Why was Peter Sutherland given a platform on the RTE news?

George Orwell 1982

From Fintan O'Toole's Irish Times article on Suds:

Precisely because he is idolised in the Irish business community, he had the opportunity to change the culture of Irish banking. Had he taken it, “we” would not be in the loin-girding business at the moment.
Actually, Sutherland had this opportunity twice – first when he was chairman of Allied Irish Banks from 1989 to 1993, and president of the Irish Bankers’ Federation (IBF).

As a former attorney general, he discovered something truly staggering: that his own bank had been colluding in a systematic fraud on the State through the organised evasion of Dirt tax. He was not responsible for that fraud, but he was responsible for what happened when the bank’s internal auditor, Tony Spollen, discovered it.

What did he do? As he explained to the Dáil’s public accounts committee (PAC): “The issue of non-resident accounts and Dirt was an issue which was essentially one for management. Management, as I understand it, believed that the issue was under control.”

He passed the Dirt issue to a sub-committee (headed by a participant in the Ansbacher scam) which decided that there was not a problem because AIB had an informal Dirt amnesty from the Revenue. (It didn’t.) Sutherland, as he put it himself, “did not intervene in any way”. All that really happened under his leadership was that the internal auditor Spollen was shifted out of his job, though Sutherland insisted that this had nothing to do with him either.

Sutherland had a second chance to face up to the scale and implications of the rottenness in Irish banking when the scandal emerged. During the PAC’s hearings and after its scathing report, he could have taken some personal responsibility and led a process of profound moral change. Instead, we learned what he really means by the word “we”. He threw his prestige behind AIB.

Of the handing over of the issue to a sub-committee, he said that “everyone, I think, was basically happy with the process”. He stood over his own behaviour, even with the benefit of hindsight: “If I were to do it all over again, I wouldn’t change one iota of the steps that we took in terms of having an objective analysis of the situation and coming to a fair and proper conclusion.”

He explained that he never raised the question of an industry-wide fraud on the State at the IBF when he was its president. Had he done so, he said, “It would have ended up simply with, I suspect, statements by all of the chief executives or chairmen: ‘Oh, yes, absolutely, we’re doing it the best we can’, and so on.”

When the PAC report was published, with its damning conclusion that “eminent” bank directors did little to enforce ethical standards, Sutherland had nothing to say. Given that he was the most eminent of all, that silence was one of the reasons why the culture of Irish banking remained so lethally intact.

And Sutherland has sailed blithely onwards, indefatigably smug and unshakeably self-assured. His “we” is now more copious, stretching as it does to the whole field of global finance capitalism.

He was a director of Royal Bank of Scotland when it engaged in the recklessness that has cost the British taxpayer at least £45 billion (€52.55 billion) so far, and sat on the remuneration committee that lavished huge bonuses on its chief executive.

He is a big figure in Goldman Sachs, a bank which Gordon Brown accused of “moral bankruptcy” for its decision to pay out bonuses of $5.4 billion (€4.2 billion) less than two years after it had to be bailed out by the US taxpayer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0511/1224270130001.html

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Suds is just one person. One very wealthy individual with many conflicts of interest in relation to how the Irish crisis plays out. The unions represent more than a quarter of a million people in Ireland. Now is it more democratic to consult the unions or Suds?

I'm was not aware that the unions have been denied their input.. Can you point me to a link? Many people are consulted for their input...

And you believe Begg being a director of the central bank is different to Sutherland having differing interests? Weren't the central bank and regulators supposed to stop this from happening??????

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Everyone excepts there has to be cuts and tax increase to pay off the debt. The question is on who should the burden fall. Suds is quite happy with the bank bailout. He wants the deficit closed which means cuts in education and healthcare and social welfare. This won't affect him and his buddies one bit. The man is hyprocrite and he is blind to his own hypocrisy.

Actually they (Irish people) don't accept their needs to be cuts.. the CP agreement was passed to ensure no further cuts to pay (but keeping increments).. The unions continually complain about any possible cuts...
Very few are taking the cuts required in order to eliminate the defecit..

The cuts this year will amount to a 3b cut in a defecit of 20b.. merely scratching the surface..

katkin

The original question asked here was why was sutherland given a platform on RTE news this evening. I saw it at six, they had him on twice, telling us how correct the govt were not to burn the bondholders and to undertake austerity measures.

To me his message came across as: "Good government, pat on the head for you from me, now shut up Irish people and take your medicine - don't be thinking that those other dissenting voices suggesting we burn the bondholders and stop paying back rich ****ers like me with yere tax money are right, no there's no other way, you the Irish people who had nothing to do with these deals must pay!"

Good RTE! do the govts dirty work for them there!

Welease

blue_steel wrote: »

I've never seen a trade unionist given a 10 minute tete-a-tate with David Murphy. Open your eyes and be objective for f**k sake. RTE is a national broadcaster. I'm not paying my licence fee for it to run editorial pieces with members of the Bilderberg group.

Are you seriously telling me you have never seen union officials like O Connor or Begg on RTE?

George Orwell 1982

reprazant wrote: »

Who do you propose?

Look I understand the dynamics of the Irish situation. The deficit is enormous and we stupidly gauranteed all the liabilities of the banks.

We can't default on anglo because its now effectively a state bank and default on the bond holders would be a sovereign default.

We can keep cutting govt expenditure but it just deflating our economy more.

This leaves us totally shafted and there is nothing we can do except wait til the country goes bust and avail of the EU/IMF bailout.

Those on over 500,000 a year pay on average 32% income tax. I would raise that to 45%. Someone on 100k would pay about that at present.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me you have never seen union officials like O Connor or Begg on RTE?

They are on TV. But there is usually someone there challenging them. They don't get ten minutes to themselves.

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Look I understand the dynamics of the Irish situation. The deficit is enormous and we stupidly gauranteed all the liabilities of the banks.

We can't default on anglo because its now effectively a state bank and default on the bond holders would be a sovereign default.

We can keep cutting govt expenditure but it just deflating our economy more.

This leaves us totally shafted and there is nothing we can do except wait til the country goes bust and avail of the EU/IMF bailout.

Those on over 500,000 a year pay on average 32% income tax. I would raise that to 45%. Someone on 100k would pay about that at present.

What about the lowest 50% who pay no tax?

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

They are on TV. But there is usually someone there challenging them. They don't get ten minutes to themselves.

That could be because they talk utter bollox

Here's 10 mins.. of O'Conner on RTE

blue_steel

Welease wrote: »

That could be because they talk utter bollox

What cuts have you taken? You are so gung-ho for cuts I'd just love to know what you, personally are prepared to do.

Welease

blue_steel wrote: »

What cuts have you taken? You are so gung-ho for cuts I'd just love to know what you, personally are prepared to do.

What does it matter? You could tax me 100% tomorrow it won't make a dent in the defecit..

Stop trying to personalise the arguements on me, Sutherland and whoever..

This country is borrowing 20b more a year than the tax take.. We are borrowing at rediculous rates.. and everyone will need to take savage cuts to rectify the situation..

Why do you have a problem with that?

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

Actually they (Irish people) don't accept their needs to be cuts.. the CP agreement was passed to ensure no further cuts to pay (but keeping increments).. The unions continually complain about any possible cuts...
Very few are taking the cuts required in order to eliminate the defecit..

The cuts this year will amount to a 3b cut in a defecit of 20b.. merely scratching the surface..

The reality is that Ireland has a very weak trade union movement. There was no appetite for strikes. The govt knew this. So the drove home a deal which meant public sector workers would take paycuts, a pension levy, tax increases, a freeze on recruitment and promotions and a wage freeze until 2014. This has been used an example across Europe for how to take the pain. Most other countries couldn't possibly implement such cutbacks.

We don't have to get the deficit down to zero. The target is to get it down to about 5bn of 3% of GDP by 2014. Nearly all other eurozone countries are running large deficits at the moment as well. We just have to reduce ours to a level where we don't stand out and become a target for speculators.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

What does it matter? You could tax me 100% tomorrow it won't make a dent in the defecit..

Stop trying to personalise the arguements on me, Sutherland and whoever..

This country is borrowing 20b more a year than the tax take.. We are borrowing at rediculous rates.. and everyone will need to take savage cuts to rectify the situation..

Why do you have a problem with that?

And I suppose you think that bondholdes that invested in a house of cards like anglo Irish bank should get all their money back in full + interest. Because that is what Suds is advocating.

blue_steel

Welease wrote: »

What does it matter? You could tax me 100% tomorrow it won't make a dent in the defecit..

Stop trying to personalise the arguements on me, Sutherland and whoever..

This country is borrowing 20b more a year than the tax take.. We are borrowing at rediculous rates.. and everyone will need to take savage cuts to rectify the situation..

Why do you have a problem with that?

Because EVERYONE won't be taking savage cuts. Its like talking to a brick wall here. I will not be lectured to by a rich s**t like him about financial pain.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

What about the lowest 50% who pay no tax?

Well, the reason they pay so little tax is because they earn so little. Much play has been made of the undeniable fact that top earners pay the most tax and that huge numbers don't pay any tax.

According to Revenue's Statistical Report for 2007, 661,000 tax cases had gross incomes of less than €15,000 a year and, as might be expected, paid minimal taxes totalling €14 million on gross incomes of €4,744 million. If, ignoring the social consequences, their effective tax rate of 0.3% could be increased by 10% to 10.3%, an additional €474 million would be raised. At the other end of the spectrum, 81,000 people had gross incomes in excess of €100,000 a year and paid taxes totalling €4,353 million on gross incomes of €16,065 million. If their effective tax rate of 27% increased by the same 10% to 37%, a total of €1,606 million could be raised.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/archive/2007/index.html

George Orwell 1982

blue_steel wrote: »

Because EVERYONE won't be taking savage cuts. Its like talking to a brick wall here.

I did warn you...:rolleyes:

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

The reality is that Ireland has a very weak trade union movement. There was no appetite for strikes. The govt knew this. So the drove home a deal which meant public sector workers would take paycuts, a pension levy, tax increases, a freeze on recruitment and promotions and a wage freeze until 2014. This has been used an example across Europe for how to take the pain. Most other countries couldn't possibly implement such cutbacks.

And thanks for a perfect example of how people refuse to take any pain..

Paycuts came in before CP agreement.. they were minor.. and despite the subsequent defecit, the PS refused to take any futher cuts once the real situation became known..

Pension Levy.. the PS pension defecit is currently running at over 105 BILLION... Anglo is small fry compared to our liabilites on the PS pension.. You are being asked to contribute to a defined BENEFIT pension that is unsustainable which is why it's not really available outside the PS.. and you believe that is taking the pain .. L O fkin L

Freeze on recruitment.. Yes.. (well except no.. the PS is still hiring).. but what you meant was a freeze on removing unnecessary middle management positions in the HSE and FAS etc, plus the removal of frontline services by the removal of temp workers..

Promotions and Wage freeze... err yes.. apart from some increments which are still being paid.. so in fact those people do get pay rises..

And thats and example of where about 50% (can't be arsed to look it up) of our tax take is being spent......

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

We don't have to get the deficit down to zero. The target is to get it down to about 5bn of 3% of GDP by 2014. Nearly all other eurozone countries are running large deficits at the moment as well. We just have to reduce ours to a level where we don't stand out and become a target for speculators.

No.. we need to wipe it out.. so we don't have to continue to service a rediculous debt..

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

And I suppose you think that bondholdes that invested in a house of cards like anglo Irish bank should get all their money back in full + interest. Because that is what Suds is advocating.

No I don't .. I think it should have been managed down in a far more sensible manner..

But once, again it doesnt change the fact.. Lenihan made a decision and I, you and everyone else now needs to pay for that bad decision.. and delaying the inevitable only raises the cost..

Welease

blue_steel wrote: »

Because EVERYONE won't be taking savage cuts. Its like talking to a brick wall here. I will not be lectured to by a rich s**t like him about financial pain.

So you would rather be lectured by rich s**ts like Begg/O'Conner about not taking any financial pain? (i.e. bury your head in the sand)

liammur

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

From Fintan O'Toole's Irish Times article on Suds:



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0511/1224270130001.html

Pity we don't have a few politicians like O Toole. His ship of fools book was no bad read.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

And thanks for a perfect example of how people refuse to take any pain.. ..

And I suppose that's why the international press talk about "savage cuts in public sector pay", "swinging cutbacks" etc, etc when talking about Ireland. Why the Greeks chanted "We are not the Irish, we will resist".

Paycuts came in before CP agreement.. they were minor.. and despite the subsequent defecit, the PS refused to take any futher cuts once the real situation became known..

A 14% pay cut across the board. The unions accepted this and agreed to implement reforms which would lead to savings for the exchequer. In France the can't even raise the retirement age to 62.

Maybe you would like to live under a dictatorship where goverments can organise the workforce any way they like. Thats what happens in China and Singapore.

Pension Levy.. the PS pension defecit is currently running at over 105 BILLION... Anglo is small fry compared to our liabilites on the PS pension.. You are being asked to contribute to a defined BENEFIT pension that is unsustainable which is why it's not really available outside the PS.. and you believe that is taking the pain .. L O fkin L

I suspect you don't understand how the public sector pension system works. Here are some links.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/04/03/public-sector-pay-cuts/

http://www.tascnet.ie/upload/public_service_pension_levy_1.pdf

Freeze on recruitment.. Yes.. (well except no.. the PS is still hiring).. but what you meant was a freeze on removing unnecessary middle management positions in the HSE and FAS etc, plus the removal of frontline services by the removal of temp workers..

No nurses training in Ireland are emigrating. They have no choice.

Promotions and Wage freeze... err yes.. apart from some increments which are still being paid.. so in fact those people do get pay rises..

They are the terms and conditions of employment in the public sector. You take a position of 40K with the agreement that you get increments sliding up to say 50k after 6 years. Any private sector employer could do the same or use bonuses or whatever sweetner as part of the employment contract. Increments are not a pay rise on the original employment contract.

No.. we need to wipe it out.. so we don't have to continue to service a rediculous debt..

No serious commentator is saying we need to wipe out the deficit completely. France hasn't had a budget surplus since the second world war. The current target for Ireland is for a deficit of 3% of GDP by 2014.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

No I don't .. I think it should have been managed down in a far more sensible manner..

But once, again it doesnt change the fact.. Lenihan made a decision and I, you and everyone else now needs to pay for that bad decision.. and delaying the inevitable only raises the cost..

And what will Suds pay?

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

So you would rather be lectured by rich s**ts like Begg/O'Conner about not taking any financial pain? (i.e. bury your head in the sand)

I don't know what Begg/O'Connor get paid but I have heard figures like 120k. That's alot of money. However it is nothing compared to what Suds would earn.

Also have you any idea the work and skill that is needed to head up an organisation like ICTU? What would someone leading a private sector organisation of that size get paid?

There are 55 unions affiliated to Congress in 2008 with a total membership of 833,486, of whom 602,035 are in the republic and 231,451 in Northern Ireland.There are 33 Trades Councils, representing groups of unions at local/regional level, affiliated to Congress covering both the Republic and Northern Ireland.

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

And I suppose that's why the international press talk about "savage cuts in public sector pay", "swinging cutbacks" etc, etc when talking about Ireland. Why the Greeks chanted "We are not the Irish, we will resist".



A 14% pay cut across the board. The unions accepted this and agreed to implement reforms which would lead to savings for the exchequer. In France the can't even raise the retirement age to 62.

Maybe you would like to live under a dictatorship where goverments can organise the workforce any way they like. Thats what happens in China and Singapore.



I suspect you don't understand how the public sector pension system works. Here are some links.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/04/03/public-sector-pay-cuts/

http://www.tascnet.ie/upload/public_service_pension_levy_1.pdf



No nurses training in Ireland are emigrating. They have no choice.



They are the terms of conditions of employment in the public sector. You take a position of 40K with the agreement that you get increments sliding up to say 50k after 6 years. Any private sector employer could do the same or use bonuses or whatever sweetner as part of the employment contract. Increments are not a pay rise on the original employment contract.



No serious commentator is saying we need to wipe out the deficit completely. France hasn't had a budget surplus since the second world war. The current target for Ireland is for a deficit of 3% of GDP by 2014.

Keep it up.. your just proving my point that people in this country are unwilling to accept the depth of cuts that need to be made...

You dodge around each and every question.. you say the PS has a recruitment embargo, we both know they have hired in specific positions in the last year (3 out of every 5 requested I heard on the news).. so you hone in on the fact that nurses are not being hired (and i believe psychiatric nurses are being hired).. You and I both know that PS does not have a 100% hiring embargo so stop claiming it does..
You claim pay is static, but don't mention increments.. its' irrelevant if they are in a contract or not.. if your pay is increased via a contractual increment, it does not remain static, your pay has been increased..

When you can acutally come to terms with the reality of the situation then maybe you might understand that the measure taken so far are merely scratching the surface..

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

I don't know what Begg/O'Connor get paid but I have heard figures like 120k. That's alot of money. However it is nothing compared to what Suds would earn.
.

What did he earn as a director of the central bank of Ireland? after all if we can claim he is better suited to comment than a banker.. then.. oh hold on.. umm.. crap .. he was on the board of directors of the central bank.. who were supposed to be in charge.. oh ****..

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

What did he earn as a director of the central bank of Ireland? after all if we can claim he is better suited to comment than a banker.. then.. oh hold on.. umm.. crap .. he was on the board of directors of the central bank.. who were supposed to be in charge.. oh ****..

I don't know. Are you suggesting he shouldn't be paid for his work? He should go and sleep on the street because he believes in some degree of social justice?

I don't know but I presume the reason he was on the board of the directors was to be some kind of watch dog to protect low income families from potentially exploitative banking practices.

blue_steel

Welease wrote: »

You dodge around each and every question.. you say the PS has a recruitment embargo, we both know they have hired in specific positions in the last year (3 out of every 5 requested I heard on the news)..

Stop pulling figures out of your ass.
Nobody has been hired on a premanent basis in the public sector since Jan 2009. FACT. Deal with it. Get over it. Look for another scapegoat to blame for the mess your greedy fatcat mates created.
"I heard it on the news" - I really hope you got rich out of the celtic tiger mate, because if you didn't you are the worst kind of Uncle Tom imaginable.

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

I don't know. Are you suggesting he shouldn't be paid for his work? He should go and sleep on the street because he believes in some degree of social justice?

I don't know but I presume the reason he was on the board of the directors was to be some kind of watch dog to protect low income families from potentially exploitative banking practices.

One of his jobs as a director of the central bank of Ireland was to ensure banks acted responsibly within Ireland.. He failed.. spectacularily!

From what I have read, directors in 2007 were paid 140K (thats on top of the 120K from ICTU)..

So I ask again, why is he more qualified to speak than Sutherland.. When he was one of those responsible for overseeing the banks, and was paid a large amount of money to do so, in addition to the money he was paid to run ICTU.. hardly a protector of the low paid...

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

Keep it up.. your just proving my point that people in this country are unwilling to accept the depth of cuts that need to be made...

We are the most passive population in Europe in relation to cutbacks. "We are not the Irish, we will resist".

Welease wrote: »

You dodge around each and every question.. you say the PS has a recruitment embargo, we both know they have hired in specific positions in the last year (3 out of every 5 requested I heard on the news).. so you hone in on the fact that nurses are not being hired (and i believe psychiatric nurses are being hired).. You and I both know that PS does not have a 100% hiring embargo so stop claiming it does..
You claim pay is static, but don't mention increments.. its' irrelevant if they are in a contract or not.. if your pay is increased via a contractual increment, it does not remain static, your pay has been increased..

There is a recruitment embargo. If a hospital needs staff or a primary school needs a teacher they can write to the department of finance and get special permission but it is difficult and numbers are being reduced.

Welease wrote: »

When you can acutally come to terms with the reality of the situation then maybe you might understand that the measure taken so far are merely scratching the surface..

I have come to terms with the reality. The govt had the unions over a barrell they implemented the best deal they could from their point of view. You could cut public sector pay by another 20% but there would be a wave of defaults on mortgages, the banks would be in trouble again, people would jack in the job and emigrate, and it wouldn't be possible to implement reform.

The total cost of the bank bailout is half our national income. That is what is really sinking us. But you keep going on about the evil public sector. Here is what Morgan Kelly had to say about the deficit and the bank bailout:

Because of the economic collapse here, the Government is adding to this debt quite quickly. However, in contrast to its inept handling of the banking crisis, the Government has taken reasonable steps to bring the deficit under control. If all goes to plan we should be looking at a debt of 85 to 90 per cent of GDP by the end of 2012.

This is quite large for a small economy, but it is manageable. Just about. What will sink us, unfortunately but inevitably, are the huge costs of the bank bailout.

We can gain a sobering perspective on the impossible disproportion between the bailout and our economic resources by looking at the US. The government there set aside $700 billion (€557 billion) to buy troubled bank assets, and the final cost to the American taxpayer is about $150 billion. These sound like, and are, astronomical numbers.

But when you translate from the leviathan that is America to the minnow that is Ireland, it would be equivalent to the Irish Government spending €7 billion on Nama, and eventually losing €1.5 billion in the process. Pocket change by our standards.

Instead, our Government has already committed itself to spend €70 billion (€40 billion on the National Asset Management Agency – Nama – and €30 billion on recapitalising banks), or half of the national income. That is 10 times per head of population the amount the US spent to rescue itself from its worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

Having received such a staggering transfusion of taxpayer funds, you might expect that the Irish banks would now be as fit as fleas. Instead, they are still in intensive care, and will require even larger transfusions before they can fend for themselves again.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0522/1224270888132.html

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

One of his jobs as a director of the central bank of Ireland was to ensure banks acted responsibly within Ireland.. He failed.. spectacularily!

From what I have read, directors in 2007 were paid 140K (thats on top of the 120K from ICTU)..

So I ask again, why is he more qualified to speak than Sutherland.. When he was one of those responsible for overseeing the banks, and was paid a large amount of money to do so, in addition to the money he was paid to run ICTU.. hardly a protector of the low paid...

This discussion was about Suds. Then you introduced Begg. We must be all in favour of Begg if we are against Sudds.

Maybe Begg should resign if he failed in his duty as a director of the central bank.

That doesn't mean Suds is any less of a hyprocrite.

Welease

blue_steel wrote: »

Stop pulling figures out of your ass.
Nobody has been hired on a premanent basis in the public sector since Jan 2009. FACT. Deal with it. Get over it. Look for another scapegoat to blame for the mess your greedy fatcat mates created.
"I heard it on the news" - I really hope you got rich out of the celtic tiger mate, because if you didn't you are the worst kind of Uncle Tom imaginable.

Really? Have you been to the public sector jobs page?

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/en/getDyna.do?name=In_Progress_Campaigns