Why does Charlie McCreevy get such a hard time?

jetsonx

Why do people speak so negatively about Charlie McCreevy.

He was one of the few people who wanted to reign in spending during those
disastrous years FF were in power. He was talking about cutting back on spending when nobody else was - even when the opposition were demanding more spending. In fact, his plans to cut back on public spending were such an irritant to Bertie - de Bert decided to sent Charlie with a one way ticket to Brussels to get rid of him.

But yet, the Irish public still seem to give Charlie McCreevy a very hard time. Why?

golfball37

jetsonx wrote: »

Why do people speak so negatively about Charlie McCreevy.

He was one of the few people who wanted to reign in spending during those
disastrous years FF were in power. He was talking about cutting back on spending when nobody else was - even when the opposition were demanding more spending. In fact, his plans to cut back on public spending were such an irritant to Bertie - de Bert decided to sent Charlie with a one way ticket to Brussels to get rid of him.

But yet, the Irish public still seem to give Charlie McCreevy a very hard time. Why?

Watch Reeling in the Years and see his reference to people telling him to cut down on the spending.

I won't listen to the advice of gutless pinkos or words to that effect. He's another traitor drawing a nice purse from me and you as far as I'm concerned anyway.

He gave the outgoing Cheif of Aer Rianta a pay off of 800k when she was only in the job a year as a FY to Bertie, in short he didn't give two red cents about Ireland. Don't be fooled by revisionism.

cuculainn

golfball37 wrote: »

Watch Reeling in the Years and see his reference to people telling him to cut down on the spending.

I won't listen to the advice of gutless pinkos or words to that effect. He's another traitor drawing a nice purse from me and you as far as I'm concerned anyway.

He gave the outgoing Cheif of Aer Rianta a pay off of 800k when she was only in the job a year as a FY to Bertie, in short he didn't give two red cents about Ireland. Don't be fooled by revisionism.

He introduced the SSIA scheme to take money out of economy and he also set up the national pension reserve scheme......something that has been dipped into alot recently for the wrong reasons.

This government is taxing pensions and not planning for future pension shortfalls

Gambas

cuculainn wrote: »

He introduced the SSIA scheme to take money out of economy and he also set up the national pension reserve scheme......something that has been dipped into alot recently for the wrong reasons.

This government is taxing pensions and not planning for future pension shortfalls

The SSIA was a crazy scheme designed to mature in time for the 2007 election.

The pension reserve fund was a good idea but unfortunately, the consequences of other rotten policy initiated by McCreevey, most notably benchmarking and light touch banking regulation meant that all the good was destined to be undone.

His 'when I have it, I'll spend it' was a pro-cyclical policy that meant that capital expenditure was far more than was necessary, as government departments competed with each other for construction resources. It took about 5 years for the government to get a handle on large capital projects like roads etc..

That said, he was an economic genius in comparison with what came next, and was effectively ditched for having the temerity to make some unpopular cuts that would have been good for the economy but bad for FF. He was bad, but not the worst.

Macy0161

jetsonx wrote: »

But yet, the Irish public still seem to give Charlie McCreevy a very hard time. Why?

He cut direct taxes to such an extent that he got a dressing down by the ECB. His solution to take money out of the economy were SSAI's (rather than do what he should've and reversed the tax cuts) which gave more Govt money away and was conveniently timed to mature around the election cycle. He was anti regulation/ red tape for business, and particularly the financial system. We've been essentially reaping what he sowed with the financial system. We wouldn't have needed to waste the NPRF if he hadn't cut direct taxes so much, so whatever credit he's due for the foresight and logic of setting it up, can't undo that it was also essentially the philosophy that he shared that lead to it being raided/ wasted.

Given the amount of revisionism around his track record because he got out early, Ahern did him a huge favour moving him before the bubble burst.

moe_duffy

jetsonx wrote: »

Why do people speak so negatively about Charlie McCreevy.

He was one of the few people who wanted to reign in spending during those
disastrous years FF were in power. He was talking about cutting back on spending when nobody else was - even when the opposition were demanding more spending. In fact, his plans to cut back on public spending were such an irritant to Bertie - de Bert decided to sent Charlie with a one way ticket to Brussels to get rid of him.

But yet, the Irish public still seem to give Charlie McCreevy a very hard time. Why?

the journalistic - media class are in the main , socilists , they viewed mc reevy as a neo liberal - evil

Boulevardier

McCreevy is still revered by some even now, but I would never forgive him for his catastrophic decision to fuel the property bubble just at a time when it might have cooled.

In the early 2000's, the government accepted and implemented a provision of the Bacon report on house prices, under which investors lost their automatic right to mortgage interest relief. It was designed to cool the property market.

I sensed a slight cooling in the apartment market in late 2001, which is why I was able to buy my own apartment at 10k below the asking price.

In his 2001-2 budget, McCreevy re-introduced mortgage relief for investors. I am convinced that this is where the property bubble really started, and had McCreevy not caved in to the speculators at this crucial moment, there would have been a soft landing in the market around 2004-5.

creedp

Boulevardier wrote: »

In his 2001-2 budget, McCreevy re-introduced mortgage relief for investors. I am convinced that this is where the property bubble really started, and had McCreevy not caved in to the speculators at this crucial moment, there would have been a soft landing in the market around 2004-5.

I don't understand this point .. is it unusual for people who are taxed on an income to be able to write off the direct costs associated with generating the income? What other business would accept this? Would a farmer not be allowed write off the interest associated with purchasing his farm? Would a hotelier be restricted from claiming the interest on loans used to purchase their hotel? Maybe it they weren't ehe price of agri land/hotels might have been restricted to more reasonable levels during the bubble. Am I right in thinking that only residential landlords are restricted to claiming 75% of the interest on loans used to purchase their business?

I would have thought the real driver of the buy-to-let prices was the tax reliefs offerred on the capital price such as Sn 23 reliefs. If these reliefs had been removed earlier it would have taken serious heat out of the market. Too many friends of friends were benefiting hugely from these reliefs to have them removed though.

expectationlost

wanted to? didn't

onedmc

Boulevardier wrote: »

McCreevy is still revered by some even now, but I would never forgive him for his catastrophic decision to fuel the property bubble just at a time when it might have cooled.

In the early 2000's, the government accepted and implemented a provision of the Bacon report on house prices, under which investors lost their automatic right to mortgage interest relief. It was designed to cool the property market.

I sensed a slight cooling in the apartment market in late 2001,

100% correct there was cool down after the Bacon report was implemented. If it remained in place it wouldn't be as bad.

The additional Later tax cuts were not necessary but I'm not sure if any other government would have been able to resist it either.

hmmm

He returned money to taxpayers rather than wasting their money on "social programmes" (i.e. handouts). That outraged parts of the left-wing dominated Irish media, and also outraged the "social partners" who have come to dominate our public discourse, so when the time came they were happy to put the boot into him. When McCreevy left we had no-one in government who could restrain the tax and spend merchants and look where we are now - taxed to the hilt to pay for government workers and endless "entitlements".

He had his faults (hubris perhaps being one), but we could do with someone like him today.

eigrod

He was also responsible for the disastrous Decentralisation scheme. He was very short sighted with regards to policies, many of which, as outlined above, were timed to win votes and many of which were directed towards pet projects of his (like the extremely wealthy horse racing and betting industries).

sparky1981

Under himself he gave alot of tax breaks to the equestrian sector I think.

jank

I agree with the OP. Charlie McCreevey had his faults but at least he understood basic economics. One should always remember why he was shipped off to Brussels. FF had a bad local elections in 2004 and subsequent "focus" groups *cough* special interests found out that people wanted the proceeds of the Celtic Tiger to be distributed more 'fairly' I.E 'where is MY slice of the pie'
Charlie was seen as the person who was holding back the purse strings so they needed someone more gutless and spineless to do the easy thing and write blank cheques for da poor people and da unions., the Joe Duffy types
Well off he goes to Brussels and a newer, kinder, gentler, generous, dare I say it feminine FF emerged on a Inacydoney beach photo op with Fr Sean Healy, Bertie (I'm a Socialist) Ahern and Mary Hanafin with Brian Cowen in toe. The policy for the next 5 years was clear. Spend spend spend...

There is a famous photo with all of them on the beach but cant find it.

jetsonx

jank wrote: »

One should always remember why he was shipped off to Brussels. FF had a bad local elections in 2004 and subsequent "focus" groups *cough* special interests found out that people wanted the proceeds of the Celtic Tiger to be distributed more 'fairly' I.E 'where is MY slice of the pie'
Charlie was seen as the person who was holding back the purse strings so they needed someone more gutless and spineless to do the easy thing and write blank cheques for da poor people and da unions., the Joe Duffy types
Well off he goes to Brussels and a newer, kinder, gentler, generous, dare I say it feminine FF emerged on a Inacydoney beach photo op with Fr Sean Healy, Bertie (I'm a Socialist) Ahern and Mary Hanafin with Brian Cowen in toe. The policy for the next 5 years was clear. Spend spend spend...

Excellent post Jank.

And that's it in a nutshell. That is why we are in so much trouble today.
And its sad that Irish people lacked so much judgement that the one person who was crying "stop this irresponsible spending..." was shipped off to Brussels and nobody complained.

Macy0161

jetsonx wrote: »

And its sad that Irish people lacked so much judgement that the one person who was crying "stop this irresponsible spending..." was shipped off to Brussels and nobody complained.

Like when he established benchmarking, decentralisation and had to be reigned in by the ECB for cutting direct taxes too much?

jetsonx

jank wrote: »

Charlie was seen as the person who was holding back the purse strings so they needed someone more gutless and spineless to do the easy thing and write blank cheques

Well in Cowen, he found the perfect candidate.

eigrod

jank wrote: »

I agree with the OP. Charlie McCreevey had his faults but at least he understood basic economics. One should always remember why he was shipped off to Brussels. FF had a bad local elections in 2004 and subsequent "focus" groups *cough* special interests found out that people wanted the proceeds of the Celtic Tiger to be distributed more 'fairly' I.E 'where is MY slice of the pie'
Charlie was seen as the person who was holding back the purse strings so they needed someone more gutless and spineless to do the easy thing and write blank cheques for da poor people and da unions., the Joe Duffy types
Well off he goes to Brussels and a newer, kinder, gentler, generous, dare I say it feminine FF emerged on a Inacydoney beach photo op with Fr Sean Healy, Bertie (I'm a Socialist) Ahern and Mary Hanafin with Brian Cowen in toe. The policy for the next 5 years was clear. Spend spend spend...

There is a famous photo with all of them on the beach but cant find it.

Google "Budget 2000" and "Budget 2001" and you'll find how ridiculously off the mark you are there. If those Budgets are examples of Charlie McCreevy holding back the purse strings, then you really have no comprehension of what he was at.

jank

Yes, and google budget 2003 where he held back a lot..... FF suffers and then the spending start with again greater gusto again with the dept or finance under the control of Cowen.

eigrod

jank wrote: »

Yes, and google budget 2003 where he held back a lot..... .

Yes, because the election (2002) was now won. The point being made was that McCreevey held back the purse strings, when clearly there is ample evidence being put forward in this thread that he wasn't. He stood up and announced Decentralisation without most of the Government knowing about it - we are still paying for that fiasco.

K-9

jank wrote: »

Yes, and google budget 2003 where he held back a lot..... FF suffers and then the spending start with again greater gusto again with the dept or finance under the control of Cowen.

That was because of the post 9/11 recession, indeed FF got criticised after the 02 election for not telling the public the full story about the cuts needed.

The biggest criticism for me would be stoking the property bubble as already mentioned, we already had 5/6 years of high property prices increases at that stage and that was the time to put a brake on the market. Obviously Cowen and Ahern share more of the blame but I doubt Charlie would have done much different, the tax base would still have been eroded.

R132highway

jank wrote: »

I agree with the OP. Charlie McCreevey had his faults but at least he understood basic economics. One should always remember why he was shipped off to Brussels. FF had a bad local elections in 2004 and subsequent "focus" groups *cough* special interests found out that people wanted the proceeds of the Celtic Tiger to be distributed more 'fairly' I.E 'where is MY slice of the pie'
Charlie was seen as the person who was holding back the purse strings so they needed someone more gutless and spineless to do the easy thing and write blank cheques for da poor people and da unions., the Joe Duffy types
Well off he goes to Brussels and a newer, kinder, gentler, generous, dare I say it feminine FF emerged on a Inacydoney beach photo op with Fr Sean Healy, Bertie (I'm a Socialist) Ahern and Mary Hanafin with Brian Cowen in toe. The policy for the next 5 years was clear. Spend spend spend...

There is a famous photo with all of them on the beach but cant find it.

Got it in a nutshell. Well said.

Sand

Jank did pretty much nail it. McCreevy was basically competent. He gets damned for the "If I have it I'll spend it" comment, but that also implies "If I don't have it, I wont". It was the latter principle for which he got the boot - reining in spending as the economy entered a downturn (a downturn by the way when Ireland got a clear signal from the ECB that they couldn't give a **** what happened to Ireland - we didn't listen). While the spending increases under his watch in the late 90s and early 2000s were large by Irish standards, its worth noting govt expenditure in 2003 was 38 billion. We'd be running a huge surplus if spending was held to that level as McCreevy seemed to intend to do: McCreevy never increased spending past the long term sustainability of the Irish economy. Maybe he would have, he was a shameless political opportunist as demonstrated by decentralisation which was basically as cynical an abuse of Irish political standards as you'll ever see in the history books.

I'd not really claim that a man that got kicked upstairs to a cushy EU post suffered a downfall, but the real issue he had was that he laughed at and mocked the establishment lefties in Ireland - media, trade unions, self described prophets of people. And the "Social Partners" really, really, really hate being laughed at. When FF got into choppy waters, it was always going to be easier to appease the baying columnists by throwing them McCreevy so they could get Cowen into Finance and really get the party started for the Social Partners.

flutered

jetsonx wrote: »

Why do people speak so negatively about Charlie McCreevy.

He was one of the few people who wanted to reign in spending during those
disastrous years FF were in power. He was talking about cutting back on spending when nobody else was - even when the opposition were demanding more spending. In fact, his plans to cut back on public spending were such an irritant to Bertie - de Bert decided to sent Charlie with a one way ticket to Brussels to get rid of him.

But yet, the Irish public still seem to give Charlie McCreevy a very hard time. Why?

he went against all advise from the ecb and the imf, done every thing possible to fan the flames of the boom, then got a handy pay off to the eureopean parliment, also he got a 110% morgage from fingers finfelton to purchase a place in a well known golf resort in the midlands.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

While the spending increases under his watch in the late 90s and early 2000s were large by Irish standards, its worth noting govt expenditure in 2003 was 38 billion. We'd be running a huge surplus if spending was held to that level as McCreevy seemed to intend to do: McCreevy never increased spending past the long term sustainability of the Irish economy. Maybe he would have, he was a shameless political opportunist as demonstrated by decentralisation which was basically as cynical an abuse of Irish political standards as you'll ever see in the history books.

As you admit yourself his track record wasn't great on Government spending so I don't see on what basis you think that €38 Billion wouldn't have increased substantially. It seems to be based on his political leanings and right wing position rather than much fact.

Sand

Well, its based on the "woulda coulda shoulda" principle.

The reality is we simply do not know how a longer McCreevy MoF role would have worked out. Instead we project: Maybe McCreevy would have been the stern defender of the pursestrings. Maybe he would have been embarrassed Ahern and Cowen with his demands for more spending. All we know is that McCreevy was kicked out for trying to pull spending back in at a time of a mild downturn when spending was at a level clearly unimaginably low to the various social partners today. Can you imagine running the country on 38 billion today given the screaming and frothing at the mouth to control spending at 58 billion? How did we ever manage on 38 - we must have died eating grass at the sides of the road like back in the 1840s...

I think in many way he was the finest politician our political system can produce: He was at some basic level competent, shamelessly opportunistic and amoral in the political sense, and in power. The second is a given. The last is difficult but the second helps achieve it. Its the first that makes him stand out. The perfect Irish politician under the current constitutional arrangements: defenders of PR, the party whip, secretive policy-making and lack of public accountability I give you your protege, Charlie McCreevy.

If Bertie Ahern had a weakness it was he was embarrassed at being caught lying in 2002. McCreevy wasn't. He was as puzzled as posters on this forum as to why the Irish people wouldn't expect him to lie for electoral gain. Given there is no prospect of serious reform all true Irish patriots ought to hope we get more politicians like McCreevy and less like Ahern, Cowen, Gilmore, Kenny and Coughlan. At least the likes of McCreevy would be competent and not afraid of annoying people in the EU if required.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

Can you imagine running the country on 38 billion today given the screaming and frothing at the mouth to control spending at 58 billion? How did we ever manage on 38 - we must have died eating grass at the sides of the road like back in the 1840s...

I'm sure if you read boards in 2003 they'd have pointed to €38 Billion as unsustainable and said how come we all get by fine on €25 Billion or whatever it was 10 years ago.

The proof would be his record from when he got Finance and the growth in spending from then to 03. If it is much smaller well I'll cede your point if it isn't, well, if it looks like a duck it quacks like a duck!

The other side is policies like halving CGT enables spending splurges, right wing thinking that played a big part in the bubble.

Sand

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sure if you read boards in 2003 they'd have pointed to €38 Billion as unsustainable and said how come we all get by fine on €25 Billion or whatever it was 10 years ago.

The proof would be his record from when he got Finance and the growth in spending from then to 03. If it is much smaller well I'll cede your point if it isn't, well, if it looks like a duck it quacks like a duck!

The other side is policies like halving CGT enables spending splurges, right wing thinking that played a big part in the bubble.

Doubt it - No such thing as an Irish fiscal conservative.

But it's true - McCreevy did preside over a huge level of spending increase. Spending in itself is not a problem (even for myself who would fall on the more fiscally conservative side). That's inescapable given the time he was MoF. Keeping spending under control is not a virtue when you have no money.

The Irish economy grew in a historically unprecedented manner over the 1990s and early 2000s. Quite clearly if a governments revenue starts to massively increase due to increased gains from income and transaction taxes they are going to have more money to spend, even without raising taxes. Increasing spending under sustainable conditions is essentially good governance. The alternative is to freeze spending and cut taxes, which presumes public services achieved perfection in Ireland sometime in 1989...

The question is was it sustainable and was were we getting value for money? Even measured against the depths of economic depression and hardship, McCreevy's spending was so incredibly low even his worse enemies would have to allow it was sustainable under worst case scenarios. Because it is. Short of the dead rising from their graves we are in the worst case scenario right now and his spending levels are considered unachievable low.

Did we get value for money? We got at least the same basic services for much less money. I cant really discern that the Irish people are getting a much better health system in 2013 than they received in 2003. But we are paying a lot more for it. That failure is down to management of the public sector by dee minister and the civil service, not available resources.

McCreevy really was the best we can hope for under the current Irish constitutional system. Corrupt, yes. Amoral, yes. But vaguely competent. That's the great hope of the Irish system - that once in a generation, the thieving, lying hypocritical filth who claws his way to the top over the bodies of the mates he or she has backstabbed might be vaguely competent at the role they gain. McCreevy was it. Politicians like McCreevy are what make the rest of the awful Irish political system worth it ( :pac: ). For comparison's sake, O'Reilly is a lot of things but a competent Minister of Health he is not.

But if you want to change the system that produces O'Reillys and McCreevys you get the usual suspects lining up to champion PR, the party whip, secrecy, lack of accountability etc... So just hope for more McCreevys.

K-9

So how did McCreevy afford his big increase in spending? Reducing taxes like CGT, but increasing stamp duty, cutting already low income taxes and increasing tax allowances.

Just looking at spending is one side of the equation.

As for the Health service, I doubt anybody would argue we've an actual better Health service, we do have an increased life expectancy, better levels of cancer detection and actual cure rate, less heart disease, stuff like that. A&E still is a nightmare but people need to be careful that they don't throw the baby out with the bath water with the endless criticism.