Why do they still call themselves Labour?

steelcityblues

and be more honest on a basic level with voters in the process? Would the Irish Social Democrats, or somethng along those lines, not be a suitable title given the political stances of the overwhelming number of party members and politicians.

Here is the Collins English dictionary description for the word labourer: "One who labours, esp. man doing manual work for wages."

This description gives the impression of a working-class person who collects a minimum wage week in week out. Given how none of today's leading lights come from a trades background, but rather the halls of academia, or private sector, why do they persist with this middle-class guilt by wearing a red rose at the Annual Conference?

Given how Gilmore describes himself as a social democrat, would it be not politically smart to do 'what it says on the tin' by a name and identity change, and not leave themselves open to such criticism from all quarters?

Most left leaning parties in Mainland Europe already call themselves social democrats - so what is holding back both Labour here and across the water?

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

and be more honest on a basic level with voters in the process? Would the Irish Social Democrats, or somethng along those lines, not be a suitable title given the political stances of the overwhelming number of party members and politicians.

Here is the Collins English dictionary description for the word labourer: "One who labours, esp. man doing manual work for wages."

This description gives the impression of a working-class person who collects a minimum wage week in week out. Given how none of today's leading lights come from a trades background, but rather the halls of academia, or private sector, why do they persist with this middle-class guilt by wearing a red rose at the Annual Conference?

Given how Gilmore describes himself as a social democrat, would it be not politically smart to do 'what it says on the tin' by a name and identity change, and not leave themselves open to such criticism from all quarters?

Most left leaning parties in Mainland Europe already call themselves social democrats - so what is holding back both Labour here and across the water?

Because they were founded with "Labour" as their name - why would they change it now? Today most European socialist parties are pretty bourgeois, so I don't quite get your point here.

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because they were founded with "Labour" as their name - why would they change it now? Today most European socialist parties are pretty bourgeois, so I don't quite get your point here.

But that line there is exactly where i'm coming from in my OP. Most people who identify themselves as social democrats don't work as manual labourers. Is it not a bit dishonest?

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

But that line there is exactly where i'm coming from in my OP. Most people who identify themselves as social democrats don't work as manual labourers. Is it not a bit dishonest?

Most members of Fianna Fail aren't soldiers.

It's just a name.

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

Most members of Fianna Fail aren't soldiers.

It's just a name.

Fair enough on that point, Soldiers of Destruction is in more in line with 2011

Still, Labour I think should really consider a name change as most of the party no longer have a direct connection to the working class.

Killer Pigeon

steelcityblues wrote: »

and be more honest on a basic level with voters in the process? Would the Irish Social Democrats, or somethng along those lines, not be a suitable title given the political stances of the overwhelming number of party members and politicians.

Here is the Collins English dictionary description for the word labourer: "One who labours, esp. man doing manual work for wages."

This description gives the impression of a working-class person who collects a minimum wage week in week out. Given how none of today's leading lights come from a trades background, but rather the halls of academia, or private sector, why do they persist with this middle-class guilt by wearing a red rose at the Annual Conference?

Given how Gilmore describes himself as a social democrat, would it be not politically smart to do 'what it says on the tin' by a name and identity change, and not leave themselves open to such criticism from all quarters?

Most left leaning parties in Mainland Europe already call themselves social democrats - so what is holding back both Labour here and across the water?

The word 'labour' means 'work' (according to the Oxford dictionary). The name of the party doesn't exactly derive from the word 'labourer' which has a more specific meaning, i.e., a person who does physical work that is mainly unskilled. In an historical sense, the Labour Party has always supported the workforce; both skilled and unskilled. We see this in their historical affiliation with trade unions who represent a skilled workforce and other who represent unskilled or both. So essentially the name of the party refers to the workers, this actually makes more sense when you look at their Irish name "Páirtí an Lucht Oibre", where "Lucht Oibre" basically means workers/ workforce.

Only problem I can see with choosing a name like "The Social Democrats" is people not particularly educated in politics, may see them as something to do with "The Progessive Democrats"

A big no no for any Labour supporter.

Killer Pigeon

Papa Smut wrote: »

Only problem I can see with choosing a name like "The Social Democrats" is people not particularly educated in politics, may see them as something to do with "The Progessive Democrats"

A big no no for any Labour supporter.

And especially since Labour is a Social Democratic Party that is big on progressive policying.

Lockstep

steelcityblues wrote: »

Fair enough on that point, Soldiers of Destruction is in more in line with 2011

Still, Labour I think should really consider a name change as most of the party no longer have a direct connection to the working class.

You seem to be confusing members of the parliamentary Labour party with the party as a whole. In local elections (where you can see a party's connection with it's roots), Labour does well in deprived urban areas (it's very much an urban party, with its rural representation being fairly slim)
For example, in 2009 Labour got 25% in Ballyfermot-Drimnagh, 32% in Ballymun-Finglas, 25% in the North Inner City, 38% in the SouthEast Inner City and 35% in the South-West Inner City.

Labour's TDs are the usual collection of teachers and lawyers (although unlike other parties, there are trade union officials rather than farmers) but that seems to be more about the background TDs as a whole, rather than the Labour party in particular.

AnonymousPrime

steelcityblues wrote: »

Here is the Collins English dictionary description for the word labourer: "One who labours, esp. man doing manual work for wages."

That is their core demographic.

In the wider context, do you not think that changing names to a more functional, PC format takes the poetry from life?

sligopark

steelcityblues wrote: »

Why do they still call themselves Labour?

Because Academic University Educated Bourgeois Never Worked a Hard Day in My Life Marxist Party doesn't really stike a chord with most voters

sligopark

sligopark wrote: »

Because Academic University Educated Bourgeois Never Worked a Hard Day in My Life Marxist Party doesn't really stike a chord with most voters

And in balance it would also not describe the Labour Party.

Pygmalion

sligopark wrote: »

Because Academic University Educated Bourgeois Never Worked a Hard Day in My Life Marxist Party doesn't really stike a chord with most voters

I think it'd be refreshing to see the Academic University Educated Bourgeois Never Worked a Hard Day in My Life Marxist Party up against the Academic University Educated Bourgeois Never Worked a Hard Day in My Life Centre-Right Party and the Friendly Rural Farmer/Publican Nepotism Party.

Probably the most honest elections we could ever hope for.

Lockstep

sligopark wrote: »

Because Academic University Educated Bourgeois Never Worked a Hard Day in My Life Marxist Party doesn't really stike a chord with most voters

Whatever you might want to say about Labour...Marxist?
Really?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So working for a trade union doesn't count as work?

Interesting.

Killer Pigeon

sligopark wrote: »

Because Academic University Educated Bourgeois Never Worked a Hard Day in My Life Marxist Party doesn't really stike a chord with most voters

Labour =/= Marxist

Sponge Bob

steelcityblues wrote: »

Most left leaning parties in Mainland Europe already call themselves social democrats - so what is holding back both Labour here and across the water?

You are HarAAAAaannnnguuuing the Labour Party, Stop HarAAAAaannnnguuuing the Labour Party or the Labour Party will stop you HarAAAAaannnnguuuing the Labour Party. :cool:

sligopark

southsiderosie wrote: »

So working for a trade union doesn't count as work?

Good point and probably best answered by Des Geraughty

Lockstep wrote: »

Whatever you might want to say about Labour...Marxist?
Really?

Yes the labour party of today and its leaders and their chosen favourites reflect modern marxism ala the frankfurt school of thought

Killer Pigeon

sligopark wrote: »

Yes the labour party of today and its leaders and their chosen favourites reflect modern marxism ala the frankfurt school of thought

Well it's not as if that's a bad thing or anything ...

sligopark

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well it's not as if that's a bad thing or anything ...

of course its not if you knew nothing of marxism nor the frankfurt school and their objectives - ignorance is bliss

Lockstep

sligopark wrote: »

Yes the labour party of today and its leaders and their chosen favourites reflect modern marxism ala the frankfurt school of thought

Given that Labour are a reformist party which accept the need for capitalism it's fairly though for them to be Marxists (one of the core ideals being the need for revolution)

Any proof for your claims that Labour are a Marxist party?
I know little enough about the Frankfurt school but from reading the Communist Manifesto, it seems incompatible with Labour's ideology and policies.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steelcityblues

Lockstep wrote: »

Given that Labour are a reformist party which accept the need for capitalism it's fairly though for them to be Marxists (one of the core ideals being the need for revolution)

Any proof for your claims that Labour are a Marxist party?
I know little enough about the Frankfurt school but from reading the Communist Manifesto, it seems incompatible with Labour's ideology and policies.

Eureka! That makes them Social Democrats not socialists or labourites!

wolfpawnat

Larkin and Connolly would not recognise the Labour Party of today. They are probably half way to the Earth's Core by now with the spinning they have done in their graves!

sligopark

Lockstep wrote: »

Any proof for your claims that Labour are a Marxist party?

Lockstep wrote: »

I know little enough about the Frankfurt school but from reading the Communist Manifesto, it seems incompatible with Labour's ideology and policies.

Not being samrt Lockstep but a read about the frankfurt school would clear up any confusion, and clarify that labour through its particular strain of academic socialism is indeed marxism as defined:

'Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview that contains within it a political ideology for how to change and improve society by implementing socialism.'

Labour are modern day marxists of the frankfurt school of thought.

Lockstep

steelcityblues wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The party ideology isn't socialist, but there's no such ideology as "Labourism".

The Labour Party and Social Democracy terms aren't exclusive.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what is 'labour' then? I've worked some fairly sh!tty jobs (worst was lifting crates in a freezer warehouse). Does that mean I can refer to myself as Labour whereas the likes of Gilmore and Rabbit can't?

sligopark wrote: »

Not being samrt Lockstep but a read about the frankfurt school would clear up any confusion, and clarify that labour through its particular strain of academic socialism is indeed marxism as defined:

'Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview that contains within it a political ideology for how to change and improve society by implementing socialism.'

Labour are modern day marxists of the frankfurt school of thought.

That's an extremely simplistic definition view of Marxism taken from Wikipedia.
The Labour Party's manifesto is utterly incompatible with the ideas espoused in the Communist Manifesto. Labour believes in reformism/social democracy; not the violent overrthrow of capitalism that MArx imagined (the key feature of Marxism is of a proletarian revolution)

Can you clarify exactly how Labour follows the Frankfurt school?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Shea O'Meara

steelcityblues wrote: »

and be more honest on a basic level with voters in the process? Would the Irish Social Democrats, or somethng along those lines, not be a suitable title given the political stances of the overwhelming number of party members and politicians.

It's name recognition first of all, you rarely change brand names.
To me a party creating some snappy or snazzy new title is meaningless.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Here is the Collins English dictionary description for the word labourer: "One who labours, esp. man doing manual work for wages."

This description gives the impression of a working-class person who collects a minimum wage week in week out. Given how none of today's leading lights come from a trades background, but rather the halls of academia, or private sector, why do they persist with this middle-class guilt by wearing a red rose at the Annual Conference?

We seem to be getting into sly dig territory. You know, where a poster starts a thread on one topic and twists it into nothing more than taking a poke.
However, Labour are broadly seen as a party for the average worker, hence the union link. To be fair no party would get very far if every member had to leave school at sixteen in the hopes of getting blue collar work to support their family. But it's great that some politicians support these people, call it middle class guilt all you like.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Given how Gilmore describes himself as a social democrat, would it be not politically smart to do 'what it says on the tin' by a name and identity change, and not leave themselves open to such criticism from all quarters?

Same can be said for Sinn Fein with the eternal IRA link, or the Tribe of the Irish. And I don't believe very many of the Soldiers of Destiny are actually in the armed forces.

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fairly big assumption to make there. If I ever did something that made me famous enough to get a Wikipedia page or biography then I really doubt things like my barwork, cratelifting or retail would be included.

Plus, Gilmore was born to farmers so I'd imagine he's familiar with manual labour.

Shea O'Meara

It's a little pathetic really. In a vain attempt to get a dig in we hear Labour are either Marxist or not Marxist enough.....make up your minds lads.
And if that's the only material you have to backdoor support your own party...well that's just sad.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you sure they support the Labour Party?
I've lost count of the number of times that the "BURN THE BONDHOLDERS" crowd have told me that I'm not really a left winger as I'm a member of a capitalist, neo-liberal party.

Rabble Rabble

sligopark wrote: »

of course its not if you knew nothing of marxism nor the frankfurt school and their objectives - ignorance is bliss

The Frankfurt school is a pretty deviant school of Marxism, and in many ways in antithesis to it, generally tending to put identity politics above class politics.

It doesnt really explain modern Labour.

Killer Pigeon is right about the word "labour". It just means work. Intellectual, or manual. Dont matter.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

lods

Their real name is

Sinn fein the workers party democratic left labour

They'll always be stickies :P

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness, those type of people are very unlikely to view Labour as being left wing parties. Labour attracts the more moderate members of the left so while it is possible some of them were, it's fairly unlikely.

The Socialist Party are very criticial of Labour, for example

sligopark

Lockstep wrote: »

In fairness, those type of people are very unlikely to view Labour as being left wing parties. Labour attracts the more moderate members of the left so while it is possible some of them were, it's fairly unlikely.

insidious doing so, sneakily, easy easy monkey style again ala frankfurt

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The Frankfurt school is a pretty deviant school of Marxism, and in many ways in antithesis to it, generally tending to put identity politics above class politics.

It doesnt really explain modern Labour.

the fact it came from the source and ignores class politics pretty much demolishes the argument of deviant or dissident marxism and in fact explains modern labour to a 't'


The first right wing party to get itself together in Ireland and take the right and centre right position will change Irish politics forever and do away with the mood for change looking toward Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein Lite Labour folks

baalthor

sligopark wrote: »

Because Academic University Educated Bourgeois Never Worked a Hard Day in My Life Marxist Party doesn't really stike a chord with most voters

What's wrong with being academic or university educated?

Will this new party you're dreaming about be an Irish version of the Khmer Rouge ?

P. Breathnach

baalthor wrote: »

What's wrong with being academic or university educated?

Most of the Irish politicians (of various parties) who have impressed me have been educated to a high level. Of course there are exceptions, so a few counter-examples are possible.

Will this new party you're dreaming about be an Irish version of the Khmer Rouge ?

It makes it easier to disparage them.

sligopark

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It makes it easier to disparage them.

almost godwin style

sligopark

baalthor wrote: »

What's wrong with being academic or university educated?

not a thing but I paid for my own education abroad (not my parents not the government - I got a small loan - perpetuated by my paying it off as it went along through working alongside studying) all labour folk and designated winners (bajkic etc) paid for nothing and have never worked a serious day in their lives to provide for themselves like I (and I presume you too)

baalthor wrote: »

Will this new party you're dreaming about be an Irish version of the Khmer Rouge ?

I doubt it since Sf lite modern marxist labour will have learned from the immediate past (N. Ireland) it is best to sell off one's principles for compromise toward an end goal even if it means selling out, and from the Khmer Rouge it is best not to use violence since its usage may be used against you

and so best use the marxist warrior EU President Barroso's approach and that of the frankfurt school - slowly slowly monkey ....


Labour the best political vehicle to promote unsaid policies using the best of folk middle class and below as units to falsely promote its policies...

monkey monkeys

Lockstep

sligopark wrote: »

not a thing but I paid for my own education abroad (not my parents not the government - I got a small loan - perpetuated by my paying it off as it went along through working alongside studying) all labour folk and designated winners (bajkic etc) paid for nothing and have never worked a serious day in their lives to provide for themselves like I (and I presume you too)

What a laughable post. You're actually saying that all Labour folk have never worked a serious day in their lives? It'd be bad enough if you were referring to Labour politicians but to blanket-term it to Labour as a whole is incredibly silly.
Like I said, I've done some fairly ropey work and gave a few examples. What sort of work do you view as 'serious work'?


Out of interest, where did you go to university?
I worked for most of my degree (although I lost my job last year in the current climate so am currently doing odd jobs here and there) and made enough for a modest living. It's almost impossible for someone to entirely fund their degree themselves, unless they take out a colossal loan.
You say you took out a small loan: unless your degree was incredibly heavily subsidised by the government or the university, the costs would be extremely high. How on earth did you pay for:
Your tuition fees (and if it was a country where education isn't subisidised at all, these tuition fees would be astronomical)
Your living costs.
Accomodation
Books, pens and so on.

Alternatively, you must have found an extremely well paying job to go alongside your small loan. One which was well paying enough to fund a stand-alone degree and yet which had few enough hours to enable you to do a degree alongside it. Or else just been extremely wealthy to begin with.

Sorry, I'm really not buying the above. While you possibly contributed to your degree, to say you paid for it entirely yourself is unlikely to the point of being impossible.


Also, I asked you to clarify how Labour followed the Frankfurt school of Marxism, given the party's incompatibility with Marx's core views of class struggle and revolution. You've yet to clarify how they do this.

At any rate, I need to head off (heading off to do one of my odd jobs)
Would really appreciate answers to the above.

sligopark

Lockstep wrote: »

What a laughable post. You're actually saying that all Labour folk have never worked a serious day in their lives? It'd be bad enough if you were referring to Labour politicians but to blanket-term it to Labour as a whole is incredibly silly.

You're right - labour politicians and because they haven't worked a day in their lives nor being in poverty nor had to make ends meet - they are fully qualified to tell us how it is.

Labour canvassers here in Sligo can't even tell us what Susan O'Keefe and labour stand for (here.

Then here we find dissent over where labour found their current direction.

Lockstep wrote: »

Out of interest, where did you go to university?

UK

Lockstep wrote: »

I worked for most of my degree (although I lost my job last year in the current climate so am currently doing odd jobs here and there) and made enough for a modest living. It's almost impossible for someone to entirely fund their degree themselves, unless they take out a colossal loan.

In your opinion

Lockstep wrote: »

You say you took out a small loan: unless your degree was incredibly heavily subsidised by the government or the university, the costs would be extremely high. How on earth did you pay for:
Your tuition fees (and if it was a country where education isn't subisidised at all, these tuition fees would be astronomical)
Your living costs.
Accomodation
Books, pens and so on.

In order: with a cheque, d/debits and cash, d/debit, cash.

Lockstep wrote: »

Alternatively, you must have found an extremely well paying job to go alongside your small loan. One which was well paying enough to fund a stand-alone degree and yet which had few enough hours to enable you to do a degree alongside it. Or else just been extremely wealthy to begin with.

Yes well paid and the course was full time (30 hrs a week) which might I had to work my ass off around college pretty much full time - it wasn't flipping burgers part time to add to a drinking fund - if I had a source of wealth I would not have needed to work.

Because I paid against the loan as I went along, and transferred any build up in my bank account to the loan, meant it was kept as low as I could to minimise the interest portion. It also meant that when I returned to the bank each year to get the loan increased around my tuition fee, I was greeted with a handshake and a cheque.

Lockstep wrote: »

Sorry, I'm really not buying the above. While you possibly contributed to your degree, to say you paid for it entirely yourself is unlikely to the point of being impossible.

again in your opinion

Lockstep wrote: »

Also, I asked you to clarify how Labour followed the Frankfurt school of Marxism, given the party's incompatibility with Marx's core views of class struggle and revolution. You've yet to clarify how they do this.

thats right since it appears one has yet to read the link to another post I made

Lockstep wrote: »

Would really appreciate answers to the above.

you're welcome

Lockstep

sligopark wrote: »

You're right - labour politicians and because they haven't worked a day in their lives nor being in poverty nor had to make ends meet - they are fully qualified to tell us how it is.

And your source is...?

What a ridiculous statement. That all Labour politicians (senators, TDs, county/city/town councillors have never worked a day in their lives. Massive stereotyping and assumptions.

sligopark wrote: »

Labour canvassers here in Sligo can't even tell us what Susan O'Keefe and labour stand for (here.

One poster (who registered this month) can be taken as gospel then? Don't believe everything you read.

sligopark wrote: »

UK

UK universities are heavily subisidised by the State for EU students (unless you went to a private college or were doing a second degree)
So your degree was not, as you claim, fully paid by yourself. Keep in mind most Labour TDs would have gone to college before 1996 (when tuition fees were abolished) so most of them would have paid for their university fees/gotten a scholarship for low incomes.

sligopark wrote: »

In your opinion

No, objectively.
If a student pays for their degree entirely by themselves then it'd be impossible to pay it off with a small loan and working (unless they are incredibly wealthy/being paid an extremely high wage).

sligopark wrote: »

In order: with a cheque, d/debits and cash, d/debit, cash.

That still doesn't cover the massive cost required to fund a third level student.

sligopark wrote: »

Yes well paid and the course was full time (30 hrs a week) which might I had to work my ass off around college pretty much full time - it wasn't flipping burgers part time to add to a drinking fund - if I had a source of wealth I would not have needed to work.

What exactly was your job then? Something That was simultaneously high-paying, low in hours and yet still qualified as 'real work'

sligopark wrote: »

again in your opinion

No, in reality.
You're initial post was utterly misleading as you claimed to have paid for your degree by yourself without any help.
Either you were doing this intentionally (to try and appear self-made) or else you were ignorant of the fact that UK universities are heavily subsidised for EU students.

sligopark wrote: »

thats right since it appears one has yet to read the link to another post I made

I'm going to say Labour are a neo-liberal right wing capitalist party.
Proof?
www.labour.ie/policy

You disagree? I provided the exact same level of information as you did.

Giving a link or telling someone to go read a book isn't sourcing your points. It's your job to show how the link/book is relevent.

sligopark wrote: »

you're welcome

I await a proper response.
Thanks.

ei.sdraob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You need to get with the lingo @Permabear

you are a SmartEconomyKnowledgeWorker :P
now if you invest some of those shares in carbon credits :eek: you then be a
Green&(notso)SmartKnowledgeWorker


anyways considering most of the work in Ireland done by Irish is far from manual labouring (for that we import cheaper "labour" from elsewhere who are not afraid to get the nails dirty) i find all the socialist speeches about workers/unions/revolutions amusing, especially coming from people who obviously never lifted a razor never mind a shovel or a hammer :P

sligopark

Lockstep wrote: »

UK universities are heavily subisidised by the State for EU students (unless you went to a private college or were doing a second degree)
So your degree was not, as you claim, fully paid by yourself.

Private college and yes paid for by myself

Lockstep wrote: »

What exactly was your job then?

with respect none of your business and off topic

Lockstep wrote: »

No, in reality.
You're initial post was utterly misleading as you claimed to have paid for your degree by yourself without any help.

I did

Lockstep wrote: »

Either you were doing this intentionally (to try and appear self-made) or else you were ignorant of the fact that UK universities are heavily subsidised for EU students.

already answered and as this series of posts are moving off topic and turning personal I will stop now

Lockstep

sligopark wrote: »

Private college and yes paid for by myself

University of Buckingham I take it (the only private university in the UK, and one which charges £9k (€10.5k) a year.
To be honest, I'm finding it extremely hard to believe you. That you somehow found a job that was:
A) Real work (which seems to mean manual in this case)
Extremely well paid, that allowed you to pay private fees while supporting yourself with a 'small' loan.
C) Low enough in hours to enable you to attend the university of Buckingham, which has much more teaching hours/intensive coursework than a normal university (they squeeze 3 years worth of teaching into 2 years)

Disregard this if you want but I'm outlining why the above is hard to believe.

sligopark wrote: »

with respect none of your business and off topic

Yeah, I was expecting that answer.

Fair enough that you don't want to mention it; it's your own business but as it stands, I find your story extremely unlikely for the reasons I outlined above.

sligopark wrote: »

I did

Linking to a previous post (that doesn't mention how Labour is Marxist) and quoting an uncited Wikipedia sentence isn't sourcing your argument.

Let me show you how evasive and misleading such rational is:
"Fine Gael are really lizard people. Don't believe me? Read The Bible and here's a quote of Wikipedia that takes the entire thing out of context."
"Where does it say that in the Bible?"
"I've already answered it. Next."

Killer Pigeon

sligopark wrote: »

Private college and yes paid for by myself

I don't know what the price of third level education is for full fee paying students in the UK but in Ireland it's ferociously high. I was talking to one exchange student from the US (UC San Diego) who said she had to pay €10,000 per semester for tuition fees alone (in UCD). Over the typical 4-year period of a degree this would amount to €80,000, just for tuition fees. Then you have to consider accommodation, food etc.. In other words you'll be paying well in excess of €100,000 for a 4 year degree.

However, that's not all, especially for people who take out massive student loans to pay for it all; they have to pay interest on top of that too. The final sum would be €120,000+. I know a lot of students would work part-time to pay the loan off but it would only pay a fraction of the total sum.

After college, a typical graduate would be paying off this massive debt for years to come and they won't be able to afford a house and end up taking out a mortgage on top of their massive student loan. Also consider that they might want to start a family down the line too.

If free-fees were abolished in Ireland it would be quite unrealistic for a majority of middle or lower income earning families to send their children to college unless they earned some sort of scholarship (which are themselves few and only awarded to select individuals based on their academic performance).

The free-fees scheme has benefited Ireland greatly and because of it an estimated 70% of school leavers go onto some form of third level education. It has aided greatly in creating equal opportunities for all regardless of their social or economic background which they were born into. If we want to educate the population free third level fees should be maintained!

sligopark

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I don't know what the price of third level education is for full fee paying students in the UK but in Ireland it's ferociously high. I was talking to one exchange student from the US (UC San Diego) who said she had to pay €10,000 per semester for tuition fees alone (in UCD). Over the typical 4-year period of a degree this would amount to €80,000, just for tuition fees. Then you have to consider accommodation, food etc.. In other words you'll be paying well in excess of €100,000 for a 4 year degree.

it was 20 years ago and it was £6K per year - the rest of your post is off topic so you won't mind if I don't get into it.

Lockstep wrote: »

University of Buckingham I take it (the only private university in the UK, and one which charges £9k (€10.5k) a year.

whilst you are a moderator and all of that - you are stepping into calling me a liar and dangerously close to my getting a banning by using words that rythme with truck and followed by off.

Lockstep wrote: »

To be honest, I'm finding it extremely hard to believe you. That you somehow found a job that was:
A) Real work (which seems to mean manual in this case)
Extremely well paid, that allowed you to pay private fees while supporting yourself with a 'small' loan.
C) Low enough in hours to enable you to attend the university of Buckingham, which has much more teaching hours/intensive coursework than a normal university (they squeeze 3 years worth of teaching into 2 years)

Disregard this if you want but I'm outlining why the above is hard to believe.

who cares whether you believe me or not. I have now answered you three times on a personal off topic slant and you are proving yourself less of a moderator by going off on one and describing why you think I am a liar. Piss off.

I have been called alot of stuff here being outspoken but never a liar.

Lockstep wrote: »

Yeah, I was expecting that answer.

good it was clearly past the mark as is this post I am answering.

Lockstep wrote: »

Linking to a previous post (that doesn't mention how Labour is Marxist)

given how modern labour fulfills all of the frankfurt ideals its pretty clear.

Lockstep wrote: »

and quoting an uncited Wikipedia sentence isn't sourcing your argument.
Let me show you how evasive and misleading such rational is:
"Fine Gael are really lizard people. Don't believe me? Read The Bible and here's a quote of Wikipedia that takes the entire thing out of context."
"Where does it say that in the Bible?"
"I've already answered it. Next."

what a crock of sh1te and a foolish turn in argument in an attempt to bring it on topic but off key.

Nodin

sligopark wrote: »

given how modern labour fulfills all of the frankfurt ideals its pretty clear.

I'm afraid its as clear as mud to me. Would you care to explain in relation to current labour policy as outlined here?
http://www.labour.ie/policy/