Meanwhile… more about pensions… April 17, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics, The Left.20 comments
Kathleen Barrington had an interesting piece in the Sunday Business Post last weekend. Seems the champions of enterprise are never more enterprising than when making sure that all is well with their pensions.
Big companies paid 46 times more into the pension pots of their executive directors than into the pension pots of other employees, a study has found.
And to put that into perspective:
The companies in 2008 ponied up an average of €124,000 per year in pension contributions for directors, compared with an average of just €2,700 for ordinary employees.
Or to put it another way:
Using information from the annual accounts of 45 large companies, most of which are quoted on the Irish Stock Exchange, Hughes found that the average value of an executive director’s pension fund amounted to nearly €4.7 million, compared with €102,000 for other employees.
The study was compiled by:
Gerard Hughes, who is a visiting professor at Trinity College Dublin’s School of Business.What’s particularly interesting about this is the notion that high contributing private pensions somehow support those on lower or state pensions:
And he notes that:
If the average executive director were to take immediate retirement, he would have a pension 15 times greater than the income of the average single pensioner.
And here’s a thought that cuts directly against the notion, a notion already skewered by TASC in their report on pensions which Barrington referred to approvingly earlier in the year (I like Barrington by the way, she’s hardly what I’d term a leftist and she’s obviously pro-business which is grand up to a point, but she has a sense of fair play about her analysis which is refreshing), that somehow private pensions ‘support’ the state pension.
Hughes said the cost to the state of providing social welfare pensions amounted to €3.9 billion in 2007, while the cost of tax foregone on tax breaks for occupational pensions amounted to €2.6 billion.
Indeed Hughes goes further…
The social welfare pension currently amounts to 33 per cent of average industrial earnings.
Hughes said that this could be increased to 40 per cent of average industrial earnings, at no additional cost to the exchequer, if the government allowed tax breaks on pension contributions at the standard rate instead of at the higher rate.
A small move, but a progressive one. And he notes further:
In 2009, the government reduced the cap on contributions to a pension fund qualifying for tax relief from €275,239 to €150,000, but the lifetime cap on the size of an individual pension fund was left unchanged at €5.418 million.
‘‘Neither of these caps is consistent with recommendations by the OECD, and others, that tax relief on pensions should be concentrated on middle and lower income earners,” said Hughes.
Yeah, perish the thought. But consider that sum €5.418 million. A tad excessive one might posit.
‘‘There is, therefore, a need for greater equity in the pension system.
‘‘This could be achieved by reducing the annual earnings limit for pension contributions from €150,000 to €75,000 and by reducing the cap on the size of a pension fund for an individual from €5.418 million to around €500,000.”
Now, for most of us with any serious exposure to the private sector this will hardly be news. I’ve noted before that I myself sat across the table from people making decisions about pension provision for those in the upper echelons of companies which were stunningly self-serving as compared with that for those in managerial or non-managerial areas. And at no point did this seem to strike them. It was simply taken as read that what they did didn’t just warrant a reasonable pension somewhat greater than the ordinary workers in the companies, but that it actually gave them license to levels of remuneration that were wildly disparate in comparison.
And away from all the rhetoric about ‘enterprise’ and ‘private enterprise models’ that we apparently should laud near uncritically the truth is that that sector remains profoundly inequitable in how it conducts business today. Indeed this is seen as intrinsic, in the eyes of many in business, to what enterprise is all about.
The irony is that it wouldn’t require a socialist revolution for them to alter their way of conducting that business, indeed even a mild reformist approach would reap dividends for ordinary workers. But given the track record, and the public utterances, I’d be dubious they’d have the sense to remove that particular battleground from the left.
Finally, as an addendum, as if to prove the thrust of Barrington’s article, comes news today of this. Given the discrepancy between the provision for the chief executive of Bank of Ireland…
The bank’s normal retirement age is 60 for its executive directors, who are usually entitled to receive a pension worth two-thirds of their salary.
…and most private sector employees, and indeed those of the rest of us forced to get along on the state pension you’d seriously wonder at the statement that:
A spokesman for Bank of Ireland said the pension payment had received “all the appropriate approvals” from the Department of Finance and the National Pension Reserve Fund, which holds a 15.7 per cent stake in the bank on behalf of the State.
This weekend I’ll mostly be listening to… Asian Dub Foundation April 17, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, This Weekend I'll Mostly Be Listening to....2 comments
Here’s a band who have been consistently worth listening to for… feck it, the best part of a decade and a half. Asian Dub Foundation, group, collective, phenomenon? There’s no doubt that they evolved from an eclectic mix, producers, DJs, musicians. While framed in Asian music this also merged with rap, dub, indie, punk and pretty much anything that could add rather than detract from the central approach.
Added to that was, and is, a highly political content. “Naxalite” might represent a metaphorical call to arms, and few could call this sedate. There’s a genuine anger in the lyrics. “Buzzin’” might be more reflective, but it’s still there… and what of this from “Free Satpal Ram”?
Birmingham six
Bridgewater four
Crown prosecution totting up the score
Kings Cross two
Guildford four
Winston Silcott – man how many more ?
Satpal attacked in a restaurant by racists
Now the brother’s been locked up on a life time basis
Convicted of murder but what’s never mentioned
Self defence was his only intention
This is political music, but it’s still music and what I love about them are the little bits of sonic messing around in songs. Listen to the end of Naxalite and you’ll hear some reverbed guitar fading and being replaced by subtle keyboards (at least I think they’re keyboards). Everything arrives in a rush of beats and sounds with staccato fast raps.
So here are pieces from Rafi’s Revenge and Community Music. Some say that they were their best moments were when they had the youthful Deeder, who first arrived in the band at 14 and left in 2000, but that would be to ignore work like 2008′s Punkara (natch) with tracks like Burning Fence (which to my ears sounds something like the Fleshtones had they had an Asian heritage rather than – mostly – Polish) or a cover of Iggy’s No Fun with guest vocals by… er… Iggy… and… well, perhaps that album deserves a post of its own some weekend. This series is entertaining and interesting to write for me because of the way it sometimes unearths stuff I haven’t listened to in – sometimes – years and really should but in other instances it’s about the stuff I’ve never stopped listening to. ADF are in the latter category.
Enjoy.
Buzzin’
Culture Move feat Navigator
I particularly like the way the almost casual vocal lines intermesh, but also and not least because according to najmar101 from the YouTube ADF channel “Here’s a confession for you;when I programmed the bassline for this track I was trying to turn Black Sabbath riff into Jungle”. A worthy objective. Kudos.
Naxalite
And for all the Marxists in the audience, and I think we’ve got a few, here from their equally good album Community Music is Colour Line with vocals apparently sampled from the extremely interesting Ambalavaner Sivanandan.
And here’s another two tracks from that album… the peerless New Way New Life
And
Real Great Britain
This week on the Irish Election Literature Blog… April 16, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.add a comment
Another great crop of materials from AK at the IELB, and in particular the first and the last one…
A poster from 1965 advertising the Manchester Connolly Associations Easter Commemoration. Some interesting names addressing the rally.
A 2004 newsletter from Nicky Kehoe and Aine Ni Ghabhann of Sinn Fein for the Cabra -Glasnevin ward. It also has a good bio of Mary Lou McDonald.
A 2007 Seanad leaflet from Paddy Healy which focuses naturally on education.
This was requested (I think it was anyhow 
)… A letter from Clare Daly endorsing Terrry Kelleher in Balbriggan 2009.
From the KPSWA a poster – Government STOLEN your money -Do Something about it!!
And continuing the Public Service theme an 1985 Fine Gael discussion paper on Public Service.
And finally veering off into North Antrim, that Ian Paisley Junior leaflet that Jim Allister had issues with…
Inez McCormack – ‘Equality and Human Rights – Fighting injustice from Below’ April – Friday 23rd, 7.30pm, Springfield Road, Belfast April 16, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.7 comments
Gort na Móna CLG & Glór na Móna present
Community Lectures Series 2010
April – Friday 23rd, 7.30pm
Inez McCormack – ‘Equality and Human Rights – Fighting injustice from Below’
Inez is a renowned human rights and trade union activist of some forty years standing. As a former head of UNISON, she also became the first ever female President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. She famously played a leading role in enshrining the McBride principles for Fair employment for the North of Ireland after a long campaign. She still works across the world as a human rights activists and also works on a part-time basis for the PPR (Participation and Practice of Rights project) in North Belfast, which use human rights tools to empower marginalized communities to campaign on their own behalf.
The talk will take place in Gort na Móna CLG, Springfield Road, Belfast.
Thanks to C for passing this along to the CLR.
The British Leaders Debate April 15, 2010
Posted by Garibaldy in UK General Election 2010.28 comments
And so the much-hyped first ever British political leaders election debate. I thought Alastair Stewart was going to have a heart attack he looked so excited. Nick Clegg kicked off with some rhetoric about a fair society and moving beyond the tired old parties. Brown went for the economy, making the argument that this was the defining year; Labour believed in fairness, and so would protect public services. Cameron started with the need to reconnect with the public after the expenses scandal, for which he apologised, and then went on about the economy, and said that he would keep the good things Labour had done, but it was time for change. I half expected him to say “Yes we can!”. From there it was into the questions from the (supposedly representative) audience.
Depressingly, the first question asked was immigration, and how to get a “fair and workable” system. All three parties basically said that immigration needed to be controllled. Brown spoke of his points system to prevent migration of unskilled labour from the outside the EU, and mentioned chefs and care-workers. One wonders where the care workers are going to come from then. Cameron said immigration was too high, he would put a limit on it, and stagger people’s arrival. Clegg said that the governments of the other two parties had talked tough but produced chaos. He wanted to restore exit controls, and ensure that immigrants would be allowed only in the regions where they were needed. The free-for-all amongst the three of them then began. Brown rejected the idea of a cap, spoke about controlling student numbers (whereas the universities are going to want to increase the numbers to cover the funding cuts). Brown linked immigration to skills training for the young people, whereas Cameron linked it to people sitting on benefits, and the need for benefit reform. So much for caring Conservatism. Cameron, in what I think was him going off-message somewhat, spoke about meeting a black man in Plymouth who had come at the age of six and spent years in the Royal Navy who was unhappy with the system. The mention of the man’s colour was needless, and I suspect says something about how often Cameron and his ilk spend time in the company of minorities, and the way they see people who have been in Britain for decades as still not really British. Clegg at least had the decency to mention that there was good immigration, but the tone of the whole debate was less than savoury. When this is the mainstream, it’s no wonder that the BNP is getting its message heard more.
Following immigration, came law and order. I suspect whoever set the question list may have been a traditional conservative. More of the usual stuff there (more cops, holding parents to account, drug addicts etc), although Clegg spoke about working with people positively at an early age, and about restorative justice and alternative punishment. Clegg was easily the most progressive. No mention of jobs in the whole debate. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime eh? This part also saw a common theme of the evening – facts, figures, detailed spending plans and the lack of them – coming to the fore.
MPs expenses came up, and Brown moved it on to the need for electoral reform, partly as a means to set himself up as close to Clegg, with both of them differing from Cameron. Clegg spoke about getting rid of big money from politics. Again, Brown sought to separate himself and Clegg from Cameron by attacking Cameron’s reform plan being cutting the number of MPs. Interestingly, all three parties are talking about the right of recall of MPs in certain circumstances. Brown linked Cameron to heredity peers – aspects of the rhetoric of class politics that will feature in the campaign from Labour. When education was discussed, the Etonian Cameron was extremely quick to point out that his child was at a state school, suggesting he feels that he might be vulnerable to the class rhetoric.
Dealing with the deficit without damaging the economy came next, a lot further down the list than I’d have thought. Cameron charged with his support from business people against Labour’s planned rise in National Insurance, and harped on about waste in the public sector. Brown went with the argument that Tory cuts would damage the economy by taking £6bn, the equivalent of thousands of jobs out, and made the vital point that it was the state and not the private sector that had kept British unemployment from hitting American and European levels. Brown was very strong on the centrality of the state in keeping economic growth happening – recovery was happening, and Tory plans would risk it. He even nearly sounded like an old-fashioned social democrat, rather than a free-marketeer forced to embrace kenysianism. Still, he’s still better than Cameron, and there was clear blue (red?) water between the two. Clegg, again, sounded a progressive note with his remark that greedy bankers pay less tax on their capital gains than their cleaners do on their wages. Brown dodged that one. Having said that, Clegg also spoke of the need to look at public sector pensions.
The war came up – but in terms of resources for troops rather than the British presence in Afghanistan. After much discussion of funding, equipment etc, it was Brown who raised the issue of why the British are there. You couldn’t make it up, especially when the LibDems had been so openly against the Iraq war.
Given the immigration debate, the fact that the question on health came from a health care worker clearly from outside the European Union was somewhat entertaining. Not that any of the leaders noticed of course. All three pledged to protect and develop the NHS. The most interesting thing here was Cameron saying that he would increase the NHS budget in real terms every year. Hard to believe, but a change from his rhetoric about cuts for the rest of the public sector. Labour has warned of cuts worse than Thatcher’s, but there was no sign of it from Brown in this debate.
The final question was about people having to sell their homes to pay for their care in old age. There wasn’t much difference between the parties to be honest. It was a bit like everyone saying that they would vote for Christmas.
In conclusion, Clegg argued it represented something a serious alternative to the big two parties, and went back to his theme about fairness. Brown said it was necessary to avoid the mistakes of the 1930s and 1980s by keeping money in the economy for this year to avoid the double dip, and attacked the Tories for not giving the type of guarantees Labour offered. Cameron asked the audience to not listen to scare stories, and he spoke about the importance of values rather than policies, promising to support all sectors of British society. It’s a great country after all.
So overall then, Clegg’s strategy was to represent himself as a real change, and the choice for a fairer society. Cameron protrayed himself as the candidate for uniting together and building a better Britain. Brown offered the most detail, and stuck to his script about the necessity of keeping money in the economy, and the need to avoid risks. He was about offering detail more than the other two, who went for vision. There was no clear winner. Brown was effective in separating the Tories out on electoral reform, and hit Cameron with remarks about not guaranteeing public services the way he was, but looked vulnerable on the national insurance thing. Clegg was assured, and in one sense had the easiest job of saying he was different than the other two. He did well though in responding to attempts to get at him, especially by Cameron. Cameron did a fine job, although he probably made the least impact. Not earth-shaking or game-changing, but a good opener for what will probably be a fixture of British elections from now on. The questions themselves though were a reminder of how right wing British society remains in many of its assumptions.
This isn’t right… April 15, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics.32 comments
Dear God, I’m reading a letter in the Irish Times, nodding to myself as I do so, and by the end find myself in near complete agreement on the following points…
What they say… April 15, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics, The Left.add a comment
Here’s a post which sums up pretty much my own thoughts and I’d recommend anyone to read it. But I’d like to add a few points that struck me afterwards. Firstly I’d strongly agree, and I think sonofstan has made a not dissimilar argument about the co-option of a touchy feely therapeutic faux egalitarian language in the economic debate about ‘sharing pain’. That this language makes no sense at all in the context of a mixed economy in a capitalist state with partial, but not non-existant, welfare as a safety net for market failure is irrelevant. Whatever works is doubtless the mantra of the right.
Like DublinDilettente I too remember the 1980s and the nature of interactions between the state and citizenry and the penny pinching antagonism that characterised that relationship in so many ways throughout those years.
That’s one of the reasons that has driven my complete aversion to means testing. So simple, so easy for those who have never had to experience it, or where they have have found little to complain about largely due to their own self-perceived societal position (and let’s not ignore the small fact that the attitude of entitlement to state benefit amongst the middle classes can often be considerable). Quite a different matter where ones universe of interactions have been shaped by a negative perception (and often reality) as regards the state and its instrumentality across a raft of areas.
My brother who attended the same school in the same area as I did remembers in the 1980s a teacher speaking with another colleague there after the latter had made a strong rhetorical appeal to how optimistic he and his classmates futures could be and almost pityingly asking something along the lines of ‘…sure why are you even bothering to give them hope? Most of them will never get a job.’. A foolish thing to say where it could be overheard. Patronising. Wrong. Surely, but indicative of an attitude amongst some even in what was generally speaking a highly progressive school.
And that’s a gulf, that DublinDilettente references in the sense of there being simply no identification with the public sector on the part of many in the working class, or those who should but couldn’t find work.
To anyone under the age of thirty in those days (certainly under the age of twenty) the notion that the clerk in the rent office, the woman in the labour exchange, the guy from the ESB who cut off your supply, that any of those people could conceivably be on your side was not just laughable, but offensive. And as for guards and teachers…
Of course, these were all false impressions. None of these underpaid, under-resourced public sector workers were responsible for the low-level violence of compulsion which the state inflicted upon the poor, nor (under constant attack themselves) did they have the leeway to act on their sympathies. Though undoubtedly corners were cut in Dublin 11 which would not have been cut in Dublin 4.
As a member of a political party then I remember how strongly there was a sense of conflict with a Corporation that grudgingly at best disbursed housing, or whatever.
Having also spent some time directly at (and for a limited time as) the interface between politicians and constituents in the not so distant past it’s also clear how much the state continues to fail people in terms of those interactions, how often it is like climbing mount impossible for many people who have had a lifetime shaped by circumstance, and yes, self-perception.
It’s rather like DublinDilettente says, in some ways the remarkable thing is how little the prevailing myths (in a Barthesian sense) have taken hold in this society despite this dismal history.
I’d also echo entirely his thoughts on the Labour party and how slow, how partial, how ineffectual it has been even to articulate the most mild of responses to the prevailing orthodoxy. Michael Taft in another equally illuminating post engages with this too…
Neither post is likely to give grounds for optimism, but if any is to be found it is in the fact that so many of us are aware of alternatives and the need to try to give some voice to them. The news here is also heartening… There is an energy to seek out these alternatives and an appetite to hear about them.
Can I point to one other sentence from DD that sums up much:
It was not even a consequence of Fianna Fáil’s innate sense of entitlement to droit-de-seigneur over the Irish people.
Droit-de-seigneur… that’s it entirely. But it’s far from limited to FF. At root this remains about class. Same as it ever was.
Welcome to the NAMA Republic: éirígí April 15, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.5 comments
Thanks to C for passing this on to the CLR.
éirígí [www.eirigi.org] press release: 14-04-10
Welcome to the NAMA Republic
In an effort to highlight the disgraceful behaviour of the Leinster House establishment and the business class with regard to the NAMA saga, éirígí has launched a satirical version of the 1916 Proclamation.
The revised Proclamation is designed to reflect the reality of modern day Ireland where inequality and greed reigns supreme, the business class and conservative politicians are a power unto themselves and the vision of the original Proclamation has been shamefully betrayed.
éirígí chairperson Brian Leeson said: “Ninety-four years after the Easter Rising, the vision of the 1916 Proclamation lies in tatters. The Six Counties remains under British occupation while the Twenty-Six Counties has been turned into a NAMA republic which has enslaved generations to come with massive debts.
“Nobody, including the Dublin government, knows how much NAMA and the bank bail out scheme will ultimately cost, but it may well exceed a staggering one hundred billion euro [£88 billion]. That is €100,000,000,000 that should have been spent on hospitals, schools, homes and employment which will instead go to private banks in Ireland, the rest of Europe and beyond.”
Leeson continued: “Within the satirical document that éirígí has produced, the names of the 1916 signatories have been replaced by Brian Cowen, Seán Fitzpatrick, John Gormley and the other architects of the current economic depression. The aspirations of freedom, equality and justice contained within the 1916 Proclamation have been supplanted by the slavery, inequality and injustice espoused by the business and political establishment.
“It is now crystal clear that the only people that can stop NAMA are the Irish people themselves, by taking to the streets and staying on the streets; by withdrawing their labour; by refusing to pay taxes, rents and mortgages; by refusing to be ruled by a corrupt political class; by bringing the whole sorry NAMA republic to its knees. The time for quiet talking and polite debate has passed. The time for action is upon us. The very future of Ireland and the generations to come are at stake.”
ENDS
See also here.
The Proclamation of the NAMA Republic can be viewed at http://www.eirigi.org/pdfs/NAMA_Proclamation.pdf
Labour’s poll ratings… April 15, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.14 comments
A curious snippet in a wider piece in the Sunday Business Post about the Labour Party in the week prior to its National Conference. It’s not the most interesting piece, in that it channels the thinking the LP wants out there. So we read that ‘Gilmore’s strong performances have led some to suggest that he should be the next Taoiseach’. Given that those ‘some’ most likely sit around the same table as Gilmore in the parliamentary Labour Party or a table of his advisors and confidantes we’re not learning anything new there. And in truth the rationale for him being the next Taoiseach in any FG/Labour coalition seems thin. Short of some catastrophic event overtaking Kenny and Fine Gael between now and the election that party and that leader will be larger than Labour by some distance. And granted, Labour were notable by the near-silence on the Green Party rotating Ministers issue, sure – they put out the odd sarcastic comment, but little that fundamentally said rotations were a bad idea.
Because somewhere they harbour the hope that there might be a rotating Taoiseach.
Anyhow, there was another snippet that caught my attention. This was one which noted that:
Labour is now polling seven points ahead of its showing in the last three elections, although that might be expected as FF support languaishes amid record unemployment,a banking crisis and painful budgetary measures.
Labour’s support has been hovering at 17 per cent for the last six months in Red C/Sunday Business Post polls, just a couple of points below its showing in the 1992 General Election, when the party took 33 Dáil seats with 19.3 per cent of the vote.
Okay.
Senior party sources have stressed that, ahead of the election in 1992, Labour’s opinion poll ratings were around the 12 per cent mark. The party believes that, with polls now consistently at 17 per cent, an even sharper rise in support is on the cards at the next election.
Er… why? Gilmore’s by no means the worst but this smacks of wild boosterism. Gilmore will do well, of that I have no doubt. But, a significant sharper rise? I think Labour will be doing extravagantly well to hold its current support, let alone see it rise. And 1992 doesn’t offer a clearly direct comparison. There Labour was faced with a declining Fianna Fáil and a weaker Fine Gael. By contrast we see a strong, or relatively strong Fine Gael and a weak Fianna Fáíl. Where is that ‘sharper rise’ to come from? Fine Gael shedding support. Possible. No doubt about it, particularly if Gilmore can continue to project his fairly level headed persona. But not absolutely probable. Fianna Fáil shedding even more support? I’m not convinced. I think 20 – 24% is their core. From there it’s upwards. So my belief, FWIW, is that the LP will be squeezed somewhat. Not down to 10%. And yet, if they can hold 17%, well and good.
Strategists are targeting support in the mid-20s and a final seat tally of up to 40 seats, which would leave Labour with a strong voice.
Meanwhile back to the Taoiseach…
The party is also fighting back against Fine Gael’s ambitions to lead a sing-party government by proposing that Gilmore should be taoiseach in any future coalition in Government with Fine Gael.
And the rationale for this possible but unlikely turn of events?
In the event of Labour holding the balance of power after the next election, it would be in prime position to press for the post of Taoiseach, according to dermot Lacey, an LP Cllr on DCC. Lacey said former FG minister for defence Richard Mulcahy set a precedent for a Fine Gael leader not becoming taoiseach in a coalition government. Clann na Poblachta refused to accept Mulcahy as leader of the first inter-party government in 1948 because of his role in Civil War executions. Fine Gael TD John A Costello became taoiseach in his place.
‘The outstanding leader of the oppostiion in the Dáil is Éamon Gilmore, and there is a precedent of a leader of the largest opposition party not being Taoiseach. There is a very strong determination in the party that it should offer people a third choice,’ said Lacey.
Well that’s an innovative, if utterly flawed, argument. Costello and Mulcahy both belonged to Fine Gael. Demanding that Gilmore take precedence over Kenny is simply not comparing like and like.
A more apt comparison would be demanding the head of Kenny in favour of… er… Richard Bruton? Hmmmm.
But in a sense all of this is not that important. I’m happy with a strong Labour Party presence in the Dáil, but… given that the destination is coalition with Fine Gael somehow I’m not as happy as I might be. And although this may well be a cunning plan in order to broaden the support for Labour and maintain a window through which all options could manifest themselves, I don’t know. Somehow that’s not terribly convincing either.
CALL FOR ACTION TO SUPPORT DUBLIN INNER CITY PARTNERSHIP. April 14, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Community, Culture, Economy, The Left.29 comments
Dublin inner city Community Organisations and SIPTU Trade Union have called on the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs, Pat Carey TD, to intervene urgently to prevent the closure of the Dublin Inner City Partnership (DICP).
The Dublin Inner City Partnership (DICP) has been to the forefront in tackling long term unemployment and acute poverty in the inner city for almost twenty years. It has been recognised as among the most successful partnerships in the country and has developed and worked through a local community infrastructure that now includes twenty community organisations delivering a wide range of effective services and activities to inner city residents in the most disadvantaged areas.
The Board of Pobal has decided to end the present contract with the DICP on 30th May 2010. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (CRAGA) have been pursuing the retrenchment and realignment of community and local development structures for the past number of years. These efforts intensified last year and pressure was placed on Pobal to find a means to do this. Recently Pobal officials informed inner city community organisations that Pobal management intended to replace the DICP with an alternative coordinating structure by June 2010. This was before the Pobal Board had made any decision in relation to the DICP contract.
In December 2009 CRAGA instructed Pobal to undertake a review of DICP. The Department then used the review as the rational to withdraw the funding, without warning and before DICP was allowed a right to reply. However as soon as the DICP received the report in January 2010 the Board and Staff acted promptly to respond comprehensively to the issues raised and quickly dealt with the priority requirements identified by Pobal.
As a result; (i) the DICP Board approved salary reductions for DICP staff and for staff employed in organisations supported by DICP; (ii)the DICP Board adopted the Pobal operations manual as the sole source for policies and procedures and (iii) a comprehensive action plan was set out addressing each issue raised in the audit with timelines for delivery and full implementation by end of April 2010. Despite the fact that all the demands made by Pobal were met by DICP the Pobal Board on 1st April 2010 decided to end the present contract by 30th May 2010.
This decision by Pobal has serious consequences for the inner city. The closure of the DICP will result in the lay-off of the four highly skilled, experienced and committed workers; the future of the four Local Employment Centres with sixteen staff is put at risk; the seven community organisations, with twelve workers that provide the core infrastructure to DICP will be under the direct control of Pobal from April and the Department’s proposed new Local Community Development Programme (LCDP) could have serious implications for the future of seven Community Development projects with their twelve workers to be transferred into the new programme.
The DICP has been a strong advocate to Government for many years in response to the scale of persistent poverty and disadvantage in the inner city. Many new approaches and initiatives have been successfully developed. A vibrant community infrastructure has been built involving local residents which the DICP has fought to protect against cut backs and closures.
A gross injustice is being perpetrated here. There is no justification to close the DICP, other than the deliberate destruction of an independent community based organisation that has provided leadership and support for inner city communities for almost twenty years.
This call to action is being supported by the Inner City community networks with over 120 organisations, by the Community Development Projects and the many other community organisations across the city who have offered solidarity. We would appreciate your support also.
Please forward this to Minister Pat Carey TD, Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs calling on him to prevent the closure of Dublin Inner City Partnership. Forward to : minister.carey@pobail.ie and pat.carey@oireachtas.ie
