Tell Eamon Gilmore his reply is not satisfactory!

national | rights, freedoms and repression | news report

Monday December 12, 2011 15:50

by Pól Ó Cionsalígh

paulbkinsella at gmail dot com

An Chúlóg, Báile Átha Cliath 17

0851478100

Demand that the homeless be given a voice!

Supporters of Focus Ireland sent almost 3,000 e-mails to TDs and Senators calling for the appointment of a new Minister for Housing and Homelessness to have a voice in deciding the contents of the budget. Unfortunately, the Government decided not to make that appointment before budget day, but the high level of public scrutiny on the issue ensured that the homeless budget was largely protected. While so many areas of expenditure were being cut, the cuts to services to end homelessness were relatively small. So thank you for that support. It shows we can make a difference.

The decision on when to appoint a new Minister for Housing and Homelessness and who it will be, will be made by Deputy Eamon Gilmore, as leader of the Labour Party. Deputy Gilmore took the time to reply to everyone who participated in our campaign, but most people found his reply very unsatisfactory. He did not acknowledge tha t the appointment of a new Minister is entirely in his hands and did not explain the reasons for his delay. Most importantly he gave no assurance that when a new Minister is appointed that she or he will actually have a voice at cabinet. I think these issues are so important that I am asking people to reply to Deputy Gilmore, expressing disatisfaction at his reply and emphasising the importance of recognising the scale of our housing crisis by having a Minister for Housing at the Cabinet table. Please support this campaign!

save preference

Comments (11 of 11)

Focus

by Des - None

Mon Dec 12, 2011 19:57

I am afraid that the former minister for housing is concentrating on army barracks, his successor, well since all the money has been allocated to financial speculators, anyone homeless will have to rely on an bord tent!!!!!!!!!!!! SOCIALISM IS THE ANSWER

socialism

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:27

is another word for utopia, unless you give a little detail.

I suggest squatting is a possible beginning.

Occupy the empty houses the emigrating workers built; and that the NATIONALISED(de facto) banks are claiming and threatening to demolish so they can restore their speculative games. And the homeless are still rising in numbers.

Get the homeless indoors for Christmas. In fact open them up generally and give the landlords(who are no longer absent, although their accumulating and vampireal rents are, in their offshore accounts)a fright for their seasonal present. Might just put a stop to their galloping arrogant merriment.

Besides, occupying the streets is only amusing them, they report more about Tahrir Squares and US Wall Street occupations than our local acts.

Thats my spoke.

Ah Opus

Fri Dec 16, 2011 00:12

My reference to socialism (in the context of cde Gilmore and co.) was my humble attempt at sarcasm. BTW focus must be rather innocent if they think that Kenny,Gilmore and Cde. Burton have the most minute interest in the provision of affordable housing.

my apologies

Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:20

I musta hada serious moment...but what about all the enthusiasm for militant action against the property tax of 2 euro per week with TDs finding their consciences dangling all round...but they never noticed the EUthenasia policy of slashing fuel allowances for the elderly after a summer would chill a penguin...the fucking landlords are getting bolshie and dragging the whole show rightwards...and they're getting the airwaves while the occupy gets zilch. Well managed news.

not a property tax. Its a poverty tax.

by lefty

Sat Dec 17, 2011 21:27

Opus

This is not a property tax. It's a poverty tax. This is a tax on the family home and it is the thin edge of the wedge. There are plans to hike this up to 600-800 for the average family home. You can be sure of that.

I am in favour of a "proper" percentage of value based property tax but it must exclude the family home. I'm not in favour of taxing the family home. Yes, even if it's worth a few million. It's too slippery a slope.

I agree however that flat cuts that amounted to much more than 100 euro per annum on the poor such as cutting rent allowance (>500 per annum) and fuel allowance (>300) went quietly through with little fuss, and that's indeed a real travesty.

my point, lefty..

Sun Dec 18, 2011 15:08

..is that this is an issue those a long way from poor can use to mobilise the very same concerts of greed that grew us the plastic tiger...and diverts from the real poverty; again to the well-off to 'strugging' middle class who control our politics. Not least the fat-cats leading the media charge to restore 'their' economy and their hurting portfolios of relative rather than real poverty. My case is it fails to address the real hardships and decoys political energy better focused on more outstanding economic crimes against the very weakest. Taxes have to be raised for services(unless you dream of some utopian money-free society). I accept that like the childrens allowance for one and all without means-test it is inequitable, but I think it is the wrong issue, and its adoption indicates the electoral ambitions of those most vocal in its decrying. I believe if the 9 TDs making the fuss actually gave a toss about poverty and deprivation they would have made a row about the fuel cuts...what are they but a policy of EUthanasia for the no longer productive labour units the political/economic machine sees us all as. Another variation of the 'show them the greener grasses they can emigrate to' rather than devise a wealth and work distribution system that is inclusive. At best we'll have to agree to differ on this one. Personally I still think the gamblers who played the market, rather than the workers just trying to house their families, are the ones driving it. It smells distinctly of poor me feinism. If they are bothered about inequity where is the noise about homelessness and empty estates side by side? Nope. Not convinced.

Yes indeed Opus

Sun Dec 18, 2011 22:57

To a large extent, I would agree. Even by Labour party ‘standards’, the fuel vouchers cut is sick, but then I firmly believe that a majority in Irish society practice, perhaps subconsciously, Thatcher’s view about there being no society, just a collection of individuals. In other words, screw everybody else. I have yet to hear of any protests on the obscenity of allowing elderly people to possibly freeze to death. I suppose from Burton's perspective, it's a 'saving' to the department of 'social protection'. Connolly must be doing corkscrews in his grave.

nonsense

Mon Dec 19, 2011 19:46

opus a tax on the family homes of the poor is not a good way to raise tax for public services. No matter what way you look at it.

thats not my case

Tue Dec 20, 2011 13:16

and if it was done as i think it should be they would have slapped a major charge on all those second home/ holiday homes long ago. But square footage as investment was a symptom of the greedfest, and many got in early and leveraged their way to multiple properties..and they are the ones with the resources to run this campaign, while the voiceless freeze waiting for a summer. My reply might be should Pat Kenny not pay a surcharge on his prime property in Kiliney, which will devalue less than average?He certainly will support this 'grassroots' rebellion against 'injustice' and his 'hard earned' crust. And the posse will gather while the dole queues of houseless are directed to the exits. I'd want firmer gound before I'd challenge this particular move on general basis. And to call it a poll tax is a misnomer, I dont approve of propaganda, even when I agree with the propagandised argument. Ultimately its assailable premises for the misinformation industry, the real enemy of democratic progress towards equity. The same jokers, PD neo-liberals, ran us up the creek with the FF paddle, which they then broke over their well-cushioned knee. I smell their DNA all over this property poor-mouth stroke, and most of the poor you invoke will, I reckon, see the same gig. There are people hung out to dry with mortgages, but this blanket rejection is not the solution to their predicament. If we are serious about change we start at the gutter, literally, where the homeless are deserted by the mansioned who are signing up to be counted. Same with the dodgy septic-tank tax, no one has the right to pollute public water supplies without penalty. Middle class privelege and complacent 'because I'm worth it' me feinism got us into the shit..its not gonna get us out, no matter how its dressed up. Just my opinion, if I thought it would lead to a general mobilisation for a more inclusive society I would remain silent, at least. I think it will simply copperfasten the propertied in the entrenched 'ownership' psychosis and inability to discriminate between monetary/financial valuation and what constitutes a healthy sociey and polity. Work away yourselves.

Check the IT

Tue Dec 20, 2011 14:33

Fintan O'Toole has a relevant piece on the issue.

slippery slope too hard to get reversed once implemented

Wed Dec 21, 2011 09:37

taxing ALL property OTHER than the family home (i.e. all second third ... nth houses etc.) is progressive
taxing the family home is not. Its all most people have. Everyone deserves a roof over their head. especially in this bleak wet climate, without it gradually being stolen from over them by a right wing neo con government who hate the poor.

It's really not worth the tax it would bring in to do that to the poor.
ok then, imagine if we compromise and tax all property say over 500,000 in value.
Mark my words, watch as that figure keeps being lowered and lowered

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Tell Eamon Gilmore his reply is not satisfactory!

Comments (11 of 11)