General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Scoundrel · 09-11-2020 1:02pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He will be in a tight spot on tuesday!
Will he vote confidence in Varadkar?
Be interesting to see after his outburst this week how he wriggles if he votes with Leo.

Of course he will he's an empty vessel.

Itssoeasy · 09-11-2020 5:11pm

I mean it’s not a surprise that Michael Martin will do anything to stay as Taoiseach until he has to hand it over. I’ve no issue with a vote of no confidence being used as it’s there to be used when felt necessary, but Mary Lou McDonald trying to claim the motion wasn’t about political point scoring was next level spin. Of course it is about political point scoring, so as I say I’ve no issue with the use of a motion of no confidence in the right way but trying to suggest it’s not political is disingenuous at best. Also, the fact labour are supporting this one instantly makes me sour on it because I think Alan Kelly is the worst leader of a political party in the dail.

10-11-2020 11:22am

So Martin is putting pressure on Woulfe and Coveney is talking tough in Brexit.

The spin machine is working overtime at the moment, you’d think there was a no confidence vote happening that they want to distract from.

It looks like Woulfe is being thrown under the same bus that Maria Bailey perished under.

L1011 · 10-11-2020 11:31am

SF have a knack of timing confidence motions really, really badly - the proposed one that took down the last government notwithstanding - as a few of them have failed just before something went wrong badly enough that another one could have passed; but couldn't be held.

This could easily be the same again if there are actually more leaks to occur.

10-11-2020 1:02pm

L1011 wrote: »

SF have a knack of timing confidence motions really, really badly - the proposed one that took down the last government notwithstanding - as a few of them have failed just before something went wrong badly enough that another one could have passed; but couldn't be held.

This could easily be the same again if there are actually more leaks to occur.

the stuff in the Village today doesn't seem to add more, other than claiming the relationship between Varadkar and O'Tauthail is more than Leo made it out to be and claiming he lied to the Dail about it.

It does show just how individuals set out to manipulate government ministers for personal gain though. While this is nothing new, for me it shows how weak the FG government was under Varadkar and how desperate they are not to cause any waves.

Scoundrel · 10-11-2020 2:07pm

https://twitter.com/EwanMacKenna/status/1326139584481255432?s=19

A clear cut case of cronyism and corruption here. If tis were in Boris UK we'd be screaming from the rooftops.

10-11-2020 3:31pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EwanMacKenna/status/1326139584481255432?s=19

A clear cut case of cronyism and corruption here. If tis were in Boris UK we'd be screaming from the rooftops.

There is zero information on contracts awarded for the Covid response. But it isn’t Boris, so no one will care.

Cyrus · 10-11-2020 3:44pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

A clear cut case of cronyism and corruption here.

clear cut? on the basis that a first time tds uncle's company (which is a relatively large and long established PLC with a demonstrable track record in the area) got a small contract.

thats quite the leap.

CrabRevolution · 10-11-2020 3:57pm

Cyrus wrote: »

clear cut? on the basis that a first time tds uncle's company (which is a relatively large and long established PLC with a demonstrable track record in the area) got a small contract.

thats quite the leap.

I worked for CPL once upon a time. They're probably the biggest supplier of agency staff to the HSE, everything from Nurses, Doctors to Healthcare Assistants, Radiographers etc. There's long standing frameworks for certain hospitals/regions to draw down on certain agencies for what resources they need.
The idea that it's some shady underhand deal for an obscure well connected family company is laughable. And as you say it's apparently a stroke for the uncle of a TD only months in the job.

L1011 · 10-11-2020 4:55pm

Gibbering reason from MacSharry about how he's going to vote confidence but not mean it...

twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1326188722958823425

Any chance of the vote failing (now its been switched to a confidence vote as per usual) relied on people like him going against it.

Scoundrel · 10-11-2020 5:12pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He will be in a tight spot on tuesday!
Will he vote confidence in Varadkar?
Be interesting to see after his outburst this week how he wriggles if he votes with Leo.

FF TD Marc MacSharry confirms he will vote confidence in the Tánaiste later but is approaching it in a manner akin to Éamon de Valera’s “empty formula” when his party’s TDs took the Oath of Allegiance in 1927 @rtenews

What a ****ing eejit

beggars_bush · 11-11-2020 10:33am

Will this Seamus Woulfe issue cause a major crisis for the government?

Chips Lovell · 11-11-2020 10:44am

I very much doubt it. I think both the government and the opposition want him gone. If the attorney general is right and the Oireachtas can impeach him, I'd imagine he'll be gone fairly quickly.

Brussels Sprout · 11-11-2020 11:53am

Two weeks ago, when this Varadkar story broke, I remember someone on Twitter quipping:

How are they going to Sinn Féin their way out of this one?

Well...it turns out that they're going to try their hardest to do just that:

https://twitter.com/FineGael/status/1326274488921690112

Scoundrel · 11-11-2020 7:43pm

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1326515179987869697?s=19

Cyrus · 11-11-2020 7:50pm

Jesus he gives me the runs

I suppose they took the contracts at gun point as well.

Scoundrel · 11-11-2020 8:13pm

Cyrus wrote: »

Jesus he gives me the runs

I suppose they took the contracts at gun point as well.

I suppose they expected to be paid for work? A revolutionary thought in FG Ireland I know. CPL are poverty exploiters.

Cyrus · 11-11-2020 8:39pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

I suppose they expected to be paid for work? A revolutionary thought in FG Ireland I know. CPL are poverty exploiters.

They will be paid I’m sure , that little clip gives us no insight into how often they are to be paid and what the reason for the delay is, pretty typical of Barrett , big on outrage but small on detail.

AlmightyCushion · 11-11-2020 8:55pm

Cyrus wrote: »

They will be paid I’m sure , that little clip gives us no insight into how often they are to be paid and what the reason for the delay is, pretty typical of Barrett , big on outrage but small on detail.

Exactly. It is probably something like they are paid monthly and started after the payroll cut off. This happens in companies across the world, it just depends on when you start working. Sure, it's a little annoying for the employee but these things happen. To suggest that it is something under handed and the government aren't paying these people is just stupid.

PeadarCo · 11-11-2020 9:03pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

I suppose they expected to be paid for work? A revolutionary thought in FG Ireland I know. CPL are poverty exploiters.

Any evidence? CPL are a very big recruitment agency and cover a wide range of jobs. It would more surprising if the government didn't use them. In my experience of having got jobs through them in the past they do not pay poverty salaries. They generally pay somewhere in line with the going rate for a particular job,which obviously varies depending on the job. But you are not looking a poverty wages.

This story is an attempt at manufactured outrage that relies on the person reading it being clueless about the actual company/recruitment industry. With how the government has managed Covid over the last couple of months there's plenty to criticise the government over without making stuff up.

blackwhite · 12-11-2020 10:07am

PeadarCo wrote: »

This story is an attempt at manufactured outrage that relies on the person reading it being clueless

Sums up most of the claims raised by Murphy and his ilk TBH.

Scoundrel · 12-11-2020 4:11pm

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1326897771836792833?s=19

Now this is hilarious the incompetence here is staggering can't these fools do anything right?

seamus · 12-11-2020 4:14pm

Most pertinent question here is when this recommendation was first made.

Like, if it was before this NAGP thing came out, then it's just unlucky.

If it was after, then the govt has walked into another easily avoided embarrassment.

Edit: I see she was nominated on the day of the confidence motion.

Oof. Martin will absolutely fuming.

Scoundrel · 12-11-2020 8:15pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Exactly. It is probably something like they are paid monthly and started after the payroll cut off. This happens in companies across the world, it just depends on when you start working. Sure, it's a little annoying for the employee but these things happen. To suggest that it is something under handed and the government aren't paying these people is just stupid.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1112/1177721-cpl-contact-tracing-staff/

They must be apologising for the craic?

CrabRevolution · 12-11-2020 8:42pm

Do contact tracers ever actually meet patients in person? Or is it just a computer and phone job?

VinLieger · 13-11-2020 8:53am

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Do contact tracers ever actually meet patients in person? Or is it just a computer and phone job?

Computer and phone, meeting in person would not make any sense.... They are tracing those who are infected and those potentially infected

Cyrus · 13-11-2020 9:40am

Scoundrel wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1112/1177721-cpl-contact-tracing-staff/

They must be apologising for the craic?

so Barret was complaining people handnt been paid for 4 weeks, even though reading this it would appear that people are only paid every 4 weeks, you couldnt make it up.

In a statement, the HSE said it had been made aware of a "small group of new joiners" whose contract hours were only submitted for payment yesterday after six weeks instead of four.

seamus · 13-11-2020 11:16am

The hits keep coming for this Government. From the Irish Times this morning;

Seamus Woulfe was only appointed in July after his name was given to cabinet by Helen McEntee. Helen McEntee in turn got his name from the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (JAAB). Several other judges had written to the Government expressing interest in the position. McEntee selected Woulfe and presented his name to cabinet without mentioning the others.

This is not strange, it's standard practice. The kicker in this story is that applications to be appointed to the Supreme Court are not made through the JAAB. Woulfe applied incorrectly for the job, when he should have applied directly to the Government. McEntee presumably selected him specifically because he had been nominated by the JAAB, and she didn't realise that this was not the correct process because she was only two weeks in the job.

This doesn't mean that Woulfe shouldn't have been given the job - the government can choose anyone whether they've applied or not - but it seems like his application was given far more weight than it should have been.

Another instance of a Minister being badly let down by their staff and left with egg on their face.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-not-told-judges-applied-for-post-filled-by-s%C3%A9amus-woulfe-1.4407946

CrabRevolution · 13-11-2020 4:51pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Computer and phone, meeting in person would not make any sense.... They are tracing those who are infected and those potentially infected

Yeah was thinking that. Just RBB's use of the phrase "frontline workers" to describe contact tracers struck me as strange. "Frontline worker" is a deliberately loaded phrase (popular with the likes of RBB) chosen to exclude the likes of managers and administrative staff from any praise for the workers of the HSE/Gardaí etc. Now while they do a vital job, calling contact tracers "frontline" when they never have to leave their home/office seems a bit of a stretch.

ancapailldorcha · 16-11-2020 9:20pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1326515179987869697?s=19

Scoundrel wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1326897771836792833?s=19

Now this is hilarious the incompetence here is staggering can't these fools do anything right?

Please do not just paste tweets here. This is a discussion forum, not a link repository.

s1ippy · 16-11-2020 11:52pm

Sinn féin really are terrible, "wasting 25k of taxpayer money".

Meanwhile,

€5,000 per day (€10m so far) for this wind farm in Galway.

Complete environmental devastation.

That's not the only place being absolutely destroyed by this kind of destructive interference.

Watch this part of the country float off to god knows where.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rooneymobile/status/1327581502763380736?s=20

Just to remind everyone as well that the green party are propping up this coalition.

Oh and

https://twitter.com/TVsCarlKinsella/status/1327960379222339590?s=20

Why is there even a government, having nobody would be better than having this absolute shower. If I were an angry person I think I'd have immense difficulty sleeping by night knowing that they're left get away with everything.

I feel like, if I'm this wound up about it, probably somebody way less calm than me will definitely be losing their mind entirely about it and maybe they'll do something, like Batman. But then I remember that Batman actually goes out of his way to defend the status quo at enormous cost to the public in collateral damage and unnecessary deaths.

Scoundrel · 17-11-2020 10:08pm

The breathtaking arrogance of this government to appoint a clearly compromised ex FF senator to SIPO it is honestly like something out of a farcical banana republic.

roosh · 27-11-2020 9:59am

On the whole Woulfe-Judicial appointment debacle. I understand the point that usually only one name is put to cabinet - even if Brendan Howlin maintains that the other names are sometimes appended - but did Mcentee outline her reasoning for not disclosing the other expressions of interest to the coalition party leaders?

Safehands · 27-11-2020 12:35pm

roosh wrote: »

On the whole Woulfe-Judicial appointment debacle. I understand the point that usually only one name is put to cabinet - even if Brendan Howlin maintains that the other names are sometimes appended - but did Mcentee outline her reasoning for not disclosing the other expressions of interest to the coalition party leaders?

This whole thing is interesting. Not the attendance at Golfgate really, but the fuss about Mr. Woulfe. I am relatively well read, but I honestly could not name any Supreme Court judges. I never considered how they were appointed nor am I qualified to comment on their qualifications for the job. I have always just left that to the Oireachtas. Maybe that is a bit naive.
I do think that this whole Golfgate mess could have been solved by fining everyone who attended the meal (the maximum fine) and removing the hotel's licence for a period. That may have made them think twice before being so arrogant in the future.

roosh · 27-11-2020 12:49pm

Safehands wrote: »

This whole thing is interesting. Not the attendance at Golfgate really, but the fuss about Mr. Woulfe. I am relatively well read, but I honestly could not name any Supreme Court judges. I never considered how they were appointed nor am I qualified to comment on their qualifications for the job. I have always just left that to the Oireachtas. Maybe that is a bit naive.
I do think that this whole Golfgate mess could have been solved by fining everyone who attended the meal (the maximum fine) and removing the hotel's licence for a period. That may have made them think twice before being so arrogant in the future.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with regard to dealing with the consequences of Golfgate. I'm not sure everyone needed to lose their job over it.

The issue of judicial appointments is definitely the more interesting matter, to come out of it. I'm just wondering what reasoning McEntee gave for not discussing all the notifications of interest with the three party leaders.

I understand that, after informing them of the names, only one name would go to the cabinet, but prior to going to cabinet, she could have discussed ALL of the names (or at least a shortlist) with the party leaders.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe that it was a "jobs for the boys" political appointment, but I haven't heard any reasoning from her as to why only Woulfe's name was recommended to the party leaders, prior to going to cabinet.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 1:17pm

roosh wrote: »

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with regard to dealing with the consequences of Golfgate. I'm not sure everyone needed to lose their job over it.

The issue of judicial appointments is definitely the more interesting matter, to come out of it. I'm just wondering what reasoning McEntee gave for not discussing all the notifications of interest with the three party leaders.

I understand that, after informing them of the names, only one name would go to the cabinet, but prior to going to cabinet, she could have discussed ALL of the names (or at least a shortlist) with the party leaders.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe that it was a "jobs for the boys" political appointment, but I haven't heard any reasoning from her as to why only Woulfe's name was recommended to the party leaders, prior to going to cabinet.

Her reasoning on that was explained, he was the jaab only recommendation.
That is the judiciary themselves recommending him.
OK I get the point about the other candidates and it not being discussed with others, but her explanation of just going with the jaab makes sense as if accepted it was basically a judicial appointment.

roosh · 27-11-2020 1:42pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Her reasoning on that was explained, he was the jaab only recommendation.
That is the judiciary themselves recommending him.
OK I get the point about the other candidates and it not being discussed with others, but her explanation of just going with the jaab makes sense as if accepted it was basically a judicial appointment.

But the other [actual] judges don't apply through JAAB, so there was no possibility that JAAB could recommend them.

If the JAAB "recommendation" was truly a recommendation for the position, then all applicants should go through JAAB.

I think it was Catherine Murphy who said that JAAB is a vetting process to determine if someone is suitable for the position, it is not a recommendation for the position, over and above anyone else. This makes sense if only non-judicial interested parties have to go through JAAB.

EDIT: the other applicants don't have to go through JAAB because they are already vetted by virtue of their experience on the bench.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 1:48pm

roosh wrote: »

But the other [actual] judges don't apply through JAAB, so there was no possibility that JAAB could recommend them.

If the JAAB "recommendation" was truly a recommendation for the position, then all applicants should go through JAAB.

I think it was Catherine Murphy who said that JAAB is a vetting process to determine if someone is suitable for the position, it is not a recommendation for the position, over and above anyone else. This makes sense if only non-judicial interested parties have to go through JAAB.

As I said, i take your point.
But if she or cabinet picks someone else then that can easily be classed as a purely political appointment.
Just imagine for instance if they had picked another candidate and he/she had attended the golf dinner the racket we would be having now as to why the jaab recommendation hadn't been picked.
The golf dinner is really the catalyst for all this and it's political gamesmanship after the fact because of that.

Scoundrel · 27-11-2020 1:52pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Her reasoning on that was explained, he was the jaab only recommendation.
That is the judiciary themselves recommending him.
OK I get the point about the other candidates and it not being discussed with others, but her explanation of just going with the jaab makes sense as if accepted it was basically a judicial appointment.

She also said she went to Leo he said Woulfe would make a good judge I mean that stinks to high heaven like something out of a tinpot dictatorship.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 1:58pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

She also said she went to Leo he said Woulfe would make a good judge I mean that stinks to high heaven like something out of a tinpot dictatorship.

What difference does that make really.
Obviously he was viewed as someone who would make a good judge or he wouldn't have got the jaab recommendation. He is a former attorney General so obviously viewed as a good legal brain too.
But unless you are saying the jaab are influenced by political bias then there is no point in saying that.

roosh · 27-11-2020 2:03pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

As I said, i take your point.
But if she or cabinet picks someone else then that can easily be classed as a purely political appointment.
Just imagine for instance if they had picked another candidate and he/she had attended the golf dinner the racket we would be having now as to why the jaab recommendation hadn't been picked.
The golf dinner is really the catalyst for all this and it's political gamesmanship after the fact because of that.

The reason a JAAB "recommendation" would not have been picked is because the other candidate was a sitting judge.

I think there is an issue with considering the JAAB vetting process as a "recommendation". How can JAAB recommend someone for the position when they don't consider all other applicants?

At best they could recommend one non-judicial applicant over other non-judicial applicants. Is that what they do? Or do they vet all non-judicial applicants and then advise the MoJ which applicants can actually be considered?

If we assume for a second that Woulfe is indeed a political appointment - not too big a stretch - then the only way he can become a supreme court justice is precisely by going though JAAB. All other applicants would be actual sitting judges.

This would mean that purely political appointments must necessarily go through JAAB. It's actually harder to argue that a sitting judge is a purely political appointment, while giving the nod to your former AG and party activist can only be seen as a political appointment, when chosen over sitting judges.

golfball37 · 27-11-2020 2:04pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What difference does that make really.
Obviously he was viewed as someone who would make a good judge or he wouldn't have got the jaab recommendation. He is a former attorney General so obviously viewed as a good legal brain too.
But unless you are saying the jaab are influenced by political bias then there is no point in saying that.

JAAB only comment on suitability not ability, they certainly don’t make recommendations as to who should be hired/appointed.

roosh · 27-11-2020 2:05pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What difference does that make really.
Obviously he was viewed as someone who would make a good judge or he wouldn't have got the jaab recommendation. He is a former attorney General so obviously viewed as a good legal brain too.
But unless you are saying the jaab are influenced by political bias then there is no point in saying that.

Do JAAB actually make recommendations or do they just vet applicants?

As in, if there were two applicants would they recommend one over the other or would they simply advise the MoJ if both were suitable candidtates?

roosh · 27-11-2020 2:06pm

golfball37 wrote: »

JAAB only comment on suitability not ability, they certainly don’t make recommendations as to who should be hired/appointed.

That's what I was thinking GB, thank you.

so, if two applicants went through JAAB and both were suitable candidates, then JAAB would inform the MoJ that there were two suitable candidates, as opposed to recommending one of them.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 2:11pm

golfball37 wrote: »

JAAB only comment on suitability not ability, they certainly don’t make recommendations as to who should be hired/appointed.

They said he was suitable so, they only said that of him and I'm sure they had other candidates apply as well so I imagine that's a reccomendation in any man's language.

Scoundrel · 27-11-2020 2:13pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What difference does that make really.
Obviously he was viewed as someone who would make a good judge or he wouldn't have got the jaab recommendation. He is a former attorney General so obviously viewed as a good legal brain too.
But unless you are saying the jaab are influenced by political bias then there is no point in saying that.

Jesus Christ of course it makes a difference it's pure cronyism not to mention Woulfe is a long term FG activist. JAAB simply said he is suitable it is not a recommendation Leos nod and wink is why he got the job a toddler could see that.

The supreme court is supposed to be free of political influence not somewhere to stick cronies.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 2:17pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

Jesus Christ of course it makes a difference it's pure cronyism not to mention Woulfe is a long term FG activist. JAAB simply said he is suitable it is not a recommendation Leos nod and wink is why he got the job a toddler could see that.

Doesn't matter and it's just gamesmanship as to one's word against the other on that.
If saying someone is suitable, and only saying it of him, isn't a reccomendation then what would you call it?

golfball37 · 27-11-2020 2:18pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

They said he was suitable so, they only said that of him and I'm sure they had other candidates apply as well so I imagine that's a reccomendation in any man's language.

The rest of the candidates were sitting judges. They didn’t need JAAB clearance to say they could do the job of a judge.

Bishop of hope · 27-11-2020 2:33pm

golfball37 wrote: »

The rest of the candidates were sitting judges. They didn’t need JAAB clearance to say they could do the job of a judge.

Wow, that was well figured out.

Bannasidhe · 27-11-2020 2:42pm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Her reasoning on that was explained, he was the jaab only recommendation.
That is the judiciary themselves recommending him.
OK I get the point about the other candidates and it not being discussed with others, but her explanation of just going with the jaab makes sense as if accepted it was basically a judicial appointment.

It's been clarified time and time again that JAAB do not 'recommend' - they merely clarify that the applicant has ticked the required boxes in terms of qualification, experience etc. JAAB shortlist the applicants who are not sitting judges - they do not decide who should be appointed.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments