So Michael D IS running again!

AGC

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Precisely when it has no ability to hurt him any more. The idea that the presidency is above politics is farcical.

Why would an allowance that has been in place long before his presidency and has been spent by previous presidents to some level have an ability to hurt him during an election?

The timing of the PAC was farcical and turned the debates and who election into a laughing stock, they tried to turn it into a Michael D issue when it just was not.

blanch152

AGC wrote: »

Why would an allowance that has been in place long before his presidency and has been spent by previous presidents to some level have an ability to hurt him during an election?

The timing of the PAC was farcical and turned the debates and who election into a laughing stock, they tried to turn it into a Michael D issue when it just was not.

This has been explained many times. The allowance was increased by Bertie Ahern to allow Mary McAleese and her husband to influence the Peace Process, which they did successfully. Higgins dropped this idea and spent the money on ???

An_Toirpin

AGC wrote: »

Why would an allowance that has been in place long before his presidency and has been spent by previous presidents to some level have an ability to hurt him during an election?

The timing of the PAC was farcical and turned the debates and who election into a laughing stock, they tried to turn it into a Michael D issue when it just was not.

BTW the media consensus at the time was that Michael D probably spent the money well but that there was a need for transparency. If anything the establishment was totally in his favour. He made the matters worse with his flippant remark that about journalists questioning his spending 'was sad'.

VinLieger

blanch152 wrote: »

Higgins dropped this idea and spent the money on ???

The number of blind assumptions made by this single statement is ridiculous.

Firstly you are assuming Higgins knew the reason for the allowances being increased nearly two decades ago. Secondly your then assuming he was involved in every facet of how it was spent. Thirdly your then assuming the possibility with your open ended question that he potentially spent it on something he shouldn't have.

This is the cheapest and most morally bankrupt way to throw dirt in politics.

blanch152

VinLieger wrote: »

The number of blind assumptions made by this single statement is ridiculous.

Firstly you are assuming Higgins knew the reason for the allowances being increased nearly two decades ago. Secondly your then assuming he was involved in every facet of how it was spent. Thirdly your then assuming the possibility with your open ended question that he potentially spent it on something he shouldn't have.

This is the cheapest and most morally bankrupt way to throw dirt in politics.

(1) Higgins apparently knew, widely reported in 2011 that he was cancelling those arrangements.
(2) If he was not involved in how his personal allowance was spent, that raises other questions of competence.
(3) That is your assumption, not mine. He could have spent it legitimately on a whole heap of stuff, the thing is, we don't know. An allowance, increased for a specific need, was spent on something else after the specific need was fulfilled/discarded. That is all we know.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

This has been explained many times. The allowance was increased by Bertie Ahern to allow Mary McAleese and her husband to influence the Peace Process, which they did successfully. Higgins dropped this idea and spent the money on ???

It has been explained many times but yet people don't listen to what has been said.

You will see what the money has been spent on when it is published.

I would be a lot more concerned about other people's allowances and the consequences of those than a small amount of money being spent by the office of the head of state.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

(3) That is your assumption, not mine. He could have spent it legitimately on a whole heap of stuff, the thing is, we don't know. An allowance, increased for a specific need, was spent on something else after the specific need was fulfilled/discarded. That is all we know.

Do you just ignore the fact that you will now know what the money has been spent on, something that has never happened before with the Office of the President?

From my understanding all we know of when Mary McAleese had the allowance was that €500,000 was returned and it was spent on the same as what the current President has been quoted as spending it on, garden parties, official functions etc...

blanch152

AGC wrote: »

It has been explained many times but yet people don't listen to what has been said.

You will see what the money has been spent on when it is published.

I would be a lot more concerned about other people's allowances and the consequences of those than a small amount of money being spent by the office of the head of state.

I don't think there are very many people running around with a free untaxed allowance anywhere near as big as Higgins' one. Do you have some examples of a similar size?

AGC wrote: »

Do you just ignore the fact that you will now know what the money has been spent on, something that has never happened before with the Office of the President?

Where did I say I was ignoring that. I look forward with interest to the informative piece when it is published. Hopefully he isn't spending too much on a glossy brochure.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think there are very many people running around with a free untaxed allowance anywhere near as big as Higgins' one. Do you have some examples of a similar size?

LNR has claimed approx. €200,000 un-audited from the EU since becoming an MEP which leads to what are SF TD's, Senators, councillors actually claiming behind their 'industrial wage' rubbish - the mess that she made of that in the debate will have a negative result on SF at election time.

Where did I say I was ignoring that. I look forward with interest to the informative piece when it is published. Hopefully he isn't spending too much on a glossy brochure.

Glossy brochure?

I will happily come on here and hold my hands up if money has been spent in an inappropriate manner but from what has been said I have no reason to believe it has been said. It is a nothing issue that people tried to make a big deal of which was rightly rejected at the polls.

There is a reason the President didn't engage with it when being questioned time and again because there was no need. He gave his answers and while others wanted to hear differently it didn't materialise.

blanch152

AGC wrote: »

LNR has claimed approx. €200,000 un-audited from the EU since becoming an MEP which leads to what are SF TD's, Senators, councillors actually claiming behind their 'industrial wage' rubbish - the mess that she made of that in the debate will have a negative result on SF at election time.






Glossy brochure?

I will happily come on here and hold my hands up if money has been spent in an inappropriate manner but from what has been said I have no reason to believe it has been said. It is a nothing issue that people tried to make a big deal of which was rightly rejected at the polls.

There is a reason the President didn't engage with it when being questioned time and again because there was no need. He gave his answers and while others wanted to hear differently it didn't materialise.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/report-on-presidents-317000-allowance-to-be-published-37609928.html

"However, a spokesperson for the President told a Sunday newspaper the report would be published this week once translation and design of the document have been finalised."


I hope you are right about money not being wasted on the document. A couple of A4 pages in a PDF would be enough to tell the story.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/report-on-presidents-317000-allowance-to-be-published-37609928.html

"However, a spokesperson for the President told a Sunday newspaper the report would be published this week once translation and design of the document have been finalised."


I hope you are right about money not being wasted on the document. A couple of A4 pages in a PDF would be enough to tell the story.

You are fairly scrapping the barrel now if you are concerned at the price of releasing the document!!!

Topgear on Dave

blanch152 wrote: »

"However, a spokesperson for the President told a Sunday newspaper the report would be published this week once translation and design of the document have been finalised."

"Translation and design"

I thought these were accounts? Just release them as a pdf file.

Hes not spending his own money is he :pac::pac:

seamus

Seriously though if you can't see why an official document from the Áras can't just be a few PDFs in Times New Roman, then you're just taking the piss.

At the very least it has to be in both Irish and English and contain the proper seal(s) of the President, otherwise there'd be all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects.

There's your "translation and design".

marieholmfan

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

"Translation and design"

I thought these were accounts? Just release them as a pdf file.

Hes not spending his own money is he :pac::pac:

Are you mental? He's the President of Ireland ; it all has to be done with a bit of pomp and pomp costs.

James Brown

Higgins was right, this line is sad.
I'm not sure what the end game is now that the election is over.

pixelburp

What a strange argument: design costs money; it doesn't matter whether it's a huge infographic, a brochure website - or 'just' a PDF of governmental financial stats. Professional design requires professional costs and professional work. At a minimum any legally binding document is going to involve designers, copywriters, proof-readers, and of course those involved with triple-checking the financial info is 100% correct. not to mention any printers if this info is going to be physically released. That takes time. That takes money.

What's the argument here? Just drop a USB fob to Snap printing and that should be good enough? Please. The same folk would then be banging the drum about slapdash, amateur hour government.

Squatter

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

"Translation and design"

I thought these were accounts? Just release them as a pdf file.

Hes not spending his own money is he :pac::pac:

There's no way that Pres Stumpy would miss the opportunity to throw a few bob at his cronies in the Irish Language Translation industry.

And the cunning old fraud is probably having it translated into Braille, Urdu and Klingon as well.

FreudianSlippers

Squatter wrote: »

There's no way that Pres Stumpy would miss the opportunity to throw a few bob at his cronies in the Irish Language Translation industry.

And the cunning old fraud is probably having it translated into Braille, Urdu and Klingon as well.

Yeah - why translate official State documents into the official State language?

:rolleyes:


It actually probably rightfully should be translated into Braille actually. Good point.

Squatter

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yeah - why translate official State documents into the official State language?

I suppose it all depends on what the point of publishing the information is in the first place.

If it's so Stumpy can reassure his critics that he hasn't squandered a cent of taxpayers' funds then evidently it needs only to be published in the vernacular.

But if it's being done mainly to pander to the gobsh1te demographic, then, as you wisely point out, it should be published in every language used in this all-singing, all-dancing, multi-cultural, abortion loving statelet of ours. :mad:

seamus

Printing official state documents in Irish is "pandering to multiculturalism" now. :rolleyes:

This has to be peak ridiculousness.

James Brown

seamus wrote: »

Printing official state documents in Irish is "pandering to multiculturalism" now. :rolleyes:

This has to be peak ridiculousness.

The Irish state printing a state document in English and Irish....the cheek

I would think printing a version in English was pandering to the multicultural demographic

Quin_Dub

Squatter wrote: »

I suppose it all depends on what the point of publishing the information is in the first place.

If it's so Stumpy can reassure his critics that he hasn't squandered a cent of taxpayers' funds then evidently it needs only to be published in the vernacular.

But if it's being done mainly to pander to the gobsh1te demographic, then, as you wisely point out, it should be published in every language used in this all-singing, all-dancing, multi-cultural, abortion loving statelet of ours. :mad:

##Mod Note##

Cut out the silly nicknames please.

Use peoples proper names.

Thanks

marieholmfan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Higgins was right, this line is sad.
I'm not sure what the end game is now that the election is over.

We have a right to know how money is spent!

James Brown

marieholmfan wrote: »

We have a right to know how money is spent!

We sure do. Completely agree.
Odd that it suddenly became a thing in the run up to the election though. Smacks of some misguided desperation to show what I don't know. Not sure what people are hoping to find and after the election what they hope to achieve?
Higgins is the current in a long line of these people we elected to that post. Any findings will say more about the office IMO.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We sure do. Completely agree.
Odd that it suddenly became a thing in the run up to the election though. Smacks of some misguided desperation to show what I don't know. Not sure what people are hoping to find and after the election what they hope to achieve?
Higgins is the current in a long line of these people we elected to that post. Any findings will say more about the office IMO.

Let's wait and see. All some of us have asked for is that the information is published. Nobody has criticised the expenditure because there has been nothing to see.

As pointed out already, Higgins has admitted to spending the money differently to his predecessor who had got the funding for a particular worthwhile project. So not all Presidents are the same, and not all findings will apply to the office rather than the person.

That being said, the money may very well have been spent on worthwhile causes.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's wait and see. All some of us have asked for is that the information is published. Nobody has criticised the expenditure because there has been nothing to see.

As pointed out already, Higgins has admitted to spending the money differently to his predecessor who had got the funding for a particular worthwhile project. So not all Presidents are the same, and not all findings will apply to the office rather than the person.

That being said, the money may very well have been spent on worthwhile causes.

What did his predecessor spend it on?

The current president has said what it has been spent on which to him are worthwhile projects.

AGC

marieholmfan wrote: »

We have a right to know how money is spent!

No one disagrees there

FreudianSlippers

Squatter wrote: »

I suppose it all depends on what the point of publishing the information is in the first place.

If it's so Stumpy can reassure his critics that he hasn't squandered a cent of taxpayers' funds then evidently it needs only to be published in the vernacular.

But if it's being done mainly to pander to the gobsh1te demographic, then, as you wisely point out, it should be published in every language used in this all-singing, all-dancing, multi-cultural, abortion loving statelet of ours. :mad:

I do love abortion! I don't really know what "it needs only to be published in the vernacular" means though - just an endless stream of numbers on an excel spreadsheet?

Squatter

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I do love abortion! I don't really know what "it needs only to be published in the vernacular" means though - just an endless stream of numbers on an excel spreadsheet?

Good point, mea culpa.

It was wrong of me to use the phrase "the vernacular" when writing about Higginz, given that he normally communicates by means of a prolix torrent of high-faluting, multilingual gibberish.

I should really have written "in the quotidian language used by the average wurking class citizen of dis grate Republic of ours".

An_Toirpin

AGC wrote: »

LNR has claimed approx. €200,000 un-audited from the EU since becoming an MEP which leads to what are SF TD's, Senators, councillors actually claiming behind their 'industrial wage' rubbish - the mess that she made of that in the debate will have a negative result on SF at election time.






Glossy brochure?

I will happily come on here and hold my hands up if money has been spent in an inappropriate manner but from what has been said I have no reason to believe it has been said. It is a nothing issue that people tried to make a big deal of which was rightly rejected at the polls.

There is a reason the President didn't engage with it when being questioned time and again because there was no need. He gave his answers and while others wanted to hear differently it didn't materialise.

Politicians have no business deciding on what is the necessary level of transparency in a democracy. There has to be input from journalism and constituents etc