Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The new Rotten Boroughs

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I assume you sign an agreement when you get nominated. If you get elected on a SF ticket and then defect...could be interesting.


  • Options
    #33
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    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...



    is in the first paragraph.

    No, you're being disingenuous here. Youve opted to name the thread "new rotten boroughs" and in your opening sentence accused people who dont take their full salary of buying votes.
    That's a whole different discussion from what you've outlined above and it's also one that, despite the fact that it's clearly nothing more than your frankly skewed opinion, you've just decided to state as a fact from the starting point of the thread.
    You havent opened up any discussion here, all you've done is gone off on a rant here about some politicians you dont like and thrown some totally unsubstantiated claims on top of that.


  • Options
    #34
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    No, you're being disingenuous here. Youve opted to name the thread "new rotten boroughs" and in your opening sentence accused people who dont take their full salary of buying votes.
    That's a whole different discussion from what you've outlined above and it's also one that, despite the fact that it's clearly nothing more than your frankly skewed opinion, you've just decided to state as a fact from the starting point of the thread.
    You havent opened up any discussion here, all you've done is gone off on a rant here about some politicians you dont like and thrown some totally unsubstantiated claims on top of that.

    I'm questioning the whole tactic of buying votes via this mechanism of 'discount' TDs who supposedly do not take a full salary.

    The three examples I gave were Ming and his 'projects', a FG TD 'buying' and extra teacher for a school, and SF making TDs only take 34k a year and subverting the rest into party funds.

    My proposition very clear - that TDs should either take the full salary, or return a portion to State funds and that parliamentary rules prohibit publicity proclaiming that TDs are not drawing a full salary when in fact they are drawing the full salary and allowances.

    Feel free to discuss that, but I'm done with your nitpicking about SF, I'm not sure why you are so defensive about them.


  • Options
    #35
    Padraig Mor
    Registered Users Posts: 9,540 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    One aspect that goes unmentioned with these TDs is pension contributions - given their silence, I think it's fair to assume they will accrue pension benefits based on their FULL salary.


  • Options
    #36
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    I'm questioning the whole tactic of buying votes via this mechanism of 'discount' TDs who supposedly do not take a full salary.

    The three examples I gave were Ming and his 'projects', a FG TD 'buying' and extra teacher for a school, and SF making TDs only take 34k a year and subverting the rest into party funds.

    My proposition very clear - that TDs should either take the full salary, or return a portion to State funds and that parliamentary rules prohibit publicity proclaiming that TDs are not drawing a full salary when in fact they are drawing the full salary and allowances.

    Feel free to discuss that, but I'm done with your nitpicking about SF, I'm not sure why you are so defensive about them.

    Look, forget SF, I only mentioned that link specifically because it was by far the most tenuous of the links provided. My issue is that you've skipped completely over whether or not these people are indeed "buying votes" as you claim. You've set that up as an established fact and asked us to have a discussion beyond this, it's preposterous.

    Setting aside your thoroughly unsubstantiated accusation of vote buying, the salary is given to TDs for performing a service. It really is up to them what to do with it.
    If some of them choose to channel this money back into their own constituencies, terrific. I dont see what difference a few hundred thousand would make to the central pot but I'm sure the people of certain constituencies appreciate their new road signs etc...
    Perhaps we're just so used to seeing corrupt, self-promoting career politicians here that when someone comes along with a shred of principle some of us cant help but assume the worst.
    If nothing else, those who dont take their full salary are highlighting the ludicrous salaries paid in Leinster House, which can only be a good thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Padraig Mor wrote: »
    One aspect that goes unmentioned with these TDs is pension contributions - given their silence, I think it's fair to assume they will accrue pension benefits based on their FULL salary.

    and? It's not an Im-poorer-than-you competition. It's a principled stand.
    I can't believe that after the way we've seen politicians act in this country, not only are we seeing FF back on the rise, but people are actually nitpicking over the handful of TDs that arent self-serving career politicians.


  • Options
    #38
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Look, forget SF, I only mentioned that link specifically because it was by far the most tenuous of the links provided. My issue is that you've skipped completely over whether or not these people are indeed "buying votes" as you claim. You've set that up as an established fact and asked us to have a discussion beyond this, it's preposterous.

    Setting aside your thoroughly unsubstantiated accusation of vote buying, the salary is given to TDs for performing a service. It really is up to them what to do with it.
    If some of them choose to channel this money back into their own constituencies, terrific. I dont see what difference a few hundred thousand would make to the central pot but I'm sure the people of certain constituencies appreciate their new road signs etc...
    Perhaps we're just so used to seeing corrupt, self-promoting career politicians here that when someone comes along with a shred of principle some of us cant help but assume the worst.
    If nothing else, those who dont take their full salary are highlighting the ludicrous salaries paid in Leinster House, which can only be a good thing.

    You think it is done for principle, I'm pretty sure it is done to ensure re-election.

    I'd lay 100-1 if you forced these politicians to take their full salary or hand the rest back to State funds, the tune would change.

    It's especially ironic in a system that allows €40k of unvouched expenses.


  • Options
    #39
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    and? It's not an Im-poorer-than-you competition. It's a principled stand.

    Really? Is that why there was almost a bidding war in the last Presidential election?
    I can't believe that after the way we've seen politicians act in this country, not only are we seeing FF back on the rise,

    You are suggesting that my point encourages FF??
    but people are actually nitpicking over the handful of TDs that arent self-serving career politicians.

    If by pointing out that taking a public salary cut and still drawing the same salary is disingenuous in the extreme then yes I'm 'nitpicking'.


  • Options
    #40
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    You think it is done for principle, I'm pretty sure it is done to ensure re-election.

    Why are you sure? Where is your evidence? I fail to see how funneling wages which you have acknowledged are too high into your constituency is a bad thing. Like I said, Ming's few extra grand isnt going to make a difference to the central pot but the road signs sure will to the people of his constituency. Isnt he elected by them to work for them. If this is the case you could argue that any politician who does anything for his constituency is "buying votes" to ensure reelection.
    MadsL wrote: »
    I'd lay 100-1 if you forced these politicians to take their full salary or hand the rest back to State funds, the tune would change.
    Whose tune? The politician's or the voters'?
    Either way, I'd take that bet and spend my winnings on a fancy new hat.
    MadsL wrote: »
    It's especially ironic in a system that allows €40k of unvouched expenses.

    How exactly are they unvouched. During the Presidential and Westminster elections SF released statements and documents showing all their representatives expenses to be vouched.
    I don't know about other parties or TDs in the Dail but if extra expenses are incurred in the execution of their duties it's not totally unreasonable that these should be covered. If individual TDs abuse this they should be dealt with accordingly but insinuating that certain TDs are on the pig's back while buying votes is just a lie.


  • Options
    #41
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    Really? Is that why there was almost a bidding war in the last Presidential election?

    It certainly got a bit ridiculous during the PResidential election but again, if politicians are going to do something useful with their bloated salaries I don't see the problem.
    MadsL wrote: »
    You are suggesting that my point encourages FF??

    I was referring to a post by another poster and making the point that there is serious political reform needed in this country yet some people seem to be obsessed with scrutinising the few TDs who appear to be doing something positive with their wages. Surely this behaviour should be encouraged, not hounded until it gets to the point where people are punished for it.
    MadsL wrote: »
    If by pointing out that taking a public salary cut and still drawing the same salary is disingenuous in the extreme then yes I'm 'nitpicking'.

    Who does this? Your point and the point of this thread seems to change post to post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    It certainly got a bit ridiculous during the PResidential election but again, if politicians are going to do something useful with their bloated salaries I don't see the problem.

    The problem is that it is a handy way to circumvent (re)election spending limits.
    I was referring to a post by another poster and making the point that there is serious political reform needed in this country yet some people seem to be obsessed with scrutinising the few TDs who appear to be doing something positive with their wages. Surely this behaviour should be encouraged, not hounded until it gets to the point where people are punished for it.

    Oh we should encourage relinquishing salaries alright, what we should discourage is personal slush funds funded by the taxpayer.
    Who does this? Your point and the point of this thread seems to change post to post.

    Nope. That's been the case all along.

    Ming draws a full salary and then funds 'projects'
    Our FG friend draws a fully salary and gives half to the school
    SF TDs draw a full salary and give everything above 34k to the party.

    They are all drawing full salary though.


  • Options
    #43
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,622 ✭✭✭creedp


    MadsL wrote: »
    I'm questioning the whole tactic of buying votes via this mechanism of 'discount' TDs who supposedly do not take a full salary.

    The three examples I gave were Ming and his 'projects', a FG TD 'buying' and extra teacher for a school, and SF making TDs only take 34k a year and subverting the rest into party funds.

    My proposition very clear - that TDs should either take the full salary, or return a portion to State funds and that parliamentary rules prohibit publicity proclaiming that TDs are not drawing a full salary when in fact they are drawing the full salary and allowances.

    Feel free to discuss that, but I'm done with your nitpicking about SF, I'm not sure why you are so defensive about them.


    Would people prefer if the TD's spend their money on booze and pot? Its much easier for the TD's of bigger parties to get re-elected as the party machine does much of the re-election heavy lifting - not fighting like with like when it comes to independents/small parties. As in business you have to eke out a competive advantage to raise your little head above the madding crowds and survive.


  • Options
    #44
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #45
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    It's so hard to take posts like this seriously. Whatever your point was, and it may have been a valid one (I doubt it but it's possible) is instantly lost because it's clear that you cant even get through a single post without succumbing to this sort of foaming-at-the-mouth rage.


  • Options
    #46
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    creedp wrote: »
    Would people prefer if the TD's spend their money on booze and pot? Its much easier for the TD's of bigger parties to get re-elected as the party machine does much of the re-election heavy lifting - not fighting like with like when it comes to independents/small parties. As in business you have to eke out a competive advantage to raise your little head above the madding crowds and survive.

    That's why we have audited election spending limits. To level the playing field.

    Would you feel the same if a TD simply walked around town handing out cash in the weeks before election day?


  • Options
    #47
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    The problem is that it is a handy way to circumvent (re)election spending limits.

    You still havent demonstrated that that's what's happening here, jsut expected us to take your word for it.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Oh we should encourage relinquishing salaries alright, what we should discourage is personal slush funds funded by the taxpayer.

    Agreed. You still havent demonstrated how these two things are linked or how they're linked to this thread
    MadsL wrote: »
    Nope. That's been the case all along.

    Ming draws a full salary and then funds 'projects'
    Our FG friend draws a fully salary and gives half to the school
    SF TDs draw a full salary and give everything above 34k to the party.

    They are all drawing full salary though.

    But you still havent demonstrated how any of this amounts to buying votes, rotten boroughs, slush funds or abused expenses. You're just expecting everyone to take your word for it that that's what it's all about.


  • Options
    #48
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    That's why we have audited election spending limits. To level the playing field.

    Would you feel the same if a TD simply walked around town handing out cash in the weeks before election day?

    Firstly, that's not the same thing, and secondly, in a country with a secret ballot, how much of an impact would any of that have anyway?


  • Options
    #49
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    You still havent demonstrated that that's what's happening here, jsut expected us to take your word for it.
    How are you still not getting this? A TD very publically donates half his salary to a local school to national press coverage, in excess of the election spending limit, gets re-elected. Altruistic or crafty?
    Agreed. You still havent demonstrated how these two things are linked or how they're linked to this thread
    Because TDs only "being paid 50% of a TDs salary" still get paid 100% of a TDs salary, whilst codding us that their personal slush fund of 50% of a TDs salary is in the public interest.
    But you still havent demonstrated how any of this amounts to buying votes, rotten boroughs, slush funds or abused expenses. You're just expecting everyone to take your word for it that that's what it's all about.

    Are you claiming that these TDs do this for altruistic reasons? If so, why would they not simply return the cash to the State?


  • Options
    #50
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Firstly, that's not the same thing,

    It is. Ming slings cash over to any project HE decides is worth funding. No different to handing a wad of cash to an individual as far as I can see. No transparency involved.


  • Options
    #51
    Whisko
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭Whisko


    This guy is just full of hate.

    Its his money, it's not the states money. It's part of his wage and he's entitled to spend it how he pleases.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,767 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Whisko wrote: »
    This guy is just full of hate.

    Its his money, it's not the states money. It's part of his wage and he's entitled to spend it how he pleases.
    Aye. There is nothing like a "Rotten borough" situation in Mings constituency, not within 10 orders of magnitude near anything resembling the kind of stuff that happened in the Unreformed House of Commons.

    Ming is not the problem with Irish politics, not by a million miles, in addition it's his salary and he's choosing to put it to what he considers good use. If it's excessive, then it should be cut for ALL politicians, not just Ming.


  • Options
    #53
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Whisko wrote: »
    This guy is just full of hate.

    Its his money, it's not the states money. It's part of his wage and he's entitled to spend it how he pleases.

    Nothing to do with hate. Dislike of manipulative tactics is all. If I went into my boss and said "Hey, I think you are a great boss, I'm only going to take half my salary in future" imagine his disappointment when I insist on being paid ALL my salary and announce I will be donating it my special projects.

    It's the States money until he gets it, if he wants to announce he is "foregoing" his salary or whatever the term is - well, great, the taxpayer get 50% back, if the taxpayer doesn't get 50% back then stfu about 'sacrificing' your salary.

    Some people are easily taken in I guess.


  • Options
    #54
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    How are you still not getting this? A TD very publically donates half his salary to a local school to national press coverage, in excess of the election spending limit, gets re-elected. Altruistic or crafty?

    I dont know, I'd have to know that TD personally to make a judgment call on that, but you still have not proven in any way, shape or form that his constituency now constitutes a rotten borough or that he was buying votes.
    Going by your logic any TD who does anything for his constituency is buying votes
    MadsL wrote: »
    Because TDs only "being paid 50% of a TDs salary" still get paid 100% of a TDs salary, whilst codding us that their personal slush fund of 50% of a TDs salary is in the public interest.

    Rotten boroughs, buying votes, personal slush funds. Look at the language you're using, it's pretty clear that you have an agenda here.
    Codding us? Who is codding us? Name one TD who is pretending they only get half their salary.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Are you claiming that these TDs do this for altruistic reasons? If so, why would they not simply return the cash to the State?

    I dont know all the TDs personally. SF TDs do it because it is and has always been, party policy. As a left wing, socialist republican party who place a lot of emphasis on equality it's a policy that clearly demonstrates their intent and keeps their representatives grounded in the same reality as the people they are representing.
    I've already pointed out several times that returning a few grand to the government isn't going to make any difference to the country's overall finances but it could very well make a big difference to the constituencies it's used in.
    TDs in 'representing their constituency' shocker.


  • Options
    #55
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    It is. Ming slings cash over to any project HE decides is worth funding. No different to handing a wad of cash to an individual as far as I can see. No transparency involved.

    Ming slings his cash over to any project he decides is worth funding. Where's the problem?


  • Options
    #56
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MadsL wrote: »
    Nothing to do with hate. Dislike of manipulative tactics is all. If I went into my boss and said "Hey, I think you are a great boss, I'm only going to take half my salary in future" imagine his disappointment when I insist on being paid ALL my salary and announce I will be donating it my special projects.

    It's the States money until he gets it, if he wants to announce he is "foregoing" his salary or whatever the term is - well, great, the taxpayer get 50% back, if the taxpayer doesn't get 50% back then stfu about 'sacrificing' your salary.

    Some people are easily taken in I guess.

    But this is patently not the same situation. Nobody, not one TD, is claiming they are only paid half the salary. Not. A. One.


  • Options
    #57
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,622 ✭✭✭creedp


    MadsL wrote: »
    That's why we have audited election spending limits. To level the playing field.

    Would you feel the same if a TD simply walked around town handing out cash in the weeks before election day?


    If Ming wants to walk around town handing out part of his salary to what he perceives are good causes then that's his business. There is no issue with transparency here unless it can be shown he obtained the money from questionable sources such as a tent in Galway or from business people invited to his house for dinner and charged for the priviledge.


  • Options
    #58
    Javan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭Javan


    So what is your suggested solution OP?

    Perhaps TDs should be barred from making charitable donations?


  • Options
    #59
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Javan wrote: »
    So what is your suggested solution OP?

    Perhaps TDs should be barred from making charitable donations?

    1. Bar TDs from making "I only take X of my salary" statements unless they do not actually receive the payment and it is returned to the State.
    2. Require declaration of all donations to third parties.


  • Options
    #60
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    But this is patently not the same situation. Nobody, not one TD, is claiming they are only paid half the salary. Not. A. One.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/ming-flanagan-on-e9k-signpost-donation-im-keeping-my-election-promise-467425-May2012/

    How do we know what Ming actually keeps?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Foghladh
    Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    So basically the story is that a local politician has paid to have some signs erected. Out of his own salary. In some circles that might be seen as a good thing.


Advertisement