Protest on Wednesday 3/11

JonJoeDali · 04-11-2010 11:08AM

"Free" education is a failed Labour/socialist policy. We should shut down all the crappy ITs and "universities".

We could keep two or three State-run universities and seven or eight Statue-run ITs that focus on the needs of the economy (the "knowledge economy" or whatever the political buzz-word of the day is). The rest should be privatised. If they can't survive by attracting fee-paying students, international funding and philanthropists, there's something inherently wrong.

There was a day where Trinity could survive totally on her assets: rental income, trusts, student fees, etc. The Irish government ruined Trinity when she was forced to double her student numbers under the duress of the forced amalgamation of UCD and Trinity College. Sure, we got money from Government in return for the increased students, but the character of the College was destroyed, we adopted a socialist dependent mindset where the State pays for everything and we sold off long-term assets to pay for current account deficits. All this (not to mention the pension liability) has resulted in Trinity being a pastiche of its former self where people who couldn't care less about the reputation and history of the College work to extract as many benefits for themselves. The only thing left are the facades and a few remnants of brilliance here and there (totally nullified, of course, by the piles driftwood washed in over the years).

rjt · 04-11-2010 02:39PM

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

You thinking their reasons for marching are inadequate doesn't negate the fact that they tried to do something, however misplaced those efforts may or may not have been.

But it does negate the implication that protesting was better than going to college (from the point of view of someone who believes the reasons for marching are inadequate).

Also, the "it's only 2 hours out of the year argument" is more or less the same as the opposing "I'm only one person out of 20,000" argument.

PurpleFistMixer · 04-11-2010 03:35PM

rjt wrote: »

But it does negate the implication that protesting was better than going to college (from the point of view of someone who believes the reasons for marching are inadequate).

Well certainly, if the person puts no value in the march, due to disagreeing with it on some/any level, then almost anything else would be more worthwhile. I was making the assumption that these people staying in college were potential marchers who decided they couldn't afford to spare 2 hours. Otherwise it would be pretty silly to expect them to march.

rjt wrote: »

Also, the "it's only 2 hours out of the year argument" is more or less the same as the opposing "I'm only one person out of 20,000" argument.

I don't think so, really. I assume the parallel you're drawing is the "if everyone thought like this/if I thought like this every day, then it would have a bad result", but it's more "if I thought like this every time a march came up" rather than "every day" which is less than once per year, so even if they did always do it, it would impact quite negligibly on their college work (unless they started going to non-SU-related marches as well, or something).

rjt · 04-11-2010 03:39PM

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

I don't think so, really. I assume the parallel you're drawing is the "if everyone thought like this/if I thought like this every day, then it would have a bad result", but it's more "if I thought like this every time a march came up" rather than "every day" which is less than once per year, so even if they did always do it, it would impact quite negligibly on their college work (unless they started going to non-SU-related marches as well, or something).

Yeah, that's a fair point.

oharach · 08-11-2010 11:23AM

This debate has gone on far too long about WHETHER fees should be imposed. Most students – in their serious moments – would probably agree that we can't afford not to introduce fees in the economic climate.

The real issue is HOW the fees are paid – up-front fees do deter poor students. The British have an excellent proven system where they charged £3,200, but all students were entitled to an up-front loan. This was repayable only after graduation, and only where graduates earned more than £15,000 p.a. This did not deter poor students.

Student loans must be reformed to enable the introduction of student fees.

amacachi · 08-11-2010 01:57PM

oharach wrote: »

This debate has gone on far too long about WHETHER fees should be imposed. Most students – in their serious moments – would probably agree that we can't afford not to introduce fees in the economic climate.

The real issue is HOW the fees are paid – up-front fees do deter poor students. The British have an excellent proven system where they charged £3,200, but all students were entitled to an up-front loan. This was repayable only after graduation, and only where graduates earned more than £15,000 p.a. This did not deter poor students.

Student loans must be reformed to enable the introduction of student fees.

That's how I would like it, but some people claim that it would still deter poorer students.
I also think it could help level the playing field for getting into college in the first place, faced with college fees parents might spend less on the child's second-level education.

aas · 08-11-2010 02:13PM

oharach wrote: »

This debate has gone on far too long about WHETHER fees should be imposed. Most students – in their serious moments – would probably agree that we can't afford not to introduce fees in the economic climate.

The real issue is HOW the fees are paid – up-front fees do deter poor students. The British have an excellent proven system where they charged £3,200, but all students were entitled to an up-front loan. This was repayable only after graduation, and only where graduates earned more than £15,000 p.a. This did not deter poor students.

Student loans must be reformed to enable the introduction of student fees.

You're assuming we can't afford to introduce fees. My morning trip to college via the Luas station by Alexandra college informs me that there's still plenty of money floating around at the top.

Jonathan · 08-11-2010 02:41PM

aas wrote: »

You're assuming we can't afford to introduce fees. My morning trip to college via the Luas station by Alexandra college informs me that there's still plenty of money floating around at the top.

The state is essentially bankrupt.

aas · 08-11-2010 05:48PM

Jonathan wrote: »

The state is essentially bankrupt.

I'm saying there are better targets than students. I don't mean to sound all populist here, but honestly, why aren't we seeing things like cuts in ministerial pay? If we're going to discuss this with IT articles...

Mark200 · 08-11-2010 06:14PM

aas wrote: »

I'm saying there are better targets than students. I don't mean to sound all populist here, but honestly, why aren't we seeing things like cuts in ministerial pay? If we're going to discuss this with IT articles...

Minister cars exist based on the recommendations of An Garda Siochana.

And everyone is going to say "not me" whenever they think they're about to be targeted by Government cuts.

electrogrimey · 09-11-2010 12:22AM

Mark200 wrote: »

Minister cars exist based on the recommendations of An Garda Siochana.

And everyone is going to say "not me" whenever they think they're about to be targeted by Government cuts.

To be fair, you can't defend ministerial pay & expenses when they're taking a rise in salary and expenses this year.

Does anyone know what the proposed rise in fees will actually bring in?

My main problem with their €3000 plan is that the college won't get any more money, they'll still only get their €800 or so, the rest just being a tax disguised as helping colleges.

bythewoods · 09-11-2010 02:01AM

FFS. We're in major debt.
The money has to come from somewhere, it's a simple concept. It's not just students taking the hit, it's pretty much everyone!

As a student, I certainly don't want to pay more money on reg. fees. But c'mon, look at things from a broader perspective... we can't just live in a dreamy little world forever. Reality bites.

Get a loan if you can't afford it. I had a small one and paid it off, very doable.

I agree a whole reform of the system's probably needed, but we *need* the money. Now. Not in a few years time.

amacachi · 09-11-2010 02:04AM

bythewoods wrote: »

FFS. We're in major debt.
The money has to come from somewhere, it's a simple concept. It's not just students taking the hit, it's pretty much everyone!

As a student, I certainly don't want to pay more money on reg. fees. But c'mon, look at things from a broader perspective... we can't just live in a dreamy little world forever. Reality bites.

Get a loan if you can't afford it. I had a small one and paid it off, very doable.

I agree a whole reform of the system's probably needed, but we *need* the money. Now. Not in a few years time.

Fees with loans would be ok, even though it wouldn't help the books for a coupla years the change would help us.

As it is though if the budget doesn't pass the state is going to literally run out of cash around April, and only the EU and IMF will be there to help us and the fruits of those whinging about reduced public sector pay and social welfare etc. will be there for everyone. Sigh.

tolosenc · 09-11-2010 04:23AM

electrogrimey wrote: »

My main problem with their €3000 plan is that the college won't get any more money, they'll still only get their €800 or so, the rest just being a tax disguised as helping colleges.

1) There is no €3000 plan
2) The college gets every last cent of the Reg fee.

Steve Higginson · 09-11-2010 10:58AM

tolosenc wrote: »

2) The college gets every last cent of the Reg fee.

And they get exactly that much less in the core grant from the government.

Mark200 · 09-11-2010 11:31AM

electrogrimey wrote: »

To be fair, you can't defend ministerial pay & expenses when they're taking a rise in salary and expenses this year.

If you're referring to the topic in AH about the supposed raise in TD salaries, then that's just not true. The bill that was passed was an estimate on expenses. They can estimate whatever they want, that doesn't mean they'll be getting a cent more.

oharach · 09-11-2010 12:32PM

electrogrimey wrote: »

To be fair, you can't defend ministerial pay & expenses when they're taking a rise in salary and expenses this year.

Does anyone know what the proposed rise in fees will actually bring in?

I absolute do not defend ministerial pay and expenses. They should come down to the OECD average.

However, even if the entire cabinet forewent their salaries, it would mean a miniscule reduction in state indebtedness in comparison to raising the registration fee for every student in Ireland.

According to cso.ie, there were 134,000 ROI students at Irish colleges in 2009. Of course some don't pay the registration fee, and there are plenty of UK/EU students paying it, but raising the fee from €1500 to €2500 basically allows the government to cut 134,000 x €1,000 = €134m from the education budget. You're not going to get that from Ministers.

a new story · 09-11-2010 12:33PM

hippies:eek:

electrogrimey · 09-11-2010 08:31PM

Mark200 wrote: »

If you're referring to the topic in AH about the supposed raise in TD salaries, then that's just not true. The bill that was passed was an estimate on expenses. They can estimate whatever they want, that doesn't mean they'll be getting a cent more.

Didn't see it in AH, I'm not on there at all. It was in the independent. It's not a supposed raise, it's a bill that was passed which will be part of the budget and come into effect when the budget's passed.

Groinshot · 09-11-2010 10:02PM

bythewoods wrote: »

Well, the SU in Trinity were handing the t-shirts out for free, as well as wristbands and banners. And posters. And face paint?

Money well spent.

What do you expect them to spend it on? student services?

Mark200 · 09-11-2010 10:08PM

electrogrimey wrote: »

Didn't see it in AH, I'm not on there at all. It was in the independent. It's not a supposed raise, it's a bill that was passed which will be part of the budget and come into effect when the budget's passed.

Yeah, the independent is the only place that seems to have bothered reporting the non-story. As I said, it was an estimate of expenses. Not a pay rise.

electrogrimey · 09-11-2010 10:44PM

Mark200 wrote: »

Yeah, the independent is the only place that seems to have bothered reporting the non-story. As I said, it was an estimate of expenses. Not a pay rise.

How does passing a bill to raise the Dail salary in the upcoming budget not count as a pay rise?

Of course RTE haven't covered it, they're Government run, and generally don't report things that reflect unfavorably on the government.

Mark200 · 09-11-2010 10:45PM

electrogrimey wrote: »

How does passing a bill to raise the Dail salary in the upcoming budget not count as a pay rise?

Of course RTE haven't covered it, they're Government run, and generally don't report things that reflect unfavorably on the government.

Because it wasn't a bill to raise the Dail salary.

electrogrimey · 09-11-2010 11:03PM

Mark200 wrote: »

Because it wasn't a bill to raise the Dail salary.

Ok, it was an estimate of what will happen next year, which was unanimously agreed upon, including a salary raise for the Dail.

Meaning, the Dail are getting a salary raise in 2011.

Mark200 · 10-11-2010 12:43AM

electrogrimey wrote: »

Ok, it was an estimate of what will happen next year, which was unanimously agreed upon, including a salary raise for the Dail.

Meaning, the Dail are getting a salary raise in 2011.

There's only two references to TD salaries in the whole article. The first one is a bit vague:

The cost of salaries for TDs, senators and secretarial assistants will increase, while salaries of staff like those in catering and behind the Dail bar will decrease.

It's vague because it's unclear as to whether it means salaries for TDs, Senators and Assistants as a whole are going to increase... or whether each position individually will increase. My guess is that it includes all three as a whole.

The only other reference to salaries is the last paragraph:

Though some minimalistic cuts are revealed in the anticipated expenses of TDs and senators, one source noted that "when the increases are taken in the round, TDs and senators will not be losing a penny in salaries and expenses next year''.

Which seems to imply that salaries will stay where they are for TDs and Senators.

FYI - The "cost of salaries" increasing is not the same as TDs/Senators/whatever getting a salary increase. For example, if there were to be more TDs to be paid in the next year (with the upcoming by-elections and all) than this year, then the cost of salaries would increase despite TDs earning the same amount.

electrogrimey · 10-11-2010 12:54AM

Ok, I've guessed thus far that you're a Fianna Fail-er, but that's fine.

You have no problem with TDs and Senators getting a bigger budget for expenses and salaries while the country is at a serious risk of defaulting?

So far you're avoiding that question by nitpicking about my wording.

It's even more shameful that they're more than likely going to come out and make a statement saying 'the overall costs of the houses of the oireachtas are going down', by which they mean they're firing/lowering the wages of all low level workers in the buildings, but giving themselves more expenses and better salaries.

Mark200 · 10-11-2010 09:40AM

electrogrimey wrote: »

Ok, I've guessed thus far that you're a Fianna Fail-er, but that's fine.

You guessed wrong, but that's fine. I don't see why facts have to be exclusive to any political party.

electrogrimey wrote: »

You have no problem with TDs and Senators getting a bigger budget for expenses and salaries while the country is at a serious risk of defaulting?

So far you're avoiding that question by nitpicking about my wording.

It's even more shameful that they're more than likely going to come out and make a statement saying 'the overall costs of the houses of the oireachtas are going down', by which they mean they're firing/lowering the wages of all low level workers in the buildings, but giving themselves more expenses and better salaries.

I didn't say I have no problem with them getting a bigger budget for expenses. I do, I think the expenses system is terrible. But I do have a problem with people just making up reasons to be angry at the Government. The fact is that the bill passed does not represent an increase in salaries for individual TDs. There's no nitpicking about it. You said the TDs were taking a rise in salaries, which is just not true. As said, if they simply expect to have to pay more TDs next year than this year then that would mean the cost of salaries would rise despite the TDs not getting a rise in salaries.

There's also nothing concrete in the article to suggest that low level workers are going to be made to take a wage cut. For all we know, one member of the bar staff could be expected to retire next month and they just aren't going to replace him/her. That would also see a drop in the cost of wages for low-level workers. These rises and drops in expected costs of wages doesn't necessarily mean that people will be getting a wage increase or wage cut. It can simply mean that there will be more/less people in a particular area that need to be paid.

We'll have to wait until the real budget to see what the salaries for Government employees will be.

electrogrimey · 10-11-2010 05:35PM

Mark200 wrote: »

You guessed wrong, but that's fine. I don't see why facts have to be exclusive to any political party.

I didn't say I have no problem with them getting a bigger budget for expenses. I do, I think the expenses system is terrible. But I do have a problem with people just making up reasons to be angry at the Government. The fact is that the bill passed does not represent an increase in salaries for individual TDs. There's no nitpicking about it. You said the TDs were taking a rise in salaries, which is just not true. As said, if they simply expect to have to pay more TDs next year than this year then that would mean the cost of salaries would rise despite the TDs not getting a rise in salaries.

There's also nothing concrete in the article to suggest that low level workers are going to be made to take a wage cut. For all we know, one member of the bar staff could be expected to retire next month and they just aren't going to replace him/her. That would also see a drop in the cost of wages for low-level workers. These rises and drops in expected costs of wages doesn't necessarily mean that people will be getting a wage increase or wage cut. It can simply mean that there will be more/less people in a particular area that need to be paid.

We'll have to wait until the real budget to see what the salaries for Government employees will be.

Ok, they're all valid possibilities. But do you really believe they're true? Does it not seem much more likely that the government are just doing what they've always done again?

At least I'm being realistic about it.

Mark200 · 10-11-2010 07:27PM

electrogrimey wrote: »

Ok, they're all valid possibilities. But do you really believe they're true? Does it not seem much more likely that the government are just doing what they've always done again?

At least I'm being realistic about it.

It's not realistic in the slightest to think that with the Government about to fight 3 bye-elections and facing the biggest budget cuts in the state's history that they'd even dare raise their salary.

electrogrimey · 10-11-2010 07:56PM

Mark200 wrote: »

It's not realistic in the slightest to think that with the Government about to fight 3 bye-elections and facing the biggest budget cuts in the state's history that they'd even dare raise their salary.

They're daring to appeal the court's decision to have the bye-election this month, simply because they know they'll lose it, i.e. they're intentionally acting directly against the interest of the people.

How is it not realistic to think they'll give themselves a raise?

Protest on Wednesday 3/11

Comments