Still happy you voted for FG?

I would ride myself cos im a sexy man

They've changed so much, I mean I've lost track of all differences from the FF plan for recovery . Sarcasm aside what plan for recovery ?

These parties, both despised by each other yet so similar barring the corruptness of FF, are not going to fix this mess anytime soon. We are being brought to our knees and we will default in the coming years anyway.

Also as we've seen from this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056250083

Consumers will be hit with a levy on their car and house insurance to make up for a shortfall of €620m from the collapse of Quinn Insurance, the Irish Independent has learnt.

Anglo Irish Bank and US insurance giant Liberty Mutual have agreed to buy the beleaguered insurance company, but are not willing to take on all the losses on its books.

The Government will now have to make up this shortfall and will do so by imposing a levy -- expected to be between 1pc and 2pc -- on every single non-life insurance customer in the country.

That is sure to spark anger among consumers who are already reeling under a swathe of taxes and levies.

The money from the levy will go into what is known as the Insurance Compensation Fund. The fund is to make sure customers of all insurance companies get paid, even if their own particular insurer gets into financial difficulty.

This fund was used twice in the 1980s when AIB's insurance arm, ICI, got into trouble and two years earlier, in 1983, when insurer PMPA collapsed -- a move that infuriated insurance customers.

The Irish Independent has learnt the true cost of the collapse of Quinn insurance now stands at €620m. Administrators to Quinn Insurance are finalising an application asking the Government to pay for this shortfall.

Sources last night said customers could be paying for the Quinn collapse for several years because the shortfall is so large.

The application from the administrators, Grant Thornton, will be made shortly to Finance Minister Michael Noonan. He is likely grant it despite an expected public outcry.

The High Court and Central Bank will also be informed and asked for approval.

The administrators declined to comment on the figures last night.

Under legislation set up in the 1980s to deal with failing companies, the Finance Minister of the day is allowed impose a levy so the Insurance Compensation Fund has enough resources to deal with whatever insurance claims it is facing.

The minister can impose the levy on the whole insurance industry. The industry then passes it on to the customers. But the minister can only deduct 2pc of the companies' profits each year. This means it could take a few years to fully deal with the problems left behind by Quinn Insurance.

The Irish Independent has also learnt that Quinn Insurance will shortly publish its 2010 results, showing yet another year of losses.

While the administrators have stabilised the business, it is expected to report losses of €120m. Its balance sheet is in an even worse condition.

The Quinn Insurance company itself will be run now by Liberty, with Anglo taking its place in the background. It is not clear what products and prices Liberty will be offering, but due to its large scale, the US company is expected to be competitive.

Quinn Insurance's problems began in 2010 after Financial Regulator Matthew Elderfield became concerned about the financial health of the firm.

Mr Elderfield said the firm breached crucial financial ratios and its subsidiaries had entered a series of guarantees for debts held at the Quinn Group, a cements and plastics business.

Since then the regulator has been investigating these issues. However, there has so far been no update on this probe.

This time last year, former Finance Minister Brian Lenihan insisted a second levy would not affect all health insurance customers if Quinn suffered the same fate at ICI.

"There is no call on the need for a levy at this stage," he said at the time. "When the administrator has conducted a review of the company he will be in a better position to know how to proceed."

- Emmet Oliver Deputy Business Editor

Irish Independent

Can't believe some are still happy about this and willing to accept it?

later12

It's only been two months, although I would agree that they have got off to a fantastically poor impression by following through on FF policy with regard to honouring bond indentures and with regard to bailing out the Quinn shortfall.

There's only so much of an impression you can make by getting rid of Ministerial chariots. It doesn't quite go far enough to appease the public, I would suggest.

OP, you have a brilliant username.

maynooth_rules

I am. I have contacted numerous FG deputies regarding the number of unqualified teachers in schools in Ireland and they along with labour look to be finally realising how wrong it is and doing something about it. I am a teacher who has emigrated to London BTW but I have seen in my town people who are not qualified get jobs due to the relationship they have with the prinicipal in that school. When i mentioned this to Green TDs and FF representatives lastyear I was fobbed off. FF actually brought in legislation to make it legal for unqualified teachers to be in the classroom, at a time of grave unemployment amongst newly qualified teachers!!!!! So from a personal level I am happy

heyjude

maynooth_rules wrote: »

I am. I have contacted numerous FG deputies regarding the number of unqualified teachers in schools in Ireland and they along with labour look to be finally realising how wrong it is and doing something about it. I am a teacher who has emigrated to London BTW but I have seen in my town people who are not qualified get jobs due to the relationship they have with the prinicipal in that school. When i mentioned this to Green TDs and FF representatives lastyear I was fobbed off. FF actually brought in legislation to make it legal for unqualified teachers to be in the classroom, at a time of grave unemployment amongst newly qualified teachers!!!!! So from a personal level I am happy

If you take it though, that having unqualified teachers working in our schools is wrong, how do you feel about 'qualified' teachers working in other jobs that they aren't qualified for ?

I have a mate with an degree in Computer Science and he was working in the computer/IT dept of a leading semi state company and found that several of the staff in the dept were actually teachers, with no formal qualification in computers/computing! Whats good for the goose.......

Einhard

Unlike some people who seem to have laboured under the delusion that FG in power would burn the bondholders, scrap the EU/IMF deal, and boldly go it alone, I voted for them because I knew they wouldn't. Thusfar, they've acted in much the way I expected of them when I cast my ballot. I don't like the bailout terms, and neither do FG or Labour- however, I'm realistic enough to realise that there's no painless way out of this mess, and to know that there's precious little wriggle room for the government. So, yes, I'm happy I voted for FG.

PatsytheNazi

FG = snotty FF.

And the FG dog will wag the Labour tail, old enough to have seen FG/Labour govts before I'm afraid

Einhard

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

FG = snotty FF.

And the FG dog will wag the Labour tail, old enough to have seen FG/Labour govts before I'm afraid

Isn't that supposed to be how it works?

thebman

Too early to tell but not very happy about the Quinn deal.

I am ok with how they have handled the troilke (or however you are supposed to spell that) so far.

As Peter Matthews said on Vincent Browne the previous time it aired, the strategy is still to restructure but they have to wait until there is agreement with the troilke to restructure. We can't just restructure or we will have no funding for day to day spending if the troilke withdraw or funding arrangement (not really calling it a bailout since it isn't).

raymon

I am glad that FG and Labour are in ....... it showed that thievery, lies , forgery etc etc were not acceptable. I would have rathered a few more shady characters to go too

Willie for his lying under oath
Martin for lodging developer's donations into his wife's bank a/c
and
Lenihan for taking a lead role in ruining our country

FG and labour are very much on probation and will be watched closely. They better do a good job. Too early to say

questionmark?

Yes.

Its still too soon to judge. Did you expect everything to be rossy and merry after only two months. I'm giving the government two years and then I will judge.

yosser hughes

50 days in office. Too early for threads like this. Lots of them though,one could be forgiven to think that these posters have ulterior motives.
The country is broke by the way,that doesn't leave much wriggle room thanks to the incompotence and corruption that has gone before.

raymon

I forgot to mention Lowry , I wish his sleazy head was missing from the Dail too

nesf

Yes, they've nothing but hard, hard decisions to make and aren't shying from them. I'm happy anyway. Then I'm a realist.

maynooth_rules

heyjude wrote: »

If you take it though, that having unqualified teachers working in our schools is wrong, how do you feel about 'qualified' teachers working in other jobs that they aren't qualified for ?

I have a mate with an degree in Computer Science and he was working in the computer/IT dept of a leading semi state company and found that several of the staff in the dept were actually teachers, with no formal qualification in computers/computing! Whats good for the goose.......

I don't agree with that at all either. Its a disgrace in any employment if a qualified person can not get a job at their profession while and unqualified person can at the same said profession

It's ridiculous to have threads like this.
I'd suggest people of that view would never be satisfied.

The HSE board is going today for gawds sake.
Nama are suddenly sending receivers into large developers offices.
The minimum wage is being restored and the jlc cabaal's of inefficiency are being looked at.
A labour minister of education preaching common sense to the teaching unions..


Thats just four things I've noticed in the past month that FF wouldn't have touched..

Laminations

Far too early for this thread but they are slowly making inroads and going in the right direction

Attacking judges pay
Dismantling the HSE (Reilly has asked the board to hop it)
Addressing quangos
Pushing gently (at least I'm interpreting their strategy hopefully) for debt restructuring
Bringing in a jobs budget/initiative
Pressing for PS efficiencies

Of course there are things I'm not so happy about but I'm more optimistic now than I ever was with FF.

Bring on referendum day

pog it

I posted a new thread - on this particular forum- about the latest car and house insurance and there wasn't a single response to it.

I posted same in consumer issues and the few responses that came in were from people saying that they could understand why it had to be done and that they would just be getting on with paying it.

What's wrong with this country? Why will people not bloodie protest? I used to find the Freudian comment offensive - about how psychoanalysis would be no good for the Irish- but maybe he was right. The levels of passiveness are beyond ridiculous.

I for one am left with no choice but to just not pay car insurance for 6 months to a year and deprive them and the bankers of at least that amount of my tax. Hugely risky but I'd rather take the chance than be swindled like this. Simple as that.

raymon

In addition to the good progress ( albeit slow) that the coalition is making so far , I still look back with immense joy when I recall humiliation on the faces of the likes of Dick Roche, John o D, Calamity Coughlan , etc etc at the count centres when they realised that they were being rejected .this was in addition to the crooks that decided not to run again. There has never been a purge of bad eggs on this scale before. Good riddance to this sinister and dark period in our history.

So yes I am glad that a new government is in and making some improvements already

ChairmanWow

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats just four things I've noticed in the past month that FF wouldn't have touched..

Reducing the pay of the judiciary in line with the rest of the PS is another, looks like the Chief Justice thinking he's Archbishop McQuaid has backfired, whereas in Cowans/Lenihans time ring kissing was the order of the day

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0428/1224295621140.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kenny-to-force-pay-cuts-on-all-judges-2631818.html

Liam Byrne

If they allow the FF/PMPA style Quinn levy to go through they can kiss my vote goodbye.

Voting for a "better" lot is all very well, but if FG don't have the interests of REAL Irish people at heart then they can resign now.

Not sure who to replace them with, though, because the alternatives of SF & FF are still unacceptable for obvious reasons.

meditraitor

I didnt vote FG because they didnt strike me as competant but in now they are in I would give them a little longer before I pass judgement. 50 days is a very short time in politics.

blahfckingblah

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not sure who to replace them with, though, because the alternatives of SF & FF are still unacceptable for obvious reasons.

what obvious reasons?

im glad i chose sf over fg as they appear to be fulfilling my predictions for them in government

PeterIanStaker

I have two simultaneous trains of thought when it comes to the new government:

1. It's too early to say.
2. The previous govt fecked things up so badly that this one won't be able to improve the situation.

Fulton Crown

blahfckingblah wrote: »

what obvious reasons?

im glad i chose sf over fg as they appear to be fulfilling my predictions for them in government

SF ....SF...what positive things have they done so far...remember ...POSITIVE !

meditraitor

Fulton Crown wrote: »

SF ....SF...what positive things have they done so far...remember ...POSITIVE !

That sure is a loaded question

Liam Byrne

blahfckingblah wrote: »

what obvious reasons?

im glad i chose sf over fg as they appear to be fulfilling my predictions for them in government

Answering will probably derail the thread, so check a pre-election thread re voting intentions and you'll find my reasoning there.

Sorry for the treasure hunt but it's safer considering the way threads re SF or indeed FF go.

PeakOutput

pog it wrote: »

I posted same in consumer issues and the few responses that came in were from people saying that they could understand why it had to be done and that they would just be getting on with paying it.

What's wrong with this country? Why will people not bloodie protest?

So because the majority of people understand that it is better to save thousands of jobs then to let a large company like that fail but you disagree, you are the sane one?

Liam Byrne

PeakOutput wrote: »

So because the majority of people understand that it is better to save thousands of jobs then to let a large company like that fail but you disagree, you are the sane one?

Phrased like that it almost sounds reasonable, however why should we have to pay extra for a company we have no dealings with?

It's Anglo Irish all over again.

PeakOutput

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Phrased like that it almost sounds reasonable, however why should we have to pay extra for a company we have no dealings with?

It's Anglo Irish all over again.

I don't think we should but I don't see the bailout as the saviour to the big wig elite that people try to make it out to be it is an effort to save thousands of jobs that would otherwise be lost and result in a larger dole queue

I think that the people who have arranged this bailout understand the reaction it would have on the public but have considered this and considered the cost to the economy of letting it fail and decided the latter is worse then the former. I also think that it could be a case of us not fighting enough for a better deal but there is no way anyone will take that company over and take on the burden of its debt. What was the debt something like 700million? not a chance.

Laminations

PeakOutput wrote: »

I don't think we should but I don't see the bailout as the saviour to the big wig elite that people try to make it out to be it is an effort to save thousands of jobs that would otherwise be lost and result in a larger dole queue.

I agree with you that saving jobs is important. Do you agree that asking everyone to stump up to save the company is unfair? You seem to think so but are arguing that unfairness is necessary as saving the jobs is paramount.

If I suggested taking Quinn's assets and wealth including those of his family that were purchased from the proceeds of the company over the years would you think that was unfair? Is that more unfair? Id reckon you'd not accept unfairness being doled out to the one man and his family but instead like to see the unfairness socialised. Asking the man most responsible to pay to save the jobs he jeopardised? Are the jobs that important that you would be willing to do that?

amacachi

PeakOutput wrote: »

So because the majority of people understand that it is better to save thousands of jobs then to let a large company like that fail but you disagree, you are the sane one?

When those few thousand jobs are as expensive to keep as they are then yes, they should be let go.

PeakOutput

Laminations wrote: »

I agree with you that saving jobs is important. Do you agree that asking everyone to stump up to save the company is unfair? You seem to think so but are arguing that unfairness is necessary as saving the jobs is paramount.

There are three options that I see

1. find someone to buy the company debts and all (I doubt this is possible)

2. find someone to buy the company and do what they are doing to 'socilaise' the debt and save the jobs but make the public pay

3. Let the company fail, all those people lose their jobs with the possibility of being unemployed for the next 3/4 years and the public pay anyway because these people are on the dole

availing of option two instead of option three allows for the possibility of a return on the investment through the workers paye and if/when the company returns to profitability in the form of corporation taxes and levies

If I suggested taking Quinn's assets and wealth including those of his family that were purchased from the proceeds of the company over the years would you think that was unfair? Is that more unfair? Id reckon you'd not accept unfairness being doled out to the one man and his family but instead like to see the unfairness socialised. Asking the man most responsible to pay to save the jobs he jeopardised? Are the jobs that important that you would be willing to do that?

I think there are rules and regulations in place that govern the running of a business, particularly an insurance business. I think that the problem in quinn was as a result of a weak financial regulator (although he was tougher on insurance companies then he was on banks, he was an ex banker after all, but not tough enough on quinn when the discrepancies were discovered).

I think that the rules of a limited liability company are there for a reason and no I do not think it would be right to just confiscate assets that are currently legally protected.

I do think that there might be a way to preserve the idea of a limited liability company while bringing in some sort of exception were if gross negligence is proved then the perpetrator will be responsible for any losses incurred as a result (kind of like how nick leeson has to try and repay the losses he caused).

However, businesses fail all the time and not always due to negligence and people should not have to risk their entire families wealth to make a go at starting at business so I think a balance needs to reached and I don't know were that balance is

Laminations

PeakOutput wrote: »

I think there are rules and regulations in place that govern the running of a business, particularly an insurance business. I think that the problem in quinn was as a result of a weak financial regulator (although he was tougher on insurance companies then he was on banks, he was an ex banker after all, but not tough enough on quinn when the discrepancies were discovered).

If I do something wrong I cannot blame the gardai for not catching and stopping me. If I mess up in work, I can't blame a superior for not correcting that mistake. Quinn needs to own his mistakes, he and his family benefitting from his better decisions so they should take the rap for the poorer ones.

I think that the rules of a limited liability company are there for a reason and no I do not think it would be right to just confiscate assets that are currently legally protected.

How is it limited liability if we are all being asked to pay, even citizens who have nothing to do with Quinn insurance? How can you say it is not right to confiscate assets that are currently legally protected while arguing that the government should do so just on a larger scale? They can call it a levy or a tax but seeing as insurance is mandatory you cannot escape paying it. They will be confiscating my wealth, your wealth and everybody elses wealth for something that should be contained in the Quinn family until the barrel there is empty

I do think that there might be a way to preserve the idea of a limited liability company while bringing in some sort of exception were if gross negligence is proved then the perpetrator will be responsible for any losses incurred as a result (kind of like how nick leeson has to try and repay the losses he caused).

Good idea for the future but sounds like that's too late for this case.

PeakOutput

Laminations wrote: »

If I do something wrong I cannot blame the gardai for not catching and stopping me. If I mess up in work, I can't blame a superior for not correcting that mistake. Quinn needs to own his mistakes, he and his family benefitting from his better decisions so they should take the rap for the poorer ones.

Yes but its the regulators job to make sure the rules are in place. If I do something that is not illegal but that society dosnt like the gardai cant just arrest me and they certainly cannot create a law and then arrest me.

How is it limited liability if we are all being asked to pay, even citizens who have nothing to do with Quinn insurance? How can you say it is not right to confiscate assets that are currently legally protected while arguing that the government should do so just on a larger scale? They can call it a levy or a tax but seeing as insurance is mandatory you cannot escape paying it

The problem is the size of the company, I am sure if you asked Quinn (now that he is not involved really) he would say let it fail rather then saying the government should bail it out, he is a business man after all and probably believes in some form of strict capitalism. However someone in the government has decided that letting it fail is a bigger liability to the economy then bailing it out.

edit; If quinn did something illegal he should obviously suffer the consequences but I havn't seen anywhere that he has, unethical maybe.

Laminations

But you are saying it is fine for the government to ask (demand as its mandatory) me and everyone else to pay for Quinn, so why isn't it fine for them to ask Quinn to pay for Quinn? Im not really suggesting that asking Quinn and his family to stump up is fair, its likely very unfair but it seems it's only acceptable if the unfairness is socialised.

PeakOutput

Laminations wrote: »

But you are saying it is fine for the government to ask (demand as its mandatory) me and everyone else to pay for Quinn, so why isn't it fine for them to ask Quinn to pay for Quinn? Im not really suggesting that asking Quinn and his family to stump up is fair, its likely very unfair but it seems it's only acceptable if the unfairness is socialised.

That is a good point but my response would be that its because it is not quinn that is fighting to keep the business alive, I am sure he is happy to 'cut his losses' let it fail and move on. It is the goverment who are deciding it should be kept in operation.

SeanW

They seem to be making at least some of the right moves. I also trust that they have ethics and are doing the best they can, even if I disagree with some of the priorities. They have inherited a huge mess and there is no easy way out of it!

As long as they don't piss any more money into Anglo, I'll give them a chance.