So Michael D IS running again!

AGC · 10-12-2018 1:46pm

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/report-on-presidents-317000-allowance-to-be-published-37609928.html

"However, a spokesperson for the President told a Sunday newspaper the report would be published this week once translation and design of the document have been finalised."

I hope you are right about money not being wasted on the document. A couple of A4 pages in a PDF would be enough to tell the story.

You are fairly scrapping the barrel now if you are concerned at the price of releasing the document!!!

10-12-2018 1:59pm

blanch152 wrote: »

"However, a spokesperson for the President told a Sunday newspaper the report would be published this week once translation and design of the document have been finalised."

"Translation and design"

I thought these were accounts? Just release them as a pdf file.

Hes not spending his own money is he :pac::pac:

seamus · 10-12-2018 2:05pm

Seriously though if you can't see why an official document from the Áras can't just be a few PDFs in Times New Roman, then you're just taking the piss.

At the very least it has to be in both Irish and English and contain the proper seal(s) of the President, otherwise there'd be all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects.

There's your "translation and design".

marieholmfan · 10-12-2018 2:31pm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

"Translation and design"

I thought these were accounts? Just release them as a pdf file.

Hes not spending his own money is he :pac::pac:

Are you mental? He's the President of Ireland ; it all has to be done with a bit of pomp and pomp costs.

James Brown · 10-12-2018 3:16pm

Higgins was right, this line is sad.
I'm not sure what the end game is now that the election is over.

pixelburp · 10-12-2018 3:45pm

What a strange argument: design costs money; it doesn't matter whether it's a huge infographic, a brochure website - or 'just' a PDF of governmental financial stats. Professional design requires professional costs and professional work. At a minimum any legally binding document is going to involve designers, copywriters, proof-readers, and of course those involved with triple-checking the financial info is 100% correct. not to mention any printers if this info is going to be physically released. That takes time. That takes money.

What's the argument here? Just drop a USB fob to Snap printing and that should be good enough? Please. The same folk would then be banging the drum about slapdash, amateur hour government.

Squatter · 10-12-2018 3:50pm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

"Translation and design"

I thought these were accounts? Just release them as a pdf file.

Hes not spending his own money is he :pac::pac:

There's no way that Pres Stumpy would miss the opportunity to throw a few bob at his cronies in the Irish Language Translation industry.

And the cunning old fraud is probably having it translated into Braille, Urdu and Klingon as well.

FreudianSlippers · 10-12-2018 3:54pm

Squatter wrote: »

There's no way that Pres Stumpy would miss the opportunity to throw a few bob at his cronies in the Irish Language Translation industry.

And the cunning old fraud is probably having it translated into Braille, Urdu and Klingon as well.

Yeah - why translate official State documents into the official State language?

:rolleyes:

It actually probably rightfully should be translated into Braille actually. Good point.

Squatter · 10-12-2018 4:13pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yeah - why translate official State documents into the official State language?

I suppose it all depends on what the point of publishing the information is in the first place.

If it's so Stumpy can reassure his critics that he hasn't squandered a cent of taxpayers' funds then evidently it needs only to be published in the vernacular.

But if it's being done mainly to pander to the gobsh1te demographic, then, as you wisely point out, it should be published in every language used in this all-singing, all-dancing, multi-cultural, abortion loving statelet of ours. :mad:

seamus · 10-12-2018 4:15pm

Printing official state documents in Irish is "pandering to multiculturalism" now. :rolleyes:

This has to be peak ridiculousness.

James Brown · 10-12-2018 4:24pm

seamus wrote: »

Printing official state documents in Irish is "pandering to multiculturalism" now. :rolleyes:

This has to be peak ridiculousness.

The Irish state printing a state document in English and Irish....the cheek

I would think printing a version in English was pandering to the multicultural demographic

Quin_Dub · 10-12-2018 4:27pm

Squatter wrote: »

I suppose it all depends on what the point of publishing the information is in the first place.

If it's so Stumpy can reassure his critics that he hasn't squandered a cent of taxpayers' funds then evidently it needs only to be published in the vernacular.

But if it's being done mainly to pander to the gobsh1te demographic, then, as you wisely point out, it should be published in every language used in this all-singing, all-dancing, multi-cultural, abortion loving statelet of ours. :mad:

##Mod Note##

Cut out the silly nicknames please.

Use peoples proper names.

Thanks

marieholmfan · 10-12-2018 4:27pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Higgins was right, this line is sad.
I'm not sure what the end game is now that the election is over.

We have a right to know how money is spent!

James Brown · 10-12-2018 5:06pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

We have a right to know how money is spent!

We sure do. Completely agree.
Odd that it suddenly became a thing in the run up to the election though. Smacks of some misguided desperation to show what I don't know. Not sure what people are hoping to find and after the election what they hope to achieve?
Higgins is the current in a long line of these people we elected to that post. Any findings will say more about the office IMO.

blanch152 · 10-12-2018 6:06pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We sure do. Completely agree.
Odd that it suddenly became a thing in the run up to the election though. Smacks of some misguided desperation to show what I don't know. Not sure what people are hoping to find and after the election what they hope to achieve?
Higgins is the current in a long line of these people we elected to that post. Any findings will say more about the office IMO.

Let's wait and see. All some of us have asked for is that the information is published. Nobody has criticised the expenditure because there has been nothing to see.

As pointed out already, Higgins has admitted to spending the money differently to his predecessor who had got the funding for a particular worthwhile project. So not all Presidents are the same, and not all findings will apply to the office rather than the person.

That being said, the money may very well have been spent on worthwhile causes.

AGC · 10-12-2018 7:05pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's wait and see. All some of us have asked for is that the information is published. Nobody has criticised the expenditure because there has been nothing to see.

As pointed out already, Higgins has admitted to spending the money differently to his predecessor who had got the funding for a particular worthwhile project. So not all Presidents are the same, and not all findings will apply to the office rather than the person.

That being said, the money may very well have been spent on worthwhile causes.

What did his predecessor spend it on?

The current president has said what it has been spent on which to him are worthwhile projects.

AGC · 10-12-2018 7:06pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

We have a right to know how money is spent!

No one disagrees there

FreudianSlippers · 11-12-2018 12:01pm

Squatter wrote: »

I suppose it all depends on what the point of publishing the information is in the first place.

If it's so Stumpy can reassure his critics that he hasn't squandered a cent of taxpayers' funds then evidently it needs only to be published in the vernacular.

But if it's being done mainly to pander to the gobsh1te demographic, then, as you wisely point out, it should be published in every language used in this all-singing, all-dancing, multi-cultural, abortion loving statelet of ours. :mad:

I do love abortion! I don't really know what "it needs only to be published in the vernacular" means though - just an endless stream of numbers on an excel spreadsheet?

Squatter · 12-12-2018 12:37pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I do love abortion! I don't really know what "it needs only to be published in the vernacular" means though - just an endless stream of numbers on an excel spreadsheet?

Good point, mea culpa.

It was wrong of me to use the phrase "the vernacular" when writing about Higginz, given that he normally communicates by means of a prolix torrent of high-faluting, multilingual gibberish.

I should really have written "in the quotidian language used by the average wurking class citizen of dis grate Republic of ours".

An_Toirpin · 12-12-2018 10:56pm

AGC wrote: »

LNR has claimed approx. €200,000 un-audited from the EU since becoming an MEP which leads to what are SF TD's, Senators, councillors actually claiming behind their 'industrial wage' rubbish - the mess that she made of that in the debate will have a negative result on SF at election time.

Glossy brochure?

I will happily come on here and hold my hands up if money has been spent in an inappropriate manner but from what has been said I have no reason to believe it has been said. It is a nothing issue that people tried to make a big deal of which was rightly rejected at the polls.

There is a reason the President didn't engage with it when being questioned time and again because there was no need. He gave his answers and while others wanted to hear differently it didn't materialise.

Politicians have no business deciding on what is the necessary level of transparency in a democracy. There has to be input from journalism and constituents etc

AGC · 12-12-2018 11:40pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Politicians have no business deciding on what is the necessary level of transparency in a democracy. There has to be input from journalism and constituents etc

Dont disagree with that at all. Sure if it wasn’t for journalists, FOI etc... we wouldn’t know half the sh*t

Think the president was quite open and happy about this happening.

realdanbreen · 13-12-2018 12:07pm

So what(in plain language) IS the story with Michael D's expenses?
How much , what was it spent on etc etc.s

AGC · 13-12-2018 5:29pm

So it’s been spent on exactly what was said and no where near the €317.000 was spent.

For Forks Sake · 13-12-2018 6:45pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

So what(in plain language) IS the story with Michael D's expenses?
How much , what was it spent on etc etc.s

https://issuu.com/arasanuachtarain/docs/the_presidency_in_review

Knock yourself out, p 35-40 are the ones detailing expenditure.
Under the 317k every year 2011-2018, the balance being returned to the state.

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2018 6:48pm

As suspected, nothing to see here.
Try as they did, they couldn't blacken a man's name. They insinuated aplenty though.

expectationlost · 13-12-2018 7:10pm

theres not enough detail to see much of anything

James Brown · 13-12-2018 7:14pm

expectationlost wrote: »

theres not enough detail to see much of anything

We know the office, important to note it's the office, underspent and will be returning money and that it all went on official business. Also it's the first time they've released figures, ever. So while I wouldn't give Higgins full credit for how the office managed the monies, it's plain to see there was no impropriety on his end.
Thankfully the scaremongering didn't skupper his re-election.

pixelburp · 13-12-2018 7:27pm

Some more detail would have been nice, but there's enough there to make it clear there were no falsehoods or overspending conducted by the office.

Can that be it then? Feels like every possible angle to discredit or disparage Higgins / the Office has been exhausted. Public vigilance in our elected representatives is hugely vital, but at this stage anything else just feels like reaching for an excuse to criticise the man.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-12-2018 10:02pm

seamus wrote: »

Printing official state documents in Irish is "pandering to multiculturalism" now. :rolleyes:

This has to be peak ridiculousness.

If you want ridiculousness look North.

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/about-the-assembly/general-information/information-leaflets/ulster-scots/

Plenarie sessions bes helt Monandeys an Tuesdeys. Thay ar braidcuist live on the Assemblies wabsteid. Ye can leuk at a plenarie session frae the Public Gallerie, at owreleuks the Chaumber.

Plenary sessions are held on Mondays and Tuesdays. They are broadcast live on the Assembly’s website. You can watch a plenary session from the Public Gallery that overlooks the Chamber.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-12-2018 10:29pm

What do you want, expectationlost? Receipts? Photocopies of flight tickets and hotel bills?

FFS like.

Why don't you look at unvouched expenses for MEPs if you want to complain about something.

expectationlost · 13-12-2018 10:46pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What do you want, expectationlost? Receipts? Photocopies of flight tickets and hotel bills?

more transparency, bury people in it, bore the **** out of them with detail, most things are electronic now its easier to do

Ken Foxe pointed to this https://thestory.ie/2018/07/19/luxury-rugs-cars-and-a-juicer-rental-how-the-dfa-spent-taxpayers-money-in-2017/

An_Toirpin · 13-12-2018 11:26pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Some more detail would have been nice, but there's enough there to make it clear there were no falsehoods or overspending conducted by the office.

Can that be it then? Feels like every possible angle to discredit or disparage Higgins / the Office has been exhausted. Public vigilance in our elected representatives is hugely vital, but at this stage anything else just feels like reaching for an excuse to criticise the man.

He is the president. That is the job! Plus he received far less criticism than any other prominent politican, despite debasing his constitutional role.

mickdw · 14-12-2018 12:08am

The fact that the surplus funds were not returned and no previous mention of funds for return over the years is highly suspicious imo.
Looking in from the outside, it looks like the full allowance was drawdown time and again despite not spending it all in the previous years. The surplus was then never returned to state until now after the spending is queried.
Is it not possible that what is now being recorded as surplus for return was infact spending that cannot be reasonably claimed as legit expense but without this audit of sorts might never have been declared as surplus.
Drawing down excessive funds year in, year out to leave sitting in an account over 7 years is in itself poor management of state funds.

expectationlost · 14-12-2018 12:38am

mickdw wrote: »

The fact that the surplus funds were not returned and no previous mention of funds for return over the years is highly suspicious imo.
Looking in from the outside, it looks like the full allowance was drawdown time and again despite not spending it all in the previous years. The surplus was then never returned to state until now after the spending is queried.
Is it not possible that what is now being recorded as surplus for return was infact spending that cannot be reasonably claimed as legit expense but without this audit of sorts might never have been declared as surplus.
Drawing down excessive funds year in, year out to leave sitting in an account over 7 years is in itself poor management of state funds.

is it drawing down or receiving?

McAleese didn't return her allowance till the end of her second term https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mcaleese-returns-more-than-500-000-in-allowances-1.513118

AGC · 14-12-2018 12:56am

mickdw wrote: »

The fact that the surplus funds were not returned and no previous mention of funds for return over the years is highly suspicious imo.
Looking in from the outside, it looks like the full allowance was drawdown time and again despite not spending it all in the previous years. The surplus was then never returned to state until now after the spending is queried.
Is it not possible that what is now being recorded as surplus for return was infact spending that cannot be reasonably claimed as legit expense but without this audit of sorts might never have been declared as surplus.
Drawing down excessive funds year in, year out to leave sitting in an account over 7 years is in itself poor management of state funds.

What is highly suspicious?

It is an allowance payable every year and surplus will be returned this year. No different to people who make voluntary salary contributions, full amount is paid and then a % paid back.

You can’t just pick and choose what is predetermined.

14-12-2018 1:01am

AGC wrote: »

What is highly suspicious?

It is an allowance payable every year and surplus will be returned this year. No different to people who make voluntary salary contributions, full amount is paid and then a % paid back.

You can’t just pick and choose what is predetermined.

Money shouldn't be drawn down from limited exchequer funds unless it is needed.

There shouldn't be a multi-year delay in returning unspent funds either.

expectationlost · 14-12-2018 1:14am

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Money shouldn't be drawn down from limited exchequer funds unless it is needed.

There shouldn't be a multi-year delay in returning unspent funds either.

the argument is that the president has certain amount of independence and he shouldn't have to go asking the MOF every time he wants to spend some money

mickdw · 14-12-2018 1:23am

expectationlost wrote: »

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Money shouldn't be drawn down from limited exchequer funds unless it is needed.

There shouldn't be a multi-year delay in returning unspent funds either.

the argument is that the president has certain amount of independence and he shouldn't have to go asking the MOF every time he wants to spend some money

But if he had something like 200k surplus after 6 years, any reasonable person would say that they would draw down 100k for year 7 in full knowledge that the remaining 217k is still available to be drawdown without explanation should it be needed.
Having said all that, if Mary McAleese did similar, perhaps it just how things are done there but I'd suggest it should change.

AGC · 14-12-2018 8:34am

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Money shouldn't be drawn down from limited exchequer funds unless it is needed.

There shouldn't be a multi-year delay in returning unspent funds either.

Limited? Look at every other government department or office, this figure is tiny in comparison and is never been fully spent, look at how money is wasted or additional funds are provided in every other area. If budgets are not being spent they will ensure they are fully spent to receive them again the following year.

140,000 people visited the Aras in the first term, using that €317,000 that is less than €16 per person and even less when you count in the money being returned.

The bigger issue with the public funds being spent IMO is the centenarian bounty. €2,440 is a crazy amount.

blanch152 · 14-12-2018 10:30am

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think there are very many people running around with a free untaxed allowance anywhere near as big as Higgins' one. Do you have some examples of a similar size?

Where did I say I was ignoring that. I look forward with interest to the informative piece when it is published. Hopefully he isn't spending too much on a glossy brochure.

Well, it seems the outcome was a glossy brochure, long on verbiage and self-congratulation and short on actual figures that can be analysed. Says it all about Higgins really.

AGC · 14-12-2018 10:35am

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, it seems the outcome was a glossy brochure, long on verbiage and self-congratulation and short on actual figures that can be analysed. Says it all about Higgins really.

Can't please everyone.

The office has gone above and beyond in releasing figures they simply do not have to release - What else do you want?

blanch152 · 14-12-2018 10:37am

AGC wrote: »

Can't please everyone.

The office has gone above and beyond in releasing figures they simply do not have to release - What else do you want?

Something like this would be useful:

https://thestory.ie/2018/07/19/luxury-rugs-cars-and-a-juicer-rental-how-the-dfa-spent-taxpayers-money-in-2017/

If DFA can do it, why can't the Presidency?

Glossy brochure = whitewash.

AGC · 14-12-2018 10:40am

blanch152 wrote: »

Something like this would be useful:

https://thestory.ie/2018/07/19/luxury-rugs-cars-and-a-juicer-rental-how-the-dfa-spent-taxpayers-money-in-2017/

If DFA can do it, why can't the Presidency?

Glossy brochure = whitewash.

That is a straight print out from the accounts system which gives you no more information than what was given by the Aras, where the additional info came from in that article is the FOI. They could easily do that but you would have a moan if that was what was produced from the Aras, account codes etc - also that is in reply to an FOI, what was published yesterday originated in the Aras, it didn't have to be done, so of course the office was going to justify the spending.

If 1 Department is good for glossy brochure's it's DFA.

blanch152 · 14-12-2018 1:37pm

AGC wrote: »

That is a straight print out from the accounts system which gives you no more information than what was given by the Aras, where the additional info came from in that article is the FOI. They could easily do that but you would have a moan if that was what was produced from the Aras, account codes etc - also that is in reply to an FOI, what was published yesterday originated in the Aras, it didn't have to be done, so of course the office was going to justify the spending.

If 1 Department is good for glossy brochure's it's DFA.

Great, let's see that print-out then.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-12-2018 1:40pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

despite debasing his constitutional role.

What??

Hotblack Desiato · 14-12-2018 1:41pm

expectationlost wrote: »

Ken Foxe pointed to this https://thestory.ie/2018/07/19/luxury-rugs-cars-and-a-juicer-rental-how-the-dfa-spent-taxpayers-money-in-2017/

It's as if people expect our embassies to be little kips furnished with secondhand Ikea or something.

At least they didn't go on about the DFA's vintage wine cellar, this time.

AGC · 14-12-2018 2:08pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Great, let's see that print-out then.

What additional information from the DFA print out is not provided?

seamus · 14-12-2018 2:20pm

mickdw wrote: »

The fact that the surplus funds were not returned and no previous mention of funds for return over the years is highly suspicious imo.
Looking in from the outside, it looks like the full allowance was drawdown time and again despite not spending it all in the previous years. The surplus was then never returned to state until now after the spending is queried.

Any surplus is never returned until the end of the president's term. It provides leeway for any given President to balance their needs over the entire term of their Presidency rather than year-to-year.

Actually illustrated perfectly in this report in 2014. Had the accumulated surplus not been held onto, the President would have had to go and ask the MOF for five grand, despite having underspent by nearly 100 grand in the previous two years.

This is incredibly barrel-scraping stuff.

richiepurgas · 14-12-2018 2:37pm

A story that is on life support.

James Brown · 14-12-2018 4:00pm

richiepurgas wrote: »

A story that is on life support.

And if you complain about live action government policy as it happens some would accuse you of bias

So Michael D IS running again!

Comments