Proposed centre-right group of Independents to form and back FG

The Volt

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0126/1224288326708.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d3f7187679ad600,0

GENEVIEVE CARBERY and ELAINE KEOGH

MORE THAN 20 Independent candidates hope to form a grouping of TDs that could make up a Fine Gael-led government, a candidate said yesterday.

Thomas Clare, an independent candidate in the Louth constituency, said the grouping included “influential” people who want to create jobs and support enterprise. Mr Clare said high-profile business and economics figures would be among the candidates in the grouping, of which he was part. He said the group was believed to include Senator Shane Ross, running in Dublin South as an Independent candidate.

Mr Ross has said if elected, he plans to join with like-minded Independents “to change the entire political system to end the culture of cronyism”. Mr Ross also said, on announcing his candidacy, that he did not intend to be an “insignificant backbencher” and hoped a large number of people would “take the same line as me”.

Mr Clare said: “The speculation is that if this technical group of Independents can reach over 20 elected TDs that they can then be in position to form a government with Enda Kenny”.

The grouping would be “centre-right in terms of jobs and economic policy”and “would think there could be a good public sector if there was a strong private sector,” he said.

The Independent candidates had an agreement to “unite as a collective”, said Mr Clare.

This is the real danger of this upcoming election. This kind of scenario would be the most socially regressive for Ireland. What does 'influential' people mean?

This is the kind of government that I fear would attack worker's rights and pursue all of the wrong options leaving the lower to middle classes worse off than they are now.

Dr. Baltar

Voltwad wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0126/1224288326708.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d3f7187679ad600,0




This is the real danger of this upcoming election. This kind of scenario would be the most socially regressive for Ireland. What does 'influential' people mean?

This is the kind of government that I fear would attack worker's rights and pursue all of the wrong options leaving the lower to middle classes worse off than they are now.

My only concern about this is that without Labour social policy is going to be completely forgotten.

The Volt

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

My only concern about this is that without Labour social policy is going to be completely forgotten.

Completely forgotten indeed.

skelliser

Labour are in serious trouble if this is true.

If the ULA and the shinners become the new left were does that leave Labour?

The Volt

The importance of voting Labour has never been more clear to me. A government like this favours privatization of public services where profit should not be the motive. This includes attacking services of An Post and Dublin Bus. As a result, it is the vulnerable who will suffer. Voting in a government like this (or not voting at all) will be detrimental to worker's rights. Without Labour, as said above, social policy won't exist.

I hope this pushes Labour further left and alienates them from FG. It is now time for a left led government that re-connects ethics with economics.

RussellTuring

Mr Ross has said if elected, he plans to join with like-minded Independents “to change the entire political system to end the culture of cronyism”.

The ability of politicians to contradict themselves in a single breath never ceases to amaze me. What they are proposing is no different to any other political party, except it sounds like they're going to be even more right-wing than what we're used to. I'd like to think people won't fall for this awful attempt at an alternative to the current system but I'm not that optimistic.

skelliser

I think the PS needs radical reform but maybe this would be a step to far.
How do we get PS reform and also protect workers and the less well off?

The Volt

RussellTuring wrote: »

The ability of politicians to contradict themselves in a single breath never ceases to amaze me. What they are proposing is no different to any other political party, except it sounds like they're going to be even more right-wing than what we're used to. I'd like to think people won't fall for this awful attempt at an alternative to the current system but I'm not that optimistic.

I'm sure Tony's Pony will have his weapons of mass propaganda at his disposal over the coming weeks.

RussellTuring

Not by running it for profit, anyway. I'm sure we could have a more productive service if the top level managers got there on merit and not by knowing the right people, but that might be asking too much.

The Volt

Such a government could be titled the Regressive Democrats

Einhard

Voltwad wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0126/1224288326708.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d3f7187679ad600,0




This is the real danger of this upcoming election. This kind of scenario would be the most socially regressive for Ireland. What does 'influential' people mean?

Why exactly would it be socially regressive? Do you believe that all business people and employers are out to shaft their workers? I haven't seen anything that would suggest that the likes of Ross would seek to undermine the working conditions of workers, or drastically undermine the social safety net.

This is the kind of government that I fear would attack worker's rights and pursue all of the wrong options leaving the lower to middle classes worse off than they are now.

Again, why? You seem to have a very negative attitude to business people, forgetting perhaps that they play a major role in any economy, and in generating the opportunities and wealth from which the rest of us benefit.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

My only concern about this is that without Labour social policy is going to be completely forgotten.

That's completely ridiculous. Labour hasn't been in power for 13 years, a period during which, under FF, PD, and Green governments, social welfare rates across the board has skyrocketed. Nobody wants to take an axe to social spending, but very few people would argue that there isn't a need for some reform.

RussellTuring wrote: »

The ability of politicians to contradict themselves in a single breath never ceases to amaze me.

There's nothing at all contradictory in what he said. He plans to join with "like-minded Independents" who, like him obviously, desire an end to the culture of cronyism which has blighted Ireland for decades. You might doubt that he will do so, but I fail to see the paradox in that quote.

Why is it that people on the Left purport to champion a unified society, and yet seem to have such disdain and contempt for people whose only sin is to be involved in successful businesses?

The Volt

Einhard wrote: »

Why exactly would it be socially regressive? Do you believe that all business people and employers are out to shaft their workers? I haven't seen anything that would suggest that the likes of Ross would seek to undermine the working conditions of workers, or drastically undermine the social safety net.



Again, why? You seem to have a very negative attitude to business people, forgetting perhaps that they play a major role in any economy, and in generating the opportunities and wealth from which the rest of us benefit.

There is enough proof out there to demonstrate that yes, a lot of employers cannot be trusted. I have no problem with business people as long as they respect worker's rights and stay out of things that I, personally don't think should ever be privatized (Dublin Bus as an example).

Forgive my skepticism but this government to me, is my worst nightmare.

Holybejaysus

Highly misleading thread title. Nowhere in the article does it mention 'Profit before People'.

nesf

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Highly misleading thread title. Nowhere in the article does it mention 'Profit before People'.

Indeed. Thread title changed to something more accurate and less politically biased in nature.

bradlente

Voltwad wrote: »

. A government like this favours privatization of public services where profit should not be the motive. This includes attacking services of An Post and Dublin Bus. As a result, it is the vulnerable who will suffer. Voting in a government like this (or not voting at all) will be detrimental to worker's rights. Without Labour, as said above, social policy won't exist.

What would be the negative impact of services like An post and Dublin Bus going private in your opinion?Also why do you think workers rights would be abused by this government?

If this crowd includes guys like Paul Somerville I'd be intrigued by what they might have to offer.We need more intelligent people qualified to run this shambles right now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pherekydes

There won't be enough RW Independents to give FG an overall majority. Even if 20 Independents get elected, about half will be left leaning.

Though it would be amusing to see Shane Ross cosying up to Michael Lowry and Mattie McGrath to end cronyism.

Het-Field

Voltwad wrote: »

The importance of voting Labour has never been more clear to me. A government like this favours privatization of public services where profit should not be the motive. This includes attacking services of An Post and Dublin Bus. As a result, it is the vulnerable who will suffer. Voting in a government like this (or not voting at all) will be detrimental to worker's rights. Without Labour, as said above, social policy won't exist.

I hope this pushes Labour further left and alienates them from FG. It is now time for a left led government that re-connects ethics with economics.

So 13 years of Labour in the UK was a good thing ? Id like to point out that each time Labour were in power in the UK they have left it in a crippled financial state.

In Ireland, the interventions of Labour prevented speedier recover in the 1980. They proved a difficult coaltion partner for FG, and the Government's stability was undermined by trivial issues, which happened to be asticking point for the Labour party.

I would point you to Peter Somerville's website. At no point does he mention a desire for the privatisation of state/semi-state companies. He is anxious for reform, but not for the sale of these assets. What you have made is baseless presumptions, which stem from an irrational fear of capitalism.

Previously, the PDs were an economic party, which proffered liberal social values in the same vein as Labour and the Greens. Thus, it is irrational to suggest that economic liberals are incapable of putting forward a social platform.

Finally, the planned industrial action by waste management engineers under the remit of South Dublin County Council, highlights that a monopoly of public services are guaranteed to hit the most needy. However, as the likes of Panda etc are in the market (the sticking point for the collectors), it ensures that waste will not go uncollected, and the consumer will not be forced to utilise a single provider.

Jeboa Safari

Seems to be a step in the right direction, although I'd prefer if they formed a party instead of running as independents

LeixlipRed

So instead of the Three Musketers we'd have the Twenty Three? They'd have the ESB and An Post sold off by late March, CIE by Christmas and we'd be revelling in "competition" and a 7-tier healthcare system by 2012. Frightening.

The Volt

bradlente wrote: »

What would be the negative impact of services like An post and Dublin Bus going private in your opinion?Also why do you think workers rights would be abused by this government?

If you open up a key public service to people looking for profit, the popular routes will be fine. People used to the 46a that comes less than every ten minutes won't be affected. They will probably have more competitive prices and even more service. However, people operating for profit will not care for the routes that are less profitable or even the routes that go through so-called 'rough' areas. If they are not worth wooing financially, they simply won't do it. Liberals claim privitization leads to more choice, in Ireland, there is evidence of it leading to less.

This works similarly when people choose to let a private contractor take care of their waste for example. They may be paying a euro or two less every week but that's a euro or two less that the county council has to service the people who actually can't even afford to look after their own waste in the first place.

Worker's rights have been abused under the present government. We are one of the only countries in the EU where collective bargaining doesn't occur under the law. The minimum wage has already been attacked, people are afraid to speak out in the catering industry where kitchen porters for example work 12 hour shifts with no break. We have some of the worst equality legislation in Western society. Why, when it goes against their best interests, would such a government act to correct said issues? In fact, I would claim that they wouldn't see any of those as an issue at all.

LeixlipRed

We're also one of the only countries in Europe who do not force companies to recognise trade unions. Hence Intel, HP, etc, can let their staff go and have no repercussions to face.

ei.sdraob

LeixlipRed wrote: »

They'd have the ESB and An Post sold off by late March, CIE by Christmas

Excellent where do I tick (and thats coming from someone who had the experience of working for one of the above listed)

jimmycrackcorm

LeixlipRed wrote: »

We're also one of the only countries in Europe who do not force companies to recognise trade unions. Hence Intel, HP, etc, can let their staff go and have no repercussions to face.

What are you talking about? We have very good labour laws to protect workers. We don't need unions unless you count protecting the incompetent and lazy as a requirement.

The Volt

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What are you talking about? We have very good labour laws to protect workers. We don't need unions unless you count protecting the incompetent and lazy as a requirement.

Time and time again, employers have shown in this country and elsewhere that they cannot be trusted. The unions have a vital role to play in civil society and they are a cornerstone of any democracy.

LeixlipRed

Check the statute books, unions are legal obviously but it's not a requirement by law to recognise them during negotiations. So for example, last year, when Intel laid off 300 workers in Leixlip, those workers had no one to negotiate redundancy packages for them, no one to question if the terms of their dismissal was legal.

As for your second point, I really, really hope you lose your job some day and that lack of a union rep comes back to bite you in the ass There's no doubting that the unions are corrupt and fairly useless. But the idea of a union, to organise and defend workers rights is what we need to get back to. Throw out the bureaucrats and let workers take back the unions.

ei.sdraob

Voltwad wrote: »

Time and time again, employers have shown in this country and elsewhere that they cannot be trusted. The unions have a vital role to play in civil society and they are a cornerstone of any democracy.

In the case of Ireland the unions are no different to organised racketeering groups.

d'Oracle

ei.sdraob wrote: »

In the case of Ireland the unions are no different to organised racketeering groups.

I'm sorry but that is the most absurd hyperbole I have read today.

Compared to other countries Irelands' Unions are limp-wristed and ineffectual.

Pompey Magnus

Good news if it happens, it will make it that bit easier for me to stomach voting for Fine Gael if there is the possibility that it won't result in them having to bring Labour in with them.

ei.sdraob

d'Oracle wrote: »

Compared to other countries Irelands' Unions are limp-wristed and ineffectual.

Oh really? was it not the unions who held the country ransom last year and got CPA which helped push us into IMFs arms? so much for "ineffectual"

LeixlipRed

Ah it was the unions' fault we had to call in the IMF!! Am I the only one who always knows it even when it's the bears? We had someone blaming people who took out mortgages yesterday, now the unions, maybe it'll eventually cycle back around to the people who are actually responsible sometime? Those financial speculators in our banking institutions who gambled on a property boom and the regulators, bank officials and politicians who done nothing to prevent it.

c_man

LeixlipRed wrote: »

So instead of the Three Musketers we'd have the Twenty Three? They'd have the ESB and An Post sold off by late March, CIE by Christmas and we'd be revelling in "competition" and a 7-tier healthcare system by 2012. Frightening.

It is, especially when you start making things up. Fine Gael's health policy involves a Universal Health Insurance system based upon the Dutch model.

LeixlipRed

I admit, I was exaggerating for comedic effect but FG will do nothing to reverse the movement away from a universal healthcare system. To me that's completely unnaceptable. Being propped up by a bunch of right-wing independents can only accelerate that process in my opinion.

Justin Collery

Unions are part of the problem in Ireland. They cannot be part of the solution.

Workers rights are clearly defined and protected in the law, if you think they should have more, change the law.

Unions are the greatest barrier to change in Ireland.

If your union does something you do not agree with, you should leave it, it does not protect you, it protects itself.

I for one hope that these independents hold the balance of power so we can change the way we do politics in this country. You can replace the word union with politician above and the statements still hold true.

c_man

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I admit, I was exaggerating for comedic effect but FG will do nothing to reverse the movement away from a universal healthcare system.

Fair enough. Tbh seems like this is part of the game both potential coalition parties are playing with each other.

FG supporters will suggest that Labour might go it alone with SF and the ULA, in order to shore up their own vote. Labour have been doing likewise with this story and the one of FG being backed by FF.

LeixlipRed

jcollery wrote: »

Unions are part of the problem in Ireland. They cannot be part of the solution.

Workers rights are clearly defined and protected in the law, if you think they should have more, change the law.

Unions are the greatest barrier to change in Ireland.

If your union does something you do not agree with, you should leave it, it does not protect you, it protects itself.

I for one hope that these independents hold the balance of power so we can change the way we do politics in this country. You can replace the word union with politician above and the statements still hold true.

Such rubbish. Unions aren't the problem, the union bureauracy are the problem. Decades of partnership have formed a cosy cartel between the Jack O'Connors of this world and the political elite. Get rid of the bureaucracy and unions will return to the original direction, the protection of workers from those who own the means of production.

Pete_Cavan

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Ah it was the unions' fault we had to call in the IMF!! Am I the only one who always knows it even when it's the bears? We had someone blaming people who took out mortgages yesterday, now the unions, maybe it'll eventually cycle back around to the people who are actually responsible sometime? Those financial speculators in our banking institutions who gambled on a property boom and the regulators, bank officials and politicians who done nothing to prevent it.

There is no denying that the developers and banking institutions caused many problems for this country, and that the measures the government took to solve these problems only exasberated them. However, to claim the unions had no part is wrong. The constant threat of strike action from unions, holding the government to ransom, led to a grossly over paid and inefficient public sector. No developer or banker ever agreed a benchmarking system that meant wages could only go up and not come down with the falling cost of living.

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I admit, I was exaggerating for comedic effect but FG will do nothing to reverse the movement away from a universal healthcare system. To me that's completely unnaceptable. Being propped up by a bunch of right-wing independents can only accelerate that process in my opinion.

You clearly have no clue about FG health policy, see
here. They are in favour of universal healthcare system so will reverse the movement away from it.

d'Oracle

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh really? was it not the unions who held the country ransom last year and got CPA which helped push us into IMFs arms? so much for "ineffectual"

That doesn't make any sense at all.
Where the hell did you get this?
Bloody minded media scapegoatism, I reckon.

The CPA did not push us into the IMF's hands.
It couldn't possibly have had that effect. Unless rejecting it would have caused the Public service to work for free.

The Massive cost of financing the banks and Nama is what pushed us into the IMF's arms.

Bits_n_Bobs

Social inclusion, political unity, participatory democracy...warm fuzzy vaguely leftish ideals...

Someone right of centre wants to run as a TD???

OMG LIKE! They might sell off CIE (to who??), privatise the bin collectors, the whole country will be sunk...

Double standards meets hyperbole meets ignorance.

LeixlipRed

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You clearly have no clue about FG health policy, see
here. They are in favour of universal healthcare system so will reverse the movement away from it.

When I see it I'll believe it. When do you think the lobbying from the private health insurance companies started?

Justin Collery

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Such rubbish. Unions aren't the problem, the union bureauracy are the problem. Decades of partnership have formed a cosy cartel between the Jack O'Connors of this world and the political elite. Get rid of the bureaucracy and unions will return to the original direction, the protection of workers from those who own the means of production.

Adam Smith was right, Karl Marx was wrong

LeixlipRed

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

They might sell off CIE (to who??),

To Veolia maybe? Are you that naive? Private companies would queue up to get into that market.

Bits_n_Bobs

LeixlipRed wrote: »

To Veolia maybe? Are you that naive? Private companies would queue up to get into that market.

You're right, sure they managed to flog that other over unionised 'transport' company out on the North side and look how well everyone has done out of that.

ei.sdraob

d'Oracle wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense at all.
Where the hell did you get this?
Bloody minded media scapegoatism, I reckon.

The CPA did not push us into the IMF's hands.
It couldn't possibly have had that effect. Unless rejecting it would have caused the Public service to work for free.

The Massive cost of financing the banks and Nama is what pushed us into the IMF's arms.

CPA shown the world and the bond-markets that Ireland is not serious about shedding the fat that build up during the bubble. It was all downhill from there

d'Oracle

ei.sdraob wrote: »

CPA shown the world and the bond-markets that Ireland is not serious about shedding the fat that build up during the bubble. It was all downhill from there

That is absolute speculation.
Vindictive lazy speculation by anti-union media.
It has absolutely no foundation in economic sense.

Our bond status was destroyed by getting in the drink in the first place.
(caused by chronic systemic mismanagement of a property boom & lassaiz fare approach to lending.)

Then by nationalisation of major banks. (a direct effect of both the bank guarantee and anglo falling to ****)

There was a brief upturn in confidence after last years budget.
Which was then annihilated by the revelation of how much money we were pumping into Anglo and to a lesser state AIB.

The CPA had NOTHING to do with it. Especially considering that the cuts proposed in the budget which lead to the CPA were CARRIED ANYWAY.

The bond markets wont give us money for the same reason Banks wont give my sister money. They don't care about when we cut public services wages again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Justin Collery

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Unions aren't the problem, the union bureauracy are the problem. Decades of partnership have formed a cosy cartel between the Jack O'Connors of this world and the political elite. Get rid of the bureaucracy and unions will return to the original direction, the protection of workers from those who own the means of production.

I'm confused. The union leaders are elected by the membership, no? They represent YOU.

There's a fight between them and the politicians as to who is first against the wall when I become king.

Rather than fighting for the 'rights of the wurkers' against the 'owners of the means of production' I'd suggest you would be better served supporting those that are giving you jobs, and fighting those putting their grubby hands into your pay packet - unions and politicians.

JC

Sleepy

As others have said, I'd much rather see Ross put together a centre-right party of those untainted by previous experience in Dail Eireann. A movement based on electing capable, economically-literate TD's preferably with backgrounds in the real economy.

d'Oracle

Sleepy wrote: »

As others have said, I'd much rather see Ross put together a centre-right party of those untainted by previous experience in Dail Eireann. A movement based on electing capable, economically-literate TD's preferably with backgrounds in the real economy.

The problem there is none of them will ever form consensus of any form.
Party politics is not about having distinct expertise in economics.
If a group of economists formed a party it would last about a month.

Einhard

LeixlipRed wrote: »

We're also one of the only countries in Europe who do not force companies to recognise trade unions. Hence Intel, HP, etc, can let their staff go and have no repercussions to face.

I agree that unions have hostorically played a major part in the development of civil society, and that they do still have a part to play, but surely you'd agree that coercing employers into recognising unions is fundamentally illiberal?

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Ah it was the unions' fault we had to call in the IMF!! Am I the only one who always knows it even when it's the bears? We had someone blaming people who took out mortgages yesterday, now the unions, maybe it'll eventually cycle back around to the people who are actually responsible sometime? Those financial speculators in our banking institutions who gambled on a property boom and the regulators, bank officials and politicians who done nothing to prevent it.

I was going to reply to this, but Permabear's post above perfectly encapsulates my thinking on the matter, so I'll leave it at that.

d'Oracle wrote: »

That is absolute speculation.
Vindictive lazy speculation by anti-union media.

Considering that the ideology of Ross and the other independents was referred to in this thread as "Profit before People", that he and FG were accused of wanting to entirely sell off the public sector, to fully privatise the healty system, abolish unions, and a whole lot more besides, by people who would share your outlook on things, it's a tad rich to be complaining of "vindictive lazy speculation" on the part of those on the right. In the posts I've seen so far on the likes of Joe Higgins and the ULA, most of the informed opinion from the right has been respectful but dismissive of their policies. The reaction of otherwise intelligent posters on the Left to Ross et al, has been anything but respectful, full of ad hominem attacks on their characters, and based entirely on lazy, vindictive speculation.

Annasopra

Voltwad wrote: »

Such a government could be titled the Regressive Democrats

I prefer 'Profit before people' myself