Dublin West General Election - SEE MOD NOTE POST 19.

Generally speaking, I cannot comprehend how any unattached or aspiring politician finds themselves pondering a choice between Renua or Sinn Féin, they must have very few core values if they can make that sort of leap so easily.

chucknorris wrote: »

I laughed when I read the article, although I knew yesterday it was coming. :eek:

So half of it is from the 2011 by-election and the other half of it is from last years by-election.

The journalist got the info straight from FF headquarters. Nasty game but not surprising. Luckily those monies were used to pay for office, leaflet drops etc, but more importantly - with party approval. ;););););)

yes so if the party spent the money shoudn't the party get the reimbursment?

January wrote: »

Why? He ran for the party on those occasions, it's not like he took the money and then resigned from the party.

yes they invested in him, they are not looking for all 70k they spent on him back, thats the risk they took, they are looking for the 17k state reimbursement back.

im not even sure how it is that he 'has' the money that was reimbursed for the party's spending,... Indo reporting *

*not really sure what the actual situation is, or my opinion of what should happen but lets argue it out.

Rang my dad to tell him that McGuinness had resigned, and it was quickly decided amongst three of us with votes that he's getting a number one or two if he runs. Had someone canvass at the door from Chambers last week, it was an interesting experience. Wanted to leave in literature already, I didn't think that was allowed? Should have gotten Dad to take it, he just shut the door.

athtrasna wrote: »

There's no way they can have legally spent that much on him. There are strict election spending limits

this is about two by-elections

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Election-Reports/Dublin-West-Bye-Election-of-27-October-2011/Report.html they spent €33,905.61 on him the first bye-election and €37,107 in the second Chapter 3 Donations and election expenses disclosed - Standards in Public Office Commission

ThisRegard wrote: »

They chose to spend the money on him, and they chose to not have him run in the forthcoming elections. Although they have been compared many times, they aren't really the Mafia in which a person is expected to be a member until death.

yes they chose to spend 70k on him, so they sunk 53k on him, but should they not get back the 17k back in state reimbursement.

Grudaire wrote: »

I don't understand the point, if he was given money to run a campaign (which he did) then why would they get the money back!? It's not like he gets to pocket the money?

Is there more to this story, because FF seem pretty petty following up on what can only be described as a small brown paper envelope worth of money?

the money was spent by the national party agent so they should get the reimbursement, thats why I dont understand how he even got the reimbursement.

All candidates in all elections who exceed a certain percentage of vote are directly paid just over €8000 from the state to cover expenses. These are not only related to expenses taken on by the party, but expenses such as not working during the campaign etc.

So every candidate who finished in the top of the last two by-elections (2011 and 2014) would have also got this directly. There is no obligation to give the monies back to any party. The rules set that out.

The reason this particular one is very interesting is that in FF HQ, the left had is not talking to the right hand, because had they done so, they would know that David McGuinness has written agreement from HQ to use the refund toward costs after the by-election of May 2014, to do a number of things.

David is a Mulhuddart county councillor, but because he ran in two by-elections in Dublin west, he was also a representative of the entire constituency since 2011. You cannot take 10,000 votes from the whole constituency and just go back and only work in Mulhuddart once the election is over - not good.

The constituency office in Blanchardstown village was open since last summer and that in its self would have gobbled the majority of €8000 between rental and running.

So whomever tried to do the dirty in the media, failed to realise there was an agreed way to spend that refund by headquarters themselves and it looks bad that they presented this to the media without realising the person in HQ had agreed to it, because no one from FF HQ has contacted David before or since that article in regard to any monies so it looks dirty.

I'd imagine the socialist representative and the SF representative also used the refund to run their respective constituency offices and in agreement with their parties. This is normal procedure for most parties and representatives.

David is very relaxed about it all as he seen this coming and probably expected them to get even dirtier, but more so because he has it signed, sealed and delivered. Thank god. :cool:

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

As expected Varadkar and Catherine Noone selected by FG to run in the constituency. I think a good proportion of Varadkar's votes are personal rather than party votes, so I don't think FG have enough of a core vote to get both candidates elected. Being parachuted into the constituency will harm Noone's votes.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fg-selects-noone-to-contest-dublin-west-with-varadkar-1.2174687

Pity to see Kieran Dennison with draw. He did a bit for the area.

What Catherine Noone do/ going to do for the area in less than a year. Is this the effect that positive discrimination can have?

oblivious wrote: »

Pity to see Kieran Dennison with draw. He did a bit for the area.

What Catherine Noone do/ going to do for the area in less than a year. Is this the effect that positive discrimination can have?

I found Dennison very helpful as a constituent.

I worry about quotas and positive discrimination. Personally I don't think there is anything to particularly stand in the way of a woman to do the work and strive to be a public rep. There are some good and bad male politicians, there are some excellent female politicians, but if positive discrimination is going to land us with a load more Heather Humphreys then I'm not optimistic about it.

Godge wrote: »

Thinking of which, any chance that could backfire with women candidates being seen as token for that reason, resulting in less female TDs being elected?

If good candidates are been quietly been asked not to stand and remove themselves. Then possibly yes, especially if they are been flowing into a area and not come up though the system/CC

chucknorris wrote: »

All candidates in all elections who exceed a certain percentage of vote are directly paid just over €8000 from the state to cover expenses. These are not only related to expenses taken on by the party, but expenses such as not working during the campaign etc.

So every candidate who finished in the top of the last two by-elections (2011 and 2014) would have also got this directly. There is no obligation to give the monies back to any party. The rules set that out.

which rules?

Electoral Act, 1997 Section 21 Reimbursement of election expenses of candidates
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0025/sec0021.html#sec21

1.8 Claiming a reimbursement of election expenses

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Guidelines/Election-Guidelines/D%C3%A1il-Bye-Elections-10-October-2014/Candidates-and-Election-Agents/Claiming-a-reimbursement-election-expenses.html

1.8.1 A qualified candidate is entitled to apply for a reimbursement of election expenses. In order to qualify for a reimbursement, a candidate must either:
- be elected; or
- if not elected, have exceeded one quarter of what would have been the quota in that constituency were the full number of members of the Dáil for the constituency to be elected.
1.8.2 The maximum amount which may be reimbursed is the lesser of €8,700 or the actual amount of the election expenses incurred on behalf of the candidate.
1.8.3 In calculating the amount of the reimbursement it should be noted that account may be taken of:
- expenses incurred on behalf of the candidate and accounted for by the candidate's election agent; and
- expenses incurred on behalf of the candidate by the candidate's political party and accounted for by the national agent.

David McGuinness didn't declare any spending on his election, so how can he be reimbursed for it?
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Election-Reports/Dublin-West-Bye-Election-of-27-October-2011/Report.html
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Election-Reports/Dublin-West-Bye-Election-of-27-October-2011/Fianna-F%C3%A1il-David-McGuinness.pdf exspenses nil
and
party's accounted for expenses http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Election-Reports/Dublin-West-Bye-Election-of-27-October-2011/Fianna-F%C3%A1il.pdf
one is accounted for, expenditure the other non-accounted for, non-expenditure.

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Election-Reports/Dublin-West-Longford-Westmeath-Bye-Elections/Chapter%203%20Donations%20and%20election%20expenses%20disclosed.html
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Election-Reports/Dublin-West-Longford-Westmeath-Bye-Elections/Candidates-Election-Expenses-Statements.pdf page 152 expenses nil
and if I could find the Fianna Fail party expenditure for the 2014 by-elwction it would also show the difference between accounted for, expenditure and non-accounted for, non-expenditure.

chucknorris wrote: »

This bit that you posted -> "if not elected, have exceeded one quarter of what would have been the quota in that constituency were the full number of members of the Dáil for the constituency to be elected."

In other words, candidates get it no matter what, based on the percentage they receive, as I already mentioned, although I didn't mention 25%.

With that in mind, McGuinness came second on both occasions in the last two by-elections. Donnelly would have got it as he exceeded a quarter, as too would coppinger in 2011 who then came 3rd. Nulty would also have got it.

And here's the definition from SIPO.



As I already mentioned in a previous post, there was an agreed structure of payments on how the monies would be spent in the constituency and they were spent on that basis. For example, if you were to take the office at €600 a month for say 10 months, that's €6000 alone. As crazy as it seems, FF HQ do not pay a cent for constituency offices.

can you link to the thing rather the excerpts as images please, that says that a candidate doesn't have to give the reimbursement for their expenses to the party, he didn't have any expenses, so its not talking about case where the candidate declares nil expenses.

David McGuinness (election agent on his behalf) didn't declared or account for any expenses so he can't any back thus they should go to the party who did declare and account for expenses.

can't find the most up to date law, but I don't think the relevent other the Names or amounts have changed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0025/sec0021.html#sec21

(d) No payment in respect of the reimbursement of election expenses of a candidate shall be made under this section unless and until the Public Offices Commission has—

(i) certified to the Minister for Finance that the relevant statement of election expenses and statutory declaration have been furnished by the election agent of the candidate to the Commission under section 36 ,

(ii) certified to the said Minister that the said statement was completed in accordance with guidelines issued by the Commission under section 4 , and complies with the provisions of Part V , and

(iii) furnished to the Minister for Finance details of the amount of the actual expenses incurred by the candidate.

chucknorris wrote: »

I could, but I won't. The URL is in the image. I found it handy enough and you've thrown up old info to question this and that. All power to you.

As I've said and it's the last time I'll do so - candidates who exceed a certain percentage of vote automatically get the payment. yes, there are other conditions that could get it, but that specific one is also good enough. Don't mix it up with personal expenses.

Don't take me to be dismissive by the way. The Fianna Fail issue is a matter of expecting these monies to be given back when they were spent in agreement with party HQ.

It's now April 16th and they still haven't requested them back formally. They probably won't, but you never know. Maybe they found the agreement on how it would be used and sure the office in the village was there in all fairness.

direct links pls,that way eveyone can see what year the text your citing is from, or what the other text is around it, if you can prove that thats not the most up to date law on the subject..., this is the 2011 amendmending act which says Minister can change amounts but it doesn't change the 1997 law otherwise afaik http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0014/print.html#sec4

don't mix it up with personal expenses?, your talking about lost money for being off work, constituency offices costs, etc, etc, thats got nothing to do with reimbursments for declared and accounted for election expenses ( his party declared and accounted for expenses he didn't)

Care to declare an interest Expectationlost? Whats the angle?

Chuck has declared his connection on many occasions.

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Councillors, receive a annual representative payment and expenses, which is paid by their respective Local Authority. The following links are from Fingal County Council.

2011 Representative Payment
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/media/Councillors%20Representative%20Payments%202011.pdf

2011 Expenses
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/media/Councillors%20Allowances%20and%20Expenses%202011.pdf

2012 Representative Payment
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/media/Councillors%20Representative%20Payments%202012.pdf

2012 Expenses
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/media/Councillors%20Allowances%20and%20Expenses%202012.pdf

2013 Representative Payment
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/media/Councillors%20Representative%20Payments%202013.pdf

2013 Expenses
http://www.fingalcoco.ie/media/Councillors%20Allowances%20and%20Expenses%202013.pdf

2014 not currently published

Of course - they get published in the newspapers annually as well.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Care to declare an interest Expectationlost? Whats the angle?

Chuck has declared his connection on many occasions.

I'll declare that I have no connection to anyone, was just interested in politics and finding out the detail of that point.

expectationlost wrote: »

I'll declare that I have no connection to anyone, was just interested in politics and finding out the detail of that point.

Your interest is consistent expectationslost. You have questioned and queried expenses/perks and remuneration on boards.ie across the country, in Northern Ireland the republic.

Nothing wrong with that at all. Anytime I read something in the papers, I look in to it casually, particularly if it was something I wasn't aware of.

For example, the banking hour that civil servants were/are entitled to, to do their banking. It was in the news a few weeks ago and that took my interest because in my own job, if I take an hour, I have to give it back.

The only thing I would say is, sometimes when reading a paper and seeing an article such as the one that brought you here - yes question the technicalities, but also question the motivation for such an article. It was dirty and FF HQ have gone to ground since that article.

Watch Claire Byrne on Monday night ;););););)

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Based on what you are saying he was earning well above the average industrial salary when you combine these two sources of income for most of this period.

Come on Pat, I was hoping you would give the three costs a stab, rather than the above.

The average industrial wage in 2012 was give or take, €40k gross.

All Fingal county councillors earn 17k plus 6k before deductions.

Yes if you add their day job on top, it'll exceed the average industrial wage, but anyone who does two jobs would exceed the average industrial wage. Luckily for councillors, they cannot just walk in to a councillors job, they have to go before the people.

expectationlost wrote: »

looked into this further, someone pointed me to an amendment to the 1997 Electoral act in 1998

Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1998
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0004/sec0011.html#sec11

the explaination of which at the time the Bill was debated was
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1998/03/31/00019.asp
so its about restricting expenses claims to the candidate constituency, not sure it fully clarifies that only candidates can get state reimbursements.

Could I ask if you are actually go to partake in actual discussion on this thread or if you are just going to continually post links.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95092880&postcount=221
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95092880#post95092880

I thought Jack Chambers' lack of interest in canvassing for the Yes vote was conspicuous, he'd have gone to the opening of a crisp bag for publicity prior to this.

In fairness the others across party lines did seem to work hard for it especially Roderic O'Gorman, Leo Varradkar, TJ Clare, Ted Leddy, John Walsh, Joan Burton.

Not a Labour fan but sorry to hear of Joan Burton getting verbal abuse at Clonsilla station particularly when the canvass was for a positive cause.

athtrasna wrote: »

Apparently Chambers was canvassing in Clonsilla last week but for himself as a general election candidate and didn't mention the referendum at all.

Towing the party line so.

I think Averil Power made an error accepting live interviews last night after the day of recriminations, she was definitely upset by the days battle and she is normally very confident.

I think the events of Bob Aylward in and Averil out will throw Fianna Fails lack of diversity and age profile into sharp relief. Added to that the McGuinness issue locally, I would say Chambers is starting from a very low mark and I wouldnt give him a chance personally.