General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Wanderer78 · 17-10-2019 8:39am

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote:

It was the collapse of the banking industry which meant that (retrospectively) we were over paying on welfare and it was both the bank bailouts and the deficit caused by an unsustainable financial model which caused the problem. It was lack of government involvement and control which allowed the financial system to go off the rails. The problem was with capitalism.

Even though I agree with most of what you said, I still think capitalism is the answer to our problems, but certainly not our current form, neoliberalism

Geuze · 17-10-2019 9:31am

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Infrastructure and capital expenditure is never financed out of taxation. It would be next to impossible to do that.

Let’s not forget that the main reason for our high debt is the bailout. And were QE in operation that might not have been necessary.

At a time of low (even negative interest rates) borrowing is cheap and the debt to GDP ratio should be higher, Maastricht guidelines are for a different era.

Yes, borrowing is cheap.

But we already pay a lot of interest, as our 200bn public debt is high.

Check the NTMA report linked to above.

Using GDP as the denominator is not helpful in the Irish case, as GDP is inflated by MNC activities.

Bear in mind that ageing will cause higher pension / medical and social care expenditure in the future.

I personally think we should be running fiscal surpluses.

Many people pay too little tax, relative to the benefits they receive.

At a minimum, we should maintain a balanced budget.

Geuze · 17-10-2019 9:34am

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

No it wasn’t. This is fairly typical of how right wing ideology trumps reality. The country entered the recession with a small debt to gdp ratio and a low deficit. Therefore we weren’t over spending.

It is true that in 2007/08 we did have a low public debt, yes.

But we had become dependent on unsustainable sources of tax revenue, linked to construction and property.

So although the public finances looked healthy, we now know that underneath they were unsustainable.

Wanderer78 · 17-10-2019 10:20am

Geuze wrote: »

It is true that in 2007/08 we did have a low public debt, yes.

But we had become dependent on unsustainable sources of tax revenue, linked to construction and property.

So although the public finances looked healthy, we now know that underneath they were unsustainable.

its always important to bare in mind, public expenditure and public debt rarely causes recessions, private debt has caused more recessions and crashes, historically speaking, as was the case in the last crash

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-10-2019 10:31am

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, borrowing is cheap.

But we already pay a lot of interest, as our 200bn public debt is high.

Check the NTMA report linked to above.

Using GDP as the denominator is not helpful in the Irish case, as GDP is inflated by MNC activities.

Bear in mind that ageing will cause higher pension / medical and social care expenditure in the future.

I personally think we should be running fiscal surpluses.

Many people pay too little tax, relative to the benefits they receive.

At a minimum, we should maintain a balanced budget.

I believe in fact we need lots of borrowing, particularly at European level (which means it needs some European level taxation) and we need to spend that money on proper construction and green technologies.

A country is not a company or a household. If a country grows debt to grow GDP and productivity it can easily pay back debt*. With negative interest rates people pay you to take their money.

* not that we ever really pay back debt.

marno21 · 17-10-2019 10:40am

abcabc123123 wrote: »

9 million allocated for cycling. Fine Gael's approach to transport is stuck in the 1970s.

Important to note. €9m additional funding for cycling from the carbon tax bump.

There is €2.4bn being spent on BusConnects (which the NTA say should be called Bus and Cycle Connects) in Dublin, Galway and Cork. That's in addition to the large amount of funding on greenways and other cycling infrastructure.

Wanderer78 · 17-10-2019 11:48am

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I believe in fact we need lots of borrowing, particularly at European level (which means it needs some European level taxation) and we need to spend that money on proper construction and green technologies.

A country is not a company or a household. If a country grows debt to grow GDP and productivity it can easily pay back debt*. With negative interest rates people pay you to take their money.

* not that we ever really pay back debt.

theres very little preventing European institutions such as the eib and the ecb from creating the money needed in the form of bonds to do this, i do believe this is our best option

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-10-2019 12:04pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

theres very little preventing European institutions such as the eib and the ecb from creating the money needed in the form of bonds to do this, i do believe this is our best option

Except they need revenue to justify issuing Europe wide bonds. The EU needs to be less German in its attitude to debt as well.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-10-2019 12:12pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Let’s not forget that the main reason for our high debt is the bailout.

It's not though. Net cost of the bailout is "only" 25-30Bn, we were racking up huge current expenditure deficits after the crash due to massive welfare spending. The public sector wage bill was slashed, so it wasn't that.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-10-2019 12:47pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not though. Net cost of the bailout is "only" 25-30Bn, we were racking up huge current expenditure deficits after the crash due to massive welfare spending. The public sector wage bill was slashed, so it wasn't that.

Alright then. The cost was the bailout and maintaining welfare after the financial system collapsed. The main reason was the collapse of financialism.

The government could have run surpluses coming into the crash and the crash would still have happened.

PeadarCo · 17-10-2019 2:17pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote:

The government could have run surpluses coming into the crash and the crash would still have happened.

It wouldn't though. It was perfectly possible to avoid the crash. The government could have increased taxes focused on property ie a property tax,increased capital gains etc, the central bank as evidenced by actions since the crash could have brought in income limits on mortgages and more stringent restrictions on lending in general. There were plenty of measures the government of the time could have taken to cool the property market. However none of them would have been popular. Because taking those measures would have meant less money for tax cuts, less money for public sector salaries, less money spent on public services full stop. None of that gets you elected.

Even today there are warnings about the reliance of the government on corporation tax and it takes the danger of a no deal Brexit for the government to bring in a some what responsible budget. You have unions comparing salaries to 2007 levels that were only ever possible due to property bubble and never sustainable with the tax structure then in place. Unfortunately Irish people don't reward governments that look after the country's finances long term.

Wanderer78 · 17-10-2019 2:30pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

It wouldn't though. It was perfectly possible to avoid the crash. The government could have increased taxes focused on property ie a property tax,increased capital gains etc, the central bank as evidenced by actions since the crash could have brought in income limits on mortgages and more stringent restrictions on lending in general. There were plenty of measures the government of the time could have taken to cool the property market. However none of them would have been popular. Because taking those measures would have meant less money for tax cuts, less money for public sector salaries, less money spent on public services full stop. None of that gets you elected.

Even today there are warnings about the reliance of the government on corporation tax and it takes the danger of a no deal Brexit for the government to bring in a some what responsible budget. You have unions comparing salaries to 2007 levels that were only ever possible due to property bubble and never sustainable with the tax structure then in place. Unfortunately Irish people don't reward governments that look after the country's finances long term.

i think you d be fairly naive and somewhat arrogant to think we could have been untouched from the crash, there was people shouting and screaming about it, a couple of years prior to it, and nothing happened, nothing changed, our political institutions were locked in. the crash had little to do with public expenditure, and public debt, but more so to do with credit created by financial institutions both nationally and internationally, and these institutions are void of the political process, in fact it could be argued, they rule our political processes and systems.

balancing the books, isnt gonna work here, something has to be done about these financial institutions, and fast, the thinking of ever rising asset prices is failing

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-10-2019 2:35pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

It wouldn't though. It was perfectly possible to avoid the crash..

That’s not really an answer to the claim that we ran surpluses or low deficits up to the crash.

The crash was global but of course the government could have done something, except everything they would have done would have been a regulation, a control of the free market.

PeadarCo · 17-10-2019 3:01pm

Wanderer78 wrote:

i think you d be fairly naive and somewhat arrogant to think we could have been untouched from the crash, there was people shouting and screaming about it, a couple of years prior to it, and nothing happened, nothing changed, our political institutions were locked in. the crash had little to do with public expenditure, and public debt, but more so to do with credit created by financial institutions both nationally and internationally, and these institutions are void of the political process, in fact it could be argued, they rule our political processes and systems.

Have you read my post? Nothing happened because voters didn't want changes. People who owned houses were happy that their paper wealth was increasing. Most people were happy that it was very easy to borrow money. Everyone was happy with lower taxes. Anyone who worked for or depended on the government for salary or services was very happy as they were getting paid better and or receiving better services. Now putting a break on the property bubble would have meant saying no to all that. The 07 election was a competition of who could promise the most.

There was and are plenty of reasons for to vote for unsustainable economic policy's. You don't need to go down the conspiracy theory route.

Wanderer78 · 17-10-2019 3:03pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

Have you read my post? Nothing happened because voters didn't want changes. People who owned houses were happy that their paper wealth was increasing. Most people were happy that it was very easy to borrow money. Everyone was happy with lower taxes. Anyone who worked for or depended on the government for salary or services was very happy as they were getting paid better and or receiving better services. Now putting a break on the property bubble would have meant saying no to all that. The 07 election was a competition of who could promise the most.

There was and are plenty of reasons for to vote for unsustainable economic policy's. You don't need to go down the conspiracy theory route.

say wha?

PeadarCo · 17-10-2019 3:07pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote:

Thatâ€™s not really an answer to the claim that we ran surpluses or low deficits up to the crash.

It is an answer when you look at why we had those surpluses. The reason why we ran surpluses was due to money coming from a large property bubble financed by unsustainable Bank lending. Without that money the spending sustained was unsustainable long term as events showed. The government based spending on the government equivalent of a lotto win.

A surplus or deficit on its own means nothing neither are inherently good or bad. They need to looked at in context ie what is driving the financial position, what's the outlook going forward etc.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-10-2019 4:29pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

It is an answer when you look at why we had those surpluses. The reason why we ran surpluses was due to money coming from a large property bubble financed by unsustainable Bank lending. Without that money the spending sustained was unsustainable long term as events showed. The government based spending on the government equivalent of a lotto win.

A surplus or deficit on its own means nothing neither are inherently good or bad. They need to looked at in context ie what is driving the financial position, what's the outlook going forward etc.

Yes, nobody is disputing that but governments are going to match outgoings to expenditure in most cases. Economists were not rushing to say the boom was a definite bust and government advisors were hopeless. It was indeed letting the market do its thing that was the problem.

PeadarCo · 17-10-2019 5:18pm

Wanderer78 wrote:

say wha?

In your post you suggested financial institutions control the political process and caussed the crash. For me that's a conspiracy theory at least in Ireland case. I appreciate they do lobby politicians. However they are not unique for doing that. SIPTU openly back the Labour Party and at more local level the Healy Raes down in Kerry make sure their voters are looked after.

Wanderer78 · 17-10-2019 5:44pm

PeadarCo wrote:

In your post you suggested financial institutions control the political process and caussed the crash. For me that's a conspiracy theory at least in Ireland case. I appreciate they do lobby politicians. However they are not unique for doing that. SIPTU openly back the Labour Party and at more local level the Healy Raes down in Kerry make sure their voters are looked after.

Financial institutions both nationally and internationally played a significant role in the causation of the crash, deregulation of the financial sector globally has failed, we re still trying to deal with this fallout, and it's not working, and it's not a conspiracy theory either, it's been well written about now by well respected economic commentators. it's also important to recognise the involvement of our political institutions in this mess to, nothing is truly changing, the overall process of continuous asset price inflation is failing

James Brown · 17-10-2019 5:45pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

In your post you suggested financial institutions control the political process and caussed the crash. For me that's a conspiracy theory at least in Ireland case. I appreciate they do lobby politicians. However they are not unique for doing that. SIPTU openly back the Labour Party and at more local level the Healy Raes down in Kerry make sure their voters are looked after.

There was a financial crash and regardless of our own behaviour we were going to feel it.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. There certainly is influence from various quarters. No government works in a vacuum.
As to what part special loans banks might have given out to individuals related to lackluster regulation, if at all, we'll likely never know.

James Brown · 21-10-2019 1:44pm

Taking FF as a defacto governing partner:

The lackadaisical approach to voting in the Dáil is a little concerning. Were it another party I might not be so concerned. Fact is Chambers voted twice, under a colleagues name and then her own. She didn't mention it to any outside party person until it came out, then she explained it was because they lost by such a big margin she didn't bother reporting it. Of course we only have her word and as a FF party member, that does not carry much weight IMO. The only reason the other two, (Dooley and Collins) got a slap on the wrist was because they were brazen about it.

James Brown · 22-10-2019 2:21pm

Looks like more getting drawn in. I can see how it may have been nod and a wink cross party practice, but it shouldn't be. How do we know who actually voted for what without looking up attendance records or CCTV, even then we can't be sure.

blackwhite · 22-10-2019 2:36pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Looks like more getting drawn in. I can see how it may have been nod and a wink cross party practice, but it shouldn't be. How do we know who actually voted for what without looking up attendance records or CCTV, even then we can't be sure.

Not sure it's even possible to do a proper audit with the CCTV, given large sections of the Dáil chamber aren't covered by the cameras. One of the articles in the Indo today suggests that the cameras are off for the 60 second voting period, so even if someone appears to have been away before and after the vote, they can hang their hat on claiming to have come in, voted, and left again during the 60 second window.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/regina-doherty-gets-dragged-into-votegate-controversy-as-it-emerges-she-wasnt-in-seat-before-after-dail-vote-38618828.html

TDs have 60 seconds to vote on legislation but Dail cameras do not show this period of time on the official Oireachtas website or when proceedings are being transmitted live.

I'd suspect that it's common enough practice across the board, or in any parties that employ the party whip at the very least. Whilst the whip system means it's unlikely to have had much of an effect on actual vote results, it still gives an insight into how seriously, or otherwise, the more mundane aspects of being an elected representative are being taken.

GhostyMcGhost · 22-10-2019 3:05pm

blackwhite wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/regina-doherty-gets-dragged-into-votegate-controversy-as-it-emerges-she-wasnt-in-seat-before-after-dail-vote-38618828.html

In that video at the front row, I see 6 people

1 1 1 0 1 1 1

It matches what is ok the screen. The middle seat is empty on the voting screen and it’s the seat Barry Cowen takes. So it’s correct. Not getting it

however what does concern me is the second row, beside who I think is Ruth Copinger, it goes like

1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

But you can clearly see at 0:35 the voting goes
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

So that to me looks very suspect

blanch152 · 22-10-2019 3:18pm

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

In that video at the front row, I see 6 people

1 1 1 0 1 1 1

It matches what is ok the screen. The middle seat is empty on the voting screen and it’s the seat Barry Cowen takes. So it’s correct. Not getting it

however what does concern me is the second row, beside who I think is Ruth Copinger, it goes like

1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

But you can clearly see at 0:35 the voting goes
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

So that to me looks very suspect

You can't be drawing one of the venerable great and the good of the left into this FF and FG scandal.

I think it's very clear that to date those who have been scouring the footage relating to FF and FG politicians, probably for political rivalry reasons.

GhostyMcGhost · 22-10-2019 3:30pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You can't be drawing one of the venerable great and the good of the left into this FF and FG scandal.

I think it's very clear that to date those who have been scouring the footage relating to FF and FG politicians, probably for political rivalry reasons.

Am I right though that Barry Cowens absence is fine because his seat didn’t record a vote. To me the Indo got it wrong? Not sure if I’m reading that video correctly

Yes, this is all very politically motivated and some pro life people are apparently sifting through the videos to see what they contain

James Brown · 22-10-2019 3:45pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You can't be drawing one of the venerable great and the good of the left into this FF and FG scandal.

Why not? Hold everyone equally to account.

blanch152 wrote: »

I think it's very clear that to date those who have been scouring the footage relating to FF and FG politicians, probably for political rivalry reasons.

TBF, it was a FF story that has grown. If you see any lies, please point them out won't you?
It's nobody but FF/FG's fault if they figure prominently in these types of incidents, (expenses, claims etc.).

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Am I right though that Barry Cowens absence is fine because his seat didn’t record a vote. To me the Indo got it wrong? Not sure if I’m reading that video correctly

Yes, this is all very politically motivated and some pro life people are apparently sifting through the videos to see what they contain

This is the problem. It opens up many questions of voting validity. It should be taken very seriously.

blanch152 · 22-10-2019 4:47pm

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Am I right though that Barry Cowens absence is fine because his seat didn’t record a vote. To me the Indo got it wrong? Not sure if I’m reading that video correctly

Yes, this is all very politically motivated and some pro life people are apparently sifting through the videos to see what they contain

If no vote is recorded, then he is fine. However, if there is a vote recorded for Cowen on that day, then the onus falls on his colleagues sitting close to his seat to explain how. Haven't looked at the footage, but have heard that young Dooley is closeby.

James Brown · 23-10-2019 2:37pm

Not a fan of his but makes some fair points:

"Article 15.11 of our Constitution is very clear. Every question in either House must be decided by a majority of those of its members who are both present and voting.

So proxy voting is unconstitutional. Any attempt knowingly to vote on behalf of an absent member is therefore nothing less than an attempt to subvert the Constitution."
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/proxy-voting-an-attempt-to-subvert-constitution-1.4059343

It's in the least disrespectful that these people, elected, have such a Laissez-faire approach to voting on issues and policy.

Red_Wake · 24-10-2019 8:50pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not a fan of his but makes some fair points:

It's in the least disrespectful that these people, elected, have such a Laissez-faire approach to voting on issues and policy.

Would this open the door to a legal challenge against any and all actions decided[including laws passed] upon by a dail chamber where someone had engaged in proxy voting?

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments