Hypocrisy of the Irish Media.

Let me start this by utterly condemning the use of unparliamentary language used towards President Michael D Higgins.

That being said, Let me address the substantial issue. Irish media hypocrisy.

Last week the Irish broadcast and print media, and somewhat the new media also, took great umbrage at the audacity of, an Anti Irishwater Tax protester using unparliamentary language, towards the Irish President. This issue occupied acres of forests and was given more air time than any other issue. It even relegated the new Greek government into second place.

This week, that same media, is fawning over two Irish guys that essentially stole two seats at the SuperBowl. This is the biggest sporting event in America. It is so large, the tickets for this event can cost $25,000. Yes, that is twenty five thousand dollars.

Anyway the story goes, Two guys "BLAGGED THEIR WAY INTO THE GAME". That`s media speak, for saying THE LADS HAD "A BIT O CRAIC" AND MANAGED TO BUNK INTO THE STADIUM. So basically the media think this was a bit of fun. It is illegal, and no matter which way you look at it, the media have honoured these guys for committing an illegal act.

The fact is, the media have turned these guys into minor celebrities, for, committing an illegal act.

I can,t hear any umbrage outrages from the media about this.

Morning Ireland the countries flagship radio news programme interviewed them, and gave them plenty of time to tell their story. Something they do not afford to ordinary members of the public when trying to explain their objections to Irish water being turned into a commodity, or, why masked men are working on the streets installing water meters, that many people do not want.

As part of the Morning Ireland interview, the guys also explained that, they had stolen two seats on a private bus to get them back to their hotel. The interviewer seemed not to question this, and, in facts seemed to think it was also "a bit o craic".

The fact is this, two people were essentially left stranded in the stadium. None of us know what the circumstances were, surrounding these peoples needs, to avail of a private bus service. I could speculate, but I won,t. Hopefully, no harm came to them, and hopefully, they were not too inconvenienced.

So there you have it. The righteous indignation,  of the Irish media, in defence of the President, seems to vanish entirely, when, they think its, "a bit o craic" as opposed to, an illegal act.

Basically its the media for the haves, and a different media, for the, have nots.

Irish Media hypocrisy at its best.

Private sector monopoly vs Public sector efficiency.

Last September Dublin city council could renew a driving licence in a few days. From what I remember the old price was €35.

Last October this service was given to a private company monopoly. The main argument for this was, the public sector service was inefficient and expensive.

The new efficient monopolised service increased the cost to €55.

The monopolised private service now also takes six weeks to conduct the process of renewing a licence. 

The process of visiting the building to participate in the process takes a minimum of two hours.

How can anybody in their right mind state that this is an improved and more efficient service?

The private sector can always hire PR consultants to manipulate the media, and accountants to present certain figures in a particular light that is favourable, while they present public sector figures as unfavourable.

The facts above however, speak for themselves.

The public service was far higher quality than the private sector monopoly is providing, and this experience should be borne in mind when the government tries to replace public services with private sector monopolies, backed up by legal requirements for citizens to avail of these services.

It’s a bit like the #irishwater debacle.

The next blog in the next few days will cover that. 

€50 million on consultants, and, from what I can gather, they have not covered the issue of your home accessing the public waste mains.

More of that anon

Behavioral Economics from a laymans perspective.

I have to lay out my motives for writing this piece. Some years ago I came across Liam Delaney an academic working in Scotland. Using twitter as the medium I argued and debated with a university professor about issues affecting the Irish economy and world society in general. In social terms our paths would probably never cross. Liam was usually talking to a Professor Vonprondsky of Dublin City University. In a voluntary unpaid capacity I had worked with Vonprondskys predecessor in Dublin City University on a regeneration project in Ballymun.


This was a locality with almost the highest levels of poverty in Europe. The community was extremely active, working to develop all the states services such as health and education, any area the community could become involved. In the area of property however the locality was made up of a completely state owned houses and apartments and the landlord (in this case the state) did not see itself as being in any way responsible for the economic development of the locality.

The people of Ballymun changed that mindset but it took many years and in fact 2 generations of people had to fight the state to bring about the changes in the mind of the landlord (the state).


A long time passed while the fight went on, and many activists that were never members of political parties found a natural home in the meeting rooms of trade unions. Those that had jobs with unionised employers used their positions to get community development issues on to the trade unions agendas. This brought access to information from other trade union members in varying shapes and forms.

In turn this process brought about a process called PARTNERSHIP. The ultimate aim was to bring about a common set of goals that citizens and employers could aspire to, and this would also bring about a change in attitude from the states public servants.

All in all the theory had it that PARTNERSHIP would work across all sectors of the country to benefit all. In the main Partnership brought about many changes for all, but the state elements of the agreements were never delivered in full.

In particular the failure of the state to provide proper decent quality housing provided the circumstances for the property bubbly that would eventually serve as the catalyst that bankrupted the country.

 Today there are many critics of PARTNERSHIP (including from myself) but in the main the criticisms are peoples perceptions that the trade unions have become corrupted as a result of the Partnership process. It seems that many think the trade union leaders were hob-nobbing it with senior politicians and senior civil servants for so long that they have become almost indistinguishable from each other.

This may be true, I think it certainly has some merit, however I also believe PARTNERSHIP (at least in theory) is a good thing. In practice however it has been a dismal failure, and in my opinion that failure can not be laid at the feet of ordinary people.

Ordinary people worked hard to make it a success, but the people at the top got fed up with it as soon the main political architect left the political stage in a blaze of shame. It seemed that civil and public servants had waited in the long grass to ambush the process. They held up everything they could hold up. Delayed anything that might bring about any real benefits to ordinary people. PARTNERSHIP would force the people at the top to work equally with the people from every walk of life, and it seems they were not going to let that happen.

They knew they would lose power (as they seen it) and there was no way they were ever really going to let that happen.

 Back to Vonprondsky. Dublin City University which is located in the area, was asked by the senior civil and public servants to provide an independent chairperson for the board of Ballymun regeneration limited. This was to be the company that would channel the funds to regenerate the area. This would eventually become the largest urban regeneration project in Europe, and at 1.5 billion euro, it certainly has reached that record.

Anyway the independent chairperson would have a sort of facilitating role with no executive powers whatsoever. Dublin City University nominated the head of the university DR Danny OHare to this position and in my opinion Danny OHare played this role superbly (at least for the time I was there).

As the first director nominated from the local community I sat on a board with many illustrious titles such as the City Architect, the City Engineer, and a few other fancy titles that I am not going to type out, but also the President of Dublin City University. In normal circumstances our paths would probably have never crossed. I found Danny OHare to be genuine and interested in what I had to say.

On a few occasions when the states agents were almost ridiculing my opinions Danny OHare used his role to put a stop to that carry on very quickly. You need to understand that almost everybody at the table had numerous degrees and salaries of over 100 thousand euro, while I was earning around 20 thousand euro and had left school early at 14 years of age in 1974. I was an unpaid Director also (just for the record). So you can see there was a huge gap in equality terms, and BTW, It was irish pounds at the time.

I found OHare to be reasonable but in particular I found him to be open and he dealt with me as an equal, and I felt very comfortable dealing with him. I would even say I trusted him.

 Vonprondsky took over from him at Dublin City University in a blaze of publicity. For a university president to be talking to the general public was fairly unique in Irish terms. Vonprondsky took to using social media for communications, and thats where I first came across him. I took to debating with him on a wide range of issues about Ballymun and other worldly ideals. So too, did many others, as clearly Vonprondsky was not toeing the high fallutin role of an aloof university academic.

Some of these debates included many other academics from around the world and sometimes they included me. Then Delaney, who I think was a colleague of Vonprondsky at some point also joined in the debates.

 Delaneys demeanour was very much like VonProndskys and also OHares, where the persons opinion was what mattered. The message was important and if Delaney could learn from any source, then he is very much open to that. Thats my opinion by the way.

 Anyway I have had numerous discussions with Delaney about economics in general.

 Most recently he is researching different aspects of economics, and the item that has brought me to writing this, is one of his current subjects Behavioural Economics.

 One of Delaneys tweets about NUDGE in behavioural economics attracted me to read some items on the subject. The first thing that struck me about it was that senior civil and public servants including university lecturers, professors and researchers were actually conducting experiments to learn about the subject. The main sources for this activity is the UK and the USA. At first I felt like a guinea pig or in american terms I think its referred to as a lab rat. Then I thought these people are being paid hundreds of thousands of euro of taxpayers money to “learn on the job”. Thats a nice job if you can get it.

PARTNERSHIP in theory was supposed to bridge that gap. By asking ordinary people to participate in the decision making processes at the very top and also at the very bottom was supposed to bring about this precise information, i.e. a way and a means to influence public policies and implementations that would work efficiently and would serve everybody in the objectives that were expected to happen.

As I said earlier, it seems the senior public servants never had any intention of allowing that to happen.

If that is correct then it strikes me that Delaneys work is almost doomed before it ever really gets off the ground, despite the facts that the early experiments clearly show NUDGE to be far more effective than Control.

Delaney tweeted “People like Duflo/Mullainathan mentioned and frequently have made point that poor as "irrational" as rich but with much worse consequences” and this is quite true in my opinion.

However the real problem lies under that statement.

As I said earlier ordinary people bought into the partnership process in a whole hearted and fully committed way. We believed when public servants told us this problem could not be overcome or that the other solution could not be legally implemented. Excuse after excuse was trotted out to justify sensible solutions to problems not being addressed. Basically public servants kept telling us why something could not happen as opposed to something actually happening. The public service agenda was always presented as a compromise and local agreement was usually sold as the best deal we could get, even though we knew in our hearts and minds that these compromises would never solve the problems.

We got on with the “public servants” and probably even felt that some of them had become our friends (maybe they did in some cases) but not in mine.

When we challenged our own people most of them found it hard to accept that we had been completely duped.

This is understandable because in working class terms admitting in public or private that someone had fooled you into believing something that would inevitably make things worse for your community would open you up to ridicule.

This would prove extremely hard to take, but would eventually end up as the conclusion we came to, granted it took a while, but it inevitably happened.

Some people would just walk away disillusioned. Some would keep the fight going. Some died.

But one thing never happened and most likely will never happen again. Ordinary people would never trust the public service again, at least not in my lifetime.

The amount of credibility that ordinary people put on trust and integrity is quite enormous.

Irish people spent decades living in poverty (note: technically the Irish republic is just over 75 years old). Irish people knew that and lived in the hope their children would not have to suffer the same poverty.

Most Irish people do not have private pensions mainly because we believed the state would provide us with a pension in our old age. We paid into a system of state insurance to cover this, and we never expected a huge pension (just enough to cover the basics would do), but mainly we suffered the hardship that poverty and dreadful working conditions brought, so that our children and grand children would never have to suffer the same.

Our suffering and hard work would develop the country to the place where we could hold our heads up proud and where our children could live reasonably decent lives.

Well, we know now that we were betrayed locally when we worked at developing local communities.

We know we were betrayed nationally when the public servants allowed our country to be bankrupted, so the rich could keep their wealth.

We know we were betrayed when the party of the people (the Irish labour party) participated in widespread cuts in public services, all across the classes.

Its quite annoying also, to know the betrayers are “learning on the job” and being paid very handsomely for the privilege.

 Lifelong committed trades unionists (like myself) and community development workers both paid and unpaid, have colleagues and friends in all walks of life, and I very much doubt that we would ever advocate getting into bed with the state again.

The trust that we gave the state workers, was thrown back in our faces and we most likely will never trust any of then again.

Maybe future generations can trust them, but only time will tell on that one. A wiser man than me in 1987 when we advocated PARTNERSHIP told me, “when you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas”. That statement would eventually be proved true.

Trades unions and community development activities are closely linked all over the world and many academic studies have taken place in Ireland. Most will never be published but they are shared widely informally through personal contacts. Almost all of the studies come to the same conclusion. Working with the state and employers at the highest level is not something that any of the groups will ever again undertake lightly, and in the unlikely scenario that it would come about, the rules would be agreed and probably (metaphorically) signed in blood prior to any co-operations.

This is why I am writing this piece, and its only to Delaney that I think it might actually have any relevance.

I believe as an open minded academic he will bear this in mind when considering his work on behavioural economics.

 My conclusion is the public servants that are working to try to change the public mindset, should in fact be concentrating on changing the mindset of the “public servants”.

 Senior Public servants all over the world have lost all credibility in the minds of the people.

Thats where the real problem lies.

Noonan and the troika

Below is a quote from politics.ie. They took it from Merrionstreet.ie (the official website of the Irish government. Can it possibly be true?


12.51 - “What we have to make sure is that our young people have the best possible education, right up to third level,” so that when they leave they’re employable in other countries at the best possible levels, Noonan concludes.

Taxi driving in Ireland

Listening to Jim Waldron’s speech yesterday I was quite moved and upset about his comments about a taxi operator that had worked up to a week before his death from cancer, because he did not qualify for any form of social welfare payment.

Later on I was looking through irishtaxi.org and Roy’s comments on it started me thinking about it again.

I had read various comments from another number of taxi operators, all young men, attending doctors and hospitals for various reasons. Crazy taxi and Silverbullet from our forum Irishtaxidrivers.com had made comments about their own personal health issues, (these were most likely flippant comments, but I suspect they are more serious than they let on).

My story.

I started thinking about my own position. I’m 48. Left school aged 14 in 1974 to work in the clothing industry (which was on its knees even at that stage). Met my future wife in 1975 (she also worked in the clothing manufacturing industry). We got married in 1979 and had 2 sons by 1981. That’s what you did in those days, none of that living together stuff in those days. It’s funny because once you were married you were instantly treated with a different respect by other men, all of a sudden you were a mature married man which now entitled you to act like all the other men. Your opinions were listened to differently and there was an assumption of some kind of magic transformation from immature child to mature man.

In the eighties clothing manufacturing along with lots of other industries eventually died and tens of thousands of people ended up on the dole. In Ireland in the 1980s, signing on the dole was a shameful act and it still is today in 2009. Nobody wants to sign on, as the nature of Irish people is to never be a burden on the state or other citizens and somehow those signing on end up feeling that’s exactly what they are, even though they had paid the contributions to the Insurance policy that makes up the payments for Unemployment benefit. I assume this stems from the formation of the state where nobody ever wanted to burden their neighbours, and pride being the monster that it is, it’s most likely those needing assistance were too proud to ask for it.

Anyway, I spent the eighties doing all types of work that I could get, sometimes my wife would get work and I would then mind the children while she worked. We did any kind of work we could get, dirty, dangerous, menial, and sometimes we got work at our professions in the dying clothing industry, but mostly we had to rely on the dole.

Anyway fast forward a bit, we started a small business making curtains and window blinds, and this in the main sustained us and reared the children until the mid 90s when the competition became so fierce that it was impossible to make a reasonable living. I got a job and my wife also got a job and we ran the business almost in a part time capacity, but in reality we were working seven days a week for very little reward, however, that kept us going until 1999, when the business failed completely and the job I had, finished, and then, I bought a wheelchair accessible taxi.

We never had any money of any significance, but we lived okay and kept the kids in school and eventually they made it to college.

We had been told that taxis from then on would be wheelchair accessible and I was chuffed with my new vehicle and the fact that my taxi licence would provide me with some form of pension in the future. To be honest I never really believed I would get anything as a pension, but my real intention was to work the taxi until I was about 70 (I can’t really see me getting anymore time than that, and indeed I will be very lucky to ever see that age) anyway at 70 I will die, the wife can sell the taxi and get a few quid to bury me, and buy the mourners a few drinks. I expect many many mourners at my funeral, nah not really, but those who do show up will be the most closest to me. And that at least in theory was the plan. 2030 no more JohnF.

Back to today’s reality. For the last few years I’ve been experiencing various different forms of health problems that I never had before. I know you could put this down to getting older but the reality is I know they are very definitely work related, and most likely from the stress of work. There are a few issues here, I’m afraid to go to a doctor because I know they will send me to a hospital. I’m afraid to go to hospital because I’m afraid I will come out sicker than when I went in. This is the hardest part of this scenario, because If I come out sicker than when I went in, then I can’t work, and my debtors will be queuing up at my door (there’s the shame and pride thing again, echoes of colonial times, of the landlord evicting you for not paying your rent).The easiest part of this would be to go to hospital and die, as then my debts liability will die with me.

The real facts here are, I can not afford to get sick; I can afford to die, but not get sick.

This is 2009 in a capital city in a country that is part of the European Union, an ambitious project to get harmonisation within Europe. And my part in this project is that I can afford to die, and my crime for this sentence was, I bought a taxi, it’s not really a crime, but it is criminal the way taxi drivers of this state are being treated by the Irish Government.

We made investments based on the then official Government position that entry to the taxi industry was limited. We knew that could change but nobody envisaged the situation we have today. We made rational business decisions and some of us borrowed heavily to fund these investments. Some of us are still repaying these loans. I had to borrow another thirty thousand euro to fund the purchase of a new car and a new taxi licence because my less than 6 years old wheelchair accessible taxi was beyond repair.

I had two options 1 buy a new wheelchair accessible taxi and use my old taxi licence, or 2 buy a saloon car and get a new taxi licence at a cost of €6300 from the government. I was told that I could not change the status of my old licence from a wheelchair accessible taxi to a normal saloon car, even as a gesture of goodwill (I felt they might take into account that

I had already financed a wheelchair accessible taxi and my competitors were now coming into the industry with saloon cars worth €1000 and €6300 for a saloon licence. The new competition was coming into the industry for an investment of about €8000 in total, the vast majority of which was going to the government. My initial investment including interest was about €50,000. So there I was competing against people that had invested less than 20% of what I had invested. You could make a reasonable living at that time and as such that is what I did for a period of about two years. The wheelchair accessible taxi required repairs of approximately €10,000 in 2004, I had to borrow that money, and now I had added to the borrowings I had. I knew it would not pass the test in the next year, and I spent all of 2004 applying for 104 jobs. I got one interview, but no offers of a job. The annual test came around again in 2005, and as I had not got a job, and I could not go on the dole, I had only one option and that was to borrow the said €30,000.

Even in 2005 you could still get a living, the hours were getting longer, but at least you could get the money you needed to pay your bills. Things started to change dramatically however. Very soon huge numbers of taxis were appearing on the road. Competition was fierce, people with full time jobs were driving taxis part time, state and semi state employees were availing of opportunities to take early retirement or redundancy and driving taxis as a replacement for their jobs. The main reason for this was that because with pensions from their state employment they would not qualify for any social welfare payments, so it was a good option to buy a taxi licence and work as though you had not lost or sold your job. In particular civil and public servants at that time seemed to think it was a good idea to drive a taxi. Fire rescue workers, soldiers, teachers, local authority workers were appearing on taxi ranks all over the country.

The really big numbers coming into the industry at this time came in with huge subsidies from the government, approximately €120,000 over four years. This resulted in the numbers attracted to the industry in the thousands. No doubt this appears somewhat over exaggerated and it is definitely anecdotal. The main reason this has not been scientifically verified is the government has not admitted to this subsidy until 2008, and even then the admission was convoluted and uncommitted. In fact the spokesperson said that they did not know how many people were availing of this subsidy, which is an astonishing statement for a government employee. Personally I have confidential evidence that what I’m saying is fact, however as it’s confidential I can not make the information public. However I can generalise and what I find absolutely astounding is the amount of money per thousand subsidised taxi operators costs to the exchequer, it’s an amazing 300 million euro per year. These figures are so amazing that they seem unreasonable, but the reality is the government policy is to reduce the unemployment figures at almost any cost (so that they can claim full employment in the land of the Celtic Tiger). On the other hand, the government spokespersons statement is the true picture, the government does not know how many people have availed of this subsidy as taxi operators. We know how many of them are out there though because we have to look at them every day of the week.


We had our third protest march on 17th February 2009 where about 2000 people marched on Dail Eireann (the Irish Parliament). It was a dignified and good natured protest where many people brought their families (school mid term break is on). The contempt we received from Dail Eireann was overwhelming, only surpassed by the silence from this historic building.

Not one TD or Senator addressed the marchers in a good, bad, or indifferent manner. One MEP Mary Lou McDonell and a former TD Joe Higgins did speak in support of us, but not even one civil servant was sent out to address us. This clearly demonstrates the contempt the political classes have for ordinary citizens, and the silence speaks volumes. A much wiser head than mine once said “for evil to prosper, good people just need to say nothing”.

Considering the current financial scandals (a new scandal seems to arise every other day) and the chaos that has arisen as a result, I would think that ordinary citizens (whether there gripe is justified or not) that march on Dail Eireann deserve to be addressed by at least the spokespersons’ from each party.

2000 people marched on the Dail (Irish Parliament) and not one TV broadcast media organisation covered it. I know most of the TV broadcast media see themselves as the elite in Irish society and they see taxi drivers as insignificant, but they covered our first marches when they thought there could be trouble, but when they found out that we are reasonable, moderate thinking people, that will not tolerate any inappropriate behaviour from our marchers, they ignore us, no story there.

Well the above story is the real story and it’s affecting thousands of citizens that are currently alone with little or no support from any source, other than their families.

I find our forum on irishtaxidriversd.com is somewhat a source of support, but it is just a few individuals that have actually met that really support each other, and, specifically the female content from steph1, helps to keep the macho men on the straight and narrow. Steph1 is the only active forum member that we believe is female, she may or may not be female, but if not, she does a good job of pretending; anyway I believe she is female. The others get and give moral support anonymously (nothing wrong with that) but the macho domination of the taxi industry does not lend itself, well, to group hugging and girly type kissing that I suspect all of us could do with every now and then. I know we get all the TLC we require at home but personally I get completely fed up going home every day and when my wife asks how was your day, the answer is always the same, Crap as usual. You get depressed sitting on ranks using fuel, wearing out your engine, and wasting your time, without bringing it home with you. However it is impossible to not bring it home when every shift brings in less money, and all the while in the back of your head, the bills are piling up, and there is nothing you can do to increase your income.

I have heard and read the comments, “why don’t you shut up whinging and get another job”. The reality is the majority of taxi operators are middle aged males that can not get a different job, there are no jobs available to us, and in the current recession it is highly unlikely that we will ever work outside the taxi industry again. Most of us know that, and we are currently trying to protect our positions.

There is nothing wrong with that, the real reason for that, is, we know when our cars die, we will not work again, unless the taxi industry changes dramatically. So it’s the rest of our life on the dole for most of us unless we can change things.

Part of the reason this is a relevant issue is that most of us know that in this scenario we will end up separated and divorced and eventually prematurely dead because most blokes would rather die than get separated from their wife and children because they can not provide for them (that’s the evil pride issue again). Most Irish men would rather die than put their families through the kind of poverty the future holds for former taxi drivers. Why is this significant for married taxi drivers as opposed to those that are not married? In particular married taxi drivers can not qualify for any social welfare payment unless their wife or husband is also not employed outside the home. Thus if your spouse is working then their income excludes you from any assistance from the social welfare system which in turn means you will be evicted from your home (because you can’t pay your mortgage) the wife is sent to a homeless hostel for females and children and the husband is sent to a male homeless hostel, because the local authorities do not have local authority housing available, (at present there are 165,000 applicants waiting for local authority homes, that are not available), there are other options but you would most likely spend about six months to one year in a hostel, because the system says you are Irish, and therefore waits until you have exhausted all personal avenues available to you (i.e. you have worn out your welcome with your brother or sister, or parents, and evidence is required, before the state will really consider you eligible to the other assistance available, i.e. financial assistance to rent private properties).

The real drawback and scandal of this is, public money is then used to maintain a situation where you can not get work, because if you do, it will be most likely low paid, and every cent you earn is deducted from your rent allowance. Therefore your family ends up in a poverty trap and you remain totally reliant on the state to rear your family, (there’s that pride thing coming up again, your family is doomed to a life dependent on the state, which is the last thing any Irish person wants).



Back to today.

Jim, Crazy, Roy, and Silverbullets, comments started niggling me. How many more of us are suffering stress related illnesses as a result of our job? I suspect that it is quite substantial.

This job does not lend itself to an appropriate type of atmosphere to allow you discuss issues with your colleagues, and anyway it’s much too macho to be discussing personal issues with someone you barely know. In reality taxi operators are on their own most of the time and the odd occasion when you might meet someone you know personally usually would not allow any kind of extended conversations, as you must stay with your car especially on a taxi rank.

It also struck me that it’s the regulations that insist on an almost 100 percent attachment to your car. I’m not going to go into the regulations here, (but please accept that, as a fact, if you want to know why, email me and I’ll explain that issue).

We do not have access to Trade Unions although the regulator insists on presenting discussions with the so called representative organisations (there words not mine) as consultation with the rest of us, and is allowed by the legislature to present this as consultation with every business person that operates a taxi. The facts are, every company, (representative organisations, insurance companies, meter and roof sign installers, the taxi regulator, the government, despatch companies) attached to the taxi industry are making money from deregulation. The drivers have increased costs and the passengers have increased costs.

The political party (the Political Democrats) that advocated free market activity in an unregulated world actively promoted competition as a means to reduce costs to consumers. Well now the PDs are dead; their former leader Mary Harney is still the Minister for Health, and her open market policies in telecommunications, taxis, gas, and health, have all resulted in higher costs to the consumer. The other industries are regulated for the service providers, this serves these companies well, but the consumers are not happy. The taxi industry is regulated from the consumer’s perspective, and they are still being charged more than they should be. The financial regulator did not regulate properly and the country is chaos as a result. There is something wrong with the regulatory regime in Ireland today.


Taxi operators are treated as public servants without any of the niceties that the real public service has access to. In fact the civil and public servants earning the same kind of money we do probably have the same level of contempt from the government that we get. Of course the higher paid civil and public servants have very nice supports and money and pensions etc.

The lower civil and public servants are fodder for the cannons for the elite of Irish society.

Ordinary Citizens of Eire R.I.P.

Note: Married means legally married or a couple of life partners living as a married couple. The system treats you the same way whether your legally married or living together.

Snippets of my wisdom or Really an economic rant.

When consumers start to use electricity smarter and these electricity efficiencies start to affect the companies’ profits, what will they do, they will demand another increase in prices. Competition in the electricity supply is nothing more than a sham to satisfy bureaucrats in Europe. The companies only satisfy a paper exercise in creating the illusion there is competition between them. In reality they all buy their core product (electricity) from the only manufacturer i.e. the ESB.

As a fully owned state company the ESB made good profits and as such could keep price increases to a minimum. The energy regulator had to tell them to increase their prices because the intending competitors could not make a profit selling electricity at the same price as the ESB, hence the ESB had to increase it’s price to allow competition into the market. There is no way consumers’ could benefit in any way from this situation.

The logical notion of the EU insisting that competition exists in every country and in every industry is based on the notion that ultimately consumers benefit from real competition. Any economics expert will tell you that competition is good for companies and consumers. It drives investment in innovation and efficiencies, encourages economies of scale in industries that eventually benefit consumers and punishes companies that are lazy by forcing them out of business.

As a socialist I differ from most left thinkers in believing that globalisation could be a good thing, (I believe we can take the best of capitalism and the best of socialism and design a system that will serve people efficiently and of a high quality). In essence this is being shown in the telecommunications industry today. Companies like Telefonica and Vodafone are investing outside their home bases to provide telecommunications services. The upshot of their existence is that new means of communicating have been invented, i.e. wireless broadband services that allows voice communications over the same system. It appears as consumers we are resisting using these technologies but they do exist and they can be much cheaper than the services we currently pay for. Almost every person in Europe has a personal mobile phone and smarter use of this would allow for the demise of landline based phone systems.

How did this happen? The answer is quite simple really. The big players Vodafone and Telefonica etc are so large that nobody could afford to take them on and so a new technology was invented to take them on. Why has the market worked now and not in the past is also answered simply. EU regulations were passed opening the telecommunications industry to open competition. This allowed entrepreneurs and investors to take over the monopolies. This resulted in a very real change in attitude by these companies which now had to become customer orientated. In the main the change brought rewards to almost everybody.

The monopolies only existed because individual governments wanted to control telecommunications for its own reasons (usually in the name of national security), but in reality using the state owned monopoly as an informal source of taxes for the exchequer. When the monopolies were broken, the market came alive and we all now use phone communications in a very different and much cheaper way. When the really big companies have satisfied our demands they will then invest in developing countries. As happened in Ireland where the mobile phone industry almost died until the companies started to give consumers free handsets and texting was invented and made using the handsets affordable, (prior to texting making an actual call was very expensive). These companies will then have to create the same situation in developing markets where the consumers can afford to use the new systems. This will benefit people in developing countries by ensuring that private industry will have to invest in various ways to ensure their customers can afford to use the services. This means they have to make sure people in these countries have access to jobs that allow them to earn money to pay for the services. I know phones are not a priority for people that need access to water and food etc but this just an example of how markets can benefit people. On the other hand mobile phones would allow people to communicate with the outside world when rogue governments do things that they shouldn’t.

Globalisation would allow lesser developed countries to acquire skills to provide goods and services that they are efficient at. In the west we should not be afraid to lose these jobs to those countries, we should use it as an opportunity to be retrained and re-educated to provide the higher value products and services. Our governments should ensure economic processes exist to allow this to happen on an ongoing basis and should also never decrease the standard of living of a person that decides to retrain or and re-educate themselves. The financial mechanisms to allow this are for another day.

Back to the suppliers of energy.

Those companies that actually make electricity should be forced to supply at a rate commensurate with their market size and density. When this results in a monopoly the price should be tightly regulated to ensure these companies do not abuse their positions. The market should be opened only to other companies that will actually make electricity (not just distribute the monopolies electricity). The same thing applies to gas companies. The current companies should be de-licenced unless they can sell their own gas or electricity. In Ireland’s case we should take the ESB back into public ownership and allow entrepreneurs and investors to explore ways to compete to supply alternative sources of energy.

I’m not saying all big companies are good, but then again I’m not saying they are all bad, I am saying that a lot of big companies are good employers and providers of goods and services. Big companies can invest newer more efficient ways of supplying goods and services and by virtue of their economy of scale allows smaller more efficient ways to exist, which in turn provides the bigger companies with aggressive competition.

One philosophical ideal that should not be forgotten by those of us in the so called developed west, the first world countries should remember, our constant demands for cheaper goods and services can mean people in other less developed countries can be exploited to satisfy our demands. That is not something I agree with, I would like every worker to have a fair days pay for a fair days work. Also vital public services should only be provided by private industry when the state systems are so inefficient that they only exist to keep public or civil servants in a job. Civil and public servants should always provide high quality efficient services to the public. They should not be allowed to permit governments to protect them for political reasons and the trade unions should buy into a system that allows for constant change and retraining for civil and public servants to serve the public.

Demarcation is a tool that should be demolished by trade unions as a means to protect inefficiencies. This also means managers can not abuse worker flexibility and they should be measured in the same productivity rates that production workers would be measured with.

All of the above is predicated on very strong regulations in areas of anti cartels etc. No company should be allowed to dominate an industry so as to create a private monopoly. No company should be so dominant, that, its demise could, adversely affect people. Today’s situation in the USA where two extremely large mortgage providers have in essence, been bailed out by the US taxpayers should not be permitted. These companies are so large, they are, in effect adversely affecting global financial markets. Banking systems that fail should result in the managers of that failure being imprisoned. Banks should not be allowed to increase interest rates in the interest of shareholders. If there is adequate competition in the banking sector and an easy way for people to move there accounts, there will always be shareholders that are prepared to take a smaller percentage rate and hope they can increase the number of customers they serve. In essence what we have today is a legal cartel dressed up to look like competition. The Irish banking system is currently licensed by the state, like all the other European states. However the licensing system (while in theory allows anybody to enter the market) in reality only allows those with access to vast sums of money to become licensed, therefore its almost impossible for a small player to enter the market to provide the much needed hungry competition required in a modern open market economy. Ultimately if large companies go to the wall because of bad management etc, then so be it, they should never be bailed out under any circumstances, the market should decide which companies survive and which companies don’t survive.

As I said earlier vital public services should be provided by the state only when the market can’t or won’t provide such services. There should never be a conflict to people regarding vital public services. For instance today’s health services providers in Ireland are currently served by both public and private concerns. The duplicity and overlaps are so confusing for people that both sides are involved in a propaganda war. This situation only exists because the relationship between the two has been maintained by successive governments. The easiest solution to this to separate the two systems completely. The services should be regulated to provide the best quality health care that is available allowing for technological advances etc, after that, they should both compete for the consumer. Then people with enough money that want to opt for private treatment can do so and those that have to opt for the public system can do so (or borrow money etc). On the other hand if the quality of service is the same in both systems then those with money may also opt for the public system.

I firmly believe that where private industry thinks it can make money it will be innovative enough to find a way to do so. When restrictive government rules are applied to the provision of goods and services, those who want to operate a private service with a public subsidy must be ignored.

An example of this is in the area of public bus transport provision. The private operators want to access public bus routes. However as private companies they think they should only access the most profitable routes. Okay from their perspective that’s not unreasonable, however the public owns and maintains the roads. My solution to this is, we allow them to pick the routes they want to use, and then we regulate the price and quality of the service with serious consequences for failing. These routes will be open to all companies that want to work them, no restrictions on the number of service providers, and voila now we have competition and the consumer availing of a high quality bus service at a reasonable price. Then the public system can serve the routes that will not make money and this will be subsidised by the state. Or, maybe they could compete against the public service on these routes and let the consumer decide which service they want to use. Will the private operators agree to this, no they won’t because what they really want is to replace the public subsidised system with a private system subsidised from the public purse. What is interesting about private bus operators is this, where there are no public services or limited provision of a public service, these same bus operators have been very innovative providing services and ultimately making money.

In Europe today we need to create a situation where every citizen can enjoy the same standards of living all over Europe. The equality we need is not only required for citizens it is also needed by companies to ensure more or less the same operating costs apply in EU member states. Higher or lower taxes may ultimately be the companies deciding factor as to where the company is actually located, but in essence the cost of doing business should be the same in all EU states. We can see today where factories in Ireland are closing down and relocating to other EU member states, not because they are losing money or customers, it’s because they can pay lower wages in these countries, and thus when the final calculations are made they can pay higher taxes because they have higher profits because the salaries bill is reduced very significantly. Therefore it’s the ultimate equality in the cost of living for ordinary workers that are benefitting people in other EU states, while it’s making Irish people unemployed which will ultimately reduce their standards of living while their European counterparts enjoy an enhanced standard of living. This is an inequality that must addressed immediately by the EU. You could say (and some will) this is exploitation, maybe it is, but in my mind its exploitation of the current political and economic systems that today’s businesses exist in. I suspect this issue played a big part in the Lisbon referendum and will play a big issue in the development of the EU project as a whole.

Only people carriers will do.

I could not decide where to put this so I opted for this page in the blog. Forgive me for being cynical when it come,s to this stuff, but it,s a genuine hate for hypocrisy that annoys me. This statement clearly says that it is okay to put children without seat belts at risk up to May 2009. The cynic in me wants to know why a prestigious organisation like the Road Safety Authority would accept any kind of a concession regarding the safety of children. The only conclusion I can come to is they accepted this under political instruction, because of a fear of a backlash from parents. Clearly if a couple has more than 3 children from May 2009 they will need a people carrier, no ordinary saloon car will suffice to transport their children together as a family, or else they will need two cars or more, depending on the size of their family. Parents with ten children will need a minibus. I wonder why the government are not telling parents about this?

You might need to click the picture to read it.


Here,s the link to the full page: