# Tax take reduction - what to cut?



## Lobby (3 Oct 2007)

In light of the yesterdays finance figures showing massive tax take reductions, and assuming this trend continues, what would be the likely casualties of a major decrease in Gov finances?

For example, which of the numerous agencies established during the "good" years would be closed / reduced - in people's opinion?

(My wife used to work for one of them and she is saying the Gov would not dare close any at all, my point is if funds are tight then these are the most politically easy to cut)


----------



## ubiquitous (3 Oct 2007)

Equality Authority
National Consumer Agency
The entire Dept of Community Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs
Half the Dept of Agriculture


----------



## Lobby (3 Oct 2007)

I had considered the Road Safety Authority but the public reaction might not be good, (isn't the Dept of Transport supposed to be doing that job anyway?)


----------



## Miles (3 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Half the Dept of Agriculture



Why half the Dept of Agriculture?


----------



## z109 (3 Oct 2007)

Miles said:


> Why half the Dept of Agriculture?


Maybe the people in set-aside?


----------



## ubiquitous (3 Oct 2007)

Miles said:


> Why half the Dept of Agriculture?



What I have in mind are the legions of civil servants who in the past 5 years or so have made careers for themselves as farm inspectors, simply to justify the continued payment of subsidies to farmers. Waste following waste.


----------



## Sherman (3 Oct 2007)

Ah, we are now reaping the consequences of a massive boom in civil service recruitment, when the only problem facing successive budgets was how to spend all the lovely dosh the government was taking from us.

Of course, we'll now find that getting rid of all those benchmarked civil servants ain't quite as easy as hiring them in the first place.

Firstly, we should cut the Dail down to say 99. Lead by example Biffo!


----------



## Purple (3 Oct 2007)

Don't worry, if wages are reduced in the private sector the next round of benchmarking will result in comparable cuts in the public sector.


----------



## xavier (3 Oct 2007)

Purple said:


> Don't worry, if wages are reduced in the private sector the next round of benchmarking will result in comparable cuts in the public sector.


 
I think we'll have a better chance of seeing a paperless toilet.


----------



## nelly (3 Oct 2007)

I would say the government will say that because they could not get the money out of us via taxes they can't give us what we promised, bummer.


----------



## Purple (3 Oct 2007)

nelly said:


> I would say the government will say that because they could not get the money out of us via taxes they can't give us what we promised, bummer.


 You can't spend what you don't have. It's that simple.


----------



## Markjbloggs (3 Oct 2007)

No, but you can spend what someone else has......



Purple said:


> You can't spend what you don't have. It's that simple.


----------



## Purple (3 Oct 2007)

Markjbloggs said:


> No, but you can spend what someone else has......


 


We have spent the last ten years borrowing money on international markets (through our banks) to buy stuff and paying a proportion of that in tax to the government so in a way all we have done in privatise the national debt.
Jasus, I sound like David McWilliams; I better shut up!


----------



## Guest127 (3 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> What I have in mind are the legions of civil servants who in the past 5 years or so have made careers for themselves as farm inspectors, simply to justify the continued payment of subsidies to farmers. Waste following waste.


 
a friend of mine works with the dept of agriculture.frequently drives to drogheda to pick up veterinary medicines for use locally. total waste of time and money. dept of agriculture obviously never heard of couriers.

having said that it does look finance minister is starting to take a tougher line with the likes of HSE. Obviously a lot of the highly paid executives in the HSE thought they were exempt from balancing the books.


----------



## Green (4 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Equality Authority
> National Consumer Agency
> The entire Dept of Community Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs
> Half the Dept of Agriculture


 
Why Equality Authority?


----------



## Teabag (4 Oct 2007)

xavier said:


> I think we'll have a better chance of seeing a paperless toilet.



I dont get it - I am assuming you mean toilet paper - I have see loads of paperless toilets in the case. They were mainly public toilets I have to admit but sometimes Mrs Teabag fails to replenish the stocks - not pretty at home but worse in public !!


----------



## room305 (4 Oct 2007)

YOBR said:


> Why Equality Authority?



Perhaps because they are one of the most supercilious and unnecessary of the many, many quangos initiated by this government?


----------



## Marathon Man (4 Oct 2007)

It can't axe the equality authority when some push the responsibility onto others.... 



Teabag said:


> ......sometimes *Mrs* Teabag fails to replenish the stocks......!!


 
Back to topic;
...........Maybe Bertie will arrange for a "Dig-out"..... 

...or, maybe he'll help us all out by paying the gift tax due on his own dig-outs!!


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2007)

Teabag said:


> I dont get it - I am assuming you mean toilet paper - I have see loads of paperless toilets in the case. They were mainly public toilets I have to admit but sometimes Mrs Teabag fails to replenish the stocks - not pretty at home but worse in public !!


Why is her job to replace toilet paper in public toilets?


----------



## Green (5 Oct 2007)

room305 said:


> Perhaps because they are one of the most supercilious and unnecessary of the many, many quangos initiated by this government?


 
Hmmmm..why do you think that?


----------



## RainyDay (22 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Equality Authority





room305 said:


> Perhaps because they are one of the most supercilious and unnecessary of the many, many quangos initiated by this government?



The Equality Authority's latest Annual Report landed on my desk last week. I wonder if those critical of the Authority would like to explain why some of the cases taken by the Authority last year were a waste of time, e.g.


• the Department of Education and Science to issue new Leaving Certificates to two claimants with dyslexia without the relevant notations and to make a payment of €6,000 to each claimant. The Department of Education and Science to ensure its appeal process conforms with rules of natural justice
• the Department of Education and Science to formally investigate the feasibility, with a view to its implementation, of creating and implementing an examination system which can create an individually suited accommodation which meets the needs of each particular student with disabilities, based on individual assessment. (This is under appeal)
• An order requiring a school to put in place a system facilitating the early identification of students who have disabilities or learning difficulties with the aim of directing those students to the appropriate educational services
• A child with cerebral palsy being allowed return to his original class
• A child with Down Syndrome being allowed access a summer camp
• The payment of compensation by a local authority equivalent to a new house grant
• A District Court consent order and consent finding to install wheelchair accessible toilets in Searsons Pub and the Russell Court Hotel respectively
• A change of policy from Ryanair so that wheelchair users are no longer required to waive liability for the safe carriage of their wheelchairs


----------



## room305 (23 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> • the Department of Education and Science to issue new Leaving Certificates to two claimants with dyslexia without the relevant notations and to make a payment of €6,000 to each claimant. The Department of Education and Science to ensure its appeal process conforms with rules of natural justice
> • the Department of Education and Science to formally investigate the feasibility, with a view to its implementation, of creating and implementing an examination system which can create an individually suited accommodation which meets the needs of each particular student with disabilities, based on individual assessment. (This is under appeal)
> • An order requiring a school to put in place a system facilitating the early identification of students who have disabilities or learning difficulties with the aim of directing those students to the appropriate educational services
> • A child with cerebral palsy being allowed return to his original class
> ...



Of course all of these cases _needed_ the representation of the Equality Authority and couldn't possibly have been resolved through any other means.


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Oct 2007)

There is nothing on the above list (except perhaps the Summer Camp case) that did not involve some element of neglect or dereliction of duties on the part of the State or its agencies. The Equality Authority is a waste of money precisely because it is being used as a vehicle to remedy inadequacies that would not exist were the State doing its job in the first instance. Citizens already have the various Ombudsman's offices for this purpose anyway. Its existence merely perpetuates the mentality in the public service that "if I don't fix this, someone else will come along to do it for me".


----------



## Purple (23 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> There is nothing on the above list (except perhaps the Summer Camp case) that did not involve some element of neglect or dereliction of duties on the part of the State or its agencies. The Equality Authority is a waste of money precisely because it is being used as a vehicle to remedy inadequacies that would not exist were the State doing its job in the first instance. Its existence merely perpetuates the mentality in the public service that "if I don't fix this, someone else will come along to do it for me".


  The Equality Authority cannot take a case unless a member of the public has made a complaint. If they did not complain to the EA they would have to do so to a government department or state or private body. If they used a solicitor to do so the cost to the state would be far higher than the Equality Authority currently costs.
I think it is a good use of public money at it allows some very vulnerable people to exercise their rights without the worry of being saddled with huge costs. If the EA do not think the case/issue is valid they will not support it.


----------



## Staples (23 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Its existence merely perpetuates the mentality in the public service that "if I don't fix this, someone else will come along to do it for me".


 
I think that's unfair.  Pressures on government departments come from both sides - the imperative to keep costs to a minimum - and the need to accomodate a wide variety of considerations (equality, environmental, etc) Matters like this reach the courts because the cost implication of their acceptance can be enormous to the point that it's almost worth "gambling" on the failure of such court actions.  This is generally a political decision.

The Equality Authority is valuable insofar as it forces organisations to take equality more seriously.  It promotes a consideration that, in its absence, would slp through the cracks, however well intentioned.


----------



## Staples (23 Oct 2007)

Purple said:


> You can't spend what you don't have. It's that simple.


 

Well, it's not really that simple.  Borrowing is justified as long as it's managable and produces net benefits.

For example, few people wait until they have the cash price of a house before they buy one.  Surely the same logic applies to governments.


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Oct 2007)

Purple said:


> I think it is a good use of public money at it allows some very vulnerable people to exercise their rights without the worry of being saddled with huge costs.



Indeed. That's why there is an Office of the Ombudsman.


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Oct 2007)

Staples said:


> Pressures on government departments come from both sides - the imperative to keep costs to a minimum - and the need to accomodate a wide variety of considerations (equality, environmental, etc) Matters like this reach the courts because the cost implication of their acceptance can be enormous to the point that it's almost worth "gambling" on the failure of such court actions.  This is generally a political decision.
> 
> The Equality Authority is valuable insofar as it forces organisations to take equality more seriously.  It promotes a consideration that, in its absence, would slp through the cracks, however well intentioned.



Fair enough, but in a situation where primary government services stand to be cut due to lack of funds, how much longer can the State keep funding bodies such as the EA whose prime role is in the secondary enforcement of standards by bodies who should be responsible and accountable for their own actions.


----------



## Staples (23 Oct 2007)

I think there are other aspects of state expenditure which could be cut as a priority.

Twenty Dail Committees anyone?  I understand that one of our finest legislators, Jackie Healy Rae, is about to be appointed head of one of them.  Should be a roaring success.

The cost of servicing these committees is disproportionate relative to their usefulness.  Don't forget they confer pension rights that incur costs way beyond there lifetimes.

Compared with these, agencies such as the EA look like a bargain.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> There is nothing on the above list (except perhaps the Summer Camp case) that did not involve some element of neglect or dereliction of duties on the part of the State or its agencies. The Equality Authority is a waste of money precisely because it is being used as a vehicle to remedy inadequacies that would not exist were the State doing its job in the first instance. Citizens already have the various Ombudsman's offices for this purpose anyway. Its existence merely perpetuates the mentality in the public service that "if I don't fix this, someone else will come along to do it for me".



Just in case there is any confusion, summer camps, Ryanair, Searsons pub, the Russell Court Hotel, Western Union and Bennigans pub are not part of the public service, so perhaps some of the civil service bashing is misdirected.


----------



## ubiquitous (26 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Just in case there is any confusion, summer camps, Ryanair, Searsons pub, the Russell Court Hotel, Western Union and Bennigans pub are not part of the public service,



Did anyone say otherwise?



RainyDay said:


> ...so perhaps some of the civil service bashing is misdirected.



Not necessarily. With the possible exception of the summer camps, each of the businesses you mention above is licensed by the State to operate in their respective industry. I would have thought that it would be far better to deal with the problems you listed earlier (and to prevent their recurrence) by tweaking the respective licensing rules instead of doing so via enforcement by another State body in the form of the Equality Authority.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Not necessarily. With the possible exception of the summer camps, each of the businesses you mention above is licensed by the State to operate in their respective industry. I would have thought that it would be far better to deal with the problems you listed earlier (and to prevent their recurrence) by tweaking the respective licensing rules instead of doing so via enforcement by another State body in the form of the Equality Authority.



So it would be better to have Equality experts/lawyers in every single state licensing authority, rather than having one central group of experts who can work across all industries? Doesn't sound too efficient to me, given the specialised nature of the expertise involved. 

Why would you want to tweak licences when the relevant legislation is already in place? How many lawyers will it take to tweak the licences? How will consumers be protected while the current non-tweaked licences are in place. Who will protect consumers from businesses that are not licenced by the State?


----------



## ubiquitous (26 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> So it would be better to have Equality experts/lawyers in every single state licensing authority, rather than having one central group of experts who can work across all industries? Doesn't sound too efficient to me, given the specialised nature of the expertise involved.



I don't see any problem with the EA's role in advising the various arms of State on equality issues, ie the role that the Dept of Justice Equality & Law Reform did before the EA was established. I do see problems with its current, extended role.


RainyDay said:


> Why would you want to tweak licences when the relevant legislation is already in place?  How many lawyers will it take to tweak the licences?



Wake up. Licensing rules and regulatory procedures in practically every sector are tweaked and adapted regularly, most commonly via Ministerial Order. 


RainyDay said:


> Who will protect consumers from businesses that are not licenced by the State?


Its a bit of a fantasy to suggest that there are any businesses out there that, if not licensed, are not subject to any form of regulation.


----------



## RainyDay (26 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I don't see any problem with the EA's role in advising the various arms of State on equality issues, ie the role that the Dept of Justice Equality & Law Reform did before the EA was established. I do see problems with its current, extended role.
> 
> 
> Wake up. Licensing rules and regulatory procedures in practically every sector are tweaked and adapted regularly, most commonly via Ministerial Order.
> ...



The Equality arm of the Dept of Justice has a poor track record. The Equality arm gets no attention in the wider department, and we had the perverse situation last year when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was making speeches about the benefits of inequality in society, which is akin to having the Minister for Health making speeches about the benefits of smoking, drinking excessively and obesity. I wouldn't want to be relying on that Department to protect my rights. This is little reflection on the individuals in that department, btw, but reflects the views of their political masters for the last 10 years.

The benefit of having the EA as a seperate authority is the consumer focus. If it is part of the wider civil service, it will automatically fit into the conservatism of the broader service. The seperate role creates a consumer focus and a campaigning zeal, which has resulted in judgements and progresss on a whole range of issues.

The good news for you I guess is that the newly appointed Chairperson is likely to rein back on the activities that seem to get up your nose, based on her past track record. Watch out for the departure of Neil Crowley within a year or two.

In terms of unregulated businesses, who regulates the newsagents? Who regulates the carpenters? Who regulates the computer shops? Need I continue...


----------



## ubiquitous (26 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> In terms of unregulated businesses, who regulates the newsagents? Who regulates the carpenters? Who regulates the computer shops?



All are subject to employment law, consumer law and a host of other laws and regulations.


----------



## Purple (26 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> The good news for you I guess is that the newly appointed Chairperson is likely to rein back on the activities that seem to get up your nose, based on her past track record. Watch out for the departure of Neil Crowley within a year or two...


I never liked Niel Crowley. I think he is one of the reasons that many people don't like the EA. I, for one, will be glad to see him go.


----------



## ubiquitous (26 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> we had the perverse situation last year when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was making speeches about the benefits of inequality in society,



Seeing as you raised the issue of McDowell's comments on inequality, I think that it is worthwhile seeing the remarks in their context, as set out in this Irish Times article, freely available at the following link:

[broken link removed]


> McDowell says inequality an incentive in the economy
> 
> Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent
> 
> ...


----------



## RainyDay (26 Oct 2007)

Purple said:


> I never liked Niel Crowley. I think he is one of the reasons that many people don't like the EA. I, for one, will be glad to see him go.


Care to expand why?


ubiquitous said:


> Seeing as you raised the issue of McDowell's comments on inequality, I think that it is worthwhile seeing the remarks in their context, as set out in this Irish Times article, freely available at the following link:
> 
> [broken link removed]



Yep, it is worthwhile seeing the statements full. They are of course a complete perversion of the valuable work of the EA in taking a rights-based approach to Equality matters. McDowell & his colleagues on the right would of course be far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights. [Just look at the obscenity of 'People in Need' all over RTE this week with those great celebs doing it for 'charidee'. For the record, People in Need has raised €35m over eight years. Margaret Heffernan who sits on the board of PIN has personal wealth of €605m in 2006. She could do far more for People in Need by giving her staff an extra 20c an hour, but what's the chances of that happening?].


----------



## ubiquitous (26 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> They are of course a complete perversion of the valuable work of the EA in taking a rights-based approach to Equality matters.



That is an opinion that some might agree with. ...and some might disagree with. There is a strong case for the rights-based approach to Equality matters. There is equally a reasonable argument against this approach being taken too far. Its hardly a sin to express this latter view? Both sides of the debate have merit. 



RainyDay said:


> McDowell & his colleagues on the right would of course be far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights.



I don't know about this. It certainly wasn't charity that improved the living standards of the vast majority of working people in the past 10 years or so.



> [Just look at the obscenity of 'People in Need' all over RTE this week with those great celebs doing it for 'charidee'.


Can't disagree with you there.


----------



## Purple (26 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Care to expand why?


 The Porkmarnock Golf Club action, taking schools to court because they didn’t follow correct procedure when suspending pupils that were violent and disruptive. That sort of think undermines the other valuable work that they carry out. 




RainyDay said:


> Yep, it is worthwhile seeing the statements full. They are of course a complete perversion of the valuable work of the EA in taking a rights-based approach to Equality matters. McDowell & his colleagues on the right would of course be far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights. [Just look at the obscenity of 'People in Need' all over RTE this week with those great celebs doing it for 'charidee'. For the record, People in Need has raised €35m over eight years. Margaret Heffernan who sits on the board of PIN has personal wealth of €605m in 2006. She could do far more for People in Need by giving her staff an extra 20c an hour, but what's the chances of that happening?].


 I think the way you have linked the former ministers comments with underpaying staff and those on the right (whatever that means) who wish to remove our social safety net is spurious.
 I have never heard Mr McDowell, or any other PD politician, suggest or implied that they would be _“far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights”_. I think this comment is unfair.


----------



## room305 (26 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> McDowell & his colleagues on the right would of course be far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights.



How do you feed a family on rights? Charitable organisations are usually far more humane and effective when it comes to aiding those in need than some bureaucratic arm of government.


----------



## RainyDay (30 Oct 2007)

Purple said:


> The Porkmarnock Golf Club action, taking schools to court because they didn’t follow correct procedure when suspending pupils that were violent and disruptive. That sort of think undermines the other valuable work that they carry out.


No slur intended with Porkie reference, I assume?  

The Portmarnock was quite interesting, in taking on the vested interests of the golfing establishment and securing an initial positive judgement against the Golf Club in the District Court. Not surprisingly, this judgement was appealed and the High Court decision went against the EA in 2005. Funnily enough, the last references I can find to this case are from 2005 when the EA stated their [broken link removed]. Does anyone know if this appeal went ahead, or what is the current status?

Can you be more specific about the schools cases you mention? Are you thinking about the "Mrs A and her son M v a Primary School DEC – S2006-028" case - details as follows;


> The claimant, Mrs A alleged that her son M was bullied and was called names at school and that management failed to deal with problems he
> encountered there. He was constantly blamed for anything that happened and suspended from school. Mrs A was regularly called to meetings with the school to discuss her son’s behavioural problems. She requested that he be taught by the resource Teacher for Travellers but he was transferred back to his mainstream class where he was unhappy. Mrs A stated that during one parent/teacher meeting a Garda entered the meeting room with the intention of attending the meeting without her prior knowledge or consent and she left the meeting. Mrs A also stated that her son was refused Confirmation because he had lodged a complaint of discrimination under the Equal Status Act.
> The respondent denied that the claimants were discriminated against or harassed on either the Traveller community or disability ground. The school stated that while they knew that the claimants were Traveller they were not aware of their disability. The School stated that M misbehaved in school and was subject to the normal disciplinary procedures of the school and his parents were consulted about his behaviour. A Garda did attend a meeting scheduled with Mrs A but only to offer friendly advice in relation to M’s behaviour. The respondent stated that M was not confirmed because he was not attending school nor all the preparation classes for the Confirmation.
> The Equality Officer found that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against and harassed Mrs A on the Traveller community ground in that it was not the practice of the school to invite a garda to a parent teacher meeting. She also concluded that Mrs A was harassed on the Traveller community ground and awarded her €850 compensation as redress for the effects of the discrimination.
> ...


The claim from the school that the Garda entered the parent/teacher meeting to offer 'friendly advice' would be laughable if it weren't so serious. At a minimum, it shows a serious breach of confidentiality. 


Purple said:


> I think the way you have linked the former ministers comments with underpaying staff and those on the right (whatever that means) who wish to remove our social safety net is spurious.
> I have never heard Mr McDowell, or any other PD politician, suggest or implied that they would be _“far happier for those most in need in society to be dependent on charity rather than rights”_. I think this comment is unfair.


McDowell made many public comments resisting any form of rights-based legislation during the debate around the various Disability Bills when ended up as Disability Act 2005. At present, the only enforceable right for a person with a disability is the right to an assessment under Part 1 of the Act. There is absolutely no right to support or treatment. See McDowell's comments [broken link removed] for example;


> The Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, yesterday said that rights-based legislation could lead to large-scale litigation by people who are unable to access services. This money could be better spent on providing badly-needed services, he said.


Being a barrister, McDowell seems to have missed the point that most people with disabilities and their families do not want to spend their time on court cases, and have many, many better things to be doing with their time. Families that get half-decent services and treatments will not be getting involved in litigation. McDowell is clearly intent on ensure that there will be no decent level of treatment and supports for people with disabilities and their families.


----------



## Purple (31 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> No slur intended with Porkie reference, I assume?


None, it was a Freudian slip  



RainyDay said:


> Being a barrister, McDowell seems to have missed the point that most people with disabilities and their families do not want to spend their time on court cases, and have many, many better things to be doing with their time. Families that get half-decent services and treatments will not be getting involved in litigation. McDowell is clearly intent on ensure that there will be no decent level of treatment and supports for people with disabilities and their families.


 What do you think his motivation was in doing this? Do you think he just doesn't like people with disability? Even if he is why do you assume that all those on "the right" share his views? I'm on the right by what I take your view of the right to be but I am in favour of rights based legislation in this area. 
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely interested in your views.
As for the rest of your points; you are closer to these issues than I am so I am not in a position to argue with you.


----------



## RainyDay (31 Oct 2007)

Purple said:


> What do you think his motivation was in doing this? Do you think he just doesn't like people with disability? Even if he is why do you assume that all those on "the right" share his views? I'm on the right by what I take your view of the right to be but I am in favour of rights based legislation in this area.


He is continuing a long trend of 'survival of the fittest'. We have seen the PD's driving the division and privatisation of our health-care system, which will ensure that public patients are ghettoised and will face long and life-threatening delays. The recent case of the dying cancer patient who called Liveline explaining how she would have survived if she had health insurance is a perfect example of this. We have seen Mary Harney's attempt to further ghettoise single mothers. We've seen the PD reluctance to bring much-loved competition into the market for immigrant workers by leaving the work visa in the hands of the employer, not the employee - modern day slavery.

McDowell's successful elimination of rights in the Disability Act is just another weapon his bow. He is not prepared to commit resources to providing basic supports and services for those most at need.


----------



## Purple (31 Oct 2007)

RainyDay said:


> He is continuing a long trend of 'survival of the fittest'. We have seen the PD's driving the division and privatisation of our health-care system, which will ensure that public patients are ghettoised and will face long and life-threatening delays. The recent case of the dying cancer patient who called Liveline explaining how she would have survived if she had health insurance is a perfect example of this.


 So you think that the PD’s have a eugenic like agenda which informs all aspects of their policy formation, is that what you are saying? 
A case can be made that co-location is a bad idea but it’s spurious to blame the PD’s for our two-tier health system; it was there long before they were. I think you are adding 2 + 2 and getting 28. 



RainyDay said:


> We have seen Mary Harney's attempt to further ghettoise single mothers.


  I’m not aware of this, can you expand?



RainyDay said:


> We've seen the PD reluctance to bring much-loved competition into the market for immigrant workers by leaving the work visa in the hands of the employer, not the employee - modern day slavery.


  As an employer I support the idea of immigrant workers holding their own work visa but it’s not a black and white issue and there are strong reasons for both systems. 



RainyDay said:


> McDowell's successful elimination of rights in the Disability Act is just another weapon his bow. He is not prepared to commit resources to providing basic supports and services for those most at need.


 Again I don’t think it’s that simple. I agree that he has a principled objection to a rights based disability bill and has a UK Conservative style dislike for what he thinks is “Nanny State” legislation, but I don’t think it’s an opinion formed on, or informed by, any prejudice against people with disability. From what I have heard his say I think it’s informed by a view that legislating within the current model is a better option. I disagree with him but don’t think his motivation is so dark.


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Oct 2007)

I'm not sure if its in any way helpful to attempt to demonise any politician or party on the basis of ideology. If I portray someone as a cruel, evil monster simply because I disagree with their policies, that reflects more on me than on them.


----------



## RainyDay (31 Oct 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I'm not sure if its in any way helpful to attempt to demonise any politician or party on the basis of ideology. If I portray someone as a cruel, evil monster simply because I disagree with their policies, that reflects more on me than on them.



I didn't refer to demons or monsters, but if that is what you picked up from the policy details outlined above, then so be it.



Purple said:


> So you think that the PD’s have a eugenic like agenda which informs all aspects of their policy formation, is that what you are saying?
> A case can be made that co-location is a bad idea but it’s spurious to blame the PD’s for our two-tier health system; it was there long before they were. I think you are adding 2 + 2 and getting 28.


Eugenics is obviously a strong term, but the facts clearly indicate that people are dying as a result of the two-tier health system. I agree that the two tier system was here long before the PDs, but most commentators agree that they have driven the privatisation agenda over the last 10 years. My concerns about the two-tier health system go way beyond the co-location proposals, though that it probably the clearest example of the extent to which the PDs are prepared to go to further this agenda.



Purple said:


> I’m not aware of this, can you expand?


From [broken link removed]


> The same shift can be seen in a more truncated form in two images of Mary Harney, who led the Progressive Democrats into the last two election campaigns. What people would remember of her from the 1997 campaign was a near disastrous press conference in which she unveiled a plan to change the social welfare system to "encourage" single mothers to move back into their parents' homes.
> 
> As a piece of traditional campaigning, it was brave and, whatever its merits, it showed a willingness to try out new ideas. As a piece of campaign theatre, though, it was a thoroughly bad show, far too complex in its reasoning not to be easily caricatured as an exercise in reactionary social engineering.
> 
> It alienated some voters (including members of the PDs' socially liberal base) without attracting others. It also browned off the Fianna Fáil machine, who were by now far too astute to risk anything as dodgy as a new idea in themidst of a campaign.





Purple said:


> As an employer I support the idea of immigrant workers holding their own work visa but it’s not a black and white issue and there are strong reasons for both systems.


I'd be very interested to hear the strong reasons for the employer retaining the work visa (assuming that these reasons go beyond the benefits of slavery).



Purple said:


> Again I don’t think it’s that simple. I agree that he has a principled objection to a rights based disability bill and has a UK Conservative style dislike for what he thinks is “Nanny State” legislation, but I don’t think it’s an opinion formed on, or informed by, any prejudice against people with disability. From what I have heard his say I think it’s informed by a view that legislating within the current model is a better option. I disagree with him but don’t think his motivation is so dark.



Is the provision of medically required drugs and equipment now considered to be 'Nanny State'? Is the provision of Personal Assistant services required to dress/undress/toilet a person with a disability how considered to be 'Nanny State'? This isn't a smoking ban or anti-sliapping that we're talking about here. This is about the bare basic minimums required to allow a person just a tiny chance of participation in economic, social and cultural life. If this now comes under the label of 'Nanny Stateism', I guess McDowell & co should be congratulated for shifting the goalposts.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Eugenics is obviously a strong term, but the facts clearly indicate that people are dying as a result of the two-tier health system. I agree that the two tier system was here long before the PDs, but most commentators agree that they have driven the privatisation agenda over the last 10 years. My concerns about the two-tier health system go way beyond the co-location proposals, though that it probably the clearest example of the extent to which the PDs are prepared to go to further this agenda.


You may not agree that their proposal is the best solution, and you may be right, but it's a big jump to conclude that therefore they are knowingly doing harm for idological reasons.



RainyDay said:


> I'd be very interested to hear the strong reasons for the employer retaining the work visa (assuming that these reasons go beyond the benefits of slavery).


 That's a cheap shot.

On single mothers and Mary Harney; I don't remember that policy being implemented and Fintan O'Toole’s currency as a writer is rendered worthless by virtue of the overwhelming bias which colours his every utterance.  



RainyDay said:


> Is the provision of medically required drugs and equipment now considered to be 'Nanny State'? Is the provision of Personal Assistant services required to dress/undress/toilet a person with a disability how considered to be 'Nanny State'? This isn't a smoking ban or anti-sliapping that we're talking about here. This is about the bare basic minimums required to allow a person just a tiny chance of participation in economic, social and cultural life. If this now comes under the label of 'Nanny Stateism', I guess McDowell & co should be congratulated for shifting the goalposts.


I think that Michael McDowell made the case that it would lead to anyone with a disability being able to take a court action for the support they needed, and the courts having to find in their favour even if the cost of providing that support were totally disproportionate to the overall benefit that would accrue. I think this is a reasonable concern and needs to be thought out and debated in public. It’s not about the very basic support being given.


----------



## RainyDay (1 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> You may not agree that their proposal is the best solution, and you may be right, but it's a big jump to conclude that therefore they are knowingly doing harm for idological reasons.


It's hard to see what other conclusion I can draw. I don't think this is done unknowingly, because I'd never accuse Harney or McDowell of being stupid. The end result is that people are dying as a direct result of the lack of access to basic services. What other conclusions could be drawn from this.



Purple said:


> That's a cheap shot.


Agreed, but I am still genuinely interested in hearing the good reasons for the employer holding the work visa.



Purple said:


> On single mothers and Mary Harney; I don't remember that policy being implemented and Fintan O'Toole’s currency as a writer is rendered worthless by virtue of the overwhelming bias which colours his every utterance.


Don't shoot the messenger. You may not like Fintan, but Harney's comments are on public record. Google will find you a range of sources on these comments. They were never implemented as policy given the uproar that followed, but they were indicitive of what makes Mary tick.



Purple said:


> I think that Michael McDowell made the case that it would lead to anyone with a disability being able to take a court action for the support they needed, and the courts having to find in their favour even if the cost of providing that support were totally disproportionate to the overall benefit that would accrue. I think this is a reasonable concern and needs to be thought out and debated in public. It’s not about the very basic support being given.


How could the most basic of human supports (toileting, education, medical treatment) be considered to be totally disproportionate? It is easy to write legislation that puts reasonable limits on the supports to be provided as a matter of rights, but of course that was ruled out. Isn't it strange how there is no difficulty in backdating a pension by 5 years as a matter of right for one former Minister, but provision of incontinence pads, or a hoist, or a decent powered wheelchair is not an option?


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> It's hard to see what other conclusion I can draw. I don't think this is done unknowingly, because I'd never accuse Harney or McDowell of being stupid. The end result is that people are dying as a direct result of the lack of access to basic services. What other conclusions could be drawn from this.


 That they are trying to get better value for money given that there are limited resources and at the moment there is massive waste in the health sector so things have to change?



RainyDay said:


> How could the most basic of human supports (toileting, education, medical treatment) be considered to be totally disproportionate? It is easy to write legislation that puts reasonable limits on the supports to be provided as a matter of rights, but of course that was ruled out. Isn't it strange how there is no difficulty in backdating a pension by 5 years as a matter of right for one former Minister, but provision of incontinence pads, or a hoist, or a decent powered wheelchair is not an option?


 But the concern is that it's not easy to write legislation that puts reasonable limits on the supports to be provided if the principle that you are entitled to full support as a right as any such limits could be challenged on the basis that the individuals’ rights are being denied. Lawyers could have a field day with that sort of potentially contradictory working in a law. 
I'm not saying that it could not be overcome; I'm just saying that it's a legitimate concern and it is valid to raise it. 

I'll come back to the work vise issue when I have time.


----------



## RainyDay (1 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> That they are trying to get better value for money given that there are limited resources and at the moment there is massive waste in the health sector so things have to change?


This isn't a value-for-money issue. This isn't a waste issue. This is indeed a resource issue.



Purple said:


> But the concern is that it's not easy to write legislation that puts reasonable limits on the supports to be provided if the principle that you are entitled to full support as a right as any such limits could be challenged on the basis that the individuals’ rights are being denied. Lawyers could have a field day with that sort of potentially contradictory working in a law.
> I'm not saying that it could not be overcome; I'm just saying that it's a legitimate concern and it is valid to raise it.


No-one is talking about 'full support'. This isn't about Rolls-Royce solutions. There is no difficulty in putting reasonable limits (or even unreasonable ones, like the 'nominal cost' one in the Equal Status Acts) in legislation. McDowell didn't raise the issue of how to define the rights - he just blew out any possibility of rights based legislation on principle.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> This isn't a value-for-money issue. This isn't a waste issue. This is indeed a resource issue.


 If is a resource issue then value-for-money and waste ahve to come into it or else resources are being wasted.




RainyDay said:


> No-one is talking about 'full support'. This isn't about Rolls-Royce solutions. There is no difficulty in putting reasonable limits (or even unreasonable ones, like the 'nominal cost' one in the Equal Status Acts) in legislation. McDowell didn't raise the issue of how to define the rights - he just blew out any possibility of rights based legislation on principle.


I heard him talk about this on the radio news so I can't post a link, but those were the points he raised. I disagree with him and support the notion of a rights based system but I think you are being unfair to the man.


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Nov 2007)

Hi Rainyday,

Just on an aside, I think you are falling into Bertie Ahern's trap of disproportionately blaming the PD's for the shortcomings and cruelties of our health service and other state services over the past 10 years. It is this strategy that has insulated Ahern and FF, whose representatives have formed over 90% of the government's parliamentary and ministerial ranks throughout the past decade, from any sort of proper electoral accountability during that time. If this trend continues, the Green Party will shoulder the blame for the consequences of any economic downturn during the present government's term.

ps Fwiw, I have never voted PD in my life, nor had any other association with them...


----------



## RainyDay (2 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> I disagree with him and support the notion of a rights based system but I think you are being unfair to the man.


Maybe I should damn him with faint praise and say 'he means well'?


ubiquitous said:


> Just on an aside, I think you are falling into Bertie Ahern's trap of disproportionately blaming the PD's for the shortcomings and cruelties of our health service and other state services over the past 10 years. It is this strategy that has insulated Ahern and FF, whose representatives have formed over 90% of the government's parliamentary and ministerial ranks throughout the past decade, from any sort of proper electoral accountability during that time. If this trend continues, the Green Party will shoulder the blame for the consequences of any economic downturn during the present government's term.


Fair point.


----------



## room305 (5 Nov 2007)

Glad to see the Equality Authority are refusing to shy away from the major issues afflicting society today. They cannot double the budget for this quango fast enough.


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Maybe I should damn him with faint praise and say 'he means well'?
> 
> Fair point.


 No, I think you should not assume that he, and those who agree with him, are motivated by some despicable master race like agenda simply because you disagree with their ideology.


----------



## RainyDay (6 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> No, I think you should not assume that he, and those who agree with him, are motivated by some despicable master race like agenda simply because you disagree with their ideology.



As I pointed out to ubiquitous, I never mentioned 'despicable master race agenda', but if that's the feeling you get from reading the PD policies mentioned above, then so be it.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> As I pointed out to ubiquitous, I never mentioned 'despicable master race agenda', but if that's the feeling you get from reading the PD policies mentioned above, then so be it.


I missed this one...
I don't get that feeling from reading their policies; I get it from you comments about their policies.


----------

