Brendan Bendar wrote: » All day and all night John, I have to chuckle ,John, when I hear these handpumps looking for evidence on stuff. Very reticent when asked for evidence on the issues you quite rightly point out. Like who actually runs the show. Not those two boilers MLMDor MO’ N..... Not in a million years.
efanton wrote: » So you demand evidence for claims, but yet you seem to provide non when making claims yourself. Hypocrite or what?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Says Brendan who has been insinuating stuff about others since joining. That gave me a giggle.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » First one you had since the middle of March,Francesco. Hammering the keyboard up in the Square since then. Must be a team leader by now surely.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Funny how the 'All Day Crew' around here are so quick to ask for evidence when someone suggest Adams was top dog in the IRA, or that SF owning 50 properties and having 200 staff might be a bit suspicious, but when asked for evidence themselves they start humming, hawing, and trying to do the online equivalent of 'look over there, it's a lion!'. They are hopping mad these days. Class to see. :cool:
Mortelaro wrote: » No specific's given by you Please state the evidence for your allegations Have you any at all Otherwise I'm the queen of sheba Theres no evidence but I am
Brendan Bendar wrote: » I don’t ‘demand’ anything, buddy. What “claims” do I make that demand evidence, dude. The operative word here, horse, is “claims”.
Varadkar told his TDs last night it is likely to be next week before a programme can be agreed, if it can be agreed. But some came away from that meeting feeling downbeat about the chances of a deal getting done at all.
efanton wrote: » looks like FG are getting very jittery. As per topic heading FG have spent nearly 150 days since the election result were announced doing a little as possible and delaying as much as possible and it looks like their delaying tactics are now going to bite them in the ar$e hard.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/programme-for-government-must-include-fiscal-responsibility-varadkar-1.4269097https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/next-week-before-programme-for-government-likely-to-be-agreed--varadkar-1003142.html Leo thought he could play hardball with both FF and the Green's hoping they would roll over at the last minute and still form a government in time for important legislation to be put before the Dail. It now looks likely that no government will be formed, and Leo has already gone into damage limitation mode, rolling out the first of many excuses as to why FG could not compromise nor reach a consensus with his would be coalition partners. With no agreement this week, and it unlikely a government can be formed, given that a postal vote will take up to two weeks for a postal vote to take place for the FG FF and Green parties, there are now only a matter of days. a week at most for him to form a government. At this stage I think the Green's will double down on Leo's hardball tactics and play it out until the very last minute, and even then its looking like they will not give ground on a few issues. So the only question left to ask is when does he take a trip to the Park and admit he has failed to from a government, and ask the President call for a new election. No doubt he will delay and do nothing ( a bit of a theme forming here), for the next week and wait till the last minute on Friday week. We will see then if FG get 35% of the vote, I highly doubt it. Roll on GE2.
Bishop of hope wrote: » So the FF SF Govt is off too? The greens might get involved in that round of fornication too if it gains traction, but I wonder how many of their reps want an election either. FF and the greens have both lost ground in the polls, I'd say there will be a deal done myself now, but FG will be aware that if they give too much to the greens they will vex their rural base. That might just be the biggest stumbling block.
Bowie wrote: » FF wouldn't even wear talks with SF so can't see that. Mind MM might be pretty desperate and push for it. I think it would knock SF way back next election. They'd lose my vote any way.
PommieBast wrote: » I thought it was more MM personally rather than FF as a whole who were against joining SF, so was expecting him to be pushed aside by now.
Bowie wrote: » Really? I wasn't sure seemed he was keen but got knocked back. You could be right but he strikes me as a desperate man short on time.
efanton wrote: » There is a large section of FF that openly support the idea of a SF/FF coalition. But large certainly does not mean majority. If FF take another hammering during an election then they are more likely to be open to a SF/FF coalition, but then you have the problem of SF gaining seats, FF losing seats and together not having the 80 seats between them. If there is a leadership contest within FF, which seems inevitable, I think its going to become quickly clear whether a SF/FF coalition is even possible. My personal opinion is by openly admitting that a SF coalition is possible FF would save the seats they have and might even increase seats. It would all depend on the leadership contest within FF and what falls out of that.
efanton wrote: » I mean put it this way, which parties have something to lose if another election happens. It's a very short list FF and FG.
PommieBast wrote: » If voting patterns remained the same SF running more candidates would at the very least decimate PBP, and probably cost Greens/SD a few TDs as well.
Edgware wrote: » An election now will throw up a completely different result. There's no guarantee that Sf will increase and Fg will pull back lost seats.
efanton wrote: » especially if there was a pre-agreed transfer policy between parties that would support a SF government.
Topgear on Dave wrote: » Which parties will support a SF government? If there are any they have been awful quiet lately?
efanton wrote: » SF do own a lot of the offices used by their representatives. What of it? All bought from declared and perfectly legal donations, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Of course having constituency offices and support in all 32 counties of Ireland helps too. How many constituency offices does FG have in the six counties being that the official FG title is Fine Gael - United Ireland Party. I'm surprised FG don't own more of their own offices being that they have more support from property developers. Its certainly not due to lack of funds. Why rent when you can buy, unless of course you might feel there might not be need of them in the future. What really galls you is more likely that SF seem to be getting not only more public support in the polling booth but increasing financial support too. That £1.5 million donation from Billy Hampton might even buy a few more offices.
efanton wrote: » SF had huge surpluses, and they went absolutely nowhere. In a few constituencies they might have run a second candidate but in the majority the surpluses simply would not have been big enough to warrant a second candidate.
I would be extremely surprised if another election is called that there will not be a very comprehensive and clearly signalled transfer policy between SF and other parties that would be agreeable to a SF coalition.
PommieBast wrote: » Two such seats were Dublin SC and Dublin SW, where a 2nd SF candidates will have taken PBP's seats. Of the other three PBP seats Dun Laoghaire is the only one I would consider safe. I do wonder if such a thing existed at the last election because of the seats I looked at a lot of PBP transfers were indeed to SF as well as vice-versa. However I do note that PBP has sent open letters to SF regarding coalitions, but to my knowledge these have gone unanswered.
efanton wrote: » The simple truth is the way Irish State tenders work is quite quirky. I have experience of this, working in a team that provided IT security solutions to every county council in the country. The best price is not the only factor regarding the award of a contract. If you can offer additional support for instance any time any day for instance, or other additional benefits you could possibly still win a tender even though your price was not the lowest.
The point I am making here is simple, the more experience you have of submitting tenders, the more knowledge you have of how tenders are awarded, the better your chances are of winning a tender. If DOB has extensive prior knowledge of how the tender system works and has additional knowledge that might not be immediately apparent to others but is still available to them, it is more likely that he will win a tender than another bidder that has less experience or knowledge.
Obviously DOB has many contacts, and can draw on many knowledgeable sources within government and in the public sector. and it would not be illegal for him to be be provided additional information as long as that information was available to all other tenderer, but sometimes that information is not easy to find.
Did DOB bribe a public representative in the mobile phone license tender, of course he did, there absolute proof of that. In fact FG publicly published account show that sums of money and political donations were returned to ESAT short after that donation was paid to FG and was made public. Somehow though that donation still made it way to FG at a later stage. Michael Lowry is now a convicted criminal, due to this bribery.
Did DOB bribe is subsequent tenders? well there is no evidence of that.
Making the sort of accusations is a really silly thing to do for those that are making them. If there is no provable evidence, then you cant make the claim.
However as stated earlier with extensive knowledge of how the tendering system works, and what additional technical and after sales support offered might significantly improve the chance of success with a particular tender, there might not be a need to for bribes.
Those that game the system for social welfare supports are not breaking the law they just understand the system better. The same goes for business. Those that know how to game the system, be it tenders, tax, government supports whatever have a distinct advantage, and although what they do might be considered in a grey area, it is not illegal.
Provide the evidence and you probably will see not only criminal persecutions, but political head roll and possibly a government fall. Without evidence then you are resorting to the same tactics as those that claim the IRA are somehow in control of SF, or that certain past TD's were past members of the IRA. Its the same argument, accusations without evidence, and without evidence they simply should not be made even if you believe them to be true.