Joe Higgins Appreciation Thread

Mr. Incognito

The Dail is much livelier with Joe back in the melting pot. His suggestion the Queen should pay for room and bed is hilarious and has been picked up by media all over the world.

I have respected his integrity for a long time as he is probably the only politician I know that takes the average industrial wage to live on and returns the rest of his TD's.

The below is an extract from the Dail the weekend after Bertie declared himself to be a socialist. Some of the wit is outstanding and it is amazing to look at the exchange in view of the subsequent economic meltdown orchistrated by FF policies at the time.

For the record I am not a socialist in any way shape or form.

The verbatim report of the debate on Wednesday 17 November 2004

Leaders’ Questions, Dáil Éireann.

Joe Higgins (Socialist Party): Many of today’s newspapers were kind enough to point out that I was not in the House yesterday when the Labour Party leader asked the Taoiseach about his new found commitment to socialism. Ironically, I was abroad for several days on political work to advance the cause of socialism.

Pat Rabbitte (Labour Party): Did the Deputy have the Government jet?

J. Higgins: You can imagine, a Cheann Comhairle, how perplexed I was when I returned to find my wardrobe almost empty. The Taoiseach had been busy robbing my clothes. Up to recently the Progressive Democrats did not have a stitch left due to the same Taoiseach but we never expected him to take a walk on the left side of the street.

The Taoiseach: Extreme left.

J. Higgins: He said: "I am one of the few socialists left in Irish politics". Immediately, Tomás Ó Criomhthaín came to mind, as he lamented the last of the Blasket Islanders: "Ní bheidh ár leithéidí arís ann". I then thought: "Good, Taoiseach. There are two of us in it and we will go down together."

Sadly, I had to take a reality check. If this conversion was genuine we would have to go back 2,000 years to find another as rapid and as radical. Saul’s embrace of Christianity on the road to Damascus stood the test of time but the Taoiseach’s embrace of socialism on the banks of the Tolka hardly will.

I was not impressed with the Taoiseach’s answers yesterday so I will set him a test on three brief points to check if he is a socialist. On public ownership, the Taoiseach stated

---

The Taoiseach: Is the Deputy inquiring if I am a positive or a negative socialist? He is a socialist of the negative kind.

J. Higgins: We will see if the Taoiseach answers in the positive. Public ownership is crucial for socialists and the Taoiseach stated that he likes the idea that the Phoenix Park and the Botanic Gardens are publicly owned. As has been stated, however, he gave our telecommunications industry to venture capitalists to play around with. Will the Taoiseach answer the question to which he failed to reply just now? The Government is split on Aer Lingus and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, wants it to be in private hands. Will the Taoiseach

---

An Ceann Comhairle (Chair): The Chair is reluctant to intervene but the Deputy’s time is concluded.

J. Higgins: The second test is that democratic socialists never support imperialist invasions and certainly those of the type launched by the US military which is wading in blood through Falluja. The Taoiseach helped the US military to get there. Will he now denounce that atrocity and condemn the murder of an innocent Iraqi as we this morning condemned those obscurantists who murder innocent hostages?

On equality, the Taoiseach stated that he is happy that the children in Rutland Street school are given breakfast there. Why should they be obliged to depend on the school for their breakfast? It is because he has presided over one of the most unequal regimes in the western world which has given huge concessions to big business while poverty remains in our State.

The Taoiseach has three minutes in which to reply. I suggest that he devote one minute to each of the three tests and I will judge his replies at the end.

The Taoiseach: I would never consider that I subscribe to the same kind of politics or ideology as Deputy Joe Higgins.

Michael D. Higgins (Labour Party): The Taoiseach has scored a "D" grade already.

The Taoiseach: My politics and ideology might be closer to those of Deputy Michael D. Higgins. I have watched and listened to Deputy Joe Higgins with interest for three decades but I have never heard him say anything positive. He displays what I believe to be a far left or "commie" resistance to everything. He does so in the hope that some day the world will discover oil wells off our coast which will fall into the ownership of the State, thereby allowing us to run a great market economy with the State at its centre. That utopia does not exist.

What I said yesterday when the Deputy was not present is that

---

J. Higgins: I read what the Taoiseach said yesterday. He should just answer the questions I have put to him now.

The Taoiseach:

---

at the core of left centre political ideology is the desire to spread the wealth more evenly. That means that people must be encouraged to create the wealth. When this is done, they are taxed and the money collected is used to resource them.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputies should allow the Taoiseach to continue, without interruption.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Joe Higgins is against wealth creation and, as a result, he favours high unemployment, high expenditure and high borrowing. Any of the tests the Deputy would set me fail on the grounds that he does not believe in them. That is the issue. What we do is create the wealth, thereby allowing ourselves to employ 100,000 people in the health services to care for others, tens of thousands of teachers, many community care professionals and resource and home liaison teachers and teachers to look after the disadvantaged in our schools. That is what our brand of socialism allows us to do. The Deputy’s brand of socialism has changed so much in recent years. As he is aware, one of the reasons for the rise in oil prices is because his friends in Russia have decided that the market economy can afford $50 a barrel. That is what is wrong with Deputy Joe Higgins’s policies. I would be delighted to discuss the matter with him on the Blaskets or elsewhere whenever he likes.

J. Higgins: The basic advice a teacher gives to a pupil who is going in to do an examination is not to spend the entire time on one question.

An Ceann Comhairle: Unfortunately, under Leaders’ Questions the Taoiseach must focus on one question and not on three.

Dermot Ahern (Fianna Fáil): The problem is that one cannot sack a teacher.

J. Higgins: It was one question, divided into parts (a), (b) and (c). The Taoiseach, not being able to answer parts (a) or (b), spent all of his time trying to answer (c). On that alone, he has flunked the test. He has also flunked his history test by putting my type of socialism in the same gallery as that of the Russian Stalinists. I do not have time - unless the Ceann Comhairle will provide it - to educate the Taoiseach about that matter. He referred to my friends in Russia.

The Taoiseach: They are not communists any longer, they joined the WTO.

Willie O’Dea (Fianna Fáil): Trotsky was the same.

J. Higgins: My friends were murdered by the Stalinists. Trotsky and other fine socialists were killed because they stood for democratic socialism.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s minute is exhausted.

J. Higgins: The Taoiseach stated that he has spread the wealth around. That is a curious statement, particularly as he has given €600 million to big business in corporation tax cuts, allowed tax exiles to get away with murder while ordinary people are obliged to pay through the nose and allowed stud farm owners and the rest to operate tax free while ordinary people are obliged to pay out massively through stealth taxation and in other ways. The Taoiseach should do the honest thing and withdraw the ludicrous claims he made at the weekend. Let us return to normal. Socialism is not a flag of convenience to be used after one’s party has been battered in the local and European elections in order to pretend that one is a friend of working people.

The Taoiseach: In reply to Deputy Joe Higgins, my point is that one cannot distribute resources to education, health and social welfare unless wealth is generated. Deputy Higgins’s outrageous accusation against me that corporation tax has been lowered is not true. The facts are that the rate of corporation tax has soared from 4% to 9% of GNP during my period as Taoiseach. The Government through its policies has taken far more from the corporate tax sector by having lower taxes and generating far more activity in the economy. There are over 400,000 more in employment and lower unemployment figures

---

Joan Burton (Labour Party): The recent corporation tax yield is down. That is a matter of fact.

The Taoiseach: The Government has been given the resources to spend far more.

J. Burton: The Taoiseach is wrong. His ready reckoner is wrong.

The Taoiseach: That is how we can have more doctors, more nurses, more therapists, more teachers. When the then Minister for Finance Deputy McCreevy halved the rate of capital gains tax, the Government gained four times more revenue. By having lower taxes, we were able to spend more. I quoted a figure yesterday in the House in the Deputy’s absence which proves that the average industrial wage is now €10,000 more than it was seven years ago. Even taking the tax rate then and the different tax rate now, a person on that salary is paying €300 less. This shows the success of what we do. I know that the Deputy is actually an admirer of that also.

D. Ahern: That is our legacy.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Some of the highlights of his first spell in the Dail...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgJ5Cxp7kdo

Het-Field

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The Dail is much livelier with Joe back in the melting pot. His suggestion the Queen should pay for room and bed is hilarious and has been picked up by media all over the world..

So the Dail should have a "class clown" ? I didnt think it was hilarious. I thought it was childish, petty, and irrelevant.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I have respected his integrity for a long time as he is probably the only politician I know that takes the average industrial wage to live on and returns the rest of his TD's. .

Deputy Higgins chooses to take the average industrial wage. The fact that he returns the balance to the exchequer, or to the coffers of the Socialist Party, is simply a case of Deputy Higgins making a personal choice as to what he does with his money. It is not miles apart from TD's who choose to spend spend their money in the shops, or availing of services from private professionals.

Higgins and his cabal live in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The only real joke was the ULA's pre-election manifesto.

Lockstep

Het-Field wrote: »

Deputy Higgins chooses to take the average industrial wage. The fact that he returns the balance to the exchequer, or to the coffers of the Socialist Party, is simply a case of Deputy Higgins making a personal choice as to what he does with his money. It is not miles apart from TD's who choose to spend spend their money in the shops, or availing of services from private professionals.

IIRC, he uses the balance to fund the Socialist Party. Certainly not something that saves the exchequer any money.

Het-Field

Lockstep wrote: »

IIRC, he uses the balance to fund the Socialist Party. Certainly not something that saves the exchequer any money.

I knew it was one or the other !

If that is the case then this "average industrial wage" thing is rubbish. He is funding a private organisation with his own money. It is a personal and private choice. He should get over himself.

nacho libre

If he took his full salary his critics would be complaining he's a smoked salmon socialist. So he can't win really. While some might view him as a class clown, i think he is doing what those on the opposition benches are elected to do; hold the government to account. He just happens to have the gift of gab and is good at satire. To call him a class clown because of this is a lazy insult really borne out of bias, the man has principles and was elected to represent those who voted him in. I don't agree with his policies as it happens, because if he had his way the countries public sector wage bill would be even more out of touch with other european countries.

Lockstep

nacho libre wrote: »

If he took his full salary his critics would be complaining he's a smoked salmon socialist.

If he wants to donate his salary, that's fine but I have no time for the endless "He takes the average industrial wage" argument. Either way, the cost to the taxpayer is the same.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Lockstep wrote: »

IIRC, he uses the balance to fund the Socialist Party. Certainly not something that saves the exchequer any money.

Thats correct. I personally think that if ULA and Sinn Fein TD's want to claim they're on the average industrial wage they are going to have to start giving it back to the state rather than the party.

southsiderosie

I can't say that I agree with Joe Higgins' politics, but there were very few in the Dail at the time willing to call a spade a spade. That transcript is hilarious.

Honestly, every time I read old Dail records, I cannot believe that people can cry today about 'not knowing' what the FF government was up to. Go back and read some of the Haughey-era exchanges, particularly those from when he was Minister for Justice. The chicanery and cute hoorishness were there for all to see, yet these people were re-elected time and time again.

Denerick

I've always admired Higgins, though am not personally not a socialist. He is at least a man of integrity and wit; somebody exceptional rather than the Teachers/Farmers/parish pump gombeens we usually elect as TDs.

Mr. Incognito

Deputy Higgins chooses to take the average industrial wage. The fact that he returns the balance to the exchequer, or to the coffers of the Socialist Party, is simply a case of Deputy Higgins making a personal choice as to what he does with his money. It is not miles apart from TD's who choose to spend spend their money in the shops, or availing of services from private professionals.

Someone who chooses to take the average industrial wage is not the same as a TD spending his 200,000 odd in the shops.

It is an act of solidarity with the ordinary workers in this country. One of the massive problems with Irish politics is that TD's are so far removed from the struggles of the ordinary person in this country. A shining example is good old P Flynn on the Late Late complaining how hard is is to run three households.

The fact he gives in to his party is indicitive of a man who puts his money where his ideals are. Most politicians take pure ****e and will happily sit on both sides of the fence when it suits them, ala the Greens and Trevor Seargent- "I" WILL NOT (but ye can) go into coalition with FF and then stepping down as leader and taking up a government Ministerial position as well as the Greens practically burning their core principals and manifesto to prop up FF.

In the modern Irish political world where FF Ministers all resigned en masse to keep their pumped up pensions, TD's were using party funds to paint their houses, a Donegal TD claimed expenses for two conferences on the same weekend and attended neither, and we refuse to prosecute bankers who bankrupted the country and then paid themselves a 3 million bonus, the government refuse to tax the grossly inflated salaries of semi state executives I'd rather have more "class clowns" with integrity then the cute whoorism that we have always had in Irish society.

I wish more people would "choose" to follow his example.

Mental Mickey

Grade 1 knob. He's only playing to the cameras. Same as yer man Ming, Mick Wallace, and the uppity snob Boyd Barrett.

nacho libre

Lockstep wrote: »

If he wants to donate his salary, that's fine but I have no time for the endless "He takes the average industrial wage" argument. Either way, the cost to the taxpayer is the same.

As has been pointed he takes it as an act of solidarity. You can be sure that money donated to his party is not used to cream the system like many other politicians have done and ended up costing the taxpayer a fortune due to their nod and wink mentality. As i've previously stated, i don't share his views, but i recognise he is one of the few politicians with integrity in this country.

NSNO

Don't all party TDs give a sizable portion of their salary to their party as a condition of their party affiliation?

Lockstep

nacho libre wrote: »

As has been pointed he takes it as an act of solidarity. You can be sure that money donated to his party is not used to cream the system like many other politicians have done and ended up costing the taxpayer a fortune due to their nod and wink mentality. As i've previously stated, i don't share his views, but i recognise he is one of the few politicians with integrity in this country.

Sounds more like a catchy sound-bite; "I take the average industrial wage and am down with the workers" and something which has absolutely no benefit to the people of Ireland. If he returned the money to the state, *that* would be commendable.

Using taxes to fund the SP isn't something I see as noteworthy.

dvpower

nacho libre wrote: »

As has been pointed he takes it as an act of solidarity. You can be sure that money donated to his party is not used to cream the system like many other politicians have done and ended up costing the taxpayer a fortune due to their nod and wink mentality. As i've previously stated, i don't share his views, but i recognise he is one of the few politicians with integrity in this country.

He never grows tired of telling us that he only takes the average industrial wage. He also never tells us that he donates the rest to his political party.
Like many other politicans, half truths and obfuscation are his stock in trade.

Het-Field

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Someone who chooses to take the average industrial wage is not the same as a TD spending his 200,000 odd in the shops.

It is an act of solidarity with the ordinary workers in this country. One of the massive problems with Irish politics is that TD's are so far removed from the struggles of the ordinary person in this country. A shining example is good old P Flynn on the Late Late complaining how hard is is to run three households.

The fact he gives in to his party is indicitive of a man who puts his money where his ideals are. Most politicians take pure ****e and will happily sit on both sides of the fence when it suits them, ala the Greens and Trevor Seargent- "I" WILL NOT (but ye can) go into coalition with FF and then stepping down as leader and taking up a government Ministerial position as well as the Greens practically burning their core principals and manifesto to prop up FF.

In the modern Irish political world where FF Ministers all resigned en masse to keep their pumped up pensions, TD's were using party funds to paint their houses, a Donegal TD claimed expenses for two conferences on the same weekend and attended neither, and we refuse to prosecute bankers who bankrupted the country and then paid themselves a 3 million bonus, the government refuse to tax the grossly inflated salaries of semi state executives I'd rather have more "class clowns" with integrity then the cute whoorism that we have always had in Irish society.

I wish more people would "choose" to follow his example.

Sorry. I have no reason to doubt Duffy the Vampire Slayer, and Lockstep when they say that the balance of the money he earns is returned to the coffers of the Socialist Party. I had heard it before, but I was unsure if it was actually the case.

Essentially, he chooses to use his private funds to boost the private funds of the SP. There is NO difference between those who live off their salary, and use the funds to fund their day to day living. Both Higgins and the member use their salary in the way they choose. This does not buffer his integrity over and above that of any ordinary member of the house. If he handed it back to the exchequer, I would still be of the opinion that he is doing as he wishes with his salary. However I would see some moral distinction. In reality, there is no moral distinction between Higgins spending his money on the SP, and any other TD spending it in the shops of Ireland. In fact,the manner in which the other TD is spending his money is probably more economically beneficial.

Mr. Incognito

Het-Field wrote: »

Sorry. I have no reason to doubt Duffy the Vampire Slayer, and Lockstep when they say that the balance of the money he earns is returned to the coffers of the Socialist Party. I had heard it before, but I was unsure if it was actually the case.

Essentially, he chooses to use his private funds to boost the private funds of the SP. There is NO difference between those who live off their salary, and use the funds to fund their day to day living. Both Higgins and the member use their salary in the way they choose. This does not buffer his integrity over and above that of any ordinary member of the house. If he handed it back to the exchequer, I would still be of the opinion that he is doing as he wishes with his salary. However I would see some moral distinction. In reality, there is no moral distinction between Higgins spending his money on the SP, and any other TD spending it in the shops of Ireland. In fact,the manner in which the other TD is spending his money is probably more economically beneficial.

I see a large difference between someone who chooses to benchmark his own salary and donate the rest to his political party. It shows he believes in the political theory of said party,

as opposed to a member like Charlie Haughey who used party funds to fund a private lifestyle of yaughts, private islands and french tailored suits.

One took from a party, one gave back.

If you cannot see which one of these gentlemen bears conviction to his political creed then no one here will be able to point that out to you.

Politics should be more than spouting soundbites. When Bertie was sounding on about the beginnings of collective bargaining in the early 1990's he was co signing blank cheques for Charlie.

When Joe Higgins talks about people on 35K struggling to make ends meet, I think he has more moral authority than other members on 200K effecting to give the same considerations.

Het-Field

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I see a large difference between someone who chooses to benchmark his own salary and donate the rest to his political party. It shows he believes in the political theory of said party,

as opposed to a member like Charlie Haughey who used party funds to fund a private lifestyle of yaughts, private islands and french tailored suits.

One took from a party, one gave back.

If you cannot see which one of these gentlemen bears conviction to his political creed then no one here will be able to point that out to you.

Politics should be more than spouting soundbites. When Bertie was sounding on about the beginnings of collective bargaining in the early 1990's he was co signing blank cheques for Charlie.

When Joe Higgins talks about people on 35K struggling to make ends meet, I think he has more moral authority than other members on 200K effecting to give the same considerations.

Using Haughey, Bertie and Pee Flynn is the best way to prove you point. However, they are exceptions as opposed to the rule. I choose not to presume all politicans are corrupt. I also believe most members of the Dail live within the confines of the salary which they are designated.
They are entitled to that salary, and I simply cannot understand how you would consider them lacking the moral authority of Higgins for accepting it.

Higgins is in reciept of the same salary as any other TD. However, he chooses to give anything above 35,000 to the Socialist Party. That is a free choice he makes, and it does NOT make him a martyr. One private individual chooses to give x amount of his salary to another private entity. That is the exact same as the TD who chooses to spend his/her salary on his living expenses.

In case you havent noticed, Joe Higgins is a walking soundbyte. It may come from the excuse of an ideology that he proffers, but from the same ideology he has moulded a few oft-repeated soundbytes such as "ordinary working people", "ordinary taxpayer", "burning bondholders", "builders, bankers, and speculators".

mike65

I like the way he and Shane Ross end up sat beside one another, that must be the row for those with some integrity or something.

Mr. Incognito

ah but you see the socialist party isn't a private entity. It is an idealistic group of individuals. what are all political manifestos if not asperational ideas.

I too believe that all politicians are not corrupt in the sense that they are drawing down their legal salary plus expenses but there is a difference between what is legal and what is moral, what is accepted and what is acceptable.

Bottom line, politicians and civil servants are paid too much. We all know it. Objectively they make far too much for running a small corner on the edge of Europe. Instead of getting a grip on reality they are really really removed from ordinary people. It's the reason people voted for independents in such large numbers.

I disagree with socialist policy. If Joe had his way every corporation would be run out of Ireland and we would have an economic wasteland but I respect that he lives the courage of his convictions.

I admire his asperations, his intelligence and his ability to call bull on a lot of things. I deplore his poor poor economic sense. His non ability to see rational economic business truths. His lack of education on International affairs and his hankering to conspiracy theory on some sort of elite illuminati. But compared to the rest of the FF crowd I admire and appreciate him a lot more for both sides of the coin.

Het-Field

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

ah but you see the socialist party isn't a private entity. It is an idealistic group of individuals. what are all political manifestos if not asperational ideas.

I too believe that all politicians are not corrupt in the sense that they are drawing down their legal salary plus expenses but there is a difference between what is legal and what is moral, what is accepted and what is acceptable.

Bottom line, politicians and civil servants are paid too much. We all know it. Objectively they make far too much for running a small corner on the edge of Europe. Instead of getting a grip on reality they are really really removed from ordinary people. It's the reason people voted for independents in such large numbers.

I disagree with socialist policy. If Joe had his way every corporation would be run out of Ireland and we would have an economic wasteland but I respect that he lives the courage of his convictions.

I admire his asperations, his intelligence and his ability to call bull on a lot of things. I deplore his poor poor economic sense. His non ability to see rational economic business truths. His lack of education on International affairs and his hankering to conspiracy theory on some sort of elite illuminati. But compared to the rest of the FF crowd I admire and appreciate him a lot more for both sides of the coin.

The Socialist Party are a private entity. They require registration with Standards in Public Offices Commission, and the money contributed by Higgins will belong to the SP. The SP will be capable of owning assets, and they will require the appointment of trustees who will take control of the financial affairs of the entity. Yes they are a movement, but there is expectations which they will be required to fulfil.

There is nothing immoral about drawing one's salary in full. If you feel strongly about the remuneration of politicians, then it is important to speak to those with their "hand on the buzzer" about this issue. For what it is worth, I would be wary of a manic "race to the bottom" in terms of political remuneration. It is important to encourage all walks of society to enter the fray. Politicans can perform an effective public service, but by slashing politican & civil service pay you run the risk of disqualifying certain members of society from seeking to take on these jobs. By extension you significantly reduce the pool from which such people can be chosen. While pay decreases would be just, fair, and probably in line with best International Practice, I believe we need to be wary of any radical slashing.

You are entitled to admire him. I agree that he is one of the few politicians who carries a fairly consistent ideology. However, I feel he does not ruffle the government, I feel his rhetoric is laced with soundbytes, and he is simply there to agitate.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

As a ULA supporter I have to concur that although giving much of his salary to his party is an admirable gesture, it is misleading to suggest he only takes the average industrial wage. Not the only TD that this applies to.

nacho libre

Lockstep wrote: »

Sounds more like a catchy sound-bite; "I take the average industrial wage and am down with the workers" and something which has absolutely no benefit to the people of Ireland. If he returned the money to the state, *that* would be commendable.

Using taxes to fund the SP isn't something I see as noteworthy.

Would you see it as a commendable if some of that money he allocated to his party is used to benefit disadvantaged communities?
I still think he'd be coming for even more criticism if he took the full wage, as people would be saying what right has he to speak about the ordinary worker when he is on a salary twice that of the average earner.
He might be perceived as a grandstanding on issues, but i believe he means what he says, unlike many past politicians, and is not just there to simply agitate.
Still that said I can't argue with his critics, that if he had his policies implemented, Bertie's government would have been even more generous to a cosseted sector. Which would result in even more people suffering hardship at the present time.

Lockstep

nacho libre wrote: »

Would you see it as a commendable if some of that money he allocated to his party is used to benefit disadvantaged communities?

Yes, but he's not using it to help the disadvantaged. He's using it to fund his political party.

nacho libre wrote: »

I still think he'd be coming for even more criticism if he took the full wage, as people would be saying what right has he to speak about the ordinary worker when he is on a salary twice that of the average earner.
He might be perceived as a grandstanding on issues, but i believe he means what he says, unlike many past politicians, and is not just there to simply agitate.
Still that said I can't argue with his critics, that if he had his policies implemented, Bertie's government would have been even more generous to a cosseted sector. Which would result in even more people suffering hardship at the present time.

If he's so concerned about the average industrial wage then he can return the rest to the exchequer. As it stands, he's costing the taxpayer the exact same amount. The only difference being that instead of the money being used in shops, resteraunts or funding the local GAA team, it's going to a political party which most people didn't vote for.

BOHtox

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"- Margaret Thatcher

LeixlipRed

Lockstep wrote: »

Sounds more like a catchy sound-bite; "I take the average industrial wage and am down with the workers" and something which has absolutely no benefit to the people of Ireland. If he returned the money to the state, *that* would be commendable.

Using taxes to fund the SP isn't something I see as noteworthy.

Returning the money to a state you have little faith in? All ULA TDs take home the average industrial wage and donate the rest to community projects of their choosing. At least there's a possibility that money will spent on something useful and not spent servicing a debt that can never be serviced.

LeixlipRed

BOHtox wrote: »

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"- Margaret Thatcher

The trouble with Maggie Tatcher was her fertilisation, germination, birth and life.

loldog

BOHtox wrote: »

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"- Margaret Thatcher

This statement is made under the assumption that we are all agreed on the issue of ownership. Which we're not.

.

oscarBravo

loldog wrote: »

This statement is made under the assumption that we are all agreed on the issue of ownership. Which we're not.

I'm perfectly aware that some people have a problem with the fact that I own things, and would like to take them from me. Those people are called thieves, whatever their ideological basis for stealing from me.

Boskowski

Lockstep wrote: »

Yes, but he's not using it to help the disadvantaged. He's using it to fund his political party.

If it's truly the disadvantaged you're concerned with I ask you this:
What better way to help the disadvantaged than supporting the socialist party?

I have to laugh at people trying to construe a viewpoint where doing what he does is less commendable than our well known 'squeeze every cent possible out of the system' politicians who are dominating our landscape of non-existing political culture. You may not agree with it but at least the man believes in something other than his back pocket.

Unfortunately the thing thats called political culture is so poor in this country that people don't even recognise it, possibly not even know about it's concept.