Have we given up?

Lenny Lovett

Major protest marches took place in most European Capitals this weekend. Generally they are protesting at cuts resulting in far less hardship than we have coming to us yet we're not bothering to protest, it seems.

Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Lisbon, Athens and Copenhagen all had marches with crowds in excess of fifty thousand and most other provincial cities had protests too. Even London had protests but on a smaller scale. Noticably very little mention was made of these protests on RTE or TV3 News. Does this tell us something else?

So I'm asking: Are we beaten now? Have we given up the will to unseat the Government and reclaim our country? Do we no longer care?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

I don't like protesting against reality. If there was another game in town I'd be playing it, but I'm far from convinced there is.

Fo Real

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Major protest marches took place in most European Capitals this weekend..... Noticably very little mention was made of these protests on RTE or TV3 News.

I saw reports of the protests on both station's news programmes. Take off the tin-foil hat.

Also we don't know what cuts our government is going to make in the Budget yet, so we have nothing to protest against. I hope they slash public sector wages, of course. And force some accountability for the ludicrous expenses claimed by out TDs.

Lenny Lovett

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, to be fair, no other organisation was able to organise a protest march. The Unions were found out with their bank accounts bulging with our tax money and being used for jaunts around the world. They are equally in the trough along with the Politicians hence their impotence when it came to the Public Services Industrial Action. George Orwell's Animal Farm was such a prophetic work.

djpbarry

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So I'm asking: Are we beaten now? Have we given up the will to unseat the Government and reclaim our country? Do we no longer care?

Do we finally accept that a tough budget is a necessity and, regardless what becomes of “The Golden Circle” et al., there is no getting away from the grim reality that is the massive current deficit in the public finances?

Lenny Lovett

Fo Real wrote: »

I saw reports of the protests on both station's news programmes. Take off the tin-foil hat.

You saw only 45seconds of footage from the Paris protests. None from the other dozen or so.

Fo Real wrote: »

Also we don't know what cuts our government is going to make in the Budget yet, so we have nothing to protest against. I hope they slash public sector wages, of course. And force some accountability for the ludicrous expenses claimed by out TDs.

I think the level of cuts is immaterial really. The damage is done and the only way forward is to offload our current Government.

djpbarry

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I think the level of cuts is immaterial really. The damage is done and the only way forward is to offload our current Government.

I think the current government is immaterial really. Further damage could well be done and the only way forward is to drastically reduce our level of public current expenditure.

catbear

You have to be careful too of what the media reports. I was in Madrid on the day of their big strike last month, when I got home the Irish media reports stated that 10 million people came out. One out of every four Madrid residents were not on the streets that day. Maybe 1 in 20.

I was on a anti NAMA march over a year ago and yes it got infiltrated with the usual suspects.

Lenny Lovett

djpbarry wrote: »

..... the only way forward is to drastically reduce our level of public current expenditure.

Which is going to be nigh on impossible because of the contracted terms and conditions of the employees. If they are to be offered early retirement it will cost us as much in severance and pensions/welfare as to retain them as employees. They can't be made redundant. So what do you propose?

PeterIanStaker

Fo Real wrote: »

And force some accountability for the ludicrous expenses claimed by out TDs.

Well, there not going to do that. They'll ride you and me though, thats for certain.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think that's really fair. If the cuts started at the top and then worked their way down, people would be happier to accept them. But when politicians (with no portfolio) are earning 101,000 BEFORE expenses and the leader of a country of 4.5 million is earning 300,000+ and asking people to tighten their belts, well, something's quite not right there.

It has to start at the top and show real leadership

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think we realise here that cuts need to be made. And the unemployed are being paid 200euro a week not to protest.

When that changes there'll be more appetite for protest

southsiderosie

catbear wrote: »

You have to be careful too of what the media reports. I was in Madrid on the day of their big strike last month, when I got home the Irish media reports stated that 10 million people came out. One out of every four Madrid residents were not on the streets that day. Maybe 1 in 20.

I was on a anti NAMA march over a year ago and yes it got infiltrated with the usual suspects.

I've been very surprised by the lack of protests in Ireland over both the budget and the general mismanagement of the economy, but I think that the protests in other countries need to be put in perspective. I was also in Spain for the general strike, and I've been to several mass protests against the government led by the unions over the last few months. The vast majority of protesters are members of the two largest union confederations and are the most highly protected workers in the country. They also are disproportionately male, Spanish, and over 45, which in no way reflects the demographic realities of Spain's workforce today. If young people are out protesting, it is generally under the banner of an anarchist union, or some other anti-establishment organization, and they rarely get more than 60-100 people out into the streets (although they have a much higher capacity to cause chaos). I would guess that many of the other large protests across Europe were similar.

To put is differently, in Spain and France, the large union federations are the "usual suspects", they just have a lot more support than the SWP or eirigi in Ireland...and even still, trade union membership in Ireland is significantly higher than in Spain or France.

AlekSmart

And the unemployed are being paid 200euro a week not to protest.

When that changes there'll be more appetite for protest

Oh dear,Bottle_of_Smoke,you`ll draw fire on this one,however you`re pretty much correct.

We have as yet had no real attempt to curb the scale of our colossal Social Welfare net.

Its not about the unemployed either but more about the many thousands of claimants who have never paid a contribution in their lives.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68380286

The tale of Mr Ward from Sligo and his 20 children,all of whom are on Unemployment Assistance,is far more representative of our Social Welfare system than many wish to admit.

Until this,or any, Government takes action to end this type of codology then the contributing class will continue to be flayed for every cent they have.

Boskowski

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While that is true the ludicrous wages in the upper echelons of the Dail and Government and Civil Service embody a certain culture that we will have to do away with. Because it sets the tone of entitlement and megalomania that is evident in those circles.

I mean every Tom, Dick & Harry director of every state or semi-state body earns multiples of what the American President earns, ffs. And I'm sure there are a few hierarchies underneath that top level whose wages are not far from that.

Irish politicians are very quick to point out how they're representing 'only small country'. Well they're not pointing that fact out when it comes to justifying their wages. You'd think every single one of them is running British Petroleum or Sony or something.

It may be drops in the ocean in the grander scheme of things, but every MD of every SME out there will tell you that's not how it works. There is anwful lot of money to be wasted when you don't keep an eye on the seemingly small sums. Plus the culture of elitism and megalomania and entitlement is poison for this country, so there is two very good reasons to do away with it for you.

Lenny Lovett

AlekSmart wrote: »

The tale of Mr Ward from Sligo and his 20 children,all of whom are on Unemployment Assistance,is far more representative of our Social Welfare system than many wish to admit.

Until this,or any, Government takes action to end this type of codology then the contributing class will continue to be flayed for every cent they have.

And again we have the situation whereby the people who had no hand, act or part in our downfall ar the ones that everyone wants to penalise first. The poor. I would have no problem with the Welfare system being cut back as long as everyone else dipping into the public purse took an proportional whack too. The problem is that in the last budget these were the people who bore the brunt of the cuts and it looks like they're the target again. Why? Because they are an easy target. They have little or no representation. They cannot afford buses and trains to Dublin to protest. Many are poorly educated and so are unable to stand up for themselves unlike the Civil Service and other Unionised bodies.

LostinKildare

donegalfella wrote: »

Not coincidentally, every protest over the past two years has been organized and dominated by the SWP and éirígí, with hardly any involvement from anyone else.

I assume that when you say protest you mean protest march, because certainly there have been other types of protests that have not had any association with SWP and éirígí. The charge that all protests are planned or hijacked by them is designed to discourage participation --- most people don't want to be thought of as extremists.

But I draw your attention to the very successful medical card protest march, just less than two years ago. Organised by the Irish Senior Citizens' Parliament, 15,000 mostly elderly people on the streets, and the govt folded like a cheap suit. The Taoiseach came out and apologised for worrying them.

The elderly are the only ones with cojones for a fight. I doubt they'll be hit in the budget.

The unemployed will be hit, and they will not take to the streets en masse to fight it because so many, especially many of the newly unemployed, are ashamed of their situation. They don't want to be associated with a group they themselves have long looked down on, and they don't want to be shamed by onlookers. Because they know a lot of people see them this way:

AlekSmart wrote: »

Its not about the unemployed either but more about the many thousands of claimants who have never paid a contribution in their lives. The tale of Mr Ward from Sligo and his 20 children,all of whom are on Unemployment Assistance,is far more representative of our Social Welfare system than many wish to admit.

Fo Real

I must say, I'm a little surprised at the blasé attitude of some posters towards our TDs' expenses claims. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and accept "that's the way it is", but don't become indifferent to their blatant flaunt of abuse of power.

As Papa Smut already said, the cut backs must start at the top. It's hard to stomach being told to tighten our belts by our politicians when they are staying in 5 star hotels and being driven around in Mercs, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Every dole fraud kicked off social welfare is more money into the state coffers. Every TD that travels economy class rather than first class is more money into the state coffers. Watch the pennies and the pounds watch themselves.

djpbarry

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

And again we have the situation whereby the people who had no hand, act or part in our downfall ar the ones that everyone wants to penalise first. The poor.

That particular violinist is being thoroughly over-employed at the moment.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I would have no problem with the Welfare system being cut back as long as everyone else dipping into the public purse took an proportional whack too.

Why? There are plenty of people on the public wage bill who are doing a fine job, but you think they should take another pay cut (and be further disenfranchised) before the social welfare bill should be reduced? You don’t think a more targeted approach is the way to go, to clear out the dead wood?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The problem is that in the last budget these were the people who bore the brunt of the cuts...

Really? Care to put some figures on that?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

They have little or no representation. They cannot afford buses and trains to Dublin to protest. Many are poorly educated and so are unable to stand up for themselves unlike the Civil Service and other Unionised bodies.

And of course they don’t have internet access, so every Tom, Dick and Harry is attempting to tug at the heart-strings by speaking on their behalf.

Denerick

I'd love it if TDs and Ministers were paid minimum wage and got no expenses. But lets be honest with ourselves, the impact on the deficit wouldn't be noticable. Please see the bigger picture.

djpbarry

LostinKildare wrote: »

But I draw your attention to the very successful medical card protest march, just less than two years ago. Organised by the Irish Senior Citizens' Parliament, 15,000 mostly elderly people on the streets, and the govt folded like a cheap suit.

Of those 15,000 elderly people, how many need a medical card?

LostinKildare wrote: »

The unemployed will be hit, and they will not take to the streets en masse to fight it because so many, especially many of the newly unemployed, are ashamed of their situation. They don't want to be associated with a group they themselves have long looked down on, and they don't want to be shamed by onlookers. Because they know a lot of people see them this way

Please. If jobseekers benefit is reduced in the next budget, many (most?) unemployed people will accept it because the rate of jobseekers benefit is presently far too high. And I say that as someone who was recently unemployed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LostinKildare

djpbarry wrote: »

Of those 15,000 elderly people, how many need a medical card?

Completely beside the point. DF said all protest marches have been associated with SWP and eirigi. They have not. Some insinuate that only extremists -- never reputable people! -- engage in such protests. Well, criticise the grannies and granddads of Ireland at your peril --- even the rich ones who surely can pay for their own medical care. Many people say that protest marches are a waste of time. For select groups -- those that have the sympathy of the public --- they are quite successful.

djpbarry wrote: »

Please. If jobseekers benefit is reduced in the next budget, many (most?) unemployed people will accept it because the rate of jobseekers benefit is presently far too high. And I say that as someone who was recently unemployed.

It is too high for some people, in some circumstances. Sounds like you belong in that group. It is too little for other people in other circumstances.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

I recently started working a 40 hour week job in a supermarket at slightly above minimum wage (Beggars can't be choosers) Sometimes I wonder if I would have been better off on the dole, once you take out discretionary costs involved in travel...

LostinKildare

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I see problems everywhere.

But it's not that cut-and-dried, DF. Unemployed people in this recession have vastly different circumstances. Some people are wealthy and they don't need JB at all. Some people are not wealthy but they live with their parents, have no expenses but their own entertainment, and don't need 196 euros a week. Some people were solidly middle-class with modest consumer debt, they have a couple of children, and they are living hand to mouth in trying to meet their obligations. In many cases they don't qualify for rent supplement or other supplementary benefits for any number of reasons. They are in danger of losing their homes, and then the burden will be far greater on the state to house them.

Then there are unemployed people who are working in various employment schemes without pay because they want to retrain, or just to keep busy or maintain their pride. Some of them are contributing highly skilled work free of charge to the employers, and they have the transport, clothing, and childcare costs of a "working person." By your calculations, they get €105 less than a minimum-wage low-skilled worker does. They are not better off.


Anyway, we've got enough attack/defend the unemployed threads. This thread is about whether/why the Irish don't come out in protest. Let's not derail it

_Kaiser_

The problem I think people have with going after those on Welfare - and rightly so in my opinion - is the fact that rather than targeting the "wasters" who have made a career out of claiming benefits, the government will instead impose a "one size for all" approach that will impact the recently unemployed (like myself) who IS genuinely trying to find work AND meet existing commitments (loans, bills, mortgage/rent payments etc), not waiting for "debt forgiveness" or NAMA 2 etc

It's THESE people who will suffer most by this, NOT the ones getting hundreds per week and who know every angle to get more!

Oh and as far as the infamous Medical Card goes.. I got one when I was made redundant last year and signed on and guess how many times I've used it - zero!
It's therefore not really any "benefit" to me at all is it? If I was still working, I'd probably have to go public anyway as private healthcare is something I've only once had (as part of a job with one of the multinationals) - and I never used it then either!

But as I've said before, the government has shown time and again that it has the misdirection skills of a Batman villain! While we all finger-point and pass the buck, they (and their supporters in the banking and construction sectors) will continue to quietly recoup their losses at our expense, then jump ship and let the rest of us sink.

BUT ANYWAY...

The reason we won't come out protesting is because we Irish as a people are (in general) too busy trying to get one over on each other, grab as much as we can for ourselves, and can't see past our own driveways that the "bigger picture" or "national good" never comes into it. The "I'm alright Jack" philosophy at its "finest"

Until we GROW UP as a nation, things will never really change!

djpbarry

LostinKildare wrote: »

Completely beside the point. DF said all protest marches have been associated with SWP and eirigi.

I’m not disputing the point you were making, but I still think my question is relevant to the discussion. People protest for the sake of protesting. It was proposed that pensioners should not be guaranteed medical cards but should instead be means tested. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to me – to suggest that every pensioner needs a medical card seems rather ageist to me (I’m not implying you were suggesting such a thing).

LostinKildare wrote: »

It is too high for some people, in some circumstances. Sounds like you belong in that group. It is too little for other people in other circumstances.

As donegalfella pointed out above, jobseekers benefit is the bare minimum that an unemployed person is entitled to (assuming they have made a sufficient number of social insurance contributions). That bare minimum is far too high.

LostinKildare wrote: »

Some people were solidly middle-class with modest consumer debt, they have a couple of children, and they are living hand to mouth in trying to meet their obligations. In many cases they don't qualify for rent supplement or other supplementary benefits for any number of reasons. They are in danger of losing their homes, and then the burden will be far greater on the state to house them.

Can we put some figures on this – how many people fall into the above category? Because this just sounds like more of the same: “There’re probably lots of people out there who will suffer if we cut welfare, so we shouldn’t cut welfare”.

LostinKildare wrote: »

Then there are unemployed people who are working in various employment schemes without pay because they want to retrain, or just to keep busy or maintain their pride. Some of them are contributing highly skilled work free of charge to the employers, and they have the transport, clothing, and childcare costs of a "working person." By your calculations, they get €105 less than a minimum-wage low-skilled worker does.

What employment schemes are you referring to? Under the FÁS Community Employment scheme, for example, workers are paid €216 for a 19.5 hour week, plus add-ons for dependents. That is significantly above the minimum wage.

djpbarry

Boskowski wrote: »

Irish politicians are very quick to point out how they're representing 'only small country'. Well they're not pointing that fact out when it comes to justifying their wages. You'd think every single one of them is running British Petroleum or Sony or something.

I think it’s fair to say you’re exaggerating just a touch. Bob Dudley, CEO of BP, earned approx. $2.1 million last year. Howard Stringer, CEO of Sony Corp., will earn just over $5 million this year.

djpbarry

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The problem I think people have with going after those on Welfare - and rightly so in my opinion - is the fact that rather than targeting the "wasters" who have made a career out of claiming benefits...

To be fair, changes have been made in recent years in an attempt to tackle “career” welfare earners, such as imposing a maximum period of 12 months on jobseekers benefit before means testing kicks in and insisting that people present themselves in person to collect their payment, rather than using electronic transfers. The problem with tackling “wasters” is that, as is evident on this thread, many attempts to modify the welfare system are met with fierce resistance, as it is perceived by many to unfairly target “the vulnerable” in society. The medical card fiasco is a perfect example.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The reason we won't come out protesting is because we Irish as a people are (in general) too busy trying to get one over on each other, grab as much as we can for ourselves, and can't see past our own driveways that the "bigger picture" or "national good" never comes into it. The "I'm alright Jack" philosophy at its "finest"

Or perhaps people are just too busy searching for work and/or improving their skill set? Is that not in everyone’s interests?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LostinKildare

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not disputing the point you were making, but I still think my question is relevant to the discussion. People protest for the sake of protesting. It was proposed that pensioners should not be guaranteed medical cards but should instead be means tested. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to me – to suggest that every pensioner needs a medical card seems rather ageist to me (I’m not implying you were suggesting such a thing).

I agree that it should be means tested. But how do you reach your conclusion that "people protest for the sake of protesting"? Just because you and I disagree with them doesn't mean that they aren't fully and sincerely committed to their cause. Not everyone's a cynic.

djpbarry wrote: »

As donegalfella pointed out above, jobseekers benefit is the bare minimum that an unemployed person is entitled to (assuming they have made a sufficient number of social insurance contributions). That bare minimum is far too high.

I think there needs to be serious reform of the system; it's not fit for purpose in this economic climate. DF said something above about it being for food and clothing, but that is not the case for middle-class families with mortgages who have landed on social welfare. There are many reasons that they might not qualify for mortgage supplement, and even if they do, it never covers the whole thing (it doesn't pay any portion of the principal, nor should it) and may help with only a very small part of the monthly payment. 196 per week will not keep a roof over their heads.

djpbarry wrote: »

Can we put some figures on this – how many people fall into the above category? Because this just sounds like more of the same: “There’re probably lots of people out there who will suffer if we cut welfare, so we shouldn’t cut welfare”.

I'd like to know what the figures are, too. I don't know.

djpbarry wrote: »

What employment schemes are you referring to? Under the FÁS Community Employment scheme, for example, workers are paid €216 for a 19.5 hour week, plus add-ons for dependents. That is significantly above the minimum wage.

I'm talking about the FÁS Work Placement Program. The Jobseeker part of the FAS site seems to be down now, but have a look at the offered jobs --- the majority are WPP offerings. Many are white-collar skilled jobs that require degrees and experience. They are typically full time jobs and you get nothing other than keeping your 196 per week.

Look, I don't disagree with everything you're saying, I just object to the broad brushstrokes used to paint all the unemployed. It's complex. Some people will not suffer if SW is cut across the boards, some inevitably will.

Bill2673

donegalfella wrote: »

The issue of TDs' expenses is just a distracting sideshow. The media love to drum up outrage over matters such as Ivor Callely's mobile phone bill, but reducing all TDs expenses to zero would have no impact in real terms on our economic situation. Focusing on them is a bit like trying to lose weight by trimming your fingernails.[/QUOTE

Maybe its because I don't read the Irish newspapers in detail, but I do get the impression that the Irish papers are far more interested in the gossipy stories around the personal lives of politicians and others than they are in issues.

Now that may sound obvious, apologies so, and no need to point it out.

But to illustrate the point:

During the boom years say 2002 to 2007, who in the irish media was doing the clinical analysis of the sustainability of the bubble, the rise in construction related tax income, and the corresponding rise in govt spending.

There may have been an article here or there, but nothing sustained, whether from career journalists such as Fintan O'Toole or the guest economists like Jim O'Leary or Brian Lucey, or any of the others.

In contrast, how much time was given in 2006/2007 to the €50'000 grand that Bertie got? (Answer, an awful lot).
The biggest story in 2007 was Katy French, the papers went bazoobas on it.
And yet this was the year that our boom reached its apex and began to unfold. Just like everyone else, the media didn't know what was going on.

The one exception is UCD economist Morgan o'Sullivan. I take my hat of to that man, who uniquely in this country did his own research on the irish housing market by reference to what had happened in similar instances overseas.

Bill2673

djpbarry wrote: »

I think it’s fair to say you’re exaggerating just a touch. Bob Dudley, CEO of BP, earned approx. $2.1 million last year. Howard Stringer, CEO of Sony Corp., will earn just over $5 million this year.

Maybe the better analogy would be, you'd swear they were running the USA or Germany.

jmayo

djpbarry wrote: »

I think it’s fair to say you’re exaggerating just a touch. Bob Dudley, CEO of BP, earned approx. $2.1 million last year. Howard Stringer, CEO of Sony Corp., will earn just over $5 million this year.

I don't care what they earn as I don't help pay their salaries.
On the other hand I do help pay cowen et als. :mad:

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but as others have stated something drastic needs to be done about their overpayment and perks.
It is perception and optics.

It is a bit like a company owner telling his employees they have to take a paycut and work unpaid overtime, as he gets out of his band new car after coming back from a trip to Maldives.
It doesn't help morale now does it ?

It might not have much impact in the grand scheme of things, but as I always say it all adds up.
Every million saved here and there adds up to hundreds of millions.
Nothing should be exempt bar a very few items that actually save the state in the long run.
And before you ask, one of these would be things like carer's allowances that allow family members care for sick and elderly and hence don't take up hospital resources.
They are the real disadvantaged who are always first in the firing line.
Meanwhile a fair chunk of the supposed disadvantaged, the long term unemployed continue watching their sky boxes, visiting the bookies and the offie.

Bill2673 wrote: »

But to illustrate the point:

During the boom years say 2002 to 2007, who in the irish media was doing the clinical analysis of the sustainability of the bubble, the rise in construction related tax income, and the corresponding rise in govt spending.

There may have been an article here or there, but nothing sustained, whether from career journalists such as Fintan O'Toole or the guest economists like Jim O'Leary or Brian Lucey, or any of the others.

In contrast, how much time was given in 2006/2007 to the €50'000 grand that Bertie got? (Answer, an awful lot).
The biggest story in 2007 was Katy French, the papers went bazoobas on it.
And yet this was the year that our boom reached its apex and began to unfold. Just like everyone else, the media didn't know what was going on.

The one exception is UCD economist Morgan o'Sullivan. I take my hat of to that man, who uniquely in this country did his own research on the irish housing market by reference to what had happened in similar instances overseas.

I don't think you get it, the papers were making wads of cash from the property bubble through advertising.
They were not going to talk down the bubble and shoot the golden goose.
They were vested interests.

Do you mean Morgan Kelly from UCD ?

Lenny Lovett

djpbarry wrote: »

That particular violinist is being thoroughly over-employed at the moment.

No. I don't believe it is. There is a huge lack of understanding of just how bad the problem is. Or maybe it's just ignorance?

djpbarry wrote: »

Why? There are plenty of people on the public wage bill who are doing a fine job, but you think they should take another pay cut (and be further disenfranchised) before the social welfare bill should be reduced? You don’t think a more targeted approach is the way to go, to clear out the dead wood?

I would beg to differ. In my recent dealings with several Government Departments the standard of service is shoddy at best. With the exception of the medical front line staff and the emergency services the rest are substantially overpaid. You would be quick enough to compare welfare rates with the rest of Europe, then the wage rates of Civil Servants should be equally compared.

djpbarry wrote: »

And of course they don’t have internet access, so every Tom, Dick and Harry is attempting to tug at the heart-strings by speaking on their behalf.

Some people are not able to stand up for themselves. I have no qualms helping to defend the weaker sectors of society and make no apology for it.

djpbarry wrote: »

Of those 15,000 elderly people, how many need a medical card?

I would exopect that most do. However, the Government should have addressed all this over the past few years and not now when the ship is sinking.

djpbarry wrote: »

Please. If jobseekers benefit is reduced in the next budget, many (most?) unemployed people will accept it because the rate of jobseekers benefit is presently far too high. And I say that as someone who was recently unemployed.

I don't accept that it is far too high at all. Could you live on €196 per week including paying for food. clothes, rent, heat, light, the nice new water tax (courtesy of the Greens!) and other ancilliary taxes such as TV Licence etc? You may just about manage but you'd struggle.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well Public Service salaries can't be cut thanks to the ingenuity and forsight of our marvellous Government and their shrewd negotiation of the Croke Park agreement. So the only alternative is to hit on the poor disenfranchised of society.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You see, this is a popular political red herring. The fall in the cost of living is only true in some areas. For example if you live in, say, Tallaght, then you have a big choice of very competitive retailers in your area and can buy your groceries and clothes for probably 20%-30% cheaper than a person who lives in most parts of rural Ireland. In my own case I live in a small village and a sliced pan, for example, costs €2.10 in our local shop. It costs anything from 75c up in Dunnes in the nearest town 15 kms away. Travel for a rural unemployed person to that town costs €8.60 return with the only public transport provider Bus Eireann.

You're quite out of touch with reality on this DF.

djpbarry

LostinKildare wrote: »

I agree that it should be means tested. But how do you reach your conclusion that "people protest for the sake of protesting"?

Ok, I’ll recast that as a personal opinion.

LostinKildare wrote: »

DF said something above about it being for food and clothing, but that is not the case for middle-class families with mortgages who have landed on social welfare. There are many reasons that they might not qualify for mortgage supplement, and even if they do, it never covers the whole thing (it doesn't pay any portion of the principal, nor should it) and may help with only a very small part of the monthly payment. 196 per week will not keep a roof over their heads.

Most mortgage-holders who become unemployed will be entitled to a mortgage interest supplement. If, having lost their job, a mortgage-holder (who qualifies for jobseekers benefit and interest supplement) suddenly finds that they are in serious financial difficulty, then they really only have themselves to blame for their very poor financial planning (that’s not to say they should be crucified for their mistake). Even ignoring the fact that everyone should have something put away to help themselves through a period of unemployment, there are quite a lot of welfare options to keep people ticking over while out of work. Your assertion that mortgage-holders are trying to get by on EUR 196 per week is a bit disingenuous to be honest. Unless of course you want to produce some figures to show that a large number of people are in fact in such a situation?

LostinKildare wrote: »

I'd like to know what the figures are, too. I don't know.

So this is pure speculation. In which case I’m going to stick with my opinion that jobseekers benefit is too high.

LostinKildare wrote: »

I'm talking about the FÁS Work Placement Program. The Jobseeker part of the FAS site seems to be down now, but have a look at the offered jobs --- the majority are WPP offerings. Many are white-collar skilled jobs that require degrees and experience. They are typically full time jobs and you get nothing other than keeping your 196 per week.

Ok, fair enough. So how many people are in such placements? A few hundred maybe? I’m not really sure that’s a particularly strong argument against reducing that EUR 196 per week.

LostinKildare wrote: »

Look, I don't disagree with everything you're saying, I just object to the broad brushstrokes used to paint all the unemployed. It's complex. Some people will not suffer if SW is cut across the boards, some inevitably will.

I’m not painting anyone with anything. I just find it very hard to believe, with the vast array of social welfare payments available in this country, that large numbers of people are going to slip through the net into poverty and deprivation if we lower jobseekers benefit (for example). Particularly when we take into consideration the rapidly declining costs of essentials such as food and clothing.

djpbarry

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

No. I don't believe it is. There is a huge lack of understanding of just how bad the problem is.

Do enlighten us.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I would beg to differ. In my recent dealings with several Government Departments the standard of service is shoddy at best.

Ok, I’ll trade anecdotes. I worked in a public institute until quite recently (although I was not a public servant myself) and while there were undoubtedly several people I encountered who did not deserve to have a job, quite frankly, there were several others who loved their job, were wonderful to work with and certainly did not deserve to have their pay cut. A much fairer approach to dealing with the public sector wage bill would have been to turf out the wasters, but unions would never allow it.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

With the exception of the medical front line staff and the emergency services the rest are substantially overpaid.

You’re aware that nurses in this country earn substantially more (on average) than nurses in many other OECD countries? You’re aware that the number of nurses employed in this country per head of population is 60% above the OECD average?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Some people are not able to stand up for themselves...

...in your opinion.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I would exopect that most do.

In which case they would qualify through a means test. Why issue medical cards to people who don’t need them?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I don't accept that it is far too high at all. Could you live on €196 per week including paying for food. clothes, rent, heat, light, the nice new water tax (courtesy of the Greens!) and other ancilliary taxes such as TV Licence etc? You may just about manage but you'd struggle.

Sure can. Was doing it quite recently. I can assure you, it was no struggle – the balance in my savings account actually increased during my unemployment. Now that’s just not right, is it?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

You see, this is a popular political red herring. The fall in the cost of living is only true in some areas. For example if you live in, say, Tallaght, then you have a big choice of very competitive retailers in your area and can buy your groceries and clothes for probably 20%-30% cheaper than a person who lives in most parts of rural Ireland.

The CSO disagrees – prices in Dublin are generally higher than in the rest of the country.

Lenny Lovett

djpbarry wrote: »

Your assertion that mortgage-holders are trying to get by on EUR 196 per week is a bit disingenuous to be honest. Unless of course you want to produce some figures to show that a large number of people are in fact in such a situation?

I doubt it is disingenuous at all. I know many people who are trying to get by on just the bare €196 and cannot pay mortgages. Don't forget that to claim the additional benefits can take up to eight months as there is a massive back log in Social Welfare and they are grindingly slow at the best of times.

djpbarry wrote: »

So this is pure speculation. In which case I’m going to stick with my opinion that jobseekers benefit is too high.

So You could live on €196 a week then AND pay all your bills and taxes etc etc as well as eat properly? I doubt it somehow.

djpbarry wrote: »

I just find it very hard to believe, with the vast array of social welfare payments available in this country, that large numbers of people are going to slip through the net into poverty and deprivation if we lower jobseekers benefit (for example). Particularly when we take into consideration the rapidly declining costs of essentials such as food and clothing.

Nobody is entitled to a "vast array of social welfare benefits". Most who are entitled to benefit are entitled to only one benefit. This urban myth of people getting lots of different benefits is just that. Myth. Tens of thousands (formerly self employed) are entitled to nothing at all. And as for your red herring about costs of everyday items coming down. That is only valid in the cities. In rural areas where competition is slim, prices remain high. Try and keep some sense of reality in the debate.

Lenny Lovett

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, I’ll trade anecdotes. I worked in a public institute until quite recently (although I was not a public servant myself) and while there were undoubtedly several people I encountered who did not deserve to have a job, quite frankly, there were several others who loved their job, were wonderful to work with and certainly did not deserve to have their pay cut. A much fairer approach to dealing with the public sector wage bill would have been to turf out the wasters, but unions would never allow it.

It's time for us to tell the Unions to F**k off then.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re aware that nurses in this country earn substantially more (on average) than nurses in many other OECD countries? You’re aware that the number of nurses employed in this country per head of population is 60% above the OECD average?

Maybe so. Are you prepared to compare their working conditions too then? Also if you go by your logic and compare the number of Nurses to the OECD countries, why don't you quote the numbers of Admin and Managers also? I'd prefer to have nurses in the hospitals than managers if we have to make a choice over which we can afford. We could outsource most of the admin for a fraction of the cost. The sooner we throw out the vast majority of the pen pushers in the Public Services the better.

djpbarry wrote: »

In which case they would qualify through a means test. Why issue medical cards to people who don’t need them?

Great. So we creat more paperwork and Administrators and Managers and associated plebs etc etc to manage the means test. A big step forward?:rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure can. Was doing it quite recently. I can assure you, it was no struggle – the balance in my savings account actually increased during my unemployment. Now that’s just not right, is it?

I'm sorry, but I just don not believe that. Sorry.

djpbarry wrote: »

The CSO disagrees – prices in Dublin are generally higher than in the rest of the country.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Come down to rural Wicklow/Wexford and I'll show you facts!

DeVore

There is no freakin point in going out and protesting unless you believe it can effect change.

Does anyone think they can effect change by protesting at the moment?? Genuine question, should be a yes or no answer really...

Do you think the Greeks or now the French are doing themselves any favours or are they digging themselves a bigger hole?


Lets watch shall we.... lets see if the protests in France effect a single political change or will they simply have done a shed load of damage to their own economy by the end of it. My guess is that they will garner a few political trickets at most.

The time to get out and campaign is when we can make a difference... which is most likely the next general election.

DeV.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I know many people who are trying to get by on just the bare €196 and cannot pay mortgages. Don't forget that to claim the additional benefits can take up to eight months as there is a massive back log in Social Welfare and they are grindingly slow at the best of times.

So people have to wait a while for taxpayers to cover their mortgage for them? Bless.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So You could live on €196 a week then AND pay all your bills and taxes etc etc as well as eat properly?

Sure could – is that really so hard to believe? How much are you spending on bills and food?!?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Nobody is entitled to a "vast array of social welfare benefits".

I didn’t say any ‘body’ was.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Most who are entitled to benefit are entitled to only one benefit.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and conclude that you have absolutely nothing to back up that claim?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Also if you go by your logic and compare the number of Nurses to the OECD countries, why don't you quote the numbers of Admin and Managers also?

I quoted figures on nurses because you stated that “with the exception of the medical front line staff and the emergency services the rest are substantially overpaid”. By what measure are “the rest” substantially overpaid but front line staff (such as nurses) not?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I'd prefer to have nurses in the hospitals than managers if we have to make a choice over which we can afford.

So you’d keep bad nurses at the expense of good managers?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Great. So we creat more paperwork and Administrators and Managers and associated plebs etc etc to manage the means test.

If necessary, yes. Is it not worth it if it results in a net saving to the taxpayer?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I just don not believe that. Sorry.

Well let’s put some figures on it, shall we? Myself and the missus rent a 1-bed flat (hopefully not for much longer) in Dublin 7. Rent is €750 per month – that’s €375 each or about €87 per week. Electricity bill probably averages about €80 every two months and gas would be about the same. Cable TV is €40 per month. Broadband is €45. I have a mobile but I don’t really use it (webtext FTW), but we’ll say €10 credit per month. So that’s about €22 per week for bills. We’ll say about €50 per week for groceries (per person, which is a bit of an over-estimate), which leaves about €38 for whatever you’re having yourself.

I would also point out that the above constitutes a reasonably good standard of living. And, I wasn’t claiming rent supplement.

How anyone can consider €196 per week a struggle is beyond me. Really is. It is evidence of the epic hangover this country is suffering post-Celtic tiger that people cannot conceive living on such means.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Come down to rural Wicklow/Wexford and I'll show you facts!

Let me guess – you’re going to show me a shop were a sliced pan costs €2.10, thus proving the exception?

DeVore

Christ, everyone, enough with the quote-hockey in this thread! :rolleyes:


DeV.

Lenny Lovett

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok. So let's do a quick estimate of weekly essential living expenses:
Rent: €100
ESB: €20
Heat (Solid or Oil) €12
Groceries: €30
Clothes: €15
Mobile/Internet etc €15
+++This is assuming that the person does not drink or smoke. Ladies need 'Personal Hygiene' items. People sometimes need medicines etc. Travel expenses to get to interviews etc etc. Not including items like cable/Satelite TV etc etc. Let's be realistic please chaps!

djpbarry wrote: »

So people have to wait a while for taxpayers to cover their mortgage for them? Bless.

Or else they get evicted and we end up paying for theoir full accommodation costs forever. What's the better choice?

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure could – is that really so hard to believe? How much are you spending on bills and food?!?

Luckily I'm not on the Dole but I did try and get by for two weeks on 196 a week as an experiment because I was of the same illusion as you that it could easily be done... It can't!

djpbarry wrote: »

I didn’t say any ‘body’ was.

Pedantic:rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m going to go out on a limb here and conclude that you have absolutely nothing to back up that claim?

Apart from dealing with many many unemployed people through a charity I do some voluntary work with. Have a look at the SW website and you will see what the entitlements are. And, as I stated there are tens of thousands of people entitled to nothing, zero, zilch because they were self employed. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

djpbarry wrote: »

I quoted figures on nurses because you stated that “with the exception of the medical front line staff and the emergency services the rest are substantially overpaid”. By what measure are “the rest” substantially overpaid but front line staff (such as nurses) not?
So you’d keep bad nurses at the expense of good managers?

Yes. But to be fair there's much evidence of bad management in the HSE. Hell, the whole organisation is a testament to bad management. There's, however there's very little evidence of poor standards of nursing. Regarding your question on the Management: Absolutely. I'd outsource the Management and Admin segments.

djpbarry wrote: »

If necessary, yes. Is it not worth it if it results in a net saving to the taxpayer?

More jobs for the Public Servants. False Economy.

djpbarry wrote: »

Well let’s put some figures on it, shall we? Myself and the missus rent a 1-bed flat (hopefully not for much longer) in Dublin 7. Rent is €750 per month – that’s €375 each or about €87 per week. Electricity bill probably averages about €80 every two months and gas would be about the same. Cable TV is €40 per month. Broadband is €45. I have a mobile but I don’t really use it (webtext FTW), but we’ll say €10 credit per month. So that’s about €22 per week for bills. We’ll say about €50 per week for groceries (per person, which is a bit of an over-estimate), which leaves about €38 for whatever you’re having yourself.

I would also point out that the above constitutes a reasonably good standard of living. And, I wasn’t claiming rent supplement.

How anyone can consider €196 per week a struggle is beyond me. Really is. It is evidence of the epic hangover this country is suffering post-Celtic tiger that people cannot conceive living on such means.

So you don't pay for refuse collection? Rates? TV Licence? Doctor's/Hospital Visits? Medicines? Clothes? etc etc etc Travel (for interviews, visits to family etc?) You won't be paying the new water tax?
Be realistic man!
I note that you say yourself and "the missus". So is she employed? If so, how were you entitled to the full Dole? Was her income not taken into account when you applied?

djpbarry wrote: »

Let me guess – you’re going to show me a shop were a sliced pan costs €2.10, thus proving the exception?

That and many other examples of how the cost of living is substantially higher outside the cities.

_Kaiser_

djpbarry wrote: »

Well let’s put some figures on it, shall we? Myself and the missus rent a 1-bed flat (hopefully not for much longer) in Dublin 7. Rent is €750 per month – that’s €375 each or about €87 per week. Electricity bill probably averages about €80 every two months and gas would be about the same. Cable TV is €40 per month. Broadband is €45. I have a mobile but I don’t really use it (webtext FTW), but we’ll say €10 credit per month. So that’s about €22 per week for bills. We’ll say about €50 per week for groceries (per person, which is a bit of an over-estimate), which leaves about €38 for whatever you’re having yourself.

I would also point out that the above constitutes a reasonably good standard of living. And, I wasn’t claiming rent supplement.

How anyone can consider €196 per week a struggle is beyond me. Really is. It is evidence of the epic hangover this country is suffering post-Celtic tiger that people cannot conceive living on such means.
Let me guess – you’re going to show me a shop were a sliced pan costs €2.10, thus proving the exception?

Just jumping in on this, but that's a very optimistic budget in my opinion!

ESB/Gas €80 every 2 months?? Double that (or more) and it'd be about right in my experience - especially with rising charges and winter already starting to set in. You say you don't use your mobile much so presumably the laptop/PC is always on which of course uses electricity.

You left out travel costs as well, though I'm presuming that as you live in Dublin, you're getting buses/LUAS everywhere. As Lenny points out though, outside the city things are a bit different... thanks to our piss-poor infrastructure, a car is a must - especially as most of the jobs are back in Dublin.

Also as he says, basic groceries and such cost more too as a town may have 1 large-ish shop (Supervalu etc) with little/no other competition.. even the Tesco in the next town from here (20 minutes drive away) is dearer than those in Dublin for the same reason.

You also left out clothes, bin charges, eircom line rental (unless your broadband is with UPC in which case fair enough.. except UPC isn't available outside the cities either). A lot of the recently unemployed also have kids and existing loans/credit card debt etc that they're also trying to service while they find something new. There's probably others I've forgotten too, but that's just off the top of my head.

So ok yes, if you're a single unemployed person, living in Dublin with no commitments or debts then I guess it'd be possible to manage on €196 a week, but if you're a little bit older/married/have kids/debts from when you were working and live outside the capital things become a little different!

djpbarry

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

ESB/Gas €80 every 2 months?? Double that (or more) and it'd be about right in my experience...

As a year-round average in a flat?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

So ok yes, if you're a single unemployed person, living in Dublin with no commitments or debts then I guess it'd be possible to manage on €196 a week, but if you're a little bit older/married/have kids/debts from when you were working and live outside the capital things become a little different!

I'm not disputing that other people have expenses that I don't, but there are other forms of assistance available (such as rent supplement), which I was not claiming.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.