Third level fees should be re-introduced.

by Conor.M - S.E.E.D Sat Feb 07, 2009 01:24 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

Global Week of Action against the commercialisation of education.

I am however against the commercialisation of education. I saw in another post there is a week of action in April, I support this...

by poor student Sat Feb 07, 2009 13:59

I'm not really sure about fees. I went to the march but I noticed that the majority of the crowd were middle and upper class students. The ignorance of the student body is beyond belief. I dont think any student knows whats really going on, for example,, FEE stands for free education for everyone? The education system is not free it is done through a taxation system.

Some of the stats in this story are interesting and some very valid points are made. I've sort of been turned by this... Maybe the solution to the inequality in Ireland includes introducing fees for the rich because as we see from that report, the majority are wealthy.

There is a strong need for radical ideology and resistance and he might be right, this fee game could be a waste of time and the politicians might be happy were campaigning for the rich.

by Sara Sat Feb 07, 2009 14:14

I had a right mind to bring a sign into town saying EDUCATION IS NOT FREE, FEES FOR THE RICH

by Mark C - ASTI + CCFE (Pers. Caps.) Sat Feb 07, 2009 15:20

Conor,

Whatever about taxing the rich, re-introducing fees will not lead to more working class people going to college. Education, in my opinion, should be free for all people at all times and for all times; it is, after all, a right we all have, not something that should be given and taken (and I say this having spent eight years (so far) in third level and seven years teaching). There are many reasons why the working class is not represented as much as it could be in our third level institutions, but free fees is not one of them.

Certainly, we need to do more to encourage working class people to go to college (if they so wish to go - it's not good enough to just say, "'you must go to college"; there's plenty of people who don't want to go), but I fail to see how re-introducing fees would do this.

I'm also bamboozled at how you can support our Global Week of Action against Commercialisation of Education (which is also a week of action against fees) after writing the piece you have above.

For further information about the week of action, see this:
http://www.emancipating-education-for-all.org/content/g...-2009

For more on Commercialism in Education (from an Irish point of view) see this:
http://www.commercialfreeeducation.com

by Blacbloc Sat Feb 07, 2009 15:29

This is not the solution. Most people in third level ed in Ireland are not the children of rich people for whom money is no object. The principle of universal education and healthcare is central to achieving a more equitable society. By discriminating between groups like this you only embed the capitalist, heirarchical system. The real answer is to relocate control over the wealth and resources in the country into the hands of people and to bring earnings in line so that nobody is taking advantage of anyone else. By maintaing a decent welfare system for everyone, it becomes imperative that the economy is managed equitably to serve it.

by Conor. M - S.E.E.D Sat Feb 07, 2009 16:26 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

Mark, you say third level fees will not help the underprivileged in society go to third level? That is utter rambling nonsense, as you would ignorantly say. How do you know? Are you the minister for education or finance? Fees from the rich could be invested into lower class areas but your argument lacks any kind of depth, its the same rhetoric as everyone else. Everyone thinks they know it all, (I'll the first to admit I dont know enough, but at least I'm looking for a realistic solution) the truth is we are in an incredible mess and some solutions are needed quick. So instead of saying I'm rambling on why dont you try some productive criticism or an alternative solution? What happens when our universities cant keep up with the rest of the world and foreign students stop coming? I guess you haven't really thought anything out yet, just another self righteous rambler!

Also, you say it should be free? Considering you went to college for so long and your teacher, and I'm only 20 years old, I fear what things your telling your students. You, like everyone else, have not looked into this debate, your just following the flock. The ultra-rich and millionaires SHOULD have to pay, why are you defending the rich in society, we need that money back, this is one way of getting it!

You also go on to say we (the 'underprivileged) are not represented, I'm glad we can agree on something. This is because the left in this country is an utter JOKE. So, Mark I'm glad you challenged me but I see, just like everyone else, you have no solution. As a teacher, you should know more.

BlacBloc, I never said this was 'the solution', it is however a part of it. You also say 'most people are not children of the rich', I am not, but yes, most are, its a fact (When fees were abolished, this was while there was not as much money, the increase of underprivileged went from 3.5% - 4%) Also, you talk about universal health care? We pay for private hospitals and doctors.... WAKE UP

You go on to talk about the real solution... We all know about anarchist, communist and socialist solution but its not going to happen overnight no matter how much you dream about it. So, for an immediate, realistic solution, join the battle against the cutbacks, rise up against the government, but PLEASE dont stop them from taxing the rich!

Fees WILL be re-introduced, stop wasting your time on an under informed and very silly campaign and if your going to criticise me and belittle me like Mark, say something productive, or at least informative.

by Conor. M - S.E.E.D Sat Feb 07, 2009 16:30 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

Mark Conroy - your right, I was fairly under informed myself about that day!!! Thanks for pointing that out.

Listen, I didn't write this story for a fight, I just want an informed debate (something we lack even in government)

I wont be supporting that day. Because, until we have equality in society, we will just be campaigning for the rich, its infuriating to think no one else has copped on.

by Mark C - ASTI + CCFE (Pers. Caps.) Sat Feb 07, 2009 21:08

Conor,

First off, an apology. I mis-placed that title that called your piece "silly, rambling"; I had started a reply along those lines, but on second or third inspection I thought it wasn't so rambling. My fault.

I still hold true to what I said though. Education should be free; and your forcefulness in your own self-belief is a bit unfounded, especially since you say yourself that you don't know enough.

You need not worry about what I say to my students, it's exactly what I say here: education should be free - education is a right, and rights should not have to be paid for.

I have given the matter serious consideration, despite your claims, and have come to the conclusion, again, that education should be free.

I remember studying Sociology of Education a number of years ago, and our lecturer, a Marxist, saying that the under-privileged in society are still not fairly represented in third level despite the abolition of fees. However, for me, that is not a reason to bring back fees.

I think what we need to do is challenge the conditions that lead to the under-representation of the working class in third level. Your argument fails, because it looks for too simplistic a solution.

Like Blacblok I also agree with free health care for all and just because we have to pay for doctors, does not take away from the ideal that we can strive towards, and even though it is only an ideal, if we don't strive towards it, what do we strive towards?

Perhaps you should change your email address from liberalconormurphy to neoliberalconormurphy.

I admire your quest for meaning, genuinely I do, and I wish you all the best in it.

by attlee Sun Feb 08, 2009 01:07

What about re-introducing fees for secondary school? They were only abolished in the sixties, before that the "rich" had to provide money to send their children to school after age 12.

It sounds loopy but exactly the same arguments were applied then- that is, why should the taxpayer be subsidising the educational costs of people who can well afford it? The money could be better spent on the poor.

The fact is though, that educating the people is a right and proper thing for the state to be doing, and entry to educational establishments should be based on merit, just as entry to hospitals should be based on need. Money should not come into it.

Funds can be found for paying core costs like defence, revenue, road building, industrial development etc etc, and education is a core cost. If there isn't enough money then taxes should be raised, and if there still isn't enough then places should be cut, based on merit.

Introducing fees will clearly exclude some people from education based on how much money they have or haven't got. Distributing a resource like this, based on ability to pay, will be bad for society, since obviously some of those people will merit further education based on their abilities and dedication, but they will be excluded to make space for their richer counterparts from the better parts of town.

And if Conor or anyone else thinks that the selfish scumbags in FF/FG are doing this to open up access to education for the poor, then that is plain naive.

by Conor. M - S.E.E.D Sun Feb 08, 2009 13:50

''And if Conor or anyone else thinks that the selfish scumbags in FF/FG are doing this to open up access to education for the poor, then that is plain naive.''

I never said FF were doing this to open up education for all. No one, including all of the campaigners are mentioning the fact education is NOT free, its paid through tax. I firmly believe tax should be dramatically hiked and until we have equality in society the rich should have to pay for education, they have the cash.

I myself am on the breadline but I'm not in the slightest worried about fees. They are not going to make my family, or any other family in my position pay fees. They will however make the wealthy pay.

This is like the medical card situation, only the rich were going to have their cards removed.... and they did! We live in a society where the gap between the wealthy and poor is fairly large. So, until we have equality in society, where we can have free education, we will be campaigning for the rich. Everyone needs to open their eyes and stop campaigning for the wealthy, seriously stop this POINTLESS campaign, the fees will be introduced regardless so lets campaign for something fair and realistic, like higher taxes for the rich because the have the lowest taxes in Europe if you take our wealth into consideration.

IGNORE THIS CAMPAIGN OF MISINFORMATION AND RISE UP AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

By the way Mark, changing my name to neoliberalcon.... I'm against the 'free' market, NAFTA, privatisation etc. Since your a teacher, could you not post a comment without leaving a childish unfounded comment.

by attlee Sun Feb 08, 2009 14:08

There were six parts to the comment above Conor, you obnly responded to one of them. Why? There is a good bit there to respond to. Perhaps you could tell us if you think fees should be introduced for "rich" sceondary school students? Surely the logic is the same?

by Mark C - ASTI + CCFE (Pers. Caps.) Sun Feb 08, 2009 14:30

Conor,

The fees debate, as far as I am concerned, is a smokescreen.

What you are advocating is more money to be injected into getting disadvantaged people to third level; this is very good and something I agree with. Where we differ is in the collection of this money.

You say, the rich should have to pay for it and I agree with you. However, I don't think it should be collected through third level fees. There are many more taxes that can be introduced or increased and should be introduced and/or increased.

We have fought long enough and hard enough to get free education (for secondary students, for third level under-graduate students (hopefully in the not too distant future, also for post-graduate students)) and should not be so flippant about this, and, certainly, we should not give these freedoms up easily.

I don't think you have thought through your argument enough; I think it is something that you have come up with and put on indymedia.ie in a rush without enough thought. Testament to this is your poor spelling/grammar/punctuation (delete where appropriate).

Regards,
Mark Conroy.

by Conor.M - S.E.E.D Sun Feb 08, 2009 23:38 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

Well Mark, at least I gave it a shot. I see you still have NO solution!
Anyway, whatever you say, fees will still be introduced. So join a new campaign

by Curious Mon Feb 09, 2009 00:47

Excuse my ignorance. To us mere mortals, what is S.E.E.D.? Does it amount to being more than a one all, know it all?

by ed galligan Mon Feb 09, 2009 01:34

While there seem to be plenty replying to posts by FEE etc., this is the first post I've seen anywhere from someone holding this view.

Sara - "I had a right mind to bring a sign into town"
Why didn't you? Does anyone know if there is any movement or such to publicly represent this side of student opinion?

Mark - "Where we differ is in the collection of this money."
You're talking about increasing taxation of the rich to indirectly pay for their education, rather than charging them directly, something which is inherently inefficient. Payment for anything should be direct if possible. This kind of roundabout bureaucratic mechanism of managing funding is the reason for so much waste in government spending.

Mark - "We have fought long enough and hard enough to get free education"
The problem is that the fight should have been for equality of access, something entirely different, and often exclusive.

Mark - "I don't think you have thought through your argument enough; I think it is something that you have come up with and put on indymedia.ie in a rush without enough thought. Testament to this is your poor spelling/grammar/punctuation"
You may be right (I don't know, Conor doesn't seem to disagree), but I see the editorial guidelines here do state: "Play the ball and not the player, Keep your comments on topic". That comment seems aimed at discrediting the argument by discrediting the poster.

Conor - "Anyway, whatever you say, fees will still be introduced"
While I have possibly even less 'trust' of the current government, I still believe they are at least more likely to listen to voices of support than of dissent. Would a student campaign supporting the reintroduction of fees not be beneficial (with the hope of promoting some of the more sustainable, beneficial ideas of F.E.E. - increased maintenance grant aid, scrapping registration fees, etc.), or am I too naïve?

by Mark C - ASTI + CCFE (Pers. Caps.) Mon Feb 09, 2009 08:19

Curious,

S.E.E.D. is the acronym of Conor's think tank that he made moves towards setting up a while back.

See: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/90216

I have a feeling it is only Conor involved as he seems to be the only person putting S.E.E.D after his name.

Mark.

by Conor.M - S.E.E.D Mon Feb 09, 2009 19:56 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

Mark,
What a pathetic attempt to try to discredit me. Were not as great and so well known as 'ASTI + CCFE'? Do you think I'm sad enough to post under a non-existent group? There only about ten of us but I'm trying to politicize more young people. No one else in S.E.E.D uses indymedia.

This is what happens when something is put on Indymedia. Look Mark, if you want to thrash talk, send me an email, grow up. I dont know if its people wanting to be apart of a campaign, or if its just plain ignorance from people like Mark, but look at the facts. Fees should be introduced. In case you forgot Mark, this thread is about fees, not a thread to belittle people.

by Conor.M - S.E.E.D Mon Feb 09, 2009 20:11 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

''Excuse my ignorance. To us mere mortals, what is S.E.E.D.? Does it amount to being more than a one all, know it all?''

S.E.E.D - for Social Equality & against Environmental Destruction. There's only a few of us, its mostly a discussion group, I want young people to equip themselves with radical/alternative knowledge. Were not the most active, but some members are. You have to start somewhere.

I'm absolutely sorry if I've come across as a 'know it all'. I am my biggest critic and the first person to acknowledge the more you learn, you realise the less you know. I love to learn more, and I love being proved wrong (as you learn more...) I may have come across as a bit testy but, its hard not to when someone cant learn to criticise the idea, not the person. Again, I dont pretend to know it all... that's why I decided to go to college.

Lets stick to the issue at hand. In this country, fees should be introduced because of the gap between the wealthy and poor. Someone else said, should secondary level schools also pay? Most of our speculators, businessmen, bankers, teachers etc actually DO pay. Certain schools in the south-side of Dublin are a good example. This is where the upper class of the future come from! They already pay for secondary education.

by Amy--Student Mon Feb 09, 2009 20:22

do yee think the government can really be trusted to NOT make the poor pay too? I did see something stating the amount of income you need to have to pay fees, its pretty high. Im not really sure. I wont campaign for the no side. but im not too convinced by the yes side - although the yes side is underrepresented. Its like 'Lisbon', but the other way around!!

by ed galligan Mon Feb 09, 2009 21:24

Amy - "do yee think the government can really be trusted to NOT make the poor pay too?"
Absolutely not!! Of course they can't, but my point above was that as little a chance as we may have of influencing the government's decisions, dissent is not something they're likely to respond well to.
The F.E.E. are essentially asking for the earth. They want increased funding of education, increased in funding of maintenance grants, increase in funding to cover registration, increase in funding to cover exam fees, free fees for post grad, etc. As wonderful and utopian a world as that would be, we're apparently in a recession (so I'm told anyway); a pragmatic approach to the government's policy making from students is far more likely to garner a positive response and far less likely to lead to unjust charging of fees to the poor in future.

@Conor
I read that article about S.E.E.D. (thanks for the link Mark). Tbh the idea of "unity" you're talking about is not something I'd personally support - groups should stick to the one cause, not be "jacks of all trades...", but this is just my personal opinion. Either way, is anyone aware of any actual movement (by S.E.E.D. or members of F.E.E or any other "united" or specific group) to highlight the fact that not all students are with the 12,000 that turned up last week?

by Brian Mon Feb 09, 2009 23:05

I'm glad others 'see the light'. Fees should most definitely be introduced. I come from a wealthy family, I sort of resent it but I'm in a good position and I'm very lucky. My family can afford to pay my fees.... why not?

by Peter Carrol - 3rd level student Mon Feb 09, 2009 23:34

In countries like Sweden and Finland they have universal education, this is why we should raise taxes. Since this wont happen soon the rich should pay fees.
Conor mentions the private hospitals. I dont know so much about the wages of private doctors, I'll take his word for it, but we do pay for the construction of private hospitals. This is a loose point, but a good one. We need to, as Conor said, 'ask the difficult questions'. People like Mark and groups like FEE see the solution as a simple NO, its a utopian solution. There's a 6.5 billion hole in public services, a quick way of getting some money back? Introduce fees for the wealthy.

I'm glad this post is here. Hopefully it will start a realistic debate.

by Peter Carrol - 3rd level student Mon Feb 09, 2009 23:44

To Mark Conroy - ASTI + CCFE,

I dont know who you are, or the groups you are in but I just read the last comment you left. What a childish, very under minding comment it is. I have no interest to ever find out what your groups are about if your members are like you. Its an utter disgrace, stick to the point Mark! Just because you cant sustain an argument, dont try to make yourself feel better by attacking someone trying to make sense of a messy situation.

Conor, your not alone in your thoughts. Fair play to you for standing up against the norm. We should start a 'yes-to-fees' campaign,

Peter

by Mark C - ASTI + CCFE Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:44

I'm getting the brunt of a stick here being accused of attacking Conor personally. I haven't attacked him personally. Indeed, I've tried to agree with him as much as possible, in so far as we both believe that those who earn more should pay more. He believes a good tax so would be to (re)introduce fees for students; I don't (I think it's too slippery a slope). Other taxes can be found and introduced instead. I know this may not be the easiest way to collect money, but I am interested in what is right rather than what is easy. This Conor, for not the first time (although you seem to have missed it each other time), is part of my "solution".

Reintroducing fees is very simplistic. Okay, we have fees, now what? I'm much more interested in tackling the wider social issues and variables that lead to a slow up take in third level from those who are deemed "disadvantaged". I actually teach in an area of 41% unemployment, in a school designated disadvantaged and with a huge emphasis on special needs education (for our 1) challenging students, and 2) autistic/down syndrome/other issues students), but we do very well indeed (through hard work) to get most of our students to some sort of third level course.

My mentioning what S.E.E.D is was purely factual, as far as I knew about it (see the link I provided). I now realise that it has more members than just Conor. I could have made many more subjective remarks about it, but decided not too.

Conor, you don't come across as a person who "knows it all", but you do come across as a person somewhat intolerant of others' opinions when they don't concur with your own. (Please don't take that as a personal attack on you; it is only my interpretation of your writing and arguing). I have also applauded you on your quest for seeking a political philosophy that suits you. Many people your age don't, and I wish you the best on this endeavour.

Ed Galligan, yes FEE's vision is utopian (somewhat) and that is, I think, a good thing. (I am in no way affiliated with FEE).

Peter Carroll, the groups I am in, respectively are: ASTI - Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland (about 35,000 members) see: http://www.asti.ie and CCFE - Campaign for Commercial-Free Education (about 10 (members with many more supporters)) see: http://www.commercialfreeeducation.com. If anyone, Peter, is playing the player and not the ball here, it's you.

I'll be away for a couple of days; apologies if I drop out of this thread.

by Tommy Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:14

Theres a good argument here. I think fees should be introduced, we should also look at the larger perspective in the long-term.

by Paul Murphy - FEE & Socialist Party Tue Feb 10, 2009 13:57

Conor presents the rates of admission to third level education as some sort of revelation. If only everyone know about this, then surely the “left” should support fees! He invites us to have a “REAL debate” on the issue (as if the same arguments he is making haven’t been rehashed in the Irish Times repeatedly). The reality is different. FEE has extensively discussed these arguments and in the 20,000 leaflets we produced building for the demonstration on 4 February, we tackled some of them.

I am perfectly aware of the gross inequality that exists in access to third level education (as are nearly all members of FEE I would have thought). I am also perfectly aware that education is far from “free” – a study in D.I.T. estimated the cost of college at being €8,000 per year – add to that the registration fee of €1,500 per year for those who have to pay it – going to third level education is an enormously expensive endeavour, even before the full re-introduction of fees.

That is precisely why we think campaigning for “free education”, as opposed to just “no to fees” is so important. FEE stands for a genuinely free education system, with a decent grant system to make third level genuinely accessible for all.

Did the removal of third level fees increase access to education?

It is a fact that the removal of fees did lead to an increase in the intake of students from lower income backgrounds. It did not eliminate social class-related inequalities but it did promote greater equality between social groups as the ratio of participation for lower income groups rose. (Source: O’Connell & Clancy, “Who Went to College? Socio-Economic Inequality in Entry to Higher Education in the Republic of Ireland in 2004.” Higher Education Quarterly, 60, 312-332 – thanks to Prof. Kathleen Lynch for this).

The reason it only went so far in reducing inequality is because it wasn’t matched by a development of a real grant system. As our leaflet put it: “Abolishing fees has increased access to third-level but serious inequalities remain. The way to tackle these is not fees – it is investment in all levels of education and the establishment of a living grant for all students.”

Will the government make the rich pay?

It is shockingly naïve for anyone to support the re-introduction of fees on the basis that the rich should pay their way. This is simply an echo of the government’s propaganda in relation to medical cards, child benefit and college fees. “Making the rich pay their way” has become their stock government argument in favour of scrapping the automatic right to basic services like a medical card and third level education. Anyone who has paid attention to the policies of the Fianna Fail led government over the last 11 years will be laughing at this notion. This government is a pro-rich government.

Nine of the 20 richest people in the country pay no tax whatsoever. Ireland has one of the lowest corporation taxes in Europe of 12.5%, with super-rich big businesses paying far less in tax than PAYE workers. To top it all off, they’ve just given €7 billion euro of taxpayers’ money to bail out the super-rich banks, while introducing a “pension levy”, in reality a vicious cut in wages for all public sector workers! The tax burden has been shifted significantly onto PAYE workers to the benefit of corporations and the super rich.

Clearly this government has no intention of going after the rich! Instead this talk of making the rich pay for their services is another attempt to con people (which Conor unfortunately seems to have fallen for). They want to scrap people’s automatic right to basic services and benefits. This isn’t to punish the rich – it is to break the notion of universality and then use it as the thin edge of the wedge. Just like with the bin tax, these charges (medical charges, fees etc.) would then be extended to other sections and increased.

The rich should pay – through central progressive taxation!

I am very strongly of the opinion that the rich – the bankers, speculators and big businesses (not teachers – who Conor somehow up with the rich) – should pay for the crisis. But there is a question over how should they pay? Should campaigns like FEE favour a “service charge” model, where the rich pay for the services they use – health, education etc, or should we favour a model of progressive central taxation? There are very good reasons (not an absence of discussion or thought as Conor implies) that the left has historically favoured the second model – progressive central taxation:

1. A “service charge” model is inevitably less equitable and fair than a central progressive income and corporation tax model. “Service charges” (be they on bins, water, education or health) charge people for what they use as opposed to their ability to afford to pay for it. Flat fees and charges inevitably hit lower paid workers hardest. Whereas, a progressive (sharply increasing) income and corporation tax system can tax people on the basis of their income, and therefore ability to pay.

2. One would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that this government will introduce such a “service charge” (fees) model that would hit the rich and not be extended to ordinary people. This government isn’t a neutral government, desperately trying to simply balance the books, it is a government for the rich and big business. It will not introduce policies that hit the rich to the benefit of access of ordinary people. It may for a year introduce fees that would primarily hit better off workers and the rich. However, given the scale of the economic crisis, these would quickly be extended and increased to hit all sections of societies, and would serve as an absolute block to third level for many working class young people.

Universal rights

The reality is that rights like access to primary, secondary and third level education, and access to healthcare should be basic rights for all that everyone is entitled to. They should be paid for out of a central progressive income and corporation tax system. The re-introduction of fees would further hit access rates from working class backgrounds in Ireland – the introduction of fees in Britain has reduced enrolment by around 10%, particularly those serving students from lower income backgrounds.

Stand together to defeat the government – what we stand for

Conor ends his article with a rallying call – “we need to stand together and stop the government from walking all over us. The last thing we need to do is try to stop the government from finally taking money back from the wealthy in Ireland.” Incredible!

We will stand together by opposing the attacks of the government, like fees, taking away medical cards and the attacks on the public service, not by accepting them and hoping against hope that they will actually only hit the rich. The idea that the government is finally trying to take back money from the wealthy in Ireland is unbelievable – it would go against their entire previous policy and what they stand for!

Don’t fall for the government’s con – they want to bring in and extend and increase fees for most students to help plug the gap in their finances and prepare the colleges for privatisation. These are UCD FEE’s demands:
* No to the re-introduction of fees in any form – by direct fee, loan or by stealth increases in the registration fee.
* Scrap the registration fee and fees for part-time, postgrad and non-EU students.
* Extend and increase the grant system to reflect the cost of living.
* No to cutbacks. Cutbacks threaten students’ education and college staff’s livelihoods.
* For a genuinely free, well funded education system. For massive investment in public education from pre-school to third level.
* No to the commercialisation of education – business involvement in education will result in the scrapping of subjects that aren’t seen as “profitable” to companies and will distort research in science and medicine.
* Fund education through central progressive taxation on the rich and the corporations.
* End the €100 million/year subsidy of private second level education by the government.
* Reclaim the campuses – for democratic control of the colleges by students and staff.

by Catherine - Galway student Tue Feb 10, 2009 13:59

Theres a little stir happening on campus... People are starting to question ''FEE'' and individuals about the No fees campaign. There might be a turn in the tide, it looks as if students are starting to support the idea of fees, including myself

by Jay Tue Feb 10, 2009 14:24

"People are starting to question ''FEE'' and individuals about the No fees campaign."

It's quite the opposite from what i'm hearing around the country.

FEE in UCD, for example, has been growing steadly since the start of the second term.

The above comment looks like hack trolling to me.

by Conor. M - S.E.E.D Tue Feb 10, 2009 14:38 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

First of all Paul, just because FEE produced 20,000 leaflets doesn't mean their right. They seem to be very scaremongering, thats what first turned me and college friends off FEE.

Another thing you say Paul, is you wish education to be free. I've talked to you and I've seen you talking to crowds. You seem like an intelligent fella, you know well education can never be free. In Finland they have universal health care. Thats because the rich pay higher taxes, with the taxes the education system is funded. Its not free by any means.

You mention the 7billion bailout. I'm not supporting FF here but what were they supposed to do? Should they not have guaranteed the money and let the banking system collapse? Where would be now? Its easy to stand back and criticise but these decisions had to be made, even thought it was the banks who created the crisis.

Your claims that I have been conned by the government are absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry for going against you but not everyone who goes against you and FEE have been tricked by the government. I did a little research. I talked to teachers and tutors and I had a Finnish girl who lives with me translate Finnish documents. Dont come to such silly conclusions Paul.

Another thing you talk about is the increased attendance. FEE have never stated how much the attendance increased. It increased from 3.5 per cent to just over 4 per cent, that is a miserable increase considering how much money was in our country. Abolishing fees done NOTHING, it just left more money in the wealthy peoples pockets.

''Conor ends his article with a rallying call – “we need to stand together and stop the government from walking all over us. The last thing we need to do is try to stop the government from finally taking money back from the wealthy in Ireland.” Incredible!'' Whats incredible about that Paul?

To be honest Paul, everything is an attack to you. I come from a poor family, we supported taking away some medical cards. We asked our local politicians, all of them, if we would be affected, they told us we were protected on the basis of income. Its the same for fees Paul. Everything is not so black and white.

''The idea that the government is finally trying to take back money from the wealthy in Ireland is unbelievable – it would go against their entire previous policy and what they stand for!'' Different times Paul! This is as simple an answer as you gave.

Also Paul, please explain your 'no cutbacks' slogan? Where do you suggest the money comes from? Remember, its so simple to stand far away and just criticise, if you were in their position (hypothetically speaking) you would surely do the same.

In addition to everything said. This whole mess in Ireland goes way back to the foundation of our present day education system. Believe it or not, under British rule, there was an attempt to introduce universal education. But the religions weren't having any of it. Long story short, they successfully numbed the Irish people to the point of no return. We get our information from the English language sources. For a real chance of change, we need to learn other languages and try to understand how other systems function. Until then we will have an Irish population and Irish politicians explaining everything in dumbed down and simplistic black and white terms. All we have to do is look at this fee campaign and see that the whole thing lacks real hard information, stats and facts and no real comparison with our European allies. I'm learning a European language and leaving this ignorant island as soon as possible.

by Ed Galligan Tue Feb 10, 2009 15:39

I don't intend to write as detailed a post as Paul Murphy, so apologies in advance if I do miss a few points. I'm making no attempt to dodge any.
Firstly as for the apparent debate and discussion on whether or not fees should be reintroduced, it may have occurred between members most closely and actively involved with F.E.E. or the USI, but on a broader scale it most certainly hasn't. This was blatantly apparent in the number of students out in protest who were blissfully unaware of the specific events and announcements which motivated the protest.

You seem to be implying that an introduction of 3rd level fees for the rich will invariably lead to some form of fee "creep" with the income threshold for payment growing progressively lower, you may be right. In fact I'd agree that it's quite likely. However to this date there has been no public indication of such - Batt O'Keefe's proposition was I believe for those with family incomes of over 150,000; a fairly high threshold in my books. The possible future lowering of this threshold aside, most of the so called "protesters" on the streets were so miseducated they believed fees were being proposed for lower income families immediately. Not what you'd call the result of healthy discussion of the issue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there's been serious deliberate misrepresentation of the issue to students, particularly on the part of the USI.

"FEE stands for a genuinely free education system"
Education should not be free. Equality≠Freeness. Equality means everyone has access, whether they can afford to pay or not. Freeness means no-one pays (impossible actually as the tax payers pay - you make the interesting point that the richest 20 pay no tax, those directly below them also pay little)

Also note I distinguish in my vocabulary between "freeness" (freedom of cost) and "freedom" (freedom of right). This is I think where a lot of confusion lies and why there are so many people blindly jumping on the various band-wagons of free education/health/bin collection/etc. They equate the word "free" with freedom. Freedom means you have unfettered access to what is your right. If you have the ability to easily finance that access, there is no reason why you shouldn't.

"The rich should pay – through central progressive taxation!"
Central taxation is, in this country above all, massively and inherently inefficient. Taxes are obviously a necessity for all state run bodies, however paying taxes so that the "central system" can the repay out one of your direct external expenses is just backwards. Think of the administrative savings of direct payment of fees to the institutions for a start.

On your two numbered points:
I hope you won't consider it rude of me if I completely discount your first point - it seems completely and utterly unfounded to me. I honestly can't make out it's logic. What unseen force prevents a "service charge" from being means tested and progressive? What sets it apart from a tax so?

"2. One would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that this government will introduce such a “service charge” (fees) model that would hit the rich and not be extended to ordinary people."
One would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that this government will introduce such a “progressive (sharply increasing) income and corporation tax system” (fees) model that would hit the rich and not be extended to ordinary people. They've done nothing of the sort to date.

"Universal rights"
Here you have a paragraph which completely confuses the idea of "freedom of cost" and "freedom of right". Having a right to something does not mean you should not have to pay for it. It means it should be freely available to you whether you can afford it's cost or not. The intermingling of the word "free" in two often opposing issues is unfortunate.

All in all, the reality is that the government is introducing fees for all the wrong reasons. They are doing it to cut costs, to take money OUT of the education budget and they have no intention of it benefiting the poor. But whatever their motivation, the issue is not why. The issue is what. What does it mean? It means the end of a system that has always favoured the rich. The government are introducing fees because they have their backs to the wall and now they can no longer afford to spend our taxes handing out free education to the rich.

I fully support F.E.E.s campaign to increase the funding of the maintenance grants scheme (and also I would hope to reform the system as it is quite inefficiently run), because I believe it is essentially a good system badly implemented. "Free-fees" is a bad system regardless of it's implementation. The government might in future attempt to push for fees for lower income families yes; this I will obviously do my damnedest to oppose - but we will have a system that has at the very least the potential of being well implemented, rather than the current which will always favour the rich no matter what we do to it.

by Peter K Tue Feb 10, 2009 15:41

“I did a little research. I talked to teachers and tutors and I had a Finnish girl who lives with me translate Finnish documents. Dont come to such silly conclusions Paul”
Phenomenal work Conor, maybe you should email the CSO and ERSI.

“For a real chance of change, we need to learn other languages and try to understand how other systems function.”
Why not try understanding capitalism?? It’s the same in every language.

“I'm learning a European language and leaving this ignorant island as soon as possible.”
Europe needs S.E.E.D, don’t waste your time here with us Neanderthals.

BTW How is the campaign to get BK and Micky D’s to recycle going??

by Ed Galligan Tue Feb 10, 2009 17:46

@Conor
Tbh, while I wouldn't be condoning a complete black and white stance on it, I wouldn't put quite as much trust in our government as you might. Paul is right in ways that yes, they are very much supporters of the rich, something which is not likely to change. The bank bailouts are a joke, here and elsewhere in the world. The "protect the poor innocent shareholders" line is shamelessly immoral. If the banking system were to collapse without the bailouts, why then have similar initiatives abroad led to banks "hoarding" their respective handouts rather than passing them on to the consumer as was intended. Anyway, that's all slightly irrelevant, but the main point I'm getting at is the government is corrupt and incompetent to the core and certainly when fees are introduced, students should not be resting on their laurels about pressurising them into maintaining high income thresholds and as efficient a free-fees scheme as possible for the rest. That I will get out an protest for.

As for Pauls point on increased attendance which I skipped over, while I'm aware the attendance did increase since the scheme was introduced, so did the average level of individual wealth, standard of living, funding for education, etc. There are countless variables. The question is not "did it increase?" the question is "how much would attendance from lower income backgrounds have increased without the scheme?". Maybe not at all, maybe it would have decreased; I personally doubt that though.

As for comments from Jay and Peter K, while I may disagree with most of what he says, I would highly recommend looking to Paul's post as an example of how to join the civil debate without lowering the tone of the thread.

by Conor. M - S.E.E.D Wed Feb 11, 2009 15:55 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

I've been caught out!!! I'm actually the boggie-man!!!!!!!!!

The recycling campaign is going okay, slow and steady.... I intended to put more time into it but the situation in Gaza caught my immediate attention.

by Dublin student Wed Feb 11, 2009 19:42

The fact is that large amounts of money are spent every year funding private education. This money should be stopped if the government have to stop funding disability services in schools. The private education system in this country means that areas that have a traditionally small per cent of people going to university are drained of students who leave their local schools to go to grind schools or private schools. This causes problems in community secondary schools. The fact that these schools refuse to allow the playing of GAA and actively promote rugby is another reason why these schools should not be allowed to operate. The rich should be hit with more cost in relation to tax especially since it was the private sector that gained by far the most from the Celtic Tiger (bonuses etc).

The reality is that the percentages are depressing and something needs to be changed but fees will not solve these problems.
Fees will:
* target those who must reside in residences as they do not live near a university. This means country students will be affected even more than they are already.
* not diminish student numbers but will instead shift the range of students even further away from the poorer quarters. Without doubt the numbers of students from deprived areas will drop, even if they get high points.
* turn education into a commodity, hence devaluing certain courses as they will appear uncompetitive in the long term market. People will move towards courses where they can see a financial profit. This would degrade society even more and turn the brightest into what the market demands. We might be producing more engineers and science students under fees but they probably won't be as good due to the reality that they are only studying it in the pursuit of money. There is no passion.

The rich should pay, including the rich students but shutting down private schools or charging fees to pupils who come from private schools is a better way of solving the problem than flat fees.

by Conor. M - S.E.E.D Wed Feb 11, 2009 20:24 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

''Fees will:
* target those who must reside in residences as they do not live near a university. This means country students will be affected even more than they are already.
* not diminish student numbers but will instead shift the range of students even further away from the poorer quarters. Without doubt the numbers of students from deprived areas will drop, even if they get high points.
* turn education into a commodity, hence devaluing certain courses as they will appear uncompetitive in the long term market. People will move towards courses where they can see a financial profit. This would degrade society even more and turn the brightest into what the market demands. We might be producing more engineers and science students under fees but they probably won't be as good due to the reality that they are only studying it in the pursuit of money. There is no passion.''

''Fees will target those who must reside in residences as they do not live near a university. This means country students will be affected even more than they are already.'' - I cant really say anything about this, I'm fairly shocked if its true, where did you get this info? thanks...

''Fees will not diminish student numbers but will instead shift the range of students even further away from the poorer quarters. Without doubt the numbers of students from deprived areas will drop, even if they get high points.'' - I'm not exactly sure how fees would reduce the number of students coming from deprived areas because only families who can afford to pay will. In fact, the limit is very high considering the circumstances. I dont have the exact figures at hand, sorry.

''Fees will turn education into a commodity, hence devaluing certain courses as they will appear uncompetitive in the long term market.'' - Lets say the anti-fee campaign is successful. Then a lot of dispensable cash is left in the pockets of the wealthy. If no cash is injected into third level education soon then our universities will lack international competitiveness! Without the money, certain Irish universities will appear uncompetitive in the long term market.

by Dublin student Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:47

" ''Fees will target those who must reside in residences as they do not live near a university. This means country students will be affected even more than they are already.'' - I cant really say anything about this, I'm fairly shocked if its true, where did you get this info? thanks... "

Fees will be the straw that broke the donkey's back for many rural people. The wealthy students from the south side areas of dublin don't for accommodation while education for people from outside the zones of universities already have to pay for diggs. If fees come in the rural student will be hit far harder than the wealthy D4 student (I'm using UCD and Trinity as examples). A typical farming family with a €45,000 income would feel the annual cost of around €15,000 to send one son or daughter to college more than the D4 family with an income of €80,000 who has to pay only the generalised fee of €6,000. Fees don't target the wealthy but raising taxes would.

by Ed Galligan Thu Feb 12, 2009 14:31

1. - Those who currently struggle to afford the cost of accommodation near campus receive a "non-adjacent" grant - yes this grant is grossly deficient but that is not the issue we're debating.
2. - Those at the lower end of the scale who can currently afford to pay for accommodation, but wouldn't afford fees, shouldn't pay fees - a little thing we call a "means-test" - whether we should trust the government to implement this means test well is an issue to be debated and lobbied for after fees are re-introduced. The issue being debated here is whether a well implemented means tested fee-payment scheme would be in principle a better idea than the current; obviously it would.
3. - Those who are non-adjacent and are at the higher end of the scale, who can afford to pay for both accommodation should do - all well and good.
4. - Those who are adjacent and are at the higher end of the scale, who can afford to pay fees will have to - many are currently paying for accommodation simply because they can, not because they need to. How many "D4s" have you met going to UCD and living in a house down the road from daddy. Personally, I know quite a few. I lived with one. It's even reasonable to assume re-introducing fees could lower student rents as it may take some of these adjacent students out of the market.

by Conor.M - S.E.E.D Thu Feb 12, 2009 21:53 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

you make some very good points in a few posts Ed. Twas being a tad naive on some things. I suppose you just have to have some things pointed out to you.

by Ed Galligan Thu Feb 12, 2009 23:30

Thanks a million Conor.

The point I'm trying to get across is that with F.E.E.s focus so strongly on "no fees" that many supporters of the re-introduction of fees (and I do believe there are many) will be turned off and just abstain from protest - the wrong approach as there are many other important issues to be campaigned for like the level of funding for education, grants implementation, student assistance schemes and most crucially student consultation on and involvement of students in the implementation of the re-introduction of fees. Not that I expect the government to be particularly responsive, but the least likely approach to get any response is an all out opposition to their proposals (like F.E.E.s and the USI's) and I fear if people who actually support fees aren't heard then the process of re-introduction has no hope of going anyones way.

by tony Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:34

i am a working class student and when i hear people commenting on introducing fees to the rich, i ask who are the rich how do you class the rich. there are many people in ireland (well parents) who earn 100,000 a year. even when this happens there children may not be able to depend on there parents to support them for the 3 to 5 years in college.
it should be free fees for all, this may not happen i may have to leave college like many other people, but i will be fighting till the end for everyone not just the underprivleged because education should be a right not a privilege for all.

by Ed Galligan Mon Feb 16, 2009 19:18

education should be a right not a privilege for all.

It's saddening that everything today is measured in monetary terms - the idea of freedom has been belittled to mean in most peoples minds something without financial cost. I agree completely with words in this statement, but not the posters definition of it. I believe the "right to education" is providing freedom of access, not freedom of cost. We now have a "free-fees" system, and there is grossly inequality. Fees for the rich will not directly redress this inequality at the lower scale where there is the most dire need for it, but it will at least redress it at the top end, which is something.

by Mark C - ASTI + CCFE (Pers. Caps.) Mon Feb 16, 2009 22:38

I don't know Ed. It seems like quite a noble thing to me to provide free access to education and at the same time free education.

by Paddy Tue Feb 17, 2009 22:35

Third level education is a freely chosen pursuit whereas primary and secondary education are imposed by the state. Why should tax payers fund the former?

Perhaps low-income families should be assisted in sending their children to college.

by Conor.M Thu Mar 05, 2009 02:17 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

The Minister said any new fees regime would only target those who can afford to pay. The 33,000 millionaires identified in a Bank of Ireland wealth survey last year were the kind of people who could afford to pay fees, he said. “There are people out there earning very high salaries. There is no reason why the taxpayer should be paying for their children at third level.”
In the link provided it says, ' The Minister said any new fees regime would only target those who can afford to pay. The 33,000 millionaires identified in a Bank of Ireland wealth survey last year were the kind of people who could afford to pay fees, he said. “There are people out there earning very high salaries. There is no reason why the taxpayer should be paying for their children at third level.” '

I recommend everyone who is arguing against fees to read this story. If you still think fees shouldn't be introduced, there is something seriously wrong.

So what is it, campaign pointlessly for the ultra-rich or organise against any kind of threat of introducing fees for lower income families?

I am happy to see a group like FEE organising and campaigning. But, I think the group exists for all the wrong reasons. Are the students really going to try to stop the government from charging the rich to go to university?

Before someone goes on a rant about free education, we have two solutions. Start charging the rich or raise their taxes. But please, stop campaigning for the wealthy, its just madness.

Oh, and by the way. Dont let anyone scare you into believing you wont be able to go to college next year because you cant afford it. If this was the case, I would be one of the first people to drop out. Its just scare-mongering and propaganda.

by Mark C - ASTI - CCFE (Pers. Caps.) Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:39

Conor,

You mention in a recent posting that your think tank, SEED "is a social group set up to facilitate different opinions and to introduce alternative and radical ideas for 'newcomers' to activism."

Can you explain what is radical about introducing fees for third level education? It seemst to me to be a very conservative approach to the issue, or perhaps neo-liberal.

Regards,
Mark C.

by vz Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:50

Middle class students are not rich, they are the relatives of the rich. Do you really believe a person should be judged on the size of their relative's bank balance?

by Conor.M Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:42

Mark,

Its not a think tank. That was an old, stupid name I used.

Before I explain, once again to you, why I think fees should be introduced. I should let you know, what our group, not my group, talks about has noting to do with my opinion with regards to fees.

Also, I dont think you actually understand the concepts of neo-liberalism. It means free markets and free trade, so you obviously have no real understanding of the terms you so frequently use. And as for conservatism, I would say people like you who wish to keep the system of inequality in place are the ones who are conservative. Maybe you should read a dictionary before you use 'big' words.

And if you wish to understand what is so radical about introducing fees. The only thing I could say is it is a radical change from the status quo.

Im not actually going to bother explaining to you again why fees should be introduced. You know why, because it will hit the rich. Im starting to think your some agent hired by millionaires to discredit any attempt to introduce fees.

Did you read the link I provided? If you still think fees shouldn't be introduced, you are what people would call conservative. Conserve the old ways, disregard the new....

Regards,

Conor

by Paddy Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:56

"It seemst to me to be a very conservative approach to the issue, or perhaps neo-liberal."

How is the concept of reintroducing fees for those who can afford them 'neo-liberal' exactly?

by vn Thu Mar 05, 2009 13:02

How do these eighteen year-olds qualify as "rich"? Are we all going to be judged on our relative's bank balances in the brave new world?

by Mark C - ASTI + CCFE (Pers. Caps.) Thu Mar 05, 2009 14:12

Conor,

I didn't ask you why fees should be introduced; I asked you how is introducing fees radical. Your reply that it is against the status quo is not very impressive: in fairness, it's not against the status quo, it's a fullfillment of the status quo, exactly what the government would want from us. I might even venture so far as to say that it is a return to a previous status quo and a regressive move.

Neo-Liberalism = free trade, etc. Fine, it basically as far as I am concerned means an attack on socialist principles. That is why I might say re-introducing fees is a neo-liberal move.

Re-introducing fees will not "hit the rich", if they're that rich they won't feel the pince. However, introducing a system of progressive taxation would (or at least might).

No I didn't read your link (yet); I'm busy brainwashing children in to thinking that Elizabeth Bishop was a good poet.

Not agreeing with you does not make me a conservative. What silly logic you use.

Regards and all the rest,
Mark C.

by Gaz B -(A)- - FEE & WSM Thu Mar 05, 2009 14:22

The only 2 countries in the OECD that have substantially increased the ratio of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds entering tertiary education are Sweden and the Netherlands - they've done it through taxation. It's empirical, look for any of Prof. Patrick Clancys stuff on access to education.

We need publicly funded education system with tuition fees paid for through a progressive system of taxation. This has to be combined with programs aimed at addressing the barriers to education at earlier levels level (like school rentention initatives, proper language support services, an adequately funded National Educational Welfare Board to reduce truancy, the back to education allowance, childcare grants for VTOs, a decent grant system etc).

If people can provide examples of countries where the introduction of tuition fees has helped to increase equality of access, I'm all ears.

Tuitions fees have never increase equality of access to education and never will - it has the direct opposite effect.

by Topper Thu Mar 05, 2009 15:12

"I dont think you actually understand the concepts of neo-liberalism. It means free markets and free trade, so you obviously have no real understanding of the terms you so frequently use."

One of the key planks of neo-liberalism is the abolition of free public services and their replacement with user charges or outright privatisation. Anyone who has looked at the neo-liberal platform promoted by organisations like the World Bank and the IMF - also known as the Washington Consensus - will know this. The World Bank/IMF have been especially keen to attack the principle of free education, often demanding that African countries introduce charges for primary and secondary schooling in return for loans. The principle is that everything should have a price, everything should be a commodity - the foundation of neo-liberalism. Conor, I'm afraid I don't have much faith in your own understanding of the term.

"And as for conservatism, I would say people like you who wish to keep the system of inequality in place are the ones who are conservative. Maybe you should read a dictionary before you use 'big' words."

Who wants to keep the system of inequality in place? It has been patiently explained to you time after time that this government has no intention of dismantling structures of social inequality. Its obvious priority since the economic crisis began has been to shelter the rich elite from any of the consequences of their own behaviour. Cowen and Lenihan didn't even make the tokenistic gesture of withdrawing the 1% cut in the top rate of income tax that had been introduced in the last pre-recession budget.

Against that backdrop, we are supposed to believe that the government's policy towards third-level education is driven by radical egalitarian principles, because ... you say so. The only "evidence" you have offered is the media soundbites of Bat O'Keefe - if you really need someone to tell you that politicians don't always mean what they say, then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to tell people who disagree with you that they must be ignorant.

"And if you wish to understand what is so radical about introducing fees. The only thing I could say is it is a radical change from the status quo."

It would be a change from the status quo, alright. By the same token, re-introducing the death penalty, banning homosexuality, abolishing the minimum wage etc. would all be "radical" measures. Would they be progressive?

"Im not actually going to bother explaining to you again why fees should be introduced. You know why, because it will hit the rich. Im starting to think your some agent hired by millionaires to discredit any attempt to introduce fees."

This is just bonkers - the sort of thing you used to get from Stalinist Communist Parties, "anyone who disagrees with us is an agent of the bourgeoisie". You should be embarassed to have come out with that sort of nonsense.

"If you still think fees shouldn't be introduced, you are what people would call conservative. Conserve the old ways, disregard the new...."

Again, a "conservative" appears to be someone who wants to defend previous social reforms that are now under attack. This is the rhetoric of Tony Blair and "New" Labour.

by DumbAss Thu Mar 05, 2009 21:59

Aside:
Seems to me, having been through it, (free or not) all the irish education system in it's current form seems to do to most people is kill off any natural curiousity and socialise them in preparation for becoming good obedient unthinking money oriented employees. An externalised part of the interview process paid for by the taxpayer if you will. Thinking for oneself is really not encouraged. In fact I wish I'd not wasted so much of my life with it and had just worked, saved up and taken a distance course from the OU instead. Nothing like as precious about themselves and you seem to get what you pay for (unlike in an irish university!!). Took me ages to undo the damage my education did to my own ability to think for myself. But I digress...

Leaving aside my (many!) reservations about the system itself, my actual point is this:
The problem here seems to be that wheras charging fees to the rich is a much more efficient method of educational taxation at source for the rich, we cannot trust our particular government not to fuck it up and impose it on the poor too, being the snivelling money sycophants they are. So for that reason, a general hike of tax for the rich is preferred, which we think is more likely not to be abused. However this is prone to gross administrative waste and a lack of any guarantees that in this climate any extra tax money would ever get channelled into education, and even then, it might just serve to subsidise the rich who currently are the ones who seem to avail most of college.

Bleah. Seems to me if this is indeed the case, we are all talking around a symptom and not the root cause which is our corrupt government. If I am correct then the only way to solve this problem is to

(a) kick out the corrupt government
(b) put in a more honest government with some principles (this is the hard bit!!!)
(c) introduce fees for the rich without the possiblity of function creep, i.e. with clauses to limit the function creep in the legislation

(so let's all vote for joe higgins and sinn fein yay!! :-)

Anyway the point is, the root problem seems to me to be that proper fair reform in this area will never be possible with the current crop of self serving crooks in government to mess it up.

we need an alternative government. FG and FF and labour are all the same. Our only options short of marching on lenister house and having an anarchist coup is to vote for the most radical parties and independents. They are the only ones whose policies have not been tried and seen to fail yet. Also they are probably the only ones left with a shred of integrity left and the guts to impose real reforms. I'm not saying they'll succeed but what have we to lose at this stage? Swapping FF for labour will change nothing.

Once we have installed some better human beings into government we don't have to worry so much about function creep screwing up the poor folk if fees are imposed on the rich and the idea becomes a much more attractive option don't you think??

just my 2c worth.

oh...and do stop your squabbling kids or I'll send you to the principals office !! :-)

by blah - blah Thu Mar 05, 2009 22:22

DumbAss,
It looks good. But, if the shinners, the socialists and independents are voted in, we wouldn't need to introduce fees because taxes will be raised. Anyway, the Socialists will never go into power because they believe in a one party state, they definitely wont go in with the shinners so the only option is (because FF wont raise taxes) to introduce fees for the rich!

by ucd student Fri Mar 06, 2009 00:56

Topper, the logic is quite clear. The government wont raise taxes so make them pay for their kids, stop letting them suck our taxes.

I think it is your logic which is hard to find. The author is talking about fees then you compare what he says to Africa, them compare him to ''Stalinist Communist Parties'' and ''Tony Blair''. Topper, open your eyes, stop being so self righteous. You, and all the 'neh sayers', including USI and FEE make a pathetic attempt to host a realistic debate.

Oh, and I suppose the author wants to be a dictator and, quote, re-introduce the death penalty, ban homosexuality and abolish the minimum wage? COME ON. Get off your that horse before you lose oxygen. Your not right about everything, your certainly good at lowering the tone of the debate though.

by Ed Galligan Fri Mar 06, 2009 02:13

"It seems to me to be a very conservative approach to the issue, or perhaps neo-liberal." - Mark Conroy
This is obviously a complete oversimplification of things, but in my view "neo-liberal" and "conservative" in their modern western incarnations pertain to policies benefiting the rich - so by that logic the current "free-fees" scheme is conservative. I don't see the same connection with the proposed fee paying scheme so you'll have to explain where you're seeing it.

"how is introducing fees radical" - Mark Conroy
The idea that things should be judged on how radical they are is ridiculous. Radical is only positive if the status quo is negative. Whether introducing fees is radical or not, I don't know, but it's no bearing on whether it's a good idea.

"How do these eighteen year-olds qualify as "rich"?" - vn
This argument is theoretically sound, realistically bunk. In your ideal world no parent would support their child through 3rd level education in any way. (not that that's everyone's ideal, but I take it by your statement that it is yours). Unfortunately for your argument here, the world we live in is nothing resembling such an ideal. How do these eighteen year-olds qualify as "rich"? Because your wealth is not your legal income/assets, it's your actual income/assets.

"One of the key planks of neo-liberalism is the abolition of free public services and their replacement with user charges or outright privatisation" - Topper
This, particularly in this case, is a generalisation. Neo-liberalism is about aboloshing all free public services as "state interventions that [interfere] so greatly with our freedom". This in this case would mean a return to the pre "free-fees" system of charging EVERYONE for 3rd level education, somthing that is NOT being proposed but something I do think quite a lot of the poor misguided students that have been wandering around the capital waving placards on behalf of FEE seem to believe is happening.
Neo-liberalism aims in my view to create a "level" playing field, a capitalist every man for himself system where everyone is treated the same and the less fortunate are given no "special treatment". Removing all "interferences" achieves this goal, but so does any system that doesn't distinguish between rich or poor, whether you're charging everyone for fees or charging no-one for fees - both fail utterly to redress any imbalance between rich or poor. Advocating "free-fees" is like advocating dole payments for bankers, and is just as neo-liberal as advocating fees for all. What's being proposed is not "fees for all", it's fees for the rich. It's not unilateral, it's fair(er).

by Topper Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:04

"Topper, the logic is quite clear. The government wont raise taxes so make them pay for their kids, stop letting them suck our taxes."

Why should we sit back and accept that the government won't raise taxes on the rich? If we just roll over and resign ourselves to that, we might as well abandon any kind of progressive agenda.

"I think it is your logic which is hard to find. The author is talking about fees then you compare what he says to Africa, them compare him to ''Stalinist Communist Parties'' and ''Tony Blair''."

The logic is very clear I'm afraid. Conor claimed that the re-introduction of fees had nothing to do with neo-liberalism, and anyone who suggested that it did just didn't understand what the term meant; I pointed out that a central plank of neo-liberalism has been the imposition of user charges for public services including education, and gave the example of IMF/World Bank compulsion to introduce charges for primary and secondary education in African countries. Anyone who has studied neo-liberalism for a couple of hours will be aware of this.

The references to Stalinist Communism and Tony Blair made perfect sense: Conor tried to dismiss a critic of his views by claiming that he was a paid agent of millionaires, which is the sort of daft thing old-school Communists used to say, and he told us that we must be "conservative" if we object to the re-introduction of fees, because it would be "new" and "radical", which is the sort of thing Blairites come out with all the time to stigmatise anyone who opposes the erosion of progressive social reforms.

"Topper, open your eyes, stop being so self righteous. You, and all the 'neh sayers', including USI and FEE make a pathetic attempt to host a realistic debate."

I think this sentence could best be translated as "Topper, stop disagreeing with me, how dare you! And USI and FEE, you better stop disagreeing with me too, I don't like it! Why can't everyone just agree with me?"

"Oh, and I suppose the author wants to be a dictator and, quote, re-introduce the death penalty, ban homosexuality and abolish the minimum wage? COME ON."

The author told us that we had to accept that the re-introduction of fees would be a progressive move, that should be supported by the Left, because it would be a "radical change". I pointed out that by the same logic, you could "prove" that people on the Left should support the abolition of the minimum wage or the re-introduction of the death penalty because they would also be "radical changes". When you're dealing with weak arguments, it's always useful to take them to their logical conclusion and point out what the results are.

"Get off your that horse before you lose oxygen. Your not right about everything, your certainly good at lowering the tone of the debate though."

Again, this translates as "Stop disagreeing with me, I don't like it!" I think the tone of the debate was lowered considerably by Conor when he accused someone who disagreed with him of being ignorant, using "big words" which he didn't understand, and being a paid agent of the super-rich. I doubt anyone took those personalised insults very seriously, but they certainly lowered the tone, and you won't find any similar name-calling in my own posts.

by vn Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:10

"How do these eighteen year-olds qualify as "rich"?" - vn

You say:
This argument is theoretically sound, realistically bunk."

Explain how an eighteen year old's "actual" assets can be assessed to be the contents of someone else's bank account?

At what point does an adult start to be treated as a person responsible for themselves? If not at age 18, then at what age?

by Ed Galligan Fri Mar 06, 2009 21:06

"Explain how an eighteen year old's "actual" assets can be assessed to be the contents of someone else's bank account? " - vn
I thought I just did. Their actual income/assets are what they have available to them to spend. It doesn't come any simpler than that. If parents pay for their college accommodation/living expenses/buy them a car - this comes from their parents income but is their actual income/assets. And unless you are going to legislate to prevent parents financially assisting their 18 year old offspring, I don't see how you could possibly see it any other way.

"At what point does an adult start to be treated as a person responsible for themselves? If not at age 18, then at what age?" - vn
It's not dictated by age, it's dictated by autonomy. An adult becomes financially responsible for themselves when they and/or their parents choose - when they choose/need to begin providing entirely for themselves or when their parents choose/need to stop supporting them. There is no law, written or unspoken, that dictates it must happen at a specific age, and even if you look at the "traditional" age for "autonomy" it is 22-23, not 18 (i.e. 3rd-level graduation, not 2nd level)

So no, 3rd level entrants can not be considered independently of their parents income. To believe so is naïve.

by vn Fri Mar 06, 2009 23:59

So you can sign a contract, get married, vote, earn a living, join the army, etc at the age of majority (18)but you are still a child when it comes to paying for college.

That is idiotic.

by Ed Galligan Sat Mar 07, 2009 01:16

"still a child" - vm
Child? What? Who at any point said anything about children? We're debating whether a person is or isn't assisted financially by their parents? Is every person who's parents support them a child? What kind of idiocy is that kind of parallel?

The question here is not "is a student a child"? That's a fairly childish question in itself, and completely irrelevant - what bearing does it have on anything whatsoever?
The question with your point is "is a student financially dependent or being financially aided by their parents"? If the answer is no, then everyone's on a relatively level playing field . If however we're living in the real world and some students do actually get money from their parents, then it is an inherently unbalances multi-tier system which requires redress. "Free-fees" is unilateral and does nothing of this sort.

by Tom Sun Mar 08, 2009 14:17

To be honest, I really dont see the big deal.... Fee should come in, all we have to do is make sure they dont creep into lower income families! If we wont tax the bastards, charge them for everything