China Olympics - London protest


I think you're imagination is running away with itself with all this talk of a veto. No group or individual has a veto.
 
Complainer said:
I think you're imagination is running away with itself with all this talk of a veto. No group or individual has a veto.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Complainer said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 accept that the fact that the state has shown itself to be almost completely incapable of regulating any area where services are publicly delivered is of concern but the solution is not to just leave things as they are.
 
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.
 

AAm is hardly a hotbed of leftwing politics either but I take your point. My point is that right or wrong the government of the people made a decision and a vested interest group made them reverse it. If it was IBEC I'd be just as unhappy but the fact is that the unions have too much power in this country, which is as bad (or maybe worse) as them having too little power.
 
Purple said:
My point is that right or wrong the government of the people made a decision and a vested interest group made them reverse it.
Click to expand...
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?

For the record, ICTU represents about 830,000 members, or somewhere between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total population, or between one-half to one-third of the working population, who pay a couple of hundred quid each to participate, and who decide democratically about participating in partnership talks.
 
According to this there were 602,644 members in 2007. The vast majority of whom are civil and public servants. This means that the ICTU is, in effect, a public service employee lobby group. Anyway, it doesn't matter how many members they have they should not be dictating government policy.

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. I am not in the least bit surprised that the unions took this position since they do the same thing in health and every other public service. They have the same mindset as their comrades who destroyed the British car, ship building and steel industries between the 1950's and the 1980's.
 
Purple said:
The vast majority of whom are civil and public servants. This means that the ICTU is, in effect, a public service employee lobby group.
Click to expand...
Source please?
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.

If you're going to go blaming ICTU, you really need to present a better case than your own paranoia.
 
Complainer said:
If you're going to go blaming ICTU, you really need to present a better case than your own paranoia.
Click to expand...
We certainly are going around in circles.
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. 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”.[broken link removed]

I think the issue here has less to do with what you perceive as my paranoia and more to do with your own bias and preconceptions stemming from your strong ideological views.
 
Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

The words of Mandy Rice Davies spring to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register