The hijacking of labour politics

Finton90

Labour parties across Europe were set up as political wings of trade unions. There primary ethos was the representation of working people. Basically what I am asking in this thread is when did labour politics cease to be about the working class and start to be hijacked by intelligentsia like Michael D " i write poetry like" Higgins, Eamon "Gay marriage now" Gilmore and Ruairi lets get rid of school uniforms" Quinn. People like these are clearly not representative of the working people that Labour is supposed to represent.

This trend can be seen right across Europe with Labour parties. In Britain, the Labour party is extremely pro EU and pro immigrants even though these immigrants are in direct com petition for employment with the working class that labour parties were set up to represent. How can a Labour party be such if they agree with bringing in foreign labour to compete with the working class that they were set up to represent. Its is led by Ed Milliband someone who was privately educated and has about as much in common with working people as I have with the Masai tribe.

In fairness to the Irish Labour party from the outside looking in it seems that they noticed such a trend and made a point of sacking the yuppies like Gilmore, Quinn and Pat Rabbitte and bringing in more traditional labour people like Joan Burton.

My question is at what date exactly did these types of college dude, Che Guevarra t-shirt wears start to hijack Labour politics and is the fact that Labour no longer represents the working class the reason for the rise of parties such as Sinn Fein and UKIP.

Nodin

Finton90 wrote: »

Labour parties across Europe were set up as political wings of trade unions. There primary ethos was the representation of working people. Basically what I am asking in this thread is when did labour politics cease to be about the working class and start to be hijacked by intelligentsia like Michael D " i write poetry like" Higgins, Eamon "Gay marriage now" Gilmore and Ruairi lets get rid of school uniforms" Quinn. People like these are clearly not representative of the working people that Labour is supposed to represent.

This trend can be seen right across Europe with Labour parties. In Britain, the Labour party is extremely pro EU and pro immigrants even though these immigrants are in direct com petition for employment with the working class that labour parties were set up to represent. How can a Labour party be such if they agree with bringing in foreign labour to compete with the working class that they were set up to represent. Its is led by Ed Milliband someone who was privately educated and has about as much in common with working people as I have with the Masai tribe.

In fairness to the Irish Labour party from the outside looking in it seems that they noticed such a trend and made a point of sacking the yuppies like Gilmore, Quinn and Pat Rabbitte and bringing in more traditional labour people like Joan Burton.

My question is at what date exactly did these types of college dude, Che Guevarra t-shirt wears start to hijack Labour politics and is the fact that Labour no longer represents the working class the reason for the rise of parties such as Sinn Fein and UKIP.

That would be Sinn "gay marriage now, amnesty for illegal immgrants" Fein you're referring to?

BoJack Horseman

The worker radicals have started to die off.

They have been replaced by a liberal/middle-class set who want to have it both ways.

It may not necessarily be a bad thing, it could be seen as the natural maturation of the labour party movements across Europe.

Their legacy though is a remarkable one though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

You seem to think its a bad thing that such parties now have opinions on social issues like immigration, the arts, gay rights etc merely because those things weren't important when the party was formed.

Surely the opposite is true - parties need to adapt and continually be formulating policy as the world changes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hfallada

Unions are slowly dying out. Legalisation has standardised issues that unions had to fight for. Unfair dismissal is now done through a state body and not a union rep and business owner. It's hard to justify a party to fight for the interest of the working class, when the working class have things people 80 years ago couldn't have dreamt of eg free health care, pensions, social welfare, protection for unfair labour pratices. The working class have a significantlty better life than someone previous generations ago.

Labour parties are failing to adjust to the changing societies. Labour in Ireland appear to have no understanding of economics and how an economy works. Their policies are often too extreme for conservatives and too middle of the road for liberals. They lack clear direction in where they are going

jank

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You seem to think its a bad thing that such parties now have opinions on social issues like immigration, the arts, gay rights etc merely because those things weren't important when the party was formed.

Surely the opposite is true - parties need to adapt and continually be formulating policy as the world changes.

I think this is exactly the point the OP has been making. Labour no longer represent the working class in the traditional manner in economics so have to focus on social issues to differentiate themselves from other parties. The Emily Thornbury controversy is a great encapsulation of this.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/22/labour-war-emily-thornberry-tweet-rochester-strood

Labour in the UK and Ireland is now seen as a party of inner city middle class urban liberals rather than acting in the best interest of the working class, they think they represent.

Fighting for Gay Marriage or the Arts is all well and good, but for most people it is very much down the list of priorities and people generally give that type of politics the cold shoulder when bigger issues are at stake. Did anyone forget the stag hunting issue with FF and the Greens? The country on the verge of financial collapse and we were discussing stag hunting in the Dail.... the Greens were thus destroyed at the next election.

Finally, the OP raised a good point about Labour being pro immigration when this directly hurts the semi and low skilled workforce of the electorate more than others. Square peg, round hole. So, really currently, Labour are more about special interests than people who work for a living. If they were really for the working class, then why not reform welfare and not call the dole a 'stimulus' for the economy, why not give out Christmas bonuses and why penalise the self employed with higher USC than public sector workers?

Manach

To echo the above points, in that great number of Labour policies have been adapted in the welfare state. Thus to differeniate itself, Labour both wishes to embrace other causes that differ from its core foundational ethos as well as being receptive to lobbying interests who wish to champion such causes - as per the work of theorist like Posner. There thus is a nice dovetailing of the more rarified interests which however do not chime with concerns for the wider community. Therefore there will be somewhat of a dis-connection when most voters' interests are economic.

queensinead

hfallada wrote: »

Unions are slowly dying out. Legalisation has standardised issues that unions had to fight for. Unfair dismissal is now done through a state body and not a union rep and business owner. It's hard to justify a party to fight for the interest of the working class, when the working class have things people 80 years ago couldn't have dreamt of eg free health care, pensions, social welfare, protection for unfair labour pratices. The working class have a significantlty better life than someone previous generations ago.

Labour parties are failing to adjust to the changing societies. Labour in Ireland appear to have no understanding of economics and how an economy works. Their policies are often too extreme for conservatives and too middle of the road for liberals. They lack clear direction in where they are going

The workers' Utopia you describe is far from the reality for most workers whose hard-won rights are gradually being eroded, with failure to recognise unions, zero-hour contracts, low pay or no pay, part-time hours, "internships", Jobbridge ( a Labour idea), employers no longer making provision for workers' pensions, and so on.

I wouldn't over-emphasise health care either, as one of our great success stories...

You make the point that the working class have a better life than "generations ago". Well, yes, I suppose we no longer put children up chimneys. But other good old nineteenth century practices are beginning to make a comeback.

jank

queensinead wrote: »

You make the point that the working class have a better life than "generations ago". Well, yes, I suppose we no longer put children up chimneys. But other good old nineteenth century practices are beginning to make a comeback.

Like?

John_C

jank wrote: »

Like?

I don't know much about 19th century labour practices but the job bridge scheme seems like the type of thing employers back then would have tried to get away with.

johnnyskeleton

Finton90 wrote: »

Labour parties across Europe were set up as political wings of trade unions. There primary ethos was the representation of working people. Basically what I am asking in this thread is when did labour politics cease to be about the working class and start to be hijacked by intelligentsia like Michael D " i write poetry like" Higgins, Eamon "Gay marriage now" Gilmore and Ruairi lets get rid of school uniforms" Quinn. People like these are clearly not representative of the working people that Labour is supposed to represent.

What exactly is working class anymore and why is it mutually exclusive with being part of the intelligensia? No one seems to be clear on whether it relates soley to the type of work you do (physical/mental), the level of respect associated, wealth, education, family background, manners, interests etc.

The world would be so much neater if some people worked in a factory, watched association football and drank a few pints of plain when the rent was overdue while others increased their property portfolios while sniffly reading the rugby results in the irish times over a vibtage sherry, but unfortunately it just isnt so neat.

Case in point, you refer to three "yuppies" and one traditional labour person - Joan Burton. Yet Joan is a qualified accountant and college lecturer. So why is she different from thr others?

In any event, as has been said above irish trade unionism is mostly concerned with the public sector and stable jobs like banks. For your typical manual labourer, Labour have never really been the party to vote for, its been SF before the treaty, anti treaty/FF since independence, and now in the last maybe 5 years, new SF

hfallada

queensinead wrote: »

The workers' Utopia you describe is far from the reality for most workers whose hard-won rights are gradually being eroded, with failure to recognise unions, zero-hour contracts, low pay or no pay, part-time hours, "internships", Jobbridge ( a Labour idea), employers no longer making provision for workers' pensions, and so on.

I wouldn't over-emphasise health care either, as one of our great success stories...

You make the point that the working class have a better life than "generations ago". Well, yes, I suppose we no longer put children up chimneys. But other good old nineteenth century practices are beginning to make a comeback.

Unions are fairly obsolete in a modern economy. US Multi-national IT companies dont allow unions in their work places. But yet the workers arent exploited in any way. The companies can adapt quickly. Where as public services are a mess here, because the union feels its should consulted for everything and tries to bleed dry the tax payer at every opportunity. Take the shorter DARTs introduced a few years ago. The Unions were instructing their workers not to follow the guidelines for ensuring the DARTs doors were closed.

Every issue you listed is found in countries all over Europe. Even in Germany which has some of the best rights to protect workers in the world. Jobs are no longer for life. So most things you list like pension provisions arent really needed anymore. Very few workers in the private sectors are in a job longer than 5 years.

You dont think health care is a big thing? In Germany if you dont pay health insurance, you cant go to hospital. There is free clinics from the Red Cross to help sick Germans dying of cancer without medical insurance because hopistals cant serve them

People on low wage incomes in Ireland probably have the best standard of living in Europe. They pay little income taxes and dont have to pay for health insurance which is about 10% of your wage in Germany. They get the same state pension as someone who earns €1million a euro. How exactly are the low income people marginalised?

Oneiric 3

hfallada wrote: »

People on low wage incomes in Ireland probably have the best standard of living in Europe. They pay little income taxes and dont have to pay for health insurance which is about 10% of your wage in Germany. They get the same state pension as someone who earns €1million a euro. How exactly are the low income people marginalised?

Can this actually be verified?

BoJack Horseman

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Can this actually be verified?

Hard to verify I imagine.

The human development index may not be a bad metric to consider though

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

BlatentCheek

hfallada wrote: »

US Multi-national IT companies dont allow unions in their work places. But yet the workers arent exploited in any way.

Say that to the Amazon warehouse staff on zero hour contracts. In any case in assessing how well US MNCs treat their workers the IT sector is atypical for several reasons.

It's a fact that across most of the western world the trend of unions disappearing has correlated with stagnating workers wages and soaring inequality.

As you referred to in your post, in Ireland the plump hypocrites in the public sector unions can take a fair share of credit for discrediting entirely the very concept of unions, even standing over shamefully unequal treatment of new entrants to PS jobs to protect their own gold-plated pay and conditions. This however does not change the fact that unions are essential to protect workers rights and interests, relying on the munificence of their bosses is rarely enough.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jolly Red Giant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is a load of b*llocks - trade unions exist because without unions workers would still be facing Victorian conditions.

The globalised economy had led to greater and greater profits built on the backs of more and more cutting of jobs wages and conditions. Over the past 30 years in Ireland there has been a massive transfer of wealth from working class people to the rich - in 1987 (at the imposition of the first National Programme for 'Recovery') wages accounted for 57% of economic activity, while profits accounted for 43% - 25 years later the percentage of the economy going to profits had risen to 54% (at a time when there re an extra 1 million people in the workforce).

capitalism faces an inherent contradiction - the tendency for the rate of profit to decline - and in an effort to stave off the impact of this contradiction e business elites attempt to drive down wages and conditions. This process is accelerating because of the current crisis and the capitalist class are attempting to drive jobs, wages, working conditions and social services back to the conditions of the 1930s. This will be resisted by working class people - workers will have no choice but to reclaim and rebuild their trade unions - workers will have no other option but to engage in industrial action to resist this drive back to the 1930s. This process in Ireland is behind developments in other countries but the are indications of a growing disquiet among rank-and-file workers and initial efforts being made to turn the unions back into combatitive organisations that will fight for the interests of their members, not the interests of the bureaucracy who control the unions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

About the extensive legal protections.

These are usually derived from European Union origins and where there are possibilities of adding in extra beyond this, Ireland lags behind international norms (from what I remember reading ILO charts). Even with the amount of legislation on the books, looking at the number of cases based on origins of the worker: Public or Private, it is the former that when the numbers are normalised that predominate. This is not anti-PS but a mere recognition that in the private sector to start any such action is a career limiting move, as the phrase goes. Whilst there are issues with unions, and as mentioned they seem more now setup to protect their institutions than the worker, without such in the multi-nationals any dispute between individual workers and the firm is seriously one-sided with the legal protections playing little part as compared to the PS equivalents.

So Labour seems to have drifted away from the previous core-support base in terms of supporting worker legislation in the private sector.

For Reals

People, in my view, have no real understanding of Trade Unions. They are not the peoples champions and not concerned about much outside their membership. We shouldn't hold them to any Mother Theresa type standard.
They represent their membership, that is all. They can support any public cause they want but they are not any voice of the people, or looking out for the people so I don't get why they get so much stick if not all living in rags for the betterment of society. They are pretty much a lobby group for members only.

Labour HQ runs the Labour party. The path the party has taken since the days of Labour being about the Unions and little else has been a faux new Labour, a cheap knock off.
99.9% of the Labour leadership, behind the scenes too, those who set the agenda, are from middle class rather than working class, third level rather than blue collar. Not necessarily a bad thing, but those in control have little in common with or, in my opinion, first hand knowledge of the average working person. That's my view and why they fail to connect. They could be one of the top two parties on a regular basis if they lost their inner circle, which is renewed from the same stock again and again. They could have taken over from Fianna Fail in the pecking order of Irish politics but like Fianna Failers, (or like they claim at least) the grassroots are sound but the leadership need to get it together.

For Reals

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Like most organisations, unions are open to nepotism and corruption/stupidity, however, as with politicians, they are very much needed.
I have worked in union and non-union positions. The larger corporate scheme of things is to bastardise the worker rights. A HR scam.
'We're all family here!' so work late for no money to give the 'team' a dig out. Come in Saturday or work from home, well if you want a look in for promotion. You tell me why you deserve a raise, careful now, what raise you get will be based on your answers....It's a kind of Stepford wives meets 1984 (Orwell) Victorian environment.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Let's not equate having a flat screen TV with wealth. I would say based on averages and comparisons to their peers, working class people are in the exact same spot. And are we giving the non-unionised sector credit for any pluses since 1984? Not sure 100% what you're pointing out here.
Also not sure if you are still based in the states, but being on the ground can differ greatly to some state or semi-states stats on the topic. Not knocking you, I was just in the city center and there are a great number of people sleeping rough on the thresholds of failed business' and refurbished banks, I've not seen the likes of before.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The people have to fight tooth and nail to claw for these things. They didn't appear wrapped in a bow with ingrates joining unions for the craic because they are spoiled, and greedy. 'More?' no Mr. Bumble, a respectful enough.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

For Reals

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Would you provide you or your companies services for free? When I've worked from home or stayed late to help 'the team' with a particular deadline or project I didn't receive payment or any company profits. It's simply not capitalism, is it? If people are expected to pay a company for a product or service, those employed by the company, who's name doesn't appear on the door, should be paid for their labours. We need unions because some think 'The Company' is in someway a family member you do all you can for, until 'The company' feels it can make more profit without you. There's no love there, it's business, which is only logical. Therefore asking/cajoling staff to work for free for the profit of others is simply communist

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Personally I knew families needing food handouts to get by back then, but not now. But it still happens. Not sure what that is worth on the grand scheme of things, but the fact it's even a topic for debate is sad 30 odd years on.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's accepted in most parts of the world that the US is a third world country for the majority. Percentages or poor compared to other countries are simply grades of shame and 'sure look at El Salvador' doesn't compare or have any meaning in my opinion. It's not a race to the bottom.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We'd be working seven days a week for buttons for the profits of others without unions or the labour movement. That's a given. Give away budgets are a vote getter, fact of life and should not be used as an example of how great we all have it. People should be trying to better their lot, it only makes sense. A person should knock back a 5 euro raise on state pensions so we can clear the IMF sooner? (just an example). Why would someone shoot themselves in the foot like that knowing full well these 'give away budgets' are all they can ever gain from successive governments.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

John_C wrote: »

I don't know much about 19th century labour practices but the job bridge scheme seems like the type of thing employers back then would have tried to get away with.

Yes, normally internships are unpaid so for someone getting the dole plus extra seems like a good deal if the experience is relevant and in their field. The stats prove that most people get paid employment from the scheme but don't like facts get in the way of an opinion.

jank

For Reals wrote: »

Let's not equate having a flat screen TV with wealth. I would say based on averages and comparisons to their peers, working class people are in the exact same spot.

To be honest this is bollox. The average irish person be it middle class or working class is much better off today than in 1984. Just look at Irelands climb up the HDI index the past 30 years or the GDP/GNP factors. On every single statistic, Ireland even now after the crash is better off in 2014 than 1984.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

For Reals

jank wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, your post is bollocks, (shall we continue on the same vain?).
You may have missed my point. Things may be 'better' on various scales. However, sections of society see no changes other than cheaper, more readily available things/items or easier access to credit if they purchase these goods. We've still people bred for dead end jobs, if fortunate enough to have one, childhood poverty is actually much higher in recent years. So to get back to the genesis of this line of discussion, we still need a Labour movement and unions in some form as your average business couldn't give a toss as long as it doesn't affect the margins. Or like the corporate world would have you believe all staff are family, sad we run our society like a business and just let go anyone sick, poor or not making us a profit. Yes people take advantage and I'm all for them being penalised, but they have a long way to go before they lead the country to rack and ruin like the saintly financiers and business folk have done in recent times, and the 1980s.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Try not to dismiss a differing view based on the assumption the poster is ignoring 'facts' to suit that view. It's kind of ignorant in itself.

marienbad

For Reals wrote: »

No, your post is bollocks, (shall we continue on the same vain?).
You may have missed my point. Things may be 'better' on various scales. However, sections of society see no changes other than cheaper, more readily available things/items or easier access to credit if they purchase these goods. We've still people bred for dead end jobs, if fortunate enough to have one, childhood poverty is actually much higher in recent years. So to get back to the genesis of this line of discussion, we still need a Labour movement and unions in some form as your average business couldn't give a toss as long as it doesn't affect the margins. Or like the corporate world would have you believe all staff are family, sad we run our society like a business and just let go anyone sick, poor or not making us a profit. Yes people take advantage and I'm all for them being penalised, but they have a long way to go before they lead the country to rack and ruin like the saintly financiers and business folk have done in recent times, and the 1980s.



Try not to dismiss a differing view based on the assumption the poster is ignoring 'facts' to suit that view. It's kind of ignorant in itself.

Whatever about the merits of your argument - to argue that things were better in the 80's is just simply wrong.

Even at the very worst of this recession the standards of living on every level are massively greater than any other time other than the height of the Celtic Tiger .

That is just a fact and an easily verifiable one at that . Now if you were to say that our expectations and standards today are correspondingly higher today and we no longer tolerate the ****e we had to put up with in the 70's and 80's you might have a case.

But in real terms the prosperity levels in this country are unmatched in any previous decade and that is in every area .

The left wing sector have to stop whinging all the time if they are to reclaim their base . It is true that things have imploded but there has been great improvements also. Acknowledge that and then focus on the areas the need attention and then they will begin to reclaim the thoughtful voter.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Nothing has changed in 30 years, apart from free 3rd level education, better life expectancies for all, cheaper goods are services, huge advances in technology, massive surge in social welfare and benefits and more liberalised laws in society... nothing has changed...!

For Reals

marienbad wrote: »

Whatever about the merits of your argument - to argue that things were better in the 80's is just simply wrong.....

Your entire post was based on a misunderstanding of my post.
I'm saying things are not great for many and many are no better off. Also any improvements can be credited to, (to use the corporate folk speak) 'left wing' views or 'give away' budgets not champions of industry making everyones lot better by making themselves money. I'd suggest leeches such as big business, crooked politicians and crooked bankers hold people down far more than any dole sponger or illegal immigrant, certainly they colour state policy a lot more, which explains why childhood poverty has increased.
If the system is so great, it's had a good run, even pre collapse, yet here we all are, no sign of any promised land figurative or otherwise in sight.
When the money men got the run of the country, they ruined it and laughingly tried to place the blame at the doorstep of the people fooled by 'the boom getting boomier' lest they go kill themselves for doubting. Yet on things such as water tax and housing tax we are foolish not to simply nod along.

Labour tried to jump on the New Labour/faux conservative train after it had left the station. Now they don't know what they are only that they want in government. They should vacate Ely Place and bring in a complete new staff drawn from and voted in by ordinary party members from all walks off life.

marienbad

For Reals wrote: »

Your entire post was based on a misunderstanding of my post.
I'm saying things are not great for many and many are no better off. Also any improvements can be credited to, (to use the corporate folk speak) 'left wing' views or 'give away' budgets not champions of industry making everyones lot better by making themselves money. I'd suggest leeches such as big business, crooked politicians and crooked bankers hold people down far more than any dole sponger or illegal immigrant, certainly they colour state policy a lot more, which explains why childhood poverty has increased.
If the system is so great, it's had a good run, even pre collapse, yet here we all are, no sign of any promised land figurative or otherwise in sight.
When the money men got the run of the country, they ruined it and laughingly tried to place the blame at the doorstep of the people fooled by 'the boom getting boomier' lest they go kill themselves for doubting. Yet on things such as water tax and housing tax we are foolish not to simply nod along.

Labour tried to jump on the New Labour/faux conservative train after it had left the station. Now they don't know what they are only that they want in government. They should vacate Ely Place and bring in a complete new staff drawn from and voted in by ordinary party members from all walks off life.

No misunderstanding- your post is factually incorrect .

For Reals

jank wrote: »

Nothing has changed in 30 years, apart from free 3rd level education, better life expectancies for all, cheaper goods are services, huge advances in technology, massive surge in social welfare and benefits and more liberalised laws in society... nothing has changed...!

Yeah families going to bed hungry shed tears of joy at the international space station as it whizzes over head. Cop on.

For Reals

marienbad wrote: »

No misunderstanding- your post is factually incorrect .

You believe I am saying things are 100% the same or as worse as the 1980's and go on to yak about that.
Feel free, but I'm not, therefore your whole argument is ridiculous as you're arguing against an imagined view.

marienbad wrote: »

No misunderstanding- your post is factually incorrect .

Your idea that we all own Rolls Royces is simply not true...

Get me?

marienbad

For Reals wrote: »

You believe I am saying things are 100% the same or as worse as the 1980's and go on to yak about that.
Feel free, but I'm not, therefore your whole argument is ridiculous as you're arguing against an imagined view.



Your idea that we all own Rolls Royces is simply not true...

Get me?

Of course not and your idea that we are worse off than decades ago is simply not true either.

And by the way the improvements you refer to are a direct result of the prosperity generated by an open liberal economy.

Where the left has been organised is the semi state and public service unions and they have done nothing but enrich themselves even at the expense of new entrants and with their pensions and conditions left future generations with a millstone just as bad as the 'crooked bankers'

jank

For Reals wrote: »

Yeah families going to bed hungry shed tears of joy at the international space station as it whizzes over head. Cop on.

Life expectancy has gone from 73 to 81 in 30 years. That is an increase of 8 years... pretty damm good if you ask me. No facts or stats coming from your end thinking that we are worse off but there ya go.

BlatentCheek

jank wrote: »

Life expectancy has gone from 73 to 81 in 30 years. That is an increase of 8 years... pretty damm good if you ask me. No facts or stats coming from your end thinking that we are worse off but there ya go.

Over 30 years an increase of only 8 years in life expectancy is actually not great considering the massive increase in overall wealth in the country over that time, not to mention huge lifestyle changes such as the changed attitude towards smoking.

The expansion of third level education came at the cost of standards and has been accompanied by a huge drop in the value of such an education and as such may not be the achievement it is trumpeted as.

Housing, an essential human need, is probably less accessible to people (certainly much less so in Dublin) than it was 30 years ago. Our property sector is a highly dysfunctional system that transfers wealth from the lower and middle sections of society to the top while endlessly repeating volatile cycles of boom and bust that fatally threaten our country's very existence as a sovereign state.

Household debt is certainly far far higher.

More plasma TVs, foreign holidays and BMWs on the road is great but 30 years is a long time and the progress we have had has been uneven and came at a very high cost. I am certain that we could have done better over that period and that we are on the wrong track now.

marienbad

BlatentCheek wrote: »

Over 30 years an increase of only 8 years in life expectancy is actually not great considering the massive increase in overall wealth in the country over that time, not to mention huge lifestyle changes such as the changed attitude towards smoking.

The expansion of third level education came at the cost of standards and has been accompanied by a huge drop in the value of such an education and as such may not be the achievement it is trumpeted as.

Housing, an essential human need, is probably less accessible to working people (certainly much less so in Dublin) than it was 30 years ago. Our property sector is a highly dysfunctional system that transfers wealth from the lower and middle sections of society to the top while endlessly repeating volatile cycles of boom and bust that fatally threaten our country's very existence as a sovereign state.

Household debt is certainly far far higher.

More plasma TVs, foreign holidays and BMWs on the road is great but 30 years is a long time and the progress we have had has been uneven and came at a very high cost. I am certain that we could have done better over that period and that we are on the wrong track now.

Actually 8 years increase over 30 years is an astonishing improvement. The whole health of the nation is improving even in these straightened times.
http://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/life-expectancy-increases-by-four-years-30391170.html

And as for the expansion of 3rd Level education , it is still one of the greatest achievements of the sate and to think otherwise is laughable.

Housing aside we are so much better off that that 30 years ago and every stat says so.

As for saying we could have done better, that is just meaningless , we can always do better but hindsight is 20/20 vision

BlatentCheek

marienbad wrote: »

A
And as for the expansion of 3rd Level education , it is still one of the greatest achievements of the sate and to think otherwise is laughable.

After spending a huge amount to expand third-level education we have a situation where many graduates have done courses of dubious value that have not made them the slightest bit more employable. Many graduates leave third level unable to write a grammatically correct sentence. Many graduates who can are still languishing on the dole queue. The expansion of third level has failed to significantly improve participation in further education by the groups that were previously excluded.

Meanwhile a new class of self-enriching university administrators has sprung up to pocket much of the money spent on expanding third-level. The WIT expenses scandals, featuring such highlights as Prof. Kieran Byrne's €4,000 flight between Dublin and Waterford, are probably the best examples of this but I recall Hugh Brady spending millions on renovating the Dean's residence at UCD while the frequency of tutorials in at least one faculty was being halved as a costs saving measure and I suspect that such behaviour is fairly ubiquitous in the further education sector.

Honestly I think it's laughable to describe all of that as one of the greatest achievements in the history of the state. It compares very poorly with the expansion of second level education for example. Not to mention advances in public health and housing made by past governments.

marienbad

BlatentCheek wrote: »

After spending a huge amount to expand third-level education we have a situation where many graduates have done courses of dubious value that have not made them the slightest bit more employable. Many graduates leave third level unable to write a grammatically correct sentence. Many graduates who can are still languishing on the dole queue. The expansion of third level has failed to significantly improve participation in further education by the groups that were previously excluded.

Meanwhile a new class of self-enriching university administrators has sprung up to pocket much of the money spent on expanding third-level. The WIT expenses scandals, featuring such highlights as Prof. Kieran Byrne's €4,000 flight between Dublin and Waterford, are probably the best examples of this but I recall Hugh Brady spending millions on renovating the Dean's residence at UCD while the frequency of tutorials in at least one faculty was being halved as a costs saving measure and I suspect that such behaviour is fairly ubiquitous in the further education sector.

Honestly I think it's laughable to describe all of that as one of the greatest achievements in the history of the state. It compares very poorly with the expansion of second level education for example. Not to mention advances in public health and housing made by past governments.

Sure it pales into significance compared to 2nd level and it hasn't been as successful as we had hoped but to not realize the enormity of its potential is just wrong and the way it is being eroded the institutions themselves with all their fees and such is just obscene .

But the undeniable fact is that every teenager in Ireland can have realistic aspirations to 3rd level education , some thing that was unavailable to most generations over 45 ? The issue that it has not spread a widly as was hoped is not to do with its availability but other social issues.

It looks though from your post as if you just have a particular bugbear with this sector.

BlatentCheek

marienbad wrote: »

It looks though from your post as if you just have a particular bugbear with this sector.

I'd hate to give that impression. I regularly work with universities and ITs and usually find it a pleasure. Nonetheless gravy-training should be criticised wherever it can be seen, and it certainly can be seen in the Irish further education sector.

marienbad wrote: »

Sure it pales into significance compared to 2nd level and it hasn't been as successful as we had hoped but to not realize the enormity of its potential

I can't argue with that but we were originally talking about progress in the last 30 years and I simply feel that while it was overall a good achievement, it was deeply flawed in many ways that prevented it from being a great one and is not the shining example of such progress that it is presented as.

marienbad

BlatentCheek wrote: »

I'd hate to give that impression. I regularly work with universities and ITs and usually find it a pleasure. Nonetheless gravy-training should be criticised wherever it can be seen, and it certainly can be seen in the Irish further education sector.



I can't argue with that but we were originally talking about progress in the last 30 years and I simply feel that while it was overall a good achievement, it was deeply flawed in many ways that prevented it from being a great one and is not the shining example of such progress that it is presented as.

Yeah I wouldn't disagree too much with any of that and maybe I did overstate the case for it , a common enough perception of people of my generation , particularly those that were bright and never got the opportunity that so many today take for granted.

I agree completely on the gravy training and I would say we have yet to see the half of it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.