The new Rotten Boroughs

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand.

On the one hand you have a TD that works on a national level, realising he doesn't need the 90k, so he gives a lot away to local groups.

On the otheryou have ministers and other TD's gobbling up as much money as possible.

Yes, you could say he's buying votes, but we livein a free democracy, if people don't want him to help out, they vote someone else in.

I'm pointing out that this so-called altruism has a less than sunny side and putting that out for debate. More politicians are at this than Ming and I feel that it is a disingenuous way of using State money.
Political salaries should not be some race to the bottom auction, otherwise we end up with people who will work for free in persuit of some future gain.
I'm for transparancy and integrity in politics, I don't give a damn if it is Ming or any other TD doing it.

]It appears you have a massive chip on your shoulder regarding Ming, why?

Based on what? My criticism of a publicly elected official who flouts the law of the country?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If I am not mistaken, from what I recall of some of his/her previous postings the OP has a massive chip on their shoulder about rural Ireland.

Nice, Ad Hominem attack. WTF has this to do with rural ireland?

BQQ wrote: »

+1
How many threads has the OP started about Ming at this stage

Four. Excessive you think?

If he has some personal issues with Mr. Flanagan, I wish he'd go and work through them somewhere else and not clog up this board with endless sniping threads.

If you have an issue with my threads, please report them to the mods.

SeanW wrote: »

I don't understand OP - a public representative claims that ALL politicans are overpaid, so rather than agree or disagree that they are overpaid, you excoriate the original claimant for doing something useful with his "overpayment" which you seem neither to agree nor disagree exists, but yet, he should be regluated on how he spends his phantom surplus to prevent him doing something useful with it as opposed to the rest of the politicians, but he (and the rest of the political class) may or may not be overpaid

I seem to be missing something here.

You are. The effect of spending State funds that have not been allocated to projects in the public representatives constituency which are expropriated by the TD in order tp popularise his term of office. Nothing phantom about a surplus when someone announces they do not need the salary, yet continues to draw it. We also have the potential that a proportion of that foregone salary is diverted back to the TD unbeknowns to the electorate.

If any politician states he doesn't need half his salary, fine. Great in fact. Let's not pay it. But paying it, and then pretending he is doing something great by giving it away is just a joke frankly.

Let's say a Govt Dept conducts a cost cutting exercise and determines that it no longer needs 50% of the funds it received last year. Fantastic, but what it if it still drew those funds and the executives decided to go on a nice cruise with the 50% they didn't need. Not so fantastic.

TDs who get up to this attention-seeking should have their salaries cut by the declared amount, but in my view, should not get the additional benefit of splashing the cash in their constituency.

TrueIt wrote: »

Ming only has good intentions in mind for the people who voted him in.

He's a saint I'm sure. He's not very good at following laws however.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

A lack of make up is hardly stopping her from doing her job properly and SF average industrial wage policy is well established and known about. its not as if they springed it on her. plus, it has nothing to do with your "rotten borough" accusations, just nothing. its a totally different subject, but sure throw it in there anyway if it gives you your RDA of shinner bashing

Shinner bashing? How am I doing that?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The other posts have an at best tenuous link to your "rotten borough" accusations, the SF one has absolutely nothing to do with it, yet you felt the need to stick it in there anyway. It's pretty clear what you were at.

Clear what I was at? You've lost me. I'm highlighting an political trick that runs across FG, Independents and SF.

I think you might be a bit sensitive about defending SF. I'm not attacking them.

Of course it does. The thread is about TDs announcing that they will not take their full salary (as SF TDs announce) and the TD or the party deciding where the remainder of the salary is spent.

I fail to see how you miss the connection...

the party’s policy of only paying its TDs €34,000 a year while taking the rest of their salary for the party’s use.

is in the first paragraph.