TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 6 °C Thursday 23 May, 2013

Column: We should be giving jobless people the money we’re wasting

The funds we’re currently spending on make-work training programmes should be handed directly to unemployed people, writes Aaron McKenna.

Aaron McKenna

Aaron McKenna wrote about the ‘Lost Decade’ Ireland is facing into, and why we need a new vision for the nation to bring us through it. In this fifth part of his series on ways forward, he charts a course for turning our unemployed into the best trained workforce in the world.

LIKE ALL FAILED generals, our politicians are well prepared to fight the last war when it comes to tackling unemployment. They propose programmes to encourage property and construction activity and move the deck chairs round on unemployment supports and retraining, without grasping the hard reality: Among our unemployed we have a workforce that is not skilled in the right areas – or that is rapidly becoming stale.

Long term unemployment is now the norm, with 56 per cent of people unemployed for over a year versus 25 per cent in 2009. A person unemployed for a long period of time loses skills and their experience becomes less relevant. A large number of the unemployed today come from sectors that will never recover to where they were, principally construction.

Time is one of the greatest assets we have. We have an entire section of our workforce sitting idle – many going out of their minds in boredom – and no real attempt is being made to turn this time into a great opportunity. Imagine what you could learn in just a year, if properly supported?

Instead people are being encouraged to go out and look for jobs or have their benefits cut at a time when the real domestic economy is still contracting. New jobs are mainly in export-led companies that require skills most jobseekers either don’t have, or their skills are outdated compared to those of new graduates.

To combat this skills gap the unemployed have FÁS Nua or one of its affiliated state bodies that still live in the last century in their approach to training or producing tangible benefits.

FÁS runs nearly as many day courses in construction related topics as computer hardware, networking and programming combined. So much about FÁS and its state run relations is perverse. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so tragic – like studies indicating certain FÁS courses leave one less likely to get a job; the provision of courses completely disconnected from real economic needs; or the continuation of make-work courses, like spending four weeks learning how to write a CV.

‘The unemployed should spend the money directly’

Back in 2007, when nearly everyone could get a job, FÁS had almost €15,000 to spend on those who passed through its doors. Part of that was the management and junket fee. Today FÁS only has €2,200 to spend per head, and its budget would have to be €6.7billion today to match the spending from 2007. Instead the budget is €60million less.

Nevertheless if we cut out FÁS and other program spending, like that from VECs, we have about €2,500 to spend on each unemployed person today for training, about €1.2billion a year. This is money government might see as a soft target to cut. But I think it ought to be increased as an investment in our future prosperity.

I think we should be spending quite a bit, as much as possible, on turning the idle time of unemployment into a productive period of up-skilling and diversification. But I don’t think the public sector should spend it. I think the unemployed should, directly.

We should abolish bloated quangos like FÁS that simply eat a disproportionate amount of cash in management fees and make-work programs and give each unemployed person a grant to pursue courses, both in our existing higher education system and through private sector initiatives.

We should apportion grants to courses on a points-based system, where courses with more economic benefit – ie more likely to result in a job – are apportioned more points. While it is philosophically ideal that government should allow free learning, in a time of limited resources it is better to encourage the provision and uptake of courses in the likes of computer networking and programming or lab work than the old pastimes.

We should create this points matrix with an independent assessment body built around industry and academia, not civil service and social partnership. A body tasked with looking at near and mid-term trends in business, science, foreign investment and new export markets to make judgements on what courses can provide the best outcomes for jobseekers.

Institutions and courses receiving grants should undergo audits to ensure that they are not producing cardboard qualifications, but ones that employers and students feel are valuable to have.

‘People deserve the chance to compete’

People should be pushed towards taking up their grants and getting results, with penalties for not showing up, participating or getting good grades without explanation. They should be assisted by their welfare officers to get onto courses that suit them in the first place. This is some stick to the program, but it is far outweighed by the carrot: A tangibly beneficial investment into a persons future.

This would also be an investment in our education sector, growing new providers as well as bolstering existing ones.

Most of all it would be a major investment into our future economic prosperity with a vast cohort of our workforce increasing their skills, many of them mid-career, to match the jobs of tomorrow that will be of benefit to us all.

We would see more companies attracted by our workforce, less need to import workers for highly skilled roles – as happens today in tech firms – and combined with supports for entrepreneurs we would see more unemployed people given the spark to get minds and bodies moving to create new businesses of their own.

We would also avoid sending our unemployed back into the world of work by way of lower quality, less rewarding jobs, thanks to skills erosion. People deserve the chance to compete for the best that their abilities will allow them to attain, unhindered by years of unemployment that is no fault of their own.

People deserve the chance to take their destiny back into their own hands by working hard at up-skilling on quality courses.

To provide this opportunity, as to do most good reforms, we would need to tackle some vested interests. In this case the enemy is the bureaucracy that never willingly lets its empire be broken up and those who support it to protect their own space in that empire.

I guess we need to decide which is more important: protecting the bureaucracy that exists today, or the jobs that might come tomorrow if we’re prepared to take them?

Aaron McKenna is Managing Director of the e-commerce company Komplett.ie. He is also writing a book on the future of Ireland to be published later this year.

You can read his previous pieces on the way forward for Ireland on TheJournal.ie here.

Read next:

Comments (50 Comments)

  • I am a qualified architectural technician, and now long term unemployed. So far I wave got summer contracts with waterways Ireland and the census, I can’t get anything else no matter how hard I try. I did a course to get into a science course in college last year and I started in college in September on a 4 year course. So far my vec grant has been cut from 6k to 2k, now where is my incentive other than my own motivation?

    Reply
  • I see the “read the headline, post a comment” brigade are in.

    If we have a well-trained workforce, with economically applicable skills, we have a better chance of attracting cutting edge businesses than if we continue to put money into a system that actually hampers the ability of an individual to get a job.

    Reply
  • Ciaro 21/02/12 #

    On a serious note… are any of the contributes to this thread unemployed? Some people make it sound very simple; get an idea, a few quid and off you go.
    How many of us are willing to borrow using our family home as security, because currently that’s the only option.

    Reply
  • Eh if you read it, its not about handing over extra cash into peoples hands. Great article. Points based grant system is really good. They need to bring back the postgrad grant to enable people to retrain in a more relevant field where they have a hope of getting a job. It’s cheaper in the long run than keeping someone on social welfare for years, and surely It’s better for mental health reasons too.

    Reply
  • Aaron I think the problem is your headline not your piece. Seems to of gone over the heads of many posters, some who don’t appear to of even read your piece.

    I think it’s a good idea, in fact any idea that takes a level of state service wastage out of the equation should always be considered. People don’t seem to understand the cost to the state of money being wasted, instead preferring to focus on easy populist targets like the really bad unemployed people.

    I work and my wife lost her job because her boss died down to stress of his business struggling. I run my own business, it’s easy for the pc warriors to speak of how easy it is to startup your own company when they know nothing of the stresses and finances involved.
    For me, if I thought that unemployment workers were getting more direct assistance by having a choice of education (not physically getting money like some people have been confused With) as opposed to having to used a fas that has let us down in the past, I would be all for it.

    Reply
  • It’s “giving money” attitude that brought us down.

    No one should be given money for nothing.

    Reply
    • He has not hit the nail on the head. Again what about the long term unemployed who choose to be unemployed. The people who see it as a lifestyle choice and have so with the last donkeys years, what about them? Give them a few grand to ‘upskill’? Gimme a break…

      Reply
    • jason i feel he has hit the nail on the head the scams that are going on with the county councils and their solicitor buddies behind closed doors is truly frightening the long term unemployed have mental issues so even if you could find work you would be back to square one, the problem we have in this country is not the guys at the bottom its the ones at the top

      Reply
    • SOME have mental issues. But there are plenty I know that are long-term unemployed that don’t, that choose to be on the dole as a lifestyle choice, and that give genuine job seekers a bad name. They should try what they did in the UK with a reduction in file for those who refused work from the job centres. They discovered that most of the lifestyle dole people would prefer to take the cut than work, whereas the genuine cases would do what it takes to get up and running again.

      Reply
    • Re: Long term unemployed, 56% of people unemployed today are ‘long term unemployed’ thanks to the recession.

      I think the number you’re looking for is the pervasive malingerers who refused to get off welfare and into a job when even 13 year olds could get work after school, such was the economy.

      That number is around 30-40,000 individuals. Much as it is a large number and the failure to tackle it is a failure of weak kneed government in the past, it is between 6 and 9% of all those unemployed today.

      Reply
  • seriously hope some of the people commenting here do lose their jobs might get an idea how hard it is to find work at the minute

    Reply
  • cimada 21/02/12 #

    Not everyone can have a degree you know it seems to me people won’t be happy until every Tom dick and Harry has a degree but we need people to do unskilled jobs too.

    Reply
  • In this current climate there is no One solution to unemployment. Sure there are folk out there starting their own businesses and there are some folk who are just not wired that way. We will ignore the folk who simply don’t won’t to work for the moment. I feel the Gov. need to focus on making it easier for real businesses in Ireland to grow and expand their workforce as well as enticing new International co panties to these shores. They really should make it easier for home grown startups to take off as well. From my experience there is limited support.
    In a monetary based society it all needs to start with those that supply the money. The banks. If they are not lending then nothing moves with ease.

    Reply
  • To correct you, I’m proposing direct education grants. The money wouldn’t go into ones hand to spend on anything other than training.

    Reply
  • The amount of people, not just commenting on this article but all articles, that either haven’t read the full article or have failed to grasp the major points of the article but still feel the need to comment on them alarms me. Why comment if you aren’t going to bother reading/understanding the article. Then they usually go on to argue with the people who point out that they are wrong.

    Reply
  • Ciaro 21/02/12 #

    I want to start my own Tarmac laying and fly tipping business. Are there any grants available?

    Reply
  • While this post is undoubtedly positively minded, I’m beginning to lose patience with the mentality that, somehow, the government is solely responsible for getting people working again.
    There is very little preventing those who are unemployed from getting up and starting a new business themselves, based on some idea they may have that could grow legs.

    It isn’t the govts role to make jobs appear out of thin air – they should be fostering an environment that encourages entrepreneurship or working in general. It really seems as though people want everything done for them

    Reply
    • Very little stopping the unemployed starting a new business themselves? You mean apart from:

      1. No seed capital available
      2. Banks wont lend to you whilst unemployed.
      3. IDA wont assist unless you’re exporting
      4. Most new businesses bleed money in the first few years
      5. You will lose Social Welfare entitlements as a sole trader/company director if company fails, effectively playing lotto with your families well being

      You clearly have little knowledge and experience in what you speak of.

      Excellent article Aaron, you’ve hit the nail on the head

      Reply
    • Now now, no need to get personal. Try to keep this an actual debate/argument.

      Part of the problem as I see it is this ‘entitlement’ mentality. It does nothing to help get people working. They should be encouraged at *all times* to get back to work. Unproductive people are a drain on us all.

      As for your bullet points, not everything requires monstrous amounts of money to start, but for those that need initial capital, I agree – the lack of funding available at the moment is choking the whole system up.
      But that is prescisely what the govt should be working to resolve, not the mass-training of thousands of people in areas that could require years of formal training and/or a definite aptitude for the task.

      Reply
    • Hi, just to clarify: Firstly, this is about giving grants for education directly rather than spending on FAS/Nua, which fail to provide adequate training. Not cash for whatever, as other comments seem to presume.

      Secondly, we already spend €2,500 a head on training for the unemployed. We could cut that out, if that’s your proposal. Mine is to spend it better.

      Reply
    • Aydo 21/02/12 #

      Well said G Charles

      Reply
    • Daniel, your right. There are many small business ideas that can be grown with minimal money. Eg: grow vedge, or bake, farmers markets are growing and growing. Websites are also relatively cheap to run, and there are people out there than will buy anything (around the world) Where has our ambitious spirit that has taken us this far gone?

      Reply
    • I started up a business and was workin well until van trouble put a stop to it.bank of ireland customer for years with great credit history n they wouldn let me borrow €1000 to buy van.and as for gettin state help dont bother they wouldn lift their finger to piss did everything they could to stop me.

      Reply
  • There are loads of jobs out there but they are low paid and probably not the most exciting, that’s reality!
    Our welfare system is encouraging people to seek reduced hours/days to get on the social welfare gravy train – ask any employer. It’s not the individuals fault, they are only trying to get the best income, but no government to date in this country has been prepared to grasp this nettle. I understand there are always hardship cases and people in desperate situations but in the main it’s too easy to sit at home when welfare benefits are well in excess of min wages. We moan about a black economy but we all know people that are milking the system while the few cows keep turning up at the parlour each week!

    Reply
    • There is a point there. No other country permits somebody to deliberately reduce their hours or leave a job voluntarily in order to qualify for welfare. Removing that loophole would wipe quite few off welfare. However, there are many who would love to work who are not skilled or experienced for roles that are there. The challenge is to spend money on programs that work.

      Reply
    • 1. How is jobseekers more than minimum wage? Minimum wage is over €8 per hour. It’s only better paid if the work is part time, in which case a partial payment will be awarded to keep you afloat.
      2. How are they encouraging people to quit their jobs for welfare?
      If you quit or get sacked for a good reason then your application will have a 9 week suspension put on it. If you deliberately reduce your hours, they will penalise you. It’s hardly encouraging people to quit or reduce their hours is it?
      Try reading citizens information, you may realise you have misunderstood the system somewhat..
      Living on social welfare is nowhere near as lucrative as the sensationalists would have you believe.

      Reply
  • That magnificent plan of yours might backfire if they nominated the local off-licence as their business of choice :) Also, hope you never find yourself unemployed, you might be handed a cow and a bag of spuds instead of your favourite Supermacs meal ;)

    Reply
  • @Aaron I have read some of your other stuff which wasn’t too bad, this I’m only 50/50 with. The only thing that stopped me from doing a FAS course in the past was the 90 mile round trip to get to the closest FAS center with no travel allowance allowed which meant it would have cost me €80 per week to get to FAS every week. Also child minding is a big factor for alot of people so maybe some form of child minding faculty for parent that want to do a course. There are a few FAS courses I’d like to do but for these two reasons I could not do them. To close FAS completely??? What do you have against FAS.

    Reply
    • Hey Dave, thanks for the comment – I’m glad you’re enjoying the series, I don’t expect 100% agreement :-)

      Re: FÁS, I have a number of problems with it:

      1. Poor course outcomes: FÁS offers courses in “General”, “Low-Mid-High” skill areas. ESRI research has shown that all G-L-M level courses studied for a long duration actually reduces your chances of getting a job vs not taking them; and high-skill courses have the best outcomes when either studied for a short or long duration. Guess which type of course FÁS has the very least of, by a long stretch?

      2. No adapted focus: FÁS and its relations have got, by my count, around €6 billion since the beginning of the recession. Yet when I was writing this article I counted as many courses for construction related activities – a decimated sector that’s not likely to need new blood – as computer programming, hardware and networking courses. This industry has added jobs since 2008. FÁS isn’t keeping up.

      3. Administration: There’s a huge admin fee involved in all these state agencies, and they pay over the odds for courses.

      This is why I prefer to give a grant for education, so a person can sign up to courses in existing or new quality education institutions to learn or refresh skills that will help them get a job.

      Number 1 problem for an unemployed person is skills: Either a lack of decent skills for new industries, or a lack of refreshed skills.

      Reply
  • Completely agree with the idea of consumer driven choice with regards to an individuals own training. Competition for this funding could provide extra jobs for trainers, and open up the possibility of industry supported training initiatives to offset their costs of seeking staff abroad.

    What I found more interesting, however, was your posting about 6 billion having been spent by FAS over the current duration of the recession. How many people has this helped to gain employment?

    I think this would make for a very interesting article, as compared to 40,000 spent on photographs by the Department of the Taoiseach, or the supposed extra 1,400 milage spend by Ruairi Quinn. Whilst wastage cannot be condoned, being penny wise but pound foolish does not seem much of a change from the circumstances that got us into the present circumstances.

    Reply
    • I don’t know how many have got jobs directly from the training, Darragh. It is fair to say that jobs were created in the past 12 months (but there were more jobs lost also), so people came on and off welfare and likely job training supports.

      The ESRI research is, however, fairly stark in pointing out that the vast majority of state training supports are concentrated into less effective areas, and that the rate of change and adaptation has been slow.

      Reply
    • The question I posted appears to have been too narrow. A thorough response to it, I believe, could only be brought about by questioning of those who received training, and correspondingly the employers who hired them, to ascertain the perceived benefit derived from it to secure employment. I would have doubts that such feedback exists.

      As I believed FAS to be a facilitator of training, them to whom is it fair to say that jobs were created? Obviously in the current economy jobs are in a state of flux, but I was interested in the number of individuals who have gained employment as a direct result of the accumulated 6 billion FAS budget. A drastic cut to this budget could have saved many troubling cuts that have been made.

      Reply
  • There are myriad opportunities for people to get back into work.
    Mostly the demand is, however, in areas requiring exceptional innovation and entrepreneurship or in areas of such technological or scientific complexity we are trailing woefully on any kind of appropriate matched education.
    As people have said here, the problems are there are zero supports, insane risks, mediocre training and extremely poor incentives. I can’t agree that abolishing a training institution that is intended to provide assistance at a low level on the education ladder is the answer but I do agree that Fás has been shockingly inadequate in direction, adequacy and outcome – not to mention the appalling liberties taken with squandering public funds. They are certainly not the only guilty party.

    There are five major impediments to leaving the stranglehold of social welfare dependency-

    1) the so-called “lifestyle choice” in which long term dependency is balanced against living costs;

    2) no supports to assist with startup costs for small business/ sole traders/ entrepreneurs – especially in the domestic services market, which is ironically where all the economic experts believe the key to recovery lies;

    3)no support to help with vulnerability and risk for such courageous strike-outs – no sick leave, maternity/ parental leave, insanely sloppy options for structured recourse to welfare assistance in fallow times and no redundancy benefits in case of failure (all available in handsome schemes for PAYE workers);

    4) inadequate training OR education matched to demand in readily available PAYE places.

    In my opinion, the first is the mist invidious and difficult to address, but people can skip into this position out of confidence loss, skills loss, fear and depression. While there is an aggressive defensiveness among many long term unemployed I imagine with the appropriate coaxed opportunity there are few people who would not respond to the identity-fortifying, fulfilling and rewarding effects of a good days work – whatever the critics say.
    I agree that a points based grant scheme is a great inventive incentive but think there needs to be a complete revolution in how to tackle employment options under the four headings above.

    At Fumbally Exchange, one of our four-point commitments is to lobby for, investigate and lead the charge on reform in all areas affecting innovation and new ways of working. So far we have proved that there is a living to be made for skilled redundants even in the fallow framework we are forced to endure. But more needs to be done and it takes leadership from the ground up.

    We are also trying to export our model of sustainable, flexible and low cost shared workspaces for the benefit of afflicted PROFESSIONALS across the nation.

    But the unemployed at all levels of education and experience must be supported and that’s where a reformed FÁS like institution would still have a role. It strikes me that enterprise groups and almost PPP groups seem more efficient at accessing and managing training and opportunity development than the more conventional Fás and enterprise boards …

    We must not expect our ministers to be innovators or leaders in this kind of thinking. But we absolutely must expect them to listen where successes are proven – however modestly – and adapt to underwrite the rapidly changing definitions of value which are being formed at the coalface of entrepreneurial activity.

    So, in brief:

    A) take responsibility for your own future and seek the training or follow a risk in a
    B) keep the pressure on government to keep up and provide requisite supports and leave benefits
    C) remember that work does actually lead to fulfilment, stability, peace, prosperity and a happy little nation.

    Sorry for long rant!
    C)

    Reply
  • I am speaking of personal experience, as a skilled, qualified unemployed person. Firstly, I have tried to start up my own business, but as economy contracted, potential clients no longer had money to spend. Which, funnily enough, is needed to fuel any new business. Luckily I didn’t lose a lot of saving in the process, had written a business plan and done some market research for new business. Also, now hold a cert in Starting a Business Enterprise.
    Also, starting a business in Ireland is hard (there are hundreds of VAT rates) that is just as a sole trader, imagine the red tape if some decided to take on employees? The failure rate of new business is very high, something like 4/5 business fail in year 1. Getting grants is next to impossible. Plus there is the added delight of “networking” in Ireland. In other words the same businesses get the work making life extremely difficult for new business to break in.
    FAS/Solas is a waste of valuable resources, it’d be more economical if I’d been allocated funds to sort out myself instead of going near FAS. Their training courses (did one as soon as I became unemployed) was interesting, did the placement and got a reference. End of story. After that I was called into “the interview”, met the FAS staffer. She spent all of 5 mins talking about my situation and that there was nothing they could do for me. Then spent a further 15 mins (not kidding) whinging about poor her, might lose her job, public sector employee etc etc. So I don’t blame any unemployed person for refusing to attend. Anyway, I think that they have forgotten about me by now.
    As for getting a job, well I could list of my experiences all night, but to cut a very long version down. I can’t get a job because employers openly discriminate against folks in my boat. And, yes, I’ve been told that is fact, a few times. The irony that whilst that is true, I’ve qualified for internships, even though I’m not an intern. So, I’m going to sign-off as I’ve to write an essay for my masters (self funded). But anyone who thinks that folks in my boat are choosing to do so, * do not* have the faintest clue about reality. Work was much much easier.

    Reply
  • @Aaron, fair enough you have done your research into FAS and have done in detail. Me am unemployed 2.5 years was into fitted furniture and would to learn about auto electrics I live in rural Ireland and have two kids under the age of 3. What advice would you give me to go learn another trade and have my kids minded. My wife works.

    Reply
    • Hi Dave – I’d recommend distance learning in your case. No system can satisfy 100% of people 100% of the time, but as today you can’t get to a FÁS course that may or may not help you; and you have no means to access anything other than what the state agencies make available.

      Reply
  • Thanks Aaron. I actually reported my own post as I’d misread the article. Direct grants is definitely something I can get behind.

    Reply
  • So the argument is that we should throw money to long term unemployed rather than adapt and change training opportunities? I don’t see how this could possibly improve anything seeing as the argument is the basic Fianna Fail idiocy that has caused many to lose jobs – hand over a load of money to people and damn the consequences. How many jobs would this really create if we’re throwing money at an unskilled workforce who by your own admission don’t have the skills necessary to go into the areas of employment that are there. It just seems to be another ill-thought out anti-government and anti-public sector rant frin this author and not up to the journalistic standard that thejournal.ie usually is.

    Reply
    • cimada 21/02/12 #

      Not necessarily unskilled uneducated lazy don’t want to work people, educated in the wrong area or skilled in the wrong trade for the post construction boom recession.

      Over all I agree sort of…. Well if someone really wants to upskill etc
      But – I am educated and can only find a job in a shop were my msc is just becoming out dated. Most new graduates could nearly already abandon all hope! Don’t see the good either in educating more for Oz !

      Reply
    • The proposal is to get rid of FAS, which provides as many construction related courses today as computer courses, and give grants to go attend relevant courses based on economic need.

      Not cash grants for whatever.

      Reply
    • The people don’t have skills.

      FÁS doesn’t help them get skills.

      Get rid of FÁS, give grants to unemployed people who want to upskill, with a higher grant for those who want to take up courses in areas of economic need.

      Use the highly skilled workforce to attract new businesses.

      How many jobs would it create? Probably none in and of itself. But how many does FÁS create? Other than for FÁS employees?

      The current Government training system is broke. This is a plan to combat that. And no, it doesn’t suggest, anywhere in the article, that we simply throw money at unemployed people.

      Reply
    • Hi Aaron; wondering if you think that the dole should be money included overall in the financing?

      Reply
    • Hi Sheila, good question – I suppose my focus today has been that the government spends €2,500 a head as things stand on training, and I believe there’s a far more efficient and effective way to do that. The state training agencies have had their chance to rise to the challenge and have not.

      I’m not sure how one could go about including existing dole payments into the financing of courses, except to allow unemployed individuals to contribute to courses that do not get a full grant – Say, a course in English Lit that – with all due respect to English Lit – we don’t believe is likely to end up in a job.

      I think that anyone on unemployment benefits is likely to contribute directly in any event, however, as attending education is a cost in and of itself. If a person in Blanchardstown were to take a bus to, say, UCD daily for a course it would cost them in terms of travel and miscellaneous expenses.

      Reply
    • Thanks Aaron; I was thinking more along the line that the jobseeker could kindof look at their SW as payment for completing a relevant course and to use your example of an English lit course – would get result in a smaller SW payment. ;-)

      Reply
  • What has happened to my comment?

    Am I being censored on this sight. If I am being censored the Journal has turned into RTE. What a shame!

    Reply
  • It certainly is not as daft an idea as giving it to the people who ruined this country and the professionals who are now milking the situation for all its worth.

    See http://quinn-anglo-story.blogspot.com/

    You may be amazed at the unnecessary squandering of billions of euros of taxpayers money and the threat to tens of thousands of jobs as a resault of the sellout of the Quinn Group for the benefit of foreign banks and bondholders. Its amazing to hear the spin from Government that their main priority is jobs-What a joke!

    Reply
  • @Alan can explain your rant please.

    Reply

Add New Comment