Charles Haughey was he the best politican this country has ever seen?

ANXIOUS

I am just putting this topic out there to see wht peoples thoughts on him or, i personal am to young to remember him. Howevr from what i have read about him i am of the opipion that he is the best politican this country has ever or will ever see again thanks

Not by a long shot. While it is difficult to compare politicians in differing times, I believe that within FF there were more capable figures during the time he was in charge. The Andrews, Ray McSharry and Dessie O'Malley spring to mind. His legacy within his own party is division and effectively the end of any chance of the Holy Grail of the overall majority...

Rebeller

ANXIOUS wrote:

Howevr from what i have read about him i am of the opipion that he is the best politican this country has ever or will ever see again thanks

Please tell me you're just playing Devil's Advocate here?

In Ireland we have a tendency to overhype those people who just do their job. Yes, there were certain postitive legislative changes introduced during The Big Crook's (TBC) reign. However, this is what politicians and Taoisigh are paid to do. We don't usually sing the praises of bus drivers because they actually drive the bus now do we!

TBC received a total of IE£8 million in "donations" during his career, as far as we know. We will probably never know how much he actually received.

Now, the fact that the most powerful public servant in the state was receiving corrupt payments from private individuals is not something that can be glossed over with a "ah sure, but he did great things for the country" type of attitude.

TBC laid the foundations for the corruption and incompetence that is a feature of modern Irish government. The corruption (and it was corruption) involved in pimping yourself to the highest bidder has lead to longstanding social degeneration through the construction of sprawling anti-social inadequate housing estates throughout Dublin and in other major cities. These developments were only allowed as a result of the payment of bribes to TBC and other public servants and local authority councillors. Corruption began at the top and slowly but surely filtered down the food chain. It's now an almost acceptable aspect of public life.

The shoddy third world style public services that we have come to expect exist as a direct result of the corruption of the 1980s where the State was seen as a personal fiefdom by those in power to be used for the betterment of vested interests particularly those who were willing to provide a "dig-out" (to use the current accepted term).

What adds insult to injury is that even after his death we were still subsidising his venal corruption through the provision of a State funeral. TBC committed treason in that he sold the State and the people he was meant to lead to the highest bidder .

Best politician this country has ever had?

You've got to be kidding:mad:

Mad Finn

ANXIOUS wrote:

I am just putting this topic out there to see wht peoples thoughts on him or, i personal am to young to remember him. Howevr from what i have read about him i am of the opipion that he is the best politican this country has ever or will ever see again thanks

that's got to be a troll

Rebeller

Rebeller wrote:

The shoddy third world style public services that we have come to expect exist as a direct result of the corruption of the 1980s where the State was seen as a personal fiefdom by those in power to be used for the betterment of vested interests particularly those who were willing to provide a "dig-out" (to use the current accepted term).

Not excusing his corruption, but let's not distort the truth. Public services in Ireland were shoddy and third world before Haughey ever got a backhander. The small fact that we were absolutely flat broke with a massive national debt in the late 70s and 80s would, for me, be more relevant to the por state of services, than what money was handed around in envelopes to who.

Have a suspicion this whole thread is a wind up though.

Manic Moran

He might be the best at playing politics, but was he the best leader the country's ever had?

Controversial, to put it mildly.

NTM

mike65

Troll-tastic!

Haughey would have been a "robber baron" in a previous era. He was pretty close to being one 20-25 years back. The man was corrupt, vain and short. I'm not convinced the three are not closely linked. He ruled FF like a tyrant, crushing dissent and decent people. He lived the life of Reilly while telling the rest of us to tighten our belts "as we as a nation are living beyond our means" ( spoken January 9th, 1980).

He played fast and loose with Northern ireland, doing his best to screw up good things to stoke up his own lurid Republicanism within FF and the electorate.

Haughey was a sh1t.

Mike.

Rebeller

mike65 wrote:

Haughey was a sh1t.

Couldn't have put it better myself:D

ANXIOUS

Just to put this out that no this isnt a troll i honestly do belive that he is the greatest politican ever. The reason i have choosen to put this post up now is because i was reflecting over it last night.

Rebeller wrote:

TBC laid the foundations for the corruption and incompetence that is a feature of modern Irish government.

Rebeller you could also look at this from a different angle that he laid the foundations for the celtic tiger, which has taken this country out of what would be described by todays standards as third world.

The reason i say he laid the foundations for the celtic tiger is mainly because of his master stroke if you will of re zoning the old docklands into use for fincial services which his was insturmental behind this. You can say "oh he only did it because he was getting paid this much or that much". The only thing that actually matters is that he did it and we are all reaping the benifits of it now. However none of the previous posts here mentioned any of the great and masterful things that he did for this country.

Im from his consitunce and my family would have voted for him many times. Having talked to my nanny in particular about cjh she said the two most profound things that she can remember from his reign of this great country are, firstly it was his famous speech where

"tighten our belts as we as a nation are living beyond our means"

Secondly it was his purchase of shirts that cost him a few hundred punts in paris.

The thing that strikes me about the things that she remembers is that no where even with the gift of hind sight she never mentioned that he took bribes whichis know evident to every tom dick and harry. When we look back at what he has done, we have to also have to understand that bribes etc etc wher commonplace then. And we should not judge this great man by todays standards, as it is a completly different ball game now.


I would ask people to please keep posting so i can get infomation from both sides thanks gary

ANXIOUS

mike65 wrote:

He played fast and loose with Northern ireland, doing his best to screw up good things to stoke up his own lurid Republicanism within FF and the electorate.
Mike.

Since when has it become a bad thing to be a republican after all he was a republican he wore his heart on his sleeve which i feel some if not most of the opposition leaders lack this.


As to whether Haughey aided IRA, we could just as easy say that Ted Heath helped the udf and others like them.....just no proof either did

Again i feel there is selective posting by some people on this board ie only negative points

lostexpectation

ANXIOUS wrote:

Just to put this out that no this isnt a troll i honestly do belive that he is the greatest politican ever. The reason i have choosen to put this post up now is because i was reflecting over it last night.




Rebeller you could also look at this from a different angle that he laid the foundations for the celtic tiger, which has taken this country out of what would be described by todays standards as third world.

The reason i say he laid the foundations for the celtic tiger is mainly because of his master stroke if you will of re zoning the old docklands into use for fincial services which his was insturmental behind this. You can say "oh he only did it because he was getting paid this much or that much". The only thing that actually matters is that he did it and we are all reaping the benifits of it now. However none of the previous posts here mentioned any of the great and masterful things that he did for this country.

Im from his consitunce and my family would have voted for him many times. Having talked to my nanny in particular about cjh she said the two most profound things that she can remember from his reign of this great country are, firstly it was his famous speech where

"tighten our belts as we as a nation are living beyond our means"

Secondly it was his purchase of shirts that cost him a few hundred punts in paris.

The thing that strikes me about the things that she remembers is that no where even with the gift of hind sight she never mentioned that he took bribes whichis know evident to every tom dick and harry. When we look back at what he has done, we have to also have to understand that bribes etc etc wher commonplace then. And we should not judge this great man by todays standards, as it is a completly different ball game now.


I would ask people to please keep posting so i can get infomation from both sides thanks gary

he was crooked, crooked is as crooked does, now and then, wasn't it reported this week that all those american companies bringing their hq's back to america cos the tax laws have changed back in their favour, so we' they here by his genius or they fall into his lap to avoid taxes in the US?

Erin Go Brath

ANXIOUS wrote:

I am just putting this topic out there to see wht peoples thoughts on him or, i personal am to young to remember him. Howevr from what i have read about him i am of the opipion that he is the best politican this country has ever or will ever see again thanks

You must be taking the mick with this comment! If you replace 'the best politician' with 'the best gangster' then your comment would have much more credibility. Time will view him as a corrupt, self-serving egomaniac. One of the biggest villians the country has ever seen possibly. I don't doubt he did a good job in his various government positons, but the majority of people like honesty and integrity from their public representatives. He gets a 0/10 on both counts!!!!!

ANXIOUS

lostexpectation wrote:

wasn't it reported this week that all those american companies bringing their hq's back to america cos the tax laws have changed back in their favour, so we' they here by his genius or they fall into his lap to avoid taxes in the US?

Come on now you cant be serious are you trying to say that cjh had a part in that as well, he laid the blocks for the ifsc over 30years ago, of course the american companies were getting something out of it as well, they got lower tax bills but that is common for most multi nationals all around the world to locate there operations in favourable tax locations,

jdivision

Sean Lemass for one was a better politician, succeeding in creating Ireland's first major economic boom. IFSC was Dermot Desmond's idea not CJH's, he just rolled with it.

Heraldoffreeent

These posts I always find fascinating for the sheer polarisation that the name Haughey engenders.
If the question was to be which leader of the 2oth century will be most remembered in 50 years time then the answer is definitly Have to be Haughey IMO,Probably followed by Michael Collins.

Some points about the Haughey era:

1, Haughey didn't invent corruption
2, It has not been proved that Haughey did any favours for any of his Benefactors
3, Haugheys position was undermined from the getgo by O'malley and colleys refusal to accept the democratic will of the FF party in electing CJH as leader,
4,The subsequent heaves against him in the early 80's caused much of the instability of that period.
5,People blame Haughey for the near bankruptcy of the country in the eighties, bear in mind that the country was Run by an FG /LAB coalition from
'82 to 87
6, the national debt quadrupled between 1982 and 1987.
7,Garret Fitzgerald decided to get rid of Mercedes Benz cars as State cars in the 82-87 period in an attempt to cut some spending and give an impression of fiscal propriety, funnily the contract was given to the Saab importer/distributor who happened to be a friend of Garrets!
8,The attempt to import arms was done with the knowledge of the senior cabinet members who then denied it and hung Haughey out to dry.
9,Haughey got Money from AIB,he reached a settlement with them and paid most of it back.
10,Fitzgerald borrowed money from AIB to buy shares in GPA, the floatation bombed, the loan was written off.


In my opinion the good that Haughey did, far outweighs the bad, the country we live in today is light years away from the country of the eighties, i grew up in the eighties,went to college then, and promply immigrated, I would prefer in hindsight that Haughey had been in power for the middle period of the eighties than Fitzgerald, at least something might have happened rather than the abslute idiocy of the fitzgerald years.

I hear the crys of Moral bankruptcy used in conjunction with CJH,If I knew then (82-87) how successful this country would be, me and many people of my generation would say f**k the Moral bankruptcy, lets go with the prosperity.

In conclusion:

Haughey? Great? Yes!

Gerard.C

WT Cosgrave is probably the best/most underated politicion of all time. He's one of the only politicions ever to have the interest of the country at heart. Most of 'em are just in it for themselves, if that makes sense.

Sgt. Sensible

mike65 wrote:

Troll-tastic!

Haughey would have been a "robber baron" in a previous era.

Naw that's a gross overestimation of his ability. At least true robber barons like Rockefeller gave away massive amounts of their ill gotten gains to public projects. Haughey was a sad little man with delusions of grandeur who achieved nothing and isn't fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Parnell, O'Connell or Hugh O'Neill to name 3.

Motley Crue

ANXIOUS wrote:

. from what i have read about him i am of the opipion that he is the best politican this country has ever or will ever see again

He was a criminal.

mackerski

ANXIOUS wrote:

The thing that strikes me about the things that she remembers is that no where even with the gift of hind sight she never mentioned that he took bribes whichis know evident to every tom dick and harry.

Perhaps he can be considered a genius relative to the dim voters that elected him.

Dermot

ANXIOUS

Motley Crue wrote:

He was a criminal.

And yet he was never convicted of any crime, what is the saying "innocent until proven guilty"

To reply to mackerski, As was seen in the most recent opipion poles that show bertie ahern has come out in top after the recent trouble, the people of ireland (except the majority of people on this board) never kick a man when he is down. So that is the reason i think she has choosen to remember him the way she has, not because she is dim, which i take offence to

mackerski

ANXIOUS wrote:

So that is the reason i think she has choosen to remember him the way she has, not because she is dim, which i take offence to

I wasn't singling any one Haughy voter out as dim - in fact, you didn't actually say that this particular relative ever voted for him - but rather that Haughy was able to hold public office repeatedly at a time when the dogs on the street were fully convinced that the man was a chancer. My assessment of the people who voted for him in spite of this is inescapable.

Dermot

mackerski

mackerski wrote:

Perhaps he can be considered a genius relative to the dim voters that elected him.

Maybe those voters saw the alternative, a coalition of the good (Garrett) and the very rich Socialist (Spring) and their desperate attempts to deal with the economy (30,000 a year leaving, record unemployment etc.) social change (divorce and and abortion etc.). Far from voting for Haughey being 'dim', it was actually the only possible sensible vote in 1987.

Zombrex

How stupid is this thread?

Haughey was a corrupt politician who entered politics as a way of gaining power, money and status for himself who cared little for the intergrety or rule of law of the Republic of Ireland. The very little good he actually did for the country was done at huge expense.

I find it hilaroius that people seem in such awe of the (few) good things he did for the country, as if we should all just be greatful he did anything good at all. He was the Taoiseach for 8 years, it was his job to do good things for the country!!

This bizzare attitude the Irish people have that we are so surprised and pleased if a politican actually manges (by skill or pure luck) to do anything good for the people they represent, that this rare occurance will forgive years of corruption and illegal activity ("Liam Lawlor did a lot for Lucan!", that kinda thing :rolleyes:). It is probably why we are still hearing tales of corruption nearly every week in the Irish media, and why Bertie can take 50,000 as a "loan" from business men that he never pays back and no one gives a sh!t (and Bertie isn't even doing that good a job). Its like we don't even understand what ethics in politics actually are.

Saying Haughey was the best politican ever, aside from being such a bizzare statement that I can't understand at all, is also an insult to the idea of public service. Holding Haughy higher than someone like Parnell is an insult to Irish politics. Holding Haughey higher than someone who works in local government for years trying to improve the life of his neighbours is an insult to Irish politics. Any who has ever served the public in Ireland without take advantage or being corrupt (that list is unfortunately probably small) were better politicans than Haughey.

Complete nonsense

Macy

Heraldoffreeent wrote:

5,People blame Haughey for the near bankruptcy of the country in the eighties, bear in mind that the country was Run by an FG /LAB coalition from
'82 to 87
6, the national debt quadrupled between 1982 and 1987.

Who opposed every spending cut during that time, making it harder to implement them? Who demonised the economists and said that the way out of this was to spend? Obviously you are ignoring Lynch's and Haughey's role in creating that financial mess as well.

Any turn around post 87, which Haughey supporters seem to give him sole credit for wouldn't have been possible without the Dukes lead Fine Gael supporting the minority Government when it came to matters of the national interest (in direct contrast with Haughey's position of oppose everything while in opposition). Haughey basically implemented the Fine Gael budget which collasped the Coalition - it's not like he even came up with the bloody ideas himself!

A deeply flawed individual, and simply a power hungry politician who'd do anything to be populist (see his opinions on the Anglo Irish Agreement and Extradition while in opposition compared to when he actually came into power). Bus travel and the IFSC (which was a Desmond innitiative originally championed by Ruairi Quinn btw) was about the height of his achievements.

If nothing else, he should never be forgiven for inflicting the PD's on us!

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Holding Haughy higher than someone like Parnell is an insult to Irish politics.

Because one was a morally corrupt man who took money and carried on with a married woman and the other was a morally corrupt man who carried on with a married woman...

I accept that Parnell was, of course, a far more remarkable politician than Haughey, but don't know if I put one on much higher ground than the other on the basis of morality.

Wicknight wrote:

Any who has ever served the public in Ireland without take advantage or being corrupt (that list is unfortunately probably small) were better politicans than Haughey.

So for you the defining characteristic of a politician is their integrity. That logic, of course, makes Jackie Healy Rae or, across the water, the late Screaming Lord Sutch outstanding, they didn't take a penny...

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Because one was a morally corrupt man who took money and carried on with a married woman and the other was a morally corrupt man who carried on with a married woman...

I wasn't aware Parnell was corrupt? Who did he take money from?

Deleted User wrote:

So for you the defining characteristic of a politician is their integrity. That logic, of course, makes Jackie Healy Rae or, across the water, the late Screaming Lord Sutch outstanding, they didn't take a penny...

No, I'm saying that an honest politican who has an unremakable political life and gets very little done is still better than a corrupt politican who still manages to do stuff. I'm not holding the first in particularly high regard, but its higher than the regard I have for the corrupt politican.

Haughey's corruption damaged not just himself, but it created an environment for all the other corruption you see around the same time. If the top man is doing it, whats the harm in me doing it. I would imagine that is exactly what Bertie was thinking when he accepted the 50,000.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

I wasn't aware Parnell was corrupt? Who did he take money from?

No no, I meant corrupt as in the 'immoral' definition. Not some narrower definition involving cash in envelopes.

Wicknight wrote:

No, I'm saying that an honest politican who has an unremakable political life and gets very little done is still better than a corrupt politican who still manages to do stuff.

We fundamentally differ. I'd rather a corrupt but competent politician over an honest but inept one any time.

Wicknight wrote:

Haughey's corruption damaged not just himself, but it created an environment for all the other corruption you see around the same time.

I agree with that. As I said above, even though I can appreciate why anyone would have voted for Haughey in 1987 - heck we'd have voted for Pol Pot to get that FG/Labour Coalition out - I really don't think he left a legacy that was remarkable enough to undo the wrong.

daithimac

I don't think that he was the manical evil little man that has been portrayed by some and regardless of that I don't think that people with the personalitys of alter boys make good national leaders.
I would shy away from calling him one of Irelands greatest national leaders. That is a distinction which should be awarded to Eamon DeValera. Someone who could claim the title of father of the nation

daithimac

daithimac wrote:

That is a distinction which should be awarded to Eamon DeValera. Someone who could claim the title of father of the nation

As the old line goes 'tin open, worms everywhere'...

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

No no, I meant corrupt as in the 'immoral' definition. Not some narrower definition involving cash in envelopes.

Ok, how was he "immoral"?

The only thing Parnell did was fall in love with a woman whos husband was refusing to give her a divorce because he thought once her aunt died he would get a ton of money. Once the husband granted a divorse Parnell married her

How you can compare that to what Haughey did is beyond me.

Deleted User wrote:

We fundamentally differ. I'd rather a corrupt but competent politician over an honest but inept one any time.

Fair enough. I would imagine that is how most Irish people feel, which is why we still smell the stink of corruption coming from Lenister House, long after Haughey has left it.

Corruption breeds corruption. If it is not routed out completely, even at the expense of competent but corrupt politicians, it will be maintained by the system itself.

It removes a fundamental aspect of democracy.

If the people cannot rely on their elected representatives to honestly represent them then what is the point of having a democracy in the first place. I mean the worst King in the world occationally did good things for his people, but that is hardly a reason for wanting to live under a monarchy rather than a democracy.

Although sometimes I think the modern Irish wouldn't care. Its rather ironic that we spend 800 years trying to get a full democracy in the Republic, and then once we get it we don't seem that pushed. We don't mind a king, so long as the king is one of ours.

mountainyman

daithimac wrote:

.
I would shy away from calling him one of Irelands greatest national leaders. That is a distinction which should be awarded to Eamon DeValera. Someone who could claim the title of father of the nation

De Valera raised money in America to found a nationalist newspaper. When he set it up it was in his name. Don't think he mentioned that in Brooklyn and Boston.

Haughey was a great politician. His legacy was malign he was basically a catamite for the boss class; but the decade he spent eating boiled chicken in Longford and Roscrea made him unassailable within FF and guranteed that he would be Taoiseach one day.

As a politician he was magnificent, as a leader he was a disaster.

MM

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

If the people cannot rely on their elected representatives to honestly represent them then what is the point of having a democracy in the first place. I mean the worst King in the world occationally did good things for his people, but that is hardly a reason for wanting to live under a monarchy rather than a democracy.

If everyone is corrupt why would they get worked up about corruption from their leaders? Why would a nation of sinners demand a saint?

MM

Zombrex

daithimac wrote:

I don't think that people with the personalitys of alter boys make good national leaders.

Richard Nixon would undoubtable agree ...

daithimac

as would Churchhill, FDR, and even mandella

Zombrex

daithimac wrote:

as would Churchhill, FDR, and even mandella

You think they (Nelsen Mandella??) were corrupt like Haughey??

What nonsense is this ... seriously where do Irish people get their political news?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Richard Nixon would undoubtable agree ...

But you would also agree that, though a crook and a rogue, Nixon was extremely competent at foreign policy. He should be recognised for scaling down US involvement in Vietnam and improving relations with China just as much as Watergate. The point in relation to Haughey is that his whole career shouldn't be judged just through the prism of corruption, nor can it be ignored.

daithimac

FDR & churchill both drank amounts which by todays standards would suggest drinking problems. they both concealed Illnesses from there electorates. mandella Supported the ANC's campain of violence before his Imprisionment. If you want a posterboy for good clean leadership maybe Hitler would be of use

daithimac

daithimac wrote:

If you want a posterboy for good clean leadership maybe Hitler would be of use

Ummmmmm...Godwin's Law?

mike65

That wraps it up for this thread then!

Mike.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

But you would also agree that, though a crook and a rogue, Nixon was extremely competent at foreign policy.

But why do the Irish always think it is one or the other. Instead of Nixon I would want someone who is not corrupt and good at foreign policy.

If one tolerates corruption you never find this person, because he is probably going to excel in an environment where corrupt people excel.

The actual harm Haughey did to the country was not only the money he took, and how that effected his office, but also the environment that his corruption created.

Deleted User wrote:

He should be recognised for scaling down US involvement in Vietnam and improving relations with China just as much as Watergate. The point in relation to Haughey is that his whole career shouldn't be judged just through the prism of corruption, nor can it be ignored.

Well to be honest I'm struggling to find things that Haughey did that were above and beyond. I mean we should be hardly falling over ourselfs to praise him simply doing his job.

daithimac

ye I got me a bitch slapping there.:D
I still have to say however that my point is accurate.
The people who can do the most in the service of the state are not always its most upstanding citizens.
This is undoubtly the case with regard to CJH

Zombrex

daithimac wrote:

FDR & churchill both drank amounts which by todays standards would suggest drinking problems.

That isn't corruption

daithimac wrote:

they both concealed Illnesses from there electorates.

Neither is that

daithimac wrote:

mandella Supported the ANC's campain of violence before his Imprisionment.

Neither is that

Do you actually know what Haughey did?

He took millions in personal money from certain interests, putting him in position of debt to these interests. That is corruption. He was in debt to people other than the electorate who elected him. His interests lay else where.

Zombrex

daithimac wrote:

The people who can do the most in the service of the state are not always its most upstanding citizens.
This is undoubtly the case with regard to CJH

You cannot do the most in the service of the state and at the same time be corrupt. That is an oxymoron.

By definition of being corrupt Haughey wasn't doing the most in the service of the state, since he wasn't serving the state, he was surviving the interests of those who gave him,over the space of his career, close to 8 million euro.

daithimac

Wicknight wrote:

You cannot do the most in the service of the state and at the same time be corrupt. That is an oxymoron.

By definition of being corrupt Haughey wasn't doing the most in the service of the state, since he wasn't serving the state, he was surviving the interests of those who gave him,over the space of his career, close to 8 million euro.

Just out of interest could you site one occasion on which he was a servant to the Interests of the people who gave him money.

Macy

daithimac wrote:

Just out of interest could you site one occasion on which he was a servant to the Interests of the people who gave him money.

Goodman's Insurance Policies/ the lack of comeback over dodgy drawdowns of EU funding. Sorting out Ben Dunne's tax bill. Appointing Smurfit to the Telecom Eireann Board, and the subsequent property deals. NCB contracts as advisors on privatisations. Giving Celtic Helicopters confidential Aer Lingus reports and plans. The Kinsealy sewage system.

Zombrex

daithimac wrote:

Just out of interest could you site one occasion on which he was a servant to the Interests of the people who gave him money.

Since the very first time he took the money :eek:

I was amazed during the Bertie thing a few weeks ago that people don't get this. People (Irish people) seem to think that corruption is only when someone gives you money and specifically asks you to do something for them. That is not true (though as Macy points out there is a long list of Haughey doing this).

Being given money by someone, either as a loan or a gift, puts you in a position of debt to that person. That is why they do it They don't have to ask you specifically for anything, you are still in an unethical situation.

Say for example the money Haughey got from Dunne. Dunne doesn't have to specifically ask Haughey for anything, because once Haughey has accepted that money he is in an uneven position. How likely is it that Haughey will then, in his political job, work for situations that go against the interests of Mr. Dunne? Very unlikely. Dunne is helping fund Haugheys lifestyle, Haughey owes him, and probably expected more.

Say I'm a TD and you run a business in say delivery. You give me 100,000 euro as a gift (or as Bertie likes to call it a "loan"). Now you don't ask for anything back, because you don't need to. A year later I'm in a position to support or ignore a move to protect say the environment that will be damaging to your business. You don't have to ask me to do anything, I'm going to vote in support of your business because you have already given me 100,000 and I'm eternally grateful. You are my "friend" who has "helped me" with a large sum of money. You have done something for me, and I'm going to help you out.

That is the nature of Irish corruption. It is not specific bribes for specific things, its bank rolling your friends in the Dail so that they are your friends, and "share" the same political and economic out look as you.

Even if it actually innocent, and say Bertie's friends or Haughey's friends really were just helping him out (*cough* bullsh1t *cough*), it is still unethical because you will still create a conflict of interests, where in the future your political responsibility to those who voted for you may clash with the interests of those who have given you money in the past. What do you do then, ignore the interests of those who have helped you with serious money? Doubtful

mountainyman

daithimac wrote:

Just out of interest could you site one occasion on which he was a servant to the Interests of the people who gave him money.

He gave instructions as to the approach to be taken to pursuing the liabilities outstanding from the Dunne's family trust.
If the rich had been made to pay thei taxes, perhaps the rest of the country could have tightened its belt less.


MM

Macy

Wicknight wrote:

I was amazed during the Bertie thing a few weeks ago that people don't get this. People (Irish people) seem to think that corruption is only when someone gives you money and specifically asks you to do something for them. That is not true (though as Macy points out there is a long list of Haughey doing this).

Just to point out, examples were asked for so I gave them. Probably more if you research, but those spring to mind. Totally agree with the rest of your post, but with Haughey you also have to add in the massive tax evasion, as mountainyman points out at a time when he was telling the nation to tighten it's belt him and his mates were avoiding paying their share (I suppose another example of him benfitting his friends rather than the country).

jdivision

daithimac wrote:

Just out of interest could you site one occasion on which he was a servant to the Interests of the people who gave him money.

He set up a meeting between the Dunnes family trust and the Revenue that resulted in a far lower tax bill for them
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1419204&issue_id=12642