New Minister for Transport

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Hope they make the rail service a priority. Poor service.

magicbastarder

Chivito550 wrote: »

Any takers here?

when coveney or varadkar (or whomever else wins that competion) takes over, i wonder how much a reshuffle we'll see.
ross seems to be regarded as one of the most consistently underperforming ministers so i'd say he's cause to be worried. or secretly delighted, maybe?

BoatMad

Zebra3 wrote: »

I agree we should cut welfare and invest it in PT.

Businesses (mainly owned by wealthy people) get far too much welfare.

The majority of businesses in Ireland employ less then 5 people and whose owners earn little more then the average industrial wage. this includes self employed as well

BoatMad

Shane Ross is right to stay out of this

This is a management workers dispute. The state has stacks of processes to help both sides reach a resolution

hytrogen

magicbastarder wrote:

...ross seems to be regarded as one of the most consistently underperforming ministers so i'd say he's cause to be worried. or secretly delighted, maybe?

By whom? The union's?? He's representing the people's national interest by staying out of a company's internal industrial grievances and not opening the coffers to the crony union's. His constituents certainly agree with him and his stance on the issue.

end of the road

hytrogen wrote: »

By whom? The union's?? He's representing the people's national interest by staying out of a company's internal industrial grievances and not opening the coffers to the crony union's. His constituents certainly agree with him and his stance on the issue.

correction, he is representing some of the people. his constituents agreeing with him or not isn't relevant as they won't be enough to get him back into government, it's likely he won't be back in government anyway as he actually is underperforming. he was only given a ministerial position to do fg's dirty work. the joke's on him and fg will be laughing when they take all the credit. i'm no fan of fg myself but they have played it well here at the expence of someone who is only good for ranting in the paper.

MJohnston

hytrogen wrote: »

By whom? The union's?? He's representing the people's national interest by staying out of a company's internal industrial grievances and not opening the coffers to the crony union's. His constituents certainly agree with him and his stance on the issue.

Forget the BE strike, he's playing an easy game with that one.

He's done basically nothing about public transport infrastructure only waffle about how easy it is.

magicbastarder

hytrogen wrote: »

By whom? The union's?? He's representing the people's national interest by staying out of a company's internal industrial grievances and not opening the coffers to the crony union's. His constituents certainly agree with him and his stance on the issue.

i made no mention of the strike.

hytrogen

end of the road wrote:

correction, he is representing some of the people. his constituents agreeing with him or not isn't relevant as they won't be enough to get him back into government, it's likely he won't be back in government anyway as he actually is underperforming. he was only given a ministerial position to do fg's dirty work. the joke's on him and fg will be laughing when they take all the credit. i'm no fan of fg myself but they have played it well here at the expence of someone who is only good for ranting in the paper.

You're forgetting the whole electorate system is gerrymandered (FF/FG) in this country not to mention parochially septic (Halligan) so IF he runs again he'll get the tick in the box somewhere on the ballot as his demographics showed on the last two elections exit polls. That said he's not expected to run the next time so calm down.

magicbastarder wrote:

i made no mention of the strike.

So where is he falling short then? His untimely responses or his charitable attendances??

magicbastarder

well, let's flip it around. where is he succeeding?

he's widely regarded as being one of the most underperforming ministers. he's courted publicity more on non-transport issues than he has on transport issues.

hytrogen

magicbastarder wrote:

well, let's flip it around. where is he succeeding?

No let's keep it in the context you first proposed, he's opened more greenway Km's that any previous MFT, allocated more funding for future greenways which the anti-rail whesties adore, enacted and extended the reduced speed limits in urban residential areas between the canals in the capital, fundraised in his local gaa club *cough good session*, refused to waste tax payers shillings flying him off during the "patty's day festivals" to the cousins across the pond (really should have closed the airports as well to keep the rest of the twats from flying back IMAO).... Definitely an underperformer

magicbastarder

is that it? sounds like you're damning him with faint praise.
'opened greenways'- i.e. he's able to cut a ribbon.
and the 30km/h limits were his work? something that has been planned for years?

AndrewJRenko

hytrogen wrote: »

By whom? The union's?? He's representing the people's national interest by staying out of a company's internal industrial grievances and not opening the coffers to the crony union's. His constituents certainly agree with him and his stance on the issue.

His Department have cut the subvention to Bus Eireann from €49m in 2009 to €33m in 2015. The stance that it's nothing to do with the Dept is a lie.

NeitherJohn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

His Department have cut the subvention to Bus Eireann from €49m in 2009 to €33m in 2015. The stance that it's nothing to do with the Dept is a lie.

Ah. You've conveniently left out the €100m the government spent on buses for BE last year then. EOTR does that too.

end of the road

NeitherJohn wrote: »

Ah. You've conveniently left out the €100m the government spent on buses for BE last year then. EOTR does that too.

because that is capital investment and not operating subsidy. capital investment = vehicles and infrastructure to support the vehicles.

devnull

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

His Department have cut the subvention to Bus Eireann from €49m in 2009 to €33m in 2015. The stance that it's nothing to do with the Dept is a lie.

There are a few holes in your line and the union line, here they are:

Picking 2009 is a strange pick because this was the last year that subsidy was not cut because of the recession, are you stating that you did not know that Ireland had a recession and there was a shortage of cash or was it picked to massage the figures deliberately by the unions?

Picking 2015 is odd because if you are going to make a point about something that happened now, you would normally pick the last year info is available from. That is 2016 and the total was over €40m. Again seemingly picked to massage the figures by the unions.

Taxpayer contribution to Bus Eireann is now higher than it ever has been. Prior to 2012 Bus Eireann were required to buy their own vehicles and the cost of purchasing vehicles was worked into the PSO contract. Since 2012 vehicles have been purchased by the state for Bus Eireann in ADDITION to the PSO Subsidy.

The taxpayer funding last year was almost €91m to Bus Eireann, this consisted of over €40m in PSO subsidy and €50m in vehicles. This is a record high and it is expected to go up further this year. The unions conveniently forget this because it does not help their figures, in the countries where they claim transport is greater subsidized, almost all of them have to buy their own vehicles, which creates a greater need for direct subsidy in the absence of capital investment.

In addition the PSO is for PSO routes and the latest reports in Bus Eireann has show that these services are breaking even and are not losing any money whatsoever, it is the commercial routes that are losing money where Bus Eireann cannot use state subsidy or use free vehicles because it would be classified as illegal state aid under EU Law.

I admire you taking what the unions are saying at face value, but you are a victim of what is a false narrative on their side.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

because that is capital investment and not operating subsidy. capital investment = vehicles and infrastructure to support the vehicles.

You do realize that a bus company having it's new buses paid for is a removal of a substantial cost in doing business that it would otherwise have to meet from it's total revenue.

For example, if a freight hauling or truck company didn't have to buy any trucks, do you think that it would mean the business would cost more or less to run?

MJohnston

Why can't this nonsense all go in the existing strike thread?

BuffyBot

Indeed, thread closed