Adams and the "average industrial wage"

[Kf]

Good god, who let the jesuits in?

[MPH]

Is it all party members who have to hand over their income or just elected ones, what about party representatives who are not in any elected position but represent the party by sitting on paid committees or etc, do they have to give their income in too?

[MPH]

lol

[meriwether]

My memory of the debate was that Gerry Adams raised the AIW issue in the context of a statement to the effect that SF were committed to equality, in a context where the discussion had brought up McDowell’s remark from some time ago about some inequality being good. If my recollection is correct, then the posters suggesting the use in this context as disingenuous are correct as Adams was clearly trying to suggest that he lived on the AIW.

Also, in his Ard Fheis speech last March he said

We know how difficult it is to make mortgage repayments and to pay the rent on incomes eaten away by inflation and taxation. We know because we have these problems. We know, for example, because our elected representatives live on the average industrial wage. The rest goes into the party and constituency services.

That, to me, seems to make the case. I cannot see how any SF support can pretend that the AIW references are not misleading. We know, from what has been posted here, that several SF elected representatives have second incomes that mean they have no need to draw more than the AIW.

He did, didnt he.
Hey Gerrry, here's your link.
Comment?

[NickyG]

It's quite simple:

SF elected reps draw the average industial wage,
SF elected reps live on the average industarial wage,
Those SF elected reps who earn from, say, writing books ,draw the average industrial wage from their salaries as elected reps but in all likelihood live on a bit more.

One thing is even even clearer than this: SF are the only party to try something principled like this, so the railing against it is a bit odd.

Meri, I hold you to be one of the more lucid posters on here, but surely you must appreciate the odd dichotomy between vociferously taking issue with what you percieve to be SF gaining credit due to what you believe to be ill examined minutiae, and the fact that those taking issue never seem to have a problem with the sawthe of broad brush, low-on-fact, ill-examined minutiae of anti SFism continuously propagated in the public domain?

We'll let you have the "live on/draw the" AIW distinction in the court of public opinion if we can expunge the rest!

[Gerrry]

Meri

If that is accurate then as I said earlier, he shouldnt have said it. But as I said earlier I had never heard him say that before or indeed any SF rep say it. I had heard him talk about SF reps taking or being paid the AIW from their salary which is correct and which he should have said in that speech.

BTW you never said whether you were running for re-election

[MPH]

It's quite simple:

SF elected reps draw the average industial wage,
SF elected reps live on the average industarial wage,
Those SF elected reps who earn from, say, writing books ,draw the average industrial wage from their salaries as elected reps but in all likelihood live on a bit more.

How much is the AIW?

Can you elaborate on any of the other details so we can have some facts instead of vague notions? Thanks

[Justin]

Or the fact that he has a second home on the average industrial wage. It doesnt really sit well with SFs complaints about normal working people not being able to afford a house (let alone 2!)

haha third post in and Adam's very modest house in Donegal which was left to him by the previous owner gets a mention,no doubt the alleged Armani suit will be next.Surely his critics can do better that kind of pathetic and repetitive nonsense

[Skin]

My memory of the debate was that Gerry Adams raised the AIW issue in the context of a statement to the effect that SF were committed to equality, in a context where the discussion had brought up McDowell’s remark from some time ago about some inequality being good. If my recollection is correct, then the posters suggesting the use in this context as disingenuous are correct as Adams was clearly trying to suggest that he lived on the AIW.

Also, in his Ard Fheis speech last March he said

We know how difficult it is to make mortgage repayments and to pay the rent on incomes eaten away by inflation and taxation. We know because we have these problems. We know, for example, because our elected representatives live on the average industrial wage. The rest goes into the party and constituency services.

That, to me, seems to make the case. I cannot see how any SF support can pretend that the AIW references are not misleading. We know, from what has been posted here, that several SF elected representatives have second incomes that mean they have no need to draw more than the AIW.

He did, didnt he.
Hey Gerrry, here's your link.
Comment?

How about he said "live on" during his speech, right?
Then someone in the party said "that is not 100% factually correct Gerry, you would be best advised to say 'draw down the AIW' otherwise your opponents will try make points out of it, even though effectivley that is what is happening here' and since then that is now what he says.

And then after that, we can now all concentrate on the important issues that effect our society and stop the "live on/draw down" trivialities.

[NickyG]

MPH,

Recent donations legislation hinders this in the south, but not the north, where the whole thing is paid to the party before being administerd to reps.

I would have thought the term Average Industrial Wage is rather self explanatory..