‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The political system is a complete joke. It's becoming very obvious that you can't change anything from within it.

Electin promises were made over the Roscommon hospital, by Enda Kenny and by a local TD (I think he was called Fingleton but I'm open to correction on that)

Enda Kenny blatantly renaged on that commitment.
Fingleton kept his promise - and was thrown out of the party for it.

Politician making promises they know they can't keep and people believing them despite evidence being available that the promises can't be kept isn't exactly new and will exist in any democratic system. Politicians do need to be able to change policies if circumstances change so I dont think that promises should never be made legally enforceable.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Cowen, Lenihan, hell even people like Haughey - when they were my age (early twenties) do you think they were corrupt individuals? Would it not be reasonable to assume that some of them, at least, were just as idealistic as I am in their youth? That some of them honestly went in to politics to serve the Irish people and the Irish state? I do, personally. I can't fathom that so many people in FF were born selfish and corrupt. There had to be people in there who went into it with good intentions.

To be far to Fianna Fail I don't think their members are anything other than ordinary people. They just had the misfortune to be in power at the time. I don't think it would made much difference to our current situation whoever was in power. Its easy to look back in hindsight but if they had made ultimately the correct decisions they would have been booted them out. Whos fault is that, the system or the people who elected them.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sure, there would be a couple of weeks where I'd have no computer at all and that would be very hard. But surely it'd be better than getting rid of the blue screen of death, while a nagging voice in the back of my head says "you do realize it'll just crash again in a couple of days, right?"

Which do you think is the better option?

The problem is the majority of people in the country still support the current system. Grand there are issues but judging from the last election very few people want a radical overhaul. So in that context what can the protesters achieve. They may be angry as they have a right to be. But would they not be better focusing on achieveable goals that the majority of people would support (They aren't the only people that are angry) rather than protesting pointlessly.

errlloyd

How long till we can start charging them rent? Seems unfair they get to dodge it by saying they're protesting.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The banks for example should have been severely punished for what they've done. ...

The people who owned the banks got wiped out, their shareholdings were valueless overnight.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

Politician making promises they know they can't keep and people believing them despite evidence being available that the promises can't be kept isn't exactly new and will exist in any democratic system. Politicians do need to be able to change policies if circumstances change so I dont think that promises should never be made legally enforceable.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying. What I'm saying is that our Dail isn't democratic if everyone has to vote along a party line or get thrown out of the party. It should be a collection of individuals who vote purely based on their own decision. That would be closer to actual democracy. Again, look at England. The Three line whip thing is a disgrace - the public wants a referendum, if politicians reject it on party lines, they are not representing the people.

To be far to Fianna Fail I don't think their members are anything other than ordinary people. They just had the misfortune to be in power at the time. I don't think it would made much difference to our current situation whoever was in power. Its easy to look back in hindsight but if they had made ultimately the correct decisions they would have been booted them out. Whos fault is that, the system or the people who elected them.

I disagree. All parties are infested with croneyism but it's so, so much worse in FF. Before Anglo was bailed out Lenihan played golf and went to dinner with the people who ran it. We've already heard about how they could just phone up and get a casual loan, no questions asked. It's appalling. No democracy has any place for that type of corruption.

The problem is the majority of people in the country still support the current system. Grand there are issues but judging from the last election very few people want a radical overhaul. So in that context what can the protesters achieve. They may be angry as they have a right to be. But would they not be better focusing on achieveable goals that the majority of people would support (They aren't the only people that are angry) rather than protesting pointlessly.

Suggest some alternatives then? One of the aims of the Occupy movement is to get a proper debate going. What would you suggest? Ban party whipping? Ban parties altogether? How would you achieve proper democracy end eliminate party politics and croneyism under the current system?

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

The people who owned the banks got wiped out, their shareholdings were valueless overnight.

And how much of a pension is Drumm getting, paid for by the taxpayer? What kind of golden handshakes did the executives who oversaw the corruption get? Where are the Golden Circle? I presume they kept their money too? What happened to the loans Seanie was transferring out of the bank every year? Why hasn't the criminal assets bureau been onto him about that yet?

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One of the aims of the Occupy movement is to get a proper debate going. What would you suggest? Ban party whipping? Ban parties altogether? How would you achieve proper democracy end eliminate party politics and croneyism under the current system?

Political parties are part of politics even if they were banned you would get de facto parties from groups of people who would vote collectively in persuit of common goals at the expense of some their less important goals. Look at the current government two different parties working together both having to sacrifice some of there goals to a greater or lesser degree. People don't act in isolation from each other.

As for alternatives I am happy by and large with the current system. It could do with some serious tweaks though but not a radical overhaul as the protester seem to be advocating. Surely would it be better for the protesters to stop protesting and set up a political party or at the very least put themselves before voters in some shape or form if not as a political party as individuals.

I would agree however the whip approach isn't the best way to go about things.

As for a proper democracy most people don't have the time to look at every piece of legistation that goes through the dail which would happen in a proper democracy or at least I don't. Look at the Lisbon Treaty referendums the vast majority of people who voted on it hadn't read it.

Good loser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godge
The people who owned the banks got wiped out, their shareholdings were valueless overnight.

HatrickPatrick

And how much of a pension is Drumm getting, paid for by the taxpayer? What kind of golden handshakes did the executives who oversaw the corruption get? Where are the Golden Circle? I presume they kept their money too? What happened to the loans Seanie was transferring out of the bank every year? Why hasn't the criminal assets bureau been onto him about that yet?

You're in your twenties you say. It's all too obvious.

You write, and write plenty, but your scattergun responses are unfocussed and incoherent.

You would be better off studying economics and/or logic for a while.

For example your reply above to Godge's thread 334 has nothing to do with the point made.

Take time out.

EI_Flyboy

Good loser wrote: »

Quote:


HatrickPatrick

You're in your twenties you say. It's all too obvious.

You write, and write plenty, but your scattergun responses are unfocussed and incoherent.

You would be better off studying economics and/or logic for a while.

For example your reply above to Godge's thread 334 has nothing to do with the point made.

Take time out.

There's a lot of misunderstanding out there which seems to be part of the problem. The whole situation is so messy that it's incoherence seems to be adding to people's anger. I think the lack of understanding certainly detracts from their credibility and shows that those protesting need to simplify their arguments. I doubt a degree in economics or logic is needed to see that the way things are just doesn't work and an alternative is needed to the boom bust cycle going forward. We're living in an artificially maintained economic model which is unhealthy and dangerous. It doesn't need to be rescued, it needs to be changed. The argument doesn't need to get anymore complicated than that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

EI_Flyboy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think it's unfortunate but that is very true and completely indisputable.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As is a dialogue among the governed if power is to be truly vested in the people and not in the vested interests. The Occupy movement is stimulating that dialogue, the Right is discussing with the Left to find a common purpose -a consensus. It is also encouraging people to become informed, nearly every night there are talks by those who have 'some understanding of economics and logic (not to mention historical precedent)' discussing economics, political theories, economic and social history, sociology etc. Perhaps we should add logic and rhetoric to the list of topics?

Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

There's a lot of misunderstanding out there which seems to be part of the problem. The whole situation is so messy that it's incoherence seems to be adding to people's anger. I think the lack of understanding certainly detracts from their credibility and shows that those protesting need to simplify their arguments. I doubt a degree in economics or logic is needed to see that the way things are just doesn't work and an alternative is needed to the boom bust cycle going forward. We're living in an artificially maintained economic model which is unhealthy and dangerous. It doesn't need to be rescued, it needs to be changed. The argument doesn't need to get anymore complicated than that.

Unfortunately, most people are perfectly happy with the 'boom' element of the cycle, and there's a natural tendency to regard the 'bust' part of it as an aberration created by some kind of desperate incompetence or corruption. The sort of slogans bandied about on occasions like this don't do anything to suggest that there's a deeper understanding than that.

People build houses on flood plains, and farm the slopes of volcanoes - and they appear to be just as surprised and outraged when their houses flood and their farms are destroyed.

Part of the problem is that - speaking as a Green, now - a debt-based money system predicated on perpetual economic growth isn't actually impossible, depending on how one defines economic growth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

People build houses on flood plains, and farm the slopes of volcanoes - and they appear to be just as surprised and outraged when their houses flood and their farms are destroyed.

Part of the problem is that - speaking as a Green, now - a debt-based money system predicated on perpetual economic growth isn't actually impossible, depending on how one defines economic growth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Building on flood plains is a prime example of why we need a system where those who are elected to take responsibility (they do after all, volunteer for the position) should be held accountable. County and city councils are required to give planning permission - (yet, CoCo's are essentially run by the county managers -unelected public servants on extremely generous salaries and pension packages). The Planning Authorities have a duty of care when granting permission - part of that duty should be to not only ensure that full building regulations are complied with (how many more Priory Halls are out there?) but also to assess the environmental impact on the eco-system with a view to risk of flooding, subsidence etc. Instead we have a situation that because local authorities are starved of funds by central government the priority in granting planning permission was purely financial. So estate with a capacity for 2,000 were built on the outskirts of villages containing a few hundred - with little improvement in the infrastructure to accommodate such expansions. Developments were allowed to proceed on floodplains. Dublin built 2 public transport systems that are not interconnected - and want to build a 3rd - they can't even sort out integrated ticketing!!
Were local councillors held truly accountable for the decisions made by local authorities (to the point of possible criminal charges if adequate duty of care was not demonstrated prior to planning permission being granted) we would have a more accountable and transparent system - if only because councillors would be in no doubts where the buck stopped.

EI_Flyboy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Were local councillors held truly accountable for the decisions made by local authorities (to the point of possible criminal charges if adequate duty of care was not demonstrated prior to planning permission being granted) we would have a more accountable and transparent system - if only because councillors would be in no doubts where the buck stopped.

Always after the scheiss hits the fan and it's time to account, it always ends up with everyone passing the buck saying it wasn't their responsibility, that they weren't in charge. This means no one's actually in charge and the only conclusion is we're already living in anarchy!

Bannasidhe

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Always after the scheiss hits the fan and it's time to account, it always ends up with everyone passing the buck saying it wasn't their responsibility, that they weren't in charge. This means no one's actually in charge and the only conclusion is we're already living in anarchy!

Perhaps its time the scheiss stops hitting the fan and lands on those whose job description says they are responsible. It's crazy...but it just might work!

MeisterG

But the point is we are ALL responsible. That may be an uncomfortable fact - but the social pact that our democracy ties us into is one where decisions in give functions are reflective of us.

What we also see in the frustrations of the protesters is the modern western phenomenon where centralism dominates the political landscape to such an extent that their is no alternative - the tails of the political bell curve are discarded and are left to sit in tents because they cannot garner seats at the table. So now the more disenfranchised in their own quasi-parliament on dame st. Then comes problem no. 2. A multitude of groups each with their own agenda and what emanates is mainly noise.

For it to work they need focus.

hatrickpatrick

MeisterG wrote: »

But the point is we are ALL responsible.

I'm 22 years old. The first election I was eligible to vote in was this year's General Election. I have never taken out a loan I couldn't afford - in fact I have never been in debt all my life. Nor have I ever bet on a horse and then gone crying to everyone else to get me back my money when the horse didn't win and I lose my investment. Neither have either of my parents, incidentally.

Why should I pay for other people's mistakes? Why should you pay for other people's mistakes?

That may be an uncomfortable fact - but the social pact that our democracy ties us into is one where decisions in give functions are reflective of us.

Incorrect. Our democratic system is a farce. You can see it as a farce when Fingleton loses his party membership for voting on his own principles rather than a party line. That's not democratic. In a properly democratic system, decisions would be made by the TDs in the Dail, not by their party whips. We don't have anything even remotely resembling democracy in this country.

What we also see in the frustrations of the protesters is the modern western phenomenon where centralism dominates the political landscape to such an extent that their is no alternative - the tails of the political bell curve are discarded and are left to sit in tents because they cannot garner seats at the table. So now the more disenfranchised in their own quasi-parliament on dame st. Then comes problem no. 2. A multitude of groups each with their own agenda and what emanates is mainly noise.

That's part of it, hence demand number four - more participatory democracy. But do you not understand that this is only part of it? Don't you see that there's a much deeper issue here, namely the fact that vested interests come first rather than the general population? THAT is the real problem here. For instance, that it's ok to close an A&E unit in Roscommon, possibly putting lives at risk, but it's not ok to let people who made stupid mistakes pay for them on their own. That it's considered ok to take money from sick and dying people in hospital and give it to incompetent speculators. That's also part of it.
There shouldn't be any elite. All citizens should be treated equally by the law and the government. It's absolutely appalling how the general population is being screwed over to repay the few. It's appalling. There is no justification whatsoever for it.

For it to work they need focus.

Agreed. Focus will come in time - this movement is incredibly new. Give it a chance now rather than dismissing it out of hand, and see where it goes.

Bannasidhe

MeisterG wrote: »

But the point is we are ALL responsible. That may be an uncomfortable fact - but the social pact that our democracy ties us into is one where decisions in give functions are reflective of us.

What we also see in the frustrations of the protesters is the modern western phenomenon where centralism dominates the political landscape to such an extent that their is no alternative - the tails of the political bell curve are discarded and are left to sit in tents because they cannot garner seats at the table. So now the more disenfranchised in their own quasi-parliament on dame st. Then comes problem no. 2. A multitude of groups each with their own agenda and what emanates is mainly noise.

For it to work they need focus.

We are responsible for allowing government to centralise power to the extent it has.
We are responsible for for continually re-electing gombeen men.
Perhaps we are even responsible to our continual failure to call our elected representatives to account.

So let's start acting responsibly and call them to account. Let's imagine we are actually an electorate of adults and behave like it - not like children who expect elected officials to have some special quality that allows them to decide what is best for us all (not that they do - the civil service essentially makes policy) without actually consulting us.

The Social Pact - or to give it another name - the Social Contract imposes a duty of care upon the governors as well as responsibilities upon the governed.
An essential component of that duty of care is that government should act for the benefit of the people - not for the benefit of the government and it's allies in business.

Many voices can speak as one - it's not easy to achieve, it's a painful and torturous process of discussion and consensus building. But it can be done.

MeisterG

Ok, beginning to understand a bit better. The "elite" I take it is anyone with a disproportionate impact on then political process I assume - do not want to put words min your mouth but elite can mean a lot of things.

Re the Roscommon A & E, ignoring the false promises etc, do you think we could afford it if we achieved aim no 1?

hatrickpatrick

MeisterG wrote: »

Ok, beginning to understand a bit better. The "elite" I take it is anyone with a disproportionate impact on then political process I assume - do not want to put words min your mouth but elite can mean a lot of things.

Well for me it means a few things. You're absolutely right, anyone who has a disproportionate impact on the political process. But also, anyone who receives special treatment from those in power. Anyone who is part of the social clique which together control the institutions of this country and collude in benefitting themselves and their friends before any other citizen's stake is considered. I made a post in another thread which summed it up, I'll repeat it below if that's ok with you - this post was made in response to someone who unlike you was openly attacking anyone protesting, so apologies for the confrontational tone of the following:

Can you phone up members of the government and ask for personal favours? Can you phone bank managers and get casual loans, no questions asked? Will any fraud or crimes you commit get swept under the carpet? If you do something stupid, will you publicly be sacked for it, but given some kind of quiet reward through the back door? Are you almost certain of getting planning permission before the public consultation has even begun? I could go on and on, but I've done enough of that in the other thread.

Does that define it a little better perhaps? It's by no means an exhaustive list, but it's a start, and it certainly mentions the main causes of my rage at the moment - not sure about anyone else's of course.

Re the Roscommon A & E, ignoring the false promises etc, do you think we could afford it if we achieved aim no 1?

That's not the issue I'm driving at. The specific vote involved is irrelevant, it could just as easily have been about building a road in Naas.
The point is, we live in an alleged democracy - yet when a member of our supposedly representative government votes, democratically, on a piece of policy, he is severely punished for not voting the "right" way.

In Britain, a referendum on EU membership is coming up for approval in parliament. It will probably fail. Why? Because again, members of ALL the parties have been warned that they will face severe consequences if the whips are not obeyed.

This is not democracy. It doesn't even remotely resemble democracy. It's a very thinly disguised form of tyranny. At the very least, the party system needs serious reform to ensure that when TDs vote, they're voting based on their own actual decisions and not out of fear of being punished by their party for not voting a certain way.

Bannasidhe

MeisterG wrote: »

Ok, beginning to understand a bit better. The "elite" I take it is anyone with a disproportionate impact on then political process I assume - do not want to put words min your mouth but elite can mean a lot of things.

Re the Roscommon A & E, ignoring the false promises etc, do you think we could afford it if we achieved aim no 1?

Yes - in this instance the elite or 1% would refer to those who have used the political system to acquire vast wealth and governmental protection plus those in government who facilitated this.
The links between FF and financial/construction sectors 'movers and shakers' are a matter of public record - so it really is not surprising that when the bubble burst, FF acted to protect it's allies rather then the citizens of the State. Anglo could have been left to fail. Yes, there would have been repercussions but not the systemic failure banking advisor's led Lenihan to believe. What has actually happened is that the debt was moved onto all of us, plus the debts from all the other banks who gambled on certain developers and speculators - and lost.

As for Roscommon hospital - and all of the other emergency hospitals being closed - this goes to the heart of what one believes a health care system is for. It is to provide health care where it is needed - i.e. within an easy travelling distance for the majority of users or should we centralise it into centres of expertise and expect the users to travel?

The HSE is enormously wasteful of money - it has been since day one when the Health Boards were amalgamated into one centralised authority as part of an efficiency/cost cutting measure - yet not one employee of the old health boards lost their job. It is manager/administrator heavy, services are duplicated, the job embargo means it has to hire agency staff to provide nursing care. Throwing money at it is not the cure - working out a country-wide health care plan that meets the needs of local people where the services are needed combined with a few provincial centres of excellence for serious medical conditions. But the point is - the user should be the priority.

hatrickpatrick

Let me add one thing on Roscommon hospital:
Maybe we can't afford it.
We can't afford to repay bondholders of Anglo either.

When the chips are down and one or the other has to be burned, the government is more concerned with bailing out their cronies than with helping sick people in hospital. It's that simple. And it's sick in its own way.

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When the chips are down and one or the other has to be burned, the government is more concerned with bailing out their cronies than with helping sick people in hospital. It's that simple. And it's sick in its own way.

And the government sits on Dame Street?

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let me add one thing on Roscommon hospital:
Maybe we can't afford it.
We can't afford to repay bondholders of Anglo either.

When the chips are down and one or the other has to be burned, the government is more concerned with bailing out their cronies than with helping sick people in hospital. It's that simple. And it's sick in its own way.

What about all the businesses who rely on banks to finance their working capital and the people who rely on those businesses for jobs. Are they not also important. The banks weren't bailed out just for sake of it. If all systemically important banks in the state had failed or were to fail our problems would be fair greater than they are now. There are genuine reasons why the banks were bailed out. How they were bailed out is another matter and I doubt few would argue the government went about it the correct way. The situation isn't black and white and from what I remember about the Roscommon situation the government was also only following recommondations.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

What about all the businesses who rely on banks to finance their working capital and the people who rely on those businesses for jobs. Are they not also important. The banks weren't bailed out just for sake of it. If all systemically important banks in the state had failed or were to fail our problems would be fair greater than they are now. There are genuine reasons why the banks were bailed out. How they were bailed out is another matter and I doubt few would argue the government went about it the correct way. The situation isn't black and white and from what I remember about the Roscommon situation the government was also only following recommondations.

For a start, how in God's name was Anglo "systemically important"? And at the very least why were the Golden Circle not chased down by the authorities? I'm pretty sure what they did was illegal, IE getting loans from a company to buy shares in that company? I'm open to correction on that but AFAIK, that's straight up fraud / price fixing territory. When will we see a proper investigation? It's been three years and nothing further has been heard from these people.

Secondly, if we MUST bail out banks, we should be bailing them out only to a level that's absolutely essential - and insisting that every penny of profit is paid back to the taxpayer. No more six figure salaries for executives. No more bonuses. Bailed out banks no longer exist to make a profit but to provide a public service. The size of Drumm's pension is an absolute disgrace when you consider that the money is coming not from his failed bank, but out of my pocket, your pocket, and the pockets of every other honest citizen in this country.

Thirdly, IF there is a situation where banks MUST be bailed out - "too big to fail", "systemically important" or whatever you want to call it, this must be changed. ASAP. One of the calls from the Occupy movement is for major reform of how the monetary system works. Banks must no longer have the power to hold society by the balls and demand special treatment "or else". That's sick.

It's undeniable in my opinion. The political class in this country looks after its own cronies before looking after anyone else. If Roscommon hospital had a Golden Circle I highly doubt they would have been covered up and protected in the way the actual Golden Circle were, unless they also happened to be personal friends of politicians or influential businessmen.

The amount of corruption in this country (and in the wider financial/political axis) is sickening to the very stomach. And it must change. Now.

hatrickpatrick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

And the government sits on Dame Street?

I'm not answering this one again. The idea of a symbol or a metaphor seems completely and utterly lost on you; I even posted a dictionary definition in the last thread about this. Dame Street houses the Central Bank, which is a manifestation of the system we're protesting against.

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not answering this one again. The idea of a symbol or a metaphor seems completely and utterly lost on you; I even posted a dictionary definition in the last thread about this. Dame Street houses the Central Bank, which is a manifestation of the system we're protesting against.

So you wish to bring down the central banking system and replace it with what exactly?

hatrickpatrick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So you wish to bring down the central banking system and replace it with what exactly?

Anything would be better than that crackpot system of money circulation. Check out my thread on Guernsey a few threads down for an example.

If not bringing down the system altogether, how about reforming it so that banks don't have the power to ever become too big to fail? So that banks, if they screw up, can't bring down half the economy with them?

hmmm

An election deposit is only 500 quid. If your views are so vital and important, why not simply put yourself forward for election and let the 99% decide? If we let every group who takes to the streets dictate policy, we'll be no better than Germany in the 1930s.