nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

B Ahern interview - Banks, blame and the Pres Election

Sir Oxman

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/1028/1224282144477.html?digest=1

I don't think I have ever heard the "I blame myself" quote from his mouth but in this piece, it falls from his lips in relation to him not knowing the importance of 'keeping a tight rein' on financial institutions.
And he, the Taoiseach of the country at the time!
He qualifies this later on with 'The Central Bank reports but only what it wants to report.'

Then:
'“But who would suppose that people in such responsible positions, of huge experience, committed such culpable mistakes and didn’t exercise self-control?”

This is in regards to 'financial people' as he puts it yet he as Taoiseach, in such a responsible position, of huge experience, committed such culpable mistakes and he didn't excercise self-control.

I think Ahern is still living in bertieland where everyone and everything else is to blame - the guy contradicts himself left, right and centre, read this :

“I agree. . . that we were building too much; we believed that there would be buyers of properties forever "

On the point of why didn't his govt save on behalf of the nation when the pretend money was rolling in, a little more la-la land stuff from the man who can't believe the 'financial people' in such responsible positions could be such careless bastards with no self-control:

"From each side, from each politician, I heard constantly ‘spend, spend’ . . . I was criticised all the time that I spent too little.“If I had cut spending they would have crucified me.”

The contradictions abound.

And finally, on him and the Presidential election, seeing as he's so bored now and with little to do (intimated in the article):

“I am thinking about this. Now, it’s only an idea, but I wonder about running in the presidential elections.“Still, I have a lot of time to think about this; the election is not until 2011.”

So, he blames himself now for not realising one of his main duties was to watch over the economy and ensure proper governance of the financial system (I mean, he was an ex-MoF so what would he know...), that he was too cowardly and unintelligent to shout stop when throwing pretend money away based on what he admits was the govt belief that people would be buying property at hugely inflated prices with pretend money at the rate of knots forever and that he's now bored in his excessively salaried job, a job only 165* other people in this country have and one which can effect profound change on the whole country.
Bored??!
I don't think any ex-Taoiseach of this country has come across as such a boor and utter sleeveen as this speciman.
Not even his daddy, Haughey.

*Actually only 162 at the moment.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Do we really need to do this again ? Do you really need me to acknowledge your personal innocence every time I try to recognise the involvement of the broader population ?

I'll acknowledge that you accept my bona fides, and it's appreciated.

But you're making claims about "most" people, and dismissing other people's personal experiences and testimony.

I'm not that special, or amazing, or unique. So why is johngalway's testimony any less valid than mine ?

And if enough people had the same testimony and you accepted their bona fides, then would you finally start to accept that maybe, just maybe, it was a minority (maybe a sizeable minority, but a minority nonetheless) that significantly lost the run of themselves ?

I don't know first-hand whether or not it was, but you have to understand that the reason there's such a push against the collective words "we", "most of us", etc, is because people are dismissing personal testimonies which are more credible than most utterances that Ahern has come out with.

And forgive me if this is incorrect, but weren't you supporting Ahern for the presidency ?

How come you believe his "bona fides" and claims, and not johngalway's ?

P.S. There's also a massive difference between "losing the run of yourself" to the tune of an extra €50,000 on a mortgage and to the tune of a €500,000,000 loan that you don't pay back and get your mates in government to bail you out while the person footing the bill for the mortgage gets walloped with that bill on top of their own (agreed) commitments.

hallelujajordan

johngalway wrote: »

Oh right, only relevant if I agree with you

I look forward to more heavyweight posting of this nature.

The facts, as much as you dislike them, are that FF were in power, FF did the damage, and now FF are reaping the whirlwind FF has sown. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we're stuck in it without fat pensions, newspaper columns, TV ads and book deals.

Must be tough being Bert.

Its not irrelevant because you disagree with me. Its irrelevant because whether or not you personally overspent, took out a mortgage, went bankrupt etc doesn't really impact on our current position.

The fact is that enough people did all of those things to create our situation. Yes, they were enabled by poor economic policies and yes, FF have to accept culpability for that. I am a member of FF and I have no problem accepting that responsibility. But to blame FF or Bertie Ahern without recognising that broader responsibility is imo, just shortsighted.

johngalway

hallelujajordan wrote: »

But to blame FF or Bertie Ahern without recognising that broader responsibility is imo, just shortsighted.

And I did that where?

My point was I would not include myself in the broad sweep of people in your post, the infamous "we".

You need to accept that neither you nor your party speak for me.

NewHillel

gambiaman wrote: »

I think Ahern is still living in bertieland where everyone and everything else is to blame

But don't we all? Look at "Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me" , and then read the book. Having read it a number of times, all I can claim is that I attempt to challenge my justifications on a continuous basis. It's never easy, and often not sucessful!

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll acknowledge that you accept my bona fides, and it's appreciated.

But you're making claims about "most" people, and dismissing other people's personal experiences and testimony.

I'm not that special, or amazing, or unique. So why is johngalway's testimony any less valid than mine ?

And if enough people had the same testimony and you accepted their bona fides, then would you finally start to accept that maybe, just maybe, it was a minority (maybe a sizeable minority, but a minority nonetheless) that significantly lost the run of themselves ?

I don't know first-hand whether or not it was, but you have to understand that the reason there's such a push against the collective words "we", "most of us", etc, is because people are dismissing personal testimonies which are more credible than most utterances that Ahern has come out with.

And forgive me if this is incorrect, but weren't you supporting Ahern for the presidency ?

How come you believe his "bona fides" and claims, and not johngalway's ?

P.S. There's also a massive difference between "losing the run of yourself" to the tune of an extra €50,000 on a mortgage and to the tune of a €500,000,000 loan that you don't pay back and get your mates in government to bail you out while the person footing the bill for the mortgage gets walloped with that bill on top of their own (agreed) commitments.

I don't dismiss personal testimony. . I just believe that it is rather too easy and a little irrelevant to say "not my fault". We can all agree that it wasn't your fault and it wasn't Johngalways fault but, does that actually get us anywhere ? Fact is, a lot of people lost the run of themselves and on the one hand they created an economic bubble and on the other hand they kept in power the party that enabled them . .

Was this a 'majority' ? I honestly don't know, but looking at FG's policies at the time it is pretty clear that their supporters favoured a similar position. . .

btw, I don't support Bertie Ahern's bid for the presidency (i did in the past) and I don't question johngalways personal testimony. .

galwayrush

I thought my staff were talking about the latest Gift Grub this morning.
Words fail me to describe Bertie, well maybe one....Megalomania.

hallelujajordan

johngalway wrote: »

And I did that where?

My point was I would not include myself in the broad sweep of people in your post, the infamous "we".

You need to accept that neither you nor your party speak for me.

And I claimed you did that where ?

And where did I attempt to speak for you ?

johngalway

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Was this a 'majority' ? I honestly don't know, but looking at FG's policies at the time it is pretty clear that their supporters favoured a similar position. . .

More FF clap trap.

The opposition aren't to blame.

They weren't in power.

FF were. They made and implemented the policies.

Stop trying to pass the political buck.

johngalway

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And I claimed you did that where ?

And where did I attempt to speak for you ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

But to blame FF or Bertie Ahern without recognising that broader responsibility is imo, just shortsighted.

You attempted to speak for a lot of people.

hallelujajordan

johngalway wrote: »

More FF clap trap.

The opposition aren't to blame.

They weren't in power.

FF were. They made and implemented the policies.

Stop trying to pass the political buck.

I'm not . . that's ridiculous !!

I don't pass the buck. I blame Fianna Fail for the mistakes they made. As a member I take responsibility for those mistakes.

I blame Fianna Fail for the mistakes they made

I blame Fianna Fail for the mistakes they made

Are we clear now ?

The point I am trying to make is that the policies of a party represent the opinions and beliefs of their supporters. The fact that FG had similar economic policies means that it is logical to conclude that their supporters had similar economic beliefs.

hallelujajordan

johngalway wrote: »

You attempted to speak for a lot of people.

where ? ?

I speak only for myself !

Dublinman12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll acknowledge that you accept my bona fides, and it's appreciated.

But you're making claims about "most" people, and dismissing other people's personal experiences and testimony.

I'm not that special, or amazing, or unique. So why is johngalway's testimony any less valid than mine ?

And if enough people had the same testimony and you accepted their bona fides, then would you finally start to accept that maybe, just maybe, it was a minority (maybe a sizeable minority, but a minority nonetheless) that significantly lost the run of themselves ?

I don't know first-hand whether or not it was, but you have to understand that the reason there's such a push against the collective words "we", "most of us", etc, is because people are dismissing personal testimonies which are more credible than most utterances that Ahern has come out with.

And forgive me if this is incorrect, but weren't you supporting Ahern for the presidency ?

How come you believe his "bona fides" and claims, and not johngalway's ?

P.S. There's also a massive difference between "losing the run of yourself" to the tune of an extra €50,000 on a mortgage and to the tune of a €500,000,000 loan that you don't pay back and get your mates in government to bail you out while the person footing the bill for the mortgage gets walloped with that bill on top of their own (agreed) commitments.

Listen...Bertie is not even a qualified Accountant yet he was minster of Finance and also claims to kind of know what he's talking about when it comes to the government finances

....Just like when a person borrows too much money to buy a house...the government(through the banks) as soon as they had access to cheap money through entering the eurozone borrowed as much as they could get to give to developers to build houses to make profit which also lined the back pockets of many a t.d including Bertie...galway race tents and all that lark;)

Remember Liam Lawlor and the brown envelopes...these guys couldnt get enough money quick enough..pure greed...

To say its "our" own fault is ludricous!...If the so called minister of finance and then Taoiseach was relaying to the people that everything was booming and laughing off various economists advice instead promoting the property market..then there are going to be an awful lot of people that are going to take his word for it...he has a huge amount of personal responsibilty for this mess....it goes with the territory when you are the highest paid politician in Europe or even the world...we were being warned for years..!...and he/they completely ignored the warnings...

The exact same thing happened in Japan in the nineties....

He shouldnt be in government buildings whatsoever as shouldnt FF...we are a laughing stock...these guys are still getting paid vast sums of money

CoalBucket

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't dismiss personal testimony. . I just believe that it is rather too easy and a little irrelevant to say "not my fault".

Just like Bertie says

hallelujajordan wrote: »

btw, I don't support Bertie Ahern's bid for the presidency (i did in the past) and I don't question johngalways personal testimony. .

I really hope he runs for president so he can be absolutely destroyed in the election. That man is a disgrace.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

We can all agree that it wasn't your fault and it wasn't Johngalways fault but, does that actually get us anywhere ? Fact is, a lot of people lost the run of themselves and on the one hand they created an economic bubble and on the other hand they kept in power the party that enabled them . .

And until the blame and the damage is allocated appropriately, with those responsible being punished and money taken out of their pockets, there is going to be no chance of people accepting the cuts required.

That is why this government has failed so badly; in attempting a "divide and conquer" in order to deflect attention, they have raised people's hackles.

As I said before, I have no problem with proportional amounts of blame falling where they should; if someone has negative equity, that is THEIR problem - I probably have, but I bought a home, not a house, and since I was never going to sell it it's a "non-issue" in those terms.

But telling someone that they have to cope with the mortgages and additional taxes while the Seanie Fitzs and Johnny Ronans of this world shake hands with Ahern & Cowen in between flying off abroad, or hearing people on €200,000 a year claim that they are "bankrupt" is bound to get those who acted prudently to dig their heels in.

Answer me this : why should I pay a cent more in taxes in order for it to go into the cesspit that is Anglo ? What gives Lenihan the right to sign away my hard-earned cash ?

Why should I accept this as "the way to get Ireland out of this mess" when NO-ONE is being held accountable, they all get their fat pay packets (or can just declare bankruptcy a la David Drumm and get off with €200,000 a year with absolutely no comeback from those who are being forced by FF to foot the bill with no choice in the matter) ? Why should we believe a government that has gotten it all so terribly, terribly wrong and still thinks it's acceptable to grant "attendance expenses" to people who didn't even attend ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

btw, I don't support Bertie Ahern's bid for the presidency (i did in the past) and I don't question johngalways personal testimony. .

Good to hear.

thebman

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Was this a 'majority' ? I honestly don't know, but looking at FG's policies at the time it is pretty clear that their supporters favoured a similar position. . .

Its quite simple though, if FF didn't want to be blamed for making the decisions they should have not had it as its policy and let the opposition take the fodder they are now taking.

If your saying both parties were the same and everyone voted for FF because its a catchier name, I simply don't believe you.

There were differences between the parties and many people were screaming to put the brakes on as FF accelerated the train towards the bridge that was out.

Shea O'Meara

Bertie feels it was bad luck and he wasn't given the full facts, but he maybe should have kept a keener eye on things.

He failed in his role or knew and didn't give a ****. He seems to be an absentee TD and still believes he's popular enough to be President for something to do.
It's that straight forward.

What FG, my local shop keeper or a bus driver would have done is not relevant. The buck stops with those in power and ultimately their leader.

When the Celtic tiger kicked off I don't recall brainwashed FFail folk spouting, sure FG would be doing the same, sure we are all responsible, well done us.

People are responsible for their own finances, but if you are not a financial expert or even a level headed person when it comes to finances and the government are telling you to buy rings around you and the banks are throwing money at you, I've some sympathy. You're part of the problem but I will not lay any blame on you, especially if I was taoiseach or my beloved party were in power for decades.
Enough with the FFail 'we' bul****. It's easy to say FFail failed but....
FFail current indifference to the people en masse is only topped by this 'we' bile.
Disband your party and become a highwayman, it's more honest.

x in the city

gbee wrote: »

Let's all remember who the man BEHIND Haughey, who was the 'brains' Haughey had the guile and dare-I-say-it, charisma to pull it off ~ £3,000 shirts and who was 'laundering' the accounts?

did anyone watch the SAW franchise?

bertie should be the soul victim in one of its shows

too bad he isnt...:(:(

along with his FF wallys in the dail for the follow up episodes

, like that muppet dunphy was slating a while back on telly

Dannyboy83

What's all this 'we' bullsh1t I keep seeing?

Sorry to break it to you, but anyone born in 1980 or afterward had already missed the boat.
That's why David McWilliam's called it "The Generation Game".

I'm glad the pyramid has collapsed.:)

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't pass the buck. I blame Fianna Fail for the mistakes they made. As a member I take responsibility for those mistakes.

Define "take responsibility"

If I'm in someone's house and I break a lamp, I "take responsibility" and pay for it.

I don't force everyone who just happened to be unfortunate enough to be in the house at that moment to have a whip-round.

What happens when FF break an economy ?

Sir Oxman

NewHillel wrote: »

But don't we all? Look at "Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me" , and then read the book. Having read it a number of times, all I can claim is that I attempt to challenge my justifications on a continuous basis. It's never easy, and often not sucessful!

It certainly seems the bigger the monster fck-up the further the distance the perpetrator puts between him/her and it.

I find it horribly fascinating that this particular speciman can't keep his sleeveen trap shut and head down considering what he has done to a whole nation - but then I think he knows in this Banana Republic, he and his ilk are virtually untouchable within the current setup.

The whole system needs to be taken down, brick by brick and rebuilt and the likes of him made accountable.

Nothing less will do.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Define "take responsibility"

If I'm in someone's house and I break a lamp, I "take responsibility" and pay for it.

I don't force everyone who just happened to be unfortunate enough to be in the house at that moment to have a whip-round.

What happens when FF break an economy ?

You know how I define 'taking responsibility'. I've explained this before. It's about putting in place the necessary economic policies to correct the current economic situation. Yes, it involves transferring large swathes of debt from dying banks to the taxpayer and I don't like that any more than you, but I personally do not believe there is a real and credible alternative.

And your analogy is crazy. Are you suggesting that FF voters or members pay a higher rate of tax to account for their 'blame'? What about FG supporters who took out 100% mortgages that they can't now pay? Shall we create a blame index where everyone is rated and pays tax according to their behaviours ?

Your 'blame game' is fascinating but it achieves nothing !

gbee

gambiaman wrote: »

I find it horribly fascinating that this particular speciman can't keep his sleeveen trap shut --The whole system needs to be taken down, brick by brick Nothing less will do.

And he meddled in our moral life too. We all know too well how Bertie used his estranged marriage to push through divorce legislation, I know a lot of people expected Bertie to be FIRST in the queue when Divorce Came in, but no .... the snivilling little cow......

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

And your analogy is crazy. Are you suggesting that FF voters or members pay a higher rate of tax to account for their 'blame'? What about FG supporters who took out 100% mortgages that they can't now pay? Shall we create a blame index where everyone is rated and pays tax according to their behaviours ?

Your 'blame game' is fascinating but it achieves nothing !

Well that's where your wrong, really, and that is what is fundamentally wrong with FF.

If they had bailed out ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE then the natural folly of someone's choices would be the correct "blame index"; those who took on loans that were too big would be under the correct amount of pressure.

Yes, we need more tax due to Ahern's genius benchmarking, yes we need extra tax because no-one with a brain bases day-to-day spending on a capital windfall, but those taxes would be acceptable because there wouldn't be any sickening bailouts.

Lenihan is wasting my taxes, so therefore I don't want to pay him twice (stamp duty + property tax) and I don't want to pay him more (and if he decides to hit me another wallop in November I might just give him and his sorry, corrupt party the two fingers and either do as Ahern suggested I should a few years ago or else try to find a new country to live in that's fair and equitable.....Canada certainly seems like an option.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well that's where your wrong, really, and that is what is fundamentally wrong with FF.

If they had bailed out ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE then the natural folly of someone's choices would be the correct "blame index"; those who took on loans that were too big would be under the correct amount of pressure.

Not sure I understand you . . What part of my statement that the blame game achieves nothing is wrong ? And who has been bailed out ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

Lenihan is wasting my taxes, so therefore I don't want to pay him twice (stamp duty + property tax) and I don't want to pay him more (and if he decides to hit me another wallop in November I might just give him and his sorry, corrupt party the two fingers and either do as Ahern suggested I should a few years ago or else try to find a new country to live in that's fair and equitable.....Canada certainly seems like an option.

Bit insensitive Liam . . there are some who may well be in the situation you describe above and may contemplate what you believe Ahern suggested. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you are not one of them.

hallelujajordan

gbee wrote: »

And he meddled in our moral life too. We all know too well how Bertie used his estranged marriage to push through divorce legislation, I know a lot of people expected Bertie to be FIRST in the queue when Divorce Came in, but no .... the snivilling little cow......

I'm confused . . Bertie is now responsible for pushing through divorce legislation even though we voted for such change in a constitutional referendum ? ? ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Not sure I understand you . . What part of my statement that the blame game achieves nothing is wrong ? And who has been bailed out ?

If blame is allocated correctly and fairly then people don't object or get defensive and are more open to pulling together.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Bit insensitive Liam . . there are some who may well be in the situation you describe above and may contemplate what you believe Ahern suggested. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you are not one of them.

That depends on which of his suggestions - to throw in your own dismissive caveat - "you believe" I am referring to. What if I were talking about getting off the sidelines and actually running for office in order to make some bit of a change in how this banana republic is run ?

I know I discounted it before because of the level of frustration and ulcers that daily dealings with some corrupt incompetents might incur, but it looks like I'm going to get those anyway due to Lenihan & Co.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If blame is allocated correctly and fairly then people don't object or get defensive and are more open to pulling together.

That depends on which of his suggestions - to throw in your own dismissive caveat - "you believe" I am referring to. What if I were talking about getting off the sidelines and actually running for office in order to make some bit of a change in how this banana republic is run ?

I know I discounted it before because of the level of frustration and ulcers that daily dealings with some corrupt incompetents might incur, but it looks like I'm going to get those anyway due to Lenihan & Co.

I doubt thats what you meant but I hope so . . I am sure you would be an asset to Leinster House.. (honestly, no sarcasm intended)

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I doubt thats what you meant but I hope so . . I am sure you would be an asset to Leinster House.. (honestly, no sarcasm intended)

The "get out of this corrupt ****hole, enough vested interests will ensure it never improves" urge is still the over-riding one, but I'll keep you posted.

I take no pleasure or one-upmanship from calling Ireland that, because I used to love this little country of ours, and lots of its people and quirks, and have just gotten settled in a home that means a lot to me.....somewhere that the phrase "property ladder" never tainted.

jmayo

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't dismiss personal testimony. . I just believe that it is rather too easy and a little irrelevant to say "not my fault". We can all agree that it wasn't your fault and it wasn't Johngalways fault but, does that actually get us anywhere ? Fact is, a lot of people lost the run of themselves and on the one hand they created an economic bubble and on the other hand they kept in power the party that enabled them . .

Was this a 'majority' ? I honestly don't know, but looking at FG's policies at the time it is pretty clear that their supporters favoured a similar position. . .

btw, I don't support Bertie Ahern's bid for the presidency (i did in the past) and I don't question johngalways personal testimony. .

I find it hard to gve any credance to a ffer posting on the capabilities or otherwise of bertie when he started a thread to discuss bringing him back as leader.

Please note the highlighted section...

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056023045&highlight=bertie+bring+back

Bring Back Bertie ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

So, bear with me . . .

Interesting article in yesterdays Sindo by John Drennan arguing that Bertie Ahern might be a more appropriate leader for todays times than the current FF leadership . .

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-drennan/john-drennan-hes-heroic-smart-and-cunning-so-why-not-bring-back-bertie-2325241.html

When the tribunal finds (as Im confident it will) that Ahern has no case to answer then I see no reason why not to put him back into the Taoiseach's chair. . .

For those of us who support the man . . we know that Bertie would arguably be more communicative, more visible, more capable of dealing with the current crisis than Brian Cowen.

For those who villify him and who blame him for all that is wrong in our country today, how better to punish him than to make him stand front and centre and deal with the mess that you believe he created . . or as Drennan puts it . .

"But returning Ahern to office would be the political equivalent of community service for on every working day the Taoiseach would be confronted with the consequences of his policies and told "You had better sort this one out too, Bertie". "

Let's not turn this thread into a rehash of all the old issues. . . there has been enough of that and we all know where each other stands. . .

The question is, In the current circumstances is there merit to bringing back Bertie Ahern to lead the country out of the quagmire ? ? ?

Liam Byrne

jmayo wrote: »

I find it hard to gve any credance to a ffer posting on the capabilities or otherwise of bertie when he started a thread to discuss bringing him back as leader.

To be fair, hallelujajordan has said that they have since seen the error of their ways on that particular topic.

Now if that can happen, maybe we can also get across the fact that laying a blanket blame on every man, woman and child and forcing them to contribute to the Anglo cesspit is also not on.