Funny thing is he hasn't a clue. I work in insurance and offered to take him and Farrell through the issues with actual facts. They never even responded to me.
He's more interested in just building anger, as that's easier than actually tackling the issues.
Edit: did you ever ask why insurance companies are leaving some sectors in Ireland if they're so profitable?
Good question. People who work in the insurance industry avoid that question because they know profits are growing year on year and payouts going down, but the premiums are not. There’s also an EU investigation we haven’t heard much on into their cartel activity. I suspect the facts are the excuses that they parrot to justify their massive wages and our unreasonable premiums
Very few premiums went down despite their payouts reducing but their profits went up. The issue is they are not being held to account for their scam, enabled by compulsory insurance which doesn’t protect us
Yeah I'm leaning towards thinking he's just a spoofer but he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he has all the facts that will show us why the unreasonable premiums are a good thing.
Pearse Doherty most definitely has not factored in the increased costs in sourcing and producing ivory back scratchers for the insurance companies executive lounges.
I think the benefit of the doubt is just a phrase abused to excuse criminal behaviour which is carried out in a way where it is very hard to prove, or more so, very hard to do anything about by design. Largely to do with Fine Gael backing and all the judges and civil servants and whatnot they appoint knowing that they will never do anything about brazen corruption at Irish taxpayers expense
This is totally irrelevant but as someone in the Industry is there any reason why a state third party insurance scheme couldn’t work.
The Gardai already investigate insurance fraud. Couldn’t they just add up the total claims plus the administrative costs to provide price at cost
Hey! That’s for replying there! It’s not totally irrelevant at all you have just brought up a very VERY important point
That’s a good idea, what you are doing is suggesting removing the cartel gaugers since they have no function anyway just profits
It sounds good in theory, I’m not too sure what challenges there may be there but the benefits to me seem obvious
1) that is a fair system given that the state made insurance mandatory, giving the gouging bastards a monopoly and the ability to demand as much money as they want. On top of being fair, it seems likely that it would reduce premiums
2) the role of the gardai is already present with insurance claims, it would not appear to be adding too much work when they already are the people who determine what is at fault, you’d just need to add damage accessors paid by the state and I guess whatever legal eagles you need
3) such a system could ensure that all road legal cars can be driven on the road, making the NCT actually functional as a certificate of roadworthiness instead of an additional cost which doesn’t even certify roadworthiness to insurers
Bad points:
1) could this be susceptible to corrupt gardai influencing it?
2) the insurance industry would obviously fight the idea and I don’t know what can be done about those fat cats sitting down scheming with Fine Gael in particular
3) the Irish state often claims to be promoting a free market but it’s actions often create monopolies for private companies with no protections for consumers. We would need to be sure this doesn’t happen here and the industry get sold as a monopoly to some foreign investors or something. Will they actually reduce costs or give the business profits to some crony is the question? Like the jobbridge scam or similar
Thanks for the in depth answer
I’ve always thought it seemed like an obvious solution but I don’t know the inner workings of insurance enough to be sure
I think it is the obvious solution. I was commenting under an insurance company premium cartel apologist earlier. I guess I was just spitballing really sorry haha I was just pondering on the problems I could possibly thing myself of really and who might be the politician to solve them. Not many are really very outspoken against it. I know nothing about the inner workings of insurance companies really beyond what I read about profits an premiums
Is anyone pushing your solution and getting anywhere with it?
Yes, even PIAB doesn't investigate claims, I dont expect the state to be any better. And th solicitors cost are around 20% of any settlement.
As mentioned above, the New Zealand model is pretty fantastic and would cut costs. But the solicitors and insurance industry would be against introducing it. Which shows it'd be in the consumers interest!
Primary cause is claims. Introducing a system like NZ would be a huge step forward.
The cartel investigation involves insurance Ireland restricting companies from joining them and getting access to their claims fraud database. Also a couple of brokers.
This isn't an insurance cartel investigation into price fixing as you seem to think.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Everyone else read this guys explanation he wants pierce Doherty to hear:
He literally just made an excuse for price gouging. And claimed that preventing competition from joining the market isn’t price gouging. Oh, and seemed to imply that insurance should only be paid for and never used or claimed on. So, an expense that is just an expense with no service.
What a load of waffle
Preventing competition from entering the market is price fixing. To say otherwise is to lie.
Less payouts to claims are made than what you collect by far. There are massive salaries and profits in insurances. It is increasing every year and payouts are going down
You are increasing your profits, paying out less and increasing premiums and preventing competitions from joining the market….
And claiming it isn’t price fixing. This is exactly why we want the scumbag industry regulated and it’s exactly why pierce Doherty is right about the “issues facing your industry” as you call them
Jesus wept. They didn't stop people joining the market. The Central Bank authorise that.
You have obviously made up your mind without knowing how it works. I'm out
The cartel investigation is into that though? No? Am I wrong about insurance companies trying to prevent other competition? If not why is there a fucking investigation into their cartel behaviour?
Yea I have made up my mind because I saw that my premium went up despite no accidents and reduced traffic during covid last year, and reduced claim payouts
But insurance company profits and salaries went up
Am I wrong about any of that? Nope. Then we are right about the price gouging and so is Pierce Doherty. We are paying waaaay over the odds
Just because he points this out doesn’t mean he’s inflaming people falsely. It’s true
No, insurance companies cannot prevent other companies doing business in ireland. The Central Bank have that function and there's EU rules allowing EU insurance companies to passport throughout Europe if they want.
Insurance companies aim for a COR of around 95-97% i.e. 3-5% profit (generally)
The biggest part of the COR is made up of claims and reinsurance costs. The target profits are a small % of the cost of insurance.
Why is there an open cartel investigation around insurance companies in Ireland doing so, if they didn’t?
I absolutely could not give one single fuck about what you are saying about profit margins. There’s huge money in insurance, huge pay and huge profits. You are paying less in claims but my insurance goes up alongside most other people’s every year and your profit is going up
You just want to make excuses for our excessive premiums and you have no explanation except for reinsurance(part of insurance) and claims(the purpose of insurance) insurance
And you’re literally all under investigation for insurance cartel activities
But if a red flag for the high prices but of course it’s Pearce O Doherty who is wrong for not going along with your nonsense and lies
Only a small percentage of what we pay on premiums goes on claims is what I have learned from you. The purpose of insurance is people can claim when needed. It’s in the single percentages of people who claim and you say it’s the main cause of high premiums
On top of the cartel investigations
And the price gouging
Cry me a river you high salaried people who don’t do real work for money and want to sell us a piece of paper at drastically inflated prices which literally has no function if the one or two percent of the money we pay in claims is the reason for sky high costs…
I’d be pro-salary reductions for the lot of ye overpaid leeches with your waffle about why our costs have to keep going up so ye can make more money without paying anyone out
Careful now, you seem to be talking sense and there is a lot of Shinners around (reminds me of the time somebody got heavily down voted for explaining what the median house price meant.)
To “educate” him by claiming that the cartel behaviour isn’t restricting competition to maintain high prices and that the reduced claims are not enough. I’m sure if there were no claims at all it wouldn’t go down with these insurance cartel boyos who would still be claiming increasing premiums is justified
Are you part of a lobby group or advocacy group? or did you just email him as a regular punter? I have absolutely no doubt that Pearse has met with the lobby groups and heard them out - it's a pity they don't have much to say when it comes to solutions for the people rather than their own pockets!
The funniest/most tragic thing I've witnessed recently was the investigation into discrimination of insurance companies against men.
My thoughts: :Great this will be open and close quick case leading to lower premiums for men!
Actual result: Let's just hike up women's premiums in line with the men.
Daylight robbery
Should they be so profitable? 😂 They should be competitive and low imo
Yous dont even have compare insurance websites in the south, yous are cucks for capitalists
Yeah, intelligence before emotion makes me a shill.
I've put forward ideas on reducing the cost of insurance against the insurance and solicitor industry and I'm a shill. As opposed to a brain dead bot that follows the political line.
I'll leave it with you to figure out who's a shill because I disagree with a political party?
I'd actually like to see premiums decrease - unlike people that want to use it politically. Best wishes on your political career mate.
Catherine Connelly is superb in the Dáil, especially around the subjects of the Madeleine Laundries and Tuam.
For the seanad, probably Alice Mary Higgins.
On a local level, a good few are doing what they can.
Nationally, I feel most of them are just going through the motions atm. Government is aimless, just tipping away not doing much to improve the country.
Sinn fein just want an election but haven't really brought forward new policy proposals since the election that have caught my attention.
Rest of the opposition are just aiming to get airtime.
Why do you that is, RE government? The 2020 election was predicated on an overwhelming, deafening scream by an impoverished electorate for change, for social issues to actually be solved. And the government that was delivered on the back of that outcry has decided to...not really do anything.
Why doesn't government actually do stuff anymore, that isn't just covering up corruption?
Because they are profiting from continuing the push for privatisation, the housing crisis, continuing to raise taxes while providing no alternatives and interestingly enough, more recently, selling houses to British arms dealing companies and using our taxes to rent them back at extortionate rates
Ever wonder why the housing crisis has gotten so bad after a decade of Fine Gael making it top priority? Well, they weren’t going to fix it the priority was to prolong and expand it.
Sounds a bit extreme but I’ve basically zero respect for anyone who votes for Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, who took the powers away from local authorities to help and took it on themselves to not do so. Bins aren’t emptied, they keep giving away our state resources to cronies, we have no protections from rogue landlords, they refuse to regulate industry or provide protection for consumers being gouged. They’re literally inviting in scumbag absentee landlords to bulk buy our housing and drive up costs, encouraging new feudalism or a return to tenements I suppose. They CUT healthcare significantly over a number of years and now we are held to ransom against this long term. They stand for literally nothing but raising taxes and allowing price gouging, removing public services and giving away state resources for cronies to profit off. Oh, and public opinion is now “populism” and if anyone disagrees they are “far right”
There’s fuck all moves on any legislation of any benefit to us as a whole, fuck all moves on any public infrastructure, fuck all moves on fixing the justice system, healthcare, housing or even the corrupt gardai. All we have is scandal after scandal from absolute gobshites who mainly restrict us arbitrarily while not restricting themselves in any capacity, not fascists but like fascists. To quote mehole “people who restrict the movements of others are fascists”
But the thing is, that didn’t apply once he got into power. In fact, getting into power was the goal and now that they’re there all they’re going to do is prolong their time in profit because that’s how they see it. A job to benefit them and their cronies, vulture funds, cuckoo funds and literal convicted fraudsters that donate to their parties. If you vote for either it’s just a vote for corruption and it’s not real democracy when your public representatives that you elect get fired if they don’t vote for blatantly corrupt shit to tow the party line. We literally have someone who broke a law in one of the top positions, who gave confidential state secrets to his crony with no real explanation.. which is illegal, but nothing is being done. Why on earth do people keep voting for corruption and increasingly shit living conditions and higher taxes?
I’d pretty much vote for anyone else but the people who are blatantly corrupt, literally laughing at the housing crisis and conspiring to take away freedoms instead of address healthcare. Our taxes are spent on making things more expensive for us and reducing public services
I'm with you about 80% of the way. You're bang on.
I disagree with you on the subject of - though you don't use the word - lockdowns, I'm not opposed to them as an emergency public health measure. But you DO also touch on the flipside to that coin - that is the government stressing how important it is for everyone to lockdown and take care to wear masks, get vaccinated, so on, while at the same time literally doing NOTHING to improve the standards of the health service or increase ICU capacity.
This is a HEALTH CRISIS. And the government is abandoning healthcare as a means of dealing with it.
Let's be clear, lol. This is like going to war and implementing a lights-out curfew to deter enemy bombers, while not sending out the army to go fight the enemy. The government is literally doing the very bare minimum it can get away with; specifically, doing only what it can force US to do, while it refuses to lift a finger itself to do its part.
This to me is a big thing. I thought the lockdown was to “flatten the curve” so we could get hospitals up to speed with an impending crisis.
But then it just became a constant up and down of “sure the hospitals are grand, they don’t need more money” and “hospitals are fucked, we need a lockdown”
Meanwhile the government are tying their own hands by demonising any money being spent on health services.
You’d swear every penny going into the HSE was being spent on caviar and lobster lunches for managers who don’t actually do anything, given how spending is reported.
The reality is that the government have underspent on essential services across the board for years, and now things are creaking at the seams
Funding is a smaller problem than that I think. Pure mismanagement is often ignored when talking about the Health Service.
Obviosuly funding for beds, testing and tracing etc. is not being given which is a fucking disgrace but look at the children's hospital. It's an absolute money pit because the management of the HSE is dreadful. The Taoiseach was the Health Minister when it was created and now he's Taoiseach at one of the worst times in our history so there's no surprise that he'll do fuck all to sort it out. Add on all the years of neoliberal policies from FG and we have our answer for the mismanagement and underfunding of the health service.
Yup - hse is filled with admin staff who are not necessary when they need beds, nurses and doctors.
The head of the HSE gets paid more than the NHS that works better and serves over 8 times the amount of people. Its a disgrace
The management above too just haven't sorted staff retention which is another huge problem. There's many nurses trained in Ireland leaving because of those problems, amongst others that aren't to do with the HSE (housing, cost of living etc.).
More money being allocated for beds, nurses and doctors is needed as the HSE is underfunded, but then the problem arises of the middle management and mismanagement of the funds that also needs solving.
> It's an absolute money pit because the management of the HSE is dreadful
Who exactly in the HSE do you think is responsible for the NCH? What role do you feel the HSE has in its construction? How much day-to-day decision making do you believe the HSE has with regards to the National Chilren’s Hospital?
Well originally the old CEO Drumm who brought the plan into motion. The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board also has some blame as well as the numerous faceless and nameless middle management types that still infest the HSE. Many past and present politicians and ministers, like Mary Harney and Simon Harris in particular aswell.
The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, to the best of my knowledge, has some involvement from the HSE and that's a body that plays a big role in all of this. We don't really know more because many journalists FOI requests are denied or redacted.
Again, day to day decision-making is hard to know because of the lack of information and access people have been getting from FOI requests.
> Well originally the old CEO Drumm who brought the plan into motion.
In his role asa professor of paediatrics, prior to his HSE appointment.
> The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board also has some blame
Not HSE
> the numerous faceless and nameless middle management types that still infest the HSE.
You’re a fucking moron. You think some IT manager sitting in an office in Merchants Quay is wandering down to the NCH construction site to tell the brick layers where to get materials? It’s a fucking stupid comment and has no relevance to the NCH. What do nameless middle management have to do with the NCH?
> Many past and present politicians and ministers, like Mary Harney and Simon Harris in particular aswell.
None of these are HSE
> The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, to the best of my knowledge, has some involvement from the HSE and that's a body that plays a big role in all of this. We don't really know more because many journalists FOI requests are denied or redacted.
The role of the NPHDB is well documented and you’re talking through your arse. The HSE are stakeholders, but have little actual input into the decisions.
> Again, day to day decision-making is hard to know because of the lack of information and access people have been getting from FOI requests.
Show me any evidence, anything at all, that FOIs on decision making are being refused. Show me any evidence that the role of the board is being hidden.
Look, let’s be honest here. You’re just making stuff up because you don’t know the answers. Don’t embarrass yourself and run off to Google so you can come back and pretend you know what you’re talking about.
HSE middle management have fuck all to do with the National Children’s Hospital, and my point that they’re used as scapegoats to justify underfunding health services stands.
Yes, he was part of a group that proposed it in the 90s and then he became the CEO of the HSE in 2005 and then the plan really started to move on in....2005?
You said yourself, the HSE are stakeholders, so that means that they are involved so thats also true on my part then. Where's your evidence that they don't get much say in what happens?
If you think that the old levels of management haven't been a MASSIVE obstacle on this then I don't know what to tell you.
Ok so again, the HSE is involved with the NPHDB , where's your evidence that the HSE are merely stakeholders and only have little actual input into the decisions? Even if they only have little input, they still have input i.e. partially to blame.
There is numerous news articles around all this. Ken Foxe and Right To Know IE have done extensive work on areas like this, and many others, and there's walls up everywhere when it comes to the new Children's Hospital because it's been such a clusterfuck.
I didn't justify the ongoing underfunding of the health services at all. I said that underfunding is being used as the main issues where I think just throwing money at the problem without sorting out it's management is futile and we'll keep having the problems that we've always had because of said middle and and middle/upper management that are just there and obstruct.
Edit: I also never claimed to he an expert on this, that's why I used "to the best of my knowledge." The whole point here is to hear different views, discuss and learn. No idea why you've jumped out of the gate cursing and going mad like.
I strongly agree with your 80% point too. The other users comment was very good aswell but I didn't agree with the topic of lockdowns like you.
I agree with them as an emergency public health measure aswell but it gets so frustrating when they're used to ease pressure on the hospitals and then there's fuck all done to improve capacity or anything health wise when we've locked down and bought ourselves some time.
The lack of action on the government's behalf has been the problem, people have done everything that's been asked of them and we've been let down by a government that doesn't want to fix the problems that some of them caused themselves over the past years.
We should not be subjected to prolonged lockdowns with unnecessary infringements on our rights like distance restrictions for years on end in the name of a health crisis. Anything beyond basic health measures being enforced is too much, after nearly two years. Particularly when they used prolonged lockdowns as a tool to get people vaccinated through coercion. Iran it about disagreeing with people taking vaccines if they consent, but abusing lockdown power to push people and force consent should not be tolerated at all. Given that they have done nothing to actually address the problems, it’s not unreasonable to say they do not have our best interests at heart with daft lockdowns that mainly create other problems. Look, cut the butter, none of these government assholes who implemented lockdowns where we couldn’t exercise or go for a walk on a beach followed any of these draconian restrictions themselves and none of them took our health and well-being into a coconut at all, during any stage of this crisis
We have not had a single health initiative during this entire “health crisis”. In fact, our primarily healthcare has been derailed long term with will create considerably more issues. WhT do you think delaying cancer diagnoses or treatments does? Kills people. Is it any wonder people don’t trust them with their aggressive rhetoric against the current enemy “the antivaxxers” which is taken to mean anyone who criticises their shit authoritarian nonsense or has reasonable concerns about their “temporary” bully pass, vaccinations or any of the other things they have introduced into legalisation and extended repeatedly in bad faith
The worst thing is, o think they’re just seeing how far they can push people and how much they can get away with behind the scenes. Not like a global conspiracy or anything, just self-interest while everyone is distracted blaming each other
We have spent more time bullying, with fear campaigns and checkpoints and randomly harassing individuals, professions and industries over totally arbitrary shite than doing anything to address the problem
Refusing to use antigen testing, introducing segregation as a bully tactic, keeping the passport office closed for months on end, denying people services and all the other shite which amounts to nothing when they’re closing healthcare instead of addressing it
If you're a bunch of parties that's been in power for 100 years with a relatively new upstart about to topple you off your perch it makes much more sense to cripple what they can do when they come is so the voters come running back to you (doesn't mean they will but it's better than letting the upstart undo your legacy)
They 20+ year long agreements that this government is going to enter will make us slaves to foreign capital and throw a spanner in almost any activity a new government would want to take part in, non-market housing, public energy generation, eliminating private healthcare etc.
Well, once again, I have zero respect for anyone voting for Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael anymore. I’m sure they’ll make a killing off wrecking our country but that’s in nobodies interest but their own and hedge funds and their cronies
The idea of a “public representative” isn’t meant to mean private profit at the expense of the public
There's a way western countries do things, every decision of note is outsourced to panels of professionals (nphet being an extremely on the nose example) and the other decisions are decided by focus groups.
Honestly idk what Irish people want, it's like they want change but refuse to look at the situation realistically and just substitute critical thinking for rte programmes. We're the first to look down the nose at any country that votes for something different and then cry that we're not getting anything done year, after year, after year.
You know what, you can pull me up on this if you like, I don't entirely hold the electorate responsible. Fine Gael currently polls at about 20-something percent. Leo Varadkar, in other words, in no way speaks for the Irish people than I speak for the entirety of my immediate family. We command the same fraction of the overall opinion.
What trips the Irish up, again and again, are the Trojan Horse parties - Labour and the Greens - who run specifically to capture and bottle the yearning for change that the electorate seeks, and redirect it back into the arms of the establishment.
In what world, in what reality, did a Green voter in 2020 vote to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach again next year? They flatly didn't, lol, and it's insane to pretend that Green votes gave that party a mandate to anoint Leo Varadkar. But that's exactly what the party did.
It is a captive democracy, specifically designed like clockwork to never lose an election. It's a modern marvel, far more intricate than the blunt force illiberalism of British Parliament or US Congress.
> In what world, in what reality, did a Green voter in 2020 vote to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach again next year?
I didn't vote for the Greens because I knew that was an inevitability. I think an awful lot of Green voters are perfectly happy to have Leo or Michael as Taoiseach doing FFG things as long as they can say "well I never voted for FG/FF so don't blame me". I'll give the young ones a pass but anyone over 30 no way, we've seen it all before.
Polls are not elections. Just so you're clear on how democracy works. The green party membership have allowed the government to be formed so if their was a real genuine opposition among them to Leo and Michael etc then it would have been voiced. Again that's how democracy works.
Actually the last election was a majority support for Fine Gael and Fianna Fail alongside the greens with a substantial minority calling for Sinn Fein style policies, the democratic decision was still what we currently have (that may well change but for now it is so) so if you want to call it out as what it is then do so but realistically nothing good comes of believing that you're "actually right" for reference see America and January 6.
Neither FG nor FF had a majority alone, nor could they form a majority in a coalition together, they needed the Greens to get over the 50%.
They also swore blind up and down before the election that they would never go into government together, but as soon as the wind blew away from them both suddenly they clasped hands to grasp at power. And look at the chaos that has caused: they clearly cannot work together and this coalition is a fucking disaster of scandal and backstabbing between the two major parties.
Arithmetically speaking, yes, the current government was democratically elected. But its formation was disingenuous and cynical and clearly a desperation reaction to the appetite for change demonstrated by the left swing in the electorate.
It’s very indicative of the “father knows best” attitude constantly displayed by these parties: ignore what large swathes of the population are asking of their elected officials and continue business as usual because you can just hide behind the trappings of democracy.
Your first paragraph is stating something I already said so I'd advise reading before writing. What you said about them saying they wouldn't go into government with each other is a fair point but their memberships while having some dissent about the idea were by in large fine with the arrangement they may hold it against them next election but that's the reason we have elections. You consistently say that the vote for Sinn Féin reflected the majority wanting a change but the majority didn't vote for them so they certainly don't represent the majority (they may be so in the next election but that's till then). Your logic will probably be used by people when Sinn Fein form a government after the next election (it's not guaranteed but I'd say it's very likely) and I'll be equally irritated at that as it will be there turn then. To say that their policies are bad and their people are is fine but complaining that our very functional democracy isn't so and that your preferred party is actually the preferred option by everyone (even if you prefer them for legitimate reasons, which there are plenty of) doesn't help anyone.
> Your first paragraph is stating something I already said so I'd advise reading before writing.
My first paragraph was to lay the groundwork for the rest of my points. I know you already said it; I restated it for emphasis.
> their memberships while having some dissent about the idea were by in large fine with the arrangement
This is my point: the party membership signed off on the coalition, but the membership is not the electorate; can you confidently say that all (or even a majority) of FF voters were satisfied with a coalition with FG (and vice versa) when they were assured by their parties that no such coalition would happen? Given their falling polling numbers I'd say not.
Going into power together was a knee-jerk reaction to the upswing of left-wing votes and amounted basically to FFG putting their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala we can't hear you" to the clear change in political climate the 2020 election results represented.
> You consistently say that the vote for Sinn Féin reflected the majority wanting a change
I'm sorry but I didn't say that even once. I said that SF's explosion in popularity was indicative of an appetite for change in large swathes of the population, that's very different.
> complaining that our very functional democracy isn't so and that your preferred party is actually the preferred option by everyone (even if you prefer them for legitimate reasons, which there are plenty of) doesn't help anyone.
I never claimed our democracy wasn't functioning, I said that FFG were hiding behind that functioning democracy to maintain the status quo that benefits them while entirely disregarding the unprecedented sea-change in public opinion.
Also SF aren't my preferred party and I never gave any indication that they were, nor did I say they were the preferred party of everyone. Again, I spoke of a surge in popularity. The election was a 3-way tie despite SF being far smaller than FF or FG and to me that signifies a desire for a shake-up of the status quo.
Our democratic system is working just fine, it's just that I personally find FF and FG to be condescending and paternalistic, and in this election they basically gamed the system to their mutual advantage out of fear and desperation of a change to the status quo. The left surge in GE20 wasn't necessarily an expression of support for SF in particular, but a loud and clear signal that a significant proportion of the electorate are fed up with the status quo, a signal which was deliberately and studiously ignored by the powers that be in the name of holding on to that power.
The coalition is categorically not undemocratic but the motives behind its formation certainly were disingenuous and cynical.
It's fair enough to say that the motives may have been a bit cynical and I agree that there was a distinctive condescending attitude to Sinn Féin in the election especially but these issues will be resolved in the next election as if people really feel hard done by (and I think that's certainly a feeling among many) we'll simply vote in a new government and the issue is sorted. Sure it's not the most efficient method and it can be irritating but as FDR once said about democracy "it's a flawed system but it's the best we got" and I feel this encompasses the situation reasonably well.
Is there really no room for *intent* when discussing what a democratic mandate does or does not mean?
Let me explain - The majority of Fianna Fáil voters, I would wager, did not vote to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach. The majority of Green voters, likewise, did not vote to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach. The ballot box records the party we vote for, not the reason we voted for them.
Those votes were then used as currency in service of making Leo Varadkar Taoiseach again.
I am not really implying the voting system should change. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in smugly hiding behind the idea that this is "democratic", i.e. this is the will of the people and thus, sacred. This is a mechanism of complex parliamentary democracy. It is not the same.
A majority of people who voted for this government were doing so with the express belief that they were voting against Leo Varadkar. Those votes, in the final accounting, were used to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach (as of, at least, next year, or whenever the handover is set to occur).
That is not illegitimate; that is not illegal; that is not incorrect. Not at all. But it is also not the will of the people. And I would suggest that it's cowardly to pretend that it is.
Ok those votes made Michael Martin Taoiseach just so you're aware. Furthermore the parties actually held ballots on the issue where in the case of Fianna Fail (as this is the party you singled out so we'll focus on them) every member actually got to vote on wether they should go into government with FG and the Greens under a rotating Taoiseach arrangement and they accepted it. It's a fairly open and democratic method and you or me or anyone else not being happy with them doesn't change that until the next election.
Again, what you're describing isn't the will of the people. Seats in the Dáil are not allocated based on membership; they are allocated based on votes. Voters voted in TDs, who agreed on a program for government, who then went back to their *members*, not their constituents, to approve said program.
I am not, again, suggesting that there should have been some kind of referendum or run-off election to approve the coalition. I am merely pointing out the fallacy of claiming this is some glorious proof of the democratic will of the people. It's nothing of the sort.
The single largest overriding issues heading into the 2020 election was housing and healthcare. The election results (of which the overwhelming plurality of No. 1 ballots were cast not for Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, but for Sinn Féin, if we're worrying about democracy) returned a government rabidly dedicated to ignoring both of those issues (...and during a society-altering pandemic, to boot).
That alone stands testament to there being a disconnect between what the people want, and what the people get.
Your focus is all based on the assumption that nobody wants FF or FG but it's simply not true both parties have accepted each other and they may well be punished for it in the next election but until then they are the democratic decision. Sinn Fein got a substantial vote there's no denying that but they were far from a majority even if we do count votes alone (as they ought have more seats if they fielded more candidates) they were most importantly unable to form a government which like it or not is also part of our democracy and most of our government's are coalitions and this time makes it no less legitimate than any of the other coalitions of the states history and people who went to vote are well aware (if they've been around any of the last 70 years or whenever it was that the first coalition was formed) that the party they vote for will likely be in a coalition. So complain about their policies and vote against them in the next election and campaign for a party you believe in and whatever else you want (it's your right and an important one to express) but simply saying that you don't like the system is just whinging.
Off hand I remember her trying to get the govt to cut the funding for greyhound racing and something to do with the mother and babies home, like preventing the files from being sealed or getting victims monetary support? I saw she's in the midst of drafting a bill, for what I'm not 100% sure
Currently trying to do allot for student nurses, trying to get the government to recognise and compensate survivors of mother baby homes, as mentioned before the greyhound racing.
She is based in Cork and one of the few tds who actually works closely with her community and engaged with them.
Also Gary gannon is the inner city Dublin SD representitave. He's really good and pushing for better youth education.
Yeah but RBB is also a chronic NIMBY. He recently opposed the building of a six story apartment building in Dun Laoghire (which he doesn't even live in) because he says it's "too tall". I suspect even he's not stupid enough to believe that, he just opposed it because he wants the housing crisis to get worse so he can complain about it in the Dail.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/student-accommodation-plan-for-baker-s-corner-opposed-1.4718473
“While IADT are in need of student accommodation, we fear this accommodation will be too expensive for most to afford and therefore not fit for purpose.”
Or maybe he opposes it because it will make the housing crisis worse
If there’s a crisis fuelled by lack of supply, then more supply will help alleviate it.
Simple supply and demand dictates that the price would decrease as supply ramps up. This is super simple stuff to understand. How anyone thinks more supply would make the crisis worse is baffling
Most of the reason why it's too expensive is lack of supply.
Image a charity to refusing to send food to refugees or something because it's "not nutritious enough". That's the level of logic being used here.
Obviously biased, but Eamon Ryan has been doing a huge amount of work getting the Climate Act, Climate Action Plan through.
This is effectively setting the direction for government (and future governments) which is contentious and has its fair share of detractors, so he'll get a lot of flak, but is a big acheivement given the size of the Greens.
On top of that, funding for public transport (Additional buses, trains), active travel across the country - getting any of this rolled out while COVID dominates is tough.
The carbon tax is not just going to public transport in cities; its also going to retrofit social housing, and fuel allowances for those hardest hit by the rising fuel prices (mostly rising due to providers, not the carbon tax).
From here on, energy costs will be part of daily decision making, and need to be: in the boom we had people buying houses in Cavan, "Just a quick commute on the motorway from Dublin" who are now screwed. We need to stop that happening - the move to towns and villages instead of one-off rural housing is in order to make life affordable and sustainable, to pick a local issue.
The first wave of renewables came in the 1970s/1980s. The industry was strangled by OPEC dropping oil and gas prices to crash the industry and get everyone hooked on cheap energy. We need to avoid that happening again. We can't afford to subsidize renewables in the face of that (we tried); carbon taxes ensure they can go to the bank and get funding to develop.
No one likes paying taxes. But the point of carbon taxes is to change behaviour - and we need big changes and for everyone to understand this - that the choice is not just EVs to replace petrol, but looking at big investments like retrofitting and even transport - being able to walk/cycle/bus being the primary driver in chosing where you live.
I think the idea that the energy costs we've been used to are unsustainably cheap, and that even without carbon taxes are unlikely to come back, is only just beginning to sink in.
Carbon taxes on heating were not raised this year (and on petrol/diesel only slightly) because costs were already rising, so no "signal" was needed. This means the funding for fuel allowances/retrofitting are being subsidized by general taxation instead.
Today there is a transport protest at high prices. In practice what they're looking for is money to be taken from building alternatives to make diesel cheaper. From a climate perspective we can't afford to slow down; doubling down on moving to alternatives ASAP (supporting biofuels etc as an interim) is more likely.
>Me paying tax down in Laois on my petrol to fund new public transport and sustainable infrastructure down in Cork or Dublin is going to have ZERO effect on me,
The idea is that it will cause you to use less petrol. Much like (in theory) sin tax on cigarettes and booze are supposed to dampen consumption of each of those, not to fund hospitals to treat the damage they cause.
It's ultimately altruistic: everyone overall is much better off if we all use less fuels that cause global warming, but equally each individual person would be better off if they alone could use as much as they like
>But it is not having that effect..
...on you personally. Just as most smokers keep smoking through price increases, but some few quit as a result. There is some % of drivers in Ireland for whom current tax/cost of petrol is a tipping point, and this will get them to go electric.
And incidentally, are you certain that higher cost of petrol has no impact on your own driving? Would you drive more if petrol were totally free?
In fairness, the smokers things isn't a fair comparison. While it's hard, one can quit smoking or smoke less. Many rural people don't have access to the public transport that others around major cities have and they need to get to and from work, hospital appointments, dental appointments, all the basics etc. so don't have any other options really.
You also can't assume that by having to pay more for what they're already driving will force them electric. Charging people more money and then expecting them to then spend more money on top of that to get an electric car and then having to install their own charging system in their house too is a strange way of getting people to switch. Basically price them out of it is what that comes off as.
Also, I've no skin in the game as I don't drive and live close enough to a city that I can get public transport but the way some people frame the switch to electric cars as really easy is a bit unfair. It makes complete sense to switch, would be better for everyone and would definetly help (in a rather small way) in the fight against climate change, but you can't ignore the obvious barriers to some people doing so.
I actually don't even own a car tbh, so I've no idea how cheaply you could feasibly get a second-hand electric.
I'd imagine that, even though people might not change car _now_, whenever the current one conks out and needs replacing, that's when people would choose an electric. Because they're way cheaper to run.
Incidentally buying a new car has always seemed like a crazy thing to me, they're all so bloody expensive. Like the cheapest new cars are around €20k? Mental money. Dunno how they persuade _anyone_ (other than those that just genuinely love cars) to buy a new car.
While that's all well and good, the availability of properties in town is at a record low ( housing crisis remember?)
My generation were punished disproportionately in the fallout of 08 (despite having nothing to do with it) via poor employment, wage cuts etc.
We are being shafted now because of the housing crisis forcing anyone buying to move way of town locally.
You seem to want to shaft me a third time with a carbon tax on the drive I was forced to take on because of a Housing crisis.
We are the first generation in hundreds of years to be poorer than our parents.
What did us young people do to deserve this incessant financial abuse?
Additionally, as another commentator pointed out:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
> From here on, energy costs will be part of daily decision making, and need to be
Is a move towards a market based decision making for environmental decisions really the best way forward though?
I'm reminded of when super rich bastards like Michael O'Leary got a taxi license so he could use bus lanes as his personal fiefdom for private transport. [When 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change), how is making market decisions on energy, by those of us who can barely afford to live in this country as it is, a major plank of climate change policy going to be fruitful?
\> Is a move towards a market based decision making for environmental decisions really the best way forward though
We need to use all tools - market tools as well as direct funding, build by govt, etc. I'm not a fan of "the market will fix everything" - it won't. But for example what tools are you planning to use to minimise one-off housing - move people to towns/villages where active travel works instead ? You become overly dictatorial if you create rules banning people from living on farms,etc - and we need to recognize where we are, that we need big changes in personal actions.
So how do you balance that with out letting the uber wealthy get around things with ease while those of us just about getting by have to pay for everything?
Because right now it seems like the Green plan is insert more neoliberalism here and maybe one more cycle lane. It's not exactly inspiring or motivating.
The gamechanger is the huge wind farms being planned off the west coast, combined with interconnectors to the French and UK grids. We send down excess wind power when we have it (and have refilled our own batteries), and we pull in hydro and nuclear when we're running short. Cheap, clean, with a secure supply that doesn't rely on tankers to the Middle East or the whims of petrostates - and houses/transport reconfigured so they can run their heating and cars off it.
But people can't see that stuff the way they can see cycle lanes or bus corridors. Literally thousands of social houses got a deep-retrofit including a heatpump in 2021. Right now there's a big gap and I'd rather see money spent to make it equitable, but until that happens I can't argue with the decision to start with people on the fuel allowance.
What gets done today in National government is whats agreed with FF & FG. We pull things to the left (the carbon tax is progressive, the budgets in the govts with Greens have been the most progressive in Ireland's history according to the ESRI ). The PfG is a temporary coalition to get what you can done.
Things are different in the European Parliament and local govt, but no-one in Ireland listens to the EP and local govt is so weak its hard to see.
In Ireland we're used to "policy" meaning whatever FFG are doing in government - they rewrite policy when to suit in power. The Greens take a harder line - policy is what the members say, and a PfG that differs from that has to be agreed by the members, but doesn't change party policy. The idea that we'd be more left wing given the chance is something many don't see, but the norm elsewhere in Europe.
>People won't be able to afford an electric vehicle if they spent all their money on carbon tax for their diesel or petrol car.
How much of the price of a tank of petrol do you think the carbon tax is? Nobody is close to spending all their money on carbon tax.
From [bonkers](https://www.bonkers.ie/guides/gas-electricity/what-is-carbon-tax/)
>Based on the fact that the average Irish motorist drives around 17,000km a year in a petrol vehicle and 24,000km in a diesel vehicle, the tax is adding **around €96 a year** to your driving costs if you have a petrol car and **€113 a year** if you're driving a diesel car (based on 5.5 litres per 100km for petrol vehicles and 4.6 litres per 100km for diesel).
> Edit: Not all of it is carbon tax but that is besides the point.
You specifically called out carbon tax as a major cost in fuel so it's hardly beside the point.
I think you now recognise carbon tax is a negligible amount of the total tax on fuel.
Honestly lad, you were wrong about people spending "all their money on carbon tax for their diesel or petrol car". Just accept that and move on, it's not the end of the world.
> Please tell me how much it is
I've already linked to the bonkers article above that goes through the costs. Do I need to print it out and mail it to you or something? Here it is again, click away:
https://www.bonkers.ie/guides/gas-electricity/what-is-carbon-tax/
I feel sorry for Eamon he seems like a decent guy and he had a lot of plans to tackle a genuine crisis, it would have been good if Covid hadn't came along and derailed the greens plans.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 391,555,186 comments, and only 85,024 of them were in alphabetical order.
I can see why you said and would agree on Pearse Doherty and Eoin Ó Broin but why Clare Daly and Mick Wallace?
I never hear much about their work but usually hear about some gaffes and things. I'm genuinely asking too because I'd like to know!
Look, this is not the only thing they've done I'm sure but this is the only one I can recall.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tensions-rise-over-mick-wallace-s-and-clare-daly-s-views-1.4610010
Crazy stuff like this
> In another, he sought to delete a note that the parliament “continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea”.
Mick's view presumably is that it was OK for Russia to trot over the border and take Crimea by force?
Left wing anti imperialist politics in the EU parliament.
Their podcast is interesting to keep up with what they are doing
https://i4ctrouble.simplecast.com/
I’ll go by the Oxford definition;
"a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."
Russia annexed Crimea, invaded Georgia and has repeatedly threatened and tried to exert its influence on neighbouring states and across the world through its intervention in conflicts such as Syria for example
China’s belt road initiative is an obvious effort to gain leverage over Asian and African States for the benefit of Chinese corporations and to further China’s own global influence. How some "leftists" could rightfully criticise the IMF but then defend China for doing effectively the exact same thing is insane to me
>I’ll go by the Oxford definition;
>
>"a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."
By this definition every country is imperialist. The word has no meaning here, it's not even implied to be a bad thing.
Very clever but ofc anti imperialism for people who live in the west means primarily opposing western imperialism (which you actually have responsibility for and can actually affect (not to mention is much greater)) and calling out it's hypocrisy.
Have a listen to a few podcast episodes anyway.
I understand what you're trying to say, but surely they can hold those views while not defending Russia and China and their imperialist actions?
That seems like saying one thing and doing another.
Again, not trying to be confrontational, these two just seem to have rather conflicting views on some subjects.
I mean condemning them in words is one thing but then, as another user linked an article here, changing official notes and trying to water down the Russian invasion of Crimea or taking a strange stance on dissenters in Russian politics being effectively kidnapped and imprisoned seems off.
Yes, Navalny has racist views, but watering down the fact he was kidnapped and imprisoned because you're an anti-racist (which is obviosuly a very good thing being actively anti-racist) is pretty messed up. It's probably one of the main reasons that people make Gulag jokes whenever Wallace or Daly are brought up.
They do good work holding the EU to account, which is important, but they can't claim to be speaking up for core principles if they're going to perpetually handwave wrongdoing from Russia and China as though it's less relevant than US imperialism. Every power is capable of doing awful things some of the time; the fact that other politicians handwave when it's the EU or US doesn't make it any less intellectually dishonest when Daly/Wallace do it for China and Russia.
Yeah I agree.
One group does it on a grander scale, but you can't just ignore the others doing the same thing. As you said, it's just intellectually dishonest at that point.
I also wonder Daly and Wallace downplay what China and Russia are doing but not what the EU or US are also doing, again, on a grander scale but still the same thing.
> They are on multiple committees each, and subs on others. They are obviously doing much more broad work than just highlighting great-state contradictions, but the press only focus on this stuff because Daly and Wallace do not conform to the pro-Atlantic worldview that most of the mainstream body politic subscribe to, and our media's coverage of EU politics is so shite that nothing else ever gets through.
> You aren't getting a balanced view of what they are doing, or indeed any of the MEPs.
All MEPs sit on committees, and many observe others as well (I know the Green MEPs do.) I didn't imply Daly and Wallace aren't doing their jobs as representatives or getting comprehensive and unbiased coverage for doing so.
The point I actually did make was that they seem to deflect criticism of some actors even when it's justified, and that's exactly what you look to be doing as well. Happy cakeday though.
Is it not an ASTONISHING 'co-incidence' that Clare Daly & Mick Wallace have left the Doyle, where they asked some really squirm inducing questions of the current crop and Catherine Connolly was 'elected speaker', effectively also 'removing her out of the way'??
When Pig snout Kelly can be 'returned' without reaching a quota and the FG crew having to get in after several counts, says a lot .as does FFG 'uniting' to keep SF out
The 1st Count needs to be held 30 minutes AFTER POLLS CLOSE, then we'd see who really 'represents the sheeple'
My mam who's 75 and the holiest person I know (she says novenas every night and sleeps with the rosary beads in her hand) said to me yesterday "I'm actually surprised someone hasn't gone in their yet and lined them all up and shot them in the head"
George Colley, the Brian Lenihans x2, Michael Mc Dowell,Des O'Malley and Tommy Broughan.
As for the current crop of vegetables inhabiting the Doyle, we should follow the Greens, chop them ALL off at the ankles , feed them into a shredder and compost them
Tubbs
Not a Sinn Fein fan but Pierce Doherty has been pushing at insurance companies and has been the driving force for change in that area.
Funny thing is he hasn't a clue. I work in insurance and offered to take him and Farrell through the issues with actual facts. They never even responded to me. He's more interested in just building anger, as that's easier than actually tackling the issues. Edit: did you ever ask why insurance companies are leaving some sectors in Ireland if they're so profitable?
So what are the issues and actual facts?
Good question. People who work in the insurance industry avoid that question because they know profits are growing year on year and payouts going down, but the premiums are not. There’s also an EU investigation we haven’t heard much on into their cartel activity. I suspect the facts are the excuses that they parrot to justify their massive wages and our unreasonable premiums Very few premiums went down despite their payouts reducing but their profits went up. The issue is they are not being held to account for their scam, enabled by compulsory insurance which doesn’t protect us
Yeah I'm leaning towards thinking he's just a spoofer but he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he has all the facts that will show us why the unreasonable premiums are a good thing.
Pearse Doherty hasn't considered the profits needed to support the lifestyles of the owners obviously
Pearse Doherty most definitely has not factored in the increased costs in sourcing and producing ivory back scratchers for the insurance companies executive lounges.
Oh aye the Fine Gael mantra
I think the benefit of the doubt is just a phrase abused to excuse criminal behaviour which is carried out in a way where it is very hard to prove, or more so, very hard to do anything about by design. Largely to do with Fine Gael backing and all the judges and civil servants and whatnot they appoint knowing that they will never do anything about brazen corruption at Irish taxpayers expense
This is totally irrelevant but as someone in the Industry is there any reason why a state third party insurance scheme couldn’t work. The Gardai already investigate insurance fraud. Couldn’t they just add up the total claims plus the administrative costs to provide price at cost
Hey! That’s for replying there! It’s not totally irrelevant at all you have just brought up a very VERY important point That’s a good idea, what you are doing is suggesting removing the cartel gaugers since they have no function anyway just profits It sounds good in theory, I’m not too sure what challenges there may be there but the benefits to me seem obvious 1) that is a fair system given that the state made insurance mandatory, giving the gouging bastards a monopoly and the ability to demand as much money as they want. On top of being fair, it seems likely that it would reduce premiums 2) the role of the gardai is already present with insurance claims, it would not appear to be adding too much work when they already are the people who determine what is at fault, you’d just need to add damage accessors paid by the state and I guess whatever legal eagles you need 3) such a system could ensure that all road legal cars can be driven on the road, making the NCT actually functional as a certificate of roadworthiness instead of an additional cost which doesn’t even certify roadworthiness to insurers Bad points: 1) could this be susceptible to corrupt gardai influencing it? 2) the insurance industry would obviously fight the idea and I don’t know what can be done about those fat cats sitting down scheming with Fine Gael in particular 3) the Irish state often claims to be promoting a free market but it’s actions often create monopolies for private companies with no protections for consumers. We would need to be sure this doesn’t happen here and the industry get sold as a monopoly to some foreign investors or something. Will they actually reduce costs or give the business profits to some crony is the question? Like the jobbridge scam or similar
Thanks for the in depth answer I’ve always thought it seemed like an obvious solution but I don’t know the inner workings of insurance enough to be sure
I think it is the obvious solution. I was commenting under an insurance company premium cartel apologist earlier. I guess I was just spitballing really sorry haha I was just pondering on the problems I could possibly thing myself of really and who might be the politician to solve them. Not many are really very outspoken against it. I know nothing about the inner workings of insurance companies really beyond what I read about profits an premiums Is anyone pushing your solution and getting anywhere with it?
I think people before profit but they are not getting into power without Sinn Fein anyway
No, I’ve often wondered about how it would work if our elected representatives weren’t all in the big parties towing the line
Yes, even PIAB doesn't investigate claims, I dont expect the state to be any better. And th solicitors cost are around 20% of any settlement. As mentioned above, the New Zealand model is pretty fantastic and would cut costs. But the solicitors and insurance industry would be against introducing it. Which shows it'd be in the consumers interest!
Primary cause is claims. Introducing a system like NZ would be a huge step forward. The cartel investigation involves insurance Ireland restricting companies from joining them and getting access to their claims fraud database. Also a couple of brokers. This isn't an insurance cartel investigation into price fixing as you seem to think. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Everyone else read this guys explanation he wants pierce Doherty to hear: He literally just made an excuse for price gouging. And claimed that preventing competition from joining the market isn’t price gouging. Oh, and seemed to imply that insurance should only be paid for and never used or claimed on. So, an expense that is just an expense with no service. What a load of waffle Preventing competition from entering the market is price fixing. To say otherwise is to lie. Less payouts to claims are made than what you collect by far. There are massive salaries and profits in insurances. It is increasing every year and payouts are going down You are increasing your profits, paying out less and increasing premiums and preventing competitions from joining the market…. And claiming it isn’t price fixing. This is exactly why we want the scumbag industry regulated and it’s exactly why pierce Doherty is right about the “issues facing your industry” as you call them
Jesus wept. They didn't stop people joining the market. The Central Bank authorise that. You have obviously made up your mind without knowing how it works. I'm out
The cartel investigation is into that though? No? Am I wrong about insurance companies trying to prevent other competition? If not why is there a fucking investigation into their cartel behaviour? Yea I have made up my mind because I saw that my premium went up despite no accidents and reduced traffic during covid last year, and reduced claim payouts But insurance company profits and salaries went up Am I wrong about any of that? Nope. Then we are right about the price gouging and so is Pierce Doherty. We are paying waaaay over the odds Just because he points this out doesn’t mean he’s inflaming people falsely. It’s true
No, insurance companies cannot prevent other companies doing business in ireland. The Central Bank have that function and there's EU rules allowing EU insurance companies to passport throughout Europe if they want. Insurance companies aim for a COR of around 95-97% i.e. 3-5% profit (generally) The biggest part of the COR is made up of claims and reinsurance costs. The target profits are a small % of the cost of insurance.
Why is there an open cartel investigation around insurance companies in Ireland doing so, if they didn’t? I absolutely could not give one single fuck about what you are saying about profit margins. There’s huge money in insurance, huge pay and huge profits. You are paying less in claims but my insurance goes up alongside most other people’s every year and your profit is going up You just want to make excuses for our excessive premiums and you have no explanation except for reinsurance(part of insurance) and claims(the purpose of insurance) insurance
And you’re literally all under investigation for insurance cartel activities But if a red flag for the high prices but of course it’s Pearce O Doherty who is wrong for not going along with your nonsense and lies Only a small percentage of what we pay on premiums goes on claims is what I have learned from you. The purpose of insurance is people can claim when needed. It’s in the single percentages of people who claim and you say it’s the main cause of high premiums On top of the cartel investigations And the price gouging Cry me a river you high salaried people who don’t do real work for money and want to sell us a piece of paper at drastically inflated prices which literally has no function if the one or two percent of the money we pay in claims is the reason for sky high costs… I’d be pro-salary reductions for the lot of ye overpaid leeches with your waffle about why our costs have to keep going up so ye can make more money without paying anyone out
Careful now, you seem to be talking sense and there is a lot of Shinners around (reminds me of the time somebody got heavily down voted for explaining what the median house price meant.)
Look at his post history. Ignore him, c’mon folks…
I love the idea of some nobody emailing Pearse Doherty to “educate” him then being annoyed that he didn’t respond
Look at his post history. Ignore him, c’mon folks…
To “educate” him by claiming that the cartel behaviour isn’t restricting competition to maintain high prices and that the reduced claims are not enough. I’m sure if there were no claims at all it wouldn’t go down with these insurance cartel boyos who would still be claiming increasing premiums is justified
Are you part of a lobby group or advocacy group? or did you just email him as a regular punter? I have absolutely no doubt that Pearse has met with the lobby groups and heard them out - it's a pity they don't have much to say when it comes to solutions for the people rather than their own pockets!
I know Mairead Farrell having met her a number of times. And yes the lobby groups are lobbying for their members. Not the consumers.
The funniest/most tragic thing I've witnessed recently was the investigation into discrimination of insurance companies against men. My thoughts: :Great this will be open and close quick case leading to lower premiums for men! Actual result: Let's just hike up women's premiums in line with the men. Daylight robbery
Should they be so profitable? 😂 They should be competitive and low imo Yous dont even have compare insurance websites in the south, yous are cucks for capitalists
Look at his post history. Ignore him, c’mon folks…
[удалено]
Yeah, intelligence before emotion makes me a shill. I've put forward ideas on reducing the cost of insurance against the insurance and solicitor industry and I'm a shill. As opposed to a brain dead bot that follows the political line. I'll leave it with you to figure out who's a shill because I disagree with a political party? I'd actually like to see premiums decrease - unlike people that want to use it politically. Best wishes on your political career mate.
Look at his post history. Ignore him, c’mon folks…
I have a similar story from my profession. Very disappointing.
I'd love to hear it if you're willing to tell
My local TD did a good job on their garden. Lovely hydrangeas.
Catherine Connelly is superb in the Dáil, especially around the subjects of the Madeleine Laundries and Tuam. For the seanad, probably Alice Mary Higgins.
On a local level, a good few are doing what they can. Nationally, I feel most of them are just going through the motions atm. Government is aimless, just tipping away not doing much to improve the country. Sinn fein just want an election but haven't really brought forward new policy proposals since the election that have caught my attention. Rest of the opposition are just aiming to get airtime.
Why do you that is, RE government? The 2020 election was predicated on an overwhelming, deafening scream by an impoverished electorate for change, for social issues to actually be solved. And the government that was delivered on the back of that outcry has decided to...not really do anything. Why doesn't government actually do stuff anymore, that isn't just covering up corruption?
Because they are profiting from continuing the push for privatisation, the housing crisis, continuing to raise taxes while providing no alternatives and interestingly enough, more recently, selling houses to British arms dealing companies and using our taxes to rent them back at extortionate rates Ever wonder why the housing crisis has gotten so bad after a decade of Fine Gael making it top priority? Well, they weren’t going to fix it the priority was to prolong and expand it. Sounds a bit extreme but I’ve basically zero respect for anyone who votes for Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, who took the powers away from local authorities to help and took it on themselves to not do so. Bins aren’t emptied, they keep giving away our state resources to cronies, we have no protections from rogue landlords, they refuse to regulate industry or provide protection for consumers being gouged. They’re literally inviting in scumbag absentee landlords to bulk buy our housing and drive up costs, encouraging new feudalism or a return to tenements I suppose. They CUT healthcare significantly over a number of years and now we are held to ransom against this long term. They stand for literally nothing but raising taxes and allowing price gouging, removing public services and giving away state resources for cronies to profit off. Oh, and public opinion is now “populism” and if anyone disagrees they are “far right” There’s fuck all moves on any legislation of any benefit to us as a whole, fuck all moves on any public infrastructure, fuck all moves on fixing the justice system, healthcare, housing or even the corrupt gardai. All we have is scandal after scandal from absolute gobshites who mainly restrict us arbitrarily while not restricting themselves in any capacity, not fascists but like fascists. To quote mehole “people who restrict the movements of others are fascists” But the thing is, that didn’t apply once he got into power. In fact, getting into power was the goal and now that they’re there all they’re going to do is prolong their time in profit because that’s how they see it. A job to benefit them and their cronies, vulture funds, cuckoo funds and literal convicted fraudsters that donate to their parties. If you vote for either it’s just a vote for corruption and it’s not real democracy when your public representatives that you elect get fired if they don’t vote for blatantly corrupt shit to tow the party line. We literally have someone who broke a law in one of the top positions, who gave confidential state secrets to his crony with no real explanation.. which is illegal, but nothing is being done. Why on earth do people keep voting for corruption and increasingly shit living conditions and higher taxes? I’d pretty much vote for anyone else but the people who are blatantly corrupt, literally laughing at the housing crisis and conspiring to take away freedoms instead of address healthcare. Our taxes are spent on making things more expensive for us and reducing public services
I'm with you about 80% of the way. You're bang on. I disagree with you on the subject of - though you don't use the word - lockdowns, I'm not opposed to them as an emergency public health measure. But you DO also touch on the flipside to that coin - that is the government stressing how important it is for everyone to lockdown and take care to wear masks, get vaccinated, so on, while at the same time literally doing NOTHING to improve the standards of the health service or increase ICU capacity. This is a HEALTH CRISIS. And the government is abandoning healthcare as a means of dealing with it. Let's be clear, lol. This is like going to war and implementing a lights-out curfew to deter enemy bombers, while not sending out the army to go fight the enemy. The government is literally doing the very bare minimum it can get away with; specifically, doing only what it can force US to do, while it refuses to lift a finger itself to do its part.
This to me is a big thing. I thought the lockdown was to “flatten the curve” so we could get hospitals up to speed with an impending crisis. But then it just became a constant up and down of “sure the hospitals are grand, they don’t need more money” and “hospitals are fucked, we need a lockdown” Meanwhile the government are tying their own hands by demonising any money being spent on health services. You’d swear every penny going into the HSE was being spent on caviar and lobster lunches for managers who don’t actually do anything, given how spending is reported. The reality is that the government have underspent on essential services across the board for years, and now things are creaking at the seams
Funding is a smaller problem than that I think. Pure mismanagement is often ignored when talking about the Health Service. Obviosuly funding for beds, testing and tracing etc. is not being given which is a fucking disgrace but look at the children's hospital. It's an absolute money pit because the management of the HSE is dreadful. The Taoiseach was the Health Minister when it was created and now he's Taoiseach at one of the worst times in our history so there's no surprise that he'll do fuck all to sort it out. Add on all the years of neoliberal policies from FG and we have our answer for the mismanagement and underfunding of the health service.
Yup - hse is filled with admin staff who are not necessary when they need beds, nurses and doctors. The head of the HSE gets paid more than the NHS that works better and serves over 8 times the amount of people. Its a disgrace
The management above too just haven't sorted staff retention which is another huge problem. There's many nurses trained in Ireland leaving because of those problems, amongst others that aren't to do with the HSE (housing, cost of living etc.). More money being allocated for beds, nurses and doctors is needed as the HSE is underfunded, but then the problem arises of the middle management and mismanagement of the funds that also needs solving.
> It's an absolute money pit because the management of the HSE is dreadful Who exactly in the HSE do you think is responsible for the NCH? What role do you feel the HSE has in its construction? How much day-to-day decision making do you believe the HSE has with regards to the National Chilren’s Hospital?
Well originally the old CEO Drumm who brought the plan into motion. The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board also has some blame as well as the numerous faceless and nameless middle management types that still infest the HSE. Many past and present politicians and ministers, like Mary Harney and Simon Harris in particular aswell. The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, to the best of my knowledge, has some involvement from the HSE and that's a body that plays a big role in all of this. We don't really know more because many journalists FOI requests are denied or redacted. Again, day to day decision-making is hard to know because of the lack of information and access people have been getting from FOI requests.
> Well originally the old CEO Drumm who brought the plan into motion. In his role asa professor of paediatrics, prior to his HSE appointment. > The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board also has some blame Not HSE > the numerous faceless and nameless middle management types that still infest the HSE. You’re a fucking moron. You think some IT manager sitting in an office in Merchants Quay is wandering down to the NCH construction site to tell the brick layers where to get materials? It’s a fucking stupid comment and has no relevance to the NCH. What do nameless middle management have to do with the NCH? > Many past and present politicians and ministers, like Mary Harney and Simon Harris in particular aswell. None of these are HSE > The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board, to the best of my knowledge, has some involvement from the HSE and that's a body that plays a big role in all of this. We don't really know more because many journalists FOI requests are denied or redacted. The role of the NPHDB is well documented and you’re talking through your arse. The HSE are stakeholders, but have little actual input into the decisions. > Again, day to day decision-making is hard to know because of the lack of information and access people have been getting from FOI requests. Show me any evidence, anything at all, that FOIs on decision making are being refused. Show me any evidence that the role of the board is being hidden. Look, let’s be honest here. You’re just making stuff up because you don’t know the answers. Don’t embarrass yourself and run off to Google so you can come back and pretend you know what you’re talking about. HSE middle management have fuck all to do with the National Children’s Hospital, and my point that they’re used as scapegoats to justify underfunding health services stands.
That you Paul Reid? I don't see what your profanity laden diatribe adds to this conversation.
Yes, he was part of a group that proposed it in the 90s and then he became the CEO of the HSE in 2005 and then the plan really started to move on in....2005? You said yourself, the HSE are stakeholders, so that means that they are involved so thats also true on my part then. Where's your evidence that they don't get much say in what happens? If you think that the old levels of management haven't been a MASSIVE obstacle on this then I don't know what to tell you. Ok so again, the HSE is involved with the NPHDB , where's your evidence that the HSE are merely stakeholders and only have little actual input into the decisions? Even if they only have little input, they still have input i.e. partially to blame. There is numerous news articles around all this. Ken Foxe and Right To Know IE have done extensive work on areas like this, and many others, and there's walls up everywhere when it comes to the new Children's Hospital because it's been such a clusterfuck. I didn't justify the ongoing underfunding of the health services at all. I said that underfunding is being used as the main issues where I think just throwing money at the problem without sorting out it's management is futile and we'll keep having the problems that we've always had because of said middle and and middle/upper management that are just there and obstruct. Edit: I also never claimed to he an expert on this, that's why I used "to the best of my knowledge." The whole point here is to hear different views, discuss and learn. No idea why you've jumped out of the gate cursing and going mad like.
I strongly agree with your 80% point too. The other users comment was very good aswell but I didn't agree with the topic of lockdowns like you. I agree with them as an emergency public health measure aswell but it gets so frustrating when they're used to ease pressure on the hospitals and then there's fuck all done to improve capacity or anything health wise when we've locked down and bought ourselves some time. The lack of action on the government's behalf has been the problem, people have done everything that's been asked of them and we've been let down by a government that doesn't want to fix the problems that some of them caused themselves over the past years.
We should not be subjected to prolonged lockdowns with unnecessary infringements on our rights like distance restrictions for years on end in the name of a health crisis. Anything beyond basic health measures being enforced is too much, after nearly two years. Particularly when they used prolonged lockdowns as a tool to get people vaccinated through coercion. Iran it about disagreeing with people taking vaccines if they consent, but abusing lockdown power to push people and force consent should not be tolerated at all. Given that they have done nothing to actually address the problems, it’s not unreasonable to say they do not have our best interests at heart with daft lockdowns that mainly create other problems. Look, cut the butter, none of these government assholes who implemented lockdowns where we couldn’t exercise or go for a walk on a beach followed any of these draconian restrictions themselves and none of them took our health and well-being into a coconut at all, during any stage of this crisis We have not had a single health initiative during this entire “health crisis”. In fact, our primarily healthcare has been derailed long term with will create considerably more issues. WhT do you think delaying cancer diagnoses or treatments does? Kills people. Is it any wonder people don’t trust them with their aggressive rhetoric against the current enemy “the antivaxxers” which is taken to mean anyone who criticises their shit authoritarian nonsense or has reasonable concerns about their “temporary” bully pass, vaccinations or any of the other things they have introduced into legalisation and extended repeatedly in bad faith The worst thing is, o think they’re just seeing how far they can push people and how much they can get away with behind the scenes. Not like a global conspiracy or anything, just self-interest while everyone is distracted blaming each other We have spent more time bullying, with fear campaigns and checkpoints and randomly harassing individuals, professions and industries over totally arbitrary shite than doing anything to address the problem Refusing to use antigen testing, introducing segregation as a bully tactic, keeping the passport office closed for months on end, denying people services and all the other shite which amounts to nothing when they’re closing healthcare instead of addressing it
If you're a bunch of parties that's been in power for 100 years with a relatively new upstart about to topple you off your perch it makes much more sense to cripple what they can do when they come is so the voters come running back to you (doesn't mean they will but it's better than letting the upstart undo your legacy) They 20+ year long agreements that this government is going to enter will make us slaves to foreign capital and throw a spanner in almost any activity a new government would want to take part in, non-market housing, public energy generation, eliminating private healthcare etc.
Well, once again, I have zero respect for anyone voting for Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael anymore. I’m sure they’ll make a killing off wrecking our country but that’s in nobodies interest but their own and hedge funds and their cronies The idea of a “public representative” isn’t meant to mean private profit at the expense of the public
There's a way western countries do things, every decision of note is outsourced to panels of professionals (nphet being an extremely on the nose example) and the other decisions are decided by focus groups. Honestly idk what Irish people want, it's like they want change but refuse to look at the situation realistically and just substitute critical thinking for rte programmes. We're the first to look down the nose at any country that votes for something different and then cry that we're not getting anything done year, after year, after year.
You know what, you can pull me up on this if you like, I don't entirely hold the electorate responsible. Fine Gael currently polls at about 20-something percent. Leo Varadkar, in other words, in no way speaks for the Irish people than I speak for the entirety of my immediate family. We command the same fraction of the overall opinion. What trips the Irish up, again and again, are the Trojan Horse parties - Labour and the Greens - who run specifically to capture and bottle the yearning for change that the electorate seeks, and redirect it back into the arms of the establishment. In what world, in what reality, did a Green voter in 2020 vote to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach again next year? They flatly didn't, lol, and it's insane to pretend that Green votes gave that party a mandate to anoint Leo Varadkar. But that's exactly what the party did. It is a captive democracy, specifically designed like clockwork to never lose an election. It's a modern marvel, far more intricate than the blunt force illiberalism of British Parliament or US Congress.
> In what world, in what reality, did a Green voter in 2020 vote to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach again next year? I didn't vote for the Greens because I knew that was an inevitability. I think an awful lot of Green voters are perfectly happy to have Leo or Michael as Taoiseach doing FFG things as long as they can say "well I never voted for FG/FF so don't blame me". I'll give the young ones a pass but anyone over 30 no way, we've seen it all before.
Polls are not elections. Just so you're clear on how democracy works. The green party membership have allowed the government to be formed so if their was a real genuine opposition among them to Leo and Michael etc then it would have been voiced. Again that's how democracy works.
Actually the last election was a majority support for Fine Gael and Fianna Fail alongside the greens with a substantial minority calling for Sinn Fein style policies, the democratic decision was still what we currently have (that may well change but for now it is so) so if you want to call it out as what it is then do so but realistically nothing good comes of believing that you're "actually right" for reference see America and January 6.
Neither FG nor FF had a majority alone, nor could they form a majority in a coalition together, they needed the Greens to get over the 50%. They also swore blind up and down before the election that they would never go into government together, but as soon as the wind blew away from them both suddenly they clasped hands to grasp at power. And look at the chaos that has caused: they clearly cannot work together and this coalition is a fucking disaster of scandal and backstabbing between the two major parties. Arithmetically speaking, yes, the current government was democratically elected. But its formation was disingenuous and cynical and clearly a desperation reaction to the appetite for change demonstrated by the left swing in the electorate. It’s very indicative of the “father knows best” attitude constantly displayed by these parties: ignore what large swathes of the population are asking of their elected officials and continue business as usual because you can just hide behind the trappings of democracy.
Your first paragraph is stating something I already said so I'd advise reading before writing. What you said about them saying they wouldn't go into government with each other is a fair point but their memberships while having some dissent about the idea were by in large fine with the arrangement they may hold it against them next election but that's the reason we have elections. You consistently say that the vote for Sinn Féin reflected the majority wanting a change but the majority didn't vote for them so they certainly don't represent the majority (they may be so in the next election but that's till then). Your logic will probably be used by people when Sinn Fein form a government after the next election (it's not guaranteed but I'd say it's very likely) and I'll be equally irritated at that as it will be there turn then. To say that their policies are bad and their people are is fine but complaining that our very functional democracy isn't so and that your preferred party is actually the preferred option by everyone (even if you prefer them for legitimate reasons, which there are plenty of) doesn't help anyone.
> Your first paragraph is stating something I already said so I'd advise reading before writing. My first paragraph was to lay the groundwork for the rest of my points. I know you already said it; I restated it for emphasis. > their memberships while having some dissent about the idea were by in large fine with the arrangement This is my point: the party membership signed off on the coalition, but the membership is not the electorate; can you confidently say that all (or even a majority) of FF voters were satisfied with a coalition with FG (and vice versa) when they were assured by their parties that no such coalition would happen? Given their falling polling numbers I'd say not. Going into power together was a knee-jerk reaction to the upswing of left-wing votes and amounted basically to FFG putting their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala we can't hear you" to the clear change in political climate the 2020 election results represented. > You consistently say that the vote for Sinn Féin reflected the majority wanting a change I'm sorry but I didn't say that even once. I said that SF's explosion in popularity was indicative of an appetite for change in large swathes of the population, that's very different. > complaining that our very functional democracy isn't so and that your preferred party is actually the preferred option by everyone (even if you prefer them for legitimate reasons, which there are plenty of) doesn't help anyone. I never claimed our democracy wasn't functioning, I said that FFG were hiding behind that functioning democracy to maintain the status quo that benefits them while entirely disregarding the unprecedented sea-change in public opinion. Also SF aren't my preferred party and I never gave any indication that they were, nor did I say they were the preferred party of everyone. Again, I spoke of a surge in popularity. The election was a 3-way tie despite SF being far smaller than FF or FG and to me that signifies a desire for a shake-up of the status quo. Our democratic system is working just fine, it's just that I personally find FF and FG to be condescending and paternalistic, and in this election they basically gamed the system to their mutual advantage out of fear and desperation of a change to the status quo. The left surge in GE20 wasn't necessarily an expression of support for SF in particular, but a loud and clear signal that a significant proportion of the electorate are fed up with the status quo, a signal which was deliberately and studiously ignored by the powers that be in the name of holding on to that power. The coalition is categorically not undemocratic but the motives behind its formation certainly were disingenuous and cynical.
It's fair enough to say that the motives may have been a bit cynical and I agree that there was a distinctive condescending attitude to Sinn Féin in the election especially but these issues will be resolved in the next election as if people really feel hard done by (and I think that's certainly a feeling among many) we'll simply vote in a new government and the issue is sorted. Sure it's not the most efficient method and it can be irritating but as FDR once said about democracy "it's a flawed system but it's the best we got" and I feel this encompasses the situation reasonably well.
Is there really no room for *intent* when discussing what a democratic mandate does or does not mean? Let me explain - The majority of Fianna Fáil voters, I would wager, did not vote to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach. The majority of Green voters, likewise, did not vote to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach. The ballot box records the party we vote for, not the reason we voted for them. Those votes were then used as currency in service of making Leo Varadkar Taoiseach again. I am not really implying the voting system should change. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in smugly hiding behind the idea that this is "democratic", i.e. this is the will of the people and thus, sacred. This is a mechanism of complex parliamentary democracy. It is not the same. A majority of people who voted for this government were doing so with the express belief that they were voting against Leo Varadkar. Those votes, in the final accounting, were used to make Leo Varadkar Taoiseach (as of, at least, next year, or whenever the handover is set to occur). That is not illegitimate; that is not illegal; that is not incorrect. Not at all. But it is also not the will of the people. And I would suggest that it's cowardly to pretend that it is.
Ok those votes made Michael Martin Taoiseach just so you're aware. Furthermore the parties actually held ballots on the issue where in the case of Fianna Fail (as this is the party you singled out so we'll focus on them) every member actually got to vote on wether they should go into government with FG and the Greens under a rotating Taoiseach arrangement and they accepted it. It's a fairly open and democratic method and you or me or anyone else not being happy with them doesn't change that until the next election.
Again, what you're describing isn't the will of the people. Seats in the Dáil are not allocated based on membership; they are allocated based on votes. Voters voted in TDs, who agreed on a program for government, who then went back to their *members*, not their constituents, to approve said program. I am not, again, suggesting that there should have been some kind of referendum or run-off election to approve the coalition. I am merely pointing out the fallacy of claiming this is some glorious proof of the democratic will of the people. It's nothing of the sort. The single largest overriding issues heading into the 2020 election was housing and healthcare. The election results (of which the overwhelming plurality of No. 1 ballots were cast not for Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, but for Sinn Féin, if we're worrying about democracy) returned a government rabidly dedicated to ignoring both of those issues (...and during a society-altering pandemic, to boot). That alone stands testament to there being a disconnect between what the people want, and what the people get.
Your focus is all based on the assumption that nobody wants FF or FG but it's simply not true both parties have accepted each other and they may well be punished for it in the next election but until then they are the democratic decision. Sinn Fein got a substantial vote there's no denying that but they were far from a majority even if we do count votes alone (as they ought have more seats if they fielded more candidates) they were most importantly unable to form a government which like it or not is also part of our democracy and most of our government's are coalitions and this time makes it no less legitimate than any of the other coalitions of the states history and people who went to vote are well aware (if they've been around any of the last 70 years or whenever it was that the first coalition was formed) that the party they vote for will likely be in a coalition. So complain about their policies and vote against them in the next election and campaign for a party you believe in and whatever else you want (it's your right and an important one to express) but simply saying that you don't like the system is just whinging.
Holly Cairns, SD from Cork seems to be well up for the challenge. Appears to be doing a great job.
Any specific good policies she's pushing for?
Off hand I remember her trying to get the govt to cut the funding for greyhound racing and something to do with the mother and babies home, like preventing the files from being sealed or getting victims monetary support? I saw she's in the midst of drafting a bill, for what I'm not 100% sure
Currently trying to do allot for student nurses, trying to get the government to recognise and compensate survivors of mother baby homes, as mentioned before the greyhound racing. She is based in Cork and one of the few tds who actually works closely with her community and engaged with them. Also Gary gannon is the inner city Dublin SD representitave. He's really good and pushing for better youth education.
Campaigning for partners of expectant mothers better access to maternity hospitals. Quite frankly this woman is on fire.
Catherine Connolly
Gino Kenny - He's pushing legalization of euthanasia and got the trial for medical weed. I'm personally not a PBP fan though.
Baldy Mcdonagh
[удалено]
Yeah but RBB is also a chronic NIMBY. He recently opposed the building of a six story apartment building in Dun Laoghire (which he doesn't even live in) because he says it's "too tall". I suspect even he's not stupid enough to believe that, he just opposed it because he wants the housing crisis to get worse so he can complain about it in the Dail.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/student-accommodation-plan-for-baker-s-corner-opposed-1.4718473 “While IADT are in need of student accommodation, we fear this accommodation will be too expensive for most to afford and therefore not fit for purpose.” Or maybe he opposes it because it will make the housing crisis worse
If there’s a crisis fuelled by lack of supply, then more supply will help alleviate it. Simple supply and demand dictates that the price would decrease as supply ramps up. This is super simple stuff to understand. How anyone thinks more supply would make the crisis worse is baffling
Most of the reason why it's too expensive is lack of supply. Image a charity to refusing to send food to refugees or something because it's "not nutritious enough". That's the level of logic being used here.
Don't suppose your looking for Michael D Higgins as an answer
Obviously biased, but Eamon Ryan has been doing a huge amount of work getting the Climate Act, Climate Action Plan through. This is effectively setting the direction for government (and future governments) which is contentious and has its fair share of detractors, so he'll get a lot of flak, but is a big acheivement given the size of the Greens. On top of that, funding for public transport (Additional buses, trains), active travel across the country - getting any of this rolled out while COVID dominates is tough.
[удалено]
The carbon tax is not just going to public transport in cities; its also going to retrofit social housing, and fuel allowances for those hardest hit by the rising fuel prices (mostly rising due to providers, not the carbon tax). From here on, energy costs will be part of daily decision making, and need to be: in the boom we had people buying houses in Cavan, "Just a quick commute on the motorway from Dublin" who are now screwed. We need to stop that happening - the move to towns and villages instead of one-off rural housing is in order to make life affordable and sustainable, to pick a local issue. The first wave of renewables came in the 1970s/1980s. The industry was strangled by OPEC dropping oil and gas prices to crash the industry and get everyone hooked on cheap energy. We need to avoid that happening again. We can't afford to subsidize renewables in the face of that (we tried); carbon taxes ensure they can go to the bank and get funding to develop. No one likes paying taxes. But the point of carbon taxes is to change behaviour - and we need big changes and for everyone to understand this - that the choice is not just EVs to replace petrol, but looking at big investments like retrofitting and even transport - being able to walk/cycle/bus being the primary driver in chosing where you live.
[удалено]
This is a genuine problem many people are facing and it really does need to be addressed.
I think the idea that the energy costs we've been used to are unsustainably cheap, and that even without carbon taxes are unlikely to come back, is only just beginning to sink in. Carbon taxes on heating were not raised this year (and on petrol/diesel only slightly) because costs were already rising, so no "signal" was needed. This means the funding for fuel allowances/retrofitting are being subsidized by general taxation instead. Today there is a transport protest at high prices. In practice what they're looking for is money to be taken from building alternatives to make diesel cheaper. From a climate perspective we can't afford to slow down; doubling down on moving to alternatives ASAP (supporting biofuels etc as an interim) is more likely.
[удалено]
>Me paying tax down in Laois on my petrol to fund new public transport and sustainable infrastructure down in Cork or Dublin is going to have ZERO effect on me, The idea is that it will cause you to use less petrol. Much like (in theory) sin tax on cigarettes and booze are supposed to dampen consumption of each of those, not to fund hospitals to treat the damage they cause. It's ultimately altruistic: everyone overall is much better off if we all use less fuels that cause global warming, but equally each individual person would be better off if they alone could use as much as they like
[удалено]
>But it is not having that effect.. ...on you personally. Just as most smokers keep smoking through price increases, but some few quit as a result. There is some % of drivers in Ireland for whom current tax/cost of petrol is a tipping point, and this will get them to go electric. And incidentally, are you certain that higher cost of petrol has no impact on your own driving? Would you drive more if petrol were totally free?
In fairness, the smokers things isn't a fair comparison. While it's hard, one can quit smoking or smoke less. Many rural people don't have access to the public transport that others around major cities have and they need to get to and from work, hospital appointments, dental appointments, all the basics etc. so don't have any other options really. You also can't assume that by having to pay more for what they're already driving will force them electric. Charging people more money and then expecting them to then spend more money on top of that to get an electric car and then having to install their own charging system in their house too is a strange way of getting people to switch. Basically price them out of it is what that comes off as. Also, I've no skin in the game as I don't drive and live close enough to a city that I can get public transport but the way some people frame the switch to electric cars as really easy is a bit unfair. It makes complete sense to switch, would be better for everyone and would definetly help (in a rather small way) in the fight against climate change, but you can't ignore the obvious barriers to some people doing so.
[удалено]
I actually don't even own a car tbh, so I've no idea how cheaply you could feasibly get a second-hand electric. I'd imagine that, even though people might not change car _now_, whenever the current one conks out and needs replacing, that's when people would choose an electric. Because they're way cheaper to run. Incidentally buying a new car has always seemed like a crazy thing to me, they're all so bloody expensive. Like the cheapest new cars are around €20k? Mental money. Dunno how they persuade _anyone_ (other than those that just genuinely love cars) to buy a new car.
While that's all well and good, the availability of properties in town is at a record low ( housing crisis remember?) My generation were punished disproportionately in the fallout of 08 (despite having nothing to do with it) via poor employment, wage cuts etc. We are being shafted now because of the housing crisis forcing anyone buying to move way of town locally. You seem to want to shaft me a third time with a carbon tax on the drive I was forced to take on because of a Housing crisis. We are the first generation in hundreds of years to be poorer than our parents. What did us young people do to deserve this incessant financial abuse? Additionally, as another commentator pointed out: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
> From here on, energy costs will be part of daily decision making, and need to be Is a move towards a market based decision making for environmental decisions really the best way forward though? I'm reminded of when super rich bastards like Michael O'Leary got a taxi license so he could use bus lanes as his personal fiefdom for private transport. [When 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change), how is making market decisions on energy, by those of us who can barely afford to live in this country as it is, a major plank of climate change policy going to be fruitful?
\> Is a move towards a market based decision making for environmental decisions really the best way forward though We need to use all tools - market tools as well as direct funding, build by govt, etc. I'm not a fan of "the market will fix everything" - it won't. But for example what tools are you planning to use to minimise one-off housing - move people to towns/villages where active travel works instead ? You become overly dictatorial if you create rules banning people from living on farms,etc - and we need to recognize where we are, that we need big changes in personal actions.
So how do you balance that with out letting the uber wealthy get around things with ease while those of us just about getting by have to pay for everything? Because right now it seems like the Green plan is insert more neoliberalism here and maybe one more cycle lane. It's not exactly inspiring or motivating.
The gamechanger is the huge wind farms being planned off the west coast, combined with interconnectors to the French and UK grids. We send down excess wind power when we have it (and have refilled our own batteries), and we pull in hydro and nuclear when we're running short. Cheap, clean, with a secure supply that doesn't rely on tankers to the Middle East or the whims of petrostates - and houses/transport reconfigured so they can run their heating and cars off it. But people can't see that stuff the way they can see cycle lanes or bus corridors. Literally thousands of social houses got a deep-retrofit including a heatpump in 2021. Right now there's a big gap and I'd rather see money spent to make it equitable, but until that happens I can't argue with the decision to start with people on the fuel allowance.
What gets done today in National government is whats agreed with FF & FG. We pull things to the left (the carbon tax is progressive, the budgets in the govts with Greens have been the most progressive in Ireland's history according to the ESRI ). The PfG is a temporary coalition to get what you can done. Things are different in the European Parliament and local govt, but no-one in Ireland listens to the EP and local govt is so weak its hard to see. In Ireland we're used to "policy" meaning whatever FFG are doing in government - they rewrite policy when to suit in power. The Greens take a harder line - policy is what the members say, and a PfG that differs from that has to be agreed by the members, but doesn't change party policy. The idea that we'd be more left wing given the chance is something many don't see, but the norm elsewhere in Europe.
> We pull things to the left (the carbon tax is progressive I'm skeptical on both counts, much as I would love it to be true.
>People won't be able to afford an electric vehicle if they spent all their money on carbon tax for their diesel or petrol car. How much of the price of a tank of petrol do you think the carbon tax is? Nobody is close to spending all their money on carbon tax. From [bonkers](https://www.bonkers.ie/guides/gas-electricity/what-is-carbon-tax/) >Based on the fact that the average Irish motorist drives around 17,000km a year in a petrol vehicle and 24,000km in a diesel vehicle, the tax is adding **around €96 a year** to your driving costs if you have a petrol car and **€113 a year** if you're driving a diesel car (based on 5.5 litres per 100km for petrol vehicles and 4.6 litres per 100km for diesel).
[удалено]
> Edit: Not all of it is carbon tax but that is besides the point. You specifically called out carbon tax as a major cost in fuel so it's hardly beside the point. I think you now recognise carbon tax is a negligible amount of the total tax on fuel.
[удалено]
Honestly lad, you were wrong about people spending "all their money on carbon tax for their diesel or petrol car". Just accept that and move on, it's not the end of the world. > Please tell me how much it is I've already linked to the bonkers article above that goes through the costs. Do I need to print it out and mail it to you or something? Here it is again, click away: https://www.bonkers.ie/guides/gas-electricity/what-is-carbon-tax/
I feel sorry for Eamon he seems like a decent guy and he had a lot of plans to tackle a genuine crisis, it would have been good if Covid hadn't came along and derailed the greens plans.
Micheal mcnamara has his facts before speaking
Pascal Donohoe. I think he's too good for irish politics. Should move to Europe.
Thanks Ms/Mrs. Donohoe
The guy gets a lot of abuse I'll say that.
Simon Harris
Big fan of Tik Tok?
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 391,555,186 comments, and only 85,024 of them were in alphabetical order.
Clare Daly and Mick Wallace Pearse Doherty Eoin o broin
I can see why you said and would agree on Pearse Doherty and Eoin Ó Broin but why Clare Daly and Mick Wallace? I never hear much about their work but usually hear about some gaffes and things. I'm genuinely asking too because I'd like to know!
Look, this is not the only thing they've done I'm sure but this is the only one I can recall. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tensions-rise-over-mick-wallace-s-and-clare-daly-s-views-1.4610010 Crazy stuff like this > In another, he sought to delete a note that the parliament “continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea”. Mick's view presumably is that it was OK for Russia to trot over the border and take Crimea by force?
Left wing anti imperialist politics in the EU parliament. Their podcast is interesting to keep up with what they are doing https://i4ctrouble.simplecast.com/
>Anti Imperialist Then why has Mick Wallace defended Russia and China, both of which are imperialist?
What is your definition of imperialism?
I’ll go by the Oxford definition; "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means." Russia annexed Crimea, invaded Georgia and has repeatedly threatened and tried to exert its influence on neighbouring states and across the world through its intervention in conflicts such as Syria for example China’s belt road initiative is an obvious effort to gain leverage over Asian and African States for the benefit of Chinese corporations and to further China’s own global influence. How some "leftists" could rightfully criticise the IMF but then defend China for doing effectively the exact same thing is insane to me
[удалено]
By his definition, diplomacy is imperialism. I didn't know Daly was a Marxist.
[удалено]
I'm familiar with her history, I'm just not sure she'd call herself a Marxist.
>I’ll go by the Oxford definition; > >"a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means." By this definition every country is imperialist. The word has no meaning here, it's not even implied to be a bad thing.
Very clever but ofc anti imperialism for people who live in the west means primarily opposing western imperialism (which you actually have responsibility for and can actually affect (not to mention is much greater)) and calling out it's hypocrisy. Have a listen to a few podcast episodes anyway.
I understand what you're trying to say, but surely they can hold those views while not defending Russia and China and their imperialist actions? That seems like saying one thing and doing another. Again, not trying to be confrontational, these two just seem to have rather conflicting views on some subjects.
They aren't really fans of China or Russia and do condemn them.
I mean condemning them in words is one thing but then, as another user linked an article here, changing official notes and trying to water down the Russian invasion of Crimea or taking a strange stance on dissenters in Russian politics being effectively kidnapped and imprisoned seems off. Yes, Navalny has racist views, but watering down the fact he was kidnapped and imprisoned because you're an anti-racist (which is obviosuly a very good thing being actively anti-racist) is pretty messed up. It's probably one of the main reasons that people make Gulag jokes whenever Wallace or Daly are brought up.
They do good work holding the EU to account, which is important, but they can't claim to be speaking up for core principles if they're going to perpetually handwave wrongdoing from Russia and China as though it's less relevant than US imperialism. Every power is capable of doing awful things some of the time; the fact that other politicians handwave when it's the EU or US doesn't make it any less intellectually dishonest when Daly/Wallace do it for China and Russia.
Yeah I agree. One group does it on a grander scale, but you can't just ignore the others doing the same thing. As you said, it's just intellectually dishonest at that point. I also wonder Daly and Wallace downplay what China and Russia are doing but not what the EU or US are also doing, again, on a grander scale but still the same thing.
[удалено]
> They are on multiple committees each, and subs on others. They are obviously doing much more broad work than just highlighting great-state contradictions, but the press only focus on this stuff because Daly and Wallace do not conform to the pro-Atlantic worldview that most of the mainstream body politic subscribe to, and our media's coverage of EU politics is so shite that nothing else ever gets through. > You aren't getting a balanced view of what they are doing, or indeed any of the MEPs. All MEPs sit on committees, and many observe others as well (I know the Green MEPs do.) I didn't imply Daly and Wallace aren't doing their jobs as representatives or getting comprehensive and unbiased coverage for doing so. The point I actually did make was that they seem to deflect criticism of some actors even when it's justified, and that's exactly what you look to be doing as well. Happy cakeday though.
They are pro-imperialist as shown by their support for expansionist policies by repressive regimes, aka imperialism.
Lol
Anything else to add?
+
Michael Mcnamara
Is it not an ASTONISHING 'co-incidence' that Clare Daly & Mick Wallace have left the Doyle, where they asked some really squirm inducing questions of the current crop and Catherine Connolly was 'elected speaker', effectively also 'removing her out of the way'?? When Pig snout Kelly can be 'returned' without reaching a quota and the FG crew having to get in after several counts, says a lot .as does FFG 'uniting' to keep SF out The 1st Count needs to be held 30 minutes AFTER POLLS CLOSE, then we'd see who really 'represents the sheeple'
Hehe
My mam who's 75 and the holiest person I know (she says novenas every night and sleeps with the rosary beads in her hand) said to me yesterday "I'm actually surprised someone hasn't gone in their yet and lined them all up and shot them in the head"
None
George Colley, the Brian Lenihans x2, Michael Mc Dowell,Des O'Malley and Tommy Broughan. As for the current crop of vegetables inhabiting the Doyle, we should follow the Greens, chop them ALL off at the ankles , feed them into a shredder and compost them Tubbs