Anyone else like me?

legal-eagle

Seriously, I personally have no anger to politicans and bankers. All this talk of Fat cats, corrupt etc etc anyone else sick of it. Politicans by and large work their boll0x of particlurarly leaders of the country. They don't exactly make a million quid a year and get grief all the time, I wouldn't even begrudge them taking a bung here and there......so what. The worst thing is most people have no understanding of the global international credit crisis or even national politics yet are the loudest critics.

I'm quite indifferent to it all, the Lisbon Treaty is another example. How many of these voters really care about Ireland's involvement in Europe, does it really affect their day to day lives....most of the "No" voters (I know) reasons for not voting were pathetic and so inaccurate. Discuss

peasant

Whatever it is you're smoking ...I want none of it

mikemac

Legal-eagle, are you working in law?
Are you for sure that sector has experienced a downturn?
Or maybe you didn't as you are brilliant and congratulations on that. And maybe you got a pay rise to pay your extra levies.

But if you didn't then you are in same boat as everyone else, for example never buying a house but seeing your hope of a firesale evaporated by NAMA and the certainitly that your tax money would be spent on social and affordable housing when you couldn't even afford a house yourself

Sand

Mr Lenihan?

Liam Byrne

"Discuss"

The only discussion a post like that will prompt is whether you're living in the real world, or whether you're just on boards after coming off your Late Late "interview" with Tubridy.

So they're not "making a million"; that might be relevant if they were working for a blue-chip company somewhere, but they're working and being paid by US, so we're entitled to demand that they can do their job.

If they can't agree to do their job for the wages offered without taking backhanders and OTT expense, let them quit their job and go work somewhere that enables them to earn "millions".

Mind you, earning millions usually involves some talent and management ability, so I'd say they'd all be down the dole in no time.

Jarren

Keep taking those drugs:rolleyes:

mikemac

legal-eagle wrote: »

They don't exactly make a million quid a year and get grief all the time, I wouldn't even begrudge them taking a bung here and there......so what. The worst thing is most people have no understanding of the global international credit crisis or even national politics yet are the loudest critics.

What an arrogant statement!
Yep, the Yes side (and I voted yes) know all and anyone else is a fool?

So you know it all?

ronbyrne2005

They may work their b0ll1x off but usually only on local political stuff to keep their voters happy so they will be reelected. They use government/taxpayers resources to ensure their reelection in a given constituency.

Also German, French and British politicians work just as hard and get a LOT less pay/pensions.

Mr. Incognito

Out and out Troll.

Politicians are elected to legislate.

Instead of legislating they spend their time commissioning reports so they don't have to make decisions. Bring in cost effective construction contracts to keep the sheep happy and refuse to make them mandatory thereby guaranteeing major over spend in public construction contracts that are given to connected parties (Think Jackie Healy Rae's son getting all the new government construction contracts in Kerry)

They deflect blame and take no responsibility and spend most of their time at home doing nixers and backhanders to get re-elected all the while paying themselves many many many times the average industrial wage and unvouched expenses thereby insulating themselves from average people and their problems.

They sit 96 days of the year-- do not sit on mondays or fridays and claim insane expenses, for example they are given 50 euro walking around money.

Bankers are no better. They pay themselves millions in bonuses and then engage in reckless lending, trading and proping up developers and hiking the price of property in this country to levels that ordinary people cannot get a loan. They they rely on our curropt politicans to wade in with our public money and extract no concessions to ensure these bankers actually start lending again and moving their primary responsibility to the shareholders who have just gotten burned when they spend 16 euro per share.

People like you, and your views have led to the proliferation and curruption of this country, inch by inch. Charlie robbing us blind, Bertie the Minister for finance with no bank account and and debts forgiven by the banks when he became Taoiseach. Your lack or anger, action or concern while we are all being financially raped ensures that there will be no Ireland left for our children to inherit. Enjoy emigration sir where you will still have no opinion but this time as a non national you will also have no say.

prinz

legal-eagle wrote: »

Seriously, I personally have no anger to politicans and bankers. All this talk of Fat cats, corrupt etc etc anyone else sick of it.

Yes.

legal-eagle

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Out and out Troll.

Politicians are elected to legislate.

Instead of legislating they spend their time commissioning reports so they don't have to make decisions. Bring in cost effective construction contracts to keep the sheep happy and refuse to make them mandatory thereby guaranteeing major over spend in public construction contracts that are given to connected parties (Think Jackie Healy Rae's son getting all the new government construction contracts in Kerry)

They deflect blame and take no responsibility and spend most of their time at home doing nixers and backhanders to get re-elected all the while paying themselves many many many times the average industrial wage and unvouched expenses thereby insulating themselves from average people and their problems.

They sit 96 days of the year-- do not sit on mondays or fridays and claim insane expenses, for example they are given 50 euro walking around money.

Bankers are no better. They pay themselves millions in bonuses and then engage in reckless lending, trading and proping up developers and hiking the price of property in this country to levels that ordinary people cannot get a loan. They they rely on our curropt politicans to wade in with our public money and extract no concessions to ensure these bankers actually start lending again and moving their primary responsibility to the shareholders who have just gotten burned when they spend 16 euro per share.

People like you, and your views have led to the proliferation and curruption of this country, inch by inch. Charlie robbing us blind, Bertie the Minister for finance with no bank account and and debts forgiven by the banks when he became Taoiseach. Your lack or anger, action or concern while we are all being financially raped ensures that there will be no Ireland left for our children to inherit. Enjoy emigration sir where you will still have no opinion but this time as a non national you will also have no say.

People like me? What have people like YOU done about it? You and everyone else like you had your say in the last election. I won't be blaming the Irish government for the global credit collapse. In fairness I do remember Bertie Ahern leaving his own Mother's funeral early so he could push the Good Friday Agreement ahead, you wouldn't hear too much fanfare about the likes of that.

I'm sure there is the same level of corruption in politics as there is in every other industry.

Joey the lips

We cannot search at the moment. If my momory serves me the op was pulled for trolling already. Not to much of a bother to me but the post has absolutly no possiblity of generating a response because its a rant!

Sorry!

Joey the lips

prinz wrote: »

Yes.

+1 thread closed. Practiceing to be a mod!

20goto10

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

They may work their b0ll1x off but usually only on local political stuff to keep their voters happy so they will be reelected. They use government/taxpayers resources to ensure their reelection in a given constituency.

Also German, French and British politicians work just as hard and get a LOT less pay/pensions.

Lol Irish politicians are the only corrupt politicians.

I agree with the op to some extent. There isn't a self employed person in the country who doesn't stretch their expenses to the max. And believe me it can be stretched a long way whilst staying within the law. The problem is not the people, it's the system. We just have to see now if the pressure stays on to change the system. But it's not an easy thing to do.

Liam Byrne

20goto10 wrote: »

There isn't a self employed person in the country who doesn't stretch their expenses to the max.

Assuming, of course, there's cash coming in with which to do that. Not all of us have the ability to screw a few taxpayers in order to get extra cash in our wallets.

Plus, why are you using the self-employed as the comparison ? Those in the Dail are OUR EMPLOYEES.

Joey the lips

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Assuming, of course, there's cash coming in with which to do that. Not all of us have the ability to screw a few taxpayers in order to get extra cash in our wallets.

Plus, why are you using the self-employed as the comparison ? Those in the Dail are OUR EMPLOYEES.

For taxation purposes they are self employed. They are answerable to us. A bit like a plumber is self employed and is answerable to us for his work

Likewish many plubers try and turn an air lock into an expensive trip to the plumbers providers and 2 days work usually requiring 2 people;)

Liam Byrne

Joey the lips wrote: »

For taxation purposes they are self employed.

Then that needs to be changed.

Also, most self-employed people don't get paid for days that they are not working; how come TDs get paid for the other 260-odd days ?

Joey the lips wrote: »

They are answerable to us.

Wishful thinking.

Also, the plumber doesn't set his own rate, because you can decide whether to hire him or someone else.

Finally, the plumber doesn't shaft you and reduce your take-home pay while still trying to get paid the same amount themselves.

Joey the lips

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then that needs to be changed.


Finally, the plumber doesn't shaft you and reduce your take-home pay while still trying to get paid the same amount themselves.

True! For some reasom batt o keaffee and his education cuts comes to mind here!

TJJP

prinz wrote: »

Yes.

No

Absurdum

legal-eagle wrote: »

Seriously, I personally have no anger to politicans and bankers. All this talk of Fat cats, corrupt etc etc anyone else sick of it. Politicans by and large work their boll0x of particlurarly leaders of the country. They don't exactly make a million quid a year and get grief all the time, I wouldn't even begrudge them taking a bung here and there......so what. The worst thing is most people have no understanding of the global international credit crisis or even national politics yet are the loudest critics.

sup Bertie? Played a blinder on Late Late! Pint of Bass is on it's way to you buddy.

johnnyskeleton

legal-eagle wrote: »

Seriously, I personally have no anger to politicans and bankers.

Your personal emotions are your own.

legal-eagle wrote: »

All this talk of Fat cats, corrupt etc etc anyone else sick of it.

I'm sick of glib descriptions of the very real corruption that is systemic in our society.

legal-eagle wrote: »

Politicans by and large work their boll0x of particlurarly leaders of the country.

Just for your information, if you want to make a serious argument, don't curse; if you want to vent your spleen, curse all you like.

I take it you are saying that politicians by and large work hard, particularly the leaders of the country. If so, I disagree, and I would the stories of our Taoiseach's drinking would counter that. But also, don't forget that most of our politicians are earning a significant amount of money for doing very little work. I'd do the exact same if I were a politician, so I can't say it is immoral per se, but just that it is a very inefficient use of taxpayer's money.

legal-eagle wrote: »

They don't exactly make a million quid a year and get grief all the time, I wouldn't even begrudge them taking a bung here and there......so what.

Steal a little, you go to jail; steal big, everyone loves you. I don't trust them an inch.

legal-eagle wrote: »

The worst thing is most people have no understanding of the global international credit crisis or even national politics yet are the loudest critics.

Mary Hannafin when on the panel on primetime suggested that short selling was when people bought stock and sold it after a short period of time. If you asked Brian Lenihan to explain why the Yen carry trade catalysted the credit crunch in the US he would be lost for words. I am very concerned that my limited understanding of economics is superior to every TD and I don't say that boastfully, but rather as a matter of fact. My understanding of economics is rudimentary at best, but our politicians haven't a clue. Except George Lee TD and Senator Shane Ross.

legal-eagle wrote: »

I'm quite indifferent to it all, the Lisbon Treaty is another example. How many of these voters really care about Ireland's involvement in Europe

What you fail to understand is a basic concept of democracy; that if the people don't really care about Ireland's involvement in Europe then they will express that indifference in the referendum.

legal-eagle wrote: »

does it really affect their day to day lives....most of the "No" voters (I know) reasons for not voting were pathetic and so inaccurate. Discuss

I know people who voted no for very credible reasons, and I know people who voted yes for the most scurrilous reasons. So generalising doesn't put the matter any further.

johnnyskeleton

legal-eagle wrote: »

People like me? What have people like YOU done about it?

People like who?

legal-eagle wrote: »

You and everyone else like you had your say in the last election.

Yes, and the fact that the people who voted FF now regret it speaks volumes.

legal-eagle wrote: »

I won't be blaming the Irish government for the global credit collapse.

No-one blames them for that, and saying otherwise is disingenuous. But they are entirely to blame for the mismanagement of government funds over the last 12 years and they are also to blame for failing to deal with the domestic property bubble.

In fairness I do remember Bertie Ahern leaving his own Mother's funeral early so he could push the Good Friday Agreement ahead, you wouldn't hear too much fanfare about the likes of that.

legal-eagle wrote: »

I'm sure there is the same level of corruption in politics as there is in every other industry.

Corruption in the public finances is not the same as corruption in a private sector roll. Surely that's obvious?

johnnyskeleton

Joey the lips wrote: »

+1 thread closed. Practiceing to be a mod!

Sorry, but an impeccable ability to spell is a fundamental requirement for the job.

Joey the lips

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Sorry, but an impeccable ability to spell is a fundamental requirement for the job.

True

Butt f u no wat i mean u get de message! Or as I am fond of saying if you understand the correction you understand the word. All you have achieved is changing the subject but seen as though you started.

Where did you obtain your degree in arrogance? I have no doubt your job suits the education!

20goto10

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Assuming, of course, there's cash coming in with which to do that. Not all of us have the ability to screw a few taxpayers in order to get extra cash in our wallets.

Plus, why are you using the self-employed as the comparison ? Those in the Dail are OUR EMPLOYEES.

It wasn't a direct comparison. But a self employed person has a choice to pay his taxes in full or he can spend it and put it down as an expense. Most people think it's better to spend it on yourself than give it to the tax man. My point is everyone is at it and there is nothing illegal about it. John o' donoghue actually did nothing wrong. Not one rule broken, not one law broken. That's because the system allows it. And the system is not unique to Ireland.

skirish

There were so dodgy things going on during the Lisbon Treaty vote. An 82 year old person who voted in the last one was denied a vote. No reason given. For some reason they could not find my name either.
Anyway now we can really take government and pseudo government departments who are contravening people's rights to the European Commission. !

bauderline

legal-eagle wrote: »

People like me? What have people like YOU done about it? You and everyone else like you had your say in the last election. I won't be blaming the Irish government for the global credit collapse. In fairness I do remember Bertie Ahern leaving his own Mother's funeral early so he could push the Good Friday Agreement ahead, you wouldn't hear too much fanfare about the likes of that.

I'm sure there is the same level of corruption in politics as there is in every other industry.

blame for the global economic crisis... no ....

blame for the irish economic crisis.... yes....

The policies of the current government are the primary cause of the property bubble in this country, which in turn is the primary cause of our banking crisis, which in turn has caused many other problems such as negative equity, job losses, massive personal debt, lack of credit to small businesses etc etc.

I have two main gripes with the government of the past decade...

1. They failed to regulate the banking sector in order to prevent the massive property bubble and subsequent crash. It is plainly obvious that the banks and Anglo in particular were out of control. It should have been picked up on and something done about it, moreover they were warned about it by numerous persons of note. The warnings were brushed aside.

2. The social partnership fiasco is just as bad as the above if not worse. This has given rise to a vastly overpaid and overstaffed public service. It was nothing more than an economic "doodey" for the unions for the last ten years. The government looked at the figures and decided they had the money and it was a easy way to keep the unions quiet and keep that feel good factor alive in the country.

Whatever else may be said about political corruption and who well paid TD's are and how hard they work it is really a side show to the above policies which has led Ireland to the disastrous situation it nows finds itself in.

For sure our government must be held accountable for their failed policies, that is a given !

lugha

I would have some sympathy with the OPs view in the sense that I don't personally feel any great anger to politicians or bankers. I consider the former to be a very demanding job, one that I would not do. As far as greed and corruption goes, well I honestly think that that is part of our culture. Not political culture, culture. Any of use who dabbled small time in the property market didn't baulk at accepting massive mark ups on a site or property bought for investment even if that meant crippling the buyer with a 40 year mortgage. Even with such a massive profit, many of use would duck and dive and try to avoid paying capital gains, often doing so only because of a fear of getting caught, not out of any sense of right or wrong. And of course there are the cash payments to trades men which almost none of us have any difficulty with. Now, I know of course that some will say, paying your window cleaner cash isn't in the same league as knocking out €500 K in expenses. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that most of use do not engage in greed and tax evasion on a big scale, not because of any great principles, but because we do not have the opportunity. I would love to see a political system where those that behaved badly were held to account, but held to account by the people. If John O' Donoghue has to run for the Dail next time around, we all know he will almost certainly succeed, and if he doesn't, it will not be because of his expenses “issues”. And the same would happen in any constituency. And while that remains the case, we will continue to get the politicians we deserve.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Joey the lips wrote:

They are answerable to us

Wishful thinking.

Also, the plumber doesn't set his own rate, because you can decide whether to hire him or someone else.

.

Well, actually they are answerable to us insofar as once every 5 years (often more frequent) they have to reapply for their jobs and we decide whether or not to reemploy them based on their performance. Where else in society do you have such a brutal performance management system ! And yes, of course we decide whether to hire him or someone else. In most constituencies we get to choose between up to about 10 different people for the job, plus we get the opportunity to throw our own hats in the ring if we so desire.

It is for these reasons that I do agree with the overall message the OP is putting across (if not all the detail). Of course it is not OK for them to take bungs and fiddle expenses. . thats just silly ! But I'm a bit fed up of all this talk of politicians who do no work and get paid way too much money. I work in the private sector, I usually work about 50-60 hours a week and I often travel at the weekends in order to be in a different part of the world on Monday morning but I do not believe that I work harder than most politicians. I certainly don't work harder than those in cabinet. . How often have you heard a certain minister debating an argument on Morning Ireland at 7am and then continuing the same debate on Prime Time or Vincent Brown later that evening. I have direct access to my poiticians every Saturday in various clinics spread all around my constituency. . how many of us in the private sector do that as a matter of routine !

And how many of us give up well paid jobs in the Private Sector in order to earn less money, face public criticism and have to reapply for our positions once every 4-5 years.

Brian Lenihan could be earning 3 or 4 times his current wage, working half his hours if he had remained as a practicing barrister. By all means attack his policies, attack the expenses system but don't attack the work ethic. These guys work harder longer hours than most of us !

Mr. Incognito

People like me? What have people like YOU done about it? You and everyone else like you had your say in the last election. I won't be blaming the Irish government for the global credit collapse. In fairness I do remember Bertie Ahern leaving his own Mother's funeral early so he could push the Good Friday Agreement ahead, you wouldn't hear too much fanfare about the likes of that.

I'm sure there is the same level of corruption in politics as there is in every other industry.

What have I done about it- the only thing I can - Vote.

no-one is blaming the Irish government for the global credit collapse but you must have not even a passing knowledge of simple economics to actually swallow that line that all of Ireland's woes are to blame on the global credit crunch.

We have had a property bubble in this country that had billions flowing into the coffers of the Irish government- money they blew on construction contracts that over ran not 10% or 15% but up to 100 % and 200% (Think of the Port Tunnel) The government and Charlie McCreevy's response was to curry popular support by reducing taxation and hiking public expenditure to unsustainable levels in the public sector. The HSE was formed and NOT ONE person was let go in the old Health Boards, probably the biggest swindle the Unions have pulled over this government who didn't have the backbone to stand up to them. By far the biggest public expense is the public sector wages and these people have a shock coming in the budget.

Anglo, with its predatory lending practises led to a race to the bottom and what happens- we bail Anglo out to the tune of 5 billion. This bank that was supposedly vital to the Irish economy hasn't lent a red cent since September 2007- go figure that one out.

Anyway- I'm not going into all that because it's going to take too ling if I go down this road, I'll focus on one key point that actually sickens me about your attitude.

You don't care if they take bungs and you believe that politics is no more corrupt than any other profession. You sir are sadly mistaken. The thing that came out in the tribunals that sickened me- was not that councellors were being paid off but how little their integrity was worth. They rezoned land that made developers millions for as little as 2000 euro at a time. This has led to the unplanned, unserviced wasteland of suburbs that I feel will lead to huge social problems in the next ten years as the kids that live on these vast estates having no where to kick a ball turn to drugs and unsocial behaviour. Idle hands do the devils work.

Finally as a professional and a solicitor, your handle, legal eagle worries me. I would hope that someone who professes not to care about people lining their own pockets at the publics expense is not entrusted with said monies. Seeing the unethical practises of some solicitors out there sickens me and I hope these people are stuck off at the earliest opportunity. There are levels of greed in this country that have sprung up with the celtic tiger that are truly horrific.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

we decide whether or not to reemploy them based on their performance.

Ideally, this would be the case. But unfortunately - with people defending the indefensible (and if the cap fits, etc.....) they are not reemployed based on their performance; they are reemployed based on dynasties, being "cute hoors", being "one of the people" (or at least working hard to appear to be).

In addition, if their performance involves doing something right, they take credit; if it involves screwing up spectacularly, then it's because - as Ahern alluded to last night - the "expertise" wasn't there, or "the rules weren't changed", or "Lehman Bros".

In all of this, there's one UNDENIABLE fact; the ONLY people who can change the rules are those in the Dail, and they don't. Why ? Because it suits them, and because it gives them an out and deniability when they screw up.

Why - for example - are outlandish expenses only being dealt with NOW; while all of us had to take a wallop in a Budget A YEAR AGO ? Plus a SECOND wallop in an extra, unwarranted Budget 6 MONTHS AGO ? Plus - despite the damage to the economy and the supposed "urgency" - a 4 month holiday while the country racked up a phenomenal rate of debt per day, with banks refusing to lend and businesses going to the wall, adding to the dole queue ?

If votes are "performance related", then the Greens and FF deserve a very large boot, and the sooner the better.....

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ideally, this would be the case. But unfortunately - with people defending the indefensible (and if the cap fits, etc.....) they are not reemployed based on their performance; they are reemployed based on dynasties, being "cute hoors", being "one of the people" (or at least working hard to appear to be).

I'm sorry but it is the case. We live in a democracy (last time I checked) where every adult has the same single vote. Every Irish citizen has the opportunity to put himself forward as a public representative and we get to choose from those that do. Some of us choose to follow this path and work hard,largely in the public interest. Agreed, there are many things within the political system that ought to be fixed but by and large I believe our politicians work hard and face the ultimate judgement on their hard work once every 4/5 years. You're assertion that we don't have the right to choose our politicians based on their performance is, frankly, an insult to the electorate. Others among us choose to whinge and moan and demand change on internet bulletin boards from the comfort of our middle class homes.

In addition, if their performance involves doing something right, they take credit; if it involves screwing up spectacularly, then it's because - as Ahern alluded to last night - the "expertise" wasn't there, or "the rules weren't changed", or "Lehman Bros".

I re-watched Aherne's interview this morning. One of the things he did say (that people like you will ignore) was . . "Yes, I take responsibility for the overspends, I was the Taoiseach"

Why - for example - are outlandish expenses only being dealt with NOW; while all of us had to take a wallop in a Budget A YEAR AGO ? Plus a SECOND wallop in an extra, unwarranted Budget 6 MONTHS AGO ? Plus - despite the damage to the economy and the supposed "urgency" - a 4 month holiday while the country racked up a phenomenal rate of debt per day, with banks refusing to lend and businesses going to the wall, adding to the dole queue ?

I struggle to understand how you think the second budget was unwarranted ?

If votes are "performance related", then the Greens and FF deserve a very large boot, and the sooner the better.....

The votes are 'performance related'. The Greens will be wiped out after the next election. FF will lose a huge number of seats and we will be addressing Enda as Taoiseach. Whether you think this is warranted or not is a matter of opinion. I don't !

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You're assertion that we don't have the right to choose our politicians based on their performance is, frankly, an insult to the electorate.

Can I have whatever you're on that makes you see life - and my posts - completely differently from reality ? :mad: :mad: Because I NEVER, EVER, EVER said that we "don't have the right", and your post is 100% misrepresentation and has been reported.

We DO have the right, but like I said.....actually, I won't bother repeating it, because you quoted it; you just chose to put your own spin on it to avoid having to deal with the point raised, and to cause someone reading to get the impression that I insulted them.

TO CLARIFY : I NEVER, EVER suggested that "we don't, or shouldn't, have the right to choose based on performance".....I actually said "Ideally, this would be the case"

EDIT : Ironically, you've said the exact same thing as I did in another thread :

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Irish politics is parochial and the Irish electorate will always vote for the more well known, politically powerful people who will make things happen for their area regardless of how much time they spend legislating in Dail Eireann . . .

So therefore "performance" in the areas that they're supposed to be working on, is irrelevant to those voters. Corruption (and condoning of same) would be irrelevant, milking the expenses and blocking required reforms would be irrelevant, paying off people who didn't do their jobs would be irrelevant.

And not only that, your post is more objectionable than mine, because you lumped the entire "Irish electorate" together, saying everyone voted that warped way, whereas I only said that "some" people voted that way.

What I said was that in real life some people DON'T choose based on performance; they vote for their mates, the guy who buys them drinks, the guy who bailed them out, the "cute hoor", the guy whose dad was a great GAA man, etc, and that means that no matter what happens, a large percentage of those in the Dail are NOT there on performance or merit.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I struggle to understand how you think the second budget was unwarranted ?

I struggle to understand how the budget (screwing us) was viewed as more important than sorting out the public service, expenses, corruption and making a proper attempt to sort out the banks.

My point was that they hit the ordinary, easy target, Joe Soap TWICE without bothering to look at the other issues; ones that are now so "urgent" that NAMA is presented as "the only show in town", "too late in the day", etc.

I also struggle to understand how the first one was so wrong, but I guess that's based on the "performance" of the Minister for Finance and his ability to actually read reports and do his job.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The Greens will be wiped out after the next election. FF will lose a huge number of seats and we will be addressing Enda as Taoiseach.

Not 100% certain on Enda, but at least we agree on one thing.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Whether you think this is warranted or not is a matter of opinion. I don't !

Oh, absolutely and uncategorically warranted, don't worry about that! Y'see, whether I voted based on performance (fail) or what the local guy has achieved (Willie "Shaft Shannon" O'Dea, double fail) or condoning the unacceptable (Ahern, O'Donoghue, Burke, Lawlor, Cooper Flynn, Lenihan, Cowen, Coughlan) I can't wait for the day that there's an improvement in the standards in Government. Sooner the better!

Given that Gilmore was the only one to step up to the plate, I don't think the new standards will be high enough, or fully acceptable, but at least they'll be an improvement!

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can I have whatever you're on that makes you see life - and my posts - completely differently from reality ? :mad: :mad: Because I NEVER, EVER, EVER said that we "don't have the right", and your post is 100% misrepresentation and has been reported.

I'm so constantly amazed at how you personalise these debates and break it down to an argument around the semantics of a post rather than the substantive issues. .

For the Record, I argued that "we decide whether or not to re-employ them based on their performance" and you refuted that implying that there were some other mechanisms around which a politician may be re-elected, thus implying that we the electorate do not have the right to judge them on their performance. . report me all you like, and lets get into a massiv, stupid and off topic he-said she-said debate . . I won't report you for your constant references to 'what I am on !' because frankly, I think its a bit childish.

We DO have the right, but like I said.....actually, I won't bother repeating it, because you quoted it; you just chose to put your own spin on it to avoid having to deal with the point raised, and to cause someone reading to get the impression that I insulted them.

people can read the full context of your posts and make up their own minds about whether or not you are insulting them. I've not done anything other than to quote you accurately and try to interpret what you are saying.

TO CLARIFY : I NEVER, EVER suggested that "we don't, or shouldn't, have the right to choose based on performance".....I actually said "Ideally, this would be the case"

Saying 'Ideally this would be the case is implying that actually it isn't.

What I said was that in real life some people DON'T choose based on performance; they vote for their mates, the guy who buys them drinks, the guy who bailed them out, the "cute hoor", the guy whose dad was a great GAA man, etc, and that means that no matter what happens, a large percentage of those in the Dail are NOT there on performance or merit.

They vote based on PERFORMANCE. How one person measures performance might be very different to how you measure performance but we all have the right to exercise that judgement and make that measurement ourselves. It's called democracy. You seem to think that if a politician hasn't lived up to your measure of performance then the rest of us who elected them are fools. . .

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I struggle to understand how the budget (screwing us) was viewed as more important than sorting out the public service, expenses, corruption and making a proper attempt to sort out the banks.

My point was that they hit the ordinary, easy target, Joe Soap TWICE without bothering to look at the other issues; ones that are now so "urgent" that NAMA is presented as "the only show in town", "too late in the day", etc.

You really need to sort out your facts . . you keep stating these things as fact that are just not true and when you are corrected you ignore it (amazing that Kenny never interviewed Cowen, Aherne eh??). They did look at the other issues. NAMA as a principle was introduced as part of the second budget and since then they have worked hard to establish the institutions to make NAMA work. There was also a need to increase the tax rate to make some movement towards correcting the public finances and so levies were increased. At the same time, politicians took pay cuts and there were wide sweeping cuts across the public sector (although I believe a lot more are required)

Given that Gilmore was the only one to step up to the plate, I don't think the new standards will be high enough, or fully acceptable, but at least they'll be an improvement!

Yes, the leader of the party, funded by the trade unions who are willing to ignore the public finances and demand an extra 3.5% for all HSE workers. The same unions that sat on the board of FAS and ignored everything that was going on. The ones that will prevent the a FF/Lab govt from actually tackling the public sector mess. . . Yes, they are the ones with the moral authority to clean up Irish politics . . Gimme a break !

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm so constantly amazed at how you personalise these debates and break it down to an argument around the semantics of a post rather than the substantive issues. .

Yawn! That political spin might work in your circles, but it doesn't wash

hallelujajordan wrote: »

For the Record, I argued that "we decide whether or not to re-employ them based on their performance" and you refuted that implying that there were some other mechanisms around which a politician may be re-elected, thus implying that we the electorate do not have the right to judge them on their performance

The "implying" bit is completely wrong, and since it's YOU that's doing your own implying, you CANNOT (a) attribute it to me, or (b) extrapolate that I was "insulting the electorate". You did BOTH.

I'll repeat my previous post (even though it is getting boring) the electorate have a right to choose, but as you said yourself many do not use it correctly as a measure of "performance", preferring to vote parochially and on side issues.

So

hallelujajordan wrote: »

people can read the full context of your posts and make up their own minds about whether or not you are insulting them. I've not done anything other than to quote you accurately and try to interpret what you are saying.

Not a hope in hell! You've repeatedly misinterpreted what I said and put a spin on it.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You seem to think that if a politician hasn't lived up to your measure of performance then the rest of us who elected them are fools. . .

Yet more misrepresentation. I don't care as long as there's a performance to be judged, but when (a) that performance is non-existent or (b) that performance includes engaging in or condoning dodgy goings-on, then yes, I'll criticise someone for overlooking it.

Also, when someone washes their hands of unacceptable stuff, saying it's not "against the rules" when THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN LEGISLATE FOR IT, then ANYONE with a brain should be able to see through that.

So if those members of the electorate don't see through that, I'll make no apology for calling them on it and view them as fools.

But then, I'm the one who already admitted all this, saying that "some" of the electorate were fools; and I'll stand over that.

You, on the other hand, implied that I'd insulted "the electorate" - as a whole, and even the basis for that implication was based on your own bias and interpretation / misrepresentation of what I'd said.

johnnyskeleton

Joey the lips wrote: »

Where did you obtain your degree in arrogance? I have no doubt your job suits the education!

You can't be a troll without being arrogant I'm afraid. Comes with the territory.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yawn! That political spin might work in your circles, but it doesn't wash

You talk of spin but yet you have turned this entire debate into a ridiculous argument around interpretations, quotations and mis-quotations . . you pick pieces of my posts to respond to in isolation and draw conclusions about me and my motives while you ignore the bits where I point out some of the gross factual inaccuracies of what you are saying . . This is incredibly boring (probably more so for everyone else than for me!) so lets give it a rest . .

BTW, if you're quoting me, don't edit, cross out or highlight bits of what I say, quote me in context and quote me completely or don't quote me at all !

but as you said yourself many do not use it correctly as a measure of "performance", preferring to vote parochially and on side issues.

Again, misquoted and out of context. what I said was that Irish people vote parochially, not that they do not vote on performance. They may just measure performance differently than you do. That does not make them fools.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You talk of spin but yet you have turned this entire debate into a ridiculous argument around interpretations, quotations and mis-quotations

I'm not the one who did that. You MISINTERPRETED that my original post

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ideally, this would be the case. But unfortunately - with people defending the indefensible (and if the cap fits, etc.....) they are not reemployed based on their performance; they are reemployed based on dynasties, being "cute hoors", being "one of the people" (or at least working hard to appear to be).

....equated - in your eyes - to

hallelujajordan wrote: »

you refuted that implying that there were some other mechanisms around which a politician may be re-elected, thus implying that we the electorate do not have the right to judge them on their performance

Do you see the bit in bold - the bit that you added, unjustifiably and inaccurately ? THAT'S the bit I took serious objection to. Leave that spin/lie out and I'm "guilty as charged", and I'll stand over what I said. But I will not be dragged any further into "defending" what I didn't say.

And to make matters worse, you then took that spin and said

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You're assertion that we don't have the right to choose our politicians based on their performance is, frankly, an insult to the electorate.

I NEVER asserted any such thing; YOU did. That is extrapolating on something that you ALREADY had no basis to say in order to suggest that I insulted "the electorate". Wrong again, on both counts.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

BTW, if you're quoting me, don't edit, cross out or highlight bits of what I say, quote me in context and quote me completely or don't quote me at all !
:
:
Again, misquoted and out of context.

Hold on a second now! I crossed out the bits that were downright wrong, and I've highlighted the bits that I'm trying to show that you are 100% wrong and are misrepresenting me.

If you don't like that, then don't type bits that are 100% wrong or misrepresenting.

And don't complain about misquotes and out of context when you're perfectly happy to engage in that yourself (and you actually started this side debate by doing so).

If you want to debate whether people use their votes correctly, fire away.

But DO NOT; I repeat DO NOT claim that I suggested that people don't have the right to, or that I insulted people by suggesting they shouldn't have the right to.

Because that is NOWHERE NEAR what I said, and ANYONE can see that if they read the thread.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not the one who did that. You MISINTERPRETED that my original post

....equated - in your eyes - to

Do you see the bit in bold - the bit that you added, unjustifiably and inaccurately ? THAT'S the bit I took serious objection to. Leave that spin/lie out and I'm "guilty as charged", and I'll stand over what I said. But I will not be dragged any further into "defending" what I didn't say.

And to make matters worse, you then took that spin and said

I NEVER asserted any such thing; YOU did. That is extrapolating on something that you ALREADY had no basis to say in order to suggest that I insulted "the electorate". Wrong again, on both counts.



Hold on a second now! I crossed out the bits that were downright wrong, and I've highlighted the bits that I'm trying to show that you are 100% wrong and are misrepresenting me.

If you don't like that, then don't type bits that are 100% wrong or misrepresenting.

And don't complain about misquotes and out of context when you're perfectly happy to engage in that yourself (and you actually started this side debate by doing so).

If you want to debate whether people use their votes correctly, fire away.

But DO NOT; I repeat DO NOT claim that I suggested that people don't have the right to, or that I insulted people by suggesting they shouldn't have the right to.

Because that is NOWHERE NEAR what I said, and ANYONE can see that if they read the thread.

OK, Grand. . . I'm fed up arguing with you tbh. . I took from your posts the implication that the political system was filled by something other than free will democracy where we all had the right to choose our politicians and where we live with the implications of this choice. I'm willing to accept this responsibility. You would rather blame the 'fools' who made the wrong choices.

Apologies (genuinely) if I interpreted your posts a little too far but tbh you have a history of hinting at something and then attacking the poster who tries to interpret what you are saying !

Now, how about we get back on topic and debate some of the gross inaccuracies that you have been spouting ....

Why don't you address the comments I made about the second budget, about the hours politicians actually work, about your foolish comments about how Cowen/Aherne never appeared on TLLS under Kenny (no idea what this had to do with anything by the way, but you brought it into the argument for some reason) . . or best of all, about your assertion that Gilmore and his Union backers will 'clean up' Irish politics . .

FlutterinBantam

legal-eagle wrote: »

Seriously, I personally have no anger to politicans and bankers. All this talk of Fat cats, corrupt etc etc anyone else sick of it. Politicans by and large work their boll0x of particlurarly leaders of the country. They don't exactly make a million quid a year and get grief all the time, I wouldn't even begrudge them taking a bung here and there......so what. The worst thing is most people have no understanding of the global international credit crisis or even national politics yet are the loudest critics.

I'm quite indifferent to it all, the Lisbon Treaty is another example. How many of these voters really care about Ireland's involvement in Europe, does it really affect their day to day lives....most of the "No" voters (I know) reasons for not voting were pathetic and so inaccurate. Discuss

Ok fair enough, you don't mind if the people in power line their pockets with your taxes, and make a total bollix of running the country.

That's fine, but the other 99.9999999% of taxpayers do , i think you will find.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I took from your posts the implication that the political system was filled by something other than free will democracy where we all had the right to choose our politicians and where we live with the implications of this choice.

Alleluiah! Finally an admission that the whole "argument" was based on what YOU incorrectly "took" from my posts (despite repeated clarification).

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm willing to accept this responsibility. You would rather blame the 'fools' who made the wrong choices.

More spin. There is no "wrong choice". The correct thing to say is that I would rather blame the fools who used the wrong criteria and overlooked the indefensible.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Apologies (genuinely) if I interpreted your posts a little too far but tbh you have a history of hinting at something and then attacking the poster who tries to interpret what you are saying !

Wow, I almost accepted the apology, until I read the last part; exactly how much interpretation does the following take ?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ideally, this would be the case. But unfortunately - with people defending the indefensible (and if the cap fits, etc.....) they are not reemployed based on their performance; they are reemployed based on dynasties, being "cute hoors", being "one of the people" (or at least working hard to appear to be).

In addition, if their performance involves doing something right, they take credit; if it involves screwing up spectacularly, then it's because - as Ahern alluded to last night - the "expertise" wasn't there, or "the rules weren't changed", or "Lehman Bros".

In all of this, there's one UNDENIABLE fact; the ONLY people who can change the rules are those in the Dail, and they don't. Why ? Because it suits them, and because it gives them an out and deniability when they screw up.

There is absolutely no mention of "rights", or removing "rights", from the electorate there.

So don't bull**** or put a spin on it. You were 100% wrong to attack me and accuse me of insulting the electorate.

Any factual inaccuracies or oversights, by all means challenge them, but to be honest I couldn't be arsed going back over the posts to see if you simply "misinterpreted" those too, or whether I did genuinely screw up - factually - with what I said in a post. I know you'll choose to imply that this is chickening out of the debate, but I'll reference one just to prove a point.

I actually agree with you in relation to Gilmore's links to unions, and you have a point. The only point that I made is that he's the only one in the Dail who stood up this week despite the fact that his colleagues would have been furious. I'd credit him with that - no more, no less.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Alleluiah! Finally an admission that the whole "argument" was based on what YOU incorrectly "took" from my posts (despite repeated clarification).



More spin. There is no "wrong choice". The correct thing to say is that I would rather blame the fools who used the wrong criteria and overlooked the indefensible.

It is amazing how someone can accuse others of spin and then spin around his own statements in such a ludicrous way . . Surely if they used the 'wrong criteria', 'overlooked the indefensible' and reelected the 'cute hoors' or the 'GAA men' or the 'political dynasties' then in your view they must have made the 'wrong choices' . . and are the 'fools' you describe earlier ? ?

Wow, I almost accepted the apology, until I read the last part; exactly how much interpretation does the following take ?



There is absolutely no mention of "rights", or removing "rights", from the electorate there.

So don't bull**** or put a spin on it. You were 100% wrong to attack me and accuse me of insulting the electorate.

Understood . . and as I have already stated I accept that you didn't question the 'rights' of the electorate; seriously, what more do you want from me ??

However, regardless of what words you use. . . I argued that our elected polticians face the ultimate performance assessment once every 4/5 years. I think we have already seen this in action in brutal reality (PD's, FG in 2002 GE). . You seem to think that in some way our electorate does not hold them accountable and measure / manage their performance. . I don't see how you draw that conclusion, especially when you accept that the Greens are likely to be wiped out after the next GE and FF will experience the same effect that FG felt in 2002 ?

Any factual inaccuracies or oversights, by all means challenge them, but to be honest I couldn't be arsed going back over the posts to see if you simply "misinterpreted" those too, or whether I did genuinely screw up - factually - with what I said in a post

This is the pattern . . you spout things that are factually incorrect and when challenged over them you simply attack the detail of the post, get indignant about the 'attack', report the poster and ignore the inaccuracy on which you have been challenged. . .

I'm pretty sure that if I had misinterpreted you I would have got it back from you in both barrels !

I actually agree with you in relation to Gilmore's links to unions, and you have a point. The only point that I made is that he's the only one in the Dail who stood up this week despite the fact that his colleagues would have been furious. I'd credit him with that - no more, no less.

Excellent . . we can debate something 'real' . I believe that the CC should have resigned this week but I do not agree with how Gilmore attacked him on the floor of the Dail. He had already said he was going to go in front of the all party commission. Whether or not you believe that this was an appropriate route, why could Gilmore not have allowed him this opportunity and then table a motion of no confidence. . What he did was populist and aimed at currying favour with an angry public in order to win votes. It had nothing to do with cleaning up politics.

evercloserunion

You're probably sick of it because it doesn't affect you, ie you're probably upper-class. Fair enough, but don't expect other people to be as happy as you are with the way things have gone down. Especially people who are out of a job and/or cannot keep up with an inflated mortgage etc.

Personally though I find the whole situation more depressing than annoying. Anyone who thinks that had FF not been in power for the last ten years or so we wouldn't be in this crisis is delusional. Back during the boom had FF taken steps to quell the growth of the property market they would have been committing political suicide. The problem wasn't Irish politics but Irish culture. And, of course, the market. Rant and b*tch all you want about FF but it won't change either of those things. FF were a symptom, the disease goes much deeper IMO.

hallelujajordan

evercloserunion wrote: »

Personally though I find the whole situation more depressing than annoying. Anyone who thinks that had FF not been in power for the last ten years or so we wouldn't be in this crisis is delusional. Back during the boom had FF taken steps to quell the growth of the property market they would have been committing political suicide. The problem wasn't Irish politics but Irish culture. And, of course, the market. Rant and b*tch all you want about FF but it won't change either of those things. FF were a symptom, the disease goes much deeper IMO.

I agree entirely and have said so many times on here . . The root of the entire problem is the consumer. . WE* wanted bigger cars, bigger houses; WE wanted benchmarking (at least those of us in the Public sector did); WE* wanted lower income tax and a higher standard of living; WE* wanted the free money that the SSIA's were giving us and we elected the government (three times !!) that provided all of this ! WE* (not Liam Byrne, btw . . he saw it all coming !) ought to shoulder at least some of the responsibility for the situation we are in rather than blame our politicians for everything !

*Disclaimer before you attack, WE stands for the consensus opinion of the Irish electorate . . not every single one of us !

I think you are right btw, had FF taken steps like increasing stamp duty or preventing the banks from lending too much money to fist time buyers who couldn't afford it, they would have been turfed out long ago and we would be having this same debate about some other government !

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Excellent . . we can debate something 'real' . I believe that the CC should have resigned this week but I do not agree with how Gilmore attacked him on the floor of the Dail. He had already said he was going to go in front of the all party commission. Whether or not you believe that this was an appropriate route, why could Gilmore not have allowed him this opportunity and then table a motion of no confidence. . What he did was populist and aimed at currying favour with an angry public in order to win votes. It had nothing to do with cleaning up politics.

Firstly, O'Donoghue should have been fired. End of story. Milking expenses to that level, and adding stuff like a £1 charity donation to really give us the two fingers ?

Secondly, O'Donoghue tried to pull a fast one in case the Greens actually showed some balls and ethics yesterday; why resign "next Tuesday" ?

Yes, Gilmore maybe did something populist, but considering the Government (and the Dail in general) is so out of touch with reality and the mood of the people, it's good to see that for a change.

Let me ask you this - if Bertie "did something populist", what would your view be ? Complain about him being populist or say that it was "giving the public what they wanted" ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

this ! WE* (not Liam Byrne, btw . . )

*Disclaimer before you attack, WE stands for the consensus opinion of the Irish electorate . . not every single one of us !

Wow! Special treatment for me, even though the Disclaimer was there to point out the fact that yes, loads of people saw this coming, including those who ruined the Ahern ego and feelgood gravy train by pointing it out; so much so that he told them they should commit suicide!

Jeez, I hadn't realised that he was talking to me that day....or that I was worthy of singling out as one of the people who could see the obvious.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, O'Donoghue should have been fired. End of story. Milking expenses to that level, and adding stuff like a £1 charity donation to really give us the two fingers ?

The £1 charity donation is a red herring. It was a £1 donation that was added to the bottom of a legitimate hotel bill. . To imply as you do that he specifically claimed back £1 is misleading, foolish and childish.

Secondly, O'Donoghue tried to pull a fast one in case the Greens actually showed some balls and ethics yesterday; why resign "next Tuesday" ?

That was my first opinion too tbh but after watching the Oireachtas proceedings the next day it was pretty clear that there was cross party support to give him time to get his affairs in order and sort out his staff issues. It was also clear that even if the govt had fallen this weekend, Gilmore would have pushed through the motion of no confidence anyway. It's also pretty clear from the reaction in Kerry that JO'D will be returned to the next Dail anyway should he choose to run for election again which makes this a bit of a moot point !

Yes, Gilmore maybe did something populist, but considering the Government (and the Dail in general) is so out of touch with reality and the mood of the people, it's good to see that for a change.

Let me ask you this - if Bertie "did something populist", what would your view be ? Complain about him being populist or say that it was "giving the public what they wanted" ?

I don't mind Gilmore doing something populist, nor would I mind Bertie doing the same thing. I do mind when doing something populist involves attacking a man who is already on his knees and not allowing him to exit with a little dignity and I mind when people like you hail it as a noble act that is in some way 'cleaning up politics'.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The £1 charity donation is a red herring. It was a £1 donation that was added to the bottom of a legitimate hotel bill. . To imply as you do that he specifically claimed back £1 is misleading, foolish and childish.

Thought you were against petty personal digs ?

A "legitimate hotel bill".....to me that'd be around €250, max.

It's also pretty clear from the reaction in Kerry that JO'D will be returned to the next Dail anyway should he choose to run for election again which makes this a bit of a moot point !

Unfortunately appears to be the case alright. Sickening.

I don't mind Gilmore doing something populist, nor would I mind Bertie doing the same thing. I do mind when doing something populist involves attacking a man who is already on his knees and not allowing him to exit with a little dignity and I mind when people like you hail it as a noble act that is in some way 'cleaning up politics'.

"already on his knees" ???? Come off it with the emotive rubbish, please !!!! Firstly, you show me a man who's on his wages and expenses who's "on his knees"; and secondly if he's out of favour it's because he milked the expenses to the hilt; yes, many of them aren't corrupt (just simply too high and unacceptable) but many of them are downright corrupt and sickening.

Flying to Kerry from Dublin but getting your car to follow ?

If he was using his own money it'd just be grossly pathetic self-important showboating, the "big man"

But it was OUR money.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"already on his knees" ???? Come off it with the emotive rubbish, please !!!! Firstly, you show me a man who's on his wages and expenses who's "on his knees"; and secondly if he's out of favour it's because he milked the expenses to the hilt; yes, many of them aren't corrupt (just simply too high and unacceptable) but many of them are downright corrupt and sickening.

Flying to Kerry from Dublin but getting your car to follow ?

If he was using his own money it'd just be grossly pathetic self-important showboating, the "big man"

But it was OUR money.

Once again, you try to shift the debate in order to have a go ! Don't drag this into a debate about JOD and his expenses . . I have already said that the right thing to do was for him to resign. In fact, I believe he ought to have resigned earlier in the year when his ministerial expenses were highlighted. You using the £1 charitable donation as an example of how he mismanaged his expenses is just childish. I'm much more concerned about the misuse of the government jet.

My point is that he had already acknowledged the issue and put in place a plan to address it. Rather than give him this opportunity Gilmore attacked him in the house and forced his hand . . for no reason other than to score a political point. . . You think this was noble and is in some way a move towards cleaning up politics. I happen to think the intention to remove all corporate donations announced within the FF / Green PfG is a much stronger gesture towards cleaning up politics. . .