Can we have peaceful, national protests yet?

jmayo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Off you go and protest so. See what that does for the economy.

As I said the time for protest is long gone.

After all I did write the following ...

I think the time for protests is long gone.
The protests should have happened around the likes of NAMA when basically the debts of the well connected trough feeders were being foisted onto the taxpayers.

Sometimes I wonder if people actually read through posts before replying. :rolleyes:

Us protesting now is about as useful as a bunch of Ukrainians protesting in Simferopol or Sevastopol about the annexation of Crimea by the Russians.

Iwasfrozen

jmayo wrote: »

As I said the time for protest is long gone.

After all I did write the following ...


Sometimes I wonder if people actually read through posts before replying. :rolleyes:

Us protesting now is about as useful as a bunch of Ukrainians protesting in Simferopol or Sevastopol about the annexation of Crimea by the Russians.

Well you have two options, protest until your throat is sore or sit down and wait for the next election.

Phoebas

There was one protest today. Not what you'd call a national protest, but 6 anti-austerity protesters caused a Revenue office to be closed and disrupted members of the public going about their business.

The government survived.

Iwasfrozen

Phoebas wrote: »

There was one protest today. Not what you'd call a national protest, but 6 anti-austerity protesters caused a Revenue office to be closed and disrupted members of the public going about their business.

The government survived.

Protesters shouldn't be allowed to disrupt civil servants at work! The Gards should have been brought in to drag them out. With batons if necessary.

hatrickpatrick

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Are you going to address my point about the distinction between good governance and popular governance? Or do you in fact believe they are one and the same?

I'm an advocate of a lot more direct democracy than we currently have, so go figure We're supposed to be a country run by the people, ergo government policy should match the will of the people as closely as possible - particularly when we have a system whereby they effectively get elected based on an advertised manifesto. The standards of false advertising should apply as much to politicians as they do to anyone else offering a service.

"Good" governance is one in which as many people as possible can say they're pleased with the policies being implemented by government.
I would also note once again that policy is somewhat distinct from standards. What I'm mainly arguing for in this thread is not a change in policy, but a change in the standards expected of people in public office before they're given the boot. In my ideal regime, Shatter would have been gone as soon as he smeared Wallace using private info, and Callinan wouldn't have survived through the end of February.

How do YOU define a government doing a good job? If we don't use public satisfaction as a barometer in a democracy then is it really a democracy at all?

A lot of people on this forum don't actually think democracy is a good thing - fair enough if that's your point of view of course, but you'll find an awful lot of people fundamentally disagree. How do YOU think the country should be run? Are you ok with the fact that people like Reilly and Shatter are allowed to continue in office despite quite frankly obscene behavior by both of them?

comongethappy wrote: »

A petition on answering a particular question is not the same as impeachment of a holder of office.

So...?

Can you cite an example of where plebecite resulted directly in an impeachment?

Not off the top of my head, but I'll look into that. Does it matter? Or are you following a Yes Minister - esque philosophy of "Many things must be done, but nothing must be done for the first time"? Why not be pioneers? Most Western democracies seem to have a sizable mismatch between government policies and what the people actually want, so I don't really see why comparing ourselves to other countries is useful.

Our parliament already has a mechanism to impeach.
It cannot be done by plebecite.

Well then it's irrelevant to what I'm proposing, isn't it?

Im eager for you to tell us the country that this can be done.
(Hint: there is none).

Again: So what? There's a first time for everything.

What would it achieve is this fantasy world?
The mob impeaching anyone for doing something unpopular?

Governments would be more directly accountable to the people than they are now - less room for them to f*ck around once they know they're safe for X number of years.

Really guys...... This is silly.

"This" is indeed silly, but by "this" I'm referring to our current system of government accountability - I somehow doubt you're doing the same >_>

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well you have two options, protest until your throat is sore or sit down and wait for the next election.

That's a very defeatist attitude. Are you one of those who doesn't believe we should be forcing reform, or are you one of those who simply believes that we won't succeed in it?

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's a very defeatist attitude. Are you one of those who doesn't believe we should be forcing reform, or are you one of those who simply believes that we won't succeed in it?

I'm the person who says unless the majority suddenly agrees to go out protesting then you have two options, go to ineffectual protests and shout until your throat is sore or sit down shut up and wait for the next election. And while you're at it don't be disrupting ordinary people trying to do their work.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

I was in Dun Laoghaire over the weekend.
The same scene of empty shops with for let signs that is visible in every town throughout the country was visible there.
And this is an old established suburb of our capital city, and more particularly in or near the region of South County Dublin where we hear incessant reports of increasing property prices.

I think the ones that are back slapping each other about how great our recovery is are the ones that fall into that smug class of Irish citizen.

Dun Laoghaires shops were struggling during the boom years too. It's particular problems don't have that much to do with the current recovery or lack thereof. It's stymied by too much competition from other suburban shopping malls, limited free car parking, an anchor mall with awkward retail spaces, and the momentum of literally generations of local retail decline. It was far more vibrant in the middle of the last serious recession of the 80's.

twowheelsgood

jmayo wrote: »

I love how some posters here are saying they are surprised at the speed of recovery.
We haven't recovered, we have survived.

Well perhaps we are satisfied (ish) compared to what we expected might have happened. Personally I had expected massive cuts in social welfare and compulsory redundancies in the public sector with the knock-on effect of widespread industrial action and even civil unrest. Even withdrawal of IMF / EU support was a possibility.

I remember some of us seriously considering acquiring a home safe 5-6 years ago (I did!) and half-seriously considering acquiring a firearm (nope!). That is what I was expecting and I am under no illusion that all of this might still happen.

But the question here relates to protests, with the purpose of putting paid to this corrupt (!) government and replacing them or at least forcing some policy changes. So the question then is : would the government that would replace them (prob FF + SF) be likely to do anything that would address the problems you mentioned? Most of us think they simply would not be any better and could be substantially worse.

Phoebas

We had another protest yesterday. This one at the department of justice wasn't either national or peaceful, with a Garda injured and five protesters arrested.

The government appears to have survived.

constance tench

Phoebas wrote: »

We had another protest yesterday. This one at the department of justice wasn't either national or peaceful, with a Garda injured and five protesters arrested.

The government appears to have survived.

...you nearly got me there...

jmayo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well you have two options, protest until your throat is sore or sit down and wait for the next election.

Do you have a problem reading ?
I said the time for protests was in the past when the decisions were actually there to be made not after the fooking horse is galloping 10 fields away so to speak.

And since you are so anti protests, are you also saying that we shouldn't have bothered protesting back when the then government was saddling us and the future generations with the their supporters debts ?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Protesters shouldn't be allowed to disrupt civil servants at work! The Gards should have been brought in to drag them out. With batons if necessary.

You would have loved Yanukovych.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Well perhaps we are satisfied (ish) compared to what we expected might have happened. Personally I had expected massive cuts in social welfare and compulsory redundancies in the public sector with the knock-on effect of widespread industrial action and even civil unrest. Even withdrawal of IMF / EU support was a possibility.

And that is what should have happened to a bigger degree.
Instead we still have massive numbers employed in some sectors whereas it is the really necessary staff that have been let go and not replaced.
All that has happened is the middle income earners are screwed with more taxes to keep the expensive show on the road.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

But the question here relates to protests, with the purpose of putting paid to this corrupt (!) government and replacing them or at least forcing some policy changes. So the question then is : would the government that would replace them (prob FF + SF) be likely to do anything that would address the problems you mentioned? Most of us think they simply would not be any better and could be substantially worse.

I don't think this government is corrupt or totally inept, especially when compared to the last couple.
But saying that there are some serious pointers to show that government and indeed the system of governance hasn't changed all that much.

1. the way Irish water has been setup shows the politicans haven't changed or learnt the lessons from past mistakes and the insiders still have their snouts in the trough. There still isn't the real transparency about the use of public funds and a underlying principle based on value for money.
This also highlighted in a certain taxpayer bank affectively dishing out public funds to certain mortgage holders and the running of NAMA.

2. the current government are still protecting "the system" at the expense of the greater good as has been highlighted in the whole Garda controversy.
The commissioner and the justice minister savaged the whistleblowers for rocking the boat rather than thank and embrace them for highlighting the wrongs in the system.
There is no way that the commissioner, and probably the minister or indeed most politicans for that matter, didn't already know that there were flagrant abuses of the penalty points system.
And the taoiseach should have fired the minister for his handling of the whistleblowers.

3. the government, as highlighted by the lack of removal of additional allowance payment schemes for public servants, are not going to take on the public service/sector and really reform it.
Out of 80 odd allowances reviewed the minister initially chose to remove only a few.
Add in then the lack of real movement on quangoes and you see that they are not going to really tackle the issue.

4. Outside of the actual government, the whole wallace non payment of taxes and the o'snodaigh printer expenses shows that all politicans have their snouts in the trough to some degree and none of them really want to totally clean house if it is one of their own doing the dirt.
Thick as theives comes to mind.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm the person who says unless the majority suddenly agrees to go out protesting then you have two options, go to ineffectual protests and shout until your throat is sore or sit down shut up and wait for the next election.

You're not actually answering the question - do you agree with the aims of the protest and simply see it as a lost cause and a waste of time, or do you disagree fundamentally with what we want to achieve?

And while you're at it don't be disrupting ordinary people trying to do their work.

100% agreed on this. I have absolutely no time for the kind of eejits who blockaded O'Connell St bridge a couple of months ago, for instance.

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And do you feel we should just put up with it, and resign ourselves to living in a country that's just that corrupt, always will be, nothing anyone can do about it?

twowheelsgood

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And do you feel we should just put up with it, and resign ourselves to living in a country that's just that corrupt, always will be, nothing anyone can do about it?

That supposes that we don't want to put up with it and do want to do something about it.

Given that we have never punished a corrupt politician at the ballot box suggests that we do and we don't.

hatrickpatrick

marienbad wrote: »

No I am not saying that at all. It is not an either or situation as you seem to think it is .

When this lot came to power the had no choice as to what issues to face , the ship was sinking and seemed beyond saving. The speed of the recovery has been so remarkable that if anything I have trouble believing it . But turned it around they have . Do you accept that ?

I don't, but that's irrelevant to the current debate IMO. This isn't about the economy, it's about ethics, standards in public office, corruption, cronyism, and generally dodgy behavior by those in high places.

As to the scandals , some of these have been going on for years but I do have concerns as to how they are handled from here on in.

So how do you propose we, the ordinary people of Ireland, should attempt to force the government to deal with them, when their default policy is to not have a policy?

But you seemed to be ignoring the bigger picture . What are the alternatives ? What of the electorate ?

It is easy to berate the health minister but this is a country that elected Lowry , topping the poll year after year because he could bring a casino to his constituency or the bould Bertie despite his 'dig outs.

As I've said before, if we reform the balance between national and local government, a parish pump from the Dail would become an impossibility.

So who do you suggest we put in power or should we just go straight to the revolution ?

I suggest that we have a complete overhaul of rules, standards, Dail standing orders, standards in public office etc etc etc - so that there would be some degree of statutory automation involved instead of leaving everything to cabinet whim. In other words, if you behave in X manner, you are legally obliged to resign from Y post. No exceptions, no matter how much you donated to the Taeoiseach's campaign or how well the pair of ye got on in school. :rolleyes:

Would you agree that there are some scenarios in business in which being fired is pretty much a given, not subject to managerial discretion?
If not, maybe it should be. Giving politicians leeway sounds sensible, but it's what has caused Ireland's corrosive culture of "push the envelope and get away with as much dirt as you can".

As I've said time and time again, Shatter using private Garda information to smear a political opponent should be a breach of the data protection act, if it isn't already. And it should be enshrined somewhere in law that if a serving politician behaves in such a manner, they must immediately resign.

Do you regard that as unreasonable?

alastair

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've said time and time again, Shatter using private Garda information to smear a political opponent should be a breach of the data protection act, if it isn't already. And it should be enshrined somewhere in law that if a serving politician behaves in such a manner, they must immediately resign.

Do you regard that as unreasonable?

Shatter obviously was acting the dick in bringing up this issue in public, but he had both Dail Privilege, and the complete lack of certainty that he breached the data protection act stacked up against your demand that he 'must' do anything. Garda tittle-tattle has a much healthier life outside the realm of data-protected files and databases, and the context of Wallace's caution suggests it came to Shatter's attention on the grapevine - which isn't subject to anyone's rules.

hatrickpatrick

alastair wrote: »

Shatter obviously was acting the dick in bringing up this issue in public, but he had both Dail Privilege, and the complete lack of certainty that he breached the data protection act stacked up against your demand that he 'must' do anything.

Well then if he is found to have not breached the rules, then the rules must be change to cover any future similar incidents.
It's exactly like I've been saying with regard to the banks - worst case scenario if it turns out that the shenanigans didn't break any actual laws, then an acceptable response would be for the government to say "fair enough, but we're going to draft new laws immeiately to cover everything which we agree didn't break the law but on which there's a national consensus that they were completely unethical."

Same applies here what Shatter did should be against the rules. If it wasn't, let him away with it on condition that a new law is drafted ASAP to close that loophole.
Make sense?

Also, if memory serves me correctly he actually made the remark initially on Prime Time, which isn't covered by any kind of privilege at all.

Garda tittle-tattle has a much healthier life outside the realm of data-protected files and databases, and the context of Wallace's caution suggests it came to Shatter's attention on the grapevine - which isn't subject to anyone's rules.

And why shouldn't it be subject to data protection rules exactly?

marienbad

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't, but that's irrelevant to the current debate IMO. This isn't about the economy, it's about ethics, standards in public office, corruption, cronyism, and generally dodgy behavior by those in high places.



So how do you propose we, the ordinary people of Ireland, should attempt to force the government to deal with them, when their default policy is to not have a policy?



As I've said before, if we reform the balance between national and local government, a parish pump from the Dail would become an impossibility.



I suggest that we have a complete overhaul of rules, standards, Dail standing orders, standards in public office etc etc etc - so that there would be some degree of statutory automation involved instead of leaving everything to cabinet whim. In other words, if you behave in X manner, you are legally obliged to resign from Y post. No exceptions, no matter how much you donated to the Taeoiseach's campaign or how well the pair of ye got on in school. :rolleyes:

Would you agree that there are some scenarios in business in which being fired is pretty much a given, not subject to managerial discretion?
If not, maybe it should be. Giving politicians leeway sounds sensible, but it's what has caused Ireland's corrosive culture of "push the envelope and get away with as much dirt as you can".

As I've said time and time again, Shatter using private Garda information to smear a political opponent should be a breach of the data protection act, if it isn't already. And it should be enshrined somewhere in law that if a serving politician behaves in such a manner, they must immediately resign.

Do you regard that as unreasonable?

No I don't agree the economic issues are irrelevant to the current debate , but there is no reason we can't tackle the two issues - the economy and ethics .

I agree that the best way to do this is fundamental change but so far the electorate talks a good game but acts otherwise. They voted down the removal of the senate and increasing powers to the dail committees. SO what to you say to that ? If every time they try to bring in change it is voted down ?

You seem to have a particular bugbear about Shatter , may I ask why that is ? As for abusing Dail privilege,if he did he should go. But I would disagree with removing Dail Privilege itself.

To be honest I have a bigger problem with someone like Wallace being elected and there in a nutshell is the problem with irish governance.

Phoebas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And why shouldn't it be subject to data protection rules exactly?

If it was just gossip and not something actually recorded in some kind of data repository then it wouldn't necessarily be covered by data protection.

Maybe every single interaction between a garda and a member of the public should be recorded and every single communication within the justice system, but that seems like overkill.

hatrickpatrick

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't agree the economic issues are irrelevant to the current debate , but there is no reason we can't tackle the two issues - the economy and ethics .

Personally I believe you have to tackle them separately, as people can have opposing views on economics but be in agreement about ethical issues, and if you mix them into the same thread it becomes possible to discredit someone based on one issue while ignoring the other. Happens frequently in Ireland.

I agree that the best way to do this is fundamental change but so far the electorate talks a good game but acts otherwise. They voted down the removal of the senate and increasing powers to the dail committees. SO what to you say to that ? If every time they try to bring in change it is voted down ?

Increasing powers to the Dail committees wasn't about changing the political structure, and most people I know who voted against it did so because it would have given politicians - who almost nobody trusts - the power to publicly smear people. Getting rid of the Seanad was perceived as something which would have got rid of one of the only checks on the power of the cabinet - this wasn't really true, but you can understand people's reluctance to do that. What we need is political reform which goes to the very heart of the system - the Dail is supposed to be a check on the power of the executive and not a rubber stamp. Until we change that, we do not live in a representative democracy.

You seem to have a particular bugbear about Shatter , may I ask why that is ?

I find it absolutely, mind numbingly outrageous that a private matter involving the police of a state and a citizen of that state could be revealed publicly by a minister responsible for overseeing the administration of justice, for no purpose other than political mud slinging, without that minister being kicked out of the cabinet. It's sleazy, it's revolting, it's something which shouldn't be tolerated in any capacity whatsoever.
It'd be akin to a Minister for Education being told on the sly that a serving politician failed Irish in the Leaving Cert, and dragging that into the public domain in a debate over education policy in order to silence a member of the opposition, or a minister for health finding out that somebody had seen a therapist for a psychological issue and using that to smear them in public. It's something which IMO should not be forgiven and should, on its own and without considering anything else, have immediately cost Shatter his job. I would be saying this regardless of any other factors and regardless of which politicians were in power - I believe there are some behaviors which are simply too outrageous to be tolerated, and there should be no ifs, no buts, you do certain things and you're gone. End of.

This may come across as harsh to some and I accept that, however I feel that subsequent scandals add weight to it. Shatter's victim blaming behavior with regard to the suspected bugging of GSOC was utterly appalling, and to then have the temerity to state in the Dail that "it's astounding that the opposition are focusing on process and not substance" - now you have blatant and indisputable hypocrisy to add on top of the sleaziness detailed above.

This is the kind of thing which causes people to lose faith in politics and democracy. If we want to have functioning self government, we cannot continue to tolerate this kind of behavior without penalizing it in some way.

For the record, I never had a bad word to say about Shatter before that incident, but I will never have anything but contempt for him following it.

As for abusing Dail privilege,if he did he should go. But I would disagree with removing Dail Privilege itself.

Can I ask why? Also, as far as I remember he didn't say it in the Dail but on Prime Time.

Going Forward

What does "yet" mean in the title thread?

renegademaster

Going Forward wrote: »

What does "yet" mean in the title thread?

well the people are intent on forgiving every last detail of corruption that comes out on a regular basis, so are we going to take back the power now or are we really going to wait til april 2016 to just vote another shower of corrupt ba$tards into power and just leave them at it for 5 years and so on

hatrickpatrick

renegademaster wrote: »

well the people are intent on forgiving every last detail of corruption that comes out on a regular basis

I'm not so sure if they are, I think people in Ireland are basically resigned to it and "war-weary" when it comes to trying to change things. Despair is not the same thing as apathy - apathy implies people don't care, despair implies that they do care but feel powerless to change anything, which is why I always ask people who scoff at the idea of protest "Is it because you're happy with how things are, or because you simply feel it's a waste of time trying to fix them?".

Despair and apathy require different arguments and different methods of persuasion, so I for one feel it's crucial to understand which of these issues is causing most of the resignation in Ireland. Until we figure that out, trying to stir up a campaign is probably a little pointless - akin to trying to market a product without first finding out why exactly people aren't buying it already.

Phoebas

renegademaster wrote: »

well the people are intent on forgiving every last detail of corruption that comes out on a regular basis, so are we going to take back the power now or are we really going to wait til april 2016 to just vote another shower of corrupt ba$tards into power and just leave them at it for 5 years and so on

How do you suggest we 'take back the power now'?
Maybe, issue a statement that unless the government immediately resign you'll escalate your boards.ie campaign to a full on Facebook campaign?

sarumite

Phoebas wrote: »

How do you suggest we 'take back the power now'?
Maybe, issue a statement that unless the government immediately resign you'll escalate your boards.ie campaign to a full on Facebook campaign?

I am more interested in what taking back the power would entail?

hatrickpatrick

Phoebas wrote: »

How do you suggest we 'take back the power now'?
Maybe, issue a statement that unless the government immediately resign you'll escalate your boards.ie campaign to a full on Facebook campaign?

This is exactly the kind of condescending eejitism which is spectacularly unhelpful in debates such as these.
As I've generally been asking, Phoebas, are you one of the ones who is happy with the status quo, or are you objecting because you don't think there's anything the public can do to change it?

marienbad

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of condescending eejitism which is spectacularly unhelpful in debates such as these.
As I've generally been asking, Phoebas, are you one of the ones who is happy with the status quo, or are you objecting because you don't think there's anything the public can do to change it?

It is not condescending at all ! it is a straight question - if we are not to use the electoral process what are we to use ?

So far all you are doing is venting .

comongethappy

renegademaster wrote: »

well the people are intent on forgiving every last detail of corruption that comes out on a regular basis, so are we going to take back the power now or are we really going to wait til april 2016 to just vote another shower of corrupt ba$tards into power and just leave them at it for 5 years and so on

When you come up with a real alternative to the fixed term parliamentary democracy we already have, we'd all love to hear it.

200+ posts long and all this thread has offered is bi-annual general elections & performance metrics based on anger..... With the hint of youthful idealism that if we keep firing enough people we will have the virginally uncorrupted populists you yearn for.

Iwasfrozen

renegademaster wrote: »

well the people are intent on forgiving every last detail of corruption that comes out on a regular basis, so are we going to take back the power now or are we really going to wait til april 2016 to just vote another shower of corrupt ba$tards into power and just leave them at it for 5 years and so on

In April 2016 you will have a chance to vote for someone who's not corrupt according to what your definition of corrupt is.