So Michael D IS running again!

AGC

An_Toirpin wrote: »

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

Dont disagree with that at all. Sure if it wasn’t for journalists, FOI etc... we wouldn’t know half the sh*t

Think the president was quite open and happy about this happening.

realdanbreen

So what(in plain language) IS the story with Michael D's expenses?
How much , what was it spent on etc etc.s

AGC

So it’s been spent on exactly what was said and no where near the €317.000 was spent.

For Forks Sake

realdanbreen wrote: »

So what(in plain language) IS the story with Michael D's expenses?
How much , what was it spent on etc etc.s

https://issuu.com/arasanuachtarain/docs/the_presidency_in_review

Knock yourself out, p 35-40 are the ones detailing expenditure.
Under the 317k every year 2011-2018, the balance being returned to the state.

FrancieBrady

As suspected, nothing to see here.
Try as they did, they couldn't blacken a man's name. They insinuated aplenty though.

expectationlost

theres not enough detail to see much of anything

James Brown

expectationlost wrote: »

theres not enough detail to see much of anything

We know the office, important to note it's the office, underspent and will be returning money and that it all went on official business. Also it's the first time they've released figures, ever. So while I wouldn't give Higgins full credit for how the office managed the monies, it's plain to see there was no impropriety on his end.
Thankfully the scaremongering didn't skupper his re-election.

pixelburp

Some more detail would have been nice, but there's enough there to make it clear there were no falsehoods or overspending conducted by the office.

Can that be it then? Feels like every possible angle to discredit or disparage Higgins / the Office has been exhausted. Public vigilance in our elected representatives is hugely vital, but at this stage anything else just feels like reaching for an excuse to criticise the man.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

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

This has to be peak ridiculousness.

If you want ridiculousness look North.

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/about-the-assembly/general-information/information-leaflets/ulster-scots/

Plenarie sessions bes helt Monandeys an Tuesdeys. Thay ar braidcuist live on the Assemblies wabsteid. Ye can leuk at a plenarie session frae the Public Gallerie, at owreleuks the Chaumber.

Plenary sessions are held on Mondays and Tuesdays. They are broadcast live on the Assembly’s website. You can watch a plenary session from the Public Gallery that overlooks the Chamber.

Hotblack Desiato

What do you want, expectationlost? Receipts? Photocopies of flight tickets and hotel bills?

FFS like.

Why don't you look at unvouched expenses for MEPs if you want to complain about something.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What do you want, expectationlost? Receipts? Photocopies of flight tickets and hotel bills?

more transparency, bury people in it, bore the **** out of them with detail, most things are electronic now its easier to do

Ken Foxe pointed to this https://thestory.ie/2018/07/19/luxury-rugs-cars-and-a-juicer-rental-how-the-dfa-spent-taxpayers-money-in-2017/

An_Toirpin

pixelburp wrote: »

Some more detail would have been nice, but there's enough there to make it clear there were no falsehoods or overspending conducted by the office.

Can that be it then? Feels like every possible angle to discredit or disparage Higgins / the Office has been exhausted. Public vigilance in our elected representatives is hugely vital, but at this stage anything else just feels like reaching for an excuse to criticise the man.

He is the president. That is the job! Plus he received far less criticism than any other prominent politican, despite debasing his constitutional role.

mickdw

The fact that the surplus funds were not returned and no previous mention of funds for return over the years is highly suspicious imo.
Looking in from the outside, it looks like the full allowance was drawdown time and again despite not spending it all in the previous years. The surplus was then never returned to state until now after the spending is queried.
Is it not possible that what is now being recorded as surplus for return was infact spending that cannot be reasonably claimed as legit expense but without this audit of sorts might never have been declared as surplus.
Drawing down excessive funds year in, year out to leave sitting in an account over 7 years is in itself poor management of state funds.

expectationlost

mickdw wrote: »

The fact that the surplus funds were not returned and no previous mention of funds for return over the years is highly suspicious imo.
Looking in from the outside, it looks like the full allowance was drawdown time and again despite not spending it all in the previous years. The surplus was then never returned to state until now after the spending is queried.
Is it not possible that what is now being recorded as surplus for return was infact spending that cannot be reasonably claimed as legit expense but without this audit of sorts might never have been declared as surplus.
Drawing down excessive funds year in, year out to leave sitting in an account over 7 years is in itself poor management of state funds.

is it drawing down or receiving?



McAleese didn't return her allowance till the end of her second term https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mcaleese-returns-more-than-500-000-in-allowances-1.513118

AGC

mickdw wrote: »

The fact that the surplus funds were not returned and no previous mention of funds for return over the years is highly suspicious imo.
Looking in from the outside, it looks like the full allowance was drawdown time and again despite not spending it all in the previous years. The surplus was then never returned to state until now after the spending is queried.
Is it not possible that what is now being recorded as surplus for return was infact spending that cannot be reasonably claimed as legit expense but without this audit of sorts might never have been declared as surplus.
Drawing down excessive funds year in, year out to leave sitting in an account over 7 years is in itself poor management of state funds.

What is highly suspicious?

It is an allowance payable every year and surplus will be returned this year. No different to people who make voluntary salary contributions, full amount is paid and then a % paid back.

You can’t just pick and choose what is predetermined.

Topgear on Dave

AGC wrote: »

What is highly suspicious?

It is an allowance payable every year and surplus will be returned this year. No different to people who make voluntary salary contributions, full amount is paid and then a % paid back.

You can’t just pick and choose what is predetermined.

Money shouldn't be drawn down from limited exchequer funds unless it is needed.

There shouldn't be a multi-year delay in returning unspent funds either.

expectationlost

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Money shouldn't be drawn down from limited exchequer funds unless it is needed.

There shouldn't be a multi-year delay in returning unspent funds either.

the argument is that the president has certain amount of independence and he shouldn't have to go asking the MOF every time he wants to spend some money

mickdw

expectationlost wrote: »

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Money shouldn't be drawn down from limited exchequer funds unless it is needed.

There shouldn't be a multi-year delay in returning unspent funds either.

the argument is that the president has certain amount of independence and he shouldn't have to go asking the MOF every time he wants to spend some money

But if he had something like 200k surplus after 6 years, any reasonable person would say that they would draw down 100k for year 7 in full knowledge that the remaining 217k is still available to be drawdown without explanation should it be needed.
Having said all that, if Mary McAleese did similar, perhaps it just how things are done there but I'd suggest it should change.

AGC

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Money shouldn't be drawn down from limited exchequer funds unless it is needed.

There shouldn't be a multi-year delay in returning unspent funds either.

Limited? Look at every other government department or office, this figure is tiny in comparison and is never been fully spent, look at how money is wasted or additional funds are provided in every other area. If budgets are not being spent they will ensure they are fully spent to receive them again the following year.

140,000 people visited the Aras in the first term, using that €317,000 that is less than €16 per person and even less when you count in the money being returned.

The bigger issue with the public funds being spent IMO is the centenarian bounty. €2,440 is a crazy amount.

blanch152

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?



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.

Well, it seems the outcome was a glossy brochure, long on verbiage and self-congratulation and short on actual figures that can be analysed. Says it all about Higgins really.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, it seems the outcome was a glossy brochure, long on verbiage and self-congratulation and short on actual figures that can be analysed. Says it all about Higgins really.

Can't please everyone.

The office has gone above and beyond in releasing figures they simply do not have to release - What else do you want?

blanch152

AGC wrote: »

Can't please everyone.

The office has gone above and beyond in releasing figures they simply do not have to release - What else do you want?

Something like this would be useful:

https://thestory.ie/2018/07/19/luxury-rugs-cars-and-a-juicer-rental-how-the-dfa-spent-taxpayers-money-in-2017/

If DFA can do it, why can't the Presidency?

Glossy brochure = whitewash.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

Something like this would be useful:

https://thestory.ie/2018/07/19/luxury-rugs-cars-and-a-juicer-rental-how-the-dfa-spent-taxpayers-money-in-2017/

If DFA can do it, why can't the Presidency?

Glossy brochure = whitewash.

That is a straight print out from the accounts system which gives you no more information than what was given by the Aras, where the additional info came from in that article is the FOI. They could easily do that but you would have a moan if that was what was produced from the Aras, account codes etc - also that is in reply to an FOI, what was published yesterday originated in the Aras, it didn't have to be done, so of course the office was going to justify the spending.

If 1 Department is good for glossy brochure's it's DFA.

blanch152

AGC wrote: »

That is a straight print out from the accounts system which gives you no more information than what was given by the Aras, where the additional info came from in that article is the FOI. They could easily do that but you would have a moan if that was what was produced from the Aras, account codes etc - also that is in reply to an FOI, what was published yesterday originated in the Aras, it didn't have to be done, so of course the office was going to justify the spending.

If 1 Department is good for glossy brochure's it's DFA.

Great, let's see that print-out then.

Hotblack Desiato

An_Toirpin wrote: »

despite debasing his constitutional role.

What??

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

Ken Foxe pointed to this https://thestory.ie/2018/07/19/luxury-rugs-cars-and-a-juicer-rental-how-the-dfa-spent-taxpayers-money-in-2017/

It's as if people expect our embassies to be little kips furnished with secondhand Ikea or something.

At least they didn't go on about the DFA's vintage wine cellar, this time.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

Great, let's see that print-out then.

What additional information from the DFA print out is not provided?

seamus

mickdw wrote: »

The fact that the surplus funds were not returned and no previous mention of funds for return over the years is highly suspicious imo.
Looking in from the outside, it looks like the full allowance was drawdown time and again despite not spending it all in the previous years. The surplus was then never returned to state until now after the spending is queried.

Any surplus is never returned until the end of the president's term. It provides leeway for any given President to balance their needs over the entire term of their Presidency rather than year-to-year.

Actually illustrated perfectly in this report in 2014. Had the accumulated surplus not been held onto, the President would have had to go and ask the MOF for five grand, despite having underspent by nearly 100 grand in the previous two years.

This is incredibly barrel-scraping stuff.

richiepurgas

A story that is on life support.

James Brown

richiepurgas wrote: »

A story that is on life support.

And if you complain about live action government policy as it happens some would accuse you of bias