Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

jmcc · 19-01-2015 3:10pm

hardybuck wrote: »

The UK includes Northern Ireland though right? Which is at the centre of this issue.

This is Ireland.

Regards...jmcc

hardybuck · 19-01-2015 5:36pm

jmcc wrote: »

This is Ireland.

Regards...jmcc

The organisation was involved in the island of Ireland, i.e. both the Republic and the United Kingdom.

jmcc · 19-01-2015 6:22pm

hardybuck wrote: »

The organisation was involved in the island of Ireland, i.e. both the Republic and the United Kingdom.

Surprised that they didn't get a grant from the EU.

Regards...jmcc

hardybuck · 19-01-2015 7:15pm

jmcc wrote: »

Surprised that they didn't get a grant from the EU.

Regards...jmcc

How do you know they didn't? They might have got something out of the Good Friday Agreement though alright.

robtri · 19-01-2015 9:34pm

jmcc wrote: »

This is Ireland.

Regards...jmcc

and ireland is comprised of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, like it or not is under british control with a devolved goverment.

robtri · 20-01-2015 9:58pm

wellboytoo wrote: »

Geographically correct politically wrong.

how??

wellboytoo · 21-01-2015 9:32am

robtri wrote: »

how??

My mistake ! I misread what you were saying

jmcc · 21-01-2015 3:15pm

robtri wrote: »

how??

Grammar problem.

Regards...jmcc

robtri · 21-01-2015 8:33pm

jmcc wrote: »

Grammar problem.

Regards...jmcc

????????????

hardybuck · 22-01-2015 12:51pm

RTE have put together an interesting database on political expenses since 2011 http://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2015/0120/674364-no-expenses-spared/

I'd a quick look at the Waterford TDs. Wages look to be identical for each, but there is a decent bit of variance in terms of expenses - which obviously will be irregular by their nature.

I don't know if it's similar in other constituencies, but in Waterford's case our Independent TD has cost more than all of his party colleagues, over €26k more expensive in one case, from the period 2011-2014. I think independents argue that they incur extra costs as they don't have the same resources as the other parties, but worth being aware of.

A quick tot of the expenses from 2011-2014:

1. Halligan - €195k approx.
2. Conway - €188k approx
3. Deasy - €171k approx.
4. Coffey - €169k approx

7upfree · 22-01-2015 2:36pm

hardybuck wrote: »

RTE have put together an interesting database on political expenses since 2011 http://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2015/0120/674364-no-expenses-spared/

I'd a quick look at the Waterford TDs. Wages look to be identical for each, but there is a decent bit of variance in terms of expenses - which obviously will be irregular by their nature.

I don't know if it's similar in other constituencies, but in Waterford's case our Independent TD has cost more than all of his party colleagues, over €26k more expensive in one case, from the period 2011-2014. I think independents argue that they incur extra costs as they don't have the same resources as the other parties, but worth being aware of.

A quick tot of the expenses from 2011-2014:

1. Halligan - €195k approx.
2. Conway - €188k approx
3. Deasy - €171k approx.
4. Coffey - €169k approx

And for all of that, what have any of them (particularly the government ones) achieved? Little or nothing, except the undermining of our hospital, the downgrading of our Council, an a bunch of reneged "promises".

Interesting to see that the usual FG cheerleaders have gone extremely quiet lately.

Particularly on the this forum.:)

hardybuck · 22-01-2015 2:54pm

7upfree wrote: »

And for all of that, what have any of them (particularly the government ones) achieved? Little or nothing, except the undermining of our hospital, the downgrading of our Council, an a bunch of reneged "promises".

Interesting to see that the usual FG cheerleaders have gone extremely quiet lately.

Particularly on the this forum.:)

What I would say in response to some of that is that although a TD is elected to represent the people of their constituency, many of them will be absorbed by national matters. Not ideal, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You hope in that situation that a few of those crumbs fall your way.

I think people need to really consider what is a positive outcome and what they can reasonably expect from their representatives. Just because you don't see them in the newspaper generating headlines all the time doesn't mean that they're working or achieving anything. Empty vessels often make the most noise...

7upfree · 22-01-2015 8:52pm

hardybuck wrote: »

What I would say in response to some of that is that although a TD is elected to represent the people of their constituency, many of them will be absorbed by national matters. Not ideal, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You hope in that situation that a few of those crumbs fall your way.

I think people need to really consider what is a positive outcome and what they can reasonably expect from their representatives. Just because you don't see them in the newspaper generating headlines all the time doesn't mean that they're working or achieving anything. Empty vessels often make the most noise...

They're empty alright. And making NO noise.

They have failed the people of Waterford City (in particular) miserably.

Hijpo · 23-01-2015 3:03am

hardybuck wrote: »

What I would say in response to some of that is that although a TD is elected to represent the people of their constituency, many of them will be absorbed by national matters. Not ideal, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You hope in that situation that a few of those crumbs fall your way.

I think people need to really consider what is a positive outcome and what they can reasonably expect from their representatives. Just because you don't see them in the newspaper generating headlines all the time doesn't mean that they're working or achieving anything. Empty vessels often make the most noise...

They are there to make up the numbers for the party in power and to vote in favour of anything and everything their leaders tell them to, nothing more. Don't be naive in thinking any different.
This farce should not be classed anywhere near as being democratic, from elections to legislation.

longshanks · 23-01-2015 1:26pm

Is it true that independents can all claim the leaders allowance? That they are classed as the leader of a party of one? About 40 grand a year for that expense alone.

AdMMM · 23-01-2015 2:01pm

longshanks wrote: »

Is it true that independents can all claim the leaders allowance? That they are classed as the leader of a party of one? About 40 grand a year for that expense alone.

Technically all TDs get a leader's allowance. For TDs that are a member of a party, that allowance goes to the party (so the more TDs a party has, the more funding it gets). The money is in turn supposed to be used to research policy and support constituency activities, therefore benefiting the TD through increased presence and detailed policies.

Smiley Burnett · 24-01-2015 8:36pm

Leaders allowance for Independent TDs came about when Bertie Ahern bought the support of Healy rae and a few more independents back in 1997...what a joke!!...and john halligan has a cheek to take it!

7upfree · 25-01-2015 1:12pm

Smiley Burnett wrote: »

Leaders allowance for Independent TDs came about when Bertie Ahern bought the support of Healy rae and a few more independents back in 1997...what a joke!!...and john halligan has a cheek to take it!

Is it any difference to Enda saying that the cap of €500k on bankers pay is a constraint?

This country has become so morally corrupt it is appalling. As you say, Ahern brought it in - and Halligan is doing nothing wrong claiming it. It is the system that is in place which needs changing.

But then shouldn't EVERYTHING be changed, like:

* People who are on a "disability payment", and who can drive and own a car, automatically awarded free travel for themselves and their partners.

* Politicians claiming several pensions.

* People retiring from the Public Sector in their 50s and coming back in as contractors.

* Pension topups for academics.

* Teachers holding onto their jobs while being TDs.

* Politicians working beyond the age of 65.

* Hospital consultants saying €175k a year is "not enough".

The list is truly endless.

robtri · 25-01-2015 10:52pm

7upfree wrote: »

and Halligan is doing nothing wrong claiming it. It is the system that is in place which needs changing.

I see it differently, Halligan is doing wrong....
while its legal, its still wrong.....

this is the problem with the state of our nation, people have a I am entitled to it mentallity.... and overlook what is right and wrong.....

7upfree · 25-01-2015 11:41pm

robtri wrote: »

I see it differently, Halligan is doing wrong....
while its legal, its still wrong.....

this is the problem with the state of our nation, people have a I am entitled to it mentallity.... and overlook what is right and wrong.....

Yep. I refer you to my post above. There is that sense of "entitlement" across the board. Which is why we borrow mainly for:

1. Social Welfare.

2. Public Sector.

3. And, of course, the HSE.

With Education coming in after these.

hardybuck · 26-01-2015 12:19am

7upfree wrote: »

Yep. I refer you to my post above. There is that sense of "entitlement" across the board. Which is why we borrow mainly for:

1. Social Welfare.

2. Public Sector.

3. And, of course, the HSE.

With Education coming in after these.

Education and HSE are both public sector.

Cabaal · 26-01-2015 9:49am

7upfree wrote: »

Yep. I refer you to my post above. There is that sense of "entitlement" across the board. Which is why we borrow mainly for:

err but shouldn't TD's of any party and none be setting the example for other citizens to follow?

Just because Halligan CAN claim something doesn't mean he should,

If TD's claim less then that actually helps support the very idea of change that the same TD's could then spearhead.

Instead it seems people will claim the system needs changing but they'll happily use and abuse that same system in its current form.

hardybuck · 26-01-2015 12:59pm

Just as a comparison to another constituency to see if there was any pattern, I had a look to Tipp South up the road. Three seats, two Independent and one FG.

In terms of expenses again, the two independents were both €40k more expensive over a four year period than their party colleague.

Two constituencies - nearly enough analysis to develop a trend, but there might be one there all the same.

Max Powers · 27-01-2015 1:58pm

If you were an independent TD, would you refuse it, honestly?

longshanks · 27-01-2015 2:17pm

It's an ordinary workers wage for a whole year that they just nonchalantly claim as an expense on top of their already vastly inflated wage.
They could show some morality, decency, call it what you like, and refuse it. But no, they claim it 'because they can'.
The reason people don't trust politicians is because of that attitude and behaviour.

AdMMM · 27-01-2015 2:25pm

Max Powers wrote: »

If you were an independent TD, would you refuse it, honestly?

One of the biggest sticks that parties use to beat Independents with is they lack policies and research. You have to keep in mind that six political parties (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, People before Profit Alliance, Sinn Féin, the Labour Party and the Socialist Party) shared €12.9 million in exchequer funding in 2013.

That's a lot of firepower that can be used to carry out research, run focus groups and generally carry out activities that will benefit the party prior to an election.

Taking Fine Gael as an example, they received almost €5m in public funding in 2013, which means that every single one of their TDs benefit from how that money is spent.

The deck has always been stacked in favour of the big parties, this concession that Bertie Ahern made in a time of desperation actually just levelled the playing field a bit.

The term "Party Leaders Allowance" obviously looks bad and the Government certainly won't change how it's named because they can use it as leverage, but if it was called "Politicial Administration Allowance" or something to that effect, there would be absolutely no issue with it at all.

hardybuck · 27-01-2015 2:30pm

AdMMM wrote: »

One of the biggest sticks that parties use to beat Independents with is they lack policies and research. You have to keep in mind that six political parties (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, People before Profit Alliance, Sinn Féin, the Labour Party and the Socialist Party) shared €12.9 million in exchequer funding in 2013.

That's a lot of firepower that can be used to carry out research, run focus groups and generally carry out activities that will benefit the party prior to an election.

Taking Fine Gael as an example, they received almost €5m in public funding in 2013, which means that every single one of their TDs benefit from how that money is spent.

The deck has always been stacked in favour of the big parties, this concession that Bertie Ahern made in a time of desperation actually just levelled the playing field a bit.

The term "Party Leaders Allowance" obviously looks bad and the Government certainly won't change how it's named because they can use it as leverage, but if it was called "Politicial Administration Allowance" or something to that effect, there would be absolutely no issue with it at all.

But how is this funding calculated? Is it a fixed amount per member?

Can we contrast the cost of employing individual sole traders as opposed to party members?

AdMMM · 27-01-2015 3:09pm

It's not quite a fixed amount. Depends on certain thresholds and also takes into account that parties in government have additional governmental resources available to them e.g. the Government PR office, Merrion Street

Here's a report that looks into the exact issue. HERE

Full disclosure, it was a report commissioned by the technical group, but statements on how things are calculated wouldn't be subject to any perceived bias.

hardybuck · 27-01-2015 3:15pm

AdMMM wrote: »

It's not quite a fixed amount. Depends on certain thresholds and also takes into account that parties in government have additional governmental resources available to them e.g. the Government PR office, Merrion Street

Here's a report that looks into the exact issue. HERE

Full disclosure, it was a report commissioned by the technical group, but statements on how things are calculated wouldn't be subject to any perceived bias.

Thanks, will have a look over at some stage.

Just on the press office on Merrion Street, they'd work for the Departments rather than the political parties.

robtri · 27-01-2015 8:08pm

AdMMM wrote: »

One of the biggest sticks that parties use to beat Independents with is they lack policies and research. You have to keep in mind that six political parties (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, People before Profit Alliance, Sinn Féin, the Labour Party and the Socialist Party) shared €12.9 million in exchequer funding in 2013.

That's a lot of firepower that can be used to carry out research, run focus groups and generally carry out activities that will benefit the party prior to an election.

Taking Fine Gael as an example, they received almost €5m in public funding in 2013, which means that every single one of their TDs benefit from how that money is spent.

The deck has always been stacked in favour of the big parties, this concession that Bertie Ahern made in a time of desperation actually just levelled the playing field a bit.

The term "Party Leaders Allowance" obviously looks bad and the Government certainly won't change how it's named because they can use it as leverage, but if it was called "Politicial Administration Allowance" or something to that effect, there would be absolutely no issue with it at all.

In principle it is a great system...

But in reality the money goes into the pockets of the independant TD's....

like all companies, any expense should be vouched.... instead of handed over no questions asked....

7upfree · 27-01-2015 8:56pm

hardybuck wrote: »

Education and HSE are both public sector.

My bad.

7upfree · 27-01-2015 8:57pm

Cabaal wrote: »

err but shouldn't TD's of any party and none be setting the example for other citizens to follow?

Just because Halligan CAN claim something doesn't mean he should,

If TD's claim less then that actually helps support the very idea of change that the same TD's could then spearhead.

Instead it seems people will claim the system needs changing but they'll happily use and abuse that same system in its current form.

Oh yeah. Turkeys, Christmas, etc. But is it any different to the rampant Social Welfare scamming? You have to change the system.

Sully · 27-01-2015 9:11pm

I'm assuming these Independent TDs, who are claiming their high expenses are justifiable so they can do policies and research, have receipts and matching documents to backup that their funds are generating such policies? We demand it from the parties and their representatives, but our Independents appear to get a pass even though they contribute sweet fanny adams.

AdMMM · 28-01-2015 11:18am

Sully wrote: »

I'm assuming these Independent TDs, who are claiming their high expenses are justifiable so they can do policies and research, have receipts and matching documents to backup that their funds are generating such policies? We demand it from the parties and their representatives, but our Independents appear to get a pass even though they contribute sweet fanny adams.

I think the Independents' proposed legislation that would have required their Leaders Allowance to be fully voucher in the same way. The Government rejected it and said they intend to legislate for it as part of a bigger piece. That was 2011 I think.

robtri wrote: »

In principle it is a great system...

But in reality the money goes into the pockets of the independant TD's....

like all companies, any expense should be vouched.... instead of handed over no questions asked....

I completely agree that all expenses should be vouched. I can't stand over what every Independent TD does, but if they're serious about being re-elected or even trying to do some good for their constituents, then they have to spend that money in the same ways as the parties does but do it in a more thrifty and laser focused way.

A TD that stuffs that money into their back pocket has no place in politics and the sooner the Government legislate for that money being vouched, the better,

On that note, you could then argue that the reason why the Government has delayed legislating for this is tactical i.e. the longer they leave it, the more Independents can be criticised.

7upfree · 28-01-2015 7:53pm

Sully wrote: »

I'm assuming these Independent TDs, who are claiming their high expenses are justifiable so they can do policies and research, have receipts and matching documents to backup that their funds are generating such policies? We demand it from the parties and their representatives, but our Independents appear to get a pass even though they contribute sweet fanny adams.

Expenses? Don't start now. As for contributing sweet fanny adams the same can be said for our Government "representatives".

Max Powers · 29-01-2015 1:51pm

on a different note, while i agree with a lot of comments here about most parties, i think it will end up as usual, picking the least worst options. Looking at some independents nationally (Paul Murphy, Ruth Coppinger etc) and indeed one party at least has fanned the flames of water protest to dangerous levels. Take Murphy TD, he was happy at the treatment of joan burton before Xmas but now trying to distance himself from just the language thrown at Michael D., there is a contradiction there. Id say the dog on the street knows that Murphy is these peoples defacto Dail representative and before you do your protest vote, have a think about what life would be like with people/parties like that in charge, say what you like about Fg,lab, FF but im fairly confident i can stand up and say what i like about them, have an opinion they do not like and dont have to fear a gang showing up at my door, work, trying to intimidate me, prevent me from doing my work, burning down my workplace etc etc. (that might seem a bit extreme there at the end but its gone to that stage already and could get worse)

Sully · 29-01-2015 8:12pm

AdMMM wrote: »

I think the Independents' proposed legislation that would have required their Leaders Allowance to be fully voucher in the same way. The Government rejected it and said they intend to legislate for it as part of a bigger piece. That was 2011 I think.

That's nice to know. But I am unaware of any legislation prohibiting TDs from showing where they spend their money and the results of such? If Independent TDs want to spend every single cent they can, claim as much expenses as they can and then hide behind the "Oh we need the money to research how to run the country by ourselves." and "I propose we prepare legislation to reveal where the money goes but until then, I am afraid I won't be participating. I need to be forced".

7upfree · 29-01-2015 9:14pm

Max Powers wrote: »

on a different note, while i agree with a lot of comments here about most parties, i think it will end up as usual, picking the least worst options. Looking at some independents nationally (Paul Murphy, Ruth Coppinger etc) and indeed one party at least has fanned the flames of water protest to dangerous levels. Take Murphy TD, he was happy at the treatment of joan burton before Xmas but now trying to distance himself from just the language thrown at Michael D., there is a contradiction there. Id say the dog on the street knows that Murphy is these peoples defacto Dail representative and before you do your protest vote, have a think about what life would be like with people/parties like that in charge, say what you like about Fg,lab, FF but im fairly confident i can stand up and say what i like about them, have an opinion they do not like and dont have to fear a gang showing up at my door, work, trying to intimidate me, prevent me from doing my work, burning down my workplace etc etc. (that might seem a bit extreme there at the end but its gone to that stage already and could get worse)

Wouldn't agree with the treatment of the president (and it's the same voice in all those video) but is what you listed above any different to the financial rape of the Irish people to placate bankers?

robtri · 29-01-2015 9:49pm

7upfree wrote: »

Wouldn't agree with the treatment of the president (and it's the same voice in all those video) but is what you listed above any different to the financial rape of the Irish people to placate bankers?

or did they do it all so when you went to the ATM you had money and you could buy stuff..... choose... no liquidity in the banks (i.e. no cash in thebanks, so every penny you had in banks was gone, not accessible, think about that, how would everyone buy even the basic food....
or take a Troika bailout and austerity package

which would you choose??? which way would you screw the country on the night...

Max Powers · 30-01-2015 10:37am

7upfree wrote: »

Wouldn't agree with the treatment of the president (and it's the same voice in all those video) but is what you listed above any different to the financial rape of the Irish people to placate bankers?

Just Michael D, not joan burtons treatment?
I think you have gone on a tangent there and I dont think you can compare the 2 things really for various reasons, bringing in taxes and spending cuts to try balance our books is necessary and lawful thing to do in our situation, Michael D or joan didnt bring in the bank guarantee, these people are complaining/rioting about having to pay for water, they are not there about the LPT and other taxes most people pay.
Bringing it back to the point i was making, look at behaviour of some of the TDs and parties in relation to our financial situation and water tax, they have been totally irresponsible at best and pouring petrol on disgraceful behaviour at worst. to sum it up, as bad as its been under the present govt and previous ones with increased taxes etc , what would life be like under the likes of Murphy et al.

AdMMM · 30-01-2015 12:33pm

Sully wrote: »

That's nice to know. But I am unaware of any legislation prohibiting TDs from showing where they spend their money and the results of such? If Independent TDs want to spend every single cent they can, claim as much expenses as they can and then hide behind the "Oh we need the money to research how to run the country by ourselves." and "I propose we prepare legislation to reveal where the money goes but until then, I am afraid I won't be participating. I need to be forced".

My apologies, some further research reveals that the PLA has been renamed the Parliamentary Activities Allowance and now all recipients are required to submit a statement of expenditure (thus bringing Independents in line with the responsibilities of political parties).

SIPO 2013 Report wrote:

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Annual-Reports/2013-Annual-Report/AnnualReport2013/media/sipoc_ar_2013_english.pdf

Parliamentary Activities Allowance Act
The Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices)(Amendment) Act 2014 was
recently enacted by the Oireachtas. The Act replaces the Party Leaders Allowance with
the Parliamentary Activities Allowance. The Act provides that non-party members will
now be required to provide a Statement of Expenditure of the allowance to the Standards
Commission. In addition, the Commission may, following consultation and Ministerial
approval, issue guidelines in relation to the use of and reporting on the allowance. The
provisions of the Act come into effect on 1 July 2014.

7upfree · 30-01-2015 3:08pm

robtri wrote: »

or did they do it all so when you went to the ATM you had money and you could buy stuff..... choose... no liquidity in the banks (i.e. no cash in thebanks, so every penny you had in banks was gone, not accessible, think about that, how would everyone buy even the basic food....
or take a Troika bailout and austerity package

which would you choose??? which way would you screw the country on the night...

It has been acknowledged by economists in the past fortnight (I think Honahan also chimed in) that the bank bailout of Anglo was completely unnecessary.

Some have also said that only one pillar bank (possibly BoI) should have continued trading.

Whichever way you look at it, the whole country in being billed and financially raped because of the activities of a few dozen people.

The aforementioned banks - which shouldn't even be trading if the rules of the capitalist system were followed through - are now, incredibly, repossessing homes. Applying the very rules which were changed to accommodate them.

Also incredibly, the EU (virtually) printed 1.2 TRILLION Euro to "stimulate growth" in the past month. In the past it was called printing money, now it's "quantitative easing".

So you can print money that doesn't exist, and yet expect a country like this to support EIGHT BILLION EURO on interest payments along every year?

The whole charade is completely laughable.

So please, don't trot out the ATM argument. It's beneath you.

And utter bollocks.

7upfree · 30-01-2015 3:12pm

Max Powers wrote: »

Just Michael D, not joan burtons treatment?
I think you have gone on a tangent there and I dont think you can compare the 2 things really for various reasons, bringing in taxes and spending cuts to try balance our books is necessary and lawful thing to do in our situation, Michael D or joan didnt bring in the bank guarantee, these people are complaining/rioting about having to pay for water, they are not there about the LPT and other taxes most people pay.
Bringing it back to the point i was making, look at behaviour of some of the TDs and parties in relation to our financial situation and water tax, they have been totally irresponsible at best and pouring petrol on disgraceful behaviour at worst. to sum it up, as bad as its been under the present govt and previous ones with increased taxes etc , what would life be like under the likes of Murphy et al.

The local property tax? Which went straight to Irish Water? That tax? :roll eyes:

Necessary and lawful? Just read what you posted again. And slowly this time. Where was the law when the country was going down the toilet?

The same "law" that protects a private entity which should never have existed.

"Lawful" is certainly not a term to be bandied about regarding modern-day Ireland.

The only ones who do are the "capitalist" supporters of those who have stripped the place bare and who are now committing a financial rape of a people.

Max Powers · 30-01-2015 4:08pm

7upfree wrote: »

The local property tax? Which went straight to Irish Water? That tax? :roll eyes:

Necessary and lawful? Just read what you posted again. And slowly this time. Where was the law when the country was going down the toilet?

The same "law" that protects a private entity which should never have existed.

"Lawful" is certainly not a term to be bandied about regarding modern-day Ireland.

The only ones who do are the "capitalist" supporters of those who have stripped the place bare and who are now committing a financial rape of a people.

You didn't answer my question, you ok with treatment of Joan Burton? You then went of on numerous tangents about the law,capitalism, bla bla bla.I think the only part of your text related to my post was the "lawful" bit, yes they were lawful and necessary, we were and are still in major negative balance of payments territory, even putting our bank debts to one side we would still have needed cuts and taxes, its not pretty, no one likes it but yes they are lawful and necessary.

wellboytoo · 30-01-2015 4:52pm

Max Powers wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, you ok with treatment of Joan Burton? You then went of on numerous tangents about the law,capitalism, bla bla bla.I think the only part of your text related to my post was the "lawful" bit, yes they were lawful and necessary, we were and are still in major negative balance of payments territory, even putting our bank debts to one side we would still have needed cuts and taxes, its not pretty, no one likes it but yes they are lawful and necessary.

Hope that goes well for you

7upfree · 02-02-2015 12:00am

Max Powers wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, you ok with treatment of Joan Burton? You then went of on numerous tangents about the law,capitalism, bla bla bla.I think the only part of your text related to my post was the "lawful" bit, yes they were lawful and necessary, we were and are still in major negative balance of payments territory, even putting our bank debts to one side we would still have needed cuts and taxes, its not pretty, no one likes it but yes they are lawful and necessary.

As you say yourself, blah, blah, blah. More errant nonsense, defending a system which has failed utterly. And is still going down the pan.

Finnbar01 · 02-02-2015 1:39am

robtri wrote: »

or did they do it all so when you went to the ATM you had money and you could buy stuff..... choose... no liquidity in the banks (i.e. no cash in thebanks, so every penny you had in banks was gone, not accessible, think about that, how would everyone buy even the basic food....
or take a Troika bailout and austerity package

which would you choose??? which way would you screw the country on the night...

But why did we save Anglo Irish bank? Wasn't that bank a wholesale bank, a bank with even no atms?

I think we should have let that bank go.

wellboytoo · 02-02-2015 8:59am

7upfree wrote: »

As you say yourself, blah, blah, blah. More errant nonsense, defending a system which has failed utterly. And is still going down the pan.

It's arrant! but errant might be a Freudian slip seeing as it means straying from the norm, as in your norm.

wellboytoo · 02-02-2015 9:03am

Finnbar01 wrote: »

But why did we save Anglo Irish bank? Wasn't that bank a wholesale bank, a bank with even no atms?

I think we should have let that bank go.

In hindsight we probably should have, but remember some of the biggest cash deposits in Anglo at the time were Credit Union deposits, so that would have bust a clatter of them, and your and my money would be gone?

Max Powers · 02-02-2015 11:08am

7upfree wrote: »

As you say yourself, blah, blah, blah. More errant nonsense, defending a system which has failed utterly. And is still going down the pan.

ah now 7up, that is just a childish post, surely you are better than that at trying to defend your stance, unwilling to continue the conversation or answer straight questions on your position. That and some of your other posts may as well have read 'liar liar pants on fire' for all its relevance to what is being discussed. I will take it from you continuous avoiding the question that you were happy with the treatment of Joan Burton (couple months back) in tallaght.

Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

Comments