Bin Tax Protest outside City Hall

by DABTC Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:55

2 of their councillors voted for the estimates last night, Corocoran (Ballymun) and Forde (Donaghmede), thanks for the solidarity "comrades", ye joining FF soon?

by John O'Shea Fri Nov 30, 2007 13:37

Came upon this poorly advertised demo on Monday night and joined the fairly good crowed that was already there. Very noticeable was the lack of left wing organisations who would normally be there looking for a bit of publicity. No SP, SWP, WSM, Eirigi, Sinn Fein, CPI or any others. Like SF, have the rest of the left abandoned the bin tax and moved on to their next campaign in the hope of recruiting or selling more papers? The stamina of the left for any lengthy battle certainly isn’t there.
Oh yeah, why no comment from the many shiners on this major turnaround in policy?

by anon Fri Nov 30, 2007 14:12

Yes, it does appear if the Bin Tax campaign has been abandon by the Left groups. This should be seen as an opportunity in some ways because if there are still many people concerned about this then they can just organise amongst themselves.

There's absolutely nothing stopping them and they may even come up with some fresh initiatives.

by cynic Sat Dec 01, 2007 00:01

The rush to the centre ground by Sinn Fein is shocking even to a cynic like me. Bad election = dump any hint of radicalism (even if it is only the lip service it paid to the anti bin tax campaign). And to hear that gobshite Christy Burke repeat the Dublin City Council lie that 95% of people have paid really shows SF are FF lite.
I think the point Missing was trying to make was that all the left have abandoned the bin tax campaign even though over 8,000 people have still refused to pay a penny. You would expect this from the SWP but those who would see themselves as “more genuine” like the WSM and SP have also disappeared.
Believe me anon, I have no fear that the communities will survive without our heroes.

by Labourman Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:23

When pressed a few years ago about why Sein Fein councillors were voting for bin charges Gerry Adams said that they were trying to keep the service under the control of councils and not privatsed. He argued that under the privatised system the cost would rise and the poor would suffer hardship. Would Sinn Fein tell us what went wrong wth their strategy? What is their policy now?

by Dermot Lacey Sat Dec 01, 2007 16:30

I am sure this is the last thing they want to hear but in my view fair play to the two SF Councillors who have got sense on this issue and I look forward to more and more of them engaging with the Budget process on the City Council and trying to deliver the best for their constituents and the people of Dublin.

Yes we can all have disagreements about aspects of Local Government financing but I for one welcome this shift in SF politics. Welcome on board.

by dermott troll Sat Dec 01, 2007 17:06

is there no end to your ability to attempt wind ups?
You should get out more, afterall, DCC is beyond corrupt with the Brown envelope
Brigade infecting the chambers again. two such men were pointed out to me at the last
meeting I attended. Is DCC about local government or about re-zoning and general
corruption... I am interested. btw, the names Of the men were also told to me and the
media do watch who they speak with.

But you are a passionate democrat and unconcerned with things that are not in
your experience, DCC , however is open to corruption and as long as complacency
presides by over usage of the whip and voting pacts- nothing much will change.
I should run a poll:

Q.

Do we want DCC concillors working for us or for the vested interests?

Do we want whips and party lines or do we want mandate?

etc.

by Labourman Sat Dec 01, 2007 17:30

Good man Dermot, sounds suspiciously like more sell outs are on the way. Why don't you join the PD's and be done with it?

by Dermot Lacey Sun Dec 02, 2007 17:20

Yes Dermott troll,

I am a democrat. I believe in democratic representative politics. I am a Social Democrat and abhor the pretence that goes with much of the far left.

I also believe that SF have made a significant positive shift in their support for the City Council Estimates this year and welcome their move as a step in the right direction.

I am proud of my consistent record on Dublin City Council in support of honest politics, on my record on housing, precinct improvement, community development initiatives, community social initiatives, work on the health sector and so on. I would challenge you anyday to better that record and YES I am proud that when others failed to defend a fair waste charge system I supported it and am only too happy to welcome the increased support for that stand as every year that passes.

by Sceptic Sun Dec 02, 2007 18:04

You should pack in the campaign lads – it is on a hiding to nothing. Even the histrionics of Mountjoy Joe could not save it and he lost his seat for his troubles while Claire got nowhere. Nor did the shinners opportunistically (and literally) muscling in on the situation prevent their own acute electoral embarrassments. Anyway it is a user charge not a bin tax. People see the need for it. The battle if that is the right word is over and is well lost. Fringe politicians and activists tying to promote themselves by latching on to this cause are wasting their time. Bin there.

by Labourman Mon Dec 03, 2007 07:57

"I am a Social Democrat and abhor the pretence that goes with much of the far left."

A few questions Dermot,

Why do you think that refuse collection services were introduced and free at the point of delivery?
Do you believe in the concept that vital basic services should be free at the point of delivery so as to ensure total inclusivity?
Do you agree that delivering vital services free to the population is a good way of achieving re-distridution of wealth ?
Do you agree that the introduction of charges for services benefits the wealthy only by spreading the tax burden downwards?

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 09:53

In reply to the posting from labourman:

1) There was far higher and economically unsustainable direct taxation and a far less complex taxation policy overall.

2) I don't deal in abstracts - i leave that to the idealogues of the far left to play with.

3) Waste Charges fairly applied - as in Dublin City - help reduce waste and encourage recycling. they also create a direct financial link between the citizen and the Local Council. All three things which i believe to be good.

4) NO

by Dermott troll Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:20

But I do note that its a catch all used by centrist parties who have
become complacent , this being demonstrated in the debate on littering which attempted
to remove posters from the centre- and no response to the issue of whips and voting pacts?

These are anti-democratic and allow the complacency which means that the brown envelopes
are in the Council Chamber again. There is nothing passionate about complacent politics
and voting pacts.

by Caobhin Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:48

Spare us your cant about your proud record of serving the public, the likes of you led the cheers as protestors were jailed for nothing in Autumn 2003. Those Shinners voted for the bin tax because like yourself, they are now completely integratated into the corrupt clientelle nature of Irish politics - a cause for shame not rejoicing as you seem to think.

You can now claim your part of the deal from the city manager, a few car ramps or whatever for your ownarea, but don't insult our intelligence by pretending you are serving the public good.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:53

Dermott troll,

As a Public Representative I am far from complacent - ask any official.

In relation to the Postering ban - you might recall I was one of the group of councillors to actively oppose this.

There is not a single allegation of corruption against a single elected member of Dublin City Council, past or present, in relation to their record on the City Council.

I am not sure what you mean about voting pacts. As a member of the Labour Group I try to maximise support for the things I believe in. I am sure that other Councillors do likewise. What is wrong with that.

There is not a single decision I have taken in nearly fifteen years on the City Council that I believe was motivated by anything other than the best interests of my community and City.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:53

Dermott troll,

As a Public Representative I am far from complacent - ask any official.

In relation to the Postering ban - you might recall I was one of the group of councillors to actively oppose this.

There is not a single allegation of corruption against a single elected member of Dublin City Council, past or present, in relation to their record on the City Council.

I am not sure what you mean about voting pacts. As a member of the Labour Group I try to maximise support for the things I believe in. I am sure that other Councillors do likewise. What is wrong with that.

There is not a single decision I have taken in nearly fifteen years on the City Council that I believe was motivated by anything other than the best interests of my community and City.

by Labourman Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:57

Dermot Lacey

"There was far higher and economically unsustainable direct taxation and a far less complex taxation policy overall."

This is not the reason that refuse collection was first introduced and free. The need was to ensure that as much refuse, which is dangerous, was gathered and safely disposed off. Refuse that is indiscriminately disposed of is extremely dangerous and a threat to the community as a whole.

"I don't deal in abstracts - i leave that to the idealogues of the far left to play with."

You are in politics and are a member of the Labour Party. The proposition is not abstract and must form the basis of any socialists social policy.

"Waste Charges fairly applied - as in Dublin City - help reduce waste and encourage recycling. they also create a direct financial link between the citizen and the Local Council. All three things which i believe to be good."

This is dangerous nonsense. In every area will be found households that on a predetermined test are deemed to be able to afford the "charges" levied, however for all sorts of other reasons, do not have the money to pay for the service when needed. The result is refuse indiscriminately disposed off which in time will generate a serious threat to the health and well being of the community as a whole.

"NO"

The imposition of individual charges is the redistribution of the cost of running the affairs of the community down wards. If you do not see that then surely it's time you did the honest thing and leave the Labourt Party and join Fianna Fail/Pd's

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:14

labourman,

I believe you are wrong entirely and that your posting simply illustrates again the failure of the idelogical left.

I will happily leave it to the electorate to decide if i should remain an elected Labour Representative.

by Two re-zoners working the DCC Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:28

The DCC meetings are attended by at least two men who are looking for re-zoning,
this is fact. As to the poster ban I was at the debate and indeed Mr Lacey supported the right
to free speech but in other parties some considerable amount of work had to be accomplished.
One current woman councillor wanted an operating ban on the basis of insurance indemnity.
which is funny because the council is about to trade of public space to advertisers in xchange
for bicycles...

As to the bin charges- they are related to the estimates, wherein after abolition of dual mandate
and local gov reform the council has lost mandate and is regularly over-ruled by a non-elected
bureaucrat who can abolish if the wage agreement is not voted. The bin charges are part of the
struggle of council to keep up with national wage bills and this is devolved unto the council
through FF policy of creating the council as a bureaucracy. Mimimum wage agreements
are paid by the DCC and they must make money through increasing service charges.
That is not about democratic representation but about complacent inability to challenge
and reform the councils. Thus the Council must make cash to cover its bills and this can be
achieved through varieties of means=reduced mandate +lack of reform.

The next election is in 2009. DCC concillors will begin platforming soon enough.
suggest left parties go on Council reform and not on re-zoning and bureaucratic complacency.

by Labourman Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:39

"I believe you are wrong entirely and that your posting simply illustrates again the failure of the idelogical left.

I will happily leave it to the electorate to decide if i should remain an elected Labour Representative."

such a complete response!!!

I have no difficulty with the prospect that the electorate might re-elect you, I am now satisfied that you are not a socialist of any hue and accordingly I am extremely alarmed that you remain a member of the party. If nothing else be true to yourself.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:45

labourman,

When have I ever claimed to be a Socialist. I am not. I am a Social Democrat. Always have been and hopefully always will be.

As such I am honoured and privleged to have been elected and re-elected to serve on Dublin City Council as a Labour Councillor. I hope to be returned again.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:45

labourman,

When have I ever claimed to be a Socialist. I am not. I am a Social Democrat. Always have been and hopefully always will be.

As such I am honoured and privleged to have been elected and re-elected to serve on Dublin City Council as a Labour Councillor. I hope to be returned again.

by Labourman Mon Dec 03, 2007 13:21

"When have I ever claimed to be a Socialist. I am not. I am a Social Democrat. Always have been and hopefully always will be."

To be a Social Democrat you must first be a socialist. The objective is the same with different methods to achieve the desired end. A Social Democrats aim is to change the system democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs which work to ameliorate or remove injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system. Introducing charges for services is contrary to that objective and is a product of the thinking that created the poll tax. The aim is identical, to filter down the cost of running the state to those on low incomes thereby relieving the wealthy.

Once again, I have no problem with whatever the electorate in your area do, however I think it odd that you yourself do not know where you are on the political spectrum. I guess that your electorate want a conservative and they know that that is what you are despite your membership of a progressive political movement.

A flag of convenience maybe?

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 13:56

labourman,

I think you have some neck and some cheek posting that previous comment.
It is not worth any more of a response.

by Labourman Mon Dec 03, 2007 14:07

"I think you have some neck and some cheek posting that previous comment.
It is not worth any more of a response"

Classic response of the carpetbagger, engage by not engaging for fear of exposure. Debate in the council chamber must be riveting.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 14:28

I think you have a cheek to make those personal comments about me. I have been an active member of the Labour Party since 1977. I have canvassed hard on all the various campaigns and issues of the day. I have worked on the various Referenda that many baulked at. I have campaigned towards achieving justice on a huge range of social and economic issues. I have delivered effectievly on a range of matters and hiding behind your anonymity you choose to cast a slur on my political credentials - Yes I think you have some neck and some cheek

and caoimhin,

Just in case you think I missed your post -probably the same response applies.

by Sineád Mon Dec 03, 2007 15:24

you are a political con-man , Mr Lacey - you profess concern for the working class yet declare you had no choice other than to increase charges as the lesser of two evils.
with that attitude you are ready made for the dail.

you and your like have brought politics to a new low.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Dec 03, 2007 15:52

Ah Sinead another intrepid fighter for lost causes.

I am not sure how you define Working Class but by most definitions that is what I am.

My dad was a train driver and active trade unionist, ,y mother in addition to looking after me and my eight brothers and sisters went out cleaning. we lived all our life in a two bedroom Corpo house. i still live ina house built by the Corpo in a Corpo estate. I am a member of SIPTU.

I own no land, no stocks no shares and have been active in the Labour Party and progressive causes all my life.

You don't agree with me that is fine and your right but don't query my motives or justifications. I happen to believe that a real reformed and improved Local government system is good for working people - in fact I think it would be good for everyone - and local taxation must be part of that.

I was not going to run from a locally determined Waste Charge that had positibe environmental benefits because a few people thought they could make political mileage out of it. Most people have grown up on that debate you and your colleagues seem a long way behind.

by Labourman Mon Dec 03, 2007 17:42

"I think you have a cheek to make those personal comments about me"

Go tell that to the poor who are having these charges lumbered on them by "progressives" like you. DCC is not an island and when it comes to delivering vital services, the rules governing these must apply to everyone. To suggest that applying charges is "positive" is plain silly. When charges are individually applied, fly tipping increases. How can that be positive?

The fact is that the imposition of bin charges is part of the FF/PD policy of privatisation which benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. For that reason, if no other, so called social democrats or democratic socialists should have had nothing to do with it. The bottom line is that the poor and only the poor will suffer as a result of these charges.

BTW, your retreat to victimhood is sickening. Debate the issues.

by Dermot Lacey Tue Dec 04, 2007 00:07

labourman,

Obviously I do not know who you are but your lack of understnding of how the system works and your unbridled belief in your own sole commitment to social justice is actually quite sickening. Get a Life or preferably openly and honestly challenge me for a seat on the Council.

by Labourman Tue Dec 04, 2007 07:50

"Get a Life or preferably openly and honestly challenge me for a seat on the Council."

Can you not even bring yourself to address the issues? Explain why you support a rightwing economic agenda and remain in the Party.

by Dermot Lacey Tue Dec 04, 2007 09:12

1) I don't agree with your assessment of my position.

2) I see no reason why I need to justify my ongoing committment to the Labour Party to you. The fact is that i pursue Social Democratic objectives every day of my working life.

by Labourman Tue Dec 04, 2007 09:38

"The fact is that i pursue Social Democratic objectives every day of my working life."

Imposition of service charges is not the act of a Social Democrat. Do you wish to discuss that? I am not asking you to explain yourself to me or anyone else rather I am trying to reconcile your support for service charges and your membership of the Labour Party.

by Dermot Lacey Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:03

Service Charges are provided for in the policy document "Waste Matters" written by the then Party Spokepserson on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and now supported by the overwhelming majority of Labour Councillors throughout the country.

It is perfectly reasonable to use pricing to among other things, encourage recycling and waste minimisation, establish a financial relationship with the Local Council.

It is no secret that I favour more extensive use of finance raising powers for Local Government.

Anyone who claims to be a Socialist never mind a mere Social Democrat like me should support an enhanced Local Government system. That is the best way to deliver relevant local services and must if it is to have any meaning must have finance raising powers.

by Devolution Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:17

.

[Thats a period]

by Dermot Lacey Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:52

If I could understand that last posting I might reply.

by microcosm Tue Dec 04, 2007 13:27

If you do not understand that you are a bureaucrat who would rather
wage equalise and not provide mandate to people who are left out of
the electoral process then its time you encouraged younger democrats
to fight for council Reform. Labour have a long and proud history of
vote sharing with FF through all levels of government (both local and national).

Local government has not reflected the opposition to the incinerator at Poolbeg
the council facilitated it within devolved governmental structures. thousands
are opposed to it- but the council pushes ahead, it can do this because
it facilitates planning aggression by removing the community from the
consultative process and facilitating re-zoners. ye may as well be Stormont.
You sign checks and balance the books- you work within narrow obligations
to central government. Do not tell me that of the thousands opposed to the
incinerator that not one Labour Party member has queried the issue of
1. re-zoning corruption.
2. Infrastructural development weighted toward the developer.
3.lack of adequate consultation process with locals.
the bigger parties (and i count Labour) have complacently allowed
eco destruction because they cannot think outside of the boxies that FF
made for 'em under the Reform of Local government act-bullshit!

by Dermot lacey Tue Dec 04, 2007 17:13

Thanks for the clarification there. Firstly whatever else I am I doubt if I could be accurately described as a bueracrat. Secondly I am more than happy to work with like minded Councillors on the City Council and on many issues that includes Fianna Fail. Thirdly I doubt if any Councillor has written more and argued more for real Local Government Reform than I have. If you want details I will send them to you. ( as for being young- I still consider myself young enough for the fight)

Fourthly I oppose the Poolbeg Incinerator and have consistently done so. I have also opposed the legislation that allows the Managers to push it through.

In relation to rezoning what happened in parts of County dublin was clearly wrong. No labour Councillor has been accused of improper behaviour in relation to this

On Infrastructural development you are correct as recently as last thursday night at a Public meeting i condemned the present planning system.

As a Councillor I regularly consult my constituents. I attend all Public meetings in my area and outside when I can. I believe that there should be more such meetings where Councillors are held to account and I will continue to push for REAL Local Government Reform.

If I have'nt answered any of your points please don't hesitate to come back and I will try.

by martin lacey - none Tue Dec 04, 2007 18:15

i cannot understand all this this hysteria about local charges. local government needs independent methods of raising finances - apart from central funding . this has proved to be successful in many advanced countries and waivers are available to those who cannot pay. this is hardly a matter for ideological debate .in any society , even a socialist one , public utilities have to be paid for--bin charges, water charges should be based on use like our esb bills.whats so anti socialist about that. as a recipient of a welfare allowance , im reimbursed for part of this . its a good system.

by the way im a brother of dermot lacey and though we dont agree on everything , the insults thrown at him are unacceptable in democratic , socialist debate. MARTIN

by Labourman Tue Dec 04, 2007 18:29

It is very worrying to hear that it is Labour Party policy to support the re-introduction of service charges and Labour need to clarify precisely where they stand on the issue. The excuse that charges are necessary to encourage recycling is bogus. Where charges are introduced and particularly in a privatised environment two things happen immediately,

1) Fly tipping increases significantly

2) The poor and less well off suffer the brunt of the negative impact, not only by having to find the money to pay but also the outfall of the increase in fly tipping impacts to a greater extent on the areas where they live. Local authorities tend to clean wealthy areas more frequently than elsewhere and a vicious circle is thus put in motion.

The imposition of service charges works against the objective of creating a progressive tax system which is vital if meaningful redistribution is to be achieved. Providing essential goods and services such as access to quality food, healthcare, education, housing, waste services and access to a clean fresh water supply is crucial in reducing the amount of inequality in society. By providing vital services free at the point of delivery, governments can effectively increase the disposable income of the poorer members of society and this is the most effective way to maintain the wealth gap at a level that ensures equity and fairness.

The issue of shifting power and rersponsibility to local authorities is laudable, however the introduction of local taxation is not a necessary pre-requisite to achieve this and indeed in other juridictions where local taxation applies, great inequity across the state is the outcome. We are a society and the wealth that we generate is the product of all our efforts and government, whether central or local, must focus on redistribution as a priority.

by Microcosm Tue Dec 04, 2007 19:18

I am , I suppose, annoyed that the ordinary people of dublin who want change are denied
it because the council does not reflect what is important to them. There are hospitals
being lost and incinerators being built and yet the council and the state seem caught up
in Party Politics and the anger that people live in is not reflected within the chamber.

I would never insinuate that Mr Lacey is corrupt -but I do suggest that he is a member
of Labour and his constituency should be council reform, cos its not reflective
of the will of communities from either Poolbeg nor Crumlin, it reflects
party politics at a remove from local decision-making.

*I am concerned also that the re-zoners are back in the chambers* and that the
debates are awful with contracts and pen-pushing for development taking precedence
over real honest anger by huge communities at how their communities are being
let down by those that they have voted to represent them.
someone has to take on the issue of corruption=it has not gone away.

about time someone did. some communities do not have adequate schools, parks, library
services-everything is privatised and subject to bills- this does not happen in other EU
countries and it takes all the hope out of lives to have everything so cheapened to
benefit a few.

by Dermot Lacey Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:42

Thanks Martin,

While of course there are decent and honourable people on Indymedia and on the Far Left, there are also a lot of Buffoons. Their insults don't bother me as I have seen their like before - usually on the far left as they waddle their way through College and then Senior Executives in Multi National Companies after they finish - leaving the average ordinary person to keep the battle for reforms going.

Thanks also Microcosm

for accepting that I am not corrupt. I too get angry about the lack of power at local level. I too get annoyed about our health service - of course I have not just been getting annoyed recently. In 1986 I was Chairperson of the Save Baggot Street Hospital Campaign - one of the very few such campaigns that won and the hospital now is the centre of a huge range of health services. No doubt had we lost it would now be a hotel.

Microcosm you are right too in seeking real Council Reform. I have consistently argued for that. apart from being a Councillor, I am and have been for many years been a member of a wide range of local community organisations and have served as Secretary or Chairperson of such as my Residents association, community week committees etc as well as very very many political campaigns.

However if you look at the Budget we agreed on Dublin City Council last week we have in fact provided for increased Library Opening hours and at least one new Library in the Inner City. We have provide for significant upgrade of facilities in ( from memory) eight public parks. We have also protected the waste collection waiver so that people on Social Welfare or who are not eligible for tax ( ie lower paid) will not have to pay waste charges at all. I would love to do more.

labourman,

As I said it is not a question of waste charges being re-introduced. They are there and most Labour Councillors now joined by SF Councillors support them. I have outlined previously why I support them. I have gone before the electorate with my record on these matters and they have supported me.

I doubt if you have any evidence to show that the Council clean so called rich areas any more than poorer areas - it is simple old fashioned chip on the shoulder stuff.

Taxation has a multiplicity of functions and in my view one of them ( perhaps a relatively unimportant one) is to link financial responsibility directly to decision making). In that context and for all the reasons I have already said I support local taxation - maybe you don't - but I do.

by Labourman Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:37

How, in your view, should a civilised state redistribute wealth generated so that there is a modicum of fairness and equity? In the absence of providing services free at the point of delivery, what do you think is a more effective alternative?

by Dermot Lacey Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:09

labourman - unless you are being argumentative just for the sake of it you will know that all progessive people recognize that taxation is a significant factor in wealth redistribution and the allocation of public services. I certainly do.

I also recognize that finacial instruments can and should be used for other public policies. In the case of waste charges they do have a significant role in improving behaviour. In the case of Local Government I believe that finance raising and determing the subsequent expenditure should be a function of a democratic Local Government system.

by Labourman Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:32

"I also recognize that finacial instruments can and should be used for other public policies. In the case of waste charges they do have a significant role in improving behaviour."

This is not proven but rather is the usual mantra that we are subjected to from FF/PD people whenever a service is having a charge imposed on it. The "improving of behaviour" argument is very granny statish and in any event the government is very selective in it's application. I repeat that the provision of vital services free at the point of delivery is the best way to bring equity into society. I have no problem with people being "fined" (financial instrument) if they are found to be wasteful or irresponsible. The financial stick applied at that end would prove just as effective, if not more so, in moderating people's behaviour. But that would not achive the real end.

The bottom line remains that service charges (Poll Tax) have been progressively re-introduced so as to re-distribute the cost of these services downward. All this "improving behaviour" stuff are ill thought out responses to obvious questions regarding the negative impact on the most vulnerable in our community which these charges bring in their wake.

by Dermot Lacey Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:52

labourman,

You are wrong. The charges have affected behaviour. Your chip on the shoulder about the world is however even sadder.

by Labourman Wed Dec 05, 2007 17:57

"Your chip on the shoulder about the world is however even sadder."

It seems that it is not possible to engage you in a serious discussion on the issues as you seem to only want to engage in name calling or to evade the issues altogether. Applying tax on services of course changes behaviour however changing behaviour can be done without such a negative impact on the less well off. And again it is a fact that imposing individual charges benefits the wealthy by causing downward re-distribution. The fact is that the person on the minimum wage is paying the same charge for vital services as the muti-millionaire at the other end of the street.

by dermot lacey Wed Dec 05, 2007 21:10

labourman - unlike you I am prepared to engage in debate openly, transparently and democratically. Like far too many on the far left you seem to operate in a make believe world where everyobdy would eexactly the same - you know they tried that in the old Soviet societies and look what happened.

I don't think you want a debate. i think you want a conformation of your warped ideology and I for one will not facilitate you. i do think you have a mountainous chip on your shoulder and nothing you have posted indicated to me that you care at all about the impact of policy on those in greatest need. I don't claim to be perfect but I am for example glad that my actions - not my idelogical narrow views - ensured the retention of the Waiver Scheme for those in need.

by Labourman Thu Dec 06, 2007 07:48

Do you accept that applying service charges re-distributes wealth downwards thereby working against the managing of the gap between wealthy and poor?

The waiver scheme is good but only applies in certain areas and will most probabaly disappear if the present government runs it's course. In any event many people caught just above the cut off point suffer greatly trying to meet these extra charges.

by dermot Lacey Thu Dec 06, 2007 09:30

labourman,

I don't accept the premise of your first point. I think it is reasonable that there should be link betwen usage and cost. In the case of Dublin City that cost in my case with two children ( i.e. 4 in the family) amounts to about E4 per week - less than the cost of a pint. The waiver scheme we have negotiated is very generous and I do believe that people outside that waiver scheme can afford that. You should also accept that i start from a different position than you. I believe in local charges and taxation in principle - you do not.

Labour favours a National Waiver Scheme and as with all aspects of the Waste Matters Policy document I support that position - Do You?.

by Labourman Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:44

"I don't accept the premise of your first point. I think it is reasonable that there should be link betwen usage and cost."

This probably is at the heart of our difference. Why do you think that there should be a link between usage and cost? We are not talking about a service that is optional. All people must use a refuse service, in the interests of the community as a whole, regardless of their income and in fact it is proven that those on lower incomes generate more waste due to reliance on cheaper pre-packaged foods. The "pollutor pays" policy is justified on the grounds that to pay will encourage recycling, however this can just as easily be achieved by introducing charges for those that generate over a reasonable pre-set amount where it can be shown that such excess is preventable. Such a system would be truly a "pollutor pays" scheme and would involve the entire community, including those that are excluded from the need to recycle at present by being waivered.
If this is not your reason for your supporting "service charges" and that your support is based on the belief that people should pay every time they use or access a vital service, then that surly places you in the same ideological corner as Mary Harney. You have no problem with a policy that has the same thinking behind it as the Poll Tax.

by Dermot Lacey Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:56

labourman it really is a pity that you see the world through such idelogical eyes. They tend to warp an accurate assesment of reality.

I am reminded of the wonderful speech by Neil Kinnock at the Labour Party Conference when he finally took on Militant, he won and paved the way for Labour to be back in power to implement the huge amount of reforms that they delivered on.

Of course we in Ireland will probably not forgive them for Iraq - the people of the UK have of course recognized the other real deliveries.

I do not agree with you. I think your views have failed. I believe, as the vast majority of people and the vast majority of Labour supporters do, in a mixed economy. I believe that effort should be rewarded and those in need should be protected. I believe in Public Service and I believe in a fair contribution to the common purse.

by Labourman Thu Dec 06, 2007 13:31

You have decided to tackle the unfairness of the right by joining them. Pigeon hole and brow beat by sound bytes and buzz words those that hold an opposing view and whatever happens, do not engage in real debate-questions might have to be answered.
Fact is, Mary Harney herself could have written that last post and meant every word of it. What is the point in being in power if you do not intend to pursue a socialist progressive agenda. At least learn from Harney. When in power she shamelessly milks the system in favour of her friends and supporters. Why do some current Labour people always seem so ready to refine and soften core principles? Is it all about being in power now?
Look around you at what is being created by the "grab what you can mentaity" which inveriably will come back to bite your ass. But once again it's the less well off who have to suffer as their communities are over run by drugs pushers and thugs doing what the right wing advocate in their own way. Take what you can get and f*** everyone else.

by Dermot Lacey Thu Dec 06, 2007 13:39

labourman I don't think there is a single thing you write there that I agree with. Except the part about some communities being scourged by thugs and drugs. That is why I was the founding Chairperson of the Ringsend and District Response to Drugs about ten years ago. That is why I initiated the Dublin Docklands Community Development Fund. That is why I am active in a range of Community bodies and activities.

As for me being a Socialist. How many times do I have to tell you I am not. Your claim that to be a Social Democrat, which I am, you must first be a Socialist ia arrant nonsense - as to be honest I think are most of your views.

by Curious Thu Dec 06, 2007 17:04

So Ireland has a fair Service charge system. Or are you all for social democracy in one ward?

by Emer Thu Dec 06, 2007 17:09

I endorse previous contributions and despite your integral connections to the Working Class and membership of SIPTU...you have sold your people out. Words to this effect are devises of self delusion and preservation and the corollary is.. you have been exposed by this act of betrayal. James Connolly , I'm sure would not be happy to have you invoking his memory.....Join the non-existent PD Class...you might get a slice of Harney's cake...though that might be going somewhat too far as there is very little left and she doesn't like to share! FF will do you.

by Dermot Lacey Thu Dec 06, 2007 17:15

curious,

Yes I believe the system of Service Charges in Dublin - the only one I have voted for - is fair.

And Emer,

Services Charges were endorsed by SIPTU at their Cork Conference. I was glad to see that.

by Emer Thu Dec 06, 2007 17:36

SIPTU...What are they ? Just another arm of Corporatism...Do you believe in Corporatism? Or do we need to define this cosy consensus our Political Reps/Trade Unions enjoy with Profiteers for you?
You represent the most marginalised areas in Ireland and this is what you impose on them... DOUBLE TAXATION. Maybe the people of Oliver Bond Flats or Cork St will put it to you more clearly the next time round..I hope

by Dermot Lacey Fri Dec 07, 2007 09:11

Emer,

People on Social Welfare or those who are not within the Tax net do not have to pay the Waste Charge. That is there because labour Councillors who supported the principle of a charge where determined to protect those who need it.

We also believe that there should be a National Waiver Scheme and have pressed for that in the Dail.

In a conversation recently with a prominent "(probaly previoulsy now) Anti Bin Tax Campaigner, he said to me that over the years he should have been telling many of his Constituents that they were covered by the waiver and in fact did not have to pay. he accepted it would have been better to tell those people that rather than telling them "Not to pay".

Emer I leave the decision on who represents them to the electorate. You know ordinary people have long ago told both the Far Right and the Far Left ( in many respects indistinguishable) where to go.

by Caobhin Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:44

On the one hand you pontificate about being such a super servant of the people with such a contempt for the "micro-left" yet you have demonstrated a dedicated level of retentiveness by camping on this thread -surely you could have spent the time better serving your people, I mean you are a proud "social-democrat" aren't you?

As for your earlier sneer (not for the first time) about anonymous detractors, might I point out that this is open publishing and it is not up to you to demand ids or award yourself some smug moral highground for posting under your name. Still, it's a lot easier than answering the points made isn't it? Join FF or the blueshirts and be done with it.