Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sinn Fein come clean on the bank guarantee

Options
  • 11-02-2011 10:33am
    #1
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭


    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elections/latest-news/sf-defends-record-on-bank-guarantee-2535802.html
    SINN Fein yesterday stood over its decision to vote for the State bank guarantee in September 2008 -- but not any of its implications.
    When the original vote on the guarantee was taken in the Dail, following the fateful night when the Government decided upon the measure to save the banking system, Sinn Fein surprised many with their approach by supporting the move to protect depositors.
    Ever since they've tried to hide from the decision, while the Labour Party has associated them with backing the guarantee.
    It seems Sinn Fein have decided to acknowledge that they did in fact vote for the bank guarantee, regardless of what Mary Lou McDonald (on Pat Kenny) and many posters here were claiming a few weeks ago.

    Ironically, I actually agree with SF and FG's version of events that they were bounced into the guarantee by Fianna Failure - if all the information was on the table, and the government had done things properly, then I don't think anyone other than the government would have voted for this disastrous guarantee.

    What worries me about the whole episode was not that SF (and others) were conned into supporting the guarantee, it was the way the SF supporters here dishonestly pretended that SF had not supported the guarantee, in spite of the public record. We are going to need a higher standard of ethics from our political parties - there's no point in ditching one bunch of dishonest careerists and replacing them with another party whose supporters (and representatives) have little regard for the truth.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ishvalian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 52 ✭✭ishvalian


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Ironically, I actually agree with SF and FG's version of events that they were bounced into the guarantee by Fianna Failure - if all the information was on the table, and the government had done things properly, then I don't think anyone other than the government would have voted for this disastrous guarantee.

    Is it not the oppositions place to Question the current Government's decisions rather than be "Bounced" into agreement. They have agreed with the decision so they are equally responsible in my eyes. The fact that they have told bare faced lies about agreeing to it just shows them for what they are.


  • Options
    #3
    Kasabian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,689 ✭✭✭Kasabian


    I think the more worrying aspect is that the Government knew about the problem with the banks , primarily Anglo in Feb 2008 but didn't act till the eleventh hour.


  • Options
    #4
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Still banging on about this?

    And bolstering your view by quoting a slanted little piece by Sindo editor Fionnan Sheahan (who is hardly an impartial observer of this election!) which curiously omits any actual quotes from the Sinn Fein meeting when, according to you, they “came clean” about their vote Sept 2008.

    AFAIK Sinn Fein has never denied that they voted yes in that first vote, before any of the terms of the guarantee had been worked out. Once the terms of the guarantee were presented, they voted against it. The issue is whether that constitutes support for the guarantee that came into being. IMO, no, but I suppose, at a stretch, that that is open to interpretation.

    An analogy:

    You and two associates go to a bank to arrange a loan. The bank manager says, "lads, things are crazy here today, I'm not sure what terms I can offer you, it'll take 2 weeks to work that out, but shall I go ahead and work it out? You do want a loan?" You say yes, we do want a loan, we'll be back in 2 weeks time to hear the terms.
    You return in 2 weeks and the bank manager says here's the deal: a term of 50 years at 20% percent interest. You are shocked and say no way, but your associates both want the deal, and they overrule you.
    Some people would say Monty Burnz agreed to that crappy loan (because after all, you did say in meeting #1 that you wanted a loan). Other people -- including Monty Burnz, presumably -- would say that he hadn't because he didn't agree to the terms of the loan.
    A few months on, it becomes clear to all that that loan is a disaster, and your associates are saying, "Monty Burnz agreed the loan! He came with us to the bank, he told the manager he wanted it!" You're saying, "No, let me explain . . ." and they scream "LIAR!!"

    And BTW, I am not a “Shinner.” I don’t belong to any political party in Ireland (I am a US Democrat though). I do think that Sinn Fein’s position has been misrepresented though, and it’s unjust to brand Mary Lou MacDonald a liar and an “arrogant little bitch” (I know that your OP was quoting a post in another forum, but you chose to begin the thread that way, setting the ugly tone).


  • Options
    #5
    Triangla
    Registered Users Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Triangla


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Still banging on about this?


    An analogy:

    You and two associates go to a bank to arrange a loan. The bank manager says, "lads, things are crazy here today, I'm not sure what terms I can offer you, it'll take 2 weeks to work that out, but shall I go ahead and work it out? You do want a loan?" You say yes, we do want a loan, we'll be back in 2 weeks time to hear the terms.
    You return in 2 weeks and the bank manager says here's the deal: a term of 50 years at 20% percent interest. You are shocked and say no way, but your associates both want the deal, and they overrule you.
    Some people would say Monty Burnz agreed to that crappy loan (because after all, you did say in meeting #1 that you wanted a loan). Other people -- including Monty Burnz, presumably -- would say that he hadn't because he didn't agree to the terms of the loan.
    A few months on, it becomes clear to all that that loan is a disaster, and your associates are saying, "Monty Burnz agreed the loan! He came with us to the bank, he told the manager he wanted it!" You're saying, "No, let me explain . . ." and they scream "LIAR!!"


    Worst analogy ever.

    They voted for the bank guarantee which was tantamount to writing a blank cheque for someone you don't even trust.

    Either naive or stupid action in my opinion.

    Plus a bit liberal with the truth for denying it in cases.


  • Options
    #6
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Still banging on about this?

    And bolstering your view by quoting a slanted little piece by Sindo editor Fionnan Sheahan (who is hardly an impartial observer of this election!) which curiously omits any actual quotes from the Sinn Fein meeting when, according to you, they “came clean” about their vote Sept 2008.

    The point I am making is that SF did indeed - incontrovertibly, by their own admission - vote for the guarantee. However, when we had a thread about Mary Lou McDonald misrepresenting (I believe you can't say 'lying' on the politics forum) the truth and claimimg that they voted against it, some clown pulled up a reference to the subsequent 'terms and conditions' vote a month later that SF did vote against, and all the Shinners piled in to call me a liar, and the thread was shut down. It's not relevant to be honest who wrote the linked piece - that is merely there to prevent the Shinners shouting me down again by lying about the guarantee as happened last time.

    As I was stating, I don't see why Shinners here think it's acceptable, useful or progressive to replace one gang of guys with no respect for the truth, or honour, or respect, with another one in the shape of SF. Depressingly low standards from the guys trying to sell themselves as the 'new broom' and the solution to the FFailure mess.

    I take some of the other points you make - if I did indeed quote something that called her an 'arrogant little bitch' (I'd have to check) then that was a mistake and can only be excused by the fact that I was posting in a bit of a rush.

    Edit: I had a look there and yeah that quote is in it, my bad. But the wider point I'm making there is in the original post too...
    What do we think folks? This is one of my concerns about Sinn Fein - their Fianna Failure-like flexible attitude towards the truth.
    The thread in question...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    The point I am making is that SF did indeed - incontrovertibly, by their own admission - vote for the guarantee.

    Sigh. They admit (as they always have, AFAIK) that they voted yes in the first vote on Sept 30 2008. They do not admit that they "voted for the bank guarantee" because although they had voted to support a guarantee in theory (and did so based on assurances from Lenihan about what the terms would entail -- assurances that turned out to be false), when the terms were presented, it was a bad deal and they voted against the actual guarantee.
    IMO, with this sequence of events, it cannot be said that they voted for the present bank guarantee any more than Monty Burnz can be said to have agreed the bank loan that his associates foolishly accepted (per my analogy).
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    However, when we had a thread about Mary Lou McDonald misrepresenting (I believe you can't say 'lying' on the politics forum) the truth and claimimg that they voted against it, some clown pulled up a reference to the subsequent 'terms and conditions' vote a month later that SF did vote against, and all the Shinners piled in to call me a liar, and the thread was shut down. It's not relevant to be honest who wrote the linked piece - that is merely there to prevent the Shinners shouting me down again by lying about the guarantee as happened last time.

    I am the "clown" you refer to, and I explained why the link was pertinent -- why the vote on the guarantee terms was the crucial vote -- both in that thread and here.
    As far as other posters "piling on to call you a liar," I don't think anyone did. One poster joked that the mods should rename the thread "Monty Burnz caught lying on boards.ie," but that was an ironic reference to your having titled the thread "Mary Lou MacDonald caught lying on the radio" (which the mods did have to change). I didn't think MLM lied, I didn't think you lied either. A bit of a slagging that you took too much to heart.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    As I was stating, I don't see why Shinners here think it's acceptable, useful or progressive to replace one gang of guys with no respect for the truth, or honour, or respect, with another one in the shape of SF. Depressingly low standards from the guys trying to sell themselves as the 'new broom' and the solution to the FFailure mess.

    Again, I'm not a Shinner, but speaking for myself, I don't agree with your premise that SF have lied about this issue.


  • Options
    #8
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    The thread has had some of the more offensive posts that were directed at me deleted, so what you see today is not how it happened originally. I can assure you that I was called liar and I can assure you there nothing good natured about it. So good natured was it that none of those who did so apologised or acknowledged it in any way, shape or form.

    Regarding the bailout - the crucial vote was the bailout - yes/no vote. Sinn Fein voted for it. The subsequent 'what type of bailout' vote was a bit of a dead rubber, as a bailout was now going to happen, all that was to be decided was the flavour. Now I agree that SF didn't like the flavour of the bailout (or at least voted against it), but they most certainly did vote for a bailout of some sort and there's no getting around that.

    And we still have the outstanding issue of SF politicians and supporters being quite happy to misrepresent things for their own benefit - something not unique to them, but to my mind striking in how prevalent it is amongst Sinn Fein supporters. Incredibly fast to take offence, incredibly slow to admit fault, and incredibly flexible with regard to the truth - a worrying combination for a political party at the best of times.


  • Options
    #9
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    The thread has had some of the more offensive posts that were directed at me deleted, so what you see today is not how it happened originally. I can assure you that I was called liar and I can assure you there nothing good natured about it. So good natured was it that none of those who did so apologised or acknowledged it in any way, shape or form.

    Okay so. But I do recall that you demanded apologies from every poster (myself included) who thanked the post I referenced -- the joke about the thread title -- and to my mind that is quite thin-skinned. I don't think that ribbing constitutes an accusation of lying, but if you are talking about different posts which have since been deleted, fair enough.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Regarding the bailout - the crucial vote was the bailout - yes/no vote. Sinn Fein voted for it. The subsequent 'what type of bailout' vote was a bit of a dead rubber, as a bailout was now going to happen, all that was to be decided was the flavour. Now I agree that SF didn't like the flavour of the bailout (or at least voted against it), but they most certainly did vote for a bailout of some sort and there's no getting around that.

    Okay, just for clarity's sake, we're talking about the bank guarantee, not a bailout (I made the same mistake above, now edited).
    On the substance of your post, I disagree strenuously. The terms of the guarantee -- which banks were covered and which were not, which types of bonds were guaranteed and which were not, whether existing bonds would be covered or only those going forward, etc. -- all of these details were absolutely critical. I think most observers agree that a guarantee of some sort was desirable, but it should have been very different, much more limited, than the one that was presented and approved by the Dail in October 2008 (Labour and SF dissenting).
    With a properly structured, limited guarantee we wouldn't be where we are now. :(

    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    And we still have the outstanding issue of SF politicians and supporters being quite happy to misrepresent things for their own benefit - something not unique to them, but to my mind striking in how prevalent it is amongst Sinn Fein supporters. Incredibly fast to take offence, incredibly slow to admit fault, and incredibly flexible with regard to the truth - a worrying combination for a political party at the best of times.

    Meh, you still haven't convinced me that they misrepresented anything.


  • Options
    #10
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Monty, you're obsessed man


  • Options
    #11
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Okay, just for clarity's sake, we're talking about the bank guarantee, not a bailout (I made the same mistake above, now edited).
    It's Friday, my brain isn't working at all at all... :o
    With a properly structured, limited guarantee we wouldn't be where we are now.
    Agreed.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement