New Party: The Social Democrats.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

This report from the HEA found that the breakdown between academic and support staff in Irish third level institutions was 54% to 46% in the 2011/12 academic year. That amounts to 52.8 support staff per 1,000 students.

We seem to be ahead of the UK anyway, who've more support staff than academics (51% to 49%). That corresponds to 87.6 support staff per 1,000 students.

How does that compare to international averages. According to these 2010 OECD figures (see table D2.4b), the EU average is 57.8 support staff per 1,000 students, although it's incomplete since a lot of countries, including the Nordics didn't provide figures.

Another indicator is the proportion of third level budgets spend on administrative salaries. These 2010 OECD figures (see table B6.2) find that Ireland spends 27.8% on compensation for non-teaching staff. The EU average was 26.2%. Of the Nordics who reported figures, Denmark spent 33.1%, Finland spend 29.2%.

What conclusions can we draw? If administrative bloat is a problem at Irish third level institutions, it would appear we aren't alone and it's much worse in some other countries.

This is why I despise using "international norms" as a barometer for acceptability. Democracy in the Western world is completely f*cked, and so is the private financial system. This is obviously not at all unique to Ireland, so why do we keep looking at international norms rather than at individual case studies like Bannasidhe has provided?

It's like comparing murder rates to those in other cities - we should be striving for zero, not saying "well our x% is in line with other countries so let's not put in any further work to reduce it". Why should we settle for average? Forget about what everyone else is doing - waste is waste.

This whole "in line with the OECD average" line which keeps being trotted out is no different to Lance Armstrong's "I did use blood doping, but so did every other cyclist of my generation" bullsh!t.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think you may have missed the point of the comparison to be honest.

Not sure if I did - what I'm saying is forget international averages altogether. Let's decide as a nation how much waste we regard as acceptable, not simply look at others and say "we're doing well enough". If Irish people aren't ok with any administrative waste in universities for example, then we shouldn't tolerate any - regardless of whether that would make our regime far harsher than the international average.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That is the system now in place in the US post-Obamacare. The uninsured rate is down to 11.4%:



This article (although slightly dated being from 2014) shows there are a few issues to work out, such as confusion over whether people need cover, confusion over incentives to help those who cannot afford it and cultural issues.



Over 33% of Hispanics are still uninsured (by far the largest uninsured group) for reasons ranging from low levels of Marketplace participation among this group and a delayed and poorly translated Spanish-language version of HealthCare.gov, to fears that sharing personal information could result in deportation of their family member or jeopardize their own legal status. (see: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/03/18/why-are-hispanics-slow-to-enroll-in-aca-coverage-insights-from-the-health-reform-monitoring-survey/ )

There is also an issue with the so-called "young invincibles":



There is no real reason that this figure will not decrease in the coming years to an effective near-full insured status between the Marketplace and Medicaid.

That's very impressive and I look forward to reading about the great strides in improving the US healthcare system which has become the most expensive yet relatively poorly performing health system in the OECD. I know its an even older report than yours but it outlines the difficulties associated with depending on the private insurance market to supply healthcare.

http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries/

jank wrote: »

We agree on that at least that the Australian Health Care system is superior to the Irish one. The OH has availed of it here numerous times and has had three surgeries due to a condition she was born with. She has also experienced the Irish version of similar procedures and there was no comparison on the level of after care and efficiency.

There are numerous reasons for this. The formation of the HSE was a disaster as it created monster that cannot be reformed due to the power of the unions and lack of political will. Politicians cannot take a knife to it and create a leaner more efficient machine because of the backlash it would get from the Unions. The unions in Ireland hold massive power, people do not realise how much influence they exert until you see how public policy is implemented elsewhere. John Crown (who is not a right wing hawk) has been on about this for 15 years, yet we fudge along because its convenient.

The electorate also have to take responsibility. Remember the medical card issue last year? The government wanted to audit it and get rid of medical cards that were not being used, makes sense right and many of them belonged to people who were actually dead, many people were better or their financial status had improved. However, the HSE made a mess of it and it was a PR disaster. Taking medical cards away from autistic and terminally ill children for example.

However, the electorate instead of going, 'well we agree with the premise of doing a proper audit to save tax payers money but please HSE stop ****ing it up, health minster get it and kick some ass in there', instead went on Joe Duffy mode, 'sure its terrible, tut tut, the government don't care about the poor and vulnerable, tut tut, they hate the poor'.
We engaged in mass hysteria instead of examining the root cause of the issue a delinquent and unaccountable state organisation called the HSE. We SHOULD have demanded it be reformed because of this, instead we demanded a halt to this audit and that all medical cards be re-instated post-haste and leave the HSE as it is....

THIS is the reason why Health care in other western OECD countries is better then Ireland, in general. Until we as a nation and people grow up then it will always be thus.

And that is not even touching on the whole 'write a letter to your TD for a medical card, wink wink...' type of client-ism we have in Ireland.

I agree, with one caveat which is to say I still think it is a cop-out to lay the blame at the feet of the Unions - not because I think the Unions are blameless, FAR from it, but because I think the Unions (or to be precise their leadership) are just one of many snouts lining up to feed.

Snout in the Trough = The Irish Dream.

Now, I could go in to reams and reams about post-colonial identity and why we are up to our oxters in it but I'd bore myself never mind everyone else.

So - a few points to consider:
We have a Constitution written for the Free State (a dominion) not specifically a republic. Such regard for our republic that essentially all we did was change the name on the letterheads...

Our main parties:
The core of FG came from the Southern Unionists who, seeing which way the wind was blowing abandoned the IPP and drifted to Cumann na nGaedheal. I don't know why people are shocked when John Bruton comes out with the wee unionist stylee prose - he is being perfectly honest and reflecting the true heart of FG. They are country squire wet Tories.

FF - Anything for a vote because the only important thing in life is to be a man of influence in your locality. A party that came into existence because people who started a civil war, ignoring the democratic will of the people along the way, on a point of 'principle' suddenly decided that principle wasn't so pointed after all and sure what is an oath between friends. They were content to insult British officials in public while making sure it was business as usual in the background.

LP - Founded, along with the Citizen's Army, in response to the 1913 Lockout. Contained the spark that ignited the 1916 Rising. Died with Connelly. The LP is a corpse that doesn't know it's dead. It has survived this long only because of injections of other parties into its veins as they see the banner of the LP as the best route to the Holy Trough.

SF - Destroyed by internship in WWII. This current incarnation has too much historical baggage - it cannot claim to be part of the founding of the State being an off-shoot of the losing side in the War of Independence and it's too 'Ulster' for many in the South. Also... they are a bit in love with their own PR...

The thing is - every single one of them has their roots in our colonial past. Their M.O.s were set before there was even a Free State, never mind a republic.

We need to get the hell over that and form an independent country with an independent mindset, not remain a colony in our hearts, minds and State Institutions.

But instead we got the PD's - FF'ers who did not like Haughey's extreme populism and blatant gombeenism and wanted to revert to Dev's 'stately' populism ans subtle gombeenism while trying to convince themselves Dessie was the new Lemass. Neo-Liberal wannabes but really just disaffected FF's.

Renua - FG's version of the PD's, slightly less of the old school Southern Unionist country squire influence and more of a nod towards Thatcher's Tories than Heath's but still FG'ers.


I don't think the Sockdems can sweep in and change, change utterly but I do think to have a party that is not rooted in our colonial past but in the Irish Republic of the 21st century can only be a good indicator that we are finally growing up as a nation and that, in itself, will help bring change.

creedp wrote: »

That's very impressive and I look forward to reading about the great strides in improving the US healthcare system which has become the most expensive yet relatively poorly performing health system in the OECD. I know its an even older report than yours but it outlines the difficulties associated with depending on the private insurance market to supply healthcare.

http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries/

I know where I'd rather get sick.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I know where I'd rather get sick.

I agree when you have the money or can afford the insurance, there is no better place in the word to get sick. However, the bigger question from a societal perspective is does the US health system deliver quality outcomes on a cost efficient basis? There is plenty scope for discussion there before we categorically state we should move to a system where healthcare is provided predominantly by private institutions funded predominantly by private health insurance

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To be expected if the U.S. has the highest funded system.

jank wrote: »

However, the electorate instead of going, 'well we agree with the premise of doing a proper audit to save tax payers money but please HSE stop ****ing it up, health minster get it and kick some ass in there', instead went on Joe Duffy mode, 'sure its terrible, tut tut, the government don't care about the poor and vulnerable, tut tut, they hate the poor'.
We engaged in mass hysteria instead of examining the root cause of the issue a delinquent and unaccountable state organisation called the HSE. We SHOULD have demanded it be reformed because of this, instead we demanded a halt to this audit and that all medical cards be re-instated post-haste and leave the HSE as it is....

Can you really blame the electorate for reacting that way though? We've become so used to getting utterly f*cked over by those in power while they stuff their own faces from the trough that the knee-jerk reaction, however inaccurate in individual cases, is that the public is once again being f*cked.

And the only way this can change is with a full, complete "reset" - a total clear out of those in power and anyone remotely associated with scandals, extravagance, or incompetence. Which is why, for example, John Tierney was a bad choice - everyone remembers Poolbeg. Irish Water had zero credibility before it began as a direct result of that. After the messes Owen Keegan made in both Dun Laoghaire AND Dublin council, would you trust any large semi-state which began its life with him at the helm?

We have a revolving door of impunity in Ireland whereby if you f*ck something up, you just get transferred somewhere else. There's no such thing as a career-ending cock-up in Irish public life, and that's a serious problem which has completely eroded the public's trust in the government and its institutions. With your medical card example, the public perception was that the HSE would remain a bloated, extravagant gravy train of administration while old and poor people would be denied free healthcare - that our taxes go not to the provision of healthcare, but to the provision of desk jobs for clerical staff.

Until that perception changes, there will be a sh!tstorm any time the government talks about reducing any spending which directly impacts on people's lives. People want to see the useless spending cut first, and quality of life for the general population only reduced when it's been ascertained that the bloat has been paired to the bone.

tl;dr - there's no trust in the Irish state anymore. People go apesh!t about things like medical cards because such a sizeable proportion of the Irish public believe that the government is out to line their own pockets and screw average Joe on every single issue - and this is only going to change when everyone currently involved in the establishment has been cleared out, and a clean slate begun.

Electing new parties and independents, coupled with a total boycott of FF, FG, Labour and most likely SF based on their performance in NI, is how we do that. Think of it like a film reboot, like say Jurassic World - instead of a sequel with the same type-cast actors and actresses, we need an entirely new story with an entirely new cast.

Folks, I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Social Democrats.

How about returning to that topic?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So that means we shouldn't strive to make it operate that way?

Lawyers are generally pragmatists - we look where we are, look where we need to be and then navigate through the law. It's the basis of the job.

Many other professions operate in the exact same way, it's just the field or the "journey" that's different... medicine, finance and politics.

You're never* going to change the world that dramatically, that the very underpinning of society shifts to an ethics-based system.

(*Unless a Star Trek scenario arises and we have infinite resources and no need for money)

The goal for most is to manage a way of operating within the current structures to get from point-A to point-B pragmatically; do good things or, more realistically, try to to the least amount of bad things possible. The right thing is not always the ethical thing though.

The sooner people realise that the world operates a certain way and they're not going to change that, the sooner those people can realise that they can do good by operating within the system instead of raging against it. Ultimately, the system will win and you're left on the side of the road.

Unless we start electing people who won't tolerate that.

Who? Paul Murphy or some other idealist. They'll either capitulate and realise they can't change the system or they'll destroy the country.

Besides, the unions would never allow meaningful change in this country.

Well if you don't call what you've just alluded to "unethical", then what exactly do you call it...? Seems pretty damn unethical to me.

It's incompetent and self-serving. I don't know that it's unethical though.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's incompetent and self-serving. I don't know that it's unethical though.

I have to run out the door so I can't respond fully to your post, will do so this evening, but can I just point out what a glaring contradiction this particular remark it? Suggesting that implementing self-serving policies as someone in power isn't unethical, is like suggesting that cheating on somebody isn't dishonest.

What you've described is the very definition of politically unethical.

Sorry lads, was on the piss. Will respond presently.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Lawyers are generally pragmatists - we look where we are, look where we need to be and then navigate through the law. It's the basis of the job.

Right, that makes sense, but when we're discussing politics and government, we can also talk about changing the law where it's unsatisfactory. That's something politicians have the power to do - I appreciate of course that lawyers don't, except in the limited context of defining law by precedent (which to be fair is still a fairly powerful factor in defining how the law is applied - look at how many ambiguous laws are listed as "clarified by John v Mary, 1998" or something similar)

Many other professions operate in the exact same way, it's just the field or the "journey" that's different... medicine, finance and politics.

You're never* going to change the world that dramatically, that the very underpinning of society shifts to an ethics-based system.

This is where I disagree with you. You could argue that you'll never change the world dramatically enough to eliminate murder, but that doesn't mean you can't reduce it drastically by aiming for zero. Of course there'll always be corruption, but if we make the consequences of being caught making corrupt decisions so unpleasant as to deter all but the ballsiest of the corrupt, that would at least help. Eliminating bad is unrealistic, but by aiming to eliminate it, you can reduce it substantially.

In Ireland, we're not aiming to eliminate it, and that's what I take issue with.

The goal for most is to manage a way of operating within the current structures to get from point-A to point-B pragmatically; do good things or, more realistically, try to to the least amount of bad things possible.

And as I say above, this makes sense, but when we're talking about government, government is charged with the power and responsibility to alter the existing structures as it sees fit. Ergo, talking about reform only within the parameters of existing laws and structures is unnecessarily limiting to debate. A new party, such as that which we're discussing here, could radically reform existing structures not merely by changing them within the context of the current rules, but by burning the rule book and writing an entirely new one. Not that this is necessary or the right course, but it could be done - ergo, limiting discussions of politics to "what is currently legal" makes little sense.

The right thing is not always the ethical thing though.

Care to elaborate on this point? Examples perhaps? Not necessarily disagreeing, just not entirely sure what kind of scenarios you're alluding to.

The sooner people realise that the world operates a certain way and they're not going to change that, the sooner those people can realise that they can do good by operating within the system instead of raging against it. Ultimately, the system will win and you're left on the side of the road.

This is the part I don't agree with. Let's take a very recent example - before May 2015, would you have said to a gay person "the world operates in a certain way and you're not going to change that", and ask them instead to tolerate the limited equality they had previously been endowed with through civil partnerships, etc, and not bother campaigning for change?

I can guarantee you that the referendum wouldn't have happened at all if nobody had bothered asking for it. So there's a good example of a situation in which demanding that the system be changed, rather than attempting to work within it, was clearly the better option - and actually succeeded in achieving the desired results for those who wanted change.

How do you reconcile that with your view that attempting to change "set in stone" structures is pointless? Up until very recently historically speaking, I'm pretty sure marriage as between a man and a woman would have been regarded as one of the most "set in stone" concepts in society. Now it's been completely overhauled, and it's been overhauled by sustained activism over a period of many years.

So who's to say you can't radically change how society functions?

Who? Paul Murphy or some other idealist. They'll either capitulate and realise they can't change the system or they'll destroy the country.

Firstly, I don't approve of Mr Murphy as I've said before. Secondly, how about the SocDems as we're discussing here? And how exactly would applying some ethical rules to government "destroy the country"? That strikes me not just as hyperbole, but as hyperbole with no logical basis. Take banking for example - if we impose strict laws that never again can someone in power pick up the phone and get a loan from a friend, bypassing the "official" channels - how could that possibly "destroy the country"?

Besides, the unions would never allow meaningful change in this country.

I'm sure some previously held the exact same stance on the Catholic Church holding back progress. Look how that turned out for them.

It's incompetent and self-serving. I don't know that it's unethical though.

As I said above, I would have thought that implementing self-serving policies to the detriment of the general population was the very definition of unethical. If it isn't... What word would you ascribe to it?

Amid this entire debate, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the SocDem party is doing to succeed in changing all of these things - change takes time. But what I've seen from them so far (granted that's fairly little) in terms of how they will operate as a party and how a government led by them would function, it would be a massive step in the right direction. Of course, it's easily possible that they'll turn into another bait and switch party as you've predicted, wherein they promise reform and then just become another generic FG/FF party once in government, but shouldn't we allow at least a little optimism - wait and see how it turns out - instead of immediately consigning them to the dustbin?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Social Democrats already on 2% in today's Red C opinion poll. This in my view is a very good start, given that they've only been around for a week or two.

I can't help feeling that they've left it a little late in the day to try to gain a significant following before the election. However, with the Independent vote at 25%, they could pick up a large following simply through a lot of independents joining their banner.

My current, slightly more pessimistic than usual for me prediction, is that they'll only be a minor player in the next Dail, but that the performance of their TDs on the opposition benches during that term will make or break a large following for them. Anyone have a different view?

The crucial number of TDs for any party, be they new or established, is seven, because then they officially count as a Dáil grouping. So if new parties pass that figure in the next election, media coverage increases accordingly, otherwise they remain in the Technical Group.