Vincent, Iceland and our ship of fools.

dunsandin

Anybody watching Vincent Browne tonight? The former Icelandic premier related how the Bank creditors and bondholders of its failed financial institutions were allowed to realise their losses on their poor investments, and, he further related how Iceland is well on its way to recovery-unemployment at only 6%. Contrast and compare that with our own buffoonish and deluded policy of "WE can handle it- we the Irish state will guarantee the whole shebang, and hang the expense" - It reminds me of a boastful drunk guaranteeing to pay for everyones booze and waking up with a banging head and empty pockets. Nama, predicted to "turn a profit" in the long run, is now quietly expected to rack up best case losses of 36Bn. Listening to our financial guiding lights, I can only conclude that the lunatics are running the asylum. Alan Dukes actually tried to explain that the financial sector in Iceland was far more systemic and much larger in relation to its financial position than in our case!!! Hence their not having the option to offer a guarantee like ours!!! Idiotic at best, deranged and utterly rooted in cloud cookoo land - our plan to save our economy does not appear to be in the hands of capable people, they would not be allowed to run a corner shop in any other country. We are placing our, and our childrens, economic future, in the hands of fools. Anybody care to agree or disagree???

johnnyskeleton

Agree that we would have been in a better position now if we had let banks fail or partially defaulted, but on the other hand much of what has happened re: jobs is due to serious devaluation. Plus, Iceland has a very small population and the level of pre-bust unemployment was unusually low.

Devaluation is sought by a number of people for Ireland, except that they don't think about how Iceland has a mountain of foregin currency debt that they can't realistically pay back any time soon. Which is bad.

dunsandin

Hi Johnny, thanks for the reply. Have you had a gander at our level of foreign debt lately?You will need a telescope to see the tip of it.

View

dunsandin wrote: »

Anybody watching Vincent Browne tonight? The former Icelandic premier related how the Bank creditors and bondholders of its failed financial institutions were allowed to realise their losses on their poor investments, and, he further related how Iceland is well on its way to recovery-unemployment at only 6%.

Iceland - like Ireland - imports most of the goods it uses. Back on this date in 2007, you needed 89.46 ISK to buy 1 Euro. Today you need 164.04 ISK. That effect, needless to say, was repeated against all major currencies.

Imagine the effect on your standard of living of having the price of all imports now costing 80%+ more than they did a few short years ago...

alang184

The markets don't lie. The government does. The two things are related.

The problem I have is that the government's duty is solely to the Irish citizens. However, it does not happen like this. There's so much dishonesty, so much secrecy; lie after lie and spin after spin.

We were told that NAMA would be a "short term loss for a long term gain". I'm far from an economics expert, but even when I looked at the numbers, I said that there was no way it would make a profit. Now it's clearly accepted that it won't make a profit, and further, that it will make a loss.

With Anglo, Lenihan said "the cost to the tax payer will be zero". Then it became 2b, then 4b, and so on until the current minimum of 24b, I believe. And it's generally accepted that it will be 30+b, and Alan Dukes appeared to accept that 39 billion would be conceivable (didn't say it, but appeared open to the prospect).

My problem is that the government are not facing up to the problem. Cowen could easily get on RTE news for 10 minutes, and communicate to the taxpayer his opinion/estimate on how much it is going to cost. Instead what they are doing, yet again, is buying themselves more time to work out a plan on how to orchestrate this whole thing to reduce the chance of bringing down the government, and to make themselves seem less responsible, and to reduce the damage to FF.

It's what the government's constantly and consistently do in this country - orchestrate situations carefully for their own benefit.

eoinbn

I didn't see the first 20 minutes but I think you are mixing up a lot of 'facts'.

Who has said that NAMA will make a loss of €36bn? Nobody knows how it will work out but I don't think anyone has said that it will lose anything like €36bn, unless Mathews gave that figure tonight. Did you mean Anglo?

I believe the unemployment figure in Iceland was given as 7-8%, not 6%. AFAIK the Icelandic bubble was a financial bubble, not a property bubble. As we had huge numbers employed in the construction sector that has led to a huge jump in unemployment. That is the key difference between Ireland and Iceland- our unemployment. If we had 7% unemployment our banking crisis would be fairly manageable, but as it is now it looks like the combo of our budget deficit+bust banks are going to bankrupt us, whereas the bust banks in Iceland was enough to bankrupt them.

alang184

eoinbn wrote: »

...but as it is now it looks like the combo of our budget deficit+bust banks are going to bankrupt us, whereas the bust banks in Iceland was enough to bankrupt them.

My concern is that, even if the state does not become bankrupt - even if the costs are somehow manageable - it's going to cause pure devastation right across the board; more tax, more cuts etc.

After a so called 'Boom', one would expect us to have a well functioning health care system, and broadband infrastructure, etc. etc. So what is the prospect now? Out the window for what, 10 years? 20 years?

View

alang184 wrote: »

The markets don't lie.

No, but they are manic depressives ranging between blind optimism and suicidal pessimism a lot of the time.

alang184 wrote: »

Cowen could easily get on RTE news for 10 minutes, and communicate to the taxpayer his opinion/estimate on how much it is going to cost.

The phrase - "You can't handle the Truth!" - springs to mind for some reason... :eek:

hinault

eoinbn wrote: »

I didn't see the first 20 minutes but I think you are mixing up a lot of 'facts'.

Who has said that NAMA will make a loss of €36bn? Nobody knows how it will work out but I don't think anyone has said that it will lose anything like €36bn, unless Mathews gave that figure tonight. Did you mean Anglo?

I believe the unemployment figure in Iceland was given as 7-8%, not 6%. AFAIK the Icelandic bubble was a financial bubble, not a property bubble. As we had huge numbers employed in the construction sector that has led to a huge jump in unemployment. That is the key difference between Ireland and Iceland- our unemployment. If we had 7% unemployment our banking crisis would be fairly manageable, but as it is now it looks like the combo of our budget deficit+bust banks are going to bankrupt us, whereas the bust banks in Iceland was enough to bankrupt them.

Iceland's current unemployment rate is 7.6%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=ISK

However our 13.7% does not include the numbers of people who've emigrated (obviously) nor does it include those remaining here who cannot claim any benefits (pretty sizable given the number of self employed people in the construction sector).
I think it is reasoanble to say our actual rate of unemployment is circa 15%.

unit 1

Was I the only one watching this show and hear Alan Dukes tentatively agree the losses could be as high as 39 billion, and only two minutes later say that standard and poors had no basis for their 35 billion estimate. I'd love to watch it again just to see but to be honest I'm afraid I might be right.

beeno67

hinault wrote: »

Iceland's current unemployment rate is 7.6%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=ISK

However our 13.7% does not include the numbers of people who cannot claim any benefits (pretty sizable given the number of self employed people in the construction sector).
.

Not true. Our unemployment rate is 13.7%, However the number claimimg benefits is about 20%. (400,000 claiming out of a working age population of 2,000,000 roughly)

RichardAnd

I've raised the point of iceland's unemployment before. However, it's worth noting that Iceland didn't have most of it's economy built (no pun intended) on the system of selling houses to each other at ever increasing prices. Regardless of how we handled the banks, the building boom is over and all those brickys, carpenters, sparkies or what ever would still be out of a job.

Sand

Dunno why you think Irish policy has been a failure. All the insiders in the political families, quangos, civil service, professions, bankers and the social partners are safe and dry. The policy has been a total success in my opinion.

The outsiders are unemployed, heavily in negative equity, facing tax hikes and service cutbacks, forced to emigrate or taking hefty paycuts...but since when has Ireland been run for their benefit? The current government is lacking in democratic legitimacy when it refuses to hold elections because it fears the judement of the people. That theres no constitutional obligation for them to hold elections just underlines the nature of the so called Irish republic.

Though even if we had elections, all thats on offer is more of the same...Labour, the party of O'Connor and Begg. Or Fine Gael, the party of second class cute whoorism. Oh of course, theres also Sinn Fein - some ex terrorist marxists. Fantastic options. Not a single party with the interests of the taxpayers or the republic in mind.

I miss all the NAMA fanboys telling me how I didnt understand how great NAMA and the banking policy was, and how it was going to be the solution to all our problems.

johnnyskeleton

dunsandin wrote: »

Hi Johnny, thanks for the reply. Have you had a gander at our level of foreign debt lately?You will need a telescope to see the tip of it.

Yes.

Which is why I posted that devaluation is not desireable for small open economies such as Ireland.

If such a country has a lot of foreign currency debt (e.g. dollar or euro denominated) then devaluation increases the burden of that debt.

dunsandin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes.

Which is why I posted that devaluation is not desireable for small open economies such as Ireland.

If such a country has a lot of foreign currency debt (e.g. dollar or euro denominated) then devaluation increases the burden of that debt.

If I fit you with a backpack and fill it with 300 kilos of bricks, you will not be able to carry it, if I pile on another 500 kilos, it wont make your load any more or less manageable. All the rubbish of how devastating a default would have been is bull. The markets have the memory of goldfish and afetr a suitably short period of teeth gnashing, new funds would flow in. The same goes for the banks. The bondholders gambled, they lost, and now we are paying their losses.... - anyway, its too boring for words to keep going around in verbal circles, lets see how we do in six months. Six months ago I said Nama and the bailout would cost us billions, in six months the real impact will be felt, and the langers will all be rueing why we didnt copy Iceland. An Irish solution to an international problem, and there will always be luders who will spend an hour explaining how our situation is "special" and "unique" and all brand new. Bull, its as old a problem as the hills, has happened a hundred times before, but we have invented a new and particularily assinine solution for a problem that required honest statesmen like that gentleman from Iceland - I was struck more by his decency and directness than anything else - a stark contrast to our sliveens.

johnnyskeleton

Sand wrote: »

Dunno why you think Irish policy has been a failure. All the insiders in the political families, quangos, civil service, professions, bankers and the social partners are safe and dry. The policy has been a total success in my opinion.

The outsiders are unemployed, heavily in negative equity, facing tax hikes and service cutbacks, forced to emigrate or taking hefty paycuts...but since when has Ireland been run for their benefit? The current government is lacking in democratic legitimacy when it refuses to hold elections because it fears the judement of the people. That theres no constitutional obligation for them to hold elections just underlines the nature of the so called Irish republic.

This insiders/outsiders analogy is nonsense if you ask me. What exactly is wrong with working in the civil service, or in the professions, or in a bank, or for a trade union?

Equally, not all politicians are corrupt. And what about people who are none of those things but are also not unemployed, in negative equity and forced to migrate? Are they inbetweeners? Or are they part of the plot against the ordinary people of Ireland because they didn't work in construction or retail?

The insider/outsider thing is used to suggest there is some sort of class divide or aristocracy in Ireland but there is not. More importantly, it suggests that there is a kind of conspiracy between the various groups and that there is some kind of secret plan behind it. There are some corrupt politicians but there are some others who are not. There are some politically connected/appointed professionals/civil servants, but most I would imagine are not they are just people who trained and applied for the jobs and then got them.

Your lines of who is an insider and who is an outsider are not based on any real grouping but instead on those who are financially alright and those who are financially in dire straits. You may as well suggest that physically healthy people are the insiders, and the sick are the outsiders.

Also, there is a requirement to hold elections every 5 years, which is in keeping with parliamentary democracies across the world. The people of Ireland voted FF and the Greens to have a majority 3 years ago. What constitutional right to an election would you have? Elections when the polls are unfavourable or what? If you really want an election, petition the president to dissolve the dail. That's the democratic thing to do.

johnnyskeleton

dunsandin wrote: »

If I fit you with a backpack and fill it with 300 kilos of bricks, you will not be able to carry it, if I pile on another 500 kilos, it wont make your load any more or less manageable. All the rubbish of how devastating a default would have been is bull. The markets have the memory of goldfish and afetr a suitably short period of teeth gnashing, new funds would flow in. The same goes for the banks. The bondholders gambled, they lost, and now we are paying their losses.... - anyway, its too boring for words to keep going around in verbal circles, lets see how we do in six months. Six months ago I said Nama and the bailout would cost us billions, in six months the real impact will be felt, and the langers will all be rueing why we didnt copy Iceland. An Irish solution to an international problem, and there will always be luders who will spend an hour explaining how our situation is "special" and "unique" and all brand new. Bull, its as old a problem as the hills, has happened a hundred times before, but we have invented a new and particularily assinine solution for a problem

Sorry, what's your point? The analogy with a backpack of bricks doesn't hold much weight because no matter how much debts there are, debts still have to be paid or else an agreement with creditors has to be arranged. Devaluing your currency and asking them to accept that in payment of the debts does not work.

If you're bored by your own argument, what is the point of this thread?

dunsandin wrote: »

that required honest statesmen like that gentleman from Iceland - I was struck more by his decency and directness than anything else - a stark contrast to our sliveens.

How do you know he was honest? Without knowing his full details at best he only struck you as honest. I'm sure if Brian Lenihan appeared on the Vijent Braun show in Iceland the Islandic people would think him honest too because he comes across as earnest. But people should be judged by their actions not by their words.

dunsandin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Sorry, what's your point? The analogy with a backpack of bricks doesn't hold much weight because no matter how much debts there are, debts still have to be paid or else an agreement with creditors has to be arranged. Devaluing your currency and asking them to accept that in payment of the debts does not work.

If you're bored by your own argument, what is the point of this thread?



How do you know he was honest? Without knowing his full details at best he only struck you as honest. I'm sure if Brian Lenihan appeared on the Vijent Braun show in Iceland the Islandic people would think him honest too because he comes across as earnest. But people should be judged by their actions not by their words.

He strikes me as anything but earnest, he has perfected the art of brass knecked faux-gravitas, as have many of our political elite, and what bores me is the whole circular, pointless argument of NAMAphiles versus NAMAphobics, the picking over of pointless semantics, and the utter level of denial, false optimism and brass knecked, faux-gravitas pottering out of the spin which is then swallowed whole by the more gullible amongst us.
(Just as an aside, if you were Alan Dukes, and you were in the sublime position of being paid to clean up someone elses mess, with the catch all get out of "well I didnt create this", how made up would you be. What a totally wonderful position that is to be in - I genuinely envy him, he has literally got the gravy train running up to his front door!).

Sand

@Johnny Skeleton

This insiders/outsiders analogy is nonsense if you ask me. What exactly is wrong with working in the civil service, or in the professions, or in a bank, or for a trade union?

Nothing, if you dont attempt to use the influence offered by your position to subert the decision making of the state for your own benefit, over the benefit of the state as a whole.

The simple truth is that Ireland is and always has been run for the benefit of insiders. I have always remembered the account of a woman who was thrown out of her house with her young children in the late 1980s by a bank manager. The same bank manager who arranged to write off Charles Haugheys far greater debts. The difference being, CJH was an insider, and the insiders take care of their own. The woman thrown out of her house - she was nobody.

Equally, not all politicians are corrupt.

Not all? Not very reassuring.

The system corrupts them. Look at the Greens. They've prostituted themselves for ministerial cars and a pension. As for the opposition, you can almost see the greed in their eyes...they can almost taste that Garda driven limo.

The insider/outsider thing is used to suggest there is some sort of class divide or aristocracy in Ireland but there is not.

Are you having a laugh?

* Bertie Ahern (born 1951): FF TD Dublin Central 1977–
o his brother Noel Ahern (born 1944): FF TD Dublin North West 1992–
* Kit Ahern (1915–2007): FF Senator 1965–1977, FF TD Kerry North 1977–1981
o her cousin Ned O'Sullivan: FF Senator 2007–
* David Andrews (born 1936): FF TD Dún Laoghaire 1965–2002 (son of Todd Andrews, a FF founder)
o his son Barry Andrews (born 1967): FF TD Dún Laoghaire 2002–
o his brother Niall Andrews (1937–2006): FF TD Dublin South 1977–1987, MEP Dublin 1984–2004
+ Niall's son Chris Andrews (born 1964): FF TD Dublin South East 2007–
* Bob Aylward (1911–1974): FF Senator 1973–1974
o his son Liam Aylward (born 1952): FF TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1977–2007, MEP East 2004–
o his son Bobby Aylward (born 1955): FF TD Carlow–Kilkenny 2007–

[edit] B

* Anthony Barry (1901–1983): FG TD/Senator Cork Borough 1954–1965
o his son Peter Barry (born 1928): FG TD Cork City South East/Cork City/Cork South Central 1969–1997
+ Peter's daughter Deirdre Clune (born 1959): FG TD Cork South Central 1997–2002, 2007–
* Richard Barry (born 1919): FG TD Cork East/Cork North East 1953–1981
o his daughter Myra Barry (born 1957): FG TD Cork North East/Cork East 1979–1987
* John Beirne, Snr (1893–19??): CnaT TD Roscommon 1943–1948
o his son John Beirne, Jnr (died 1967): CnaT TD Roscommon 1948–1961
* Patrick Belton (1885–1945): FF TD Dublin County 1927, CnaG/FG TD Dublin North 1933–1937, FG TD Dublin County 1938–1943
o his son Richard Belton (1913–1974): FG Senator 1969–1973
+ his daughter Avril Doyle (born 1949): FG TD/Senator Wexford 1982–2002, MEP Leinster/East 1999–2009
o his son Jack Belton (died 1963): FG TD Dublin North East 1948–1963
o his son Paddy Belton (1926–1987): FG TD Dublin North East 1963–1977
o his nephew Luke Belton (1918–2006): FG TD/Senator Dublin North Central 1965–1987
o his nephew ? Louis Belton (born 1943): FG TD/Senator Longford–Westmeath/Longford–Roscommon 1989–2002
* Neal Blaney (1893–1948): FF TD Donegal 1927–1937, Donegal East 1937–1938 and 1943–1944, FF Senator 1938–1943
o Neal's son Neil Blaney (1922–1995): FF/IFF TD Donegal East/Donegal North East/Donegal 1948–1995, IFF MEP Connacht–Ulster 1979–1984, 1989–1994
o Neal's son Harry Blaney (born 1928): IFF TD Donegal North East 1997–2002
+ Harry's son Niall Blaney (born 1974): IFF/FF TD Donegal North East 2002–
* Harry Boland (1887–1922): SF TD South Roscommon 1918–1922
o his brother Gerald Boland (1885–1973): FF TD/Senator Roscommon 1926–1961
+ Gerald's son Kevin Boland (1917–2001): FF TD Dublin County 1957–1970
* Philip Brady (1898–1995): FF TD Dublin South Central 1951–1977
o his son Gerard Brady (born 1936): FF TD Dublin Rathmines West/Dublin South East 1977–1992
* Thomas Brennan (died 1953): FF TD Wicklow 1944–1954
o his son Paudge Brennan (1922–1998): FF TD Wicklow 1954–1973, 1981–1982, 1982–1987, Senator 1982[1]
* Martin Brennan (1903–1956): FF TD Sligo 1938–1948
o his nephew Matt Brennan (born 1936): FF TD Sligo–Leitrim 1982–2002
* Robert Briscoe (1894–1969): FF TD Dublin South/Dublin South West 1927–1965
o his son Ben Briscoe (born 1934): FF TD Dublin 1965–2002
* John Browne (born 1936): Senator 1983–1987, TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1989–2002
o his son Fergal Browne (born 1973): Senator 2002–2007
* Seán Browne (1916–1996): FF TD Wexford 1957–1961, 1969–1981, 1982
o his nephew John Browne (born 1948): TD Wexford 1982–
* Cathal Brugha (1874–1922): SF TD County Waterford 1918–1922
o his wife Caitlín Brugha (1879–1959): SF TD Waterford 1923–1927
o his son Ruairí Brugha (1917–2006): FF TD Dublin County South 1973–1977, MEP 1977–1979
+ his father-in-law Terence MacSwiney (1879–1920): SF TD Cork Mid 1918–1920
* John Bruton (born 1947): FG TD Meath 1969–2004
o his brother Richard Bruton (born 1953): FG Senator 1981–1982, TD Dublin North Central 1982–
* Patrick Burke (1904–1985): FF TD Dublin County/Dublin County North 1944–1973
o his son Ray Burke (born 1943): FF TD Dublin County North/Dublin North 1973–1997
* James Burke (died 1964): FG TD Roscommon 1951–1964
o his wife Joan Burke (born 1928): FG TD Roscommon 1964–1981
* John Butler (1891–1968): Lab TD Waterford–Tipperary East 1922–1923, Waterford 1923–1927, Senator 1938–1965
o his son Pierce Butler (1922–1999): FG Senator 1969–1983
* Alfred Byrne (1882–1956): IPP MP Dublin Harbour 1915–1918, Ind TD Dublin Mid/Dublin North 1922–1928, Ind Senator 1928–1931, Ind TD Dublin North/Dublin North East 1932–1956
o his son Alfred P. Byrne (1913–1952): Ind TD Dublin North West 1937–1944, 1948–1952
o his son Thomas Byrne (1917–1978): Ind TD Dublin North West 1952–1961
o his son Patrick Byrne (born 1925): Ind TD Dublin North East 1956–1957, FG TD Dublin North East 1957–1969

[edit] C

* Johnny Callanan (1910–1982): FF TD Clare–Galway South/Galway/Galway East 1973–1982
o his nephew Joe Callanan (born 1949): FF TD Galway East 2002–2007
* Phelim Calleary (1895–1974): FF TD Mayo North 1952–1969
o his son Seán Calleary (born 1931): FF TD Mayo 1973–1992
+ Seán's son Dara Calleary (born 1973): FF TD Mayo 2007–
* Donal Carey (born 1937): FG TD Clare 1982–2002
o His son Joe Carey (born 1975): FG TD Clare 2007–
* Erskine Childers (1870–1922): SF TD Wicklow 1919–1922
o his son Erskine H. Childers (1905–1974): FF TD Wicklow 1938–1973, President 1973–1974
+ his granddaughter Nessa Childers: Lab MEP East 2009–
* James Coburn (1889–1953): NLP/Ind/FG TD Louth 1927–1953
o his son George Coburn (1920–2009): FG TD Louth 1953–1961
* Harry Colley (1891–1972): FF TD Dublin North East 1944–1957
o his son George Colley (1925–1983): FF TD Dublin North East/Dublin North Central/Dublin Clontarf/Dublin Central 1961–1983
+ his granddaughter Anne Colley (born 1951): PD TD Dublin South 1987–1989
* James Collins (1900–1967): FF TD Limerick 1948–1967
o his son Gerry Collins (born 1938): FF TD Limerick 1967–1997, MEP Munster 1994–2004
o his son Michael Collins (born 1940): FF TD Limerick West 1997–2007
o his grandson Niall Collins (born 1973): FF TD Limerick West 2007–
* Michael Collins (1890–1922): SF TD Cork South 1918–1921, Cork Mid, North, South, South East and West 1921–1922
o his sister Margaret Collins-O'Driscoll (1878–1945): CnaG TD Dublin North 1923–1933
o his grandniece Nora Owen (born 1945): FG TD Dublin North 1981–2002
o his grandniece Mary Banotti (born 1939): FG MEP Dublin 1984–2004
* Johnny Connor (died 1955): CnaP TD Kerry North 1954–1955
o his daughter Kathleen O'Connor (born 1934): CnaP TD Kerry North 1956–1957
* Roddy Connolly (1901–1980): Lab TD Louth 1943–1944, 1948–1951, Senator 1975–1977 (Son of James Connolly)
o his sister Nora Connolly O'Brien (1893–1981): Senator 1957–1969
* Fintan Coogan, Snr (1910–1984): FG TD Galway West 1954–1977
o his son Fintan Coogan, Jnr (born 1944): FG TD Galway West 1982–1987, Senator 1997–2002
* Richard Corish (1889–1945): Lab TD Wexford 1921–1945
o his son Brendan Corish (1918–1990): Lab TD Wexford 1945–1982
* W. T. Cosgrave (1880–1965): CnaG/FG TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1919–1927, Cork Borough 1927–1944
o his brother Philip Cosgrave (died 1923): CnaG TD Dublin North West 1921–1923: Dublin South 1923
o his son Liam Cosgrave (born 1920): FG TD Dublin County 1943–1948, Dún Laoghaire 1948–1981
+ Liam's son Liam T. Cosgrave (born 1956): FG TD Dún Laoghaire 1981–1987, FG Senator 1989–2002
* John A. Costello (1881–1976): FG TD Dublin Townships 1933–1943, 1944–1969
o his son Declan Costello (born 1926): FG TD Dublin North West 1951–1969, Dublin South West 1973–1977
* Clement Coughlan (1942–1983): FF TD Donegal South West 1980–1983
o his brother Cathal Coughlan (1937–1986): FF TD Donegal South West 1983–1986
+ Cathal's daughter Mary Coughlan (born 1965): FF TD Donegal South West 1987–
* Hugh Coveney (1935–1998): FG TD Cork South Central 1981–1998
o his son Simon Coveney (born 1972): FG TD Cork South Central 1998–, MEP South 2004–2007
* Bernard Cowen (1932–1984): FF TD Laois–Offaly 1969–1984
o his son Brian Cowen (born 1960): FF TD Laois–Offaly 1984–
* Donal Creed (born 1924): FG TD Cork North West 1965–1989, MEP 1973–1977
o his son Michael Creed (born 1963): FG TD Cork North West 1989–2002, 2007–
* Patrick Crotty (1902–1970): FG TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1948–1969
o his son Kieran Crotty (born 1930): FG TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1969–1989
* Frederick Crowley (died 1945): FF TD Kerry South 1927–1945
o his wife Honor Crowley (1903–1966): FF TD Kerry South 1945–1966
* Flor Crowley (1934–1997): FF TD Cork Mid/Cork South West 1965–1982, Senator
o his son Brian Crowley (born 1964): FF Senator 1992–1994, MEP Munster/South 1994–

[edit] D

* Michael D'Arcy (born 1934): FG TD Wexford 1977–1987, 1989–1992, 1997–2002
o his son Michael W. D'Arcy (born 1970): FG TD Wexford 2007–
* Michael Davern (1900–1973): FF TD Tipperary South 1948–1965
o his son Don Davern (1935–1968): FF TD Tipperary South 1965–1968
o his son Noel Davern (born 1945): FF TD Tipperary South 1969–1981, 1987–2007, MEP Munster 1979–1984
* Dan Desmond (1913–1964): Lab TD Cork South East, 1948–1964
o his wife Eileen Desmond (1932–2005): Lab TD Cork South Central 1965–1987, MEP Munster 1979–1981
* Éamon de Valera (1882–1975): FF TD Clare 1919–1959, President 1959–1973, (also FF MP Parliament of Northern Ireland 1921–1937)
o his son Vivion de Valera (1910–1982): FF TD Dublin North West 1944–1981
o his granddaughter Síle de Valera (born 1954): FF TD Dublin County Mid 1977–1981, Clare 1987–2007, MEP Dublin 1979–1984
o his grandson Éamon Ó Cuív (born 1950): FF Senator 1989–1992, FF TD Galway West 1992–
* Austin Deasy (born 1936): FG TD Waterford 1977–2002
o his son John Deasy (born 1967): FG TD Waterford 2002–
* James Devins (1873–1922): SF TD Sligo–Mayo East 1921–1922
o his grandson Jimmy Devins[2] (born 1948): FF TD Sligo–North Leitrim 2002–
* John Dillon (1851–1927): IPP MP East Mayo 1880–1918
o his son James Dillon (1902–1986): NCP TD Donegal 1932–1937, FG TD Monaghan 1937–1969
* John Dinneen (1867–1942): FP TD Cork East 1922–1927
o his nephew Liam Ahern (1916–1974): FF Senator 1957–1973, FF TD Cork North East 1973–1974
+ Liam's son Michael Ahern (born 1949): FF TD Cork East 1982–
* Sir Maurice Dockrell (1850–1929): IUA MP Dublin Rathmines 1918–1922
o Maurice's son Henry Morgan Dockrell (1880–1955): FG TD Dublin County 1932–1948
+ Henry's son Maurice E. Dockrell (1908–1986): FG TD Dublin South/Dublin South Central/Dublin Central 1943–1977
+ Henry's son Percy Dockrell (1914–1979): FG TD Dún Laoghaire 1951–1957, 1961–1977
* Michael Donnellan (1900–1964): CnaT TD Galway 1938–1964
o his son John Donnellan (born 1937): FG TD Galway 1964–1989

[edit] E

* Tom Enright (born 1940): FG TD Laois–Offaly 1969–1992, 1997–2002, FG Senator 1993–1997
o his daughter Olwyn Enright (born 1974): FG TD Laois–Offaly 2002–
+ her husband Joe McHugh (born 1971): FG Senator 2002–2007, FG TD Donegal North East 2007–
* Sir Thomas Esmonde (1862–1935): IPP MP 1885–1918, Ind Senator 1922–1934
o his cousin John Joseph Esmonde (1862–1915) IPP MP North Tipperary 1910–1915
o Thomas's son Sir Osmond Esmonde (1896–1936): CnaG TD Wexford 1923–1936
o John Joseph's son Sir John Lymbrick Esmonde (1893–1958): FG TD Wexford 1937–1951
o John Lymbrick's brother Sir Anthony Esmonde (1899–1981): FG TD Wexford 1951–1973
o Anthony's son Sir John Grattan Esmonde (1928–1987): FG TD Wexford 1973–1977
* James Everett (1894–1967): Lab TD Wicklow 1923–1967
o his nephew Liam Kavanagh (born 1935): Lab TD Wicklow 1969–1997, MEP Leinster 1973–1981

[edit] F

* Alexis FitzGerald, Snr (1916–1985): FG Senator 1969–1981
o his nephew Alexis FitzGerald, Jnr (born 1945): FG Senator 1981–1982, 1982–1997, FG TD Dublin South East 1982
o Alexis Jnr's wife Mary Flaherty (born 1953): FG TD Dublin North West 1981–1997
* Desmond FitzGerald (1888–1947): CnaG TD 1919–1937, Senator 1938–1943
o his son Garret FitzGerald (born 1926): FG Senator 1965–1969, FG TD Dublin South East 1969–1992
o Garret's daughter-in-law Eithne FitzGerald (born 1950): Lab TD Dublin South 1992–1997
* Oliver J. Flanagan (1920–1987): FG TD Laois–Offaly 1943–1987
o his son Charles Flanagan (born 1956): FG TD Laois–Offaly 1987–2002, 2007–
* Pádraig Flynn (born 1939): FF TD Mayo West 1977–1993
o his daughter Beverley Flynn (born 1966): FF/Ind TD Mayo 1997–
* Johnny Fox (1948–1995): Ind TD Wicklow 1992–1995
o his daughter, Mildred Fox (born 1971): Ind TD Wicklow 1995–2007

[edit] G

* John Galvin (1907–1963): FF TD Cork Borough 1956–1964
o his wife Sheila Galvin (1914–1983): FF TD Cork Borough 1964–1965
* Johnny Geoghegan (1913–1975): FF TD Galway West 1954–1975
o his daughter Máire Geoghegan-Quinn (born 1950): FF TD Galway West 1975–1997
* Seán Gibbons (1883–1952): CnaG TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1923–1924, FF TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1932–1937, FF Senator 1938–1951
o his nephew Jim Gibbons (1924–1997): FF TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1957–1981, 1982, MEP 1973–1977
+ Jim's son Martin Gibbons (born 1953): PD TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1987–1989
+ Jim's son Jim Gibbons, Jnr (born 1954): PD Senator 1997–2002
* T. P. Gill (1858–1931): IPP/INF MP South Louth 1885–1892
o his nephew Tomás Mac Giolla (1924–2010): WP TD Dublin West 1982–1992
* Sir Benjamin Guinness (1798–1868): Con MP Dublin City 1865–1868
o his son Sir Arthur Guinness (1840–1915): Con MP Dublin City 1868–1870, 1874–1880
+ his great-nephew Henry Guinness (1858–1945): Ind Senator 1922–1934
# his cousin Benjamin Guinness (1937–1992): FG Senator 1973–1977

[edit] H

* Sean Hales (died 1922): SF TD Cork Mid, North, South, South East and West 1921–1922
o his brother Tom Hales (1892–1966): FF TD Cork West 1933–1937
* Des Hanafin (born 1930): FF Senator 1965–1993, 1997–2002
o his daughter Mary Hanafin (born 1959): FF TD Dún Laoghaire 1997–
o his son John Hanafin (born 1960): FF Senator 2002–
* Haughey, see Lemass
* Sir William Bernard Hickie (1865–1950): Senator 1925–1936
o his grandnephew Maurice O'Connell (born 1936): Senator 1981–1983
* Michael Hilliard (1903–1982): FF TD Meath–Westmeath 1943–1948, Meath 1948–1973, MEP 1973
o his son Colm Hilliard (1936–2002): FF TD Meath 1982–1997
* T. V. Honan (died 1954): FF Senator 1934–1936, 1938–1954
o his son Dermot Honan (died 1986): FF Senator 1965–1973
+ Dermot's wife Tras Honan (born 1930): FF Senator 1977–1992
# Tras's sister Carrie Acheson (born 1934): FF TD Tipperary South 1981–Feb. 1982
* Ralph Howard (1877–1946): Ind Senator 1922–1928
o his daughter-in-law Eleanor Butler (1915–1997): Lab Senator 1948–1951

[edit] K

* William Kenneally (died 1964): FF TD Waterford 1952–1961
o his son Billy Kenneally (1925–2009): FF TD Waterford 1965–1982, Senator 1982–1983
+ his grandson Brendan Kenneally (born 1955): FF TD Waterford 1989–2002, 2007–, Senator 2002–2007
* Paddy Keaveney (1929–1995): IFF TD Donegal North East 1976–1977
o his daughter Cecilia Keaveney (born 1968): FF TD Donegal North East 1996–2007, FF Senator 2007–
* Henry Kenny (1913–1975): FG TD Mayo South 1954–1969, Mayo West 1969–1975
o his son Enda Kenny (born 1951): FG TD Mayo West 1975–1997, Mayo 1997–
* David Kent (died 1930): SF TD Cork East/Cork East and North East 1918–1927
o his brother William Kent: FF TD Cork East 1927–1932, NCP/FG TD Cork East 1933–1937
* Mark Killilea, Snr (1896–1970): FF TD Galway/Galway East/Galway North 1927–1932, 1933–1961, FF Senator 1961–1969
o his son Mark Killilea, Jnr (born 1939): FF TD 1977–1982, FF Senator 1969–1977, 1982–1987, MEP 1987–1999
* Michael F. Kitt (1914–1974): FF TD 1948–1951, 1957–1975
o Michael F.'s son Michael P. Kitt (born 1950): FF TD Galway North East 1973–1977, Galway East 1981–2002, 2007–, FF Senator 1977–1981, 2002–2007
o Michael F.'s son Tom Kitt (born 1952): FF TD 1987–
o Michael F.'s daughter Áine Brady (born 1954):[3] FF TD Kildare North 2007–
+ her husband Gerry Brady (born 1948): FF TD Kildare 1982

[edit] L

* James Larkin (1874–1947): IWL TD Dublin North 1927, Ind TD Dublin North East 1937–1938, Lab TD Dublin North East 1943–1944
o his son James Larkin, Jnr (1904–1969): Lab TD Dublin South 1943–1948, Dublin South Central 1948–1954
* Hugh Law (1818–1883) Liberal MP Londonderry 1874–1881
o his grandson Hugh Law (1872–1943) IPP MP West Donegal 1902–1918, CnaG TD Donegal 1927–1932
* Seán Lemass (1899–1971): FF TD/Taoiseach Dublin 1924–1969
o his son Noel Lemass, Jnr (1929–1976): FF TD Dublin South West 1956–1976
+ Noel's wife Eileen Lemass (born 1932): FF TD Dublin South West 1977–1987, MEP Dublin 1984–1989
o his son-in-law Charles Haughey (1925–2006): FF TD/Taoiseach Dublin North East/Dublin Artane/Dublin North Central 1957–1992
+ his son Seán Haughey (born 1961): FF Senator 1987–1992, FF TD Dublin North Central 1992–
* Patrick Lenihan (1902–1970): FF TD 1965–1970
o his son Brian Lenihan (1930–1995): FF Senator 1957–1961, 1973–1977, FF TD Roscommon 1961–1969, Roscommon–Leitrim 1969–1973, Dublin West 1977–1997, MEP 1973–1977
+ Brian's son Brian Lenihan, Jnr (born 1959): FF Dublin West 1996–
+ Brian's son Conor Lenihan (born 1963): FF TD Dublin South West 1997–
o his daughter Mary O'Rourke (born 1937): FF Senator 1981–1982, 2002–2007, FF TD Longford–Westmeath 1982–1997, 2007–, Westmeath 1997–2002
* Jimmy Leonard (born 1927): FF TD Cavan–Monaghan 1973–1981, Feb 1982–1997, Senator 1981–1982
o his daughter Ann Leonard (born 1969): FF Senator 1997–2002
* Patrick Little (1884–1963): FF TD Waterford 1927–1954
o his grandnephew Ciarán Cuffe (born 1963): GP TD Dún Laoghaire 2002–
* James B. Lynch (died 1954): FF TD Dublin South 1932–1948 Senator 1951–1954
o his wife Celia Lynch (1908–1989): FF TD Dublin South Central, Dublin North Central 1954–1977
* Kathleen Lynch (born 1953): DL/Lab TD Cork North Central 1994–1997, 2002–
o her brother-in-law Ciarán Lynch (born 1964): Lab TD Cork South Central 2007–

[edit] M

* Timothy McAuliffe (1909–1985): Lab Senator 1961–1969, 1973–1983
o his daughter Helena McAuliffe-Ennis (born 1951): Lab (then PD) Senator 1983–1987
* Joseph MacBride (died 1938): SF TD Mayo West 1919–1921, Mayo North and West 1921–1923, CnaG TD Mayo South 1923–1927
o his nephew Seán MacBride (1904–1988): CnaP TD Dublin County 1947–1948, Dublin South West 1948–1957
* Seán MacEntee (1889–1984): SF TD Monaghan 1919–1922, FF TD Dublin County/Townships/South East 1927–1969
o his son-in-law Conor Cruise O'Brien (1917–2008): Lab TD Dublin North East 1969–1977, Senator 1977–1979, MEP 1973
o Conor's cousin Owen Sheehy-Skeffington (1901–1970): Ind Senator 1954–1957, 1965–1970
* Eoin MacNeill (1867–1945): SF/CnaG TD National University of Ireland 1919–1927
o his son-in-law Michael Tierney (1894–1975): CnaG TD Mayo North 1925–1927, NUI 1927–1932, Senator 1938–1944
o his grandson Michael McDowell (born 1951): PD TD Dublin South East 1987–1989, 1992–1997, 2002–2007
* Tom McEllistrim (1894–1973): FF TD Kerry/Kerry North 1923–1969
o his son Tom McEllistrim (1932–2000): FF TD Kerry North 1969–1987, Senator 1987–1989, 1989–1992
+ his grandson Tom McEllistrim (born 1968): FF TD Kerry North 2002–
* Ray MacSharry (born 1938): FF TD Sligo–Leitrim 1969–1988, MEP Connacht–Ulster 1984–1989
o his son Marc MacSharry (born 1973): FF Senator 2002–
* Terence MacSwiney (1879–1920): SF TD Cork Mid 1919–1920
o his sister Mary MacSwiney (1872–1942): SF TD Cork Borough 1921–1927
o his brother Seán MacSwiney: SF TD Cork Mid, North, South, South East and West 1921–1922
o his son-in-law Ruari Brugha (1917–2006): FF TD Dublin County South 1973–1977
* Tadhg Manley (1893–1976): FG TD Cork South 1954–1961
o his nephew Liam Burke (1928–2005): FG TD Cork City 1969–1977, 1979–1981, TD Cork North Central 1981–1989, 1992–2002
* John Mannion, Snr (1907–1978): FG TD Galway West 1951–1954, Senator 1954–1957, 1961–1969
o his son John Mannion, Jnr (1944–2006): FG TD Galway West 1977–1981, Senator 1969–1977, 1981–1983
* Con Meaney (died 1970): FF TD Cork North 1937–1943, Cork Mid 1961–1965
o his son Thomas Meaney (born 1931): FF TD Cork Mid/Cork North West 1961–1982
* Jim Mitchell (1946–2002): FG TD Dublin Ballyfermot/Dublin West/Dublin Central 1977–2002
o his brother Gay Mitchell (born 1951): FG TD Dublin South Central 1981–2007, MEP Dublin 2004–
* Joe Mooney (died 1988): FF Senator 1961–1965
o his son Paschal Mooney (born 1947): FF Senator 1987–2007, 2010–
* Michael Moynihan (1917–2001): Lab TD Kerry South 1981–1992
o his daughter Breeda Moynihan-Cronin (born 1953): Lab TD Kerry South 1992–2007
* Michael Pat Murphy (1919–2000): Lab TD Cork South West 1951–1981
o his son-in-law John O'Donoghue (born 1956): FF TD Kerry South 1987–

[edit] N

* Liam Naughten (1944–1996): FG Senator 1981–1982, 1989–1996, FG TD Roscommon 1982–1989
o his son Denis Naughten (born 1973): FG Senator 1997, FG TD Longford–Roscommon 1997–2007, Roscommon–South Leitrim 2007–
* Tom Nolan: (1921–1992): FF TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1965–1982, MEP 1973–1979
o his son M. J. Nolan (born 1951): FF TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1982–
* William Norton: (1900–1963): Lab TD Dublin County 1923–1927, Kildare/Carlow–Kildare/Kildare 1932–1963
o his son Patrick Norton (born 1928): Lab TD Kildare 1965–1969, Senator 1969–1973

[edit] O

* Richard O'Connell (1892–1964): CnaG TD Limerick 1923–1932
o his nephew Tom O'Donnell (born 1926): FG TD Limerick East 1961–1987, MEP Munster 1979–1989
+ Tom's nephew Kieran O'Donnell (born 1963): FG TD Limerick East 2007–
* O'Connor – see Connor above
* Kevin O'Higgins (1892–1927): FG TD Laois–Offaly 1918–1927 (nephew of Tim Healy)
o his daughter Una O'Higgins O'Malley's son Chris O'Malley (born 1959): FG MEP Munster 1986–1989
o his brother Thomas F. O'Higgins (died 1953): FG TD Dublin, Laois–Offaly, Cork 1929–1953
+ Thomas's son Tom O'Higgins (1916–2003): FG TD Laois–Offaly, 1943–1973
+ Thomas's son Michael O'Higgins (1917–2005): FG TD Dublin South West, Wicklow 1948–1969
# Michael's wife Brigid Hogan O'Higgins (born 1932): FG TD Galway 1957–1977
* her father Patrick Hogan (1891–1936): FG TD Galway 1921–1936
* Pierce Mahony (1792–1853): Repeal MP for Kinsale 1837
o his grandson Pierce O'Mahony (1850–1930): IPP MP for North Meath 1886–1892
+ his son Dermot O'Mahony (1881–1960): CnaG TD for Wicklow 1927–1938
* Donogh O'Malley (1921–1968): FF TD Limerick East 1954–1968
o his nephew Desmond O'Malley (born 1939): FF/PD TD Limerick East 1968–2002
+ Desmond's daughter Fiona O'Malley (born 1968): PD TD Dún Laoghaire 2002–2007, Senator 2007–
+ Desmond's cousin Patrick O'Malley (born 1943): PD TD Dublin West 1987–1989
+ Desmond's first cousin Tim O'Malley (born 1944): PD TD Limerick East 2002–2007
* Timothy O'Sullivan (1899–1971): FF TD Cork West 1937–1954, Senator 1957–1959
o his niece[4] Peggy Farrell (1920–2003): FF Senator 1969–1973

[edit] P

* James Pattison (1886–1963): Lab TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1933–1957
o his son Séamus Pattison (born 1936): Lab TD Carlow–Kilkenny 1961–2007, MEP Leinster 1981–1984
* Margaret Pearse (1857–1932): SF TD Dublin County 1921–1922 (mother of Patrick Pearse)
o her daughter Margaret Mary Pearse (1878–1968): FF TD Dublin County 1932–1937, Senator 1938–1968.
* Paddy Power (born 1928): FF TD Kildare 1969–1989, MEP 1977–1979
o his son Seán Power (born 1960): FF TD Kildare/Kildare South 1989–
* Patrick Joseph Power (1850–1913): IPP/INF MP County Waterford, 1884–1895, East Waterford, 1895–1913.
o his nephew Pierce McCan (1882–1919): SF MP/TD East Tipperary 1918–1919

[edit] Q

* Ruairi Quinn (born 1946): Lab TD/Senator Dublin South East 1977–1981, 1982–
o his first cousin Feargal Quinn (born 1936): Ind Senator 1993–

[edit] R

* William Redmond (1886–1932): IPP/NLP/CnaG TD Waterford 1918–1932 (son of John Redmond)
o his wife Bridget Redmond (1905–1952): CnaG TD Waterford 1932–1952
* Patrick Reynolds (1887–1932): CnaG TD Leitrim–Sligo 1927–1932
o his wife Mary Reynolds (1889–1974): FG TD Leitrim–Sligo 1932–1961
+ Their son Patrick J. Reynolds (1920–2003): FG TD Roscommon 1961–1969, Roscommon–Leitrim 1973–1977, Senator 1969–1973, 1977–1987
# Patrick J.'s son Gerry Reynolds (born 1961): FG TD Sligo–Leitrim 1989–1992 and 1997–2002, Senator 1987–1989 and 1993–1997
* Eamon Rice (1873–1937): FF TD Monaghan 1932–1937
o his wife Bridget Rice (1885–1967): FF TD Monaghan 1938–1954
* James Ryan (1891–1970): SF TD 1918–1922, Republican TD 1923–1926, FF TD 1926–1965
o his son Eoin Ryan, Snr (1920–2001): FF Senator 1957–1987
+ his grandson Eoin Ryan, Jnr (born 1953): FF Senator, TD Dublin South East 1992–2007, MEP Dublin 2004–2009
o his brother-in-law Seán T. O'Kelly (1882–1966): SF/Republican TD 1918–1932, 2nd President 1945–1959
o his brother-in-law Richard Mulcahy (1886–1971): SF / CnaG / FG TD, Minister and Senator 1918–1961
* Martin Ryan (1900–1943): FF TD Tipperary 1933–1943
o his wife Mary Ryan (1898–1981): FF TD Tipperary 1948–1961
* Seán Ryan (born 1943): Lab TD Dublin North 1989–1997, 1998–2007
o his brother Brendan Ryan: Lab Senator 2007–

[edit] S

* Dan Spring (1910–1988): Lab TD Kerry North 1943–1981
o his son Dick Spring (born 1950): Lab TD Kerry North 1981–2002
* Joe Sherlock (1935–2007): SFWP TD Cork East 1981–1982, WP TD 1987–1992, Lab TD 2002–2007, Seanad 1993–1997
o his son Seán Sherlock (born 1972): Lab TD Cork East 2007–

[edit] T

* Frank Taylor (1914–1989): FG TD Clare 1969–1981
o his daughter Madeleine Taylor-Quinn (born 1951): FG TD Clare 1981–1982, 1982–1992, FG Senator 1982, 1993–2002
* Godfrey Timmins (1927–2001): FG TD Wicklow 1965–1997
o his son Billy Timmins (born 1959): FG TD Wicklow 1997–

[edit] U

* Pat Upton (1944–1999): Lab Senator 1989–1992, Lab TD Dublin South Central 1992–1999
o his sister Mary Upton (born 1946): Lab TD Dublin South Central 1999–

[edit] W

* John Wilson (1923–2007): FF TD Cavan 1973–1977, Cavan–Monaghan 1977–1992
o his nephew Diarmuid Wilson (born 1965): FF Senator 2002–

[edit] Y

* William Butler Yeats (1865–1939): Ind Senator 1922–1928
o his son Michael Yeats (1921–2007): FF Senator 1951–1977, MEP 1973–1979

Your lines of who is an insider and who is an outsider are not based on any real grouping but instead on those who are financially alright and those who are financially in dire straits.

Nope - the insiders are the people who are financially in dire straits. The outsiders are the ones being made pay for it. The difference isnt simply financial, its power, influence, patronage. CJH wasnt the richest man in Ireland but he was the most powerful because he ensured other men paid his way.

Why do you think the front line public sector workers had to take pay cuts, whilst the civil servants were able to bend Lenny's ear?

Why do you think Cowen was so desperate to patch up a deal, any deal with the so called "social partners"?

Why do you think its not illegal for an Irish bank like Anglo to collude with another bank and the Irish regulator to falsify their balance sheet and deceive investors?

Why do you think a complete and total failure like Neary is given a golden handshake and pension as a reward for complete disaster? Why do you think he was tasked with cheerleading for Irish banks?

Why do you think the gears of justice grind ever sooooo slow when it comes to investigating white collar crime, whereas someone who mugs a pensioner can be locked up for years inside a few months?

Why do you think Irish courts have determined that an Irish businessman cant commit a crime so long as he doesnt think hes committing a crime?

Why do you think parasites like O'Connor and Begg were consulted by the government through the social partnership process, yet Irish entrepreneurs like O'Leary only met Ahern twice, briefly, with little more than a short, cool greeting?

Why do you think a trade unionist like Begg sat on the board of the Irish central bank? Why do you think a novelist like Deirdre Purcell was also on the board?

Why do you think Ahern appointed Eoghan Harris to be a Senator? Why do you think a man like Calley was also made a Senator?

Why do you think theres a proven link between funding of local areas and their ministerial representation?

Why do you think the government is so eager to do anything, absolutely anything to rescue the Irish bank boards ( "at any cost" to quote Lenihan) and to prevent their takeover by foreign management?

Why do you think tribunals can grind on for decades at great profit to the lawyers involved, and yet no one in particular is found to be at fault for anything having gone wrong?

Why do you think Bertie Ahern could blithley say he appointed people to the boards of state companies because they were his friends, and no one blinks an eye lid?

I dont know - Its not my job to persuade you to see whats in front of your eyes.

Also, there is a requirement to hold elections every 5 years, which is in keeping with parliamentary democracies across the world. The people of Ireland voted FF and the Greens to have a majority 3 years ago. What constitutional right to an election would you have? Elections when the polls are unfavourable or what? If you really want an election, petition the president to dissolve the dail. That's the democratic thing to do.

How about an election when the seat is empty? That would be a start.

We can begin dreaming when the basic essentials of democratic legitimacy are in place.

dunsandin

Sand, I would use the thanks button but it would not be worthy enough, post of the decade in my own humble opinion, thanks for the effort!:)

dunsandin

View wrote: »

Iceland - like Ireland - imports most of the goods it uses. Back on this date in 2007, you needed 89.46 ISK to buy 1 Euro. Today you need 164.04 ISK. That effect, needless to say, was repeated against all major currencies.

Imagine the effect on your standard of living of having the price of all imports now costing 80%+ more than they did a few short years ago...[/QUOTE]

Imagine the effect on your standard of living when your govt has bankrupted itself bailing out its buddies and state services have been cut to the bone so that the mugs can pay for the losses incurred by "our go-getters". Sure anybody who says the course we are on now is wrong must be a fool and should go and kill themselves. Sound familiar? Imagine the effect on your standard of living when your business has gone tits up and your children have emigrated. Cop on, for Gods sake. For a dose of reality, anybody watching the late late? Now theres a statement you dont hear too often. The new poor-those who bothered to start their own business.

flutered

sand thank you for making my week, now this old boy can retire for one night with a light heart when all around seek to noddle whats left of my brain with propaganda.

View

dunsandin wrote: »

View wrote: »

Iceland - like Ireland - imports most of the goods it uses. Back on this date in 2007, you needed 89.46 ISK to buy 1 Euro. Today you need 164.04 ISK. That effect, needless to say, was repeated against all major currencies.

Imagine the effect on your standard of living of having the price of all imports now costing 80%+ more than they did a few short years ago...[/QUOTE]

Imagine the effect on your standard of living when your govt has bankrupted itself bailing out its buddies and state services have been cut to the bone so that the mugs can pay for the losses incurred by "our go-getters". Sure anybody who says the course we are on now is wrong must be a fool and should go and kill themselves. Sound familiar? Imagine the effect on your standard of living when your business has gone tits up and your children have emigrated. Cop on, for Gods sake. For a dose of reality, anybody watching the late late? Now theres a statement you dont hear too often. The new poor-those who bothered to start their own business.

You seem to be under the impression that I agree with the government's policies - I don't. I believed then that examiners should have appointed to the banks immediately. I would have made that the receivers for many of them shortly thereafter.

As for the Iceland solution, their Statistics office shows their GDP per capita was over EUR 44K in 2007. It is EUR 29K today. That isn't anything to want to emulate.

hinault

Sand wrote: »

@Johnny Skeleton


Nothing, if you dont attempt to use the influence offered by your position to subert the decision making of the state for your own benefit, over the benefit of the state as a whole.

The simple truth is that Ireland is and always has been run for the benefit of insiders. I have always remembered the account of a woman who was thrown out of her house with her young children in the late 1980s by a bank manager. The same bank manager who arranged to write off Charles Haugheys far greater debts. The difference being, CJH was an insider, and the insiders take care of their own. The woman thrown out of her house - she was nobody.



Not all? Not very reassuring.

The system corrupts them. Look at the Greens. They've prostituted themselves for ministerial cars and a pension. As for the opposition, you can almost see the greed in their eyes...they can almost taste that Garda driven limo.



Are you having a laugh?





Nope - the insiders are the people who are financially in dire straits. The outsiders are the ones being made pay for it. The difference isnt simply financial, its power, influence, patronage. CJH wasnt the richest man in Ireland but he was the most powerful because he ensured other men paid his way.

Why do you think the front line public sector workers had to take pay cuts, whilst the civil servants were able to bend Lenny's ear?

Why do you think Cowen was so desperate to patch up a deal, any deal with the so called "social partners"?

Why do you think its not illegal for an Irish bank like Anglo to collude with another bank and the Irish regulator to falsify their balance sheet and deceive investors?

Why do you think a complete and total failure like Neary is given a golden handshake and pension as a reward for complete disaster? Why do you think he was tasked with cheerleading for Irish banks?

Why do you think the gears of justice grind ever sooooo slow when it comes to investigating white collar crime, whereas someone who mugs a pensioner can be locked up for years inside a few months?

Why do you think Irish courts have determined that an Irish businessman cant commit a crime so long as he doesnt think hes committing a crime?

Why do you think parasites like O'Connor and Begg were consulted by the government through the social partnership process, yet Irish entrepreneurs like O'Leary only met Ahern twice, briefly, with little more than a short, cool greeting?

Why do you think a trade unionist like Begg sat on the board of the Irish central bank? Why do you think a novelist like Deirdre Purcell was also on the board?

Why do you think Ahern appointed Eoghan Harris to be a Senator? Why do you think a man like Calley was also made a Senator?

Why do you think theres a proven link between funding of local areas and their ministerial representation?

Why do you think the government is so eager to do anything, absolutely anything to rescue the Irish bank boards ( "at any cost" to quote Lenihan) and to prevent their takeover by foreign management?

Why do you think tribunals can grind on for decades at great profit to the lawyers involved, and yet no one in particular is found to be at fault for anything having gone wrong?

Why do you think Bertie Ahern could blithley say he appointed people to the boards of state companies because they were his friends, and no one blinks an eye lid?

I dont know - Its not my job to persuade you to see whats in front of your eyes.



How about an election when the seat is empty? That would be a start.

We can begin dreaming when the basic essentials of democratic legitimacy are in place.

excellent post

dunsandin

View wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that I agree with the government's policies - I don't. I believed then that examiners should have appointed to the banks immediately. I would have made that the receivers for many of them shortly thereafter.

As for the Iceland solution, their Statistics office shows their GDP per capita was over EUR 44K in 2007. It is EUR 29K today. That isn't anything to want to emulate.

Soooo, you think that The Icelandic solution(the receivers) to the banking crisis was a better option than ours....but you would not want to do what Iceland did.You have lost me, and I'm not looking for a row here, I'm just at a loss to know what you mean. By the way, I was a business owner in the construction sector when the last big bust in the UK hit in the late 80's/early '90s, and remind me if I've forgotten, but I don't remember any mention of a NAMA, or a bunch of SPIV's, and last time I checked, the UK is still standing.

Kalimah

Thank you ,thank you, Sand for that. I'm amazed but not surprised. Post of the century if you ask me.
I'll give you an example of insider/outsider.
Someone I know qualified as a teacher last year and has got mainly subbing jobs since. She and her family are not well connectd by any means. She's content enough as the alternative is not good.
Contrast that with someone else I know who qualified as a teacher THIS year. Walked into a permanent job straight away. Difference is Mammy is a principal. To preserve the optics the job wasn't in Mammy's school. The way it works is that Mammy knows a fellow principal(prob in college together) and said principal gives Manmmy's precious a job. Then Mammy returns the favour when fellow principal's child wants a job. Keeps it all nice and neat really and you don't have to worry about the nasty "outsiders" getting jobs.
No wonder I'm so cynical.

johnnyskeleton

dunsandin wrote: »

He strikes me as anything but earnest, he has perfected the art of brass knecked faux-gravitas, as have many of our political elite, and what bores me is the whole circular, pointless argument of NAMAphiles versus NAMAphobics, the picking over of pointless semantics, and the utter level of denial, false optimism and brass knecked, faux-gravitas pottering out of the spin which is then swallowed whole by the more gullible amongst us.

Yes, because you are familiar with him and know what's going on. But if he just showed up in another country that was vaguely aware of what was happening in Ireland and you heard him speak for the first time, you might think him much more honest than local politicians too.

Sand wrote: »

Nothing, if you dont attempt to use the influence offered by your position to subert the decision making of the state for your own benefit, over the benefit of the state as a whole.

Right, so because some professionals, civil servants etc are well connected and get favours means that all professionals and civil servants are part of your insiders group and they're all on the take? Because that's what you said initially - that they were all insiders. Now you seem to be saying that only some of them are part of your "insiders" group. Which is it?

Sand wrote: »

The simple truth is that Ireland is and always has been run for the benefit of insiders. I have always remembered the account of a woman who was thrown out of her house with her young children in the late 1980s by a bank manager. The same bank manager who arranged to write off Charles Haugheys far greater debts. The difference being, CJH was an insider, and the insiders take care of their own. The woman thrown out of her house - she was nobody.

1. Even if there was a grand conspiracy in that, it is one isolated incident. It doesn't mean that every bank manager is like that.

2. Is it not possible that two separate commercial decisions were made by the bank? In respect of the lady, while I feel sorry for anyone who's house is repossessed, that's the reality of mortgage lending and this current system of never repossessing a house is something of a nonsense if you ask me. As regards CJH, I understand that part of the principle was paid off for him by a developer and that all the bank did was write off the interest and leave a remainder on interest free. Leaving aside the developer angle to that transaction, was the bank wrong to do so? If you have a bad debt to someone you try to recoup as much of that debt as possible. In the case of the lady you referred to, the only way to recoup some of that debt might have been to repossess and sell the house (they too might have written off all or part of the remaining debt after sale). In the case of CJH, they were offered cash for most of the loan in exchange for which they wrote off part of the rest and left a remainder at 0% interest. From a commercial point of view, I don't see how the bank did anything wrong - they merely tried to recoup the maximum amount possible from their bad debts.

3. I am well aware of and not denying the corruption that was engaged in by certain politicians, nor do I seek to justify it. However, I think it is unhelpful to ignore the problem by classing people into "insiders" and "outsiders" because that gives them immunity as a class. What needs to be done is that they should be individually picked off and prosecuted, and the good ones i.e. the few politicians who do not fiddle the expenses, take bribes etc should be held up as a good example. That's the only way to change the system - but because some people simply shrug their shoulders and say "god damn insiders always being corrupt", nothing is ever done about it.

Sand wrote: »

Not all? Not very reassuring.

The system corrupts them. Look at the Greens. They've prostituted themselves for ministerial cars and a pension. As for the opposition, you can almost see the greed in their eyes...they can almost taste that Garda driven limo.

The system won't change overnight, so rather than saying that it is "not very reassuring" why not accept the fact that policians are not a class of "insiders" but rather that some of them are corrupt and some of them are not.

Lol at the ministerial cars! The Greens were after POWER at any cost, I don't think they are too concerned with the mercs and perks. Sure doesn't Gormley still cycle into work (albeit with the ministerial car trailing him). While greed for power is still greed, there's absolutely nothing wrong with politicians wanting to be in power. In fact that's the system. But to suggest that they only want to be in power for a garda driven limo stretches the imagination.

Sand wrote: »

Are you having a laugh?

The fact that many politicians' children also go into politics is nothing unique to Ireland nor is it indicative of there being a "political insider" class or whatever. You're forgetting a very important thing - politicians are voted in by people. Anyone can run. Each one of those politicians' children you mention ran against at least 1 other candidate who was not the son or daughter of a politician. But the people voted for them?

Why? Well again, it's not some grand conspiracy of the insiders against the outsiders. The children of politicians will have a recognisable name in their local constituence so the people there will want to vote for them. Are Jackie Healy Rae and all his sons all members of the illuminati, manipulating the good people of Kerry to vote for them so that they can keep the people subservient to their insider friends, or is it maybe that the people of Kerry vote for them because they recognise the brand of Healy Rae politics i.e. you know what you're getting with a Healy Rae, they always fix the potholes etc?

Also, they learn their trade from their parents no different to farmers learning from their parents, business people from their parents or cobblers from theirs. Yet politicians doing it are somehow insiders but farmers, business people and cobblers are outsiders?

Sand wrote: »

Nope - the insiders are the people who are financially in dire straits. The outsiders are the ones being made pay for it. The difference isnt simply financial, its power, influence, patronage. CJH wasnt the richest man in Ireland but he was the most powerful because he ensured other men paid his way.

Eh? So now the "insiders" are not defined by their job or profession, but by the fact that they are in financially dire straits but have influence. That sounds like the NAMAified developers, but you never mentioned them as "insiders" and if you are doing so now, you're shifting the goalposts.

Please give an accurate definition of these "insiders", other than those people who you feel are politicially connected and corrupt.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think the front line public sector workers had to take pay cuts, whilst the civil servants were able to bend Lenny's ear?

Are you referring to this: http://www.politics.ie/economy/121243-cabinet-u-turn-wage-cuts-top-civil-servants.html

Civil servants also took paycuts the same as front line public sector workers. Senior civil servants took pay cuts too, but because they lost their bonuses too they were taking a greater cut than other public sector workers. That Lenny bowed to union pressure does not meant that there was anything corrupt about it. I don't want to get into public sector pay too much here, but if that's the incident you refer to, there's nothing corrupt about it; if anything it is a lack of strong will by BL when faced with the unions.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think Cowen was so desperate to patch up a deal, any deal with the so called "social partners"?

Same reason as above - to prevent strikes and unrest. Incompetence and lack of will certainly, but nothing corrupt. Besides some of the social partners include those who represent the unemployed and low paid workers, people who I assume you would include as outsiders. Are you suggesting that their representatives shafted the people they represent? If so I'd love to hear it.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think its not illegal for an Irish bank like Anglo to collude with another bank and the Irish regulator to falsify their balance sheet and deceive investors?

It is illegal. It is being investigated by the ODCE. As to why they are so slow in bringing proceedings, that's a matter for another thread I suppose.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think a complete and total failure like Neary is given a golden handshake and pension as a reward for complete disaster? Why do you think he was tasked with cheerleading for Irish banks?

He was given a payout because again the government are afraid of unions, employment claims etc. They would have been in breach of his admittedly overly generous contract not to do so, and they might have taken a punt at saying that his incompetence justified it, but they were afraid of litigation (as they always are).

He was tasked with cheerleading for the Irish banks because that was what the government believed was correct. Again utter incompetence and lack of understanding of financial markets is to blame rather than corruption or some sort of conspiracy. Put another way, knowing then what they know now, do you think for a second that FF would have done the same thing? Of course not, they are not proud of the bubble and collapse at all. But they thought they were different, they thought they were invincible, and it turns out that they are not. No conspiracies there - why attribute to malice what is more easily explained by incompetence?

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think the gears of justice grind ever sooooo slow when it comes to investigating white collar crime, whereas someone who mugs a pensioner can be locked up for years inside a few months?

Because of the structure of the Irish criminal justice system. There is no centralised system for setting targets and going after them - the gardai rely on complaints and investigate them. Equally the ODCE rely on complaints. There is not a culture of whistleblowing in Ireland, and there are a lot of people who prefer to circle the waggons.

Plus, the ODCE etc are only recently set up and this is their first major challenge. While I don't think they have risen to that challenge particularly well, being realistic you can't just impose a transparent system over the country overnight.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think Irish courts have determined that an Irish businessman cant commit a crime so long as he doesnt think hes committing a crime?

Do you really want an answer to that? Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is the cornerstone of every transparent criminal justice system in the world - a person is not guilty of a criminal act unless they had a criminal mind to do it. If a surgeon causes someone's death in a procedure but they believed that they were performing it correctly that is not murder. It may be negligent, but the surgeon cannot be said to be guilty of murder because he didn't think he was committing a crime.

But you have only touched on part of it. To commit a crime you must do so knowingly or recklessly. If they geuninely think that what they are doing is legal and they have taken the necessary steps to confirm that that view is correct, they haven't committed a crime, and that's as it should be.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think parasites like O'Connor and Begg were consulted by the government through the social partnership process, yet Irish entrepreneurs like O'Leary only met Ahern twice, briefly, with little more than a short, cool greeting?

Because the union leaders represented the state's employees, yet O'Leary did not. Obvious I would have thought. Bear in mind that if O'Leary had met them a lot more, you would probably be calling O'Leary an insider too. Make up your mind.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think a trade unionist like Begg sat on the board of the Irish central bank? Why do you think a novelist like Deirdre Purcell was also on the board?

The same stupid reasons that Neary was appointed as head. You're descending into a rant at every bad decision made by the goverment over the last 13 years. But it doesn't show that there is some identifiable group of "insiders" that get preferential treatment.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think Ahern appointed Eoghan Harris to be a Senator? Why do you think a man like Calley was also made a Senator?

It is traditional to appoint failed politicians, outspoken journos and academics to the Seanad. That's what its there for.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think theres a proven link between funding of local areas and their ministerial representation?

Politicians getting more money for their local constituence is exactly what the voters want. How does this fit into your theory of insiders and outsiders exactly? Surely the common folk of a county who benefit from their local TD being a minister are "outsiders", the minister is an "insider", yet the "insider" here is doing nothing other than give benefits to the "outsiders".

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think the government is so eager to do anything, absolutely anything to rescue the Irish bank boards ( "at any cost" to quote Lenihan) and to prevent their takeover by foreign management?

Because they don't want their dirty laundery aired. Nothing to do with kinship with the bank boards - the bank boards have the government over a barrell.

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think tribunals can grind on for decades at great profit to the lawyers involved, and yet no one in particular is found to be at fault for anything having gone wrong?

By all means set out a better system for the tribunals. I'm sure there are many. But are you seriously suggesting that the tribunals were set up solely for the enrichment of a few insider professionals?

Sand wrote: »

Why do you think Bertie Ahern could blithley say he appointed people to the boards of state companies because they were his friends, and no one blinks an eye lid?

So now you're saying we are all insiders because we allow Bertie to do that?

Sand wrote: »

I dont know - Its not my job to persuade you to see whats in front of your eyes.

Its not at all in front of my eyes. It's David McWilliam's simplistic labelling of "insiders" and "outsiders". The problem I have with your post is not that you see corruption and greed in places that I don't see, the problem I have is that your blaze labelling of them as insiders and outsiders is unhelpful and lacks precision. You started off claiming that all politicians, professionals, bankers civil servants and social partners (curiously not the developers) were part of an elite cabal against the ordinary folk. But that's just nonsense. It's too germaine an analysis of the situation for me.

Sand wrote: »

How about an election when the seat is empty? That would be a start.

We can begin dreaming when the basic essentials of democratic legitimacy are in place.

But that's not what you said and you're yet again shifting the goal posts. There is a case before the High Court seeking to require the State to hold the by-elections and that might shed some light on whether there is a consitutional duty to hold a by-election as soon as possible.

johnnyskeleton

View wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that I agree with the government's policies - I don't. I believed then that examiners should have appointed to the banks immediately. I would have made that the receivers for many of them shortly thereafter.

As for the Iceland solution, their Statistics office shows their GDP per capita was over EUR 44K in 2007. It is EUR 29K today. That isn't anything to want to emulate.

+1

This thread has become rants vs precise analysis.

johnnyskeleton

Kalimah wrote: »

Thank you ,thank you, Sand for that. I'm amazed but not surprised. Post of the century if you ask me.
I'll give you an example of insider/outsider.
Someone I know qualified as a teacher last year and has got mainly subbing jobs since. She and her family are not well connectd by any means. She's content enough as the alternative is not good.
Contrast that with someone else I know who qualified as a teacher THIS year. Walked into a permanent job straight away. Difference is Mammy is a principal. To preserve the optics the job wasn't in Mammy's school. The way it works is that Mammy knows a fellow principal(prob in college together) and said principal gives Manmmy's precious a job. Then Mammy returns the favour when fellow principal's child wants a job. Keeps it all nice and neat really and you don't have to worry about the nasty "outsiders" getting jobs.
No wonder I'm so cynical.

Let's look at this logically.

Are you saying that all teachers are "insiders" and non teachers are "outsiders" in this instance?

If so, to prove that your theory is true, you would have to show that not a single "outsider" got a permanent position, and not a single "insider" was refused a permanent position.

Also, I thought there was a recruitment freeze in the public sector, so there are no permanent positions at all at the moment.

But let's look at it a little more closely. If it really is a case of "insiders" vs "outsiders" as two coherent groups, rather than just one isolated incident of a favour being done, would your theory still hold true if the principal of the second school gave the job to the daughter of a friend who was not a teacher? i.e. if an unemployed or minimum wage couple asked a school friend who is now a principal to give a job to their daughter and the principle obliged, would the unemployed or minimum wage couple now become "insiders" or would the principle become an "outsider".

The conspiracy theory just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

It was an incidnet of nepotism, no general theory can be gleaned from that specific instance.

liammur

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Let's look at this logically.

Are you saying that all teachers are "insiders" and non teachers are "outsiders" in this instance?

If so, to prove that your theory is true, you would have to show that not a single "outsider" got a permanent position, and not a single "insider" was refused a permanent position.

Also, I thought there was a recruitment freeze in the public sector, so there are no permanent positions at all at the moment.

But let's look at it a little more closely. If it really is a case of "insiders" vs "outsiders" as two coherent groups, rather than just one isolated incident of a favour being done, would your theory still hold true if the principal of the second school gave the job to the daughter of a friend who was not a teacher? i.e. if an unemployed or minimum wage couple asked a school friend who is now a principal to give a job to their daughter and the principle obliged, would the unemployed or minimum wage couple now become "insiders" or would the principle become an "outsider".

The conspiracy theory just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

It was an incidnet of nepotism, no general theory can be gleaned from that specific instance.

From what I understand, the recruitment freeze applies to the creation of new jobs. So if a school teacher retires from school A, there will be a permanent teaching position in this school. It is well accepted that there is a high level of nepotism in teaching.

johnnyskeleton

liammur wrote: »

From what I understand, the recruitment freeze applies to the creation of new jobs. So if a school teacher retires from school A, there will be a permanent teaching position in this school.

That's not my understanding of it, but I don't have first hand experience of the ins and outs of it:

Recruitment freeze in state services wrote:

Irish Examiner, 28th March, 2009
However teaching posts already agreed to at the start of the school year will go ahead but no more positions will be filled from September 2009.

The memo issued yesterday directed that: "No public service post, however arising, may be filled by recruitment, promotion, nor payment of an allowance for the performance of duties at a higher grade."

It said: "When vacancies arise departments/ agencies etc must reallocate or reorganise work or staff accordingly. Any exceptions to this principle, which will arise in very limited circumstances only, require the prior sanction of the Minister for Finance."

From: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/idqlsneysn/#ixzz0zEQgnSao

liammur wrote: »

It is well accepted that there is a high level of nepotism in teaching.

Well accepted by whom? I did a quick google search but nothing immediately stood out. Found an article on finfacts about the UK and nepotism in the professions there:

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016430.shtml

By contrast [to the other professions such as law, accounting and medicine] the teaching, academic and cultural professions saw a decline in numbers who had grown up in families with above average incomes

Sand

@JohnnySkeleton

Right, so because some professionals, civil servants etc are well connected and get favours means that all professionals and civil servants are part of your insiders group and they're all on the take? Because that's what you said initially - that they were all insiders. Now you seem to be saying that only some of them are part of your "insiders" group. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Sand View Post
Dunno why you think Irish policy has been a failure. All the insiders in the political families, quangos, civil service, professions, bankers and the social partners are safe and dry. The policy has been a total success in my opinion.

You are operating under a mistaken assumption of what I said.

Eh? So now the "insiders" are not defined by their job or profession, but by the fact that they are in financially dire straits but have influence.

Theyre defined by their influence and their use of the influence to protect their position, and the position of those who can do them favours in return.

Again, Im not sure how much of your confusion is derived from your mistaken assumptions that I have pointed out already so I am hestiant to go through the rest of your post in great detail. However Id point out:

Even if there was a grand conspiracy in that...

I am well aware of and not denying the corruption that was engaged in by certain politicians...

The system won't change overnight...

The fact that many politicians' children also go into politics is nothing unique to Ireland nor is it indicative of there being a "political insider" class or whatever...

That Lenny bowed to union pressure does not meant that there was anything corrupt about it....

It is illegal. It is being investigated by the ODCE. As to why they are so slow in bringing proceedings...

He was given a payout because again the government are afraid of unions...

He was tasked with cheerleading for the Irish banks because that was what the government believed was correct...

Because of the structure of the Irish criminal justice system. There is no centralised system for setting targets and going after them - the gardai rely on complaints and investigate them. Equally the ODCE rely on complaints. There is not a culture of whistleblowing in Ireland, and there are a lot of people who prefer to circle the waggons....

But it doesn't show that there is some identifiable group of "insiders" that get preferential treatment....

It is traditional to appoint failed politicians, outspoken journos and academics to the Seanad. That's what its there for....

Politicians getting more money for their local constituence is exactly what the voters want...

Because they don't want their dirty laundery aired. Nothing to do with kinship with the bank boards - the bank boards have the government over a barrell....

But are you seriously suggesting that the tribunals were set up solely for the enrichment of a few insider professionals...

Look at the above. At each stage your answer is "Yes, but...." where you try to say "Well, sure, that is corrupt. But its unique. It doesnt mean everything else is corrupt to. Now onto your next point....Well, sure, that is corrupt. But its unique..." and so on, all the way down through the list. You wander into a big group of trees, but you cant recognise it as a forest...just a collection of individual trees with no connection to each other.

The most depressing parts are the ones where you think its normal or business as usual that things are corrupt. Where the corruption is so blatant, that we dont want to admit that we tolerate it so we try to pretend its something other than corruption. Look at the way you tried to dodge from the comment on Bertie appointing his mates to semi state boards. You dont want to deal with the reality that totally incompetent insiders got their jobs and pensions on the basis of their connections and influence, so you try to bluster away from that.

But that's not what you said and you're yet again shifting the goal posts. There is a case before the High Court seeking to require the State to hold the by-elections and that might shed some light on whether there is a consitutional duty to hold a by-election as soon as possible.

Again, you seem to be confused - I noted there no constitutional requirement for them to hold an election for the empty seats, that they are lacking democratic legitimacy because they are not seeking the mandate of the people.

The fact that theres a court case underway trying to find some sort of requirement by reading between the lines doesnt change that.

I think its shameful that this government leaves people without democratic representation whilst continuing to tax them and make laws for them. I think its shameful the government writes immense cheques on behalf for the taxpayers when they are terrified, utterly terrified of seeking their approval in even a few by elections.

I'm not sure Id consider any of this government decisions to be binding upon the people of Ireland. The people have clearly wanted a General Election for the past 2 years, and despite the mantra that the states legitimacy flows from the people, the government have resisted at every turn seeking the views of the people.

johnnyskeleton

Sand wrote: »

You are operating under a mistaken assumption of what I said.

You said that the country was being run for the benefit of insiders in politicial families, civil service, banks, professions etc to the detriment of outsiders who are some nebulous group of good guys falling on hard times. You are now trying to suggest that what you meant was that it was only certain people in political families, civil service, banks, professions etc who are "insiders" but if that's the case, why mention political families, civil service, banks and professions etc at all? Why not just say that it was being run for the benefit of the politically connected rather than try to group everyone in politics, civil service, banks, professions etc into the insiders category.

Likewise, being in negative equity or unemployed has nothing to do with being an "outsider" because many of those who you would consider to be "insiders" are also in negative equity or unemployed.

Sand wrote: »

Theyre defined by their influence and their use of the influence to protect their position, and the position of those who can do them favours in return.

That's fairly nebulous. You started this thread by stating that the country was being run for a group of "insiders" now you are saying that an insider is anyone who uses their position of influence to their advantage.

What exactly are they inside of? An explicit caball bent on ruining the country, or is it something implied by yourself?

Sand wrote: »

Again, Im not sure how much of your confusion is derived from your mistaken assumptions that I have pointed out already so I am hestiant to go through the rest of your post in great detail. However Id point out:



Look at the above. At each stage your answer is "Yes, but...." where you try to say "Well, sure, that is corrupt. But its unique. It doesnt mean everything else is corrupt to. Now onto your next point....Well, sure, that is corrupt. But its unique..." and so on, all the way down through the list. You wander into a big group of trees, but you cant recognise it as a forest...just a collection of individual trees with no connection to each other.

That's not what I said at all and the fact that you haven't answered my points directly shows that you are deliberately misinterpreting me. Bar one of the Ahearn things, and a reference to an earlier point about other non specified corrupt politicians, none of the specific answers I gave was along the lines of "well sure that is corrupt but it is unique". Most of the things you point to are not corruption but mere incompetence.

Corruption is, for example, receiving payments for political favours.
Incompetence is, for example, going back on a course of paycuts due to pressure from the unions.

You say I can't see the forest for the trees, but it is you who seems to have taken a few random trees and tried to group them together into this vague "insiders" grouping, where much of the evil deeds perpetrated by these insiders is nothing more than weak willed government. But weak willed government is what we vote into power time and time again.

Crucially though, none of this is a big conspiracy between "insiders" and "outsiders". We have specific examples of specific corruption in specific politicians. We don't have a situation where as you imply there is an upper echelon of Irish society that controlls all the important areas and deliberately keeps "outsiders" out.

Sand wrote: »

The most depressing parts are the ones where you think its normal or business as usual that things are corrupt. Where the corruption is so blatant, that we dont want to admit that we tolerate it so we try to pretend its something other than corruption. Look at the way you tried to dodge from the comment on Bertie appointing his mates to semi state boards. You dont want to deal with the reality that totally incompetent insiders got their jobs and pensions on the basis of their connections and influence, so you try to bluster away from that.

Give a specific example. What I find depressing is that instead of actually looking at the world in any sort of detail you retreat into your fantasy world where there is a elite group of poeple plotting to keep the lesser born out and that unless you are part of this elite you are going nowhere. But of course your delusion is compounded by your belief that Michael O'Leary is some sort of Fransico d'Anconia who will open all our eyes to the "looters" that are trying to destroy our economy.

Sand wrote: »

Again, you seem to be confused - I noted there no constitutional requirement for them to hold an election for the empty seats, that they are lacking democratic legitimacy because they are not seeking the mandate of the people.

Of course I'm confused, you vacilate between election and by-election whenever it suits you.

Sand wrote: »

The fact that theres a court case underway trying to find some sort of requirement by reading between the lines doesnt change that.

Seriously, what do you want? You seem to want to live in this insiders vs. outsiders world and generate a class war and anyone who tries to make the country run more efficiently (ok, it's a SF candidate taking the case but still there is some public spiritedness about it) is ignored by you, because they dilute your world view of good vs evil.

Sand wrote: »

I think its shameful that this government leaves people without democratic representation whilst continuing to tax them and make laws for them. I think its shameful the government writes immense cheques on behalf for the taxpayers when they are terrified, utterly terrified of seeking their approval in even a few by elections.

More than 98% of the country has democratic representation and, while I would like to see the by-elections sooner rather than later, don't you think you are exaggerating to say that we are without democratic representation? Don't forget that this government has already run two by-elections during its tenure in June 2009, at one of their lowest ebbs of popularity?

Sand wrote: »

I'm not sure Id consider any of this government decisions to be binding upon the people of Ireland. The people have clearly wanted a General Election for the past 2 years, and despite the mantra that the states legitimacy flows from the people, the government have resisted at every turn seeking the views of the people.

The opinion polls show that they are not satisfied with FF, but it wouldn't surprize me if they re-elected them next time around. But I don't think that a government should collapse every time a new opinion poll comes out that is not in their favour. Then we would end up like Italy in the 1920s with a new government every few weeks. A good point was made in one of the other threads that if we did have an election tomorrow and FG/Lab were voted in, there would probably be calls for another election in a year or two's time as people become dissatisfied with them too.

Besides, if people REALLY wanted an election, they would petition the president. I think there was such a petition on boards recently but it didn't go anywhere.

Ultimately it comes down to this - things need to change in Ireland and for that people's attitudes need to change. The "us" and "them" talk of your "insiders"/"outsiders" theory does not help and only sets us back as people fall into the comfortable glove of criticising anyone in power or success. In order to change, people need to be able to distinguish the real corruption from the incompetence,the theft from the inefficiency and the cronyism from the mere clientism. Your classification mixes it all up into one neat, easy to digest package, which is no doubt why your posts are so popular, but I don't think your classifications are helpful at all.

Sand

@johnnyskeleton

You said that the country was being run for the benefit of insiders in politicial families, civil service, banks, professions etc to the detriment of outsiders who are some nebulous group of good guys falling on hard times. You are now trying to suggest that what you meant was that it was only certain people in political families, civil service, banks, professions etc who are "insiders" but if that's the case, why mention political families, civil service, banks and professions etc at all?

Because "insiders" trade on their influence and positions of responsibility. Having something to trade on or knowing someone who does is a prequisite.

You know how you explained how it was right and proper for that woman who lost her house to be thrown out if she couldnt keep up payments. You are right. It was. But it by the very same standards it was right that CJH be held to account for his much larger bad debts to the same bank.

But he wasnt held to account. The reason being he was an insider. He had power and influence. The woman, she was a nobody. She had no power and no influence. The rules and laws applied to her, but they didnt apply to CJH.

You just cant imagine that reality away. There is a very clear divide between insiders and outsiders in Ireland. CJH knew it. That woman knows it. And most importantly so did that bank manager.

Why not just say that it was being run for the benefit of the politically connected rather than try to group everyone in politics, civil service, banks, professions etc into the insiders category.

See above. What definition of politicaly connected doesnt include people in politics, the civil service, banks, professions etc?

That's fairly nebulous. You started this thread by stating that the country was being run for a group of "insiders" now you are saying that an insider is anyone who uses their position of influence to their advantage.

Yes. I dont see how either is mutually exclusive.

What exactly are they inside of? An explicit caball bent on ruining the country, or is it something implied by yourself?

We are not talking about a cult. Or a cabal. Or a guys meeting in cloaks. They dont have membership cards. Or a secret handshake. They dont plot to take over the world or rig every oscar night.

We are talking about people with influence in this country, the policy makers and decision makers who are nominally in place to represent their voters, their shareholders, their union members and the citizens in general. When they sit down to decide policy for the country or their organisation they never ask "Whats the best policy for the country/organisation as a whole?". Instead their focus is "Whats the best policy for me and mine?"

Me and mine being their friends, their family, their contacts. Never the people they are supposedly in power to represent. Irish policymaking is utterly inexplicably bad if you consider it from the point of view of the best course of action for the country or organisation in question. It is very straightforward when considered from the point of view "What suited the decision makers and their needs?"

Why were Irish bankers ridiculously overpaid in the past decade? Not in the interests of shareholders. Nobody was head hunting them. But it was in the interests of the bankers.

But weak willed government is what we vote into power time and time again.

Have you looked over that list of the good and great in Irish politics? How much is there in the way of options to sweep the decks? How expensive is it to run a political campaign? Who funds them? Why? What do they get out of it? Why was the Galway Races tent full? No connection at all between money and power and corruption? I guess it must have been a miracle Fianna Fail ran such well funded campaigns over the past few years, and were so kind to developers and banks, so attentive to their needs.

You say that Ministers divert taxpayers funds to reward their local voters (the *only* voters they need), but you then pretend that this corruption has no effect on the way those same corrupt Ministers are returned.

Give a specific example.

Okay, try to spin Bertie Aherns admission that he appointed people to semi-state boards because they were his friends. Tell me how that was done for the good of the people. Tell me how that was fine?

Same for Eoghan Harris and his appointment for the Senate.

Tell me how that was done because it was the best decision for the Irish people, and wasnt simply a case of Ahern rewarding his friends and supporters at the expense of the state.

Then tell me how I am imagining that there are insiders in Irish life, who use their influence to advance themselves and their friends, all at the expense of the Irish people who are left to pay for it all.

Ultimately it comes down to this - things need to change in Ireland and for that people's attitudes need to change.

Correct - the attitude the most needs to change is that corruption is normal, or acceptable and that insiders ought to be allowed to use their position to feather their own nests.

In order to change, people need to be able to distinguish the real corruption from the incompetence,the theft from the inefficiency and the cronyism from the mere clientism

Please - open your eyes. How do you think the incompetents and the inefficient and the clients get into their positions? Its because they know the right people who can put them there. You cant split it out. Until you solve the problem of insider corruption in Irish life, particularly policymaking at the heighest levels, you will still have incompetency. Its practically two sides of the same coin.

dunsandin

Sand, you're a bright guy, but you are also p1551ng in the wind here. I share your views fully, but I also recognise the futility.
Resignedly, Dunsandin.

johnnyskeleton

Re: CJH, you are using this as example of him having influence over the bank wheras the woman had none. But it is equally possible that the bank made two commercial decisions, entirely separate but both being the best option in the circumstances. Banks are not concerned with "people being held to account". What happens is that once a loan goes into default it is written off. Then the case is taken over by the credit and collections department. They will try to get the maximum amount back from the loan in the cirucmstances.Given that they got 3/4 of the money back upfront and another 1/10 to be paid at a later date, they probably thought this option preferable to a lengthy legal battle. You're making it seem like his debts just magically disappeared because he winked at them, but that may not be the case.

See above. What definition of politicaly connected doesnt include people in politics, the civil service, banks, professions etc?

Sand wrote:

We are not talking about a cult. Or a cabal. Or a guys meeting in cloaks. They dont have membership cards. Or a secret handshake. They dont plot to take over the world or rig every oscar night.

You certainly talk like they are, that there is some cogent group who conspire against the ordinary citizen.

Sand wrote:

When they sit down to decide policy for the country or their organisation they never ask "Whats the best policy for the country/organisation as a whole?". Instead their focus is "Whats the best policy for me and mine?"

Me and mine being their friends, their family, their contacts. Never the people they are supposedly in power to represent. Irish policymaking is utterly inexplicably bad if you consider it from the point of view of the best course of action for the country or organisation in question. It is very straightforward when considered from the point of view "What suited the decision makers and their needs?"

Really? So in introducing low corporation tax to attract multinational corporations, introducing free college fees, putting more money into health, increasing the dole, building roads, schools etc, they were not thinking about what is best for the country, nor were they thinking about the demands being put on them by the voters. They were doing all these things purely for themselves. I just can't see how increases in the dole would have directly benefitted a politician or any other "insider". Rent allowance maybe, but straight up JSA/JSB?

As for Unions, they were the ones who sought and obtained benchmarking and all those raises. Surely that was in their organisation's best interest rather than that of the top guys?

What about non economic matters such as immigration, smoking ban, criminal law, environmental protection, etc etc. Are all of these too self serving issues? Or, are they giving people what they want?

Sand wrote:

Why were Irish bankers ridiculously overpaid in the past decade? Not in the interests of shareholders. Nobody was head hunting them. But it was in the interests of the bankers.

No, because they were making huge profits for the shareholders. Most of the overpayment came from performance related bonuses and, while this performance proved to be highly risky and ended in disaster, at the time that was the justification. Nothing to do with political connections.

Sand wrote:

Have you looked over that list of the good and great in Irish politics? How much is there in the way of options to sweep the decks? How expensive is it to run a political campaign? Who funds them? Why? What do they get out of it? Why was the Galway Races tent full? No connection at all between money and power and corruption? I guess it must have been a miracle Fianna Fail ran such well funded campaigns over the past few years, and were so kind to developers and banks, so attentive to their needs.

But you didn't include developers in your definition of insiders. Your insiders were the civil servants, professionals, bankers etc. Once again, your definition of "insiders" expands to whoever you see as a bad guy, which is not very helpful.

Sand wrote:

You say that Ministers divert taxpayers funds to reward their local voters (the *only* voters they need), but you then pretend that this corruption has no effect on the way those same corrupt Ministers are returned.

If I get elected based on certain promises and then I deliver on those promises, how is that corruption?

Sand wrote:

Okay, try to spin Bertie Aherns admission that he appointed people to semi-state boards because they were his friends. Tell me how that was done for the good of the people. Tell me how that was fine?

Same for Eoghan Harris and his appointment for the Senate.

You aren't reading my posts at all. I accepted that the former was corrupt. But the other things you mention are acts of weak willed incompetence or political expediency.

As regards Eoghan Harris being appointed to the Senate, the taoiseach is entitled to appoint whoever they want to the 11 Senate seats allocated for that purpose. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with the nature of our constitutional democracy, and not with any group of "insiders". Even Bertie can't be blamed for following the constitution.

Sand wrote:

Then tell me how I am imagining that there are insiders in Irish life, who use their influence to advance themselves and their friends, all at the expense of the Irish people who are left to pay for it all.

There is corruption and nepotism in Irish politics. There are also dodgy dealings in other parts of Irish society. This is true of every democracy, indeed every country, in the world. But what there isn't is a cogent grouping of insiders and outsiders like you try to make out.

I'll give you a good example. Look at feedback in the sys category. Every couple of days a new poster will start a thread about the evil mods in boards.ie who only care about their clique of regular posters and have usually committed some travesty of justice (like banning them for trolling etc). They argue from their experience that all the mods on boards are a group of evil naer-do-wells and cite the particular mod in question as their evidence. But there are many mods on boards, some good, some not so good (but mostly good ).

If they have a specific complaint about a specific mod, that will usually be dealt with. But when they come in firing off about the mods in general being powertrippers etc they are doing themselves no favours.

Your argument, that all these people are part of a big group of insiders, does nothing to further this debate.

Sand wrote:

Please - open your eyes. How do you think the incompetents and the inefficient and the clients get into their positions? Its because they know the right people who can put them there. You cant split it out. Until you solve the problem of insider corruption in Irish life, particularly policymaking at the heighest levels, you will still have incompetency. Its practically two sides of the same coin.

I think we've said all that can be said to be honest, and we're tettering off the topic of Icelandic former prime ministers.

If you want to go around thinking that there is a group of "insiders" trying to put down the "outsiders" and that anyone who doesn't share your world view has their eyes closed to reality then that is fine, but what I'm saying is that it is not nearly as simple as that. The more people that subscribe to DMcWs empty phraseology, the more their attention will be taken away from specific incidents and towards a general shrug of their shoulders "ah sure all politicians lie anyway" attitude.

Sand

@Johnnyskeleton

I think we've said all that can be said to be honest,

I think we have. Its best summarised by your response to my noting of Bertie Ahern abusing his influence to appoint his friends to positions of responsibility at the states expense.

There is corruption and nepotism in Irish politics. There are also dodgy dealings in other parts of Irish society.

And yet...

there isn't is a cogent grouping of insiders and outsiders like you try to make out.

So, you cant deny the Taoiseach is appointing his friends to positions of state responsibility. You just try to ignore it because you dont like acknowleding the implications. You try to pretend its normal. And your right - it is normal. It is normal in Irish life for our political leadership to use their connections and influence to line their own pockets at the states expense. But it would be crazy to recognise that right?

Either way, its fine. I can only lead you to water, I cant make you drink. Its not my job to open your eyes. You go on believing Ireland is governed in the best interests of the people of Ireland.

Look at feedback in the sys category. Every couple of days a new poster will start a thread about the evil mods in boards.ie who only care about their clique of regular posters and have usually committed some travesty of justice (like banning them for trolling etc). They argue from their experience that all the mods on boards are a group of evil naer-do-wells and cite the particular mod in question as their evidence. But there are many mods on boards, some good, some not so good (but mostly good ).

Two points:

Boards.ie is a privately owned entity. You have no rights here, and boards.ie doesnt owe you anything. The poster-boards relationship is not a good substitute for the citizen-state relationship.

Secondly, as for mods and their good/evil nature...

Tim: "Team Leader don't mean anything mate"
Gareth: "Excuse me, it means I'm leader of a team"
Tim: "No it doesn't. It's a title someone's given you to get you to do something they don't want to do for free - it's like making the div kid at school milk monitor. No one respects it"
Gareth: "Er I think they do"
Tim: "No they don't Gareth"
Gareth: "Er yes they do, cos if people were rude to me then I used to give them their milk last... so it was warm."