Election coming? First shot in the upcoming press salvos against labour?

ArtSmart

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gilmore-wife-got-euro525000-for-school-site-now-worth-just-euro100000-2402122.html

wrote:

THE wife of Labour leader Eamon Gilmore was paid €525,000 by the Department of Education for a site for a new school that is now worth less than €100,000.

Does the IND know something we don't .ie election coming, or are they just trying to weaken Labours 'fairness' stance.



or of course, are they just reporting important news? (this is the LOL option)

feicim

ArtSmart wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gilmore-wife-got-euro525000-for-school-site-now-worth-just-euro100000-2402122.html


Does the IND know something we don't .ie election coming, or are they just trying to weaken Labours 'fairness' stance.



or of course, are they just reporting important news? (this is the LOL option)

Maybe there is something coming up. The independent fairly stuck the boot into Mr. Clowen on sunday. There was a queue of "celebrities" lining up to slate the pitiful incompetent fool.

gandalf

TBH its another non story from the Independent group. Their pathetic attempts at deflecting from the actual issues in hand are clumsy and stink of the worst type of gutter journalism.

I suspect after the budget its all bets are off. There are reported strains between FF and the Greens over the doubling of "registration fees" in Colleges. I am sure you will have the parasitic Independents like Healy-Rae trying it on for more County Councillor type concessions for their constituencies as well but this time the Government may not be able to afford to knell to their demands.

It's fairly obvious that "Sir" Tonys stable of rags are trying desperately to tar the Green Party as the villains of the Government while they throw muck at the opposition with the hope it elevates FF in the polls and the election.

johngalway

To bring in by stealth third level fees is a disgrace. It would be better to reduce the number of Arts type courses in the future IMO (tin hat on). I'm not a student and won't be, but education should be a priority regardless of the state finances.

The Volt

Read that article this morning. There's basically nothing controversial in it although on the top of page 4 it says 'Gilmore Land Controversy'. Most of the article is actually about how Gilmore got into politics :pac:

Blatant attempt to harm Labour's current popularity, always seems to happen with the press whenever they start to do well.

Lenny Lovett

Having read it, it seems to me that The Indo are just reporting the issue as it is and showing that Gilmore is no better (or worse) than the others. He was as happy to slurp at the trough during the Celtic Tiger years as everyone else who got the chance. Your typical Champagne Socialist!

ArtSmart

johngalway wrote: »

To bring in by stealth third level fees is a disgrace. It would be better to reduce the number of Arts type courses in the future IMO (tin hat on). I'm not a student and won't be, but education should be a priority regardless of the state finances.

I agree.
however Arts are not simply recreational programs. In fact, because of their nature then tend to be harder to do well in.
Your point of course is that they have / serve no purpose.
again, i disagree. nothing is created without concept. and art programs primarily teach concepts
Of course, this is an area a lot would have opposing views etc, but at the end of the day to restrict access to education would be the single worst decision any govt could make - because in essence, (to put it in business terms)
you are reducing the quality of a country's stock - ie it's people.
and low quality stock has limited appeal (to investors) and tends to be bought and sold at cut down prices.

gandalf

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Having read it, it seems to me that The Indo are just reporting the issue as it is and showing that Gilmore is no better (or worse) than the others. He was as happy to slurp at the trough during the Celtic Tiger years as everyone else who got the chance. Your typical Champagne Socialist!

Actually the land was left to his wife and his wife is the one who sold it. There is nothing Champagne Socialist about it at all.

Imagine the crap they would have published if she had the opportunity to sell the land and make a profit but didn't?

It only becomes a story if they didn't pay tax on the transaction or if either of them used their influence to seal the deal. From reading the so called "article" this doesn't appear to be the case.

Now if only the Independent would trawl through the property dealings of Fianna Fail TD's and Senators then I could at least accuse them of some sort of balance of coverage. Given the snippets we know of the developer TD's I am sure that far more juicy stories that are relevant to our current difficulties would surface in that area explaining the crazy policies of the previous and current government. That would be what I would call proper journalism. But unfortunately it doesn't exist in our main broadsheets or our national broadcaster.

Nodin

ArtSmart wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gilmore-wife-got-euro525000-for-school-site-now-worth-just-euro100000-2402122.html


Does the IND know something we don't .ie election coming, or are they just trying to weaken Labours 'fairness' stance.



or of course, are they just reporting important news? (this is the LOL option)

They probably think those polls that show labour as the chief opposition party are hitting the nail on the head. Pathetic attempt at muck throwing by the Indo - theres plenty of issues far more worthy of scrutiny in the country at the moment, not a few of them subjects of threads on this board.

bijapos

The double standards on this forum are pathetic.

The main isssue here is that the wife of a current TD, who is head of the VEC of Dun Laoghaire sold land to a VEC in another county, even though the site she owned was not the preferred site for the school.

The land was sold for an exhorbitant amount of money, 10-20 times the average price for farming land in that area. It was not purchased on a CPO. Instead people in the area were given the chance to offer their land up for sale.

The questions that need to be asked here are

• Is it more than coincidence that the land purchased was that plot of land that belonged to a leading worker in the VEC.
• Did Eamon Gilmore or his wife influence the decision in any way.
• Why was the preferred site not chosen instead.
• Seeing that there were a number of sites to choose was the price paid not exhorbitant.
• Who was the independent valuer, how independent were they and is there any form of appeal or openness in matters like this.

Gilmore and his wife have a couple of questions to answer, and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until they do, but a statement should be made.


The fact that some people on this form see fit to write this off as "gutter journalism" is pathetic, if it was the wife of Ivor Callely or John O'Donoghoe rather than Eamon Gilmore I have no doubt this would have been up here a lot quicker.

No party or politician or representative of any state organisation should be exempt from investigation. If anyone thinks that any political party should be exempt from an investigation of their dealings then thats nonsense.



Btw the story ran first in yesterdays Sunday Tribune, not in todays Independent.

gandalf

bijapos wrote: »

The questions that need to be asked here are

• Is it more than coincidence that the land purchased was that plot of land that belonged to a leading worker in the VEC.
• Did Eamon Gilmore or his wife influence the decision in any way.
• Why was the preferred site not chosen instead.
• Seeing that there were a number of sites to choose was the price paid not exhorbitant.
• Who was the independent valuer, how independent were they and is there any form of appeal or openness in matters like this.

Gilmore and his wife have a couple of questions to answer, and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until they do, but a statement should be made..

If that was the case I would have expected the "journalist" to check these avenues out and to query them. The fact they have not mentioned them would lead me to believe that there is no substance to them at all. Its all innuendo rather than substance.

You are right if it was Ivor Callely or John O'Donoghoe people probably would be up in arms because of their prior history in milking the expense system in the Oireachtas.

At the moment there is a lot of mud being slung around by certain media organisations and by those I would call die-hard supporters of FF. Almost all of this is without any substance at all and in most cases is pure and utter scaremongering.

What next the Indo insinuates that Eamonn Gilmores Mother in law was bumped off so they could inherit the land ?

BTW the Sunday Tribune's article was more fleshed out and included this quote from Gilmore.

Gilmore told the Sunday Tribune he had "no involvement" in the sale process, but did not comment on the price achieved for the sale.

"[Carol] had been approached a number of years earlier by the board of management of the school, who were interested in the site because of its location in the village," he said. "The site was part of land surrounding the family home, which Carol inherited from her late mother. The site was sold in response to a public advertisement seeking land for the school. The price agreed was that for which the land was professionally valued at the time."

Article is here.

Interesting that The Independent left this out of theirs eh, infact they say Gilmore refused to comment at all. The councillor they (The Independent) quote with saying the land is over-valued just happens to be a Fianna Fail councillor Michael Regan.

ISAW

gandalf wrote: »

There are reported strains between FF and the Greens

And between alternatives -

The Eamon & Joan show just isn’t honest
and isn’t credible

Leo Varadkar on the
Labour leaders.

He has his own issues, his own problems,
and his own dreams

Joan Burton on Leo Varadkar

what spending cuts or tax increases will they agree to?

gandalf

Ah and here comes the scaremongering

seamus

ISAW wrote: »

And between alternatives -

Leo Varadkar on the
Labour leaders.

Joan Burton on Leo Varadkar

what spending cuts or tax increases will they agree to?

Leo Varadkar is a FG outlier. I have no idea why he's a front bencher as he doesn't seem to have the support of most of the party.

I agree with Joan Burton actually on this one - Leo Varadkar is a silver-spooner. He went straight from school politics to college politics to local politics. He has no experience living in the real world of business and working (he got onto his first Co. Co. at 24) and comes up with hare-brained schemes and nonsense fixes.

It was he who had the idea that we should pay unemployed non-nationals to leave and never come back.

ArtSmart

bijapos wrote: »

The double standards on this forum are pathetic.



The questions that need to be asked here are

• Is it more than coincidence that the land purchased was that plot of land that belonged to a leading worker in the VEC.
• Did Eamon Gilmore or his wife influence the decision in any way.
• Why was the preferred site not chosen instead.
• Seeing that there were a number of sites to choose was the price paid not exhorbitant.
• Who was the independent valuer, how independent were they and is there any form of appeal or openness in matters like this.

yup, them's the questions.

and that's what good journalism is all about.

asking those questions.

so, did they ask?

if so who?

They said they asked Gilmore's people.

but according the the Ind Gilmore refused to comment. yet the Tribune quoted him. If the Ind was happy enough to repeat the Tribunes article, why not print Gilmore's statement?

so ,who else did these journalist ask? or talk to.

They talked to Galway auctioneer and former county councillor Michael Regan. who's he? why is he in this article? how does his contribution clarify the situation?

did they ask the OPW? why not? what about the Dept of Ed? Why not?

Why mention Joan Burton's comments?



This is old fashioned conjecture / propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

Even the poor journalists who work for the Ind must be going through a crisis of conscience, knowing they work for a paper that publishes this type of rhetoric.

bijapos

I agree that the Indo article is crap journalism, its one of the reasons I dont buy the paper.

It still does not excuse the fact that there are some questions to be answered here, and that the fact that the Sunday Tribune or Independent reporting on this can hardly be classed as mud slinging.

ArtSmart

bijapos wrote: »

I agree that the Indo article is crap journalism, its one of the reasons I dont buy the paper.

It still does not excuse the fact that there are some questions to be answered here, and that the fact that the Sunday Tribune or Independent reporting on this can hardly be classed as mud slinging.

conjecture = the slinging of mud. (imo)

gandalf

OK lets answer the questions based on the Tribune article then.

bijapos wrote: »

Is it more than coincidence that the land purchased was that plot of land that belonged to a leading worker in the VEC.

It appears to be. In fact according to Eamonn Gilmore in the article.

"[Carol] had been approached a number of years earlier by the board of management of the school, who were interested in the site because of its location in the village,"

So it appears she was approached about the possibility of selling the land well before they even decided to advertise for land for the school.

[*]Did Eamon Gilmore or his wife influence the decision in any way.

Again according to him no.

Why was the preferred site not chosen instead.

That would be a question for the board of management of the school and the Department of Education. However given there were enquiries previously about the availability of the land I would say the site they purchased was desired by the school authorities as well.

Seeing that there were a number of sites to choose was the price paid not exhorbitant.

The price for a lot of sites was exorbitant from those times. Comparing the price now to the price paid back at the height of the bubble is misleading to say the least.

Who was the independent valuer, how independent were they and is there any form of appeal or openness in matters like this.

According to the OPW quoted again in the tribune article.

"All sites purchased by the OPW on behalf of the Department of Education are subject to a valuation being carried out," the OPW spokeswoman said. "The commissioners' valuer inspected the site and advised that the agreed price was reasonable."

In reality it was their responsibility to ensure we the tax payer got value for money not for Gilmores wife.

c_man

Must be an election coming so. Let the mud slinging commence!

Don't really think there's much to this. Just cause the property is now worth a fraction of what they got, well that doesn't mean anything. Has happened all over the country!

seamus wrote: »

I agree with Joan Burton actually on this one - Leo Varadkar is a silver-spooner. He went straight from school politics to college politics to local politics. He has no experience living in the real world of business and working...

Just as an aside, isn't this the same for Gilmore? Student politics -> Republicanism -> Workers party -> Labour

Feel free to correct me on this, has he ever worked a day in the real world?

ISAW

seamus wrote: »

Leo Varadkar is a FG outlier. I have no idea why he's a front bencher

Front bencher = outlier? funny logic you seem to operate under.

as he doesn't seem to have the support of most of the party.

FG had a leadership election. Enda is the leader and appointed him. If they think Enda is wrong then why didn't they get rid of Enda? They didn't! Now if FG is united behind their leader Enda. Leo is [n]not[/b] an outlier he is Enda's man.

I agree with Joan Burton actually on this one - Leo Varadkar is a silver-spooner. He went straight from school politics to college politics to local politics.

and much of her own party Labour and other FG people didn't? In fact what did Gerry Adams do? Wasn't the a barman? For how long? Other then that he spent a lot of time in prison. Cowan what was he? Oh a Barrister. As was Lenihan. Some of the Greens are millionaires. Independent ex FG and FF people are also business millionaires e.g. Lowrey and Healey Rae. But would you make either a minister? What was Joan? Was she an accountant? For how long?

Ironically her Labour party page says DIT lecturer I assume in accountancy
http://www.labour.ie/joanburton/biography.html

But her personal page says "accountant"
http://www.joanburton.ie/about
But does say she worked in Dunnes Stores but not for how long. It might have been a Summer Job as a student.

He has no experience living in the real world of business and working (he got onto his first Co. Co. at 24) and comes up with hare-brained schemes and nonsense fixes.

and Joan has been a full time politician since 1990? What is her "real world" experience?

It was he who had the idea that we should pay unemployed non-nationals to leave and never come back.

As opposed to what - just making them go without paying?

Here I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Burton

She is currently on leave from the Dublin Institute of Technology.

Other than an academic lecturer (for how long? Mind you she keeps the job open and probably the pension as well) I can't find any "real world" job.

How about Gilmore? What is his background?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_Gilmore
Studednt -> Official Sinn Fein ( interesting) -> full time politician since 1985!

ISAW

gandalf wrote: »

In reality it was their responsibility to ensure we the tax payer got value for money not for Gilmores wife.

And the case is different for Bertie's partner because?

Einhard

gandalf wrote: »

It's fairly obvious that "Sir" Tonys stable of rags are trying desperately to tar the Green Party as the villains of the Government while they throw muck at the opposition with the hope it elevates FF in the polls and the election.

I don't really understand where this perception that the Independent group are in the hock for FF comes from. I can understand that people might dislike their stable of papers for a number of reasons, but to accuse them of seeking to elevate FF seems quite a lazy analysis. The Indo regularly publishes articles by David McWilliams which slate the government's policies, while, as someone else pointed out, FF in general, and Cowen in particular, are regular targets of the Sindo. In relation to this specific story, it may distract from the more important issues, but as it is in the same vein as articles on Ivor Callely's wife, I fail to see how it is an attack on the Labour party as such.

charlemont

same ol' same ol....ill be voting Labour in next election but we really need to put the pressure on their TD's and councillers about this type of thing...

all these cosy deals add up to one big mess, regardless of which parties are involved...

Mr.Micro

I doubt if we will have an election soon despite what the Indo says. Reading the musings of Miriam Lord in her column Irish Times on Saturday and a possibility or conjecture that Biffo and Co. may or at least contemplate extending their tenure by 2 years, so as to get the 4 year budget plan in place and improve chances of re-election. Lets face it desperate times and absolute desperation for FF/ Greens facing wipe out. It would not wash or add up but a scary scenario.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1030/1224282319044.html

unit 1

After several unsucessful attempts to unseat Kenny they have finally moved onto Gilmore surely the biggest windbag of them all.

PeterIanStaker

feicim wrote: »

The independent fairly stuck the boot into Mr. Clowen on sunday.

Because he didnt bail out Sir Tony's Waterford Glass, simple as.

marcsignal

gandalf wrote: »

There are reported strains between FF and the Greens

The question is: Can they be beaten??


*gets coat

Sand

Well it seems Gilmore wasnt kidding when he said there was still a lot of wealth in the country after the property crash.

ArtSmart

wrote:

In the 1970s, it was taken over by former Heinz chairman Tony O'Reilly. Under his leadership, it became a more populist, libertarian newspaper—populist on social issues, but economically conservative. By the mid-nineties its allegiance to Fine Gael had ended. In the 1997 general election, it endorsed Fianna Fáil under a front page editorial, entitled "It's Payback Time". While it suggested its headline referred to the fact that the election offered a chance to "pay back" politicians for their failings, its opponents suggested that the "payback" actually referred to its chance to get revenge for the refusal of the Rainbow Coalition to award the company a mobile phone licence.[3] Tony O'Reilly disputes this claim.

from wiki

Then Cowen went and upset him.

Tell me, anyone think these guys (O'Reilly Murdock) but newspapers to make profit - from the publication itself? LOL

ISAW

ArtSmart wrote: »

from wiki

Then Cowen went and upset him.

Tell me, anyone think these guys (O'Reilly Murdock) but newspapers to make profit - from the publication itself? LOL

One of my favourite quotes from movies is when Orson Wells inherits 30 million dollar in citizen Kane ( something like 3 billion in today's money) and starts using it to buy up all the best media people in the US. The idea is power and control and he is thinking big. His chief accounts man comes to him and says "we are loosing five hundred thousand dollars a year" This is equivalent to say loosing say 50 million a year today.

Kane replies something like "A half million a year! You know what this means? In sixty years I'll be broke!"

hallelujajordan

bijapos wrote: »

The double standards on this forum are pathetic.

The main isssue here is that the wife of a current TD, who is head of the VEC of Dun Laoghaire sold land to a VEC in another county, even though the site she owned was not the preferred site for the school.

I think the main issue is that Eamonn Gilmore and his Labour Party colleagues continually criticise the developers who inflated prices during the boom and the government who allowed it to happen . .

Smacks of double standards when his wife was benefiting to the tune of half a million on the back of said policies . . They obviously didn't feel strongly enough about the issue to turn down the money.

flutered

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I think the main issue is that Eamonn Gilmore and his Labour Party colleagues continually criticise the developers who inflated prices during the boom and the government who allowed it to happen . .

Smacks of double standards when his wife was benefiting to the tune of half a million on the back of said policies . . They obviously didn't feel strongly enough about the issue to turn down the money.

it just goes to prove that they are sane, not that they have double standards, how come in your opinion that the only people that are correct are dff who have been proven time and again to be the opposite.

ISAW

flutered wrote: »

it just goes to prove that they are sane, not that they have double standards,

that is logically unsound
The argument made was not about gilmore being insane nothing at all was stated about that.
The point was made was about double standards:

Eamonn Gilmore and his Labour Party colleagues continually criticise the developers who inflated prices during the boom and the government who allowed it to happen . .

Smacks of double standards when his wife was benefiting to the tune of half a million on the back of said policies

It is a valid point. How can someone criticise a policy on the basis that the effect of that policy ( i.e. causing profiteering throught rising land prices) is against their principles and then at the same time benefit from the same effect policy ( e.g. make profit on a land deal) ? How does that not "Smack of double standards"?

By the way did she also get 10 k for another parcel of adjoining land? Why didn't she just give it over to them so they wouldn't have to fund raise for the school? Or is it against her principles to help out the little people with 10 k when she just made 500k?

Wide Road

This is an unusual one. We have the Labour party that have condemned property speculaters in the past. Now we find out that their leaders wife has profited by the same means as the one they condemned! Now there might be an explaination for all this but Eamon and the Labour party are making no effort to do so. Why?

ISAW

Wide Road wrote: »

This is an unusual one. We have the Labour party that have condemned property speculaters in the past. Now we find out that their leaders wife has profited by the same means as the one they condemned! Now there might be an explaination for all this but Eamon and the Labour party are making no effort to do so. Why?

Well i guess their excuse is they don't have to because they are not in government. But I have a problem with htis because i think the current governmenbt will have a simple budged strategy

1. If it can move cut it before it gets away from you
2. If it cant move tax it before it finds a way to move.


But with Labour if they want to get into giovernment I want to hear the answer to two questions

1. What will they tax more?
2. what will they cut?

So far all I see are vague generalisations. Maybe I don't pay attention to the issues. I dont watch the TV news and don't read newspapers that much. The best i have seen or heard is the idea of cutting pension funds. Now years ago i think I remember Rory Quinn or Pat Rabitte saying that it was wrong for charlie Mc Creevy to raid the pension funds. so nmy guess is that policy has changed. But the point is there appears to be a need to get 15 billion extra out of budgets over the next five years or so either by taxing people or cutting spending.

How much will come from pension funds? - I dont think more than a billion

So what will Labour cut or tax more in government to get the other 14 billion?

Oh yead I did hear about "tax those who earn over 100,000" . Ok fine. By how much? How much will it raise ? Half a Billion? A billion? Where will the other 13 billion come from?


I expect if they have socialist principles the idea is "tax the rich" but I don't see Labour introducing college fees or cutting out free fees for millionaires or bring in property or wealth taxes. Maybe they will but why don't they say so?

This I think brings us to a central point to the above issue. If Gilmore doesn't say anything about principles when it comes to making 500k on a land deal how do you know what the policy is or whether that policy can be trusted on anything else? If we are calling for the government to come out with a plan and their figures isn't it only healthy of a democracy
that those who oppose the government show what they might agree with and what they would differ on and change when in government? If they don't say that how do you know they are any different?

unit 1

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I think the main issue is that Eamonn Gilmore and his Labour Party colleagues continually criticise the developers who inflated prices during the boom and the government who allowed it to happen . .

Smacks of double standards when his wife was benefiting to the tune of half a million on the back of said policies . . They obviously didn't feel strongly enough about the issue to turn down the money.

Is it possible I wonder that maybe she thought it was a good deal and would sell whether he liked it on not, in which case it has no relevance at all, as it's his wifes decision not his. Some couples can have different ideals, morals, and attitudes and Eamonn Gilmore is not necessarily his wifes keeper.

Shea O'Meara

The blatant hypocracy on here is most transparent and amusing.

Gilmore's wife, (which to be fair means the Gilmores) was offered money for land and sold it. Now the main gripe seems to be she got too much and they should be walking around barefoot and giving land away for next to nothing as they are on the left. Nonsense. I would consider the Gilmores idiots and Eamon unfit to govern if that were the case.

Side stepping the use of defending the TD on the, 'T'was his wife, not him' basis, an FFail standard. If I may pull another FFail tried and tested ol' chestnut from the fire...are you ready...I've goosebumps.....'If he did anything illegal, please post your proof and I suggest you contact the police.'

That said, if we're talking from a purely moral stand point the only issue here is, the Gilmores sold land as valued by the market at the time, but being on the left, do we think they should have undersold the land?

That is it. Non story, FFail muck rake on the basis that if the left are such goody-two-shoes, why do they do business like the rest of the country?

Indo bull**** IMO.

The Volt

3 days in a row they're at Gilmore! so blatant it's ridiculous

ISAW

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

The blatant hypocracy on here is most transparent and amusing.

Now the main gripe seems to be she got too much and they should be walking around barefoot and giving land away for next to nothing as they are on the left.

That might be the main grip from socialists. But the "do as I say not as I do" bit would be the gripe of others.

Nonsense. I would consider the Gilmores idiots and Eamon unfit to govern if that were the case.

Clearly you are not a socialist and believe people should make profit on land deals even if they openly oppose the policy that allows them to do so.

Side stepping the use of defending the TD on the, 'T'was his wife, not him' basis, an FFail standard. If I may pull another FFail tried and tested ol' chestnut from the fire...are you ready...I've goosebumps.....'If he did anything illegal, please post your proof and I suggest you contact the police.'

Nobody accused Gilmore of doing anything Illegal ( although there are shady connections with the Official IRA in the past) in this issue. And to be fair to FF their TDs didn't do anything illegal. Charlie Haughey for example was not found guilty of any crime. He did not pay tax he shoud have paid, but that was settled with the revenue commisioners before he died. Yet people will deride Haughey based on principle even if Haughey didn't commit any crime.

That said, if we're talking from a purely moral stand point the only issue here is, the Gilmores sold land as valued by the market at the time, but being on the left, do we think they should have undersold the land?

Well given it was for a school would yo not think a socialist who is actually over a VEC on a several hundred thousand a year salary might give the second bit of land ( 10k worth I think ) over to the school so they didnt have to fundraise?
This is a bit like the Labout of Blair ( you can be a socialist and be a millionaire) versus the one of foot ( who gave up his title as a Lord and rejected priviledge to run for election ).

That is it. Non story, FFail muck rake on the basis that if the left are such goody-two-shoes, why do they do business like the rest of the country?

Exactly! If the Labour policy is to do business just like the policy of the FF people they criticise then that is all well and good. But maybe they should tell the members of their Party and the rest of the country eh

Indo bull**** IMO.

What facts by the Indo are you alledging are incorrect? that Gilmore's wife didn't make a half million on a land deal based on inflated land prices or what? Honestly i don't read the indo but I believe the stroy to be true.

ISAW

Voltwad wrote: »

3 days in a row they're at Gilmore! so blatant it's ridiculous

Look! I post normally to other fora on boards. I only just rcently started posting politics. I was not in touch with any other poster before posting the politics forum. So you can forget the conspiracy theory idea that I am involved in or orchestrating a campaign against gilmore. I just went through the osts and replied to ones that interested me. it interests me that I don't actually know what policy Labout have for the next givernment. I dont know what they will cut or what they will tax more. I see much of the English labour who claimed to be left and weren't. I dont know what principles they have. Then I see they can make themselves personally rich on land which I thought was a central bane of lefties. This confuses me. I just want to know where they stand. I apply the same to Michael Lowry or Pee Flynn.

As for being at people. I think the recent issue about Cowan drinking too much went on for more than three days. And when I checked that one out he was at a press dinner the night before. Journalists packed the bar all night! Hundreds of them. Not a single one ever said he was drunk. So that seemed like a non story to me. But it ran I think for a week.

But so what? If people are "at Gimore" he either deserves it or he does not! Are the facts true or not? Is the argument sound and valid? When someone makes a valid argument do you always attack the people making it? Please look up "ad hominem" under logical fallacy.

Victor

bijapos wrote: »

sold land to a VEC in another county

I thought the land was sold to the OPW?

ISAW

Victor wrote: »

I thought the land was sold to the OPW?

I read the indo article in the OP which says:

It was purchased by the Office of Public Works on behalf of the Department of Education

i assumed that it is under the Aegis of the galway VEC. Gilmores wife is however CEO of a VEC

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-power-couple-rose-to-pole-position-in-public-life-2402126.html
Carol Hanney is chief executive officer of Dun Laoghaire VEC...
There are 33 VECs around the country and chief executives can earn up to €146,000.

gandalf

ISAW wrote: »

Look! I post normally to other fora on boards. I only just rcently started posting politics. I was not in touch with any other poster before posting the politics forum. So you can forget the conspiracy theory idea that I am involved in or orchestrating a campaign against gilmore. I just went through the osts and replied to ones that interested me. it interests me that I don't actually know what policy Labout have for the next givernment. I dont know what they will cut or what they will tax more. I see much of the English labour who claimed to be left and weren't. I dont know what principles they have. Then I see they can make themselves personally rich on land which I thought was a central bane of lefties. This confuses me. I just want to know where they stand. I apply the same to Michael Lowry or Pee Flynn.

I think Voltwad was refering to the Independent Newspaper and not you as they have run with this story over 3 days now (well 4 I think they are running another related one today as well). It does smack of a desperate smear campaign.

From what I have read about this Eamon Gilmores wife has done everything above board regarding this sale. It appears that she was pursued about selling the land and that she did not influence the sale of it in any way. The price that she got was the market rate at the time and according to the OPW was verfied by their valuer.

Now the question is what would people here have said if it was revealed that they had this land and could have gotten that price but refused to sell it? Personally I am happy that one of the people who may have their hands on the reins of power after the next election has the sense to see a good business opportunity like this and grasp it. It bodes well for their handling of the economy.

ISAW

gandalf wrote: »

I think Voltwad was refering to the Independent Newspaper and not you

If that is the case I apologise in advance to voltwad.

as they have run with this story over 3 days now (well 4 I think they are running another related one today as well). It does smack of a desperate smear campaign.

As i said i dont read the indo but the media ran with a "Cowen was drunk" type story for iover a week.
I respect politicians in all parties and the media probably is talking up a "they are all the same corrupt bunch" paradigm.
the thing is while the point about Cowan was wrong ( he wasn't drunk) the one about Gilmore appears to be correct ( his wife did make a half million in property speculation)

From what I have read about this Eamon Gilmores wife has done everything above board regarding this sale.

Yes and Charlie haughey did nothing illegal either. As I stated the point isn't whether it was legal or not. The point is if you claim socialist principles of taxing the rich and helping the poor and social welfare and education is it standing by that principle to make a half million on land and then another ten thousand on more adjoining land and then not even help out the School in their funding? How then can you criticise people who made profit on property and hoarded their money?

It appears that she was pursued about selling the land and that she did not influence the sale of it in any way. The price that she got was the market rate at the time and according to the OPW was verfied by their valuer.

A market which Socialism is against! the very basis is that property wealth and individuals profiting at the expense of schools children etc. is wrong! You are aware of that?

Not alone that but Labour are for ages saying all this over pricing in the market was wrong!
And they have been attacking public expendature for overpaying people!

How is it wrong for a FF or a FG person to make money in property speculation but "market rate" for a Lab person? do you not get the feeling that if Cowen's wife Or Enda Kenney's made 500,000 on selling land to the OPW then Labour would be attacking him in the Dáil about that? And if they would not it is only because they were doing the very same thing! I just couldn't see Joe Higgins not complaining about this if he was a TD.

Now the question is what would people here have said if it was revealed that they had this land and could have gotten that price but refused to sell it?

If she had advised that the first choise should be taken instead 9 her land was second choise) ? As it happens the school won't be built now. And if they only found out now and the public was made aware Im sure they would be happy to hand over 50k for it today and not 500k that sehe got for land that wont now be developed. How is she any different to a person who sold to a property developer who subsequently went bust? THe wealth has not disappeared it has just been redistributed. The think is it seems it has been redistributed to the wife of the Labour leader. That is frankly Bizzarre!

Personally I am happy that one of the people who may have their hands on the reins of power after the next election has the sense to see a good business opportunity like this and grasp it. It bodes well for their handling of the economy.

But it is exactly the type of deals that Labour have been complaining about! So we are back to "do as i say don't do as i do" . If they are the same economically as FG and FF and the PDs let them say so and stop pretending.

P. Breathnach

ISAW wrote: »

... i assumed that it is under the Aegis of the galway VEC. Gilmores wife is however CEO of a VEC....

Why assume that? The article in the Indo says that the land was intended for a national school, and VECs do not take responsibility for national schools except for a tiny number of special cases (and I think they are all in the greater Dublin area).

If you want to allege or imply that a person has acted in an improper way, I think it is incumbent on you to get the facts right.

ISAW

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why assume that? The article in the Indo says that the land was intended for a national school, and VECs do not take responsibility for national schools except for a tiny number of special cases (and I think they are all in the greater Dublin area).

If you want to allege or imply that a person has acted in an improper way, I think it is incumbent on you to get the facts right.

That is a silly point!

I didn't read the article in full before I replied to the poster.
Whether the land was bought by the OPW or the VEC is beside the point!
I made the confusion because Gilmore's wife gets 150,000 a year working for the VEC and I confused VEC with Education and thought it was a VEC from elsewhere.
I am quite happy to admit that I was wrtong about the VEC buying it and it was actually the OPW bought it for the Department of Education.
Big deal!
The point is Gilmore's wife made 500,000 on the deal. It was not illegal no more than anyone else who made money because of inflated land prices. What I questioned was the principles involved. I thought Socialists opposed making money on inflated land with no actual doing any labour 9 work) involved in the the price. Just the aquisition and disposal of capital. Not very marxist is it? I admit I might be wrong about this but I mentioned it to someone. They read the Indo and said that she made an additional 10,000 Euro on an adpoining parcel of land. I could be wrong but I thought if she did make this that being socialist she might donate that to the school and they would not have to fundraise. Capital being used to benefit the worker and all that lark.

If my facts are wrong feel free to correct them . I welcome that. But I don't believe that you will be able to show that the wife of the current Labour Leader didn't make 510,000 on land sold for a school which was never built and while she makes 150,000 a year didn't contribute to the fundraising of the school.
I also am happy to admit that there is nothing illegal in her doing that.

P. Breathnach

ISAW wrote: »

That is a silly point!

A liking for being right about the facts is a silly point?

I didn't read the article in full before I replied to the poster.
Whether the land was bought by the OPW or the VEC is beside the point!
I made the confusion because Gilmore's wife gets 150,000 a year working for the VEC and I confused VEC with Education and thought it was a VEC from elsewhere.
I am quite happy to admit that I was wrtong about the VEC buying it and it was actually the OPW bought it for the Department of Education.
Big deal!

Yes, it is a big deal. You suggested that the transaction took place within a network of people who have close professional contacts.

The point is Gilmore's wife made 500,000 on the deal.

Did she? She inherited land that was worth something, and she sold it for a sum over €500k. Neither you nor I know what value was placed on the land when she inherited it, so we cannot know how much she made on the deal.

It was not illegal no more than anyone else who made money because of inflated land prices. What I questioned was the principles involved.

No. You did more than that. You implied that there was improper behaviour.

I thought Socialists opposed making money on inflated land with no actual doing any labour 9 work) involved in the the price. Just the aquisition and disposal of capital. Not very marxist is it?

What do you know about Carol Hanney's political beliefs? And is she accountable to you or to any member of the public for her political opinions when she does not hold political office and, so far as I am aware, is not a candidate for any elected position? She has the same rights as any other private citizen, which includes respect for her privacy.

I admit I might be wrong about this but I mentioned it to someone. They read the Indo and said that she made an additional 10,000 Euro on an adpoining parcel of land. I could be wrong but I thought if she did make this that being socialist she might donate that to the school and they would not have to fundraise. Capital being used to benefit the worker and all that lark.

If my facts are wrong feel free to correct them . I welcome that.

Like you have welcomed the challenge I have already made?

I have a better idea: read the piece in the Indo and check the facts for yourself. It's a better strategy than posting inaccuracies as facts, and using them to damage somebody's good standing.

But I don't believe that you will be able to show that the wife of the current Labour Leader didn't make 510,000 on land sold for a school which was never built

I don't have to. I'm not suggesting that anybody has behaved inappropriately. You have an obligation to make your case.

and while she makes 150,000 a year didn't contribute to the fundraising of the school.

I don't suppose you made a donation to the school's funds either. What right have you to expect that she contribute to any particular cause?

I also am happy to admit that there is nothing illegal in her doing that.

That is very good of you.

hallelujajordan

Putting aside the initial sale for a moment and the massive profit that Gilmore's wife made on the sale, a sale which is a million miles beyond Gilmore's own stated policies, does no-one have a problem with the fact that she looked for a further €10k of fundraised money just this year . . Again, hardly very socialist.

gandalf

ISAW wrote: »

As i said i dont read the indo but the media ran with a "Cowen was drunk" type story for iover a week.

So because of that then spouses are now fair game eh because the beloved leader got caught out disrespecting the nation by being hungover on a scheduled broadcast to the country.

I respect politicians in all parties and the media probably is talking up a "they are all the same corrupt bunch" paradigm.

How about politicians wives then, do you respect them and their privacy as well?

the thing is while the point about Cowan was wrong ( he wasn't drunk) the one about Gilmore appears to be correct ( his wife did make a half million in property speculation)

Calling it speculation is inaccurate and typical of the type of spin that this story has been given. If she had bought the land for very little with the idea of selling it on for a profit it would be speculation. She inherited the land after her mother died and was approached by the school about selling it.

Yes and Charlie haughey did nothing illegal either.

Nothing proven that is, however I like an awful lot of Irish people feel he was let off very lightly indeed.

As I stated the point isn't whether it was legal or not. The point is if you claim socialist principles of taxing the rich and helping the poor and social welfare and education is it standing by that principle to make a half million on land and then another ten thousand on more adjoining land and then not even help out the School in their funding? How then can you criticise people who made profit on property and hoarded their money?

Firstly I for one do not know what Eamon Gilmores wifes politics are and would shy away from assuming that she is.

From my perspective they are criticising people who speculated bought property and land up with the idea of making a killing selling it on and helped to power the engine of the bubble.

A market which Socialism is against! the very basis is that property wealth and individuals profiting at the expense of schools children etc. is wrong! You are aware of that?

Not alone that but Labour are for ages saying all this over pricing in the market was wrong!
And they have been attacking public expendature for overpaying people!

Well maybe they were right given the OPW's own valuer is the one that rubber stamped the figure paid.

So do you expect Mrs Gilmore to refuse the valuation of the Government department who were overseeing the deal. Remember we don't even know if she is a socialist.

Maybe Eamon should have forbidden his wife for selling the land in the best victorian fashion. Oh wait thats not very socialist either is it!!

How is it wrong for a FF or a FG person to make money in property speculation but "market rate" for a Lab person? do you not get the feeling that if Cowen's wife Or Enda Kenney's made 500,000 on selling land to the OPW then Labour would be attacking him in the Dáil about that? And if they would not it is only because they were doing the very same thing! I just couldn't see Joe Higgins not complaining about this if he was a TD.

I wouldn't see a problem if it was land they inherited tbh. If they had bought the land as agricultural and got it rezoned as residential and made a killing like quite a few around the country then yes I would have a severe problem with that like most here. This transaction definitely doesn't fall into that category now does it.

If she had advised that the first choise should be taken instead 9 her land was second choise) ?

Not sure what you are even trying to say here. Did she have any influence over who the School Board/OPW bought from. Anything that I have read didn't indicate that at all.

As it happens the school won't be built now.

That would be the fault of who then? Yes that's right the Government and the Department of Education. Not Eamon Gilmores wife. What next you want her to don some overalls and lay a few bricks on the site :rolleyes:

And if they only found out now and the public was made aware Im sure they would be happy to hand over 50k for it today and not 500k that sehe got for land that wont now be developed.

Err that was the going rate that was verified by the valuer that the OPW appointed THEN not now. It is a totally different country and property market now. You know that so please stop with this weak line of arguement.

How is she any different to a person who sold to a property developer who subsequently went bust? THe wealth has not disappeared it has just been redistributed. The think is it seems it has been redistributed to the wife of the Labour leader. That is frankly Bizzarre!

So because she is the wife of a Labour leader she is not entitled to sell land that was left to her by her dead mother? You have presented absolutely nothing to suggest that she used her position or Eamon Gilmore used his position to influence the sale. You have shown nothing to prove that they inflated the price themselves as the OPW's own valuer is the one that verified the sale figure. If you want to be angry you should direct it at the OPW and their valuer.

But it is exactly the type of deals that Labour have been complaining about! So we are back to "do as i say don't do as i do" . If they are the same economically as FG and FF and the PDs let them say so and stop pretending.

No I would say they were complaining about the blatant speculators and those who purchased agricultural land with the view of getting it rezoned for residential use. They would be the real targets of Labours and the majorities ire. Unfortunately you tend to let the colour of their politics influence where your ire is delivered.

thebman

ISAW wrote: »

It is a valid point. How can someone criticise a policy on the basis that the effect of that policy ( i.e. causing profiteering throught rising land prices) is against their principles and then at the same time benefit from the same effect policy ( e.g. make profit on a land deal) ? How does that not "Smack of double standards"?

Hang on, I didn't know Eamon Gilmore was against private property ownership or being able to sell it :eek:

Its not double standards to sell property you own but be against economic policy that is overly focused on the property market.

Its just nonsense to suggest that TBH. If anything, it shows how he isn't biased by his own personal situation to engage in dangerous economic policies for personal benefit.

Unlike many of FF TD's who own multiple properties and were promoting the property bubble. Hard to believe it was not for their own financial gain.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Putting aside the initial sale for a moment and the massive profit that Gilmore's wife made on the sale, a sale which is a million miles beyond Gilmore's own stated policies, does no-one have a problem with the fact that she looked for a further €10k of fundraised money just this year . . Again, hardly very socialist.

Wanting money that isn't yours is very socialist ;P

rodento

Looking forward to reading more about it in the indo tomorrow.

Simply put, the head of one vec selling land for a school has to raise questions about conflicts of interest