From the desk of Ms Joan Burton.

AlekSmart

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/burton-vows-to-end-dole-lifestyle-choice-2823665.html


An interesting,if all to predictable article on Ms Burtons relatively late conversion to the science of Sums...:)

Some of the quotes atrtibuted to Minister B are illustrative of a late developer in the field....

"What we are getting at the moment is people who come into the system straight after school as a lifestyle choice. This is not acceptable, everyone should be expected to contribute and work," Ms Burton said.

It's the "at the moment" comment which kinda scares me....is Ms B telling her audience that this is some form of new phenomena,when in actuality it has been a bedrock of the Irish Social Welfare methodology for nigh on two decades now ?

It's perhaps welcome that Joan Burton now experienced at first hand the "meat in sandwich" sensation in relation to her Labour Party credentials and her Ministerial responsibilities as described here....

Last week, Ms Burton, was "grilled" at a Labour Party meeting over €65m of cutbacks to the free provision of fuel schemes, television gas and electricity.

Ms Burton admitted the reductions "did not sit easily with her'' but where the "door was being beaten down by Finance" these were the best options available.

She is concerned by the exponential increase in the numbers availing of welfare benefit schemes and said when it came "to fuel and electricity the numbers who qualify have increased from 265,000 in 2005 to 390,000 by 2011".

The numbers themselves tell the story,to which can be added 640,000 Free Travel Scheme entitlements (2009).

However Ms Burton also now has some rather alarming issues regarding her figures to deal with as revealed earlier this week..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0714/1224300713608.html


Population of 4.8 Million with 7.2 Million live PPS numbers....

That's a very real problem for a whole shed-load of reasons.

...even allowing for genuine cases of mistaken
issuance,duplication and administrative errors....we still have 2.6 Million unexplained numbers,which require only a small percentage to be involved in "Hooky Stuff" to present Joan,and us,with a gigantic Black Hole into which the State is pouring cash-money.....:(

It looks like ,yet again,the "Who Watches the Watchers" equation was never factored into the doings of the Irish State over a period of 3 decades,something which is now coming back to devour us all !

Nijmegen

It would be fascinating if she could tell us some numbers of that 'culture' of signing on post-education. It'd also be fascinating if she might tell us what those numbers were like pre-recession. I wonder how much of this 'culture' is in fact caused by the fact that there are no jobs for young people to go into after education......................?

everyone should be expected to contribute and work," Ms Burton said

Work... Where?

In other words, I think they're going to hit young people again with an arbitrary cut in welfare because, well, they're quiet and will emigrate.

According to our government today if you are aged 18 to 21 years, 364 days you need €44 a week less than someone who is between four years and one day older than you.

If you are aged 24 years 364 days then you need €44 less than someone aged 25 years 1 day to live, according to the social welfare rates.

All very interesting, backed up with extensive scientific research I'm sure.

And the rest of the article has good stuff...

In what is the first stage of achieving budget cuts of at least €3.6bn

It'll be €4bn for sure, maybe more.

Such hard choices have led to a heightening of tensions around the cabinet table, because of the extraordinary decision by Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore to promise that there will be no cuts to social welfare rates or any income tax increases in the budget.

Now this is fascinating, given that...

Also included in the proposals are:

?Drastic cuts to a host of welfare benefits including rent supplements.

?Primary welfare rates and benefits under threat despite election promises not to cut them.

These strike me as being welfare cuts.

Not that I disagree we need to cut welfare (fairly), just some more promises from Enda and Eamon that we can't afford.

The most controversial revelation is that class sizes in Irish schools are set to rise dramatically as Ruairi Quinn's Department of Education budget is to be cut "substantially" despite soaring enrolment numbers.

"Some 80 per cent of the education budget goes on pay and pensions. We can't unilaterally cut pay so the only option is to dramatically increase class sizes. There is no other choice,"

There you have it folks. A primary school teacher in Ireland with 15 years experience will earn a 45% premium on the same teacher in Finland (ranked number 2 in the world for school systems, vs 17 for Ireland; oh, and with a similar cost of living in Finland).

But we have no choice but to shuffle kids into bigger and bigger and bigger classes.

We're due to get another, I think the department figures are, 100,000 kids in primary school over the coming decade. Looks like they'll just have to share a desk with whomever is already there.

?Increased rail, bus and air fares for passengers cannot be ruled out.

Indeed, the minister for transport has already said that CIE fares will increase.

You have to love the public sector: Demand falls, so we increase our prices.

Privatise the damn thing, kill the unionised contracts and provide some funding for PSO routes you want to keep open that aren't profitable. It'd be a lot cheaper than the €700 million we give CIE each year to run a crappy service.

There is widespread concern within Fine Gael and Labour at the public reaction to the Roscommon hospital crisis, leading many to fear what awaits them when they return in the autumn.

WTF did they expect?

tenchi-fan

Nijmegen wrote: »

In other words, I think they're going to hit young people again with an arbitrary cut in welfare because, well, they're quiet and will emigrate.

Will they? i see a lot of college-leavers "emigrating to australia" and coming back after a few months of partying to sign on again
There's a contrast between them and people who were genuinely forced to emigrate to pay their mortgage or support their families due to actually losing a job they relied on.

Nijmegen wrote: »

A primary school teacher in Ireland with 15 years experience will earn a 45% premium on the same teacher in Finland

We love bashing the public sector. However, you're right, salaries are relatively high.
I've worked in enough private sector companies to know about the "old contract" (You know, the people who get double pay for sundays, 27 days annual leave, 35 hour week and a strict 9-5)
Pensions have already been reformed for new entrants to the public sector (afaik). Why not ensure that new entrants to teaching are aware that their teaching wage will be substantially lower than existing workers.. say €25k outside Dublin. The supply of such "teachers" (i.e. college leavers with a degree and some teaching practice) is crazy.

Sand

I was going to say Labour cant seriously be planning to attack their own core vote, but Nijmegen is right - theyre being careful to hit the people who will quietly pack up and GTFO.

"Some 80 per cent of the education budget goes on pay and pensions. We can't unilaterally cut pay so the only option is to dramatically increase class sizes. There is no other choice,"

This is a remarkable statement. A truly remarkable and deeply revealing statement, showing the cancer that is the public sector trade unions at work.

One might think that we have an education budget with the primary goal of educating children to the highest standards that can be reasonably achieved/afforded. That is the justification for taxation to fund the education budget that most people understand. So if theres a choice between service provided and the wages of service providers, the provision of services would be prioritised.

Now we are being told, that in Irelands public sector, the primary goal of the education budget is to pay teachers and assorted hangers on. The education of children is an aspirational, secondary goal. Once the teachers wages are paid, only then, if theres anything left over will the education of children be considered. If its a choice between facilities and services, or public sector wages, Labour are telling us its facilities and services that must be cut - never wages.

It seems to me to undermine the justification of taxation in Ireland when the public sector dont even recognise *why* theyre paid anything, at all.

We are in serious, serious, serious fiscal trouble when we're running an 18 billion deficit and already Labour is bleating "There is no fat left..." They sound like that fat kid on half ton teen bawling his eyes out when told he has to go on a diet.

I'm not sure this government is going to last all that long - the next election is going to be the interesting one.

Re: The broken electoral promises

- I think FG and Labour might usefully employ their time by reviewing every stump speech or public statement they made in the last 1-2 years to identify stupid promises they made and publically disown them. They might then want to do some sort of address to the nation speech where they lay out the scale of the fiscal problem, and explain that the primary goal of the country is to close that deficit, and explain that apart from the one off capital transfers the deficit is seperate to the banks crisis. They might then underline that *nothing* is off the table when it comes to closing the deficit. They can then close up with a national priority/will try to be equitable does not mean popular.

- They might also want to *stop* making new and stupid promises.

Nijmegen

Will they? i see a lot of college-leavers "emigrating to australia" and coming back after a few months of partying to sign on again
There's a contrast between them and people who were genuinely forced to emigrate to pay their mortgage or support their families due to actually losing a job they relied on.

Well, regardless of if they emigrate or not - and it's in our long term interest that they don't - cutting their dole because they don't get a job is ludicrous, given that there are no jobs to get!

The government will seek to unfairly put the burden of welfare cuts onto their head. Again.

The dole dropped by €8 for most people, from €196 to €188. It dropped by a further €44-€88 for people under 25. I think that's fundamentally unfair, and soft targeting.

We love bashing the public sector. However, you're right, salaries are relatively high.

This 'bashing' is in the context of a quote directly stating that services will be cut to maintain public sector pay and conditions.

Pensions have already been reformed for new entrants to the public sector (afaik). Why not ensure that new entrants to teaching are aware that their teaching wage will be substantially lower than existing workers.. say €25k outside Dublin. The supply of such "teachers" (i.e. college leavers with a degree and some teaching practice) is crazy.

Pay for new entrants has been cut. There's a recruitment freeze. Much use that is.

I'm not sure this government is going to last all that long - the next election is going to be the interesting one.

Yeah, a choice between more of the same FG/Lab, back to FF or off to the loony left.

murphaph

Arrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!

"Some 80 per cent of the education budget goes on pay and pensions. We can't unilaterally cut pay so the only option is to dramatically increase class sizes. There is no other choice,"

Arrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!

That is all. Seriously, I emailed all the TDs to ask them their opinion on this quote and I told them mine. I suggest you all do the same.

Protecting teachers (even the ones on 50 and 60k) wages at the expense of the education of our children is quite frankly disgusting and Labour and Joan Burton should hang their heads in shame, as should the party I voted for (FG) if they stand idly by on this.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/burton-slashes-dole-for-jobless-who-wont-work-2629338.html

THE jobless face cuts to their dole if they refuse to take up work or training offers under a new crackdown.

Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton is to introduce new rules where people on unemployment benefits will face financial penalties for the first time if they consistently refuse to take up offers of training, education, or course placements.

With her Internship scheme incorporating the WPP too soon it will be a matter of providing free labour for a company whose staff are being paid and shareholders are making a profit or get nothing
Some socialist she is!! Or maybe its communism through the back door

ardmacha

Protecting teachers (even the ones on 50 and 60k) wages at the expense of the education of our children is quite frankly disgusting and Labour and Joan Burton should hang their heads in shame, as should the party I voted for (FG) if they stand idly by on this.

If this State wants its children educated then it should allocate funds to provide that education and if the government does not fund it properly then it should hold its head in shame. It does not spend a disproportionate amount of GNP on education, if it is short of cash then it must be spending it elsewhere and should look to its spending there.

What points that may be made about performance (and if performance is poor, these need to be made), teachers have a direct and definite job to do. Yet the focus is on them rather than amorphous mass of bureaucrats, many extremely well paid, who don't do anything of any value. There is much talk here of Finland, but there is no intention to introduce Finnish ways of doing things, the only thing from Finland anyone is interested in is the headline salary.

hmmm

Children don't vote for the Labour party, but teachers do.

femur61

I was so annoyed when I read that pay won't be touched so they will have to increase class size. So let the children suffer, our education is not as great as we thought so it will be worse now. We're gone from 5th to 15th in English and 17 to 25th in maths. I have worked as a sub teacher here and the UK. Much cushier job here. Increasing class size teachers will know what hard work is all about.

COYW

murphaph wrote: »

Protecting teachers (even the ones on 50 and 60k) wages at the expense of the education of our children is quite frankly disgusting and Labour and Joan Burton should hang their heads in shame, as should the party I voted for (FG) if they stand idly by on this.

Do you honestly expect Labour to go head to head with the teaching trade unions, one of the strongest sections in the trade union movement. As others have said, children don't vote!

COYW

femur61 wrote: »

Increasing class size teachers will know what hard work is all about.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the teaching trade unions starting looking for compensation, financial or otherwise, for teaching larger classes.

MagicSean

80% sounds quite high. But its hardly unexpected. Teaching staff is the primary resource used by the education department.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

If this State wants its children educated then it should allocate funds to provide that education and if the government does not fund it properly then it should hold its head in shame. It does not spend a disproportionate amount of GNP on education, if it is short of cash then it must be spending it elsewhere and should look to its spending there.

A disproportionate amount of that budget is spent on wages (80%) however. Cut it whatever way you want....you know there are overpaid teachers out there blocking the recruitment of new ones, forcing class sizes to be driven up. We have it from the horse's (Burton's) mouth now.

Do you really think a teacher should ever reach a salary of 60k? Even if they worked a 40 hour week with 25 days off a year (like the rest of us) they'd still be extraordinarily well paid for that.

RichardAnd

We can toss this back and forth all we wish but I am of a clear mind with regards to this. If ever I have children, I will not be trusting their education to the Irish state.

Sand

True - they spent the best part of 13 years trying to beat Irish into me and apart from a few rote phrases (which Im not sure about) I know no more about it than when I went in. Given that track record I have to put my results in other subjects down to my own ability above anything else - christ, they put roadblocks in my path by putting me (honours maths student...) into a pass maths class for a year due to some derranged scheduling conflict between Maths and Irish...If you were Pass Irish, you had to take Pass Maths by default.

Tea drinker

Sand wrote: »

True - they spent the best part of 13 years trying to beat Irish into me and apart from a few rote phrases (which Im not sure about) I know no more about it than when I went in. Given that track record I have to put my results in other subjects down to my own ability above anything else - christ, they put roadblocks in my path by putting me (honours maths student...) into a pass maths class for a year due to some derranged scheduling conflict between Maths and Irish...If you were Pass Irish, you had to take Pass Maths by default.

Madness. Sure In my school they couldn't even teach higher level maths.
No teacher to use the computers so they just sat wasting in some unused prefab. I was fvckin gob****e when I arrived in college due to bad maths (differentiation/integration what's that?)and no computer literacy. Irish was a total waste and I stopped doing it a certain stage. I studied honours engineering in the Irish class or biology or someting I had a hope of passing.

Good loser

Does anyone know the figures? The annual cost before and after?

For gas and electric I think the annual units were reduced from 2,400 to 1,800 - that's 25% off but if prices rise 10% to 15% the reduction will be clawed back?

Could the announcement have been made before the price increase to look better?

Either way it's mickey mouse stuff - as is the €100 house 'tax'.

Surely the admin would eat up half that?

baaaa

AlekSmart wrote: »

Population of 4.8 Million with 7.2 Million live PPS numbers....

There has to be...this can't be..:eek:

murphaph

baaaa wrote: »

There has to be...this can't be..:eek:

There are cases where the same person can legitimately require multiple PPS numbers. An agent filing tax returns on behalf of a non-resident landlord for example would require a different PPS for each landlord they are filing for.

There are probably other similar examples but I imagine they don't amount to anywhere near the difference between our population and the number of live PPS numbers. Something would appear to stink alright.

mikemac

Are PPS numbers made inactive when someone dies?
And if they died before pension age would the State even know? Unless the company registers it with Revenue and the final P45, I'm not an employer so don't know

As it was the RSI number before and over the years and decades it's not surprising more exist then the current population

Edit, I've explained this badly. Over the decades if a PPS holder dies was the State updating the RSI/PPS records?

murphaph

I know that when a person dies the first body you need to approach after the county registrar (to actually register the death) is Revenue to get a tax clearance certificate. Without this you won't even be able to start probate proceedings. I suppose if there's no legacy then no probate will take place and Revenue might not be informed in this case.

ardmacha

Murhaph wrote:

Do you really think a teacher should ever reach a salary of 60k?

Perhaps you should ask people in your adopted country why they pay teachers this amount and more. Perhaps they regard education as important?

As to the PPS numbers, the Revenue are effective users of IT, Social Welfare have not been as good. But something is wrong if the census discovered almost 100,000 more people, you would expect most people to be either in education, receiving welfare, paying tax, or receiving the OAP. That being the case how did a significant proportion of the State's population get lost?

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps you should ask people in your adopted country why they pay teachers this amount and more. Perhaps they regard education as important?

Lots of things are important. The binman who collects my rubbish is important-not gonna see himget 60k+ a year for it though (well maybe in Ireland lol).

Why don't you just answer my question:
Do you think any teacher should end up earning 60k and upwards?

listermint

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps you should ask people in your adopted country why they pay teachers this amount and more. Perhaps they regard education as important?

We dont set the wages scales, Unions do.

ardmacha

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps you should ask people in your adopted country why they pay teachers this amount and more. Perhaps they regard education as important?

There is an endless amount of graduates qualified to teach, many spend 10 years subbing, many go abroad, many follow other career paths - just have a look on the teaching forums on boards!!

lower the wage and we can employ more teachers simples

Dannyboy83

murphaph wrote: »

Lots of things are important. The binman who collects my rubbish is important-not gonna see himget 60k+ a year for it though (well maybe in Ireland lol).

There was a story earlier this year about council men in Birmingham:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/222811/Binmen-earning-45-000-a-year-for-24-hour-week

BINMEN who have left rubbish to pile up in the streets have been raking in £45,000 salaries for a 24-hour week.
The five-man crews can pull in £225,000 a year between them thanks gold-plated bonuses and “scam” overtime payments on top of their basic wages.

I believe they are still planning to privatise that service.



Cork City council have just sold their refuse collection to a private company:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0628/1224299680205.html

CORK CITY Council has agreed to sell its refuse collection service to a private operator following a review of operations which found that the number of customers is dropping and the service is projected to lose almost €5 million in 2012.
Mr Lucey said the council had budgeted that the service would lose almost €1.8 million this year but that the projected loss would now be almost €2.5 million, with the loss for 2012 projected at over €4.8 million.

21 people work for Cork City Council in refuse collection and there will be no redundancies
Country Clean is based in Mallow, north Cork, and employs 120 staff.

I had a thread about it here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73134361
A private company with 6 times as many staff are going to make a profit, by charging the same amount as the council would have while losing millions, despite the private company continuing to observe the waivers.
This is an ongoing trend across the country.


I imagine you would probably see a similar thing with regards to private education, if consumers actually had a choice.


I think the PDs must be smiling in their political graves.
The Public Sector has become so expensive, inefficient and obese, that it has itself become the biggest catalyst towards privatisation.

the_syco

femur61 wrote: »

Increasing class size teachers will know what hard work is all about.

When the class size increases, the good teachers who already knows what hard work is all about will see it increase. The bad teachers will just affect more students.

serfboard

the_syco wrote: »

When the class size increases, the good teachers who already knows what hard work is all about will see it increase. The bad teachers will just affect more students.

And that's one of the big problems in the public sector. People who are genuinely doing good jobs working alongside complete numpties who can't be fired.

WRT the figure of "80% of the education budget going on pay and pensions", I would like to see this figure broken down by:

1.Pay and
2. Pensions.

Step 1. Cut the pensions. Retired teachers/civil servants will already be getting the contributory pension, plus free travel, electricity, TV licence, plus a possible medical card, if they decided not to hand it back (or lied on the very basic form they were asked to fill out). Plus, they will, for the most part, have no mortgage.

So, if you had all of the above, no rent/mortgage, and all the other freebies, how much do you think you would need to live on every week? But we won't look for cuts there will we? Because pensioners vote/protest.

Step 2. Break down pay into:

1. Civil Servants
2. Teachers and principals
3. Administrative personnel within schools
4. SNAs etc.

Cut the pay of everyone except no. 2. Then cut their pay as well. However, before you do, inspect the fúcking classes properly, and fire the useless fúckers. Then introduce performance-related-pay for everyone. That way, good teachers will shine and earn well, and bad ones won't and will leave, if they haven't been gotten rid of already.

Step 3. Get rid of those old codgers subbing around the place and get in some young qualified, unemployed teachers. I know they're talking about doing this, but hurry the fúck up! The retired teachers are already on enough money.

Step 4. Finally, back to pensions, they must be made lifetime-earnings related rather than final-salary related. We all know stories of teachers who were "promoted" to vice-principal in their last year or two to bump up their pensions.

And in the name of God do all this before you increase class sizes.

ardmacha

So, if you had all of the above, no rent/mortgage, and all the other freebies, how much do you think you would need to live on every week? But we won't look for cuts there will we? Because pensioners vote/protest.

And if your proposals were followed they would be correct to protest. If someone works for 40 years and has a particular agreement about their terms and conditions then it is reasonable to expect the government of the country will respect that agreement.

It is corruption of the highest order to propose making an arrangement for most of their lives with people and then proposing to pass a law to abrogate this to pay off bank investors and the like.

People in this forum seem to confuse welfare and employment. Social welfare is based on need, employment is based on your contact of employment in return for services rendered.

If you feel that pensioners should pay for education then levy all pensioners equally.

#15

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

80% sounds quite high. But its hardly unexpected. Teaching staff is the primary resource used by the education department.

murphaph wrote: »

A disproportionate amount of that budget is spent on wages (80%) however.

OECD:

The salaries of teachers and other staff employed in education account for the largest proportion
of current expenditure in all OECD countries. Expenditure on compensation of educational
personnel accounts on average for 79% of current expenditure at the primary, secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education, taken together. In all countries except the
Czech Republic, Finland, Korea and the Slovak Republic, 70% or more of current expenditure at
these levels is spent on staff salaries.

Head The Wall

ardmacha wrote: »

And if your proposals were followed they would be correct to protest. If someone works for 40 years and has a particular agreement about their terms and conditions then it is reasonable to expect the government of the country will respect that agreement.

It is corruption of the highest order to propose making an arrangement for most of their lives with people and then proposing to pass a law to abrogate this to pay off bank investors and the like.

People in this forum seem to confuse welfare and employment. Social welfare is based on need, employment is based on your contact of employment in return for services rendered.

If you feel that pensioners should pay for education then levy all pensioners equally.

If they fully funded the pension themselves then yes it wouldn't be morally correct but they didn't fund it fully, we the taxpayers fund the bulk of it.

The govt don't seem to have a problem with taking money out of private sector pension funds which they didn't fund, but that wouldn't suit your argument would it.


If Finland can get by paying 10% less than us then we should start there, that would be a saving of around 3/4 a billion

The_Thing

DannyBoy83's version of the article:

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

21 people work for Cork City Council in refuse collection and there will be no redundancies
Country Clean is based in Mallow, north Cork, and employs 120 staff.

Irish Times Version:

Twenty-one people work for Cork City Council in refuse collection and there will be no redundancies, with staff being given the opportunity to be redeployed within other sections of the council if they do not wish to transfer to Country Clean.

ardmacha

If they fully funded the pension themselves then yes it wouldn't be morally correct but they didn't fund it fully, we the taxpayers fund the bulk of it.

The funding arrangements for the pension were those agreed, if you didn't like these then you should have complained then.

The govt don't seem to have a problem with taking money out of private sector pension funds which they didn't fund, but that wouldn't suit your argument would it.

The government have reduced PS pensions. Who funded it is not the point, if someone works for you, that doesn't give you the right to remove money from the pension years later.

If Finland can get by paying 10% less than us then we should start there, that would be a saving of around 3/4 a billion

If we introduce the Finnish system we would save nothing, as smaller classes and additional training would probably cost more than the saving in salaries.
But, as I said, you don't give a damn about the system in Finland, you just see a headline salary.

amen

If someone works for 40 years and has a particular agreement about their terms and conditions then it is reasonable to expect the government of the country will respect that agreemen

really ? I've been working for 20+ years and expected to get a pension at 65 but now its 67. It appears that because I am a private sector work my "social" contact doesn't count.

the_syco

serfboard wrote: »

fire the useless fúckers

I find the useless ****ers are usually great friends with the unions.

Dannyboy83

The_Thing wrote: »

DannyBoy83's version of the article:


Irish Times Version:

Your point being?

AlekSmart

ardmacha wrote: »

As to the PPS numbers, the Revenue are effective users of IT, Social Welfare have not been as good. But something is wrong if the census discovered almost 100,000 more people, you would expect most people to be either in education, receiving welfare, paying tax, or receiving the OAP. That being the case how did a significant proportion of the State's population get lost?

It would appear prudent to me for the Revenue and Social Welfare sectors to get their heads together and sort these "discrepancies" out pretty damn quick.

It would seem a reasonable assumption to make that a significant number of the "Extra" 100,000 people are also in possession of multiple "active" PPS numbers.

In addition,these bare stats are often the basic elements of all sorts of interdepartmental forward planning,as in attempting to formulate ongoing budgets and the likes...

This is a wake-up call of huge proportions....but will anybody hear it ?

Silvio.Dante

With Burton spouting this Thatcherite bile and Quinn espousing his champagne 5 day a week work regime why not just disband Labour and move them lock, stock and barrel into Fg..?

tweedledee

Silvio,I think Labour have already moulded into FG.The sniff of power changes political parties.

murphaph

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

With Burton spouting this Thatcherite bile and Quinn espousing his champagne 5 day a week work regime why not just disband Labour and move them lock, stock and barrel into Fg..?

Did you read what she said?

She said she would rather increase class sizes than cut public sector pay. Thatcherite???

Silvio.Dante

murphaph wrote: »

Did you read what she said?

She said she would rather increase class sizes than cut public sector pay. Thatcherite???

You know quite well I was referring to her inuslting attack on the unemployed. Troll more fertile territory dude...

murphaph

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

You know quite well I was referring to her inuslting attack on the unemployed. Troll more fertile territory dude...

She doesn't give a fcuk about the unemployed or people working outside of unionised employment. She, and her Labour party colleagues, only care about people working unionised jobs, cos that's where Labour gets a lot (most?) of its dosh from

RobbieTheRobber

murphaph wrote: »

She doesn't give a fcuk about the unemployed or people working outside of unionised employment. She, and her Labour party colleagues, only care about people working unionised jobs, cos that's where Labour gets a lot (most?) of its dosh from

Have you got some sources for this?

The last thing i remember anyone from labour saying in regard to this was that donations from unions represented about 5% of turnover.

murphaph

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Have you got some sources for this?

The last thing i remember anyone from labour saying in regard to this was that donations from unions represented about 5% of turnover.

No source, hence the question mark in my post.

Do you think Labour care about the unemployed?

sollar

Joan Burton is coming on to speak at MacGill Summer School now in a few mins if anyone is interested in hearing what she has to say on the matter:

http://www.donegalcoco.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/62094