Social Democrats and Atheism

robdonn

Just reading up on this new political party, do we know much about Stephen Donnelly, Catherine Murphy and Róisín Shortall on issues such as school patronage, etc?

Edit: On my phone and can't edit the title of the thread, I meant Social Democrats.

robindch

robdonn wrote: »

Just reading up on this new political party, do we know much about Stephen Donnelly, Catherine Murphy and Róisín Shortall on issues such as school patronage, etc?

While some of their platform is worthwhile if read from a very great distance, on a closer reading it's little more than a string of pious thoughts with no more substance than thin smoke. Certainly, their current "FFS, shure nobody shuld ever have to pay fer water coz its free loike!!11!!1" campaign suggests that they'll go the way of every other votes-over-reality politician in this country and avoid the issue.

http://www.thejournal.ie/social-democrats-2217319-Jul2015/

TheChizler

I want to like them, Stephen Donnelly is sensible enough, most of the time, but as above on closer inspection they get a bit too social and out there.

Zamboni

robdonn wrote: »

Just reading up on this new political party, do we know much about Stephen Donnelly, Catherine Murphy and Róisín Shortall on issues such as school patronage, etc?

Edit: On my phone and can't edit the title of the thread, I meant Social Democrats.

They may not have a position at all in the subject.
Get in and join and make it an issue for them. Attend meetings, stand up and state your position.
New parties are formed by individuals who cluster together based only on alimited range of issues.
The best point to join a political party is at the start when they need support.
The media and general public tend to unrealistically demand new party position on every issue.
They will need candidates to run...

Zamboni

robindch wrote: »

While some of their platform is worthwhile if read from a very great distance, on a closer reading it's little more than a string of pious thoughts with no more substance than thin smoke. Certainly, their current "FFS, shure nobody shuld ever have to pay fer water coz its free loike!!11!!1" campaign suggests that they'll go the way of every other votes-over-reality politician in this country and avoid the issue.

http://www.thejournal.ie/social-democrats-2217319-Jul2015/

There is no such thing as a brand new fully formed functioning political party.
All parties start out with a string of pious thoughts

SpaceTime

I'd rather see a party with a set of principles that I can actually understand. Even the term social democracy actually sets out a bit of a philosophy.

What concerns me about FF and FG is you never really know what you're getting. They've very unclear positions on absolutely everything and the only thing that seems to unite them is a quest for power.

Labour is also somewhat to deeply connected to the trade union movement for a lot of people because a lot of us aren't represented by trade unions, other than in the public sector. Ireland doesn't really have a big history of organised labour as we weren't very industrial in the days when all that stuff happened in Britain and parts of continental Europe. I think, to a degree, that's why labour hasn't ever really gelled with the population to the degree that their counterparts elsewhere have.

Sinn Fein, despite having moved on and being all modern and progressive these days still has an element that worries a lot of people and an extreme focus on Northern Ireland issues which probably isn't necessarily all that main stream to many of us.

I'm actually glad to see alternatives emerging on the centre left. We absolutely need some stirring up of Irish politics.

Ireland has had an awful lot of centre / centre right and even socially extreme right politics over the years. There's scope for a bit of a shake up and this is the first time I've seen anything emerge that makes sense. I'm not sure that Ireland has all that much demand for another centre-right party, that's all Renua seems to be offering.

If you've a social-democratic type outlook, no harm in getting involved. They seem like 3 of our better TDs, to me anyway.

I certainly don't see secular points of view getting all that much space in FF and FG.

I don't know all that much about them, but I would certainly give them a chance based on their track record as individual TDs.

BaronVon

Catherine Murphy is my local TD, I would certainly not consider her religious. That said, I emailed her and my other TD's about ending religious discrimination in publically funded schools, and she never even replied!

mahoganygas

Back to OP's original question, does anybody know other parties view's on the question of school patronage?

What is the official line from each party?
If you can't answer for all parties, do you know the official line for individual parties?

Thanks.

lazygal

mahoganygas wrote: »

Back to OP's original question, does anybody know other parties view's on the question of school patronage?

What is the official line from each party?
If you can't answer for all parties, do you know the official line for individual parties?

Thanks.

Where I live, there are two Labour TDs and one Fine Gael who left because he didn't think women deserved access to abortion. All pointed me towards the same generic Dept of Ed and Skills blurb on education when I asked where I could access non denominational schools for my children.

I don't think any party cares a damn about changing the patronage model. In Dublin especially, anything that might make it difficult for parents to access the schools they went to, in particular daddy's fee paying school, is seen as not worth dealing with because most parents are happy with the system. I have a letter from the Minister for Education stating that 'demographics' dictate school allocations and as there was no need for new schools where we live, no change will be happening.

Qs

lazygal wrote: »

I have a letter from the Minister for Education stating that 'demographics' dictate school allocations and as there was no need for new schools where we live, no change will be happening.

From Jan O'Sullivan?

lazygal

Qs wrote: »

From Jan O'Sullivan?

Yes.

SpaceTime

lazygal wrote: »

Yes.

That's disappointing.

I generally found Labour were all talk on this topic & no action in office.

Also, if demographics dictate it, then it's a deliberate government policy and not just an accident of legacy of another era.

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

That's disappointing.

I generally found Labour were all talk on this topic & no action in office.

Also, if demographics dictate it, then it's a deliberate government policy and not just an accident of legacy of another era.

Yeah, I have written back stating that demographics are not a good enough reason to ignore constitutional rights. I'm waiting on a response.

I can't remember the exact wording of the letter, but its obviously a form letter, edited to refer to a particular area, sent to anyone who asked about patronage. The main thing I remember is that it stated demographics informed what schools were in an area and the priority was to ensure access to a school place, rather than for a child to be able to access eduction in an appropriate setting. As our area was not surveyed for the change in patronage process, I can surmise that no schools here will change and there are no plans to build any more as technically there are enough school places for all the children. Children having to endure indoctrination isn't taken into account clearly.

SpaceTime

You should forward the response to her constituency office, not the Dail.

I'd like to see if that was a response by the Jan the Minister or the TD.

It's quite likely a private secretary answers mail.

lazygal

Believe me, I know who to contact and I know I'd get the same response regardless. I was also told by my local TDs and Senators that the Goodness me, Goodness you programme was only great, even when I pointed out that children were segregated during the school day to facilitate indoctrination.

We're thinking of moving to a different area in Dublin but the main thing holding us back is access to schools and indoctrination. Having looked at the chances of getting into an ET school in other areas we feel we have no choice but to stay put. In at least one area we'd love to live in there's 400 on a waiting list for 30 places in an ET school, but given that, as the Minister put it, the priority is physical access to a school place not the right of the child to eduction in accordance with their beliefs, we can't be sure that our children would attend any suitable school local to where we'd live. The Department will find you a place, but it might be in a completely different area and not suitable at all.

What is really frustrating is that so few people see a problem with this. Our peers shrug their shoulders about it and you get journalists like Sean O'Rourke asking people why they don't just baptise their child if they want them to go to school. The number of people who don't really believe anything religious yet will go through the ceremonies anyway baffles me.

Qs

Well thats the nail in the coffin for me and Labour for now then.

SpaceTime

I'm not really sure who to vote for on this issue. They're all the same.

At times it's almost like you're actually speaking to the brainwashed when you try to have a discussion on it here in Ireland

School = nun / christian brother in their head and somehow goes with mass and communions.

Relative of mine is getting seriously unsubtle pressure from various people (many of whom I am shocked at) about not baptising their daughter.

Little snide digs like "An you're denying her her big day you". "She'll hate you for it." "What business of *yours* is it to exclude her from the community because you're being awkward" and so on.

He's an Irish atheist and his wife's not Irish and would be from a totally non-religious background.

--

All I could say is you can only imagine the outrage if Irish people in England were being told well just baptise your child as Church of England and he/she will get into the local school, otherwise you can go to the special school for the awkward 38 miles away.

There'd be protests on the streets, cases to the UN, newspaper articles in the Guardian about how the establishment was oppressing the beleaguered and downtrodden Irish community.

Put the shoe on the other foot and it's "stop being so awkward and be a catholic because this is *holy catholic Ireland*". Anyone who complains is obviously an upstart, a militant atheist, suffering from a mental illness or probably a West Brit (whatever that is).

---

I honestly think the only way that this is going to be dealt with is through international pressure both by highlighting the issue continuously abroad and probably through cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights.

It's also a major issue in deciding to relocate to Ireland with children if you're not Catholic. There really aren't very many educational options. That's inevitably going to be a major recruitment barrier for the tech sector.

lazygal

We got the questions like that too. When we got married, my mum ran into a neighbour I knew growing up and when my mum told her about the wedding she said she just 'couldn't get her head around' the fact we had not had a church wedding. When I told someone I was worried about the local school doing Catholic indoctrination and whether it would be suitable for our children, they said they didn't know I was Protestant. We got some comments about our children being 'left out' and other people saying they baptised so the children 'would be able to choose when they are older' about religion. The mind boggles.
My only consolation is that people have stopped sometimes and reconsidered their position based on what we say. I deliberately use the term indoctrination and I'm familiar with how religious the Alive O programme is so I can deal with any claims that its an inclusive programme.

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's also a major issue in deciding to relocate to Ireland with children if you're not Catholic. There really aren't very many educational options. That's inevitably going to be a major recruitment barrier for the tech sector.

This is a huge problem. I know that much is made of Ireland's fee paying school sector when the Government tries to entice businesses and people to come here, and they point out how low cost it is compared to the UK and US fee paying systems. But ask anyone who's tried to get into those schools without being of the right faith or having a parent or grandparent attend how they fared, and the schools soon lose all their appeal.
This, along with women knowing they can't have an abortion here and the maternity services reflect that, are going to continue to put people off coming here and put people like me and my husband off raising children here or indeed having any more children here. If the marriage equality vote hadn't been passed we'd be looking into relocating to where my husband was born.

SpaceTime

I'm still considering relocating.
There are several issues that just annoy me a lot and I cannot seem to see any prospect of them changing.

Do you know the National School rules even still mention laundry as an optional subject for girls!!!!

Why is this 1965 document (which looks more like 1865) even still on the books?! Do the Department actually do anything?

SpaceTime

I am just not sure where I would want to move though.

I'm in two minds about a few different options.

When you look at the UK, it's actually still basically a liberal theocracy with an established church and there's huge issues with education developing as the Tories push for more 'faith academies' instead of the good old social-democratic 'comprehensive model'.

Hotblack Desiato

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's also a major issue in deciding to relocate to Ireland with children if you're not Catholic. There really aren't very many educational options. That's inevitably going to be a major recruitment barrier for the tech sector.

It was rather galling to hear same-sex marriage touted as a benefit for employment and recruitment here, when the state of our maternity services (let alone abortion rights), women's rights in general and an education system that exists primarily to perpetuate a dead religion and a dead language are ignored.

SpaceTime

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It was rather galling to hear same-sex marriage touted as a benefit for employment and recruitment here, when the state of our maternity services (let alone abortion rights), women's rights in general and an education system that exists primarily to perpetuate a dead religion and a dead language are ignored.

Well, it's a step in the right direction but it's far, far from the only issue.

It does indicate the public is a good decade or so ahead of the government on these issues though.

The issue with education is you're up against two of the most conservative group in the whole country : teachers and religious orders.

The teachers are about caught up with 1987 and the religious orders have finally got to about 1954 in terms of social attitudes.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

While some of their platform is worthwhile if read from a very great distance, on a closer reading it's little more than a string of pious thoughts with no more substance than thin smoke. Certainly, their current "FFS, shure nobody shuld ever have to pay fer water coz its free loike!!11!!1" campaign suggests that they'll go the way of every other votes-over-reality politician in this country and avoid the issue.

http://www.thejournal.ie/social-democrats-2217319-Jul2015/

TheChizler wrote: »

I want to like them, Stephen Donnelly is sensible enough, most of the time, but as above on closer inspection they get a bit too social and out there.

Problem a) with the water, we are currently paying through general taxation for water, when domestic rates were done away with, there was an extra 3/4% put on income tax to replace them, which was never repealed and we are also paying the LPT, which in most countries would have water rates included in the household tax or charge at the rate of supplying it, and problem b) is that the whole Irish Water set up was done to make it more easy to privatise the system down the road which would lead to less investment fewer repairs and higher leaks and charges (hence the original and current overpricing of water charges).

And the problem with decrying the left for their policies as being too far out there is that there are policies that Maggie the Milk Thief balked at for being too nakedly right wing that are now being decried as being dangerously leftist. Look at Syriza, they've been demonised as far left and neo-Marxist for years now but when push came to shove they turned out to be Blairite right wingers with faux concern for the poor. The problem with modern politics are that the parties are almost universally hard right (i.e. kill social protection, give money to the rich, and remove what little brakes there are to bad practise amongst the biggest companies) with no dissenting voices either in the intelligensia, political class or the media. There is no opposition in the hallways of power, despite the fact that in most of Europe the majorty want social democracy in some shape or form.

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

Labour is also somewhat to deeply connected to the trade union movement for a lot of people because a lot of us aren't represented by trade unions, other than in the public sector. Ireland doesn't really have a big history of organised labour as we weren't very industrial in the days when all that stuff happened in Britain and parts of continental Europe. I think, to a degree, that's why labour hasn't ever really gelled with the population to the degree that their counterparts elsewhere have.

Labour's problem is the opposite, actually. They have too effectively disassociated themselves from the working-class groups they were originally set up to represent. Outside of SIPTU, I don't think there is a single one of the Trades Union still affiliated to the party (I know mine, the CPSU, isn't and neither are any of the other civil service unions). They moved away from being economically left-wing to being socially liberal without realising that there are no votes for them higher up the economic ladder because for D4 and the likes they are still counted as being too working class, and even though the working classes have socially liberalised in the last few years (for example the biggest yes votes in the last referendum in Limerick were in the likes of Moyross and Southill) there is now no place for Labour as their position has been taken, mainly by SF in this country.

It's leading me likely to do what I thought was unthinkable a few years ago, and vote SF myself.

SpaceTime

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Labour's problem is the opposite, actually. They have too effectively disassociated themselves from the working-class groups they were originally set up to represent. Outside of SIPTU, I don't think there is a single one of the Trades Union still affiliated to the party (I know mine, the CPSU, isn't and neither are any of the other civil service unions). They moved away from being economically left-wing to being socially liberal without realising that there are no votes for them higher up the economic ladder because for D4 and the likes they are still counted as being too working class, and even though the working classes have socially liberalised in the last few years (for example the biggest yes votes in the last referendum in Limerick were in the likes of Moyross and Southill) there is now no place for Labour as their position has been taken, mainly by SF in this country.

It's leading me likely to do what I thought was unthinkable a few years ago, and vote SF myself.

I think though that's where labours way off the mark. Most people will be gritting their teeth somewhat voting SF but it's because labour isn't behaving like a socialist party anymore.

What I'm saying is that Ireland doesn't actually have an old industrial base where a Labour Party would normally draw support. That's resulted in it totally losing the plot. They're often representing issues from the point of view of establishment civil servants more than the grass roots and that will and is killing them.

I don't know where SF stand on a lot of liberal issues and that worries me as Ireland comes from a very right wing (socially) legacy that absolutely needs to change.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Problem a) with the water, we are currently paying through general taxation for water

There are two major problems with that.

(a) people who don't avail of mains water and sewerage still have to pay in taxes for a service they can't use, and pay again for wells/group water scheme/septic tank. Yes, it's their choice to live in the middle of nowhere and I detest one-off housing for anyone who isn't living off the land, but it's still unjust.

(b) we do not and never have paid nearly enough in taxes to fund our water services properly. This is why we have so many leaks, boil notices, and disgusting raw sewage outfalls. We need to invest approximately twice as much in water services as we historically have done, but politically that has been way down the priority list and it's only now that the system is literally at breaking point that we recognise our traditional half-assed approach can't work any more.

and problem b) is that the whole Irish Water set up was done to make it more easy to privatise the system down the road which would lead to less investment fewer repairs and higher leaks and charges (hence the original and current overpricing of water charges).

Privatisation is a huge red herring, politically the level of water charges which would permit that is impossible and IW requires and will require large subsidies from general taxation.

Look at Syriza, they've been demonised as far left and neo-Marxist for years now but when push came to shove they turned out to be Blairite right wingers with faux concern for the poor.

Yeah, damn them for eventually realising the free money tree was barren of fruit :rolleyes:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I know mine, the CPSU, isn't and neither are any of the other civil service unions

The civil service is supposed to be politically neutral and grades above CPSU are not allowed to be members of political parties, so their unions really shouldn't be politically affiliated either. Fat lot of good it did the CPSU anyway...

D4

Like Irishtown, or Ringsend where my mother-in-law is from?
I hate this lazy shorthand for lazy thinking.

It's leading me likely to do what I thought was unthinkable a few years ago, and vote SF myself.

SF are very far from being a socially liberal party, look at their abortion stance up north.

recedite

infacteh wrote: »

Catherine Murphy is my local TD, I would certainly not consider her religious. That said, I emailed her and my other TD's about ending religious discrimination in publically funded schools, and she never even replied!

Interesting. Stephen Donnelly is my local TD. I contacted him about the religious discrimination being enshrined into the adnmissions policy of a new (publicly owned and funded) secondary school that is currently being built. He also never replied.
I think these people are like most politicians; afraid to take a position on anything unless it seems like a good "populist" move. Donnelly has a background in economics and was outspoken on the banking crisis, but then when he was appointed to the actual banking tribunal he resigned.
IMO a lot of these "social democrat" lefties actually prefer sniping from the the sidelines. When they have a chance at real power they baulk at it and retreat, because exercising power and responsibilities might cost them their populist vote.
He talked to Lucinda Creighton previously about joining her new party, before deciding it was too "right wing".
I doubt this venture will be good for Donnelly because part of the kudos of the political independents is just that; they appeal to people who are fed up with the political parties.
Still, he's the best of a bad lot so I'll probably continue voting for him.

Brian Shanahan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

(b) we do not and never have paid nearly enough in taxes to fund our water services properly. This is why we have so many leaks, boil notices, and disgusting raw sewage outfalls. We need to invest approximately twice as much in water services as we historically have done, but politically that has been way down the priority list and it's only now that the system is literally at breaking point that we recognise our traditional half-assed approach can't work any more.

And the Irish Water system will guarantee that there will be less funding, and at a higher cost, than if the whole kit and kaboodle was kept in house. The only rationale for the current set up is to soften up the water system for a quick and dirty privatisation. This will in no way fix the water system in the country, only make it worse.

I'll read the post in full tomorrow.

SpaceTime

I have a horrible feeling the Irish water thing came about from intense lobbying of the European Commission. There are a lot of vested interest huge European water utilities and metering outfits that are very able to spin a persuasive environmental argument that's actually about profit.

The way it was somehow snuck in as a rider to the T&Cs of the bailout always seemed to be rather dodgy to me.

Ireland avoided a lot of privatisations but, there really is a bad smell around some of how the whole thing worked.

Ireland's economic crisis was caused by mismanagement of a property bubble that caused a banking melt down and the loss of an entire 1/4 of the economy and all the social spending and loss of taxes associated with that - it was not lack of water charges or crazy public expenditure.

I felt the commission in particular stuck it's ore in in a very odd way into micromanaging things that it has a particular obsession with. This water charges thing was most definitely rammed through.

It's been a political disaster, yet they keep pushing and pushing it. You'd really wonder what the bailout suppliers threatened.

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

I have a horrible feeling the Irish water thing came about from intense lobbying of the European Commission. There are a lot of vested interest huge European water utilities and metering outfits that are very able to spin a persuasive environmental argument that's actually about profit.

As far as I can remember it was one of the public utilities that they specifically mentioned "needing privatisation". That's the problem with the EU currently, they've gone away from the original ideas of mutual assistance and cooperation to a full fledged neo-liberal "free" market ideological steamroller, and it's making all of Europe the poorer and more dangerous for it.

Brian Shanahan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Privatisation is a huge red herring, politically the level of water charges which would permit that is impossible and IW requires and will require large subsidies from general taxation.

And yet that is the whole idea behind hiving off Irish Water as a separate entity along with the highly profitable Bord Gais. Unless there is a major sea change in political thinking, you'll be buying your water off a private monopoly.

Look at the original way it was being brought in, water in Ireland was being priced way higher than even in England where it has been privatised to monopolistic concerns for a long time, and even at the current prices it is way above the costs of provision given the fact that Ireland is swimming in usable water.

SpaceTime

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

As far as I can remember it was one of the public utilities that they specifically mentioned "needing privatisation". That's the problem with the EU currently, they've gone away from the original ideas of mutual assistance and cooperation to a full fledged neo-liberal "free" market ideological steamroller, and it's making all of Europe the poorer and more dangerous for it.

Something odd about it as its really not where the European electorates default to.
There's actually a big social democratic tradition since WWII with exceptions like Mrs Thatcher.

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

Something odd about it as its really not where the European electorates default to.
There's actually a big social democratic tradition since WWII with exceptions like Mrs Thatcher.

Not any more, since Maggie the Milk Robber, political parties and governments have increasingly defaulted to the neo-liberal model of "the free market is always right". Look at the European left, at the very best it is simply a socially liberal grouping with a very right-wing economic and social welfare agenda. Most states are rapidly dismantling their social protection systems, privatising their public services and utilities and increasing the power of big business vis a vis everybody else. And all too often it is the parties of the so called left who are the most enthusiastic partakers in this process.

recedite

SpaceTime wrote: »

I have a horrible feeling the Irish water thing came about from intense lobbying of the European Commission.

The EU had been pushing for bin charges, water charges, sewage charges and septic tank inspections for years, culminating with a hefty fine imposed on Ireland for failing to regulate the sewage situation and allowing the groundwater to be polluted. The main impetus for all this was the environmentally friendly "polluter pays" principle, which I agree with.

Then separately, in 2010 the outgoing FF govt. signed a "memorandum of understanding" with the IMF, which committed the country to introducing property tax and water charges over a strict (and short) timeline. That was purely a revenue gathering exercise.

You'll notice that half of the water charge is actually for sewage, but only the water supply aspect has been taken away from the councils and semi-privatised to Irish Water. Nearly all bin collections are already privatised. So that only leaves the urban sewage systems still under local govt. control; I presume that will be the next major change to occur.

There is of course the theory that private companies do a better and more efficient job of these things anyway. Most times you see a contractor working on the roads they are also a private contractor.

robdonn

recedite wrote: »

There is of course the theory that private companies do a better and more efficient job of these things anyway. Most times you see a contractor working on the roads they are also a private contractor.

The problem though is of government contracts hiring the company that do it the cheapest and not that do it the best.

SpaceTime

Well, to be fair it was EU regulations that finally cleaned up our disgusting mess of raw sewage in waterways !

It's not that long ago Cork and Dublin were flushing into their respective rivers.

recedite

I had to laugh at this new party saying they favoured "the Nordic model" and then saying they opposed the water charges. The Nordic model is all about higher taxes but better social services.
Take a nice "seaside" town like Arklow, where all the raw sewage from the town is pumped straight into the Avoca river. The river estuary stinks and the sea is almost as bad. There is nowhere nice to swim. Presumably the water charge payment rate is similar, or less than, the rest of the country; ie less than 50% currently, and zero up to last year.
If that was a nordic country, everybody would be paying for water and sewage. There would be a state of the art sewage plant. And there would be a free public outdoor picnic/swimming area built along the river with diving boards etc..

expectationlost

are there now two threads here discussing soc dems water policy?

robdonn

expectationlost wrote: »

are there now two threads here discussing soc dems water policy?

I originally started this thread to ask if anyone knew about SocDem's policies on school patronage and other secular issues, but a conversation will go the way conversations go.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And the Irish Water system will guarantee that there will be less funding

Charges equals more funding, it will also be able to borrow for much needed capital investment which local/central governments never provided enough of. Water treatment isn't sexy and doesn't win votes which is why it was shamefully neglected so badly for so long

and at a higher cost, than if the whole kit and kaboodle was kept in house.

IW said they were forced by the government to take on 4000 more council employees than are actually needed to run the water system. That's an example of an excess cost that was hidden in the council-run system for decades. But you are saying the balkanised system (badly) run by the councils is more efficient??

The only rationale for the current set up is to soften up the water system for a quick and dirty privatisation. This will in no way fix the water system in the country, only make it worse.

Hmm, is that an unevidenced assertion - a belief?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And yet that is the whole idea behind hiving off Irish Water as a separate entity along with the highly profitable Bord Gais. Unless there is a major sea change in political thinking, you'll be buying your water off a private monopoly.

The retail arm of Bord Gais was privatised, the network was not, there is no more likelihood of that being sold off than there is for ESB Networks. No political party wants to be responsible for another Eircom fiasco.

Look at the original way it was being brought in, water in Ireland was being priced way higher than even in England where it has been privatised to monopolistic concerns for a long time, and even at the current prices it is way above the costs of provision given the fact that Ireland is swimming in usable water.

Oh please, not the juvenile 'it rains a lot here so we should get water for free' nonsense.
Even if that were true (which it isn't), what about waste treatment?
Where are the figures to show it is 'way above the cost of provision' even after the charges have been cut and that stupid €100 bribe grant was brought in.
Irish Water isn't charging nearly enough which is why it is going to get ongoing exchequer subvention.

mahoganygas

Some people here may find this link useful.

It is a petition calling for Equal School Access for unbaptised children in Ireland.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_Joint_Oireachtas_SubCommittee_on_Public_Petitions_Equal_school_access_for_unbaptised_children/?cYlwBjb

expectationlost

think it more interesting to see what those who are more likley to be in gov will do, unless you can come up with a local ground up campaign that will have enough power to work

Atheist Ireland newish activities calendar is revealing
http://atheist.ie/what-activities-does-atheist-ireland-do/

Tuesday (16 June)
Meeting with Labour Party advisors on their Manifesto development
Tuesday (30 June)
Meeting with Fine Gael advisors on their Manifesto development

SpaceTime

This Social Democrats crowd have some potential but, the issue is more that they're a blank template at the moment with a very narrow selection of policies.

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And the problem with decrying the left for their policies as being too far out there is that there are policies that Maggie the Milk Thief balked at for being too nakedly right wing that are now being decried as being dangerously leftist. Look at Syriza, they've been demonised as far left and neo-Marxist for years now but when push came to shove they turned out to be Blairite right wingers with faux concern for the poor. The problem with modern politics are that the parties are almost universally hard right (i.e. kill social protection, give money to the rich, and remove what little brakes there are to bad practise amongst the biggest companies) with no dissenting voices either in the intelligensia, political class or the media. There is no opposition in the hallways of power, despite the fact that in most of Europe the majorty want social democracy in some shape or form.

A number of issues here

A) Can you let us know exactly what left wing policies today would Thatcher 'balked' at previously for being too right wing?

Syriza were indeed a bunch of far leftists and Marxists, however when the reality was dawning on them that the magic money tree from the EU was literally days from stopping and a Grexit was more likely then not, they stepped back from the precipice. Their number of months in power has been a disaster. That is the fundamental flaw with leftist economics, it sounds great on paper but in reality it ends in tears with people poorer.

C) You say that parties are universally hard right, then say that most people want social democracy (are we talking Labour or AAA here?). If people actually want the politics you think they do, then they would vote for them. Classic example would have been the Tory victory in May.

recedite

jank wrote: »

Syriza were indeed a bunch of far leftists and Marxists, however when the reality was dawning on them that the magic money tree from the EU was literally days from stopping and a Grexit was more likely then not, they stepped back from the precipice. Their number of months in power has been a disaster. That is the fundamental flaw with leftist economics, it sounds great on paper but in reality it ends in tears with people poorer.

What happened there is that the brains behind the operation was Yanis Varoufakis, who is universally acknowledged as a brilliant economist and strategist, even by those who disagreed with him. And even though he was never actually a Syriza party member, he became the finance minister. When the people voted by referendum to endorse his policies, the not-so-smart, but power hungry, PM got scared and there was a split.
Varoufakis knew how to set up his own money tree, which is considered a very dangerous idea by those who own the Frankfurt money tree. And now they will try to have him vilified.

Although "marxist" is often used as term of abuse in this part of the world (partly because of Marx's infamous opposition to religion as being like the opium of the people) the same is not necessarily true in Greece. The partisans who resisted the Nazis in WW2 were mostly marxists, and following the defeat of Germany, Varoufakis' own father fought as one of them in a civil war which was won by the British and US backed right wing faction which then took power. Varoufakis continues that proud and defiant family legacy, one that puts social principles above greed and personal ambition.

Hotblack Desiato

If he's the brains behind the operation, perhaps time for a rethink? This man is no doubt intelligent but has also managed to alienate every single government in the EU, including those who would naturally tend to be sympathetic to his position.

Cuddling up to opposition parties in various countries when it was the goverments he needed to convince to give him what was effectively 'free money' at their expense was distinctly less than clever, and displayed a complete naivete as to how normal politics never mind EU politics works.

recedite

The guy has published several books on game theory, so he knew exactly what he was doing. I presume he was playing some kind of good cop/bad cop strategy, with the PM Tsipras playing the good cop.

There were only ever going to be two permanent solutions that could last, both of which he approved of all along;

Solution 1. Re-allocate all outstanding ECB and IMF loans to the ESM where they would be parked for several decades at an interest rate of less than the inflation rate. In this way, the debt would gradually erode itself away without any real repayment. Every citizen of the eurozone would end up paying a little bit via the inflation within the eurozone ie the devaluing of the money in their pocket.

Solution 2. Repudiate the debt, default, then set up an alternative currency. Once a State has the ability to collect taxes in its own currency, it can then create as much money for investment as it needs, without borrowing externally. That's the fiat money system for you; it is a money tree.

By being the bad cop and threatening Solution 2. Varoufakis is forcing the EU to offer Solution 1.
But to save face, they will only offer it to the good cop, after the bad cop has left the room, and after the spotlight is off them.

Unfortunately here in Ireland we had nobody of that calibre to negotiate with them, hence we are stuck with repaying a large debt plus significant interest costs over a relatively short period of time. Much of which was accrued by private banks and developers anyway, before being socialised and allocated to the State.

Hotblack Desiato

I don't buy this "acting so stupid proves how clever he is" sort of analysis.

Syriza's brinkmanship has done signficant and entirely avoidable damage to the Greek economy and it is the Greek people who will suffer more as a result. They have gained nothng that would not have been achieved by cooperative negotiations in good faith similar to how Ireland acted during the bailout.

The previous government had actually got the economy growing again (just) when they left office.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

(partly because of Marx's infamous opposition to religion as being like the opium of the people)

Although the "opposition" to religion was very much inflated by the powers that be at the time, because of their inverterate hatred of democratic forms of politics and equitable sharing of wealth.

Read in the proper context, Marx's "opposition" was more of a personal antagonism, whereas his official position was indifference based on his view that with increased equaility and education the proletariat would walk away from religion of their own accord.

Hotblack Desiato

So Marx may have been right about something after all