General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Dytalus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thank you.
Yes, I'm not sure what legal success they may have also I can't see the government voting to curtail their power.

I doubt they'll have any, if I'm honest. I'm okay with opposition parties raising a stink and being anti-everythings. I kind of see them as being like defensive barristers - their job is to make life as difficult for the Government as possible to ensure the Government doesn't ignore whomever those people represent.

But that doesn't mean running to the courts and costing time/money on fruitless endeavours. One would hope they have a put together decent case for this, even if they do wind up losing, rather than just whining.

While I can see your point, it's also critical that the Government maintain control over taxes and spending. Could you imagine the mess if everyone had a say in the budget statement? We'd never get one. They shouldn't be able to use it completely 'silence' (dramatic choice of word, but I can't think of anything else right now) opposition Bills, but we can't remove that competency from the Government.

James Brown

Dytalus wrote: »

I doubt they'll have any, if I'm honest. I'm okay with opposition parties raising a stink and being anti-everythings. I kind of see them as being like defensive barristers - their job is to make life as difficult for the Government as possible to ensure the Government doesn't ignore whomever those people represent.

But that doesn't mean running to the courts and costing time/money on fruitless endeavours. One would hope they have a put together decent case for this, even if they do wind up losing, rather than just whining.

While I can see your point, it's also critical that the Government maintain control over taxes and spending. Could you imagine the mess if everyone had a say in the budget statement? We'd never get one. They shouldn't be able to use it completely 'silence' (dramatic choice of word, but I can't think of anything else right now) opposition Bills, but we can't remove that competency from the Government.

If they've no hope pushing to take court action is indeed pointless. I agree, it is their reason for being to raise such things. Was interested to see every political stripe on side. It's shameful to give lip service to supporting something to only leave it stalled. I believe the ban on Israeli goods is one even after Coveney singing the praises of such a move.

blanch152

Dytalus wrote: »

Sexual education materials are already supposed to be present in all schools. Its been mandatory in the JC curriculum since 2003 as part of SPHE. Ideally they should already be factual and objective - otherwise they've no place in a school. This shouldn't be seen as an "additional taxpayer cost" because they should already be there.

Granted, I'll admit there's definitely some schools where these materials are not available for whatever reason - but they're already supposed to be there, so it's hard to argue it's a new requirement under this amendments.

Also, nitpicking, it only requires their rights to access that material is upheld not that the school should provide them. No that is not a serious point I'm making, I'm just being a bother.



Fair point, but then why even bother letting opposition parties bring bills before the Dáil? If there's almost always an arguable or certain cost to the taxpayer associated with proposed Bills, then any Bill can be stopped by the Government. Either remove the capacity for Private Member Bills, or raise the threshold for a 'money message' limit.

My understanding of the PBP argument is that they want it for "incidental" and minor costs the money message shouldn't be applicable. I'd rather have the capacity (however slight) for opposition parties to propose Bills - even if it's just to force the Government of the day to openly support/reject something and explain why it does so - than allow a blanket blockage of almost any Bill the Government doesn't want to have to deal with.

Of course if a limit is set on what counts as a money message justified block, it should be incumbent on the member/party proposing the Bill to provide evidence that it comes under whatever value is decided as "incidental".

Private Members Bills have always been part of the landscape but it is rare that they pass. They absolutely do have a role. Citizens Information puts it well, when it says:

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/national_government/houses_of_the_oireachtas/private_members_bills.html

"Sometimes, Private Members' Bills are initiated by members of the Oireachtas simply to draw attention to an issue or to focus public debate on a gap in the law."

I could be wrong but I think it was Alan Shatter (often lambasted on here) who was the first to succeed in having a Private Members Bill passed by the Oireachtas.

What you are seeking - the ability to propose a bill and have a debate where the government says why it is stopping it, is already there - what stops at the moment is the bill moving to the next stage.

At the end of the day, the Government is responsible for executive decision-making, including the Budget. If a government does not have control of the public purse, then it has no option but to resign. That is why elections can arise on defeat of budget motions as in the case of John Bruton's tax on children's shoes. Ultimately, if you want to be able to dictate spending measures, then you go into government.

Going back to the Bill you identified, more widely, this is a very poor Bill. There is no Provision of Objective History Education Bill or Geography or Maths. Setting details of second-level curricula by the Oireachtas is probably straying too far into executive rather than legislative areas, notwithstanding the interest of the public (rather than the public interest) in this issue.

Since the above, I have gone back to the Oireachtas debate to look at the Government position:

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-04-18/32/

Firstly, the Government did not oppose the Bill. "The Government will not be opposing the Bill. This is a very important area in which we need to make progress." So I am not sure that if falls into the category that Paul Murphy et al are complaining about i.e. it is not being blocked by the money message.

Secondly, the reason for the delay in this Bill appears to be the NCCA. the Minister said: "I have requested the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, to undertake a review not just of the content of the curriculum but of how it is taught, and in particular how it is taught in terms of ensuring the right young people have to get factual information about sexual behaviour, sexual orientation, consent, contraception and all of these topics, which must be done on a factual basis" If the NCCA haven't reported yet, that would have held up the Bill.

Thirdly, he touches on the point I make where he says: "A criticism I have is that providing in primary legislation the material that should be covered in a programme could be limiting in the longer term as issues such those in question develop. We would not want to have to go back to primary legislation every time we wanted to update a curriculum. That, however, is an issue that can be discussed. There are constitutional considerations that must be borne in mind in enacting any legislation. We must make sure we stay on the right side of those because there are constitutional requirements in Articles 42 and 44. It is important that any legislation, as it develops, respects these." Interesting on the constitutional aspects.

All in all, I think you make a valid point that there may not be a real money message issue here, but in response, that does not appear to be why this Bill is being held up and it seems the Government have accepted it.

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

Ok there have been a lot of threads opened recently that all cover the same ground. So they have been merged into three threads. The present thread is a catch all for Irish Government business, bar particular gripes about spending schemes etc.

This thread is for specific issues relating to government spending on particular schemes e.g. rural broadband, housing schemes, the dreaded water infrastructure etc:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057983142

The threads on the Dail voting scandal, politicians being in it for the money (or the interesting discussion on how the current system traps people in capitalist representative democracy) and electoral reform have also been merged into one mega thread on, basically, politican's behaviour as opposed to their policies:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058025402

So basically there are now three threads instead of 10 where you can complain criticise or lionise your government:
1. A general thread for general gripes, policies and actions;
2. A spending thread for wasted money, brilliant public works, or anything in between; or
3. A thread about the politicians themselves, and the system that gets them into power.

There will obviously be some overlap, but try to keep it on topic.

The bielection (and indeed any other general election thread) will be separate, and any unusual or particular social policies (e.g. the hate crime thread) are also sufficiently discrete as to get their own threads (for the moment)

Also, please try to keep things civil.

James Brown

Are we accepting that the LA's and Government/state often work in tandem and one cannot engage in any housing scheme/policy without the other?
I always took it as so but depending on the story I've had folk say yes and no.

The issue with Devaney Gardens seems to be that the deal isn't what the council were expecting, depending on who you ask.
The government seem to be more on board than the DCC.
I don't think it's a good idea to rush into it saying we need housing now, like we don't know that and it suggests there's an urgency regarding the tackling of the crisis, when there has been no such thing IMO.

Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy has said an agreement claimed to have been reached by a group of Dublin city councillors on O'Devaney Gardens cannot go ahead due to a lack of funding and legal concerns.
The former apartment complex on Dublin's north side has been derelict since the collapse of a previous agreement to revitalise the area ten years ago.
Over two weeks ago, the redevelopment of the site was given the green light after many years of discussions.
The deal will see more than 800 new homes on the site of the former flat complex located close to the Phoenix Park.
Dublin city councillors had previously said it would reject a proposed deal that included 50% private, 30% social and 20% affordable housing on the site.
But earlier this month a group of councillors said it had reached a deal with the developer Bartra, which involved selling 30% of the overall units to an approved housing body that would offer the units as affordable rental.
However, in a letter obtained by Sinn Féin's Eoin Ó Broin and seen by RTÉ News, Minister Murphy said the claims were being made by councillors without any consultation with his department.
Mr Murphy said that buying the units would require significant capital and in order to repay the finance, the rent prices would have to be set at current market rates, which he said would not be affordable rental.
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/1118/1092533-housing-devaney-gardens/

Not to forget this site was 100% social housing before the great 'regeneration' scam of the last FF government, (where public land set for upgrading was really being prepped for the private market, IMO).
Why are we, the state, intent on dealing with private developers like they are in charge? Why is Murphy, (don't see Simon or Leo jostling for a photo op on this one) basically throwing his hands up in that having to buy the units is the only option? Why not revisit the entire deal on the side of the tax payer?
If the plan isn't fit for purpose or the only way to make it suitable too costly, scrap it.
All parties seem to be blaming each other with FF/FG wanting to move ahead anyway.
As usual the only winner is the developer.

Over to the lads in Cork...

Construction of €40m affordable housing project gets under way in Cork

Construction has begun on a €40 million affordable housing project in Cork city which will deliver 116 two and three-bedroom homes and 37 apartments for social housing over the next two years.
The project is the first to be approved for support from the Government's Serviced Site Fund, through which €5 million will be paid by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government to cover the cost of up-grading the local road network and providing drainage services.
https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2019/1116/1091349-cork-affordable-housing/

This all sounds great. Hopefully affordable means affordable on this one.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we accepting that the LA's and Government/state often work in tandem and one cannot engage in any housing scheme/policy without the other?
I always took it as so but depending on the story I've had folk say yes and no.

The issue with Devaney Gardens seems to be that the deal isn't what the council were expecting, depending on who you ask.
The government seem to be more on board than the DCC.
I don't think it's a good idea to rush into it saying we need housing now, like we don't know that and it suggests there's an urgency regarding the tackling of the crisis, when there has been no such thing IMO.



Not to forget this site was 100% social housing before the great 'regeneration' scam of the last FF government, (where public land set for upgrading was really being prepped for the private market, IMO).
Why are we, the state, intent on dealing with private developers like they are in charge? Why is Murphy, (don't see Simon or Leo jostling for a photo op on this one) basically throwing his hands up in that having to buy the units is the only option? Why not revisit the entire deal on the side of the tax payer?
If the plan isn't fit for purpose or the only way to make it suitable too costly, scrap it.
All parties seem to be blaming each other with FF/FG wanting to move ahead anyway.
As usual the only winner is the developer.

Over to the lads in Cork...



This all sounds great. Hopefully affordable means affordable on this one.

What are the technical differences between the Cork deal and the Devaney Gardens one that differentiate themselves from each other?

Or are they the same thing?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What are the technical differences between the Cork deal and the Devaney Gardens one that differentiate themselves from each other?

Or are they the same thing?

Not a lot of detail on the Cork one I would say for the tax payer it'll boil down to what constitutes 'affordable' and who thinks it's such.

With the Devaney Gardens one, the issues are not enough affordable and those listed as such are too expensive.
Reads like Murphy is saying the only option is to buy some properties off the developer to use as rentals but it'll be too costly. It's in the article.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not a lot of detail on the Cork one I would say for the tax payer it'll boil down to what constitutes 'affordable' and who thinks it's such.

With the Devaney Gardens one, the issues are not enough affordable and those listed as such are too expensive.
Reads like Murphy is saying the only option is to buy some properties off the developer to use as rentals but it'll be too costly. It's in the article.

So we don't know if they are different or how they are different, or even whether they are good or bad ideas, just a reason to have an incoherent rant about Murphy, or am I missing something? Your two posts on this seem to ramble without a point and I really don't understand what the message is.

blanch152

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/1119/1092823-cso-labour-force-survey/


Very interesting article.

"Its latest findings show that the number of people who were employed in the third quarter stood at 2,326,900 - the highest number ever - and an increase of 2.4% or 53,700 from the same time last year."

Record levels of employment, more people in Ireland working than ever before. That is something of note.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So we don't know if they are different or how they are different, or even whether they are good or bad ideas, just a reason to have an incoherent rant about Murphy, or am I missing something? Your two posts on this seem to ramble without a point and I really don't understand what the message is.

You don't need to comment on it.

Good article today actually.

'Generation Rent searches for homes as Government invests in corporate welfare'
The O'Devaney Gardens estate in North Dublin has become the latest political battleground for affordable housing.

Controversial plans to build a mix of social and private housing on O'Devaney through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) were reluctantly agreed in recent weeks by Dublin City Council. But as detailed in the Irish Independent yesterday, the plans are in crisis once more as Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy states there is no funding for proposed affordable rental units.

This shows that, despite all the rhetoric, his Government is ideologically opposed to building genuinely affordable rental and social housing on a major scale on public land. Rather than using our huge public land banks to solve the devastating crisis facing renters and the homeless, instead they are forcing failed PPP policies that hand the land to developers to build mainly private "unaffordable" housing on public land.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/rory-hearne-generation-rent-searches-for-homes-as-government-invests-in-corporate-welfare-38705066.html

Topgear on Dave

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You don't need to comment on it.

Good article today actually.

Rory Hearne of People Before Profit.

Yes, PBP generally have all the solutions and few intentions of getting involved in putting them into practice.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Rory Hearne of People Before Profit.

Yes, PBP generally have all the solutions and few intentions of getting involved in putting them into practice.

Very general.
What about the article don't you like/agree with? I think its on point myself.

Liberta Per Gli Ultra

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/1119/1092823-cso-labour-force-survey/

Very interesting article.

"Its latest findings show that the number of people who were employed in the third quarter stood at 2,326,900 - the highest number ever - and an increase of 2.4% or 53,700 from the same time last year."

Record levels of employment, more people in Ireland working than ever before. That is something of note.

It'd be interesting if it mentioned the quality of jobs as well as the quantity; pay, security, working conditions. It'd be really interesting if it mentioned where the f*ck all those people are supposed to live, without having their wages robbed by landlords.

blanch152

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

It'd be interesting if it mentioned the quality of jobs as well as the quantity; pay, security, working conditions. It'd be really interesting if it mentioned where the f*ck all those people are supposed to live, without having their wages robbed by landlords.

Actually heard the Director of the ESRI on Newstalk this evening.

6 out of the 8 regions are experiencing jobs growth.
Pay is up 3-4%.
Part-time workers who are underemployed (i.e. want full-time) are down.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Actually heard the Director of the ESRI on Newstalk this evening.

6 out of the 8 regions are experiencing jobs growth.
Pay is up 3-4%.
Part-time workers who are underemployed (i.e. want full-time) are down.

That's looking like your are responding, while literally ignoring the post.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's looking like your are responding, while literally ignoring the post.

Huh? Which bit of the posts did you not understand?

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

It'd be interesting if it mentioned the quality of jobs as well as the quantity; pay, security, working conditions. It'd be really interesting if it mentioned where the f*ck all those people are supposed to live, without having their wages robbed by landlords.

blanch152 wrote: »

Actually heard the Director of the ESRI on Newstalk this evening.

6 out of the 8 regions are experiencing jobs growth.
Pay is up 3-4%.
Part-time workers who are underemployed (i.e. want full-time) are down.

Quality of jobs: Answered in relation to the number of part-time workers who want full-time going down

Pay: Answered in 3-4% up

Where they are going to live: Jobs being created in the regions outside Dublin for the first time.

The rest of the post was a rant that could have come from anyone in the ranks of the permanently outraged, so I ignored it.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Huh? Which bit of the posts did you not understand?






Quality of jobs: Answered in relation to the number of part-time workers who want full-time going down

Pay: Answered in 3-4% up

Where they are going to live: Jobs being created in the regions outside Dublin for the first time.

The rest of the post was a rant that could have come from anyone in the ranks of the permanently outraged, so I ignored it.

That attitude is why Fianna Fail will always come out on top over Fine Gael. FF pretend to care.
He made a valid and true point.

Dytalus

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

It'd be interesting if it mentioned the quality of jobs as well as the quantity; pay, security, working conditions. It'd be really interesting if it mentioned where the f*ck all those people are supposed to live, without having their wages robbed by landlords.

These are always the questions I start asking when any Government starts lauding employment records. The US has similarly excellent employment rates, but some 28% of them have no emergency savings and are as a result one missed paycheck away from not paying rent. Or one medical bill away from bankruptcy. Average pay can be inflated (especially in a small population like ours) with a few extremely well paid people at the top end of the scale.

So I'm gonna start digging. If this post is massively delayed then that's why - it's gonna take a while to compile the info and link sources. Back in a bit...

[Loading...]

+Employment rates rose 2.4% up to Q3 2019, a total of 53,700 for the year so far. This brings Ireland's total employment rate to 69.1% URL="https://pdf.cso.ie/www/pdf/20191119091827_Labour_Force_Survey_LFS_Quarter_3_2019_full.pdf"]Labour Force Survey, P4[/URL
+Average weekly earnings up 3.5% up to Q2 2019. This coincides with an increase in the Consumer Price Index of 0.7% between October 2019 and October 2018.
+Of the labour force, 111.8 thousand people (44.3k male, 67.5k female) are listed as "Part-time, underemployed". Compared to Q3 2018 (111.5k total) this is an increase of 300 people - ie, 0.6% of the number of jobs created in the past year. URL="https://pdf.cso.ie/www/pdf/20191119091827_Labour_Force_Survey_LFS_Quarter_3_2019_full.pdf"]LFS, P4[/URL
+However, a significant percentage of the jobs created since 2012 have been in "above average precariousness" areas and industries. There's no hard definition of 'precarious' but it can be generally described as "at risk of losing employment".

However, a substantial proportion of this growth has come from sectors with above average at-risk of precariousness - 42 percent.

URL="https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/precarious_work_in_the_republic_of_ireland_july_19_final.pdf"]Precarious Work in the Republic of Ireland, NERI - Pages 6-10[/URL

+The nearest date I can find regarding working conditions is a report by the Health and Safety Authority which covers figures up to 2015. I'll update this post if I find anything more recent, but:

Using this measure, we find that in 2015, 17 per cent of Irish employees experienced job stress. This was an increase from 8 per cent in 2010, meaning that job stress doubled over the course of five years. In order to benchmark the findings for Ireland, we compare them to results for nine other countries in Western Europe and see that the incidence of job stress among employees in Ireland was below the average in both years. In our closest comparator, the UK, levels of job stress were 13 per cent in 2010 and 18 per cent in 2015. Ireland was one of the countries showing the steepest increase in job stress between 2010 and 2015.

URL="https://www.hsa.ie/eng/publications_and_forms/publications/research_publications/job_stress_and_working_condition_-_ireland_in_comparative_perspective.pdf"]Job Stress and Working Conditions in Ireland, page "x" (or p13 depending on your reader)[/URL


[END]

So it looks like things are improving. Still some issues to be corrected, and I cannot find a 'median' (which imo is a much better read of how the average person's income is holding) income for Ireland for 2019 no matter how hard I look. Given the 2018 median was only made readily available from the CSO last Friday, it'll be a while before we can compare 2019's mean and median.

For completeness sake, a 2018 comparison URL="https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eaads/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources2018/mainresults/"]Earnings Analysis using Administrative Data Sources 2018, Main Results[/URL.

Mean (Average) Weekly Earnings, 2018: €740.72, a 3.4% increase on €716.40 in 2017.
Median Weekly Earnings, 2018: €592.60, a 2.9% increase from €517.62 €575.75 in 2017.

Hypothetically, and purely in my own opinion, we could see this gap increase when the 2019 figures come out. The highest increase in jobs in 2019 so far has been in the "Financial, insurance and real estate activities", accounting for 13,000 of the 53,700 jobs.. Per the 2018 EAADS from the CSO, we can see that this sector has one of the largest discrepancies between the mean and the median wage (roughly €270 euro in the difference). If that trend carries over into 2019, then the majority of the 2019 created jobs will be in an industry where the average worker is earning below the average wage - which will increase the median/mean gap overall for employment figures.

We won't know until likely this time next year when the 2019 EAADS is released.

tobsey

Dytalus wrote: »

Median Weekly Earnings, 2018: €592.60, a 2.9% increase from €517.62 in 2017.

Just to highlight the 2017 figure was €575.75 which rose 2.9% to €592.60

tobsey

tobsey wrote: »

Just to highlight the 2017 figure was €575.75 which rose 2.9% to €592.60

The gap between median and mean rose from €140 to €148 in the year, or by 5%. So there's an element of the rich getting richer there, but overall there is an improvement for all across the board.

blanch152

Dytalus wrote: »

These are always the questions I start asking when any Government starts lauding employment records. The US has similarly excellent employment rates, but some 28% of them have no emergency savings and are as a result one missed paycheck away from not paying rent. Or one medical bill away from bankruptcy. Average pay can be inflated (especially in a small population like ours) with a few extremely well paid people at the top end of the scale.

So I'm gonna start digging. If this post is massively delayed then that's why - it's gonna take a while to compile the info and link sources. Back in a bit...

[Loading...]

+Employment rates rose 2.4% up to Q3 2019, a total of 53,700 for the year so far. This brings Ireland's total employment rate to 69.1% URL="https://pdf.cso.ie/www/pdf/20191119091827_Labour_Force_Survey_LFS_Quarter_3_2019_full.pdf"]Labour Force Survey, P4[/URL
+Average weekly earnings up 3.5% up to Q2 2019. This coincides with an increase in the Consumer Price Index of 0.7% between October 2019 and October 2018.
+Of the labour force, 111.8 thousand people (44.3k male, 67.5k female) are listed as "Part-time, underemployed". Compared to Q3 2018 (111.5k total) this is an increase of 300 people - ie, 0.6% of the number of jobs created in the past year. URL="https://pdf.cso.ie/www/pdf/20191119091827_Labour_Force_Survey_LFS_Quarter_3_2019_full.pdf"]LFS, P4[/URL
+However, a significant percentage of the jobs created since 2012 have been in "above average precariousness" areas and industries. There's no hard definition of 'precarious' but it can be generally described as "at risk of losing employment".

URL="https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/precarious_work_in_the_republic_of_ireland_july_19_final.pdf"]Precarious Work in the Republic of Ireland, NERI - Pages 6-10[/URL

+The nearest date I can find regarding working conditions is a report by the Health and Safety Authority which covers figures up to 2015. I'll update this post if I find anything more recent, but:

URL="https://www.hsa.ie/eng/publications_and_forms/publications/research_publications/job_stress_and_working_condition_-_ireland_in_comparative_perspective.pdf"]Job Stress and Working Conditions in Ireland, page "x" (or p13 depending on your reader)[/URL


[END]

So it looks like things are improving. Still some issues to be corrected, and I cannot find a 'median' (which imo is a much better read of how the average person's income is holding) income for Ireland for 2019 no matter how hard I look. Given the 2018 median was only made readily available from the CSO last Friday, it'll be a while before we can compare 2019's mean and median.

For completeness sake, a 2018 comparison URL="https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eaads/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources2018/mainresults/"]Earnings Analysis using Administrative Data Sources 2018, Main Results[/URL.

Mean (Average) Weekly Earnings, 2018: €740.72, a 3.4% increase on €716.40 in 2017.
Median Weekly Earnings, 2018: €592.60, a 2.9% increase from €517.62 in 2017.

Hypothetically, and purely in my own opinion, we could see this gap increase when the 2019 figures come out. The highest increase in jobs in 2019 so far has been in the "Financial, insurance and real estate activities", accounting for 13,000 of the 53,700 jobs.. Per the 2018 EAADS from the CSO, we can see that this sector has one of the largest discrepancies between the mean and the median wage (roughly €270 euro in the difference). If that trend carries over into 2019, then the majority of the 2019 created jobs will be in an industry where the average worker is earning below the average wage - which will increase the median/mean gap overall for employment figures.

We won't know until likely this time next year when the 2019 EAADS is released.

13,000 extra jobs in the financial, insurance and real estate activities? A hidden benefit of Brexit?

Dytalus

blanch152 wrote: »

13,000 extra jobs in the financial, insurance and real estate activities? A hidden benefit of Brexit?

We know a lot of firms moved (or talked about moving), and even if they didn't publicly up and leave Britain they may have started making the decision to enlarge their Irish offices instead of any UK based ones just in case.

Certainly not outside the realms of possibility.

Dytalus

tobsey wrote: »

Just to highlight the 2017 figure was €575.75 which rose 2.9% to €592.60

Yes, you're right. I copied the wrong figure when transcribing - the €517 figure is for women's median earnings in 2017, not overall.

is_that_so

Pretty silly "stunt" and out of nowhere from a party who allegedly have aspirations of getting more seats and of being in power.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1127/1095457-politics/

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

Pretty silly "stunt" and out of nowhere from a party who allegedly have aspirations of getting more seats and of being in power.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1127/1095457-politics/

I think someone should raise it every few months. The facts show FG/Murphy have been a disaster in that area.
All FG can do is go after the motive because the record breaking numbers are there.

L1011

is_that_so wrote: »

Pretty silly "stunt" and out of nowhere from a party who allegedly have aspirations of getting more seats and of being in power.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1127/1095457-politics/

LE/EE results suggest they're going to get two seats next time also - their transfers may actually be more important than their reps as if they have some soft deals to transfer to the Greens and/or Labour it could tumble a few of those over the line

Of their three great hopes for the GE one failed to get elected to the council (McNally), one didn't run (O Tuathail) and one failed to get his replacement on the council after moving to another ward (Gannon) which implies very little of the vote is the parties rather than his. I'm not sure of any other seat they were realistically targetting.

ddarcy

is_that_so wrote: »

Pretty silly "stunt" and out of nowhere from a party who allegedly have aspirations of getting more seats and of being in power.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1127/1095457-politics/

I think they are taking the gamble that FG will not have the numbers to keep him in after Friday. Leo doesn’t have to call an election if Murphy is ousted. So if there is one it will be all Leo’s fault. Makes the bye elections a bit more interesting anyways.

Not sure if now is the best time though to do this. Health will start making more bad headlines when winter officially hits. I guess it gets them in the headlines and even more so if they cause him to get ousted.

is_that_so

ddarcy wrote: »

I think they are taking the gamble that FG will not have the numbers to keep him in after Friday. Leo doesn’t have to call an election if Murphy is ousted. So if there is one it will be all Leo’s fault. Makes the bye elections a bit more interesting anyways.

Not sure if now is the best time though to do this. Health will start making more bad headlines when winter officially hits. I guess it gets them in the headlines and even more so if they cause him to get ousted.

It's way too late to have one before Christmas and FF seem to be thinking Spring. I'd also say the motion will fail. It's a fairly dumb one, given that whatever night be happening is not going to come onstream in the near future, but it looks good in optics.

is_that_so

Not sure about the latest Fiscal Council commentary. It's all very woulda, shoulda,coulda. Annual healthcare overruns aside, there is logic in Government housing spending.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1128/1095656-fiscal-overspending/

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

It's way too late to have one before Christmas and FF seem to be thinking Spring. I'd also say the motion will fail. It's a fairly dumb one, given that whatever night be happening is not going to come onstream in the near future, but it looks good in optics.

Maybe they care about society? I see FF are abstaining.
Still, nothing dumb about public representatives representing the public interest despite any perceived motive. Murphy and FG have been a complete disaster on this. FG can't fudge that with talk of stunts.