Tonight with Vincent Browne - Joan Mulvihill?

Corruptable

Why is this person allowed a platform to condemn public sector workers on live TV?

Does this have anything to do with it:

Joan Mulvihill

CEO at Irish Internet Association
Current

• CEO at Irish Internet Association

Past

• Executive Council at Fine Gael (2004 - 2011)
  
• Director at Emerge Ireland
• Founder at Starting Today

Education

University of Oxford
National University of Ireland, Galway

http://ie.linkedin.com/pub/joan-mulvihill/5/6a3/952

Why did Vinnie not point out this conflict of interest in terms of discussing the Budget?

johnnyskeleton

Because everyone is entitled to express their opinions freely in a democracy.

Corruptable

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because everyone is entitled to express their opinions freely in a democracy.

But such a conflict of interest is stark. I'm sick of people with vested interests trying to pass of their opinions as just an ordinary private sector Joe Soap.

I've no problems with anyone expressing their opinions, but they should have the decency to stand over them and disclose their vested interest.

steelcityblues

Bad form by VB, if that is the case.

Reminds me of Sean Gallagher's 'independent' credentials.

c montgomery

Why is anyone allowed to have a platform
She's in an audience where the majority of the people are receiving benefits and are given a platform to complain about the budget.
Whats wrong with having someone on to defend the budget?

Fatima Mansions FFS! What kind of a place is that to have a balanced discussion on the budget.

Corruptable

Sorry if those who support Fine Gael feel I'm singling them out, but this tirade against public sector workers is disgraceful. I've only been talking to an ambulance crew who had just came back from their first post-budget attempted suicide.

c montgomery

Corruptable wrote: »

Sorry if those who support Fine Gael feel I'm singling them out, but this tirade against public sector workers is disgraceful. I've only been talking to an ambulance crew who had just came back from their first post-budget attempted suicide.

Were they in the public sector? I doubt it, more likely they had some of their benefits cut so we can pay increments to the Public Service

irishh_bob

Corruptable wrote: »

Sorry if those who support Fine Gael feel I'm singling them out, but this tirade against public sector workers is disgraceful. I've only been talking to an ambulance crew who had just came back from their first post-budget attempted suicide.

you managed to score at least two political points with one stone there

meglome

Corruptable wrote: »

Sorry if those who support Fine Gael feel I'm singling them out, but this tirade against public sector workers is disgraceful. I've only been talking to an ambulance crew who had just came back from their first post-budget attempted suicide.

Are these the same ambulance crews getting paid as much as consultants in Finland?

Great that you noticed she was a member of Fine Gael but what did she actually say?

irishh_bob

meglome wrote: »

Are these the same ambulance crews getting paid as much as consultants in Finland?

Great that you noticed she was a member of Fine Gael but what did she actually say?

aha and finland is wealthier than ireland on every possible level

paraletic

meglome wrote: »

Are these the same ambulance crews getting paid as much as consultants in Finland?

Great that you noticed she was a member of Fine Gael but what did she actually say?

Ehh, as a paramedic. i can promise you that we aren't paid the same as a consultants anywhere. our pay is in the public domain. we've gone through paramedic pay v finish consultant on boards before. and it isn't even close. unless a consultant is paid around 31k (under that starting off pay) plus 1/6 of that in shift allowance. - thats our pay before tax.

meglome

paraletic wrote: »

Ehh, as a paramedic. i can promise you that we aren't paid the same as a consultants anywhere. our pay is in the public domain. we've gone through paramedic pay v finish consultant on boards before. and it isn't even close. unless a consultant is paid around 31k (under that starting off pay) plus 1/6 of that in shift allowance. - thats our pay before tax.

You know it may have been ambulance drivers I'm lumping you in with. So you're telling me your pay is normally 31k before tax? Because I have to be honest that is the lowest pay of any civil servant I know.

paraletic

meglome wrote: »

You know it may have been ambulance drivers I'm lumping you in with. So you're telling me your pay is normally 31k before tax? Because I have to be honest that is the lowest pay of any civil servant I know.

31k plus 1/6th of that in shift allowance. thats my pay.
(yeah i make time and a half per hour if i finish a shift late, but i think thats reasonable). that is my pay. so leave paramedics (we're not ambulance drivers) out of your politics

Dirk Gently

I have to admit I was irate watching her last night, think it was more to do with all the faces she was pulling every time someone spoke though. The woman oozes arrogance. I also thought she was disingenuous too a lot of the time. An example would be when some chap talked about a tax on billions worth of wealth which has been accumulated, but which is not actually used in the economy or spent in shops etc. He was talking about idle money, money which is not working in the economy. Joan then replied in the context of someone who works around the corner from the flats in a poor struggling start up company employing 5 people, completely distorting the point the guy was making. It was political inspired misdirection.

I do think it is right to declare a vested interest. Johnnyskeleton is right that every one can express an opinion, but in the interests of fairness and transparency a persons interests should be declared if they have any (so we know to take what they're saying with a pinch of salt). No one is stopping her from talking and pulling faces but it is right that any interest is declared. I did noticed though that people were identified with text on the screen when ever members of various organisations (even ex members of organisations where identified on screen as former members). I would be surprised if she wasn't also identified at some point when she spoke, I don't remember seeing it though.

Luckily though blueshirts are pretty easy to spot.

Dirk Gently

c montgomery wrote: »

Fatima Mansions FFS! What kind of a place is that to have a balanced discussion on the budget.

In all fairness they had Progressive democrats, blueshirts and reps from chambers Ireland in the audience. I think the idea was to have a discussion in a place which was affected by budget cuts through CE schemes and and cuts in capital spending. I think it was good to have locals on (most of whom where running projects or studying by the way). It's not like most of those people get a platform to speak on tv very often. Every night of the week we here from government and corporate reps on our tv sets set out their agendas.

COYW

Dirk Gently wrote: »

I have to admit I was irate watching her last night, think it was more to do with all the faces she was pulling every time someone spoke though. The woman oozes arrogance. I also thought she was disingenuous too a lot of the time. An example would be when some chap talked about a tax on billions worth of wealth which has been accumulated, but which is not actually used in the economy or spent in shops etc. He was talking about idle money, money which is not working in the economy. Joan then replied in the context of someone who works around the corner from the flats in a poor struggling start up company employing 5 people, completely distorting the point the guy was making. It was political inspired misdirection.

I absolutely adore the woman and rarely find myself disagreeing with her. Pity there are not more people like Joan out there. You need to understand that people like Joan are interested in generating employment and build companies. We don't spend our days "hating" anyone any everyone who hasn't got a hard luck story to spin.

I love the way the left has this notion that there is some magical pot of wealth out there to be raided and that everyone who owns their own company is super-rich. 44% of the current tax in-take comes from the "super-rich" at the moment.

Finally, she is not arrogant, she is confident. Confidence isn't a crime, contrary to left wing beliefs. Miserable, whinging, self-pitying, begrudging left wing people won't get this country back on it feets; people who think like Joan and the IIA members will!

gmurphy70

She was definitely planted. Thank God I don't have to go home to the likes of Joan. What an annoying ,arrogant ,smug person and if she was looking to impress people she certainly messed up. This was not a debate but she had to butt in on Everyone's conversation with VB and alot what she said was B/S. Maybe a bit of discretion and less of the face pulling in future.

Dirk Gently

COYW wrote: »

I absolutely adore the woman and rarely find myself disagreeing with her. Pity there are not more people like Joan out there. You need to understand that people like Joan are interested in generating employment and build companies. We don't spend our days "hating" anyone any everyone who hasn't got a hard luck story to spin.

I love the way the left has this notion that there is some magical pot of wealth out there to be raided and that everyone who owns their own company is super-rich. 44% of the current tax in-take comes from the "super-rich" at the moment.

Finally, she is not arrogant, she is confident. Confidence isn't a crime, contrary to left wing beliefs. Miserable, whinging, self-pitying, begrudging left wing people won't get this country back on it feets; people who think like Joan and the IIA members will!

LOL, are you her press secretary or something?

You've just repeated the line she put out about "everyone who owns their own company", which was not what the guy on the programme was talking about. You also say she isn't arrogant and then rant on about whingers, self pitying and begrudging people and say that people like Joan will sort the country out? Maybe she isn't arrogant but you certainly appear to be. It was more her facial mannerisms that annoyed me last night though, she had contempt in her eyes when ever anyone spoke, she shouted over people and she looked like a kid sulking pulling faces when ever someone said something contrary to her own message.

irishh_bob

paraletic wrote: »

31k plus 1/6th of that in shift allowance. thats my pay.
(yeah i make time and a half per hour if i finish a shift late, but i think thats reasonable). that is my pay. so leave paramedics (we're not ambulance drivers) out of your politics

31 k NET or GROSS ?

johnnyskeleton

Corruptable wrote: »

But such a conflict of interest is stark. I'm sick of people with vested interests trying to pass of their opinions as just an ordinary private sector Joe Soap.

I've no problems with anyone expressing their opinions, but they should have the decency to stand over them and disclose their vested interest.

Well generally speaking I don't like it when a person with an ulterior motive is given free reign to pass off their views as fact e.g. property price reports complied by those in the industry.

But this was not such a case. She was putting forward her view and the others were putting forward theirs. Was she motivated by her past associations, or does she genuinely believe it and that is why she has associated herself with those she has?

I also think it is a misuse of the phrase vested interest by you. A person has a vested interest if they speak out of concern for their own personal financial or other gain. To a certain extent, they were all speaking about their personal circumstances. But she was making the additional point that we should be looking at what is best for the country, not what is best for each individual.

To put it another way, if we are to look at everyone's views, circumstances and associations, no one can really speak objectively about economic matters. Yet I firmly believe that objective analysis is possible. So perhaps focus less on who is saying it and instead look to what they actually say. The suggestion by the equality folks that we don't need austerity is demonstrably untrue, but people lap it up because it accords with their views on not cutting PS pay, welfare and increasing taxes. Yet the lady who says what is unpopular but true - we have to balance the State's finances and permit private companies to expand - is derided for being a former member of FG.

johnnyskeleton

Dirk Gently wrote: »

An example would be when some chap talked about a tax on billions worth of wealth which has been accumulated, but which is not actually used in the economy or spent in shops etc. He was talking about idle money, money which is not working in the economy. Joan then replied in the context of someone who works around the corner from the flats in a poor struggling start up company employing 5 people, completely distorting the point the guy was making. It was political inspired misdirection.

Just on this point, there are two things:

1) what is the source of this information? I struggle to believe that there are a few duckworths sitting on big piles of cash in a disused silo. It would seem more likely that this wealth belongs to international companies and the like. It could also include property wealth, and thereby ignore any debts attached to same.

2) once they start to expropriate the weath of the top 1% on the basis that "ah sure they don't need the money", surely it is only a matter of time before they look at you and me and say "he has €1,000 in the bank that he is not spending at the moment, therefore he doesn't need the money". Where does it end? Whatever about income and transaction taxes, a tax based on net assets or net worth is almost certain to lead to a flight of capital from the State and a run on the banks.

Dirk Gently

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just on this point, there are two things:

1) what is the source of this information? I struggle to believe that there are a few duckworths sitting on big piles of cash in a disused silo. It would seem more likely that this wealth belongs to international companies and the like. It could also include property wealth, and thereby ignore any debts attached to same.

2) once they start to expropriate the weath of the top 1% on the basis that "ah sure they don't need the money", surely it is only a matter of time before they look at you and me and say "he has €1,000 in the bank that he is not spending at the moment, therefore he doesn't need the money". Where does it end? Whatever about income and transaction taxes, a tax based on net assets or net worth is almost certain to lead to a flight of capital from the State and a run on the banks.

Yeah I agree mostly. I'll have to watch the show back again later on the player but I believe he did use a source and that he was talking about financial wealth as opposed to property. My point was that Joan countered him with an entirely different point about struggling start up companies. She should have engaged him on his original point, much like you just did.

As for where does it stop if it starts, has it not already started? Pensions have been raided already. They're using the safety valve of emigration to keep dole numbers down, people are being taxed and cut to the point where spending power is non existent in the economy. I understand the risks of capital flight but it's at the stage where all options need to be on the table. We cant keep taking money out of the economy and expect business to prosper.

I would be interested myself in data on the categories of accumulated wealth how much of it belongs to brass plated operations, how much is assets and how much of it is sitting idle which could be realistically targeted. This new phrase "job creators" I feel is not entirely accurate. It seems to be applied to everyone and anyone who has accumulated wealth, whether they be genuine job creators, market speculators or inherited wealth. I'd imagine a lot more job creators are struggling as a result of tax and cut to ordinary citizens than the broad brush label "job creators" implies.

Corruptable

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well generally speaking I don't like it when a person with an ulterior motive is given free reign to pass off their views as fact e.g. property price reports complied by those in the industry.

But this was not such a case. She was putting forward her view and the others were putting forward theirs. Was she motivated by her past associations, or does she genuinely believe it and that is why she has associated herself with those she has?

I also think it is a misuse of the phrase vested interest by you. A person has a vested interest if they speak out of concern for their own personal financial or other gain. To a certain extent, they were all speaking about their personal circumstances. But she was making the additional point that we should be looking at what is best for the country, not what is best for each individual.

To put it another way, if we are to look at everyone's views, circumstances and associations, no one can really speak objectively about economic matters. Yet I firmly believe that objective analysis is possible. So perhaps focus less on who is saying it and instead look to what they actually say. The suggestion by the equality folks that we don't need austerity is demonstrably untrue, but people lap it up because it accords with their views on not cutting PS pay, welfare and increasing taxes. Yet the lady who says what is unpopular but true - we have to balance the State's finances and permit private companies to expand - is derided for being a former member of FG.

I just found it convienent that with her former political connection she was in the position she was, that being CEO of the IIA and involved with the last buzzword project the Digital Hub.

I'm just sick of the culture of political plants (of any political persuasion) throughout both the public and private sector.

paraletic

irishh_bob wrote: »

31 k NET or GROSS ?

before tax and deductions. the shift payment (1/6 extra) is taxed too.

check out http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Benefits_Services/pay/Payscalesjan2010.pdf
page 17
(we are paid as emergency medical technicians although we are qualified and registered paramedics - but this is all way off topic)

gandalf

COYW wrote: »

I absolutely adore the woman and rarely find myself disagreeing with her. Pity there are not more people like Joan out there. You need to understand that people like Joan are interested in generating employment and build companies. We don't spend our days "hating" anyone any everyone who hasn't got a hard luck story to spin.

I love the way the left has this notion that there is some magical pot of wealth out there to be raided and that everyone who owns their own company is super-rich. 44% of the current tax in-take comes from the "super-rich" at the moment.

Finally, she is not arrogant, she is confident. Confidence isn't a crime, contrary to left wing beliefs. Miserable, whinging, self-pitying, begrudging left wing people won't get this country back on it feets; people who think like Joan and the IIA members will!

I agree 100% with you. I have met Joan a few times this year from a business perspective and she is extremely passionate about the IIA and all the people that she represents. Quite a few IIA members are start ups or SME's and it is companies like those that are one of the keys to reducing the numbers on the dole queue. In the kind of role she has you have to be confident and I think some here are mistaking this for arrogance.

People have a right to ask are we getting value for money for our public services and unfortunately the answer is no. If all of those giving out because of cutbacks in social services actually sat back and looked at the bigger picture and realised that these are being cut because the public service are still getting their increments and that no real restructuring is occurring to ensure we get value for money. Basically the poorest in society and those working in the private sector are subsidising and protecting a privileged section of workers in this country.

What I am angry about is the fact that this budget from the new Government has not tackled the Public Service and proper reform in any meaningful way. The Croke Park agreement is a luxury we as a country cannot afford and the sooner people wake up to this the better.

woodoo

paraletic wrote: »

check out http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Benefits_Services/pay/Payscalesjan2010.pdf
)

Alert Alert state secret out

fliball123

Corruptable wrote: »

But such a conflict of interest is stark. I'm sick of people with vested interests trying to pass of their opinions as just an ordinary private sector Joe Soap.

I've no problems with anyone expressing their opinions, but they should have the decency to stand over them and disclose their vested interest.

IMO she speaks for the majority of the private sector Joe Soaps

expectationlost

she truely has no clue about the industry she supposed to promote... Irish Internet Association, thats the biggest problem with her she's just some consultant spinner