Tax take reduction - what to cut?

[room305]

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]

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.
In M’s case the Equality Officer concluded that he failed to establish a prima facie case on the Traveller community ground. The Equality Officer was satisfied that M has a disability and concluded that the respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation for him in that he was not prioritised to see the educational psychologist so that educational supports could be put in place to meet his needs and without special educational facilities it was unduly difficult for him to avail of education in the School. The Equality Officer also concluded that the claimant was victimised in that he was refused Confirmation because he was pursuing a complaint against the school under the Equal Status Act. The Equality Officer awarded him €3,000 compensation for failing to provide him with reasonable accommodation and awarded him €2,000 compensation for the victimisation.
The Equality Officer also ordered that respondent put in place a system facilitating early identification of students who have disabilities or learning
difficulties with the aim of directing these students to the appropriate educational services quickly in order to ensure that they maximise the benefit of their participation in formal education.

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.

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]

No slur intended with Porkie reference, I assume?

None, it was a Freudian slip

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

That's a cheap shot.

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

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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'?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.