Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
I think you're imagination is running away with itself with all this talk of a veto. No group or individual has a veto.
The social partners all counted together sill represent a minority of the population. That’s not the point though, the NRA in America represent millions of people but they don’t get what amounts to a veto on government policy.
The thing is that the only people who are elected by the people to represent them in government are the politicians. I don’t want IBEC, CORI or SIPTU telling the elected government of the people how to run the country. It’s fundamentally undemocratic.
I think you're imagination is running away with itself with all this talk of a veto. No group or individual has a veto.
I'm open to correction on this, but wasn't it the PD wing of the Govt (which didn't hold the transport portfolio) that wanted to open up the Dublin market, and the FF wing (which did hold the transport portfolio) that didn't?In practical terms they do.
One example; The government said that they would open up the Dublin bus market. The unions slapped them back down into their place and the government went scurrying off with its tail between its legs.
I'm not sure either but you could well be right. The point is though that a government policy which was implemented to improve the public transport infrastructure delivered to the people of Dublin was reversed due to union pressure. Everyone from the AA to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce supported the opening up of the market so it's not as if it was a contentious right wing policy. When a service is delivered by a monopoly and the only organisation in favour of maintaining the status quo is that monopoly it is usually the case that change (i.e. competition) will benefit those that consume the service.I'm open to correction on this, but wasn't it the PD wing of the Govt (which didn't hold the transport portfolio) that wanted to open up the Dublin market, and the FF wing (which did hold the transport portfolio) that didn't?
It is fiction to suggest that 'everyone' supported the opening up of the market. It is indeed a contentious right-wing policy. Many posters even here on AAM (which is not exactly a hotbed of lefty thinkers) questioned why go down the privatisation route, given that this has generally been an abysmal failure in the UK.I'm not sure either but you could well be right. The point is though that a government policy which was implemented to improve the public transport infrastructure delivered to the people of Dublin was reversed due to union pressure. Everyone from the AA to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce supported the opening up of the market so it's not as if it was a contentious right wing policy. When a service is delivered by a monopoly and the only organisation in favour of maintaining the status quo is that monopoly it is usually the case that change (i.e. competition) will benefit those that consume the service.
It is fiction to suggest that 'everyone' supported the opening up of the market. It is indeed a contentious right-wing policy. Many posters even here on AAM (which is not exactly a hotbed of lefty thinkers) questioned why go down the privatisation route, given that this has generally been an abysmal failure in the UK.
Sorry, but in the example, you have not shown that the govt made a decision and you have not shown that a vested interest group made them reverse it. Perhaps there is a touch of paranoia here?My point is that right or wrong the government of the people made a decision and a vested interest group made them reverse it.
Source please?The vast majority of whom are civil and public servants. This means that the ICTU is, in effect, a public service employee lobby group.
We're going in circles here. If you haven't heard anyone say 'blah blah blah', then you haven't been reading other AAM threads on this issue. Rather than going over the DB issue again and again, perhaps you'd address the fact that you have not shown that the govt made a decision and you have not shown that a vested interest group made them reverse it.I don't accept for a minute that the liberalisation of the Dublin bus market was a "contentious right-wing policy".
Other than the protectionists in the unions and Dublin Bus employees I have not heard anyone say that a well regulated market with competition on the delivery of services was a bad idea. The vested interest groups frustrated a government policy designed to improve the delivery of services to the public.
We certainly are going around in circles.If you're going to go blaming ICTU, you really need to present a better case than your own paranoia.
I'm not ignoring anything. I will continue to point out that you have completely failed to show that there was any trade union involvement in this policy u-turn. Maybe I'm picky, but it would be nice to have some independent, reliable evidence to back up your claim.If you choose to ignore that government policy was frustrated by union pressure I have neither the time and the inclination to make you to see the blindingly obvious.
The words of Mandy Rice Davies spring to mind.But just for the hell of it; FG though so too. Declan O’Farrell, Chief Executive of Metroline plc, agrees as well. He said, “The Minister and his department have been talking for a long time now about their plans to liberalise the public transport market and the ongoing uncertainty and equivocation is not helpful. It would appear to be the Unions that are currently dictating public transport policy”