Brian Lenihan

trapsagenius

May as well start this thread as it has come up in a few other ones.

What is the opinion of my fellow boards.ie members of Brian Lenihan?The shining light of an otherwise poor government or just another man out of his depth when faced with such a massive crisis?

Personally, I really rate Lenihan.I think he is the perfect man, with the possible exception of Richard Bruton (and that's not going to happen now anyway), for the job.He has not shirked some of the hard decisions, like so many other politicians would have, such as cutting PS wages and setting up NAMA ( I know many people are fundamentally opposed to this, but I still firmly believe that it is the only show in town) and his willingness to continue in power despite his awful illness is, imo, admirable.Prospects for the Irish economy, growth wise at any rate, seem good, and Lenihan himself had no part in the creation of the crisis, unlike Cowen.

Regarding the banking guarantee-while it has been criticised recently, with reports showing that him and Cowen were advised not to introduce it, and while I still not exactly sure whether it was the right thing to do, let us not forget that at the time, many people were also in favour of such a guarantee-David Mcwilliams (I know, I know), being one that sticks out in my mind, if memory serves.I also seem to recall that it was a widely praised measure at the time.

Lenihan is well regarded domestically, by the media at any rate, with Miriam Lord and Sam Smyth both recently penning highly favourable articles about him.Ireland is also widely praised across the world for some of the actions taken in combating the crisis which prevented us from turning into another "Greece", and I believe that Lenihan deserves a lot of the credit for this.

Enough from me anyway.

N.B-While I accept that NAMA is obviously a big issue when judging Lenihan, I would ask that posters try and deal with other aspects of his tenure as Minister for Finance as much as possible also, to prevent this turning in to yet another pro-NAMA/anti-NAMA thread.

Gravy Fanatic

Its about time somebody stood up for Len, the communists and blueshirts aboard here have nothin good to say about a man that can help them.

trapsagenius

Well, that's my argument down the drain I think its safe to say.

Liam Byrne

I agree that the worst of the crisis was caused pre-Lenihan, by Ahern & Cowen, but I cannot agree that he's a shining light, or credit him with his handling, because he (being charitable) went way OTT with the guarantee and NAMA and also included zero safeguards for the taxpayer, allowing the banks to choose their new heads from the existing pool and allowing them massive pay rises and payoffs - ridiculous if we're footing the bill and he's asking others to take pay cuts that affect their standard of living.

I'm also not sure if Dukes was his choice to represent the public interest, but Dukes' two-fingers to Shane Ross showed that appointment up to be a complete failure.

Was Lenihan out of his depth and conned by the banks or is he in on it ? Hard to tell.

But either way he is unsuitable for the job; we needed someone who could look after the interests of the country while dealing with rogue banks and bankers, and he bottled it.

paddyland

Whatever else Lenihan may or may not be, he has one simple and unforgiveable failing.

He stands for the most corrupt party in the history of the state.

It wouldn't matter whether he had the golden touch to bring recovery to this country overnight, his own party colleagues would piss it all up against the wall again, just like they have always done.

If he had any real honour, he would walk away from a party that has dishonoured itself irrevocably, a party that as far as I can see, no man could redeem, the rot goes so deep. I am sorry for his health issues. I am sure he could do himself no end of good by looking after himself instead of worrying about a party that would drop him like a hot cake if it suited them.

Fianna Fáil have no honour, and neither does anyone who stands for them.

Colonel Sanders

Brian Lenihan? The architect of "the cheapest bailout in the world so far"

The man who didn't rush into the banks "without knowing precisely what the position is in those banks”

The man who has shown he is either inept or a liar re. the banking crisis and NAMA?

Another piece of FF filth, nothing more

galwayrush

As events unfold, he's looking more and more out of his dept , and a lot of his defence of his and his Governments response to the crisis is sounding quite pathetic at this stage.

Sand

One of the poorest Finance Ministers the country has ever had - Cowen was worse of course, but Cowen took several years to get things in a terrible mess. Lenihan managed to make things significantly worse in a single night.

As Morgan Kelly pointed out, Lenihan has time and time and time again got it wrong - at any given point throughout the crisis you could read a pronouncement/prediction by Lenihan and know that the exact opposite would happen. This has carried on throughout the entire debacle.

I dont think hes that strong either - Its not too hard to talk about the need for fiscal restraint when theres no money left and the ECB are breathing down your neck. Even in that context, for all his supposed strength Cowen forced him to accept the Croke Park deal, and Bord Snip Nua cuts were abandoned due to the fury of the quangocracy and the trade unions. He gives a good speech and projects himself well, but hes a lawyer - one would expect he could talk a good game.

I also find it hard to forget his fathers comments that this island was too small for us all to live and work here. Brian Lenihan Snr of course never even conceived that his own sons might have to emigrate to live and work. That was for the little people, the peasants. Lenihan and his brother are Fianna Fail aristocracy and symptomatic of the worst aspects of our feudalistic democracy. It might be cruel to say he got to his position on the basis of his name, but it surely didnt hurt - [EDIT Actually, calling a spade a spade...he did - he inherited his fathers seat like a family heirloom /EDIT]. You can be quite sure than none of the Lenihan children today will face the prospect of emigration.

I'm bemused by the popularity he has in the wider media and public - I assume he looks good in the company he keeps because hes one of the few FF members who dont pick their nose on live TV.

I think if we looked outside the various FF family lineages we might find a far better candidate for Minister of Finance.

Wolfe Tone

Give credit were credit is due, it would have been very easy to hide behind his illness or use it to deflect criticism yet he has done neither. Many more would have quit or retired when confronted with such a serious illness like he has been, but he hasn't, so credit to the man, he is obviously a very determined, dedicated man who wants to do the right things and in his mind is doing so. I sincerely hope he can, and we can, look back in 20 years time and say that he did a good job. I have my doubts though.

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Give credit were credit is due, it would have been very easy to hide behind his illness or use it to deflect criticism yet he has done neither. Many more would have quit or retired when confronted with such a serious illness like he has been, but he hasn't, so credit to the man, he is obviously a very determined, dedicated man who wants to do the right things and in his mind is doing so. I sincerely hope he can, and we can, look back in 20 years time and say that he did a good job. I have my doubts though.

His illness is irrelevant. He wasn't ill when he signed us up to the guarantee.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

His illness is irrelevant. He wasn't ill when he signed us up to the guarantee.

What I said still stands. He could have done what I said, yet he has not. Why do you think that is?

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What I said still stands. He could have done what I said, yet he has not. Why do you think that is?

Because it's his job, and he's getting paid for it, and if he's able to do it (debatable, but anyway) then he should be just like anyone else.

As for "deflecting criticism"; he's done PLENTY of that - blaming Lehman's, lying about NAMA and profits and the amount Anglo would cost and "advice" and getting credit flowing, etc, etc.

If he'd been honest about all those, maybe he'd have received the appropriate level of criticism.

Wolfe Tone

I meant using his illness to do so. I admire him for the strength of character he has shown.

Not for what he has done in office.

Het-Field

Lenihan will need to be judged at another time. The man has established a complex bank strategy, which is liable to make a large loss, but could be the answer to cleaning up the banks. The man has also commited himself, thus far to financial austerity. However, whether he choose to maintain this austier course will be articulated in the future.

The man is grappling with his protfolio. he was clearly out of his depth in the first 15 months, but then managed to take some control

doctorwu

The guy is out of his depth. He and the rest of the gombeens were sold pup after pup by the banks(staffed with all their cronies,Bertie "my good friend Seannie"). I wish him well with his illness, but you reap what you sow.

Byron85

He has done some good things but mostly bad things. He's a man far out of his depth. This was painfully evident after reading the chapter in McWilliams' book about the meeting between the two of them in the run up to the announcement of the bank guarantee. There was another part later on in the book where McWilliams asked Lenihan how the situation was developing and Lenihan replied, "The Brits are furious so we must be doing something right." The man has zero credibility.

sesna

Dont say anything bad about this man, he is a saint and can do no wrong.

paddyland

The essential requirement of the Minister for Finance is credibility.

Lenihan does not have credibility any more. It matters not whether he is up to the job, if he cannot be believed in his actions or public statements.

What this country needs now is someone credible in charge. FG and Labour have yet to prove their credibility, but FF have already proven they cannot be trusted, and need to be ousted.

Liam Byrne

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I meant using his illness to do so. I admire him for the strength of character he has shown.

I still don't agree, because his illness has no bearing on his ability..

Most people in this country who have a serious illness would have no choice but to continue working for as long as they are able; in fact, their employer would expect them to.

Lenihan has lied about the impact of his decisions every single step of the way, and has zero credibility or authority.

Which - as you seem to agree, given your "not for what he has done in office" caveat - is precisely what we don't need in this country.

trapsagenius

paddyland wrote: »

Whatever else Lenihan may or may not be, he has one simple and unforgiveable failing.

He stands for the most corrupt party in the history of the state.

It wouldn't matter whether he had the golden touch to bring recovery to this country overnight, his own party colleagues would piss it all up against the wall again, just like they have always done.

If he had any real honour, he would walk away from a party that has dishonoured itself irrevocably, a party that as far as I can see, no man could redeem, the rot goes so deep. I am sorry for his health issues. I am sure he could do himself no end of good by looking after himself instead of worrying about a party that would drop him like a hot cake if it suited them.

Fianna Fáil have no honour, and neither does anyone who stands for them.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Another piece of FF filth, nothing more

These kind of comments are very discouraging when it comes to posting here.

Het-Field wrote: »

Lenihan will need to be judged at another time. The man has established a complex bank strategy, which is liable to make a large loss, but could be the answer to cleaning up the banks. The man has also commited himself, thus far to financial austerity. However, whether he choose to maintain this austier course will be articulated in the future.

In fairness, you're absolutely correct on this.I always say that you can only look back on someone's work and make a judgement after they are finished.I suppose you could say that the purpose of this thread is to hear different people's viewpoints on Lenihans suitability for the job, what kind of a job he has done so far and so on.

At the end of the day, it is as yet unclear how things like NAMA and the banking guarantee will look when we reflect on them in 20 years time, so from that point of view, it is difficult to really give an accurate account of how Lenihan will be judged.Everything in this thread is really only speculation-but I am speculating that he will be looked on very favourably.

doctorwu wrote: »

The guy is out of his depth. He and the rest of the gombeens were sold pup after pup by the banks(staffed with all their cronies,Bertie "my good friend Seannie"). I wish him well with his illness, but you reap what you sow.

Please, please tell me that you're not implying that he deserves the cancer.

Het-Field

trapsagenius wrote: »

These kind of comments are very discouraging when it comes to posting here.



In fairness, you're absolutely correct on this.I always say that you can only look back on someone's work and make a judgement after they are finished.I suppose you could say that the purpose of this thread is to hear different people's viewpoints on Lenihans suitability for the job, what kind of a job he has done so far and so on.

At the end of the day, it is as yet unclear how things like NAMA and the banking guarantee will look when we reflect on them in 20 years time, so from that point of view, it is difficult to really give an accurate account of how Lenihan will be judged.Everything in this thread is really only speculation-but I am speculating that he will be looked on very favourably.



Please, please tell me that you're not implying that he deserves the cancer.

Hence why it is easier to dismiss some of his fellow collegues, particularly the incumbent in the Taoiseach's office. I still find it incredible that people would back him up. After all, he was Minister For Finance, when the Irish Government chose to ignore international experiences in property bubbles, and proceeded to use property as the base for their electoral success in 2007. Historically he was a poor Minister. His only contribution to heath was his baptism of the department as "Angola", while taking on Foreign Affairs at a time when the most pressing issues in the North had been dealt with.

Lenihan was a Junior Minister at the time. He was a a Junior Minister who many felt was sidelined by Bertie Ahern. I recall seeing him in action in 2005, and pegging him as the "leader after Cowen". I believe that NAMA will never turn a profit, and i dont believe many of the assets purchased by NAMA are redundant. However, until this is made explicitly clear, I will reserve judgement. Equally, Lenihan's budgetary strategy for 2011 and 2012 will be an indication of his willingness to implement fiscal restraint, which has not been the staple for the Fianna Fail Party (a high ranking member of the PP stated to me that "I never thought I would see the day when FF would cut social welfare").

Essexboy

As John Stuart Mill said "His eminence was due to the flatness of the surrounding landscape".

Lenihan's colleagues are so poor that he looks good but he has allowed the bankers to continue as before which suggests a lack of will and also raises the question "if he yields so easily in public, what happens in private?"

Colonel Sanders

trapsagenius wrote: »

These kind of comments are very discouraging when it comes to posting here.

On what basis? FF have for the 2nd time in just over 30 years destroyed this country's economy and condemned generations of young people to a life outside these shores. They have sold the country out from under the feet of its citizens

I have nothing but contempt for the party and their TDs. It angers me every time I see that deluded moron Bertie Ahern's smug grin. I feel sick to the pit of my stomach every time I hear either of the 2 Brian's trying to bluff the country's problems away.

People belonging to that organisation are pretty low down the food chain in my opinion so I stand by my comment

maynooth_rules

Had a small bit of respect for him before this
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/now-600-escape-full-brunt-of-public-sector-pay-cuts-2000643.html

He is just another FF gumbawn but he is a little more in touch with the ordinary people than some of the clowns in that party

Liam Byrne

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Had a small bit of respect for him before this
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/now-600-escape-full-brunt-of-public-sector-pay-cuts-2000643.html

He is just another FF gumbawn but he is a little more in touch with the ordinary people than some of the clowns in that party

Yup....sickening!

A "bonus" is just that - a "bonus"....extra

It is not part of your basic pay.

Then again, in a party that objects to the definition of a "loan" / dig-out and the definition of "expenses" and the definition of "your normal place of residence", what the hell do you expect ? Hell, Cowen even tried to redefine "holidays", and NAMA is trying to redefine "profit", while Anglo is still viewed as an "investment" :mad:

Of course, FF look after those who are in a position to get bonuses and pensions and the like, and to hell with those who have just enough to get by, like the cleaner mentioned in that article.

FF are a cancer at this stage. Bend, twist and subvert every possible rule in the book and get away with it, while screwing ordinary people who have no choice but to file their PAYE and get walloped by extra taxes.

jmayo

trapsagenius wrote: »

These kind of comments are very discouraging when it comes to posting here.

Were you given the same hymm sheet as frankie "where's me trawler" fahy used this morning on RTE1 ?
Are we supposed to all stop with the depressing, cyncial, sceptical comments about our government and our future outlook ?
Lets all look on the bright side ehhh.

trapsagenius wrote: »

At the end of the day, it is as yet unclear how things like NAMA and the banking guarantee will look when we reflect on them in 20 years time, so from that point of view, it is difficult to really give an accurate account of how Lenihan will be judged.Everything in this thread is really only speculation-but I am speculating that he will be looked on very favourably.

Ah f**k it we have only got to suffer for 20 years and then shure it will all be worth it ?
You know where speculating got us. :rolleyes:

For anyone that claims lenihan is some new ffer with morals and ethics just listen to the speech he gave condoning, nay supporting, the actions of a fellow legal professional in lying on a sworn affadivit to the High court.
Please note lenihan is no ordinary lawyer, he is a senior consel that lectured in law and he is married to a ciruit court judge.
Obviously he has different take on the law and judicial system than us mere mortals who have always been told one must tell the truth. :rolleyes:

This was also the man who had no problems speaking at the funeral for the ex party leader and friend of his father that effectively stole from the fund raised to help his father get treatment for his liver failure.

He is just another dyed in the wool ffer, he was reared at the ff teat.

trapsagenius

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

On what basis? FF have for the 2nd time in just over 30 years destroyed this country's economy and condemned generations of young people to a life outside these shores. They have sold the country out from under the feet of its citizens

I have nothing but contempt for the party and their TDs. It angers me every time I see that deluded moron Bertie Ahern's smug grin. I feel sick to the pit of my stomach every time I hear either of the 2 Brian's trying to bluff the country's problems away.

People belonging to that organisation are pretty low down the food chain in my opinion so I stand by my comment

On the basis that slagging someone off for simply being a member of FF or describing someone as "FF filth" shows that you clearly are not even going to listen to the alternative viewpoint and therefore there is little point in trying to debate with you.

FF have done a lot of good since their foundation, and, (dare I say it) have many members who joined the party in the hope of doing Ireland some good rather than out of some hope of benefiting themselves and their "cronies".Same as any other party really, and I don't see how tarring very FF member with the same brush does any good.But in fairness, boards.ie was always good for generalisations.

jmayo wrote: »

Were you given the same hymm sheet as frankie "where's me trawler" fahy used this morning on RTE1 ?
Are we supposed to all stop with the depressing, cyncial, sceptical comments about our government and our future outlook ?
Lets all look on the bright side ehhh.

I don't mind someone criticising FF for x, y and z, but criticising someone for being a member of FF, or for being FF "filth" is a bit much.

jmayo wrote: »

Ah f**k it we have only got to suffer for 20 years and then shure it will all be worth it ?
You know where speculating got us. :rolleyes:

I only used 20 years as an example of how long it might take before we can properly judge Lenihan.Anyway, by engaging in the thread, you're engaging in a bit of speculation yourself, so you're guilty of the same crime as me.;)

jmayo wrote: »

For anyone that claims lenihan is some new ffer with morals and ethics just listen to the speech he gave condoning, nay supporting, the actions of a fellow legal professional in lying on a sworn affadivit to the High court.
Please note lenihan is no ordinary lawyer, he is a senior consel that lectured in law and he is married to a ciruit court judge.
Obviously he has different take on the law and judicial system than us mere mortals who have always been told one must tell the truth. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to defend this, because I was as disappointed with the whole O'Dea affair as everyone else, but I must point out that Lenihan was obliged to defend O'Dea due to Cowen's backing and if someone deserves the blame for this, it is Cowen.

jmayo wrote: »

This was also the man who had no problems speaking at the funeral for the ex party leader and friend of his father that effectively stole from the fund raised to help his father get treatment for his liver failure.

We've had this discussion before.I take it that you won't mind if I copy and paste something I previously posted?


I think he was asked to say a piece and it would have been poor form to refuse, imo.There is a time for recriminations, but immediately after someone's death is not the time.Also, if Brian Lenihan could find it in him to forgive Haughey even after what he did to his father (sorry to get sidetracked , but didn't Haughey only take the extra money from the fund?Obviously this is still completely indefensible, but its not as bad as taking money when it was still desperately needed.I am open to correction on this point, and I still think its repulsive), then doesn't that reflect well on him again?

jmayo wrote: »

He is just another dyed in the wool ffer, he was reared at the ff teat.

There are also many FG TDs in the Dail who were raised at the "FG teat".Is this their fault?Would you hold this against them as you seem to hold it against Lenihan?

On the subject of FG TDs, given your low opinion of Lenihan, what do you make of the fact that 2 of the 3 top guns in FG at present (Noonan and O'Reilly) have recently praised him and his capabilities?

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

I only used 20 years as an example of how long it might take before we can properly judge Lenihan.Anyway, by engaging in the thread, you're engaging in a bit of speculation yourself, so you're guilty of the same crime as me.;)

Realistic or pessimistic speculation based on facts is acceptable.

Unrealistic and overly-optimistic speculation is crazy (as has been proven).

trapsagenius wrote: »

I'm not going to defend this, because I was as disappointed with the whole O'Dea affair as everyone else, but I must point out that Lenihan was obliged to defend O'Dea due to Cowen's backing and if someone deserves the blame for this, it is Cowen.

No-one is "obliged" to defend corruption and dodgy activities.

In fact, if Lenihan had acted ethically and morally on this, he might actually be worthy of some of the praise that you and a few others bestow on him.

trapsagenius wrote: »

I think he was asked to say a piece and it would have been poor form to refuse, imo.There is a time for recriminations, but immediately after someone's death is not the time.

I'm not suggesting that Lenihan use the occasion to explicitly highlight what a weasel Haughey was, but a polite decline would have been enough to make a point.

Actually, when is the time for attributing blame and recriminations ? Obviously not at a funeral, but how about when corruption comes to light ? Or when banking reports highlight monumental screw-ups ? Or should we all wait 20 years, so that those responsible get off scot-free ?

paddyland

trapsagenius wrote: »

These kind of comments are very discouraging when it comes to posting here.

I appreciate your preference for balanced debate rather than one sided villification. However, when it comes to debating the future of this country and it's people, I do not wish to hear any utterance regarding policy from the people who were the primary cause of flushing the future of this country down the toilet.

How can you have a reasoned, balanced debate when one party continuously and relentlessly use LIES and SPIN rather than facts and honesty? The word of anyone in Fianna Fáil is not worth sh1te, considering the bald faced LIES we have been subjected to over the whole term of this government, not to mention the entire tenure of the Bertie government.

At this stage, a very sizeable proportion of the population distrust FF vehemently, and are sickened by the continuous pitiful attempts at self preservation of a party who harbour and condone chancers, charlatans and crooks. I am sorry if that discourages you, but it is a valid and widely held point of view.

trapsagenius

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Realistic or pessimistic speculation based on facts is acceptable.

Unrealistic and overly-optimistic speculation is crazy (as has been proven).

I don't view it as such.Anyway there's no money involved in this so it hardly matters.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No-one is "obliged" to defend corruption and dodgy activities.

In fact, if Lenihan had acted ethically and morally on this, he might actually be worthy of some of the praise that you and a few others bestow on him.

Well lets assume Cowen asked him to say a piece.Had he refused he could have had the party whip withdrawn, and you can't make any impact from the sidelines, and we all know that sometimes in politics, like in life in general, you have to do things you don't like and choose an option which is not ideal but which you might view as the lesser of two evils.Lenihan most likely did what he viewed as the better option in this situation.Still disappointing obviously, but somewhat more understandable.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that Lenihan use the occasion to explicitly highlight what a weasel Haughey was, but a polite decline would have been enough to make a point.

Well if he can forgive haughey (for what he did to his father, not for the corruption), I don't see why we should hold this against him.I think it actually reflects well on him.Anyway, I don't think any kind of decline would have been viewed as "polite" by the Haughey family.It was either he did and everything was fine, or he refused, which would have been a bit of a slap to the face to the Haughey family.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Actually, when is the time for attributing blame and recriminations ? Obviously not at a funeral, but how about when corruption comes to light ?

I don't have an answer to that tbh.I suppose it would vary on the case.Probably when it has been conclusively and definitely proved that "acts of corruption" (couldn't think of a better way of phrasing that) have taken place.That would be as good a guideline as any I suppose.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Or when banking reports highlight monumental screw-ups ? Or should we all wait 20 years, so that those responsible get off scot-free ?

The banking reports did not really highlight "monumental screw ups" in Lenihans case.In Cowen's yes, but not in Lenihan's.

Again, I only used 20 years as a yardstick.I could just as easily have said "it is as yet unclear how things like NAMA and the banking guarantee will look when we reflect on them in 5 years time" rather than 20.I was simply agreeing with Het-Field when he pointed out that it is still difficult to judge Lenihan given the fact that we don't yet know how things like the banking guarantee and NAMA will pan out.As I stated previously, we are only speculating.

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

The banking reports did not really highlight "monumental screw ups" in Lenihans case.In Cowen's yes, but not in Lenihan's.

I presume the word "really" is in there to soften the denial ?

As in :

The state could have saved €10bn-€15bn if the bank guarantee had been structured to lessen its exposure to Anglo Irish and Irish Nationwide, leading banking experts have calculated for the first time.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/jun/13/state-wasted-15bn-on-bank-guarantee-scheme/

€10bn - €15bn is a monumental screw-up!

trapsagenius wrote: »

I was simply agreeing with Het-Field when he pointed out that it is still difficult to judge Lenihan given the fact that we don't yet know how things like the banking guarantee and NAMA will pan out.

Well, NAMA will not do the 3 things that Lenihan promised, so either (a) he was lying or (b) it's crap. And those are the facts.

trapsagenius

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I presume the word "really" is in there to soften the denial ?

Well I always like a little room to manoeuvre, so I try not to make completely sweeping statements as a rule.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As in :


http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/jun/13/state-wasted-15bn-on-bank-guarantee-scheme/

€10bn - €15bn is a monumental screw-up!

Honahan did endorse the bank guarantee, like it says in the article, but he said that it should not have included subordinated debt.Obviously, without question, 10-15 billion being wasted is very bad.However, when you realise that the 10-15 billion being wasted is only as a result of a decision that was itself endorsed on the most part, then it becomes much less bad.By this I mean that although a better decision could undoubtedly have been made, the decision itself was correct on the most part.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well, NAMA will not do the 3 things that Lenihan promised, so either (a) he was lying or (b) it's crap. And those are the facts.

You couldn't refresh my memory as to what these 3 things were could you? (genuinely).

Make a profit was one of them.Get credit flowing was the second ( I think).What was the third thing?

jmayo

trapsagenius wrote: »

On the basis that slagging someone off for simply being a member of FF or describing someone as "FF filth" shows that you clearly are not even going to listen to the alternative viewpoint and therefore there is little point in trying to debate with you.

Except the alternative viewpoint from ff is that corruption, lack of ethics, twisting the truth and even worse twisting the entire economy to benefit ff supporters is ok.

trapsagenius wrote: »

FF have done a lot of good since their foundation, and, (dare I say it) have many members who joined the party in the hope of doing Ireland some good rather than out of some hope of benefiting themselves and their "cronies".Same as any other party really, and I don't see how tarring very FF member with the same brush does any good.But in fairness, boards.ie was always good for generalisations.

Looking at who gets to the top in ff, I would say that benefitting themselves and their cronies is the motto.

trapsagenius wrote: »

I only used 20 years as an example of how long it might take before we can properly judge Lenihan.Anyway, by engaging in the thread, you're engaging in a bit of speculation yourself, so you're guilty of the same crime as me.;)

Except my speculation unlike that of ff and theirt cronies only ever has cost me money.

trapsagenius wrote: »

I'm not going to defend this, because I was as disappointed with the whole O'Dea affair as everyone else, but I must point out that Lenihan was obliged to defend O'Dea due to Cowen's backing and if someone deserves the blame for this, it is Cowen.

Oh FFS will you stop.
First off I would bet somewhere around here yu have labelled him as courageous (I definetly know some of his sycophants have) for his economic decisions and for conintuning to work and then you claim he rolled over for cowen on this matter.

That has got to be one of the worse half hearted explanations you have ever come up with around here.

trapsagenius wrote: »

I think he was asked to say a piece and it would have been poor form to refuse, imo.There is a time for recriminations, but immediately after someone's death is not the time.Also, if Brian Lenihan could find it in him to forgive Haughey even after what he did to his father (sorry to get sidetracked , but didn't Haughey only take the extra money from the fund?Obviously this is still completely indefensible, but its not as bad as taking money when it was still desperately needed.I am open to correction on this point, and I still think its repulsive), then doesn't that reflect well on him again?

Oh FFS there you go again scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find lame excuses.
It doesn't reflect well on you either trying to come up with excuses to try and lessen the scummy thing haughey actually did.

Shure it was alright then to take the money since ould brian didn't need it at the the time.
I wonder has any bank robber or embezzeler ever used that excuse ?
And I detest the Irish cr**ology about not spekaing ill of the dead even if they were scum, theives, liars and abused everyone around them.
Call a spade a spade.

trapsagenius wrote: »

There are also many FG TDs in the Dail who were raised at the "FG teat".Is this their fault?Would you hold this against them as you seem to hold it against Lenihan?

There are too many dynastys in Irish politics across all parties.
Hell even SF have them.

On the subject of FG TDs, given your low opinion of Lenihan, what do you make of the fact that 2 of the 3 top guns in FG at present (Noonan and O'Reilly) have recently praised him and his capabilities?

I think for myself and it doesn't matter what Noonan or Reilly (both of whom I would have some respect for) think of him.

trapsagenius wrote: »

I don't view it as such.Anyway there's no money involved in this so it hardly matters.

Well lets assume Cowen asked him to say a piece.Had he refused he could have had the party whip withdrawn, and you can't make any impact from the sidelines, and we all know that sometimes in politics, like in life in general, you have to do things you don't like and choose an option which is not ideal but which you might view as the lesser of two evils.Lenihan most likely did what he viewed as the better option in this situation.Still disappointing obviously, but somewhat more understandable.

Oh FFS cowen is going to withdraw the whip for that.
Jeeze will you give up on the excuses they are getting ever more far fetched.
Actually IMHO you don't believe them and the imagine of you writing them is akin to the speeches that eamon sanctimnonious ryan made.
They are hollow and it comes through.

trapsagenius wrote: »

The banking reports did not really highlight "monumental screw ups" in Lenihans case.In Cowen's yes, but not in Lenihan's.

Nice choice of words.
Most poeple would reckon there was no really in that sentence.

trapsagenius wrote: »

Again, I only used 20 years as a yardstick.I could just as easily have said "it is as yet unclear how things like NAMA and the banking guarantee will look when we reflect on them in 5 years time" rather than 20.I was simply agreeing with Het-Field when he pointed out that it is still difficult to judge Lenihan given the fact that we don't yet know how things like the banking guarantee and NAMA will pan out.As I stated previously, we are only speculating.

Just like NAMA is now speculating on property. :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

10-15 billion being wasted is very bad.However, when you realise that the 10-15 billion being wasted is only as a result of a decision that was itself endorsed on the most part, then it becomes much less bad.

Seriously ? You're trying to argue that wasting €10 - €15 billion is "very bad", and not a monumental f**k-up ? :eek:

Tell you what, so - you pay it. I believe it's a monumental f**k-up that means the idiot who included that in the guarantee should never hold office again, but you're defending him. So you pay the bill that he's landed us with ? That OK with you ?

Because it's by no means "much less bad". It's €10-€15 billion wasted by Lenihan

trapsagenius wrote: »

Make a profit was one of them.Get credit flowing was the second ( I think).What was the third thing?

To prevent the need to nationalise the banks.

trapsagenius

I have just rejigged your post a small bit so that I don't have to deal with some topics twice.

jmayo wrote: »

Oh FFS will you stop.
First off I would bet somewhere around here yu have labelled him as courageous (I definetly know some of his sycophants have) for his economic decisions and for conintuning to work and then you claim he rolled over for cowen on this matter.

That has got to be one of the worse half hearted explanations you have ever come up with around here.

Oh FFS cowen is going to withdraw the whip for that.
Jeeze will you give up on the excuses they are getting ever more far fetched.
Actually IMHO you don't believe them and the imagine of you writing them is akin to the speeches that eamon sanctimnonious ryan made.
They are hollow and it comes through.

Look, cabinet, or at least the FF members of cabinet, made a decision to back O'Dea-I did not agree with this decision, but it is not me we are discussing, it is Lenihan.Anyway, I don't know for sure if Lenihan was one of members of cabinet who was completely in favour of backing O'Dea or whether he was just a member who "played along" so to speak, but judging from the fact that it was Dermot Ahern and Cowen who argued most forcefully in favour of O'Dea, I'm guessing that it was the latter.The point is, if cabinet makes a decision and you go against it-that is a resigning issue.So perhaps I was incorrect when I said that Lenihan would have the whip removed-but it is highly likely that if he had said that he would refuse to back O'Dea that there would have been a crisis.And you cannot make a difference from outside cabinet.

Now if what I have said is wrong, and Lenihan DID,in reality, back O'Dea in cabinet, then this makes his position a good deal more untenable.Like I said, the whole O'Dea affair reflects badly on the government.But even then, there is something which I have neglected to mention until now, which would make Lenihan's stance even more understandable.His father was done for something very similar during the 1990 presidential election.As I understand it, the scars from that incident and its aftermath still run deep in that family, even though Lenihan sr. was in the wrong as I see it.Lenihan might have seen some parallels between O'Dea's story and his father's one, which would have made him more sympathetic to O'Dea.Still wrong, but more understandable.

jmayo wrote: »

Oh FFS there you go again scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find lame excuses.
It doesn't reflect well on you either trying to come up with excuses to try and lessen the scummy thing haughey actually did.

Well I'm sorry if you view my "excuses" as "lame", but this is often a misunderstood incident, and complete and utter crook that Haughey was, there is no need for people to make him out to be even worse than he actually was.But there are, as I see it, different degrees of how indefensible something is, which I will elaborate on further down.

jmayo wrote: »

Shure it was alright then to take the money since ould brian didn't need it at the the time.

Where did I say this?I said that it was still completely indefensible (I even put "completely" in bold so as to emphasise this point).But there is no need for people to spread inaccuracies, which is why I always try and bring the point up if it comes up.

Look the difference as I see it between the two versions people see is this.I will need to go off on a small tangent to explain this.

I view robbing an old defenceless woman as completely indefensible.
I also view killing an old woman as completely indefensible.
I view killing an old woman as worse than robbing an old woman, even though both are still indefensible.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but I see a similar kind of thing with the Haughey/Lenihan sr. fund.

jmayo wrote: »

Nice choice of words.
Most poeple would reckon there was no really in that sentence.

Like I said, I like a little room to manoeuvre.

jmayo wrote: »

And I detest the Irish cr**ology about not spekaing ill of the dead even if they were scum, theives, liars and abused everyone around them.
Call a spade a spade.

I don't.People can speak ill of Haughey now and that's grand, indeed, its justified.But not straight after he's dead.Pat Rabitte, a man who I generally have absolutely zero time for, made similar comments to mine after his death as well, which I respected.Crook he might have been, but he was still loved by some people and they deserved their chance to grieve in peace.

And as I said before-if Lenihan could forgive Haughey even after what he did to his father, does this not reflect well on him?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Seriously ? You're trying to argue that wasting €10 - €15 billion is "very bad", and not a monumental f**k-up ? :eek:

Because it's by no means "much less bad". It's €10-€15 billion wasted by Lenihan

Look, if you said to me, "Lenihan wasted 10-15 billion", then of course I'd have to say that this was a monumental f**k up.

But if you said to me "Lenihan spent 10-15 billion more than he should have when making decision that was trying to prevent total economic collapse in Ireland", and it seems, succeeded in doing so, then I'd say "well, he could have done better, certainly, but the fundamentals of his decision are still sound".

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Tell you what, so - you pay it. I believe it's a monumental f**k-up that means the idiot who included that in the guarantee should never hold office again, but you're defending him. So you pay the bill that he's landed us with ? That OK with you ?

I will if jmayo goes halfsies with me.;)

EDIT:sorry, forgot this point-

Liam Byrne wrote: »

To prevent the need to nationalise the banks.

Ah yes, that was it.

Well, questions about credit flow and profit are yet to be answered.I still fail to see what the alternative to NAMA as anyway-I still view it as the "least worst solution".

Anyway, only anglo has been nationalised so far, and that was prior to NAMA.

Miss_Ellie

May I preface my posting that I truely and sincerely hope that Brian Lenihan will recover from his illness.

I think he is very brave to want to continue working.
But I really feel that he should step aside from the Dept of Finance as soon as possible, for the sake of the country.

The financial issues that need to be tackled - the fact that the financial future of every person in this country (and our childen and grandchildren also) is being wagered - the fact that he is not facing a robust and sustained opposition, as a result of his illness - the fact that the media are pussy-footing around him (ecpecially after the f*ck up made by TV3).....I think any, and all, of these are reason enough for him to go.

NAMA is selling us down the river..............when I hear about it, and about the bank bail outs etc etc etc my blood runs cold with fear.

We need real, proper leadership.
I know the man is ill, and that can't be helped. But, for the sake of the country, he needs to step aside.

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

Look, if you said to me, "Lenihan wasted 10-15 billion", then of course I'd have to say that this was a monumental f**k up.

OK. "Lenihan wasted 10-15 billion".

He didn't, contrary to your claim, "spend" it; he wasted it. He didn't have to spend it, and he spent it. That is waste.

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well, questions about credit flow and profit are yet to be answered.I still fail to see what the alternative to NAMA as anyway-I still view it as the "least worst solution".

Given that you have no objection to wasting our money, then I'm not surprised. Sure we'll give everyone in the public sector pay rises while we're throwing 10-15 billion around......we might even be able to pay for the next John O'Donoghue / Ivor Callely / Bertie Ahern expenses with the "spare change".

trapsagenius wrote: »

Anyway, only anglo has been nationalised so far, and that was prior to NAMA.

We're not talking about NAMA (that fiasco has been discussed elsewhere). We're talking about Lenihan's astronomically costly decisions. And who, pray tell, was Minister for Finance and decided to nationalise Anglo ? You guessed it. Another expensive cock-up.

The guy is, quite frankly, lurching from one expensive fiasco to the next, throwing good money after bad. That would be fine if it were his own money (or yours, since you're so much in favour of him).

But it's not. It's mine and everyone else's in this country that he has wasted. Not "spent". Wasted.

And it's sickening.

Duffy7

Its fairly clear now that the wrong decisions have been taken by Lenihan at crucial times. As said before the Guarantee in the fashion they did it was the wrong decision (and dont forget for weeks afterwards Lenihan and Cowen were going around thinking they were the bees knees for doing the Bank Guarantee).
NAMA looks to be something far more costly than he had envisaged (or at least as he said in public). At the time the 'haircut' was criticised for being optimistic and that has proved correct.
It now appears that there was plenty of advice and warnings given re The Guarantee and that they knew of the possibility of the banks being in trouble way before the fateful night they signed the state away.
Lenihan also took what the banks told him at their word. He was a fool for doing so.

The only reason Lenihan has been praised is for taking on the public sector and introducing the pension levy. Even then he couldn't do it right as he let the top brass in the civil service take a smaller percentage cut than the cleaner took! ...never mind he judges.

It may well be outside of his control, but developers whose loans have gone into NAMA are still swanning around like multi millionaires when really they should be out on the street. At the same time as these folks are getting away with incomes of 10k a month respite services are under threat, community projects have closed down etc etc etc.

Din Taylor

trapsagenius wrote: »

These kind of comments are very discouraging when it comes to posting here.

trapsagenius wrote: »

On the basis that slagging someone off for simply being a member of FF or describing someone as "FF filth" shows that you clearly are not even going to listen to the alternative viewpoint and therefore there is little point in trying to debate with you.

Please get up off your high horse. The poor beast's back must be nearly broken with all of your FF hypocrisy.

The poster is only pointing out that he is a typical FFer and as such deserves no special credit. When asked to expand on this he just mentions some of FFs (many) failings over the last 30 years. Using strong language like "FF filth" doesn't make it a generalisation and even it is then it must be well deserved. Oversensitive FF-types shouldn't be posting on these forums if they are upset when, as expected, posters use strong language and remain obdurate against them.

I'm sure it's already obvious, but for what it's worht, I agree with this and other posters' anti-FF sentiments. Not really much point in elaborating further on that.

trapsagenius

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK. "Lenihan wasted 10-15 billion".

He didn't, contrary to your claim, "spend" it; he wasted it. He didn't have to spend it, and he spent it. That is waste.

You seem intent as presenting it as such.I am trying to look at what I see as the bigger picture of when the decision was taken.Let us not forget that Lenihan was receiveing very dodgy, and often completely incorrect, advice in the run-up to the guarantee, and yet he still came up with a decision that was endorsed on the most part by the recent banking inquiry.


I do not think that we are going to agree on this point.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Given that you have no objection to wasting our money, then I'm not surprised.

You have made your position on NAMA clear many times.I am clearly not going to convince you otherwise.I still feel at present that it was the right thing to do.We will just have to wait and see how it pans out before we can say for definite whether it was or not.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

. Sure we'll give everyone in the public sector pay rises while we're throwing 10-15 billion around..

I'm more in favour of further cuts, tbh.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

we might even be able to pay for the next John O'Donoghue / Ivor Callely / Bertie Ahern expenses with the "spare change".

Don't really see how John O'Donoghue or Callely link up with what we were talking about, but what was the scandal about Bertie's expenses pray tell?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We're not talking about NAMA (that fiasco has been discussed elsewhere). We're talking about Lenihan's astronomically costly decisions. And who, pray tell, was Minister for Finance and decided to nationalise Anglo ? You guessed it. Another expensive cock-up.

Again, while I see it as a complete f**king pain, I see it as something that had to be done.

Din Taylor wrote: »

Please get up off your high horse. The poor beast's back must be nearly broken with all of your FF hypocrisy.

Ah FFS, here we go again. I am not a member of FF. I would previously have been what people would describe as a supporter, but I have made it clear time and again that I will be voting Labour in the next election.I have criticised Cowen. I have said that it is time for a change of government. However, I repsect Brian Lenihan and think he is the right man for minister for finance, and I defend him. So you can retract that comment.

Din Taylor wrote: »

The poster is only pointing out that he is a typical FFer and as such deserves no special credit.

Where did he say this? And obviously, no-one deserves "special credit" if they don't do anything, or if they do things wrong.People deserve credit if they get things right, which I believe Lenihan has.

Din Taylor wrote: »

When asked to expand on this he just mentions some of FFs (many) failings over the last 30 years.

And why didn't he mention any of the good things that they have done I wonder?Because he might be a tad blinkered maybe?

Din Taylor wrote: »

Using strong language like "FF filth" doesn't make it a generalisation

"FF filth" isn't a generalisation?

Whatever you're having yourself.:rolleyes:

Din Taylor wrote: »

Oversensitive FF-types shouldn't be posting on these forums if they are upset when, as expected, posters use strong language and remain obdurate against them.

Thank God that this isn't directed at me.;)

And I'm not "upset", I am just a bit discouraged.I mean,in all fairness, who am I convincing by posting all this?No-one it seems.

But I'm going to do it anyway.;)

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

You seem intent as presenting it as such.

It's not a case of "presenting it as..." anything. It's a waste. He had no need to spend it, and he did.

BTW, for someone who "gives themselves room to manoeuvre".....

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well I always like a little room to manoeuvre, so I try not to make completely sweeping statements as a rule.

....you're not living up to your earlier categorically clear statement :

trapsagenius wrote: »

Look, if you said to me, "Lenihan wasted 10-15 billion", then of course I'd have to say that this was a monumental f**k up.

You seem intent on trying to deflect from the fact that it was a complete and utter waste, however the above statement clearly says that if I said he wasted it, you'd admit it was a monumental f**k up.......but you still refuse to.

That reminds me of Callely's "if I'm found to have done wrong, I'll repay the money"; he's found to have done wrong, and refuses to act.

I'm not sure what party you support, but you're defending the indefensible and also using tactics very similar to FF.

Lenihan wasted €10 - €15 billion. FACT.

trapsagenius

Liam Byrne wrote: »

BTW, for someone who "gives themselves room to manoeuvre".....

That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.The bit about trying not to make completely sweeping statements was true though.There are exceptions obviously, and if you, or anyone else, said that Lenihan had simply wasted 10-15 billion then I would be obliged to say that this was a monumental f**k up.But the 10-15 billion went towards a decision whereby Lenihan, it seems, prevented total economic and banking collapse in Ireland.Therefore, while a better decision could have been taken, it is not a monumental f**k up, because the decision has been mostly endorsed.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not sure what party you support, but you're defending the indefensible and also using tactics very similar to FF.

I would previously have supported FF but now am backing Labour in the next GE.I still respect Lenihan. And I do not view it as indefensible.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Lenihan wasted €10 - €15 billion. FACT.

You view it as total waste.I do not.

Gravy Fanatic

Len is the man to get things done, do you really trust them blueshirts now to look after your money? Sure they are gettin into fights half the time, imagine them trying to run a country!

Liam Byrne

trapsagenius wrote: »

if you, or anyone else, said that Lenihan had simply wasted 10-15 billion then I would be obliged to say that this was a monumental f**k up.

:rolleyes: You're adding words again in order to defend your point. Stop doing so. Earlier it was "really", now it's "simply". It's getting irritating.

trapsagenius wrote: »

You view it as total waste.I do not.

€10 - €15 billion spent, that didn't need to be spent, is a total waste. (Yet another word thrown in :rolleyes: )

Din Taylor

trapsagenius wrote: »

Ah FFS, here we go again. I am not a member of FF.

Never said you were. Believe any defence of the government including praise is pure FF spin. Even our Finance Minister. IMO he is just as bad as the rest of them for reason largely already covered on this thread.

trapsagenius wrote: »

And why didn't he mention any of the good things that they have done I wonder?Because he might be a tad blinkered maybe?

Bit of a ridiculous thing to say. As he said they've almost bankrupt the country twice in thirty years so why should he mention or even consider the "good things" they did? IMO their biggest contribution, on a macro level, is to demonstrate how stupid, dangerous and inconsistent populism is as a political ideology.

trapsagenius wrote: »

"FF filth" isn't a generalisation?

Don't think so as I believe it was his intention to to use it to describe his contempt for the FF members of government. Very small group of people. Anyway it doesn't matter whether or not it is a generalisation as I think it would be a fair assessment of the majority of the FF members of government.

trapsagenius wrote: »

And I'm not "upset", I am just a bit discouraged.I mean,in all fairness, who am I convincing by posting all this?No-one it seems.

But I'm going to do it anyway.;)

Good - it is only an internet forum after all. Just thought you were being a bit arsey saying that you didn't want to debate with the guy as you didn't agree with his opinons. Good luck with trying to convince people but I am glad that the boardsies aren't convinced by the media's soft treatment of Lenihan.:):):):):)

Sand

@trapsagenius

Let us not forget that Lenihan was receiveing very dodgy, and often completely incorrect, advice in the run-up to the guarantee, and yet he still came up with a decision that was endorsed on the most part by the recent banking inquiry.

The advice he received came from the people he appointed to advise him or accepted as competent to do so. If he credited a career civil servant like Neary who had no qualifications for his role, or DoF personnel who are widely recognised as being uneducated and unqualified on economic or banking issues, or Merrill Lynch, a bank which itself had to be rescued from its own stupidity by the US government to advise him then he gets the advice he paid for.

Lenihan is credited with being such a smart and capable guy by yourself, but clearly his strength is not in judging whose worth asking for advice.

Plus, I must assume if Honahans support for some form of guarantee is advertised as endorsement for Lennys Guaratee one more time, he'll probably go on a gun rampage. He spent quite a bit of the report outlining his disagreement with Lennys guarantee.

Re: Your point on waiting to judge Lenihan

Do you really believe we are in a position of such luxury that we can afford to suspend judgement and continue to allow a man whose only qualification is his family name to continue to cripple our economic future for the sake of dead banks?

I dont think even those of us who think Lenihan is completely out of his depth and dangerously obsessed with rescuing dead banks at any cost to the taxpayer will draw any satisfaction from being proven right 10 years down the road. Id rather we got someone qualified in.

Tell you what though - I will give some credit to whoever is deciding appointments to economic/financial governance roles these days - they seem to be picking good, qualified people at least. I have been especially impressed by the new FR. Makes a change from the typical Fianna Failers appointing their mates to cushy state and semi-state numbers. I assume sheer terror has siezed someone in their ranks. The only danger is the same fate that fell upon Alan Ahearne waits for them - hired up to keep them inside the tent, but otherwise totally ignored when it comes to deciding policy.

fly_agaric

Sand wrote: »

Tell you what though - I will give some credit to whoever is deciding appointments to economic/financial governance roles these days - they seem to be picking good, qualified people at least. I have been especially impressed by the new FR. Makes a change from the typical Fianna Failers appointing their mates to cushy state and semi-state numbers.

Its just fear of what the various creditors [who own "Ireland Inc" now, we just live here] might think. It does FF no credit at all. If it hadn't all blown up in their faces perhaps Sean Fitzpatrick or Fingleton or David Drumm would in the central bank now??:p

Colonel Sanders

trapsagenius wrote: »

On the basis that slagging someone off for simply being a member of FF or describing someone as "FF filth" shows that you clearly are not even going to listen to the alternative viewpoint and therefore there is little point in trying to debate with you.

I was not slagging him of on the sole basis of being a member of FF, read my original post. I do classify him and many of his parliamentary colleagues as filth. It might not be the type of language that should be used in a serious conversation but you'll have to excuse me here, flushing the future of the country down the drain is an emotive subject for some. The introduction of a smoking ban and plastic bag levy doesn't really balance this out

The thoughts that me, my children, grand children and quite likely great grand children will pay for this mess does raise my blood just a tad

Show me an alternative view? Convince me that the likes of Frank "40 Gaffs" Fahey are not either idiots, morons or corrupt and I will address your point.

For further info on the type of bloke good old Frank is see here and here. For evidence of how idiotic the man is see the 2nd link and also this one

Is it a case that he really is the best and brightest in FF so is allowed talk through his hole re. government policy or is just the case that Lenny is far too clever to allow himself to be made look such a fool (and I have no doubt that Peter Mathews, Karl Whelan Brian Lucey etc would make him look the fool I believe he is) so he throws cannon fodder like Fahey in front of the advancing tanks

oppenheimer1

Sand wrote: »

One of the poorest Finance Ministers the country has ever had - Cowen was worse of course, but Cowen took several years to get things in a terrible mess. Lenihan managed to make things significantly worse in a single night.

As Morgan Kelly pointed out, Lenihan has time and time and time again got it wrong - at any given point throughout the crisis you could read a pronouncement/prediction by Lenihan and know that the exact opposite would happen. This has carried on throughout the entire debacle.

I dont think hes that strong either - Its not too hard to talk about the need for fiscal restraint when theres no money left and the ECB are breathing down your neck. Even in that context, for all his supposed strength Cowen forced him to accept the Croke Park deal, and Bord Snip Nua cuts were abandoned due to the fury of the quangocracy and the trade unions. He gives a good speech and projects himself well, but hes a lawyer - one would expect he could talk a good game.

I also find it hard to forget his fathers comments that this island was too small for us all to live and work here. Brian Lenihan Snr of course never even conceived that his own sons might have to emigrate to live and work. That was for the little people, the peasants. Lenihan and his brother are Fianna Fail aristocracy and symptomatic of the worst aspects of our feudalistic democracy. It might be cruel to say he got to his position on the basis of his name, but it surely didnt hurt - [EDIT Actually, calling a spade a spade...he did - he inherited his fathers seat like a family heirloom /EDIT]. You can be quite sure than none of the Lenihan children today will face the prospect of emigration.

I'm bemused by the popularity he has in the wider media and public - I assume he looks good in the company he keeps because hes one of the few FF members who dont pick their nose on live TV.

I think if we looked outside the various FF family lineages we might find a far better candidate for Minister of Finance.

I disagree with this almost entirely. To say he has got it constantly wrong is unfair and inaccurate. The last budget he presented shored up international confidence in Irelands ability to deal with its problems. Indeed as a result of his hard work the price of Irish borrowing fell.

Brian Lenihan didn't inherit his fathers seat, he won in in the last election on his own merits. He is a barrister, gold medallist and scholar of Trinity College, so he is far from dim. Indeed with his intelligence its odd that he chose a life as a public representative, considering he has the earning potential of many multiples of a ministers salary in the private sector. He is not responsible for the motives of those that vote for him.


To say Lenihen made things worse in a single night is unfair in the extreme. The waters were uncharted and even the Fed got things wrong. My reasoning for their complete guarantee of the banks was they wanted to take no chances. Perhaps wrongly they feared the wrath of the markets, but when Irish banks cannot even get quotes for short term loans you can understand their dilemma.

jmayo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I disagree with this almost entirely. To say he has got it constantly wrong is unfair and inaccurate. The last budget he presented shored up international confidence in Irelands ability to deal with its problems. Indeed as a result of his hard work the price of Irish borrowing fell.

How many budgets/mini budgets did we have last year ?

But under his work the ultimate borrowings have skyrocketed what with our pouring billions into defunct financial institutions.
Note they are still borrowings even if one finds a fancy way of dressing them up to be off balance sheet, etc.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Brian Lenihan didn't inherit his fathers seat, he won in in the last election on his own merits. He is a barrister, gold medallist and scholar of Trinity College, so he is far from dim.

So I presume you would say he is an eminent legal professional with a sharp brain ?
Can you please then answer how come then he doesn't see any difficulties in another legal professional lying on sworn affadivit to the second highest court in the land ?

Or is it sharp intellect but no morals or ethics ?

Colonel Sanders

I'm not being smart but I ignore his record as a legal expert. I mean I don't ask Doctors or Actuaries for legal advice

He claimed that Irish commercial property has the highest yields in the world. The only way I can square that circle is if he is dividing the rent currently paid by a tenant (while the lease may have been negotiated back in the bubble days) against today's market price. If this is correct he is either talking through his hole or is deliberately misleading the public