More self serving them and us policies from the 1%... (Ministers in this case)

hatrickpatrick

Here's another perfect example of the 1%:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1121/1224307907221.html

A GOVERNMENT backbencher has criticised the Cabinet decision to change the law to allow Ministers to be driven in bus lanes.

Cork South West Labour TD Michael McCarthy said yesterday it created an impression that politicians were above and beyond the general public.

Why can't they just drive in the normal lanes I wonder? Because they might have to experience the hellish mess that is congestion in Dublin and the accompanying stress the rest of us have to put up with?

The decision to move into the fast lane was taken by Ministers, by way of a majority vote at Cabinet, and was passed by the Dáil on October 18th using a statutory instrument. This is a technical device to process a Government decision without having a debate.

Oh yeah. Reeeeeal democratic right there.

*facepalm*

Fr.Harry Bell

Always strikes me a strange how Govts. keep shooting themselves in the foot.

I mean , given the situation we are in ,letting Ministers drive in bus lanes would surely be down the pecking order.and in the great scheme of things make a tiny difference, but serves to alienate the public even further when they ,the politicians, need all the support they can get?

I would love to know who instigated this 'lemon' as to me it will do far more damage than any thing it can achieve.

When will they ever learn:D

bmaxi

[QUOTE=Fr.Harry Bell;75579530

When will they ever learn:D[/QUOTE]


When Merrion Square becomes Tahrir Square. Unfortunately it'll be too late for all of us then.

Jonny7

god its such a hard oppressed life we have

Dr Galen

Was it not the case that Ministers could always use the bus lanes in their ministerial cars, then they were taken off them, so now what has happened is that the "perk" of driving in the bus lane has been returned to them now that they have to supply their own car?

hatrickpatrick

Jonny7 wrote: »

god its such a hard oppressed life we have

Why is it that people keep arguing that you only have a legitimate complaint about injustice if your own life is awful? I have a really good quality of life and standard of living, but that doesn't mean I can't be irked by seeing corruption, injustice, favouritism, etc.
I'm sure you've seen thing happen which didn't personally affect you, yet which still angered or upset you... No?

Dr Galen wrote: »

Was it not the case that Ministers could always use the bus lanes in their ministerial cars, then they were taken off them, so now what has happened is that the "perk" of driving in the bus lane has been returned to them now that they have to supply their own car?

It hardly matters. Logically speaking they should have to travel to work exactly how the rest of us do - that way, they have an interest in making sure the transport system ordinary people have to use is up to scratch.

There are two reasons I object to this.
One is the obvious aspect of injustice - in a society where everyone is equal, I don't see why politicians should have these perks. You can argue that it's necessary for them to be on time for work to do their jobs, but that also holds for journalists, teachers, shopkeepers, lawyers, office workers, delivery workers, in fact pretty much any profession you could come up with apart from those who work from home.

Why therefore should politicians have a special set of rules which allows them to live easier than the rest of us? We're all equal citizens, they should have to follow the exact same routine as everyone else does.

The second reason is that allowing ministers to avail of these perks means they have no personal interest whatsoever in actually making sure the general road and public transport networks are up to scratch. Why would a transport minister care about reducing congestion if he or she can simply bypass it by driving in the bus lane?

Of course, ideally it shouldn't matter, and they should be working for the god of the nation without needing any personal stake. But as we all know, the world doesn't work like that. Politicians are usually self serving, sadly.

Off topic slightly, it's interesting to note that this self serving attitude ties in very well with the above sarcasm "We have it so hard", implying that injustice should only piss me off when it impacts MY life.
That is precisely the kind of ideology which makes our world an unpleasant place to live.

nesf

Dr Galen wrote: »

Was it not the case that Ministers could always use the bus lanes in their ministerial cars, then they were taken off them, so now what has happened is that the "perk" of driving in the bus lane has been returned to them now that they have to supply their own car?

Yup.

Dr Galen

ok so, fair enough HP. I don't share your moral outrage of letting ministers drive in the bus lane tbh. In the grand scheme of things, I save my ire for the political classes for other issues.

Manach

This reminds me of accounts of Soviet era politicians with specialised traffic privileges being driven in black Zil limosenes to and from their dachas and their ministerial offices. All for the good of the people.

Dr Galen

Manach wrote: »

This reminds me of accounts of Soviet era politicians with specialised traffic privileges being driven in black Zil limosenes to and from their dachas and their ministerial offices. All for the good of the people.

They were socialistscommunists right.......?

hallelujajordan

Dr Galen wrote: »

ok so, fair enough HP. I don't share your moral outrage of letting ministers drive in the bus lane tbh. In the grand scheme of things, I save my ire for the political classes for other issues.

+1

There are real issues to get upset about with the current government reneging on many of their pre-election promises.

Frankly, if this allows our ministers to spend more time working and less time sitting in traffic then I am all for it. . .plus, it is probably the only ministerial perk that doesn't cost us anything

flutered

hallelujajordan wrote: »

+1

There are real issues to get upset about with the current government reneging on many of their pre-election promises.

Frankly, if this allows our ministers to spend more time working and less time sitting in traffic then I am all for it. . .plus, it is probably the only ministerial perk that doesn't cost us anything

you are forgetting the every little bit helps line, it is not just this, this is just another cm in the dividing line or the taking another little bit from us.

hatrickpatrick

Dr Galen wrote: »

ok so, fair enough HP. I don't share your moral outrage of letting ministers drive in the bus lane tbh. In the grand scheme of things, I save my ire for the political classes for other issues.

Thaty's fair enough and I'm not suggesting that this in itself is an example of a massive outrage, but in terms of the big picture, it's one more example of "the 1%" serving themselves first and giving everyone else their leftovers. It disgusts me not because of driving in the bus lane, but because the government is supposed to be made of ordinary citizens and if they don't have to worry about congestion and public transport, they won't do a damn thing about it.

It's ludicrous to expect them to create a system which serves all of us, if they don't have to live within it themselves.

Lockstep

Of all the things to get angry about, this is fairly scraping the barrel.
It costs the taxpayer nothing, has little to no effect on us and is a holdover from when ministers had cars.

I'm genuinely baffled that this merits its own thread.

hatrickpatrick

hallelujajordan wrote: »

+1

There are real issues to get upset about with the current government reneging on many of their pre-election promises.

Frankly, if this allows our ministers to spend more time working and less time sitting in traffic then I am all for it. . .plus, it is probably the only ministerial perk that doesn't cost us anything

Ok, but what about the journalist who has to make a deadline, or the teacher who has to get to class on time?
Are we not all equal in this society? Why should ministers get special treatment to get them to work on time if the rest of us don't? For the rest of us it means we have to get up earlier and put up with a lot more stress, and if the rest of us have to live that way, they should too. If they want to drive in the bus lane they can take buses like the rest of us - and maybe if they do, they'll suddenly have a huge burst of interest in making the bus system much more efficient, eh?

anymore

Dr Galen wrote: »

ok so, fair enough HP. I don't share your moral outrage of letting ministers drive in the bus lane tbh. In the grand scheme of things, I save my ire for the political classes for other issues.

The one issue I have with it is that it tends to further remove them from the reality of life for the majority of the State's citizens. There is nothing like sitting behind the wheel of a car in frequent traffic jams to appreciate how bad traffic conditions are.

hallelujajordan

flutered wrote: »

you are forgetting the every little bit helps line, it is not just this, this is just another cm in the dividing line or the taking another little bit from us.

Confused . . . What does this take from us ?

Dr Galen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are we not all equal in this society?

the short answer to this no HP

In an ideal, Star Trek-esque world, then this would be the case. Thats not the world we inhabit though, and all attempts to "force" equality on people have resulted in scenarios like the one outlined by Manach above.

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Confused . . . What does this take from us ?

Peace of mind, a sense of we are all in this together ( ok that last one was a joke ! )

EoghanConway

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Logically speaking they should have to travel to work exactly how the rest of us do - that way, they have an interest in making sure the transport system ordinary people have to use is up to scratch.

This.

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are we not all equal in this society?

There are two ways of looking at equality. Equality of results or equality of opportunities. Or in other words, it does not matter who wins the race, so long as we all start at the same point (the latter's point).

We have a fair amount of equality of the second sort in this society, if someone works hard they can get into any degree program in the country supported by the State. I went to college with guys from poor families and they got good degrees and careers because of it. Many of the neighbours never worked as hard though on their qualifications, should the guy who worked really hard and got a good job be punished severely for daring to reach for more than was normal in his neighbourhood?

anymore

nesf wrote: »

There are two ways of looking at equality. Equality of results or equality of opportunities. Or in other words, it does not matter who wins the race, so long as we all start at the same point (the latter's point).

We have a fair amount of equality of the second sort in this society, if someone works hard they can get into any degree program in the country supported by the State. I went to college with guys from poor families and they got good degrees and careers because of it. Many of the neighbours never worked as hard though on their qualifications, should the guy who worked really hard and got a good job be punished severely for daring to reach for more than was normal in his neighbourhood?

yes according to current orthodox political theory, that hard person is taking unfair advantage of thier less industrious contemporaries and clearly should be handicapped by a raft of special levies and taxes in order to redistritute the wealth which they unfairly generate. Their children should be specially singled for special treatment on account of being the off spring of people who have so grievously offended against orthodox theory - unless of course they are the children of politicians which exempts them .

nesf

anymore wrote: »

yes according to current orthodox political theory, that hard person is taking unfair advantage of thier less industrious contemporaries and clearly should be handicapped by a raft of special levies and taxes in order to redistritute the wealth which they unfairly generate. Their children should be specially singled for special treatment on account of being the off spring of people who have so grievously offended against orthodox theory - unless of course they are the children of politicians which exempts them .

Don't get me started on what happens to people who start businesses and generate jobs.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is it that people keep arguing that you only have a legitimate complaint about injustice if your own life is awful? I have a really good quality of life and standard of living, but that doesn't mean I can't be irked by seeing corruption, injustice, favouritism, etc.
I'm sure you've seen thing happen which didn't personally affect you, yet which still angered or upset you... No?



It hardly matters. Logically speaking they should have to travel to work exactly how the rest of us do - that way, they have an interest in making sure the transport system ordinary people have to use is up to scratch.

There are two reasons I object to this.
One is the obvious aspect of injustice - in a society where everyone is equal, I don't see why politicians should have these perks. You can argue that it's necessary for them to be on time for work to do their jobs, but that also holds for journalists, teachers, shopkeepers, lawyers, office workers, delivery workers, in fact pretty much any profession you could come up with apart from those who work from home.

Why therefore should politicians have a special set of rules which allows them to live easier than the rest of us? We're all equal citizens, they should have to follow the exact same routine as everyone else does.

The second reason is that allowing ministers to avail of these perks means they have no personal interest whatsoever in actually making sure the general road and public transport networks are up to scratch. Why would a transport minister care about reducing congestion if he or she can simply bypass it by driving in the bus lane?

Of course, ideally it shouldn't matter, and they should be working for the god of the nation without needing any personal stake. But as we all know, the world doesn't work like that. Politicians are usually self serving, sadly.

Off topic slightly, it's interesting to note that this self serving attitude ties in very well with the above sarcasm "We have it so hard", implying that injustice should only piss me off when it impacts MY life.
That is precisely the kind of ideology which makes our world an unpleasant place to live.

this..

flutered

this shower are begining to act like the the last crowd of fcukups that destroyed my country, they had overinflated opinions of themselves, as this crowd are begining to be the same.

hallelujajordan

anymore wrote: »

Peace of mind, a sense of we are all in this together ( ok that last one was a joke ! )

I'm surprised that anyone would get peace of mind in the knowledge that ministers are sitting in traffic. It would give me much greater peace of mind to know that they are rushing into their relevant departments (or Dail Eireann) so that we can get value for the inordinate amounts we are paying them.

Duke Leonal Felmet

We are the 83%.

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm surprised that anyone would get peace of mind in the knowledge that ministers are sitting in traffic. It would give me much greater peace of mind to know that they are rushing into their relevant departments (or Dail Eireann) so that we can get value for the inordinate amounts we are paying them.

You know it is fequently felt in econiomics that the less time politicians spend interfering in the economics, the less harm they do. The decentralisation programme is one example. The property bubble is another. Instead of letting the rules on controlling bank's liquidity be properly apllied, politicians set about stokong the fires that inflaleted the property bubble with the results we now know.

hallelujajordan

anymore wrote: »

You know it is fequently felt in econiomics that the less time politicians spend interfering in the economics, the less harm they do. The decentralisation programme is one example. The property bubble is another. Instead of letting the rules on controlling bank's liquidity be properly apllied, politicians set about stokong the fires that inflaleted the property bubble with the results we now know.

I might agree with that. . we could have an interesting debate about what specifically they should spend their time doing . . but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be in their departments with their shoulders to the wheel as much as possible. . .

. . are you really arguing that they should sit in traffic to avoid doing any damage

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I might agree with that. . we could have an interesting debate about what specifically they should spend their time doing . . but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be in their departments with their shoulders to the wheel as much as possible. . .

. . are you really arguing that they should sit in traffic to avoid doing any damage

I suppose if we could get then to agree not to do any damage whilst in thier offices, then maybe it would be ok to allow them to do so. Though it might be better to allow them more time on the roads and in the streets to actually see what is happening out there ?
My personal prefernce is to pack them on a badly leaking ship and send them way out on t the atlantic - without life boats or radio.

Callan57

OK in the grand scheme of things it's fairly minor but for those of us who (foolishly) believed that turfing FF out at long last would lead to a new way of operating and a new relationship between the citizens & their elected representatives it is sadly depressing to see nothing changes & the culture of entitlement is alive and well.

Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!
A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot.
Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!
The beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on.
- William Butler Yeats, "The Great Day"

murphaph

hallelujajordan wrote: »

+1

There are real issues to get upset about with the current government reneging on many of their pre-election promises.

Frankly, if this allows our ministers to spend more time working and less time sitting in traffic then I am all for it. . .plus, it is probably the only ministerial perk that doesn't cost us anything

Nonsense. If ministers aren't getting to work on time because of traffic then they need to take a bus/train or leave earlier for work.

This is a minor problem, but the principle is at stake and it appears to be "as you were lads-the people are only gimps put on this earth to pay our salaries".

hallelujajordan

anymore wrote: »

My personal prefernce is to pack them on a badly leaking ship and send them way out on t the atlantic - without life boats or radio.

And leave you and Liam Byrne to run the country . . Good Plan

hallelujajordan

Callan57 wrote: »

OK in the grand scheme of things it's fairly minor but for those of us who (foolishly) believed that turfing FF out at long last would lead to a new way of operating and a new relationship between the citizens & their elected representatives it is sadly depressing to see nothing changes & the culture of entitlement is alive and well.

I'm intrigued. . what made you think that. . ???

Callan57

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm intrigued. . what made you think that. . ???

My unfailing optimistic outlook I guess ... or maybe just simple naiveté :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm surprised that anyone would get peace of mind in the knowledge that ministers are sitting in traffic.

Thats not where I'd get peace of mind, I'd get peace of mind from knowing that they had to put up with the same rules and the same inconveniences as the rest of us do. They are not supposed to be above society, they should not get such perks. End of story. Either it's ok for non busses/taxis to drive in the bus lane or it isn't. Having a separate rule for politicians is absolutely, barking mad.

And practically speaking, see my argument earlier about how shielding government from the reality of life makes them far less likely to care about fixing the problems with it.

Hayte

I present the solution:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra,1434/

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, but what about the journalist who has to make a deadline, or the teacher who has to get to class on time?
Are we not all equal in this society? Why should ministers get special treatment to get them to work on time if the rest of us don't? For the rest of us it means we have to get up earlier and put up with a lot more stress, and if the rest of us have to live that way, they should too. If they want to drive in the bus lane they can take buses like the rest of us - and maybe if they do, they'll suddenly have a huge burst of interest in making the bus system much more efficient, eh?

The journalist can get a taxi paid by their work, the teacher can get a taxi, subject to public service travel reimbursement rules.

They should be allowed drive in the bus lanes when on official business but not when coming in in the morning or going home in the evening.

Cookie_Monster

It's not the actual decision that's the problem here it's the ideology behind it.

They (the gov/politicians) think they can do this kind of thing because they think they are better than the average citizen. So it won't really affect anybody in the real world but it isn't the first time a decision like this has been taken and it certainly won't be the last, every time they are allowed get away with little decisions like this gives them more incentive to keep making similar decision and rules in their own favour.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

The journalist can get a taxi paid by their work, the teacher can get a taxi, subject to public service travel reimbursement rules.

If he or she is a freelance journalist or working for a private school then?

They should be allowed drive in the bus lanes when on official business but not when coming in in the morning or going home in the evening.

Again, I don't see why. Unless this is also applied to other industries, it's a double standard. And double standards have absolutely no place in a civilized society.

hallelujajordan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, I don't see why. Unless this is also applied to other industries, it's a double standard. And double standards have absolutely no place in a civilized society.

Different people in different roles in society get different perks. . in my company I get a bonus, many of those who work for me do not; i get a company car, others dont; i get share options, others do not. . i get to fly business class while others in my team fly economy. Perks come with position, they create incentive and they drive people on in a capitalist society. . . Its not double standards, its a perk of the job; it costs the taxpayer nothing and has absolutely no impact on us whatsoever (as opposed to some of their other perks, where such anger may be justified)

I think you also need to remember that our politicians often (not always) make a significant sacrifice giving up permanent well-paid jobs to enter into a public service position where they have to compete for their jobs once every 5 years.

Honestly, I'm shocked to see that in one day a thread about ministers driving in bus lanes has generated such a response. . In contrast, 2 weeks ago, I started a thread highlighting how the government are nepotistically giving out jobs and pushing through judicial appointments ahead of the salary reduction. It generated 21 responses (and a lot less hostility) over three days. .

Perspective people !!!

Callan57

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Different people in different roles in society get different perks. . in my company I get a bonus, many of those who work for me do not; i get a company car, others dont; i get share options, others do not. . i get to fly business class while others in my team fly economy. Perks come with position, they create incentive and they drive people on in a capitalist society. . . Its not double standards, its a perk of the job; it costs the taxpayer nothing and has absolutely no impact on us whatsoever (as opposed to some of their other perks, where such anger may be justified)

I think you also need to remember that our politicians often (not always) make a significant sacrifice giving up permanent well-paid jobs to enter into a public service position where they have to compete for their jobs once every 5 years.

Honestly, I'm shocked to see that in one day a thread about ministers driving in bus lanes has generated such a response. . In contrast, 2 weeks ago, I started a thread highlighting how the government are nepotistically giving out jobs and pushing through judicial appointments ahead of the salary reduction. It generated 21 responses (and a lot less hostility) over three days. .

Perspective people !!!

Oh yea ... and we see how well that worked in the Banks etc
:mad:

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Different people in different roles in society get different perks. . in my company I get a bonus, many of those who work for me do not; i get a company car, others dont; i get share options, others do not. . i get to fly business class while others in my team fly economy. Perks come with position, they create incentive and they drive people on in a capitalist society. . . Its not double standards, its a perk of the job; it costs the taxpayer nothing and has absolutely no impact on us whatsoever (as opposed to some of their other perks, where such anger may be justified)

I think you also need to remember that our politicians often (not always) make a significant sacrifice giving up permanent well-paid jobs to enter into a public service position where they have to compete for their jobs once every 5 years.

Honestly, I'm shocked to see that in one day a thread about ministers driving in bus lanes has generated such a response. . In contrast, 2 weeks ago, I started a thread highlighting how the government are nepotistically giving out jobs and pushing through judicial appointments ahead of the salary reduction. It generated 21 responses (and a lot less hostility) over three days. .

Perspective people !!!

That bit about giving well paid permanent jobs is a joke and a cliche - very few do this. Consider six ministers in the last Gov were teachers, some of them still scandalously holding on to their jobs, - 20 % of the Tds/Senators were teachers. Others then like Michael McDowell simply slotted back into their lucrative cushy jobs - in his case as a barrister. Look at Tom Parlon who secured a very cushy number with the Construction federation - and didnt that work out well.
The reality is that every former Minister is now a multi millionaire courtesy of the capital value of their multiple defined benefits pensions . I am afraid we are no longer so gullible as to believer that people do not go into politics for the money - they do - for the money and the power and powers of patronage that being a Minster gives them.

hallelujajordan

anymore wrote: »

That bit about giving well paid permanent jobs is a joke and a cliche - very few do this. Consider six ministers in the last Gov were teachers, some of them still scandalously holding on to their jobs, - 20 % of the Tds/Senators were teachers. Others then like Michael McDowell simply slotted back into their lucrative cushy jobs - in his case as a barrister. Look at Tom Parlon who secured a very cushy number with the Construction federation - and didnt that work out well.
The reality is that every former Minister is now a multi millionaire courtesy of the capital value of their multiple defined benefits pensions . I am afraid we are no longer so gullible as to believer that people do not go into politics for the money - they do - for the money and the power and powers of patronage that being a Minster gives them.

Multi-millionaire is a stretch but comfortable for life, agreed and for me that's probably a slightly more worthy area of debate than whether or not they can drive in bus lanes ..

Look, the point is. . I reckon i would make a great minister and if I could give up my job and become a minister in the morning I would do so, and I wouldn't have to worry about the money !

However, the reality is that first I have to sacrifice a huge amount of my personal time getting involved in politics at a local level (at my own cost) . . eventually, if I am successful locally I will get on a ticket at a constituency level. If I am successful (unlikely first time around!) I will have to give up my job and take a TD's salary. . I have to hope that I make an impression in the parliamentary party and that the Taoiseach of the day selects me for a ministerial role. To get to that point I probably have to successfully compete for my job again at least once, maybe twice.

Are you really suggesting that there is no personal sacrifice involved in this process ?

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Multi-millionaire is a stretch but comfortable for life, agreed and for me that's probably a slightly more worthy area of debate than whether or not they can drive in bus lanes ..

Look, the point is. . I reckon i would make a great minister and if I could give up my job and become a minister in the morning I would do so, and I wouldn't have to worry about the money !

However, the reality is that first I have to sacrifice a huge amount of my personal time getting involved in politics at a local level (at my own cost) . . eventually, if I am successful locally I will get on a ticket at a constituency level. If I am successful (unlikely first time around!) I will have to give up my job and take a TD's salary. . I have to hope that I make an impression in the parliamentary party and that the Taoiseach of the day selects me for a ministerial role. To get to that point I probably have to successfully compete for my job again at least once, maybe twice.

Are you really suggesting that there is no personal sacrifice involved in this process ?

I reckon in pursuit of my chosen sport I have spent as much time in training as some professional sports people spend training. However the idea that I should start talking of the amount of time 'I am sacrificing' or the costs about the costs involved in travelling to compete, payments for treatment of injuries ( substantial) etc seems faintly ludicrous, it is simply how I choose to do and i should not be boring people to death in talking about what I give up. Same for those who go into politics. Apart from the direct financial rewards, there are a lot of unseen benefits, the network of contacts, the insiders information etc.
As for having to compete for my job, please, come off it and put away the violin and sad music. I have lost count of times I have ad to compete with others to get a job after losing work through one thing or another. I am sorry but some of those in politics really live in some parallel universe that is so divorced from the world most of us live in. Politicians have one priority only and that is themselves, yes there are some who do good, but that is down to the law of averages - even the worst politician cant be bad all the time. And doing good helps win votes.

hallelujajordan

anymore wrote: »

I reckon in pursuit of my chosen sport I have spent as much time in training as some professional sports people spend training. However the idea that I should start talking of the amount of time 'I am sacrificing' or the costs about the costs involved in travelling to compete, payments for treatment of injuries ( substantial) etc seems faintly ludicrous, it is simply how I choose to do and i should not be boring people to death in talking about what I give up. Same for those who go into politics. Apart from the direct financial rewards, there are a lot of unseen benefits, the network of contacts, the insiders information etc.
As for having to compete for my job, please, come off it and put away the violin and sad music. I have lost count of times I have ad to compete with others to get a job after losing work through one thing or another. I am sorry but some of those in politics really live in some parallel universe that is so divorced from the world most of us live in. Politicians have one priority only and that is themselves, yes there are some who do good, but that is down to the law of averages - even the worst politician cant be bad all the time. And doing good helps win votes.

Your analogies are crazy . .

- Your chosen sport is a hobby, one that you participate in for your own pleasure and one that you decide how much time you are willing to devote to. We can live without sportspeople. Politics is a public service, we require politicians to run our towns, our councils, our government. Much as we might like to think we can, society cannot live without politicians.

- Of course we have to compete for jobs / promotions etc as situations change but how many of us enter into a job in the knowledge that regardless of our performance we will have to compete for our jobs in 5 years time. And that such a competition will be based purely on a popularity contest rather than an honest appraisal of skill and ability.

Weak analogies in support of a weak argument !

It's very easy to throw out the "all politicians are rubbish" line . . if it's so easy to make money and become "a multi-millionaire" out of politics, why don't you put your name on the ticket ? ?

hatrickpatrick

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Different people in different roles in society get different perks. . in my company I get a bonus, many of those who work for me do not; i get a company car, others dont; i get share options, others do not. . i get to fly business class while others in my team fly economy. Perks come with position, they create incentive and they drive people on in a capitalist society. . . Its not double standards, its a perk of the job; it costs the taxpayer nothing and has absolutely no impact on us whatsoever (as opposed to some of their other perks, where such anger may be justified)

There's an obvious distinction to be made here between your perks and this particular ministerial perk, in that none of your perks involve actually allowing someone to break the law. The law of traffic states that only busses and taxis are allowed to drive in the bus lane (and possibly ambulances?). This 'perk' effectively says, "we will bend the law if the person who wishes to break it is a minister". That is entirely, utterly wrong, under any circumstances.
Either doing something is illegal, or it isn't. It shouldn't in any case depend on WHO is doing it.

I think you also need to remember that our politicians often (not always) make a significant sacrifice giving up permanent well-paid jobs to enter into a public service position where they have to compete for their jobs once every 5 years.

Many people make sacrifices for work - this does not mean they should be allowed to break the law.

Honestly, I'm shocked to see that in one day a thread about ministers driving in bus lanes has generated such a response. . In contrast, 2 weeks ago, I started a thread highlighting how the government are nepotistically giving out jobs and pushing through judicial appointments ahead of the salary reduction. It generated 21 responses (and a lot less hostility) over three days. .

Perspective people !!!

Perspective indeed, and I'm just as outraged about the above nepotism (another fine example of "The 1%") but that does not reduce the principle of what is happening here.
The specifics are irrelevant. The principle behind it is "politicians are above the law", and this is quite disgusting.

Chuck Stone

I think they should be provided with highly unstable jet-packs and be forced to use them with no training.

Now that's reality TV I could enjoy.

hallelujajordan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's an obvious distinction to be made here between your perks and this particular ministerial perk, in that none of your perks involve actually allowing someone to break the law. The law of traffic states that only busses and taxis are allowed to drive in the bus lane (and possibly ambulances?). This 'perk' effectively says, "we will bend the law if the person who wishes to break it is a minister". That is entirely, utterly wrong, under any circumstances.
Either doing something is illegal, or it isn't. It shouldn't in any case depend on WHO is doing it.

What a ridiculous argument . . of course it is not against the law . . the whole point here is that our legislators are making adjustments in the law to allow this to happen. The fact that they can and are making such adjustments to make it no longer against the law is what you are taking issue with . .

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Your analogies are crazy . .

- Your chosen sport is a hobby, one that you participate in for your own pleasure and one that you decide how much time you are willing to devote to. We can live without sportspeople. Politics is a public service, we require politicians to run our towns, our councils, our government. Much as we might like to think we can, society cannot live without politicians.

- Of course we have to compete for jobs / promotions etc as situations change but how many of us enter into a job in the knowledge that regardless of our performance we will have to compete for our jobs in 5 years time. And that such a competition will be based purely on a popularity contest rather than an honest appraisal of skill and ability.

Weak analogies in support of a weak argument !

It's very easy to throw out the "all politicians are rubbish" line . . if it's so easy to make money and become "a multi-millionaire" out of politics, why don't you put your name on the ticket ? ?

Poliotics in Ireland is an essentially parasitic pursuit indulged in for the sole purpose of enriching, in one way or another, those who engage in it.
Now that might be acceptable if those engaged in it were reasonably competent, but the majority of irish politicans - including all 3 major parties have shown themsleves to be utterly incompotent and various tribunals have also shown a fair degree of corruption in the system.
For over 20-30 years Ireland has enjoyed a unique and unrepeatabke set of circumstances which set the stage for a prolonged period of unparalled prosperity. All irish politicians had to do was to ensure a reasonable level of oversight and implementation of a reasonable degree of caution and the country was in a fair position to wether whatever storms might come along. Instead they betryed the citizens of this country and bankrupted it for several geberatios to come. One of the few groups to be relatively insulated from this economic disater are politicians themsleves.
If a nuclear bomb exploded in Ireland, the two species who survived would be rats and politicians .. and i wouldn't give much chance for the rats survival in those circumstances.

Your talk about the need to compete for jobs every five years is of course exagerated nonsense. With the exception of a small number of independents irish elections have seen the same old faces returned again and again for the simple reason irish politics is analogous to a near semi -monopoly economy where new entrants find it extremely difficult to set up due to the cost and strangehold the establised parties. Which is why irish politicians are have so much of the media concentrated in the hands of so few.
And as for an appraisl of skills - irish elctions are won by bribery - no skill involved.

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What a ridiculous argument . . of course it is not against the law . . the whole point here is that our legislators are making adjustments in the law to allow this to happen. The fact that they can and are making such adjustments to make it no longer against the law is what you are taking issue with . .

Our legislators ? Do you mean it is german ministers who will be using these lanes and not our 'pretend ministers' ?