Mary Harney article in Tribune

Bill2673

Anyone else see this? Anyone else think it was a bit unfair.

The way they were going on about it on the Marion Finucane show yesterday, I thought it was some big state junket she was on.

But it turns out, she was on a personal holiday, that she stayed in the five star hotel for just 3 nights, that they didn't know the price of the room she stayed in, but just published the most expensive room price instead.......FFS, the woman is wealthy - we know what she earns, she doesn't have kids so her disposable income is high, whatever else you think about her, there is no denying she works hard. Is she not entitled to splash out a bit? Is she not entitled to some privacy? Its not like there were cocaine and lady boys involved. Was this not a bit rich from the Tribune (owned by lets not forget the jet setting Sir AJF O'R).

Any thoughts?

DrumSteve

that you mary?

Bill2673

DrumSteve wrote: »

that you mary?

Very good, very good.

Not its not.

I actually asked the question about the media......would have been the same if the article had been about Willie O'Dea or Martin McGuiness or Pat Rabitte.

Biggins

Any thoughts? She knew exactly what she was doing and the money involved

I present the prologue of a book now available to buy (Wasters by Shane Ross and Nick Webb) - the latter part refers to Harney but I provide the whole thing to show context:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6776/20110110085354.jpg
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1604/40021927.jpg
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1573/90842955.jpg
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2807/37493508.jpg
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8183/59161514.jpg

Her actions are nothing new and she and many others have a LONG history of screwing the state (YOU!) and the money your handing over to them every week from your pay/hard work.

If a rare time popped up that she actually paid for something substantial herself, right now that would come as more of a shock!

southsiderosie

Bill2673 wrote: »

Anyone else see this? Anyone else think it was a bit unfair.

The way they were going on about it on the Marion Finucane show yesterday, I thought it was some big state junket she was on.

But it turns out, she was on a personal holiday, that she stayed in the five star hotel for just 3 nights, that they didn't know the price of the room she stayed in, but just published the most expensive room price instead.......FFS, the woman is wealthy - we know what she earns, she doesn't have kids so her disposable income is high, whatever else you think about her, there is no denying she works hard. Is she not entitled to splash out a bit? Is she not entitled to some privacy? Its not like there were cocaine and lady boys involved. Was this not a bit rich from the Tribune (owned by lets not forget the jet setting Sir AJF O'R).

Any thoughts?

The fact that a woman who has never worked a day in her life in the private sector yet somehow managed to become wealthy says it all, really.

Nodin

Biggins wrote: »

Any thoughts? She knew exactly what she was doing and the money involved

....because she paid for it herself.......

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

The fact that a woman who has never worked a day in her life in the private sector yet somehow managed to become wealthy says it all, really.

She's married to a business man of some means, but don't please let that get in the way of the rant.

Bill2673

southsiderosie wrote: »

The fact that a woman who has never worked a day in her life in the private sector yet somehow managed to become wealthy says it all, really.

When she was in TCD she was a scholar, best in her class, a leading light in the debating societies......I'd think if she'd become a barrister she'd be earning a lot more than she does as a politician.

When i said wealthy, I didn't mean she is a millionaire, I just meant she earns a decent bit more than the average joe, which is what you'd expect (ok, what I'd expect) of someone who has been one of the five most senior politicians in the country for the past twenty years.

Anyway, I;m not here to debate politicians wages. I'm just asking why is it newsworthy if she decides to spend a couple of hundred euros of her own money on a nice hotel.

hardCopy

I thought it was sensationalist rubbish. They had half a story and decided to devote two pages to attacking her without knowing any details.

As long as it wasn't state financed, I don't see the problem with it.

Just wait until Paddy's Day, then you'll see the real waste of taxpayers money.

r3nu4l

I've no time for Mary Harney as a politician or Minister but if she paid for this holiday herself, out of her own money then the cost has nothing to do with the public.

As for her not coming home from holidays to attend to the beds crisis, can anyone tell me what she could do in Ireland that she couldn't do abroad by means of telephone, email, videoconference? As Minister, her job is to take briefs, decide on strategy presented to her and make it happen.

If she spent a lot of her holiday time on the phone trying to sort this out then fair play to her. If she didn't and just ignored it and continued on her holiday then she should be thrown out of office when she gets back.

Bill2673

And i would add; RTE is spending more of YOUR money to pay Marion Finucane to crib about it than Mary Harney spent on the actual hotel room. (based on hourly salary for a journalist that is paid half a million a year to do a one hour show each week, or so I've been told is the case).

ISAW

Bill2673 wrote: »

And i would add; RTE is spending more of YOUR money to pay Marion Finucane to crib about it than Mary Harney spent on the actual hotel room. (based on hourly salary for a journalist that is paid half a million a year to do a one hour show each week, or so I've been told is the case).

Definition time again

In the public public interest real definition= "out of the public purse"
Public interest ( tabloid definition) = "something in which we think the public might be interested"

And sure enough they might. But just because people are interested does nt mean it is in the public interest.

thebaldsoprano

Nodin wrote: »

She's married to a business man of some means, but don't please let that get in the way of the rant.

I can imagine, being a chairman of FAS must have had its advantages

southsiderosie

Nodin wrote: »

She's married to a business man of some means, but don't please let that get in the way of the rant.

According to Wikipedia she got married in 2001. Her record of profligate spending while Minister of Enterprise - with PUBLIC money, I might add - predates her marriage.

Bill2673 wrote: »

When she was in TCD she was a scholar, best in her class, a leading light in the debating societies......I'd think if she'd become a barrister she'd be earning a lot more than she does as a politician.

When i said wealthy, I didn't mean she is a millionaire, I just meant she earns a decent bit more than the average joe, which is what you'd expect (ok, what I'd expect) of someone who has been one of the five most senior politicians in the country for the past twenty years.

Anyway, I;m not here to debate politicians wages. I'm just asking why is it newsworthy if she decides to spend a couple of hundred euros of her own money on a nice hotel.

Because if she (or the leadership of the party) had any sense, given the current economic and political climate she would not have gone on such an extravagant holiday. You have to have some neck to be in a government that lectures the public about tightening their belts and then go jetting off to Asia for three weeks.

PCPhoto

I think the key to who pays for the "holiday" is in the other people.

was she with family/friends....or co-workers, cllrs, or other civil servants ?

if she was with family its fair to assume it was paid for by herself and/or friends/family.

if she was with co-workers or other state paid minnions.... then we all paid for it.

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

According to Wikipedia she got married in 2001. Her record of profligate spending while Minister of Enterprise - with PUBLIC money, I might add - predates her marriage.
.

...thats not the case here, however.

southsiderosie

Nodin wrote: »

...thats not the case here, however.

Yes and the second part of my post was that if anyone in the leadership of her party had and sense of prudence or propriety, they would have quietly told her ix-nay on the 5-star epic adventure.

As for the previous poster's comment on Finucane, all I have to say about her is people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Her salary is astronomical as well; it's a disgrace that RTE "stars" get paid so much on a public network, especially considering RTE's current financial situation. I'm sure a few dozen lowly staffers will get axed to save Finucane and Turbidy's pay packets. But that is a matter for another thread.

Biggins

Boiled down to brasstacks as they say, if she paid for something herself, there should be no comeback.
If there is doubt, there should be questions - and if there is abuses, she should be sacked (but hell will freeze over quicker!).

Mary has a lot to answer for, this episode aside. Its not as if she hasn't given the public reason to want her answerable for her spending (and cronyism).

thebaldsoprano

Nodin wrote: »

...thats not the case here, however.

In all likelihood, public money financed at least some of the trip through Harney's salary. Harney and Geoghan's lifestyle has been helped along by public money both through exorbitant salaries/fees and more directly by FAS/Government junkets. Having being treated so generously at taxpayers' expense, they might have shown a little cop on.

The article is sensationalist, but they bought it on themselves and I hope there are more of them in future. With 440,000 now on the live register because of their policies, many Government TDs are afraid to face the music and are retiring on fat-cat pensions. A few more of these articles and we might yet see those pensions/salaries/expenses reduced.

paulaa

I think what angers people most is not the fact that she takes frequent, 5 star holidays, it's her total lack of communication with those , the taxpayers, who are paying her grossly inflated wages. She could have given an interview by 'phone last week while the crisis was happening in A & Es up and down the country but she couldn't be ar*ed. She should have left a deputy to fill in for her while she was away but I imagine that she is arrogant enough to think that no one else is fit to take that role.

She has been a complete self-serving disaster to the health of the people of this country and that is the best I can say about her

Biggins

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

In all likelihood, public money financed at least some of the trip through Harney's salary. Harney and Geoghan's lifestyle has been helped along by public money both through exorbitant salaries/fees and more directly by FAS/Government junkets. Having being treated so generously at taxpayers' expense, they might have shown a little cop on...

Speaking of which Harney has been called by some journalists, one of the biggest junketeers and perk-merchants anyway.
For example a quote from the book "Wasters" - page 118: A breakdown of her expenses published in the Sunday Tribune October 2009 demonstrated that between Feb' 2006 and Sep' 2008 around €529,000 was spent transporting the minister on the government jet and another €65,000 on hotels and limo hire.
The Sunday Tribune Ken Foxe loaded up 600 pages of expenses and claims relating to her jaunts.

Here is what the book records - and these examples are just a few amid many:

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3781/harney1.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1085/harney2.jpg

P. Breathnach

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

In all likelihood, public money financed at least some of the trip through Harney's salary....

That is a grossly unreasonable argument. Once her salary has been paid to her, it is no longer public money.

I once stayed in a five-star hotel in Thailand (they are surprisingly cheap in comparison to Irish prices). The money I used to pay for it came from my salary as a public servant. You didn't pay for my holiday: I did.

southsiderosie

Biggins wrote: »

Speaking of which Harney has been called by some journalists, one of the biggest junketeers and perk-merchants anyway.
For example a quote from the book "Wasters" - page 118: A breakdown of her expenses published in the Sunday Tribune October 2009 demonstrated that between Feb' 2006 and Sep' 2008 around €529,000 was spent transporting the minister on the government jet and another €65,000 on hotels and limo hire.
The Sunday Tribune Ken Foxe loaded up 600 pages of expenses and claims relating to her jaunts.

Here is what the book records - and these examples are just a few amid many:

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3781/harney1.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1085/harney2.jpg

Those figures are shocking. Dennis Kozlowski would be proud.

Einhard

So, lemme get this straight. Mary Harney goes on a holiday, which she pays for herself, and during which, AFAIK, she didn't break any laws. My question therefore has to be, what bloody business is it of the Tribune or anyone else? Seriously, we complain about our politicians the parish pump style of their politics, and then we resort to immature, almost prurient, sensationalism and outrage over entirely reasonably private activities. Ridiculous article, and frankly ridiculous attempts to defend it here. I thought this place was a tad above Joe Duffy style, knee jerk outrage.

bleg

Bill2673 wrote: »

When she was in TCD she was a scholar, best in her class, a leading light in the debating societies......I'd think if she'd become a barrister she'd be earning a lot more than she does as a politician.

When i said wealthy, I didn't mean she is a millionaire, I just meant she earns a decent bit more than the average joe, which is what you'd expect (ok, what I'd expect) of someone who has been one of the five most senior politicians in the country for the past twenty years.

Anyway, I;m not here to debate politicians wages. I'm just asking why is it newsworthy if she decides to spend a couple of hundred euros of her own money on a nice hotel.

Because there are hundreds of people in hospital on trolleys, the health service is in crisis and the Minister is away on a month long holiday, staying in fairly exclusive resorts.

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

So, lemme get this straight. Mary Harney goes on a holiday, which she pays for herself, and during which, AFAIK, she didn't break any laws. My question therefore has to be, what bloody business is it of the Tribune or anyone else? Seriously, we complain about our politicians the parish pump style of their politics, and then we resort to immature, almost prurient, sensationalism and outrage over entirely reasonably private activities. Ridiculous article, and frankly ridiculous attempts to defend it here. I thought this place was a tad above Joe Duffy style, knee jerk outrage.

The Tribune (if your referring to the ones I quoted) are strictly referring to ones that she claimed OFF THE STATE (thats you and I in tax) - 600 pages of them for that period alone, never mind before and after.

southsiderosie

Einhard wrote: »

So, lemme get this straight. Mary Harney goes on a holiday, which she pays for herself, and during which, AFAIK, she didn't break any laws. My question therefore has to be, what bloody business is it of the Tribune or anyone else? Seriously, we complain about our politicians the parish pump style of their politics, and then we resort to immature, almost prurient, sensationalism and outrage over entirely reasonably private activities. Ridiculous article, and frankly ridiculous attempts to defend it here. I thought this place was a tad above Joe Duffy style, knee jerk outrage.

It is not reasonable private activity, given the circumstances. If the CFO of a large corporation took an expensive three week holiday while the company was in bankruptcy proceedings and slashing wages, both shareholders and staff would be rightly outraged. I see this as essentially the same situation.

I would agree that the media coverage is overly hysterical and from some parties pretty hypocritical, but that is pretty typical of the Irish media in general, and doesn't take away from the fact that this trip was really, really bad form.

reprazant

southsiderosie wrote: »

The fact that a woman who has never worked a day in her life in the private sector yet somehow managed to become wealthy says it all, really.

So you are only allowed to earn a good wage in the private sector?

Bill2673

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because if she (or the leadership of the party) had any sense, given the current economic and political climate she would not have gone on such an extravagant holiday. You have to have some neck to be in a government that lectures the public about tightening their belts and then go jetting off to Asia for three weeks.

When did she or the government lecture anyone on tightening their belts...? I know Charlie Haughey did it in 1979, but thats a while ago now.

Einhard

southsiderosie wrote: »

It is not reasonable private activity, given the circumstances. If the CFO of a large corporation took an expensive three week holiday while the company was in bankruptcy proceedings and slashing wages, both shareholders and staff would be rightly outraged. I see this as essentially the same situation.

I'm sorry, I don't. Politicians personal lives are of no interest to me, as long as they're not up to anything illegal or unethical. What you're suggesting is that Mary Harney pander to public opinion, and I'm just about fed up with the levels of pandering that goes on in Irish political discourse as it is.

thebaldsoprano

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is a grossly unreasonable argument. Once her salary has been paid to her, it is no longer public money.

Ordinarily I'd agree, and a more reasonable argument would be that their salary/expenses/pension package is simply too much. However, politicians have had no problem calling those using this argument begrudgers.

At this stage they're taking the piss - 190k + expenses + fat pension + Government jet for wrecking the health service isn't acceptable, and if a journalist wants to focus on the lifestyle that all this funds rather than directly on the package then fair play to them. It might well be the only way to bring the gravy train to a stop.

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't. Politicians personal lives are of no interest to me, as long as they're not up to anything illegal or unethical. What you're suggesting is that Mary Harney pander to public opinion, and I'm just about fed up with the levels of pandering that goes on in Irish political discourse as it is.

With respect to yourself, I feel that when it comes to PUBLIC money, Mary Harney should be answerable to the public, regardless if they have opinions or not.

As I stated already, if she spend her own money, fair play.
If she spend our money frugally and loosely, its not on - and she has in other cases, not by the bucket load but by the truck load.
Simply put, how can she tell departments/other areas to cut back and tighten their belts when she through her office is spending vital money needed in those other cash strapped areas?

southsiderosie

reprazant wrote: »

So you are only allowed to earn a good wage in the private sector?

Mary Harney is grossly overpaid, especially considering that 1) she pretty much charges everything to the public, so she has very few personal expenses, and 2) her tenure at the HSE has been an utter disaster.

Bill2673 wrote: »

When did she or the government lecture anyone on tightening their belts...? I know Charlie Haughey did it in 1979, but thats a while ago now.

Harney and the government spent months priming the public for massive budget cuts. The IMF stepped in. Yet in terms of both public expenses and private behavior, they are carrying on as if it is business as usual. Their behavior is in the spirit of Haughey, if not the letter.

Einhard

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

At this stage they're taking the piss - 190k + expenses + fat pension + Government jet for wrecking the health service isn't acceptable, and if a journalist wants to focus on the lifestyle that all this funds rather than directly on the package then fair play to them. It might well be the only way to bring the gravy train to a stop.

I actually think it's about the most lazy form of political journalism imaginable. Instead of investigating the actual policies and political activities of the government, let's whip up outrage at the private lives of politicians. So lazy, and yet so obviously rewarding for the journos and the newspapers involved.

Bill2673

Biggins wrote: »

With respect to yourself, I feel that when it comes to PUBLIC money, Mary Harney should be answerable to the public, regardless if they have opinions or not.

As I stated already, if she spend her own money, fair play.
QUOTE]


But thats the whole point.....it was her own money, it wasn't public money.

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

With respect to yourself, I feel that when it comes to PUBLIC money, Mary Harney should be answerable to the public, regardless if they have opinions or not.

Agree entirely. But I don;t think that should apply to how she spends her own money. Regardless of whether people believe she's worth her salary.

Bill2673

southsiderosie wrote: »

Harney and the government spent months priming the public for massive budget cuts. The IMF stepped in. Yet in terms of both public expenses and private behavior, they are carrying on as if it is business as usual. Their behavior is in the spirit of Haughey, if not the letter.

Well i disagree, I don't remember any lectures from them as you described it, and the govt did take pay cuts, though not enough obviously.

reprazant

southsiderosie wrote: »

Mary Harney is grossly overpaid, especially considering that 1) she pretty much charges everything to the public, so she has very few personal expenses, and 2) her tenure at the HSE has been an utter disaster.

That is not what you said.

You said she is wealthy having never worked in the private sector. By that rational, you would seem to be implying that it should be possibly to become wealthy having only worked in the public sector.

Is this the case?

southsiderosie

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't. Politicians personal lives are of no interest to me, as long as they're not up to anything illegal or unethical. What you're suggesting is that Mary Harney pander to public opinion, and I'm just about fed up with the levels of pandering that goes on in Irish political discourse as it is.

I don't see it as pandering. I see it as respecting the economic reality of a large percentage of her constituents.

Einhard wrote: »

I actually think it's about the most lazy form of political journalism imaginable. Instead of investigating the actual policies and political activities of the government, let's whip up outrage at the private lives of politicians. So lazy, and yet so obviously rewarding for the journos and the newspapers involved.

It's the fact that the public is aware of the disastrous political activity of the government which makes their private behavior so galling.

Bill2673

Einhard wrote: »

I actually think it's about the most lazy form of political journalism imaginable. Instead of investigating the actual policies and political activities of the government, let's whip up outrage at the private lives of politicians. So lazy, and yet so obviously rewarding for the journos and the newspapers involved.

Agree entirely and that is the bigger point.

Einhard

southsiderosie wrote: »

Harney and the government spent months priming the public for massive budget cuts. The IMF stepped in. Yet in terms of both public expenses and private behavior, they are carrying on as if it is business as usual. Their behavior is in the spirit of Haughey, if not the letter.

So what? I mean, we're not children. The politcians took their cuts (some would argue they should have taken more), and now we're demanding a veto on how they spend the remainder? Will Harney's holiday have ANY impact on the fiscal situation of the country? No. So therefore I don't see what the problem is. I agree that the optics don't look brilliant, but we should, as a population, have moved well beyond optics by now.

Biggins

But thats the whole point.....it was her own money, it wasn't public money.

And again, that's fair enough. No if's or but's with me.
We awarded her a wage (we can argue over its amount and the merits of her deserving it but they are separate matters) and once she has banked it, its hers to do with what she will.

I'm just adding its not as if on previous occasions, she has given the Irish people enough to tackle her on anyway.
Maybe the press should concentrate on those more. Some of us would like them to.

southsiderosie

reprazant wrote: »

That is not what you said.

You said she is wealthy having never worked in the private sector. By that rational, you would seem to be implying that it should be possibly to become wealthy having only worked in the public sector.

Is this the case?

In most fiscally sane countries, the tradeoff for the job security and protected pensions in the public sector is that wages are generally lower than in the relatively high-risk private sector. Yet in Ireland, a long career in the public sector seems to be a way to amass significant personal wealth while in public office - which is then followed by a gold-plated pension and perks. Yes, I think this is perverse.

If Mary Harney became wealthy through lecturing, consulting, and publishing after a long career in the public sector, then fair play to her. But her lifestyle - and that of many Irish politicians - seems extravagant, especially since most of them are career politicians. And it seems obvious based on their expense reporting that part of the reason why they can spend so much on private consumption is because they charge as much as they possibly can to the public. The public expenses and private spending of Irish politicians are deeply inter-related.

reprazant

southsiderosie wrote: »

In most fiscally sane countries, the tradeoff for the job security and protected pensions in the public sector is that wages are generally lower than in the relatively high-risk private sector. Yet in Ireland, a long career in the public sector seems to be a way to amass significant personal wealth while in public office - which is then followed by a gold-plated pension and perks. Yes, I think this is perverse.

Important jobs in the public sector should still be well paid though. Do you think that the head of planning for Dublin city, for example, should get paid a small amount because he/she has job security even though it is a very important job that person will make decisions which will effect most people in the city of years to come?

irishash

Bill2673 wrote: »

When did she or the government lecture anyone on tightening their belts...? I know Charlie Haughey did it in 1979, but thats a while ago now.

I dont think Haughey ever said the words "tighting our belts", but he did have the infamous TV lecture about "living beyond our means".

The government have several times said that we are all responsable for the mess we are in and I did hear one minister repeat the "living beyond our means" line again (dont ask me when, it was on prime time or something like that and I think it was Coughlan).

On a side note, would Biggins mind posting more of the "wasters" book pages. Bit of a borring day at work and those few pages made for great reading (I will buy the book after work I think) .

thebaldsoprano

Einhard wrote: »

I actually think it's about the most lazy form of political journalism imaginable. Instead of investigating the actual policies and political activities of the government, let's whip up outrage at the private lives of politicians. So lazy, and yet so obviously rewarding for the journos and the newspapers involved.

Well, it's focusing on a more personal side how the Government spends its (our) money. I doubt the same would be said if they covered a few days of a young person's life on the dole. It's probably down to a value judgement on whether it's regarded as 'lazy' journalism - policy and analysis are important, but so too are people and how they're affected.

Einhard

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Well, it's focusing on a more personal side how the Government spends its (our) money. I doubt the same would be said if they covered a few days of a young person's life on the dole. It's probably down to a value judgement on whether it's regarded as 'lazy' journalism - policy and analysis are important, but so too are people and how they're affected.

A TD's saary is no more "our" money than a teacher's or a nurse's is.

Biggins

irishash wrote: »

...On a side note, would Biggins mind posting more of the "wasters" book pages. Bit of a borring day at work and those few pages made for great reading (I will buy the book after work I think) .

First chapter deals with cronyism and its foundations, how badly it has become in bedded with our government, how they are looking after their own and rewarding those loyal to them with state jobs and perks - even if their qualifications (if any) don't have any bearing to the job:

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7444/15529752.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6628/89308388.jpg
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/6707/50338642.jpg
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7199/58282179.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3764/96862325.jpg
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/6152/28886329.jpg
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6059/99587121.jpg
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/6798/53212598.jpg
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4545/30586883.jpg
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/1188/p10qe.jpg
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3793/p11r.jpg
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/1976/p12u.jpg
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1294/p13ck.jpg
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/802/p14ku.jpg

(In one ten year period alone 207 state bodies were created by FF. Going from under a dozen since the foundation of the state to now 445!)

I better not post any more.

I would utterly recommend buying the book "Wasters".
For those that really want to know their stuff, see the more shocking wastes, who's name is attached, how they tried to stop the public from finding out (every trick in the book!) and so on.

Frankly unless there is a revolution or something, I can't see much changing in the future.
Just under 300 state jobs are currently being awarded by FF before they leave office. FG has asked for a freeze till the election - but don't hold your breath for that to happen.
(See HERE)

....Anyway this is all for another thread topic.
My apologies if side-tracking this one.

thebaldsoprano

Einhard wrote: »

A TD's saary is no more "our" money than a teacher's or a nurse's is.

Or someone's dole money. I'm not sure what point you're making, can you elaborate?

P. Breathnach

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Ordinarily I'd agree, and a more reasonable argument would be that their salary/expenses/pension package is simply too much. However, politicians have had no problem calling those using this argument begrudgers.

At this stage they're taking the piss - 190k + expenses + fat pension + Government jet for wrecking the health service isn't acceptable, and if a journalist wants to focus on the lifestyle that all this funds rather than directly on the package then fair play to them. It might well be the only way to bring the gravy train to a stop.

None of that negates my point: once her salary has been paid to her, it is no longer public money.

irishash

Biggins wrote: »

Frankly unless there is a revolution or something, I can't see much changing in the future.

Thanks for that - I will def go out and buy the book (hope they have it in Waterstones in Edinburgh).

While I share your thoughts on things changing in the future, I still have hope. We will be having a General Election in the coming months. And the people calling to the doorsteps may finally get a real understanding on the anger that is out there. A friend of mine is even going to put up a sign in his front lawn warning any FF people to stay well away !!

A new government will have to show they are a lot different to the outgoing lot. This is not just through policy, but also from the way they act. The public will be looking to a new government to show they dont need the massive expenses and the jet flying them everywhere.

The tories in the UK have to a large degree brought in some very tough measures, but remain well liked in the polls because they have shown the public that they have no time for the reckless spending of cash, and they have shown this in a very public way. It would be a good move by any future irish government to do the same.

And I cant recall if I heard if Harney is going to run again or not - I really hope she decides to run just to see her crash and burn (and then wait on a trolley for 50 hours to see a burns specialist)