The Fine Gael thread

[lynchbhoy]

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

I've seen it. At senior level - not admin / support staff, but at management level, yes.

south of the border?
ive not seen it. But it will happen. Just not yet. no need for it yet. wired network devices are more accurate and secure. Apart from presentation devices.
its not policy as of yet. Many senior people have devices but they are not 'work' devices even though work might have bought them.

No, in the north. It's moving with the times - it's not a "luxury" as you described it. I can't comment on the south, but don't see why it shouldn't happen, or why anyone should have difficulty with there being wifi in the civil service, as long as the proper controls are in place.

As long as the proper controls are in place?
What would those be?

Whatever controls are expected to mitigate the security risks you alluded to. I'm not an IT expert, but even without a wireless network there are security risks, hence firewalls etc.
Sure why bother with computers at all - let's just do it all with pen and paper and lock it away in a cabinet each night.

Really, there is no point in discussing whether there is the optimal security configuration on the strength of a crap newspaper article which didn't describe the purpose of the wifi. The point is that they were objecting to things normal in offices, it is perfectly usual for meeting rooms and the like to have wifi.

Not in civil service offices it's not!
But maybe there was a requirement.
Not the norm and not for employees.
I'd say GSOC might not want wifi in their meeting rooms any more!

This is also the point, people seem to expect the civil service to bring enormous great dusty ledgers to meetings instead of using their tablet like everyone else. Not every form of access has to be on wi-fi, of course.

or print outs and reports on paper like everyone else..

when I hear about or see civil service dudes bringing tablets and electronic devices to meetings I will let you know !!

I've seen it. At senior level - not admin / support staff, but at management level, yes.

south of the border?
ive not seen it. But it will happen. Just not yet. no need for it yet. wired network devices are more accurate and secure. Apart from presentation devices.
its not policy as of yet. Many senior people have devices but they are not 'work' devices even though work might have bought them.

No, in the north. It's moving with the times - it's not a "luxury" as you described it. I can't comment on the south, but don't see why it shouldn't happen, or why anyone should have difficulty with there being wifi in the civil service, as long as the proper controls are in place.

by the way - no guarantee sf will be as good or bad if they ever got into power down here.
different setup and not the mickey mouse effort of the six counties.

I was talking strictly in terms of the performance of the civil service, which is as relevant in the north as in the south. On other matters of government, yes, SF has yet to take charge of 'proper' powers, although some might say performance in managing the limited powers at Stormont doesn't bode well.

No offense to you but a lot of things done in the northern 6 counties - esp in politics and public sector- are fur coat no knickers type of stunts.
Look at us look at us we've titanic quarter Ulster fry alstar skats - and not a fecking jot of revenue generation outside of selling whiskey and beads / sashes.... It's like the Wild West frontier of America in 1700's
The ultra modern public sector types might all be bedecked with tablet computers - but this belies the fact that it's all run from England !!
Waste of technology on those twits!

I'm sure sf will be at least as equally as useless as what's there now in Irish gov , as well as what's gone before.
Considering also spoiling my vote next time out. Unless we get a baldy leftie culchie dole scrounging druggie standing in this constituency instead of the whest- so I can effectively spoil my vote by giving it to him !

Not sure why I should be offended.
The public sector in Northern Ireland employs around 220,000 people. And you might consider the likes of the Titanic project to be all "fur coat and no knickers", but the public sector in NI also runs health, education, pays benefits etc. - all those 'bread and butter' functions that exist in any country. It's irrelevant to this discussion that the economy isn't sophisticated, or that full government powers aren't in Belfast. My point is that SF is in power in NI, therefore consideration of how well they manage the public sector in the north is the best indication we have of how they might manage it in the south.

Ok so you are no IT expert - that usually doesn't stop you!!

Apart from presentations or census/info gathering on sites, wifi and devices are NOT the administrative tools of professional business!
Absolutely a luxury/waste of money!

There is feck all power in the north.
As the financial statement says - past performance is no guarantee of future performance !
Different setups.
But as I said I expect sf to be as inept as everyone else - as the politicians are the front for a inept mismanaging public sector that actually 'runs' the show.
Obv both our opinions though.

[Maguire01]

Eveb if 90% spoiled their votes the electionwould be decided by the other 10%.

Jesus, you don't miss much 

Obviously but the big outcome of such a result would be that 90% of people didn't want to vote for ANY of the current parties.

It would be impossible to write even a 10% spoiled vote result off as laziness. New parties would be formed on both right and left and the existing parties would be forced to change.

Is that just your assumption? Had it ever actually happened anywhere, like in those countries where voting is mandatory?

[macdanger2]

Eveb if 90% spoiled their votes the electionwould be decided by the other 10%.

Jesus, you don't miss much 

Obviously but the big outcome of such a result would be that 90% of people didn't want to vote for ANY of the current parties.

It would be impossible to write even a 10% spoiled vote result off as laziness. New parties would be formed on both right and left and the existing parties would be forced to change.

Is that just your assumption? Had it ever actually happened anywhere, like in those countries where voting is mandatory?

Yes, that's just my assumption. Do you not think something like that would prompt change?

You hear every second person going on about "them all being the same", etc - mass spoiling of votes would send a message that people WANT to vote but have nobody to vote for.

In reality though I think at least half of these people have no idea what parties stand for, what parties have delivered / reneged on and make no effort to educate themselves preferring instead to simply repeat what they read in the Indo or hear on Joe Duffy

[Rossfan]

Main thing when assessing a politician 's performance is - what did he do for the constituency. Policies and all that are all  me eye.

[Lar Naparka]

Strangely, I don't recall massive protests when FF were discovered to have robbed us, ruined us and destroyed our childrens' futures.  But we'll all turn out in droves when FG asks us to pay for what we use.  What a country, I'm so proud.

Bejaysus BB, I think you are a bit OTT here.
There were no massive protests when FF were last in government because nobody was expecting the economy to collapse and the speed at which it began to go pear-shaped, threw everyone into confusion.
But there was no mistaking the  electorate's anger when FF lost about two thirds of its seats at the last GE. That was the mother of all "massive protests" without a doubt.
Peoples' expectations were high when the present Coalition came to power. I think everyone knew there would be tough times ahead but very few expected things to be as bad as they are now. If Enda, Eamon and their confidants knew, they took great care to hide the fact.
When it comes to cronyism, jobs for the boys (and girls,) broken promises and the likes all we are getting is a dose of Fianna Fail lite. A little bit better than FF when we were led to expect the highest of standards in public life is just not good enough.
People aren't turning out in droves in this kind of weather for the fun of it.There's an element of principled objection okay but economic desperation is the main reason for the present widespread discontent.
Sure, we're some country okay but it wasn't the honest citizens who took to the streets today who made it so.

This water-charges protesting nonsense annoys me a lot - it's a complete red herring.  If the 'brains' behind these protests thought they'd change anything it wouldn't be happening. 

I don't think anyone who had been watching the collapse had high expectations of this Govt - how could they have?  The incumbent's hands were tied, their budget income was decimated and they were expected to 'fix' what FF had done, with feck all resources.  And guess what - take a look around you, things are starting to move slowly again, the debt burden is starting to lift again, and those lucky enough to have jobs can see a few extra quid in their pockets.  The unemployment figures are improving slowly, and the builders are starting to build again.  And SF/FF are running scared and stirring shite; what's new?

Sure Irish Water is a mess - sure there are a bunch of incompetent gobshites appointed to do an important job, that will take longer to do than it should.  But what is happening is making a currently amateur operation undertakne by local authorities into a professional outfit, just like the rest of the civilised world.  What we should be asking ourselves is why it has taken so long to do (there's a two-letter answer to that question).  Let me assure you, in 20 years time we'll be glad we did it.

The water tax controversy  may be nonsense to you but it's a bread and butter issue for the vast majority of people. Your red herring is a red rag to the bull for them.  How many of the people from all parts of the country who turned out in such numbers yesterday were there because they are literally unable to pay yet another levy? 

I believe a great majority are and it has nothing to do with FG being in power. For those people contractual obligations to repay the bailout, a sense of moral obligation to do what one is told and all that shite has no meaning or relevance whatever.   

The number of children who regularly shoplift has increased dramatically in recent times. That's what I've been told by former teacher colleagues.

How do you think they know this?

Because they see the result of economic deprivation before them every school day. 

Kids are robbing bread, chocolate bars and anything else they can eat.  Okay, the area I taught in can be classed as a socially deprived area but FInglas isn't the only place where many kids exist in a state of perpetual hunger. I suggest you should have a chat with some of your local supermarket owners or their workers and I bet you'll find that what I am saying is true.

I agree that Irish Water is being run by a shower of useless gobshites but who appointed them in the first place? Who but a bunch of even bigger gobshites of course. The board of Irish Water was appointed by the government and the buck stops there.

Sure the Irish economy began to pick up in the second part of this year but I can't recall a single government spokesperson predicting in advance that this would happen, can you?

They knew as little about it as the rest of us. It's no coincidence that the US economy began to buck up at the same time.

I'd love think that Coalition policies played a major part in stopping the recession but, going by the way in which it handled the water tax issue, I'm damn sure it didn't. 

I'd love to see the present administration stay in power as there is no credible alternative  but the fact that it's running scared of Sinn Fein tells its own tale.   

If they can't settle the water tax controversy in the very near future, their days will be well and truly numbered.

[weareros]

Lar wrote:

"I'd love think that Coalition policies played a major part in stopping the recession but, going by the way in which it handled the water tax issue, I'm damn sure it didn't. "

Well that's an Irish trait, blaming them for what goes wrong and giving them no credit for what goes right. I don't think even Jesus Christ would have come out of Irish Water unscathed and he was a man who could turn it into wine. There's a lot who are not on breadline and simply believe it's a god given right to have free water. Mind you you won't see them drinking the stuff the Gods piss with abandon from the sky or the polluted stuff that fills our rivers and lakes, that we as irish people are solely responsible for (not Europe, not the Brits). Then you have those that believe it should always be state run, as if that is somehow better. CIE anyone? Then there's those who think it magically comes from taps for free, even though Dublin will soon have a huge shortage and needs to drain Lough Ree abd Lougn Derg and it's only a matter of time before what happened in Galway and Roscommon happens all over the country. Then we'll have a water system that is not only 40% wasted in leaks but littered with disease carrying bacteria. And the people will shout why didn't we fix this problem. And the answer will be that as a race of people we are a right shower of thickos who have no problem buying The Sun and The Mirror or heading off to NYC to fill the auld suitcase  and paying to watch our English soccer teams on Sky to Mr Murdoch but God forbid we cough up to invest in the single most important resource in our country.

[deiseach]

Let's get one thing clear. No one is arguing for 'free water'. The argument is for 'free water at the point of use', paid for through progressive taxation. And if we're going to look at other countries in the 'civilised world', there are plenty of examples of services being free at the point of use that we have to pay through the nose for in Ireland. For a country that is supposedly laden with scroungers who take to the street at the drop of a hat, there hasn't been much in the way of objection to having to pay €60 for a trip to the GP or A&E. Meanwhile in Britain, where in living memory they trashed central London over a charge to pay for local authority services, all such visits are free. Stories of abuse of such a system are legion - my paramedic  brother-in-law frequently regales me with tales of folk who use the ambulance as a free bus service - but that doesn't mean there is any desire to get shot of the NHS. Yet when people in Ireland object to a regressive tax on a public good, we're the laughing stock of Europe™. I really hoped we had moved past that kind of attack when Gaybore got over our collective lack of sympathy at Russell Murphy taking all his money (it seems Michael O'Leary has replaced Feargal Quinn as the man who would serve as a mild but equitable despot; I don't know if that is progress) but it was clearly too much to hope for.

[Maguire01]

Let's get one thing clear. No one is arguing for 'free water'. The argument is for 'free water at the point of use', paid for through progressive taxation. And if we're going to look at other countries in the 'civilised world', there are plenty of examples of services being free at the point of use that we have to pay through the nose for in Ireland. For a country that is supposedly laden with scroungers who take to the street at the drop of a hat, there hasn't been much in the way of objection to having to pay €60 for a trip to the GP or A&E. Meanwhile in Britain, where in living memory they trashed central London over a charge to pay for local authority services, all such visits are free. Stories of abuse of such a system are legion - my paramedic  brother-in-law frequently regales me with tales of folk who use the ambulance as a free bus service - but that doesn't mean there is any desire to get shot of the NHS. Yet when people in Ireland object to a regressive tax on a public good, we're the laughing stock of Europe™. I really hoped we had moved past that kind of attack when Gaybore got over our collective lack of sympathy at Russell Murphy taking all his money (it seems Michael O'Leary has replaced Feargal Quinn as the man who would serve as a mild but equitable despot; I don't know if that is progress) but it was clearly too much to hope for.

Does progressive taxation just mean loading the cost of water onto income tax? Workers just take on the burden? Is there another solution i'm missing?

I agree in principle for water charging (if done properly) for a number of reasons - you pay on the basis of what you use (so it promotes conservation), income is ring-fenced for investment in water (and waste), the tax base is broadened (a specific requirement for Ireland, post-boom).

I also agree that its implementation was poorly handled. And it might have been better if its introduction had been offset by a reduction in another tax (VAT maybe), to reflect that the public already contribute to the cost of water. But that would have ignored the fact that there remains a deficit, so it would have been little more than window-dressing - another tax/charge would have had to be raised elsewhere.

[deiseach]

Does progressive taxation just mean loading the cost of water onto income tax? Workers just take on the burden? Is there another solution i'm missing?

Yes. Whatever way you cut it, water charges are a tax. The reason I use the word 'progressive' is because charges are regressive. The poorer you are, the greater a proportion of your income you are going to have to set aside to pay for water.

[Maguire01]

Does progressive taxation just mean loading the cost of water onto income tax? Workers just take on the burden? Is there another solution i'm missing?

Yes. Whatever way you cut it, water charges are a tax. The reason I use the word 'progressive' is because charges are regressive. The poorer you are, the greater a proportion of your income you are going to have to set aside to pay for water.

You can't just keep loading all the burden on workers. It's not sustainable.
And in the case of water charges / tax (call it what you will), central funding removes the drivers for conservation, broadened tax base and ring-fenced funding. By all means put some measures in place to help the less well off pay the charge and make it less regressive, but to abandon it is not the answer.

[deiseach]

You can't just keep loading all the burden on workers. It's not sustainable.

Proof by assertion.

And in the case of water charges / tax (call it what you will), central funding removes the drivers for conservation, broadened tax base and ring-fenced funding. By all means put some measures in place to help the less well off pay the charge and make it less regressive, but to abandon it is not the answer.

Your solution is to create a bureaucracy designed to administer the subsidies and poverty traps for those who are earning just enough to pay the charge.

[Maguire01]

You can't just keep loading all the burden on workers. It's not sustainable.

Proof by assertion.

So what, we just bridge the rest of the deficit by increasing income tax rates? Why not scrap VAT and add that to income tax as well?
It has to pay for people to work.

And in the case of water charges / tax (call it what you will), central funding removes the drivers for conservation, broadened tax base and ring-fenced funding. By all means put some measures in place to help the less well off pay the charge and make it less regressive, but to abandon it is not the answer.

Your solution is to create a bureaucracy designed to administer the subsidies and poverty traps for those who are earning just enough to pay the charge.

I don't have a perfect solution, my point is that everyone should make a contribution and that one section of society shouldn't carry all the burden. And it need not necessarily be a bureaucracy - just a small increase in the rate of certain benefits, an uplift on the tax-free threshold... greater minds than me could identify the most appropriate adjustments.
Why should everyone people pay for their electricity? Should that not just be paid for centrally and added to income tax?

[deiseach]

So what, we just bridge the rest of the deficit by increasing income tax rates? Why not scrap VAT and add that to income tax as well?
It has to pay for people to work.

I never suggested we should 'bridge the rest of the deficit by increasing incomes tax rates' or anything like it. I'm saying that we should pay for improvements to public services by increasing tax rates at the top. There is little evidence that this proves a disincentive to work and plenty that it doesn't, e.g. just about every country on the continent.

I don't have a perfect solution, my point is that everyone should make a contribution and that one section of society shouldn't carry all the burden. And it need not necessarily be a bureaucracy - just a small increase in the rate of certain benefits, an uplift on the tax-free threshold... greater minds than me could identify the most appropriate adjustments.
Why should everyone people pay for their electricity? Should that not just be paid for centrally and added to income tax?

Neither of us is proposing a perfect solution, but politics is the art of the possible. It probably wouldn't take that large a bureaucracy, but there would need to be one and there definitely would be poverty traps. I think electricity is a different type of public good to water. The waste that takes happens with electricity is almost entirely a function of the end user, in contrast to water where the waste comes in leaks in the infrastructure so punishing the end user is grossly unfair. Besides, as with health care we already have an infrastructure in place that works, after a fashion, and changing it would involve massive upheaval so we leave well enough alone. We might treat electricity differently if we were starting from first principles. I think it is perfectly reasonable to not go down the road of creating a market for water with all its opportunities for the kind of financial chicanery so beloved of the likes of the Troika that brought us all to the brink of ruin - and for many, pushed us past it.

[Maguire01]

So what, we just bridge the rest of the deficit by increasing income tax rates? Why not scrap VAT and add that to income tax as well?
It has to pay for people to work.

I never suggested we should 'bridge the rest of the deficit by increasing incomes tax rates' or anything like it. I'm saying that we should pay for improvements to public services by increasing tax rates at the top. There is little evidence that this proves a disincentive to work and plenty that it doesn't, e.g. just about every country on the continent.

Just about every other country on the continent charges for water.

I don't have a perfect solution, my point is that everyone should make a contribution and that one section of society shouldn't carry all the burden. And it need not necessarily be a bureaucracy - just a small increase in the rate of certain benefits, an uplift on the tax-free threshold... greater minds than me could identify the most appropriate adjustments.
Why should everyone people pay for their electricity? Should that not just be paid for centrally and added to income tax?

Neither of us is proposing a perfect solution, but politics is the art of the possible. It probably wouldn't take that large a bureaucracy, but there would need to be one and there definitely would be poverty traps. I think electricity is a different type of public good to water. The waste that takes happens with electricity is almost entirely a function of the end user, in contrast to water where the waste comes in leaks in the infrastructure so punishing the end user is grossly unfair. Besides, as with health care we already have an infrastructure in place that works, after a fashion, and changing it would involve massive upheaval so we leave well enough alone. We might treat electricity differently if we were starting from first principles. I think it is perfectly reasonable to not go down the road of creating a market for water with all its opportunities for the kind of financial chicanery so beloved of the likes of the Troika that brought us all to the brink of ruin - and for many, pushed us past it.

I don't believe there's a need for any more bureaucracy if it's done by tweaking existing benefits and tax bands.

Water users will only pay for leaks on their property - i.e. after the water meter, so no different to electricity in that respect.

And the infrastructure in place doesn't work, and without a proper system to fund it, it will increasingly fail.

[Rossfan]

.  How many of the people from all parts of the country who turned out in such numbers yesterday were there because they are literally unable to pay yet another levy? 

So they could find maybe €50 on one day to go to Dublin but they can't find €3 a week to pay a water charge?
Hmmmmmmmm......
I wonder how many were actuually ordinary people  against the specific water charge? As opposed to Political people (SF/loony left/Ming populists etc), the pay for nothing brigade, people generally disgruntled with the Government, people who after 6 years have become "Austerity weary" and so on.