a private health care system too. I'll be the first to say it would be more efficient and would probably create more jobs in our health care system.

I think we should privatise it but I can't condone leaving people to die because they don't have health insurance. I think those who can afford to pay should pay and the rest should get free health insurance from the state (i.e unemployed etc...)

There is an inherit problem with this however. Private interests would charge different rates to private and public patients which would waste the states money as they shouldn't need to do this.

To prevent this, an independent payment system would need to exist to try to stop this. A system would need to be put in place so the private hospital does not know if the patient is a public or private patient. This removes any bias in treatment and prevents price gouging the taxpayer picking up the bill.

It also reduces administration costs for the hospitals as they don't have to work out which health insurance company to charge to or do any of that work. They just have an automated system that sends the bill to this system. As the state is doing the administration, it could recoup the costs of this administration by charging a percent on each charge (admittedly killing the benefit I just stated if you do this) or else it would have to come from standard tax.

Please show me an example of an efficiently running private health care system, im not saying there aren't any but i reckon the total disaster of the United States health care system is a fairly big caveat not to even consider going down this route, it simply doesnt seem to work. And as it stands in this country, many people earning a decent income are unable to afford private health care due to many other crippling costs. If cuba can do it, we can do it.

Still think DF's post and 'suggestions' are absolutely shocking! Also, tell me how on earth do you privatise education?! Cant help but picture that futuristic Simpson's episode where the Troy McClure is asking school students several questions... the answer's to which are differing denominations of Pepsi....

Zynks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you insist in a system that doesn't give a f#@k about it's people, Brazil before Lula is one of the closest to your views. Of course, Sierra Leone might be a good fit also...or maybe Russia, Mexico??? Common man, humans are greedy. Give them a hand and they want an arm. Deregulate and privatise everything and you head towards social collapse. I believe in an entrepreneurial society, but social consciousness is essential for stability.

givyjoe81

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh so what your saying is that the US system is more like the total mess Irish system which is in reality a mix between the two... And Canada spends less.. hmmm how many people live in Canada again?? If your referring to per capita perhaps that makes sense.. or does it?? Actually no it doesnt, so Canada with its fully socialised system, NOT PRIVATISED, spends less than Americans do on their 'perfectly functioning' hybrid system...

And lets see why does the US spend so much on 'Public health care'... because their min wage is set so low that many citisens can barely afford to feed themselves, never mind afford health insurance..

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Please show me an example of an efficiently running private health care system, im not saying there aren't any but i reckon the total disaster of the United States health care system is a fairly big caveat not to even consider going down this route, it simply doesnt seem to work. And as it stands in this country, many people earning a decent income are unable to afford private health care due to many other crippling costs. If cuba can do it, we can do it.

Still think DF's post and 'suggestions' are absolutely shocking! Also, tell me how on earth do you privatise education?! Cant help but picture that futuristic Simpson's episode where the Troy McClure is asking school students several questions... the answer's to which are differing denominations of Pepsi....

You can identify the reasons the other systems failed and avoid those problems.

I think private hospitals would be more efficient and cleaner than our current hospitals and that would lead to better treatment than we currently have.

I don't think at least initially we should be worried about improving standards above their current level where they are crap currently. I don't think a private healthcare system could be worse than what we currently have.

When you have competition, it pays to provide the best service.

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Oh so what your saying is that the US system is more like the total mess Irish system which is in reality a mix between the two... And Canada spends less.. hmmm how many people live in Canada again?? If your referring to per capita perhaps that makes sense.. or does it?? Actually no it doesnt, so Canada with its fully socialised system, NOT PRIVATISED, spends less than Americans do on their 'perfectly functioning' hybrid system...

And lets see why does the US spend so much on 'Public health care'... because their min wage is set so low that many citisens can barely afford to feed themselves, never mind afford health insurance..

I'd question our public services ability to run a health service properly based on recent performance where many staff couldn't be bothered to wash their hands it seems.

I think if your going to look at Canada you have to compare the power of trade unions between the countries and the productivity of the work force in the public sector in both countries. One of the problems with our health care system seems to be the staff don't want to see changes to the way things are done and actively fight change when healthcare is rapidly evolving with new discoveries made every day.

givyjoe81

thebman wrote: »

You can identify the reasons the other systems failed and avoid those problems.

I think private hospitals would be more efficient and cleaner than our current hospitals and that would lead to better treatment than we currently have.

I don't think at least initially we should be worried about improving standards above their current level where they are crap currently. I don't think a private healthcare system could be worse than what we currently have.

When you have competition, it pays to provide the best service.

The health of a nations citisens should NOT be subject to a 'competition'. Competitive forces have no place in our health care system, except possible with regard to pay of health service staff. I recently seen a quite interesting documentary on the NHS with a doc being interviewed about how his bonus works... in a nutshel, the better the health of his patients the more he earned, that is literally the only suitable form of competition in ours or any health service.

Do you honestly believe that competition brings better service as an absolute?! Think Ryanair! Actually think of anything in this country where we unfortunately have a limited amount of competitors... the service is truely shocking... have you ever had to deal with any of our TV/telecommunications providers?!

Inevtiably private operators will take shortcuts and abuse the system.. Who do you think a private operator would rather treat, a minimum wage commoner (im one of them!) or a Cheeky Charlie ripe to have his golden pockets pinched. I can only make suggestions based on my current knowledge base as i mentioned surely to God we can take some lessons from the Cuban system.

givyjoe81

thebman wrote: »

I'd question our public services ability to run a health service properly based on recent performance where many staff couldn't be bothered to wash their hands it seems.

I think if your going to look at Canada you have to compare the power of trade unions between the countries and the productivity of the work force in the public sector in both countries. One of the problems with our health care system seems to be the staff don't want to see changes to the way things are done and actively fight change when healthcare is rapidly evolving with new discoveries made every day.

Yep some sure are resisting change faciliated by their unions and for the most part, they should be told where to go.. Im not singling out nurses but as far as i am aware they are paid for every single sick day that they miss and an unfortunate high number of these seem to abuse this fact, ( i know several who do this personally), porters too.. That itself is lunacy.. But getting off topic a little

I would also add that many Irish doctors and scientists are greatly contributing to these discoveries so we're not doing everything wrong.. A chap i know, an NCHD, as part of his training is required to develop a tool for use in operations, and for his part has managed to develop some kind of ingenious saw... Anyway he fully acknowledges the shortcomings of our system on a daily basis to which his hands are tied. I dont believe for a second however that as an insider would see a privatised health system as the solution. But il ask him next time i see him (not that his opinion is divine, but better than ours!)

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Inevtiably private operators will take shortcuts and abuse the system.. Who do you think a private operator would rather treat, a minimum wage commoner (im one of them!) or a Cheeky Charlie ripe to have his golden pockets pinched. I can only make suggestions based on my current knowledge base as i mentioned surely to God we can take some lessons from the Cuban system.

I'm not suggesting people's health be left up to chance or how much they earn. Read my post again, one of the purposes of the system I outlined is to remove the ability of the hospital to know if a patient has private or public health insurance. Nobody should be refused care. If someone has no health insurance by choice they should be treated and they can pay the public back since they will have the means as they didn't qualify for free public health insurance. I'd emphasize that people should never be refused treatment based on ability to pay. That has to be written in stone and doctors and nurses will not allow a hospital to kill its patients if you offer an anonymous system to report abuse.

There should be accountability and an investigation into the cause of death by an independent third party to see if treatment was performed correctly. No company should be allowed to leave a person to die if something can be done or pain removed to allow a less painful death. I think if you put those policies in place, doctors would follow them and stick up for patients as they are treating them and won't want to watch them die. This could be done on a reporting basis to reduce the number of investigations. So if a family member feels the hospital acted inappropriately they can request an investigation by the government body.

givyjoe81 wrote: »

I would also add that many Irish doctors and scientists are greatly contributing to these discoveries so we're not doing everything wrong.. A chap i know, an NCHD, as part of his training is required to develop a tool for use in operations, and for his part has managed to develop some kind of ingenious saw... Anyway he fully acknowledges the shortcomings of our system on a daily basis to which his hands are tied. I dont believe for a second however that as an insider would see a privatised health system as the solution. But il ask him next time i see him (not that his opinion is divine, but better than ours!)

The problem seems to be the assumption that private health care causes death. It is a reputation earned from American hospitals or at least what people read about them over here. I believe it can be done right and with minimal interference in the market.

For one thing if hospitals were forced to release statistics on failed surgeries, number of MRSI cases etc... then it would lead to patients choosing (when possible) to go a good hospital. Since this affects the hospitals bottom line, it would lead to better treatment for patients as no hospital would like to be viewed as the one that kills people and the one to avoid.

With private hospitals they'd be more of them competing for service in areas leading to better emergency response times too by ambulances as they won't get money if the person dies at the road side accident etc...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.