Claiming The Future

Lenny Lovett

Just reading about this event yesterday at the RDS.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/oct/31/mood-incredible-at-alternative-ideas-forum/

Was any posters from here at it? Or does anyone know anything about it apart from what was in the papers?

PanchoVilla

I was at the Leitrim meeting but didn't make it to Dublin for the big one. Here's their website anyway, I'd say you'll get some information there.

http://www.claimingourfuture.ie/

ei.sdraob

FF should be renamed to Wasting/spending our Future

Macha

It was full of champagne socialists - the only thing they agreed was a maximum wage threshold. It's a shame none of them ever sit down and cost any of their lovely policy ideas.

Oh and apparently employment should be a right.

bijapos

Yes I was at it, it was a very interesting and productive day. Essentially involved 1000 people from all walks of life and various experiences debating a list of issues and ideas in groups of 10. decisions were achieved on consensus. Groups were also encouraged to contribute their own ideas as well. Its essentially about which direction people feel this country should go in the future and what is important to the future of the country.

People were not invited but could apply to join, it was funded by a few organisations which are listed on the website. The issues to be discussed were agreed in advance through discussion on the net and some regional meetings.

It is not the attempted start of a new political party, this wish was expressed by an overwhelming majority of the groups, but instead a modus should be implemented to get more people involved in future groups.

bijapos

taconnol wrote: »

It was full of champagne socialists

Wrong

the only thing they agreed was a maximum wage threshold.

Wrong

Oh and apparently employment should be a right.

Wrong


I take it you weren't there.

ei.sdraob

bijapos wrote: »

Wrong
.

they were banging on about maximum wage on last frontline...

southsiderosie

OK, but looking at the "results" documents they issued, these are some of the conclusions from the "Making our economy work for the people" session:

• Achieve greater income equality and reduce poverty through wage, tax and income policies that support maximum and minimum income thresholds. 395 votes
• Prioritise high levels of decent employment with a stimulus package to maximize job creation in a green/social economy. 336 votes
• Recognise and reward all meaningful work, enable more flexible work arrangements and greater job sharing, and care work to be shared more equally between men and women. 252 votes
• Increase the overall tax take to the EU average and broaden the tax base. 225 votes
• Utilise the ‘pension reserve fund’ to invest in capital works programmes of social infrastructure and in private and social enterprise small business start ups. 195 votes

Oy vey, the number of consultant-speak buzzwords on that website gives me a headache. As for the "policies", where is the money for a stimulus package going to come from? What is a "green/social economy"? Pension funds should fund social enterprise? What? Why not make it easier to start a business, encourage more banks to come in to Ireland so they could get access to capital, and change bankruptcy laws so they can be wound down and started up again?

I am all for flexible work, but I suspect that ICTU would have problems with how this would work in practice.

bijapos

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they were banging on about maximum wage on last frontline...

Taconnel said

the only thing they agreed on was a maximum wage threshold

which is wrong, there were a lot of things agreed on, but Taconnel said this along with tarring the whole 1000 people there as champagne socialists, which is frankly childish and moronic. Either Taconnel should educate him/herself a bit better on who was there or s/he try to desist from the tabloid cliches.

bijapos

southsiderosie wrote: »

OK, but looking at the "results" documents they issued, these are some of the conclusions from the "Making our economy work for the people" session:

What happened is that at each session we were given 5 points like te above to debate and put them in order 1-5 of which is the most desirable. I personally did not agree with some of the options we were given but they were agreed on in advance and thats fair enough. Each group could also contibute up to 5 of their own ideas as well.

southsiderosie

bijapos wrote: »

What happened is that at each session we were given 5 points like te above to debate and put them in order 1-5 of which is the most desirable. I personally did not agree with some of the options we were given but they were agreed on in advance and thats fair enough. Each group could also contibute up to 5 of their own ideas as well.

I see. So the voting outcomes suggest that the most popular economic recommendation was the suggestion that maximum and minimum wage thresholds should be established in order to reduce inequality. What was the rationale behind this?

irishh_bob

is that the outfit which is headed by ubber PC wooly liberal do - gooder niall crowley and that shirll , pontificating woman who,s always on with vincent browne lecturing tax payers about how thier not paying enough tax and social wellfare is too low , i often hear those wafflers banging on about stuff which is purely aspirational and which is of little concern to anyone who lives outside left liberal dublin 4 or vincent brownes studio , never once heard them offer a single practical solution as to how to tackle job creation and unemployment

PanchoVilla

I'm really starting to get pissed off with the implication that being "liberal" is something to be mocked and looked down upon. The civil rights movement came from these "liberal lefties", as did many other popular movements. What new ideas have conservatives brought forward? None, because they're happy enough living in the past where inequality and social injustice reign supreme.

PanchoVilla

southsiderosie wrote: »

I see. So the voting outcomes suggest that the most popular economic recommendation was the suggestion that maximum and minimum wage thresholds should be established in order to reduce inequality. What was the rationale behind this?

Here is where people put forward their ideas and were asked to vote on them, so you can probably get more answers there. I'm disappointed with the shortlist they presented in the meeting but I don't think it will be the last and nobody is drawing up any policies or creating any parties. This is just a discussion and an exchange of ideas about how we can move forward and out of this mess we're in at the moment. There's no point being negatively critical of people trying to think of new ways to make things work.

As the old saying goes, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Lenny Lovett

taconnol wrote: »

It was full of champagne socialists - the only thing they agreed was a maximum wage threshold. It's a shame none of them ever sit down and cost any of their lovely policy ideas.

Ok. So it's another Green Party then? I take it you were at it?

ei.sdraob

The good:

it is nice seeing people coming together and talking politics/economy
we sure need more of that


The bad:

Unfortunately things like that tend to get hijacked by extremist lefties and whoever shouts the loudest

Macha

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Ok. So it's another Green Party then? I take it you were at it?

Hah, gibe taken on the chin. But it was more SWP & the left of the left.

Yes I was there.

PanchoVilla

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The good:

it is nice seeing people coming together and talking politics/economy
we sure need more of that


The bad:

Unfortunately things like that tend to get hijacked by extremist lefties and whoever shouts the loudest

The thing that kind of pissed me off was all 5 options were in regards to the economy. We all know the economy's fúcked and needs changing. There was no mention of reform of political structures, no mention of judicial reform, nothing really about anything that will prevent us from sliding back into this mess we're in at the moment. I imagine the union reps present at the meeting had something to say about that. The current system serves them well.

Edit: Ok, scratch all that. They have the results on four different PDFs. Would have been handy if they had them all on the one with titles for each session. Anyway...

National development and sustainability
Economy
Governmental and judicial reform
Social services and education

Lenny Lovett

taconnol wrote: »

It was full of champagne socialists - the only thing they agreed was a maximum wage threshold. It's a shame none of them ever sit down and cost any of their lovely policy ideas.

taconnol wrote: »

Hah, gibe taken on the chin. But it was more SWP & the left of the left.

Yes I was there.

It wasn't a jibe. Merely an observation. What you say went on: "It was full of champagne socialists"...."It's a shame none of them ever sit down and cost any of their lovely policy ideas".
That analogy could be applied fairly to The Greens could it not?

southsiderosie

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Here is where people put forward their ideas and were asked to vote on them, so you can probably get more answers there. I'm disappointed with the shortlist they presented in the meeting but I don't think it will be the last and nobody is drawing up any policies or creating any parties. This is just a discussion and an exchange of ideas about how we can move forward and out of this mess we're in at the moment. There's no point being negatively critical of people trying to think of new ways to make things work.

As the old saying goes, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

If nobody is drawing up policies and either putting them on their political agenda or moving towards organizing a new party, then what is the point?

I've been to a lot of these (and organized a few in my day), and they tend to be giant circlejerks. My guess would be that the organizers (most of whom seem to have ties to the Labour party) are going to use the "outcomes" to further a very specific political agenda; otherwise from their perspective it was a waste of time and energy. The fact that so many of the "questions" were pre-determined only deepens my skepticism; I don't see that as a discussion and exchange of ideas, but rather a search for validation of a political platform.

Macha

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

It wasn't a jibe. Merely an observation. What you say went on: "It was full of champagne socialists"...."It's a shame none of them ever sit down and cost any of their lovely policy ideas".
That analogy could be applied fairly to The Greens could it not?

I wouldn't consider the Greens socialists in the true sense of the word. And to be honest there were probably a lot of ex-Green Party members there-that's what I meant by the gibe comment - there's probably some truth in it. But I do think the Green Party members who are left are certainly more pragmatically minded than those who have gone.

(I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion of the Greens)

PanchoVilla

southsiderosie wrote: »

If nobody is drawing up policies and either putting them on their political agenda or moving towards organizing a new party, then what is the point?

To encourage discussion and engagement in a largely apathetic country?

I've been to a lot of these (and organized a few in my day), and they tend to be giant circlejerks. My guess would be that the organizers (most of whom seem to have ties to the Labour party) are going to use the "outcomes" to further a very specific political agenda; otherwise from their perspective it was a waste of time and energy. The fact that so many of the "questions" were pre-determined only deepens my skepticism; I don't see that as a discussion and exchange of ideas, but rather a search for validation of a political platform.

Yeah, some of the ideas were put forward by the organizer but people were able to add their own and vote for what they liked best. I personally think most of it made a lot of sense regardless of who suggested the ideas. So what if it's just a tool for Labor or whoever to base their policies on? At least they're asking the public what they want/need, as opposed to dictating to the public what they're getting. I think your cynicism is getting the better of you. We have an opportunity to have a say and to change things for the better, don't be foolish enough to just throw it away.

southsiderosie

PanchoVilla wrote: »

To encourage discussion and engagement in a largely apathetic country?



Yeah, some of the ideas were put forward by the organizer but people were able to add their own and vote for what they liked best. I personally think most of it made a lot of sense regardless of who suggested the ideas. So what if it's just a tool for Labor or whoever to base their policies on? At least they're asking the public what they want/need, as opposed to dictating to the public what they're getting. I think your cynicism is getting the better of you. We have an opportunity to have a say and to change things for the better, don't be foolish enough to just throw it away.

My cynicism is hard-won, and I am never letting go. NEVER!

People can have a say by writing their TDs, organizing protests, whatever. Apolitical activity is not going to lead to political change. If TDs aren't listening, it is in part because citizens are directing too much attention towards each other, and not enough towards those who actually operate the levers of power.

Let me ask you this: was there an "ask" at the end of the day? What exactly were the next steps the organizers put forth?

PanchoVilla

southsiderosie wrote: »

My cynicism is hard-won, and I am never letting go. NEVER!

People can have a say by writing their TDs, organizing protests, whatever. Apolitical activity is not going to lead to political change. If TDs aren't listening, it is in part because citizens are directing too much attention towards each other, and not enough towards those who actually operate the levers of power.

Let me ask you this: was there an "ask" at the end of the day? What exactly were the next steps the organizers put forth?

Well then, this is just another way to reach our TDs. One person writing one letter that can be largely ignored won't do much. A room of 1000+ people getting media attention will probably have a bit more influence.

I wasn't at the final meeting, they'd probably think some homeless guy wandered in accidentally. I attended my local meeting and I'm not really sure what they're planning next. I'm gonna try planning my own meeting if there's no news because we didn't really get a chance to discuss this as much as we would have liked.

dan_d

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The good:

it is nice seeing people coming together and talking politics/economy
we sure need more of that


The bad:

Unfortunately things like that tend to get hijacked by extremist lefties and whoever shouts the loudest

Well, obviously it's easier to sit at a keyboard and whinge on an internet forum all day.....it's a far more effective way to do business.:D

Scofflaw

irishh_bob wrote: »

is that the outfit which is headed by ubber PC wooly liberal do - gooder niall crowley and that shirll , pontificating woman who,s always on with vincent browne lecturing tax payers about how thier not paying enough tax and social wellfare is too low , i often hear those wafflers banging on about stuff which is purely aspirational and which is of little concern to anyone who lives outside left liberal dublin 4 or vincent brownes studio , never once heard them offer a single practical solution as to how to tackle job creation and unemployment

If you can't post without indulging in an insulting rant, perhaps it would be better that you didn't post. Do take that as a warning.

moderately,
Scofflaw

irishh_bob

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you can't post without indulging in an insulting rant, perhaps it would be better that you didn't post. Do take that as a warning.

moderately,
Scofflaw

sorry , i thought insults were only disallowed against members of boards . ie , i didnt realise thier were any rules against ( insulting ) public figures , you gave me an infracture a while back for criticising travellers but at least their not public figures

confused

irish_bob

bijapos

taconnol wrote: »

Hah, gibe taken on the chin. But it was more SWP & the left of the left.

Yes I was there.

I've no idea where you got the idea that that meeting was SWP dominated, my table certainly was not, there was one person at it who I would describe as well left the others were definitely not, I would describe them as centre/centre-left. There was one fully paid up member of the Greens there as well. From speaking to people at the breaks I found in no way that it was as you are trying to represent.

taconnol wrote: »

And to be honest there were probably a lot of ex-Green Party members there-that's what I meant by the gibe comment - there's probably some truth in it. But I do think the Green Party members who are left are certainly more pragmatically minded than those who have gone.

I saw one ex-Green who is a former councillor there that I can recognise, but there were plenty of active paid up members there as well. I have no idea why you want to tarnish the whole thing as being SWP-Communist-PBP-Socialist when it quite clearly was not. Maybe you could comment on the fact that the second highest of the preferred values was "environmental sustainability".

You complain here on a regular basis on the treatment of the Greens and stereotypes associated with them but you still have no problem tarring 1000 people with the same brush.

Macha

bijapos wrote: »

I've no idea where you got the idea that that meeting was SWP dominated, my table certainly was not, there was one person at it who I would describe as well left the others were definitely not, I would describe them as centre/centre-left. There was one fully paid up member of the Greens there as well. From speaking to people at the breaks I found in no way that it was as you are trying to represent.

I am reporting my experience. If your experience was different, fair enough. That doesn't make my experience any less valid.

bijapos wrote: »

I saw one ex-Green who is a former councillor there that I can recognise, but there were plenty of active paid up members there as well. I have no idea why you want to tarnish the whole thing as being SWP-Communist-PBP-Socialist when it quite clearly was not. Maybe you could comment on the fact that the second highest of the preferred values was "environmental sustainability".

What about it? environmental sustainability as a goal has entered the mainstream discourse in Ireland. Acceptance of realistic, sometimes unpopular measures to achieve it have not. I found that to be the theme of the whole day. I mean, who would be against things like "justice" and "sustainability" and "participation"? Unfortunately, they all mean different things to different people and we all have different ideas of how to achieve them. Ie, most people I spoke to were against water charges. Go figure.

bijapos wrote: »

You complain here on a regular basis on the treatment of the Greens and stereotypes associated with them but you still have no problem tarring 1000 people with the same brush.

I don't do anything on a regular basis in this forum anymore. The people I met at the event, and not just at my table, were mainly PANA, SWP, very left Labours, trade union members and other environmentalists. The acceptance at the end of the event of the idea of a maximum wage cap just encapsulated how unrealistic many people at the event were about their proposals. I felt the event was very much guided in a particular direction and it was very loaded in its format. As I said at the top, I don't see why you have a problem with me reporting my experiences. If you had a different experience, let us hear about it but don't try to invalidate mine.

Lenny Lovett

taconnol wrote: »

What about it? environmental sustainability as a goal has entered the mainstream discourse in Ireland. Acceptance of realistic, sometimes unpopular measures to achieve it have not. I found that to be the theme of the whole day. I mean, who would be against things like "justice" and "sustainability" and "participation"? Unfortunately, they all mean different things to different people and we all have different ideas of how to achieve them. Ie, most people I spoke to were against water charges. Go figure.

I reckon the environmental sustainability issues have been driven back decades by the political actions of the Greens since they sold their souls to Fianna Fail. People were willing to embrace "Green" initiatives pre '08 for the right reasons then the Greens blundered their way into Power and made a balls of the whole issue by creating the totally incorrect perception that recycling and protecting the environment will cost everyone a fortune. They also had three years to introduce water charges properly (ie pay for what you use by metering it) but they p1ssed about instead and now it's coming in as a tax that everyone must pay regardless of use - no incentive to save and recycle water at all but every incentive to waste even more of it.:mad:.

If those leaving the shambles Greens, now try and hijack this new movement then it is doomed to failure. The "Claiming te Future" initiative is to be applauded. At least they are doing something to try and change the future. There is a definite place in Irish Politics for Socialism.... Real Socialism.

Macha

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I reckon the environmental sustainability issues have been driven back decades by the political actions of the Greens since they sold their souls to Fianna Fail. People were willing to embrace "Green" initiatives pre '08 for the right reasons then the Greens blundered their way into Power and made a balls of the whole issue by creating the totally incorrect perception that recycling and protecting the environment will cost everyone a fortune. They also had three years to introduce water charges properly (ie pay for what you use by metering it) but they p1ssed about instead and now it's coming in as a tax that everyone must pay regardless of use - no incentive to save and recycle water at all but every incentive to waste even more of it):mad:.

If those leaving the shambles Greens, now try and hijack this new movement then it is doomed to failure. The "Claiming te Future" initiative is to be applauded. At least they are doing something to try and change the future. There is a definite place in Irish Politics for Socialism.... Real Socialism.

I couldn't disagree more. But I don't know why this is turning into yet another Green-bashing thread. It's tedious and the main reason I don't post in this forum any more.

southsiderosie

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

There is a definite place in Irish Politics for Socialism.... Real Socialism.

No there is not. And there never has been. Ireland has never had an electorally viable hard left. Labour is a social democratic party; they are not socialists.

irishh_bob

neither are this claiming the future crowd real socilists , thier well heeled D4 left liberals , smoked salmon socilists , in the vein of fintan o toole , ivana bacik and justine mc carthy , guilty liberals who see the working class as some sort of civics class assignment , the whole thing is one big high minded intelectual vanity project which is of bugger all use to anyone

Lenny Lovett

southsiderosie wrote: »

No there is not. And there never has been. Ireland has never had an electorally viable hard left. Labour is a social democratic party; they are not socialists.

Just because there has never been a proper Socialist Party doesn't mean that Socialism has no place in Irish Politics.

southsiderosie

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Just because there has never been a proper Socialist Party doesn't mean that Socialism has no place in Irish Politics.

When has it ever? Irish voters are consistently and notoriously centrist, and have been so since the state was founded.

The backbone of socialist parties across Europe has historically been the urban/industrial working class, and other than some mining, Ireland was never a place with a lot of heavy industry outside of Belfast. So most of the potential socialists got partitioned away, and the Republic went straight from being a rural/agricultural economy to a service/post-industrial economy without stopping at the industry part.

Amhran Nua

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Just because there has never been a proper Socialist Party doesn't mean that Socialism has no place in Irish Politics.

By the time you get through all the various definitions of socialism and all the ways the nutters on the hard left have tried to shoehorn themselves into every organisation in the country, entryism, the term no longer has any meaning. Increasing the middle class, reducing the concentration of wealth, using the resultant taxes to help the less well off, these are good things. Communism/marxism/what have you ism is bad.

Take a gander at what their top voted policies look like:
1. call a massive protest following on from this event
2. Stop trying to rehabiliate exploitative capitalism and publicaly promote another social model
3. Re-enact Justin Keating 1975 legislation on oil and gas and extend this to all OUR natural resources
4. Aim for economic equality to make democracy meaningful
...
6. Be Radical, think radically
...
8. Democratise investment

Looks like champagne socialists alright.

PanchoVilla

I read some of the posts in this thread and it becomes very clear to me why Ireland is in the state it's in. Anyone who has the courage to demand radical reform in this country is slated as a "hard left nutter", "tree-hugging hippie", or a "champagne socialist". I was involved and I've never had more than €1000 in my bank account. Passing judgement on an entire group of people you've never met before is just juvenile and unproductive.

I'd like to know what the critics of this organization have done to bring about change in this country. What exactly are you involved in besides slating people on a public forum? What ideas can you share that will help move this country forward? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Macha

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I read some of the posts in this thread and it becomes very clear to me why Ireland is in the state it's in. Anyone who has the courage to demand radical reform in this country is slated as a "hard left nutter", "tree-hugging hippie", or a "champagne socialist". I was involved and I've never had more than €1000 in my bank account. Passing judgement on an entire group of people you've never met before is just juvenile and unproductive.

I was there. And I want change but change that makes economic sense. The word "elite" was bandied about far too often and those that I spoke to were unwilling to accept basic facts about the Irish economy. For example, the wealthy in Ireland pay a disproportionate amount of income tax as Ronan Lyons explains:

In the last year for which public information is available, 2006, Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total.
As their average tax rate was 27%, it is perhaps less their paying “above their fair share”, and more the average earner getting away practically scot free. A family with one earner on the average industrial wage was actually subsidised by the state, that’s right, negative income tax all-in, in 2007. Ireland’s income tax system is not normal.

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/10/19/how-can-ireland-tax-and-grow-thoughts-for-budget-2011/

When I brought this up, I was told that rich people don't pay any tax in this country.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I'd like to know what the critics of this organization have done to bring about change in this country. What exactly are you involved in besides slating people on a public forum? What ideas can you share that will help move this country forward? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Concentrate on the message, not the messenger.

Amhran Nua

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Anyone who has the courage to demand radical reform in this country is slated as a "hard left nutter", "tree-hugging hippie", or a "champagne socialist".

No, but the hard left nutters and champagne socialists do like to attach themselves to anyone demanding reform. Its called entryism. They even attached themselves to the tree hugging hippies, which leads to a lot of confusion on green issues.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I'd like to know what the critics of this organization have done to bring about change in this country. What exactly are you involved in besides slating people on a public forum? What ideas can you share that will help move this country forward? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

You might want to turn on the signatures there.

PanchoVilla

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, but the hard left nutters and champagne socialists do like to attach themselves to anyone demanding reform. Its called entryism. They even attached themselves to the tree hugging hippies, which leads to a lot of confusion on green issues.


You might want to turn on the signatures there.

I see, so instead of changing the way things are done in this country you'd rather continue playing party politics. You're party is right and anyone who has a different opinion is wrong. I personally loathe party politics as I believe it only limits those within a particular party. It discourages new ideas and practices within a party and only creates pointless boundaries and conflicts.

Amhran Nua

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I see, so instead of changing the way things are done in this country you'd rather continue playing party politics.

Party politics are how things are changed in this country, my friend. As for actual change, it would appear in my opinion that these meetings are merely indoctrination and recruitment drives for the far left, since there doesn't appear to be any organisation present to practise entryism on.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

You're party is right and anyone who has a different opinion is wrong.

On the contrary, come and have your say. If you can back up what you're saying and it appears to be to the benefit of the nation as a whole, we'll change our policies to meet your supported opinion. We already have several of the policies advocated on that site, developed to a much greater degree. But don't expect an uncritical reception, we aren't the far left.

Butch Cassidy

southsiderosie wrote: »

When has it ever? Irish voters are consistently and notoriously centrist, and have been so since the state was founded.

The backbone of socialist parties across Europe has historically been the urban/industrial working class, and other than some mining, Ireland was never a place with a lot of heavy industry outside of Belfast. So most of the potential socialists got partitioned away, and the Republic went straight from being a rural/agricultural economy to a service/post-industrial economy without stopping at the industry part.

Ireland's "democracy" in parliament is basically one of local government - glorified local councillors are elected to the Dail by people who in most cases really do need local governance but it isn't there. This is more about power and the accumulation of power rather than just an immoral or idiotic electorate that can be scapegoated.

In very real terms with things like healthcare and education I will wager that a very large majority want the same thing - access to education provided equally and healthcare provided to everyone on the basis of their medical needs. This might sound lefty; the right wing approach is that you get whatever healthcare you can afford and you can pay for all of your child's education at the market.

There might be a groundswell and a shift to left/right politics in Ireland. Democracy should contain some kind of choice with two clear alternatives - you can pay to access public services or these can be provided through adequate funding of the state via taxation.

I agree with your comment that we didn't have any industrialisation.

irishh_bob wrote: »

neither are this claiming the future crowd real socilists , thier well heeled D4 left liberals , smoked salmon socilists , in the vein of fintan o toole , ivana bacik and justine mc carthy , guilty liberals who see the working class as some sort of civics class assignment , the whole thing is one big high minded intelectual vanity project which is of bugger all use to anyone

Would it suit you better if they were "real" socialists? Or would you have some churlish stereotypes and character assassinations ready in that event as well had this been a "real socialist" grouping?

Butch Cassidy

taconnol wrote: »

I was there. And I want change but change that makes economic sense. The word "elite" was bandied about far too often and those that I spoke to were unwilling to accept basic facts about the Irish economy. For example, the wealthy in Ireland pay a disproportionate amount of income tax as Ronan Lyons explains:



http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/10/19/how-can-ireland-tax-and-grow-thoughts-for-budget-2011/

This is due to the concentration of wealth in that minority