Time for Labour and S.P (Joe Higgins) to unite?

[bormotello]

...run by capitalists

Not anymore, it is run by bureaucracy, which effectively privatized shareholders money and is doing whatever they want, without investing any capital to those companies.

What country are you living in???
Lenihan canstantly refers to the country 'regaining the confidence of the markets' - all the decisions relating to the banks in this country is nothing to do with helping ordinary owrking class people and everything to do with preserving the 'reputation' of the banks on international stock markets.

This is because Irish political establishment is corrupted and they are serving for their vested interests. If government would run by socialists, they would do exactly the same thing with state owned ventures.

I won't do anything - the working class people of this country will - when the working class move in unison there is no force on the planet that can stop it.

Majority of working class doesn’t care about political system as soon as they have good paid jobs. You need to have at least 80% unemployment, to have a revolution. But because remaining 20% will be public sector, I think that anger will be moved against ruling elite(politicians and PS unions) rather then capitalism itself.

Not if you tax the rich and re-invest the money in economic activity.

They simply will leave Ireland and you will have nothing to tax…

[JollyRedGiant]

Not anymore, it is run by bureaucracy, which effectively privatized shareholders money and is doing whatever they want, without investing any capital to those companies.

You really need to get a grip with understanding what capitalism is all about and who runs it. I would suggest 'Capital'

This is because Irish political establishment is corrupted and they are serving for their vested interests. If government would run by socialists, they would do exactly the same thing with state owned ventures.

Again you are assuming that socialist would run state enterprises as they are now. In case you ahven't noticed Joe Higgins constantly refers to taking companies into public ownership and placing them under democratic workers control - i.e. that the workers, the local community and the governemnt would all be involved in running the enterprise and would be subject to a democratic mandate.

Majority of working class doesn’t care about political system as soon as they have good paid jobs. You need to have at least 80% unemployment, to have a revolution. But because remaining 20% will be public sector, I think that anger will be moved against ruling elite(politicians and PS unions) rather then capitalism itself.

If capitalism could provide a decent future for working class people there would be no need for socialist organisations. The problem is that it can't. It creates a society where a third of the world's population lives on a dollar a day and another thrid live on 2 dolalrs a day. It brutalises workers, forcing them to communte long hours to work, and then forces them into mundane tasks over and over again, charges through the nose for the basics of life like a roof over your head, and then, when they f*ck things up, they make the wrkign class pay for sorting out the mess. Most right-wingers live in the delusion that the Celtic Tiger is the norm - it is not - it was an abberation that will never happen again. It was a one off event that was always going to come crashing down. We are now back to normality, a period like the 1970's with the oil crisis and the 1980's with its constant stagnations and recessions, except deeper because of the mad excesses of last 15 years. Get used to it - what is happening now is what will continue into the forseeable future - we are faced with potential 10 to 15 years of recessions punctuated with stagnation and when the world economy does eventually climb out into a period of growth, that growth will be very limited and subjected to constant down-turns. The working class will only accept so much of this and they will only swallow so much of the propaganda that they establishment will dish out. The fightback has begun and the ruling class better watch out because it will not take any prisioners. Welcome to the reality of capitalism.

[Lloyd-Apjohn]

If capitalism could provide a decent future for working class people there would be no need for socialist organisations. The problem is that it can't. It creates a society where a third of the world's population lives on a dollar a day and another thrid live on 2 dolalrs a day. It brutalises workers, forcing them to communte long hours to work, and then forces them into mundane tasks over and over again, charges through the nose for the basics of life like a roof over your head, and then, when they f*ck things up, they make the wrkign class pay for sorting out the mess. Most right-wingers live in the delusion that the Celtic Tiger is the norm - it is not - it was an abberation that will never happen again. It was a one off event that was always going to come crashing down. We are now back to normality, a period like the 1970's with the oil crisis and the 1980's with its constant stagnations and recessions, except deeper because of the mad excesses of last 15 years. Get used to it - what is happening now is what will continue into the forseeable future - we are faced with potential 10 to 15 years of recessions punctuated with stagnation and when the world economy does eventually climb out into a period of growth, that growth will be very limited and subjected to constant down-turns. The working class will only accept so much of this and they will only swallow so much of the propaganda that they establishment will dish out. The fightback has begun and the ruling class better watch out because it will not take any prisioners. Welcome to the reality of capitalism.

Capitalism isn ot the problem. Look at Scandanavia or even France and Germany. They have fully fledged and functioning capitalist consumerist economies. But they also have proper systems in palce to minimise inequality which is not the case in the UK/US version. The reason for that is a deliberate policy of those in power.

The banking crisis didn't have the worst effect in the UK/US by accident and the inequalities in those countries didn't happen by accident.

So if we want to reduce inequality then we have to take policy decisions to make it happen. Brown or Cameron won't do it in the UK. Obama won't do it in the US and Kenny certainly won't do it in Ireland, nor will Cowen or Gilmore, and it doesn't mean taking over firms or banning bonuses or anything like that.

Simply things such as ending tax loopholes before you start hunting down people cheating benefits, end the pension tax reliefs, discourage single mothers by holding the fathers to account, make sure the rights of children are paramount ie if you do have problem parents then at least a child should be able to have stability in school and free food and clothes if that's what they need etc etc. There are so many ways to alter the system to make it fairer if there was a will to do without destining into some sort of commie/socialist nightmare.

[Mr.De-Regulation]

What?

discourage single mothers by holding the fathers to account

[Lloyd-Apjohn]

What?

Well if you were to look at the people who are most disadvantaged is it not true that the majority will come from dysfunctional families? I mean mothers with 3 or 4 children by different men none of whom take any financial or emotional responsibility for their children, who in turn grow up to repeat the cycle of never finishing school or being emotionally mature.

So if you want to tackle poverty and disadvantage doesn't tackling unplanned pregnacy and families being dependent on state benefits have to be part of the solution as well as tackling unfair tax breaks etc for the rich?

So if you have 4 kids and you can't afford to feed them or pay rent or just get on in life why would you then have another kid? If every 'single' mother had financial support from the father would that make people think more about having unplanned children? Why should a man be allowed to walk away from his children while the mother is left to struggle to bring them up?

Do you think middle class people have smaller families by accident? No, they have to plan their children in line with their income and their aspirations so why shouldnt' less well off people do the same?

I mean if you are a single mother but want to get on in life then why wouldn't you go on the pill or hold the babies father to account financially - why would you struggle while he walks away and gets someone else pregnant?

Less well off have to be responsible in some way for the conditions they live?

[Mr.De-Regulation]

Right so, the way you phrased sounded like something else. Its sounds like you are planning on punishing ordinary fathers. I think mothers and fathers should pay the same.

[Lloyd-Apjohn]

Right so, the way you phrased sounded like something else. Its sounds like you are planning on punishing ordinary fathers. I think mothers and fathers should pay the same.

Not punishing but holding to account ie the father has to be on the birth cert and a legal agreement drawn up if the parents are not married so if anything happens to them the custody is clear and also life assurance so if anything happened the child has some finanical help. Also the father's financial contribution can be taken directly from benefits or wages and added directly to the wages or benefits of the mother. Things like that will make people think twice about having a second, third or fourth unplanning pregancy. It won't stop it all but something radical has to be done from the end as well as starting from the top down too.

My niece had an unplanned pregancy - I think on purpose but that's another story - so why should the father be allowed walk away while her parents have to pick up the bill and while she lives off benefits and makes no effort to get her life back on track. Even if she has no relationship with the father and he has no involvement with the baby he should still have to pay for the baby. Knowing he is finanically liable might make him buy condoms in future and use them and making the mothers benefits subject to various rules might make them use the pill or insist on condoms. In this day and age there is zero excuse for multiple unplanned pregancies.

[JollyRedGiant]

Capitalism isn ot the problem. Look at Scandanavia or even France and Germany. They have fully fledged and functioning capitalist consumerist economies. But they also have proper systems in palce to minimise inequality which is not the case in the UK/US version. The reason for that is a deliberate policy of those in power.

Hate to tell you this - but Sweden, France and Germany are also mired in economic recession. Capitalism doesn't work - it is a system of booms and slumps - and this one is a doozy.

The banking crisis didn't have the worst effect in the UK/US by accident and the inequalities in those countries didn't happen by accident.

Crony capitalism is bad here - and actively facilitated by FG through their actions on local councils all over the country.

So if we want to reduce inequality then we have to take policy decisions to make it happen. Brown or Cameron won't do it in the UK. Obama won't do it in the US and Kenny certainly won't do it in Ireland, nor will Cowen or Gilmore, and it doesn't mean taking over firms or banning bonuses or anything like that.

No - according to FG it is hacking the public services to bits - causing further deflationary pressures and making the recession deeper.

Simply things such as ending tax loopholes before you start hunting down people cheating benefits, end the pension tax reliefs, discourage single mothers by holding the fathers to account, make sure the rights of children are paramount ie if you do have problem parents then at least a child should be able to have stability in school and free food and clothes if that's what they need etc etc. There are so many ways to alter the system to make it fairer if there was a will to do without destining into some sort of commie/socialist nightmare.

Sure - a little tinkering around with the system will make it work - that's what Ritchie Ruin tried to do - and Brutal Bruton. The sooner that FG and LP get into government the better, we will have no more of this nonsense and FG/LP will be even more hated than FF are now.

[Lloyd-Apjohn]

Hate to tell you this - but Sweden, France and Germany are also mired in economic recession. Capitalism doesn't work - it is a system of booms and slumps - and this one is a doozy.


Crony capitalism is bad here - and actively facilitated by FG through their actions on local councils all over the country.


No - according to FG it is hacking the public services to bits - causing further deflationary pressures and making the recession deeper.


Sure - a little tinkering around with the system will make it work - that's what Ritchie Ruin tried to do - and Brutal Bruton. The sooner that FG and LP get into government the better, we will have no more of this nonsense and FG/LP will be even more hated than FF are now.

Or maybe just maybe if poor people stopped having so many children they are patently unable to support then that would remove a huge burden from the rest of us and then it would be easier to change the system so everyone got their fair share.

A single mother has no 'right' to keep having children and adding a greater burder on the rest of us than a city toff has the right to earn millions and walk away when his bank or business goes bust leaving us to pick up the tab. Us being the majority in the middle who plan our number of children and pay all our taxes properly.

So while I've no sympathy for the rich boys now losing out equally I have little sympathy for the whining single mother on her 2nd, 3rd, 4th unplanned child.

[discosunbeams]

Well if you were to look at the people who are most disadvantaged is it not true that the majority will come from dysfunctional families? I mean mothers with 3 or 4 children by different men none of whom take any financial or emotional responsibility for their children, who in turn grow up to repeat the cycle of never finishing school or being emotionally mature.

So if you want to tackle poverty and disadvantage doesn't tackling unplanned pregnacy and families being dependent on state benefits have to be part of the solution as well as tackling unfair tax breaks etc for the rich?

So if you have 4 kids and you can't afford to feed them or pay rent or just get on in life why would you then have another kid? If every 'single' mother had financial support from the father would that make people think more about having unplanned children? Why should a man be allowed to walk away from his children while the mother is left to struggle to bring them up?

Do you think middle class people have smaller families by accident? No, they have to plan their children in line with their income and their aspirations so why shouldnt' less well off people do the same?

I mean if you are a single mother but want to get on in life then why wouldn't you go on the pill or hold the babies father to account financially - why would you struggle while he walks away and gets someone else pregnant?

Less well off have to be responsible in some way for the conditions they live?

This is infuriating but nonetheless I will retaliate.

Many young single mothers who are left by their babies father to live in poverty are unaware of any legal help they can get to ensure that a father provides financial support. They feel lost and caught up in the system, which is what they are. The state needs to help these women more.

People from working class families, generally grow up to be working class because the opportunities that arise from having money do not apply to them. We need to stop that cycle!

Education is the key, I was never given a formal sex education in my life by my school, this needs to change.

Also, schools need to be improved to give each and every citizen and equal and excellent education, and a knowledge of the world outside of the typical subjects taught.

So don't sit on your high horse because you got lucky.