# Pat Rabbitte to resign today?



## Jock04 (23 Aug 2007)

Just on Newstalk FM:

Pat Rabbitte  possibly to announce his resignation as leader of the Labour Party at a news conference at 3:30 today.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

Jock04 said:


> Just on Newstalk FM:
> 
> Pat Rabbitte possibly to announce his resignation as leader of the Labour Party at a news conference at 3:30 today.
> 
> Any thoughts?


 
Oh no - I hope not.  I'd be cynical about most politicians and PR is far from perfect but I would honestly miss his genuine intelligence, wit & (for the most part) integrity - qualities so often lacking in politicians.


----------



## shanegl (23 Aug 2007)

I thought he had integrity until he started banging on about the 35 million Poles who could come over here and put us all out of jobs. That xenophobic nonsense put me right off him.


----------



## boris (23 Aug 2007)

Also what about his double standard banging on about fee paying schools and his own children going to one in Templeouge.  He shut up fairly quickly on that topic.


----------



## Johnny Boy (23 Aug 2007)

I thought Brian Cowen made him look like a fool on Questions and Answers before the election. Cowen said that he be happy to go into Government with Labour and Rabbitte putting on an act of disgust for the faithful made a right eejit of himself. His only policy was his self righteousness. Adios Pat and since you tried to be funny in the Dáil maybe there will be a spot for you on the Panel(TV Programe) next season


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> I thought he had integrity until he started banging on about the 35 million Poles who could come over here and put us all out of jobs. That xenophobic nonsense put me right off him.


 
But was his issue not more with the government's ad hoc and disorganised approach to legislation and the unease that may arise, rather than having problems with immigrants _per se?_


----------



## Green (23 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> I thought Brian Cowen made him look like a fool on Questions and Answers before the election. Cowen said that he be happy to go into Government with Labour and Rabbitte putting on an act of disgust for the faithful made a right eejit of himself. His only policy was his self righteousness. Adios Pat and since you tried to be funny in the Dáil maybe there will be a spot for you on the Panel(TV Programe) next season


 
Perhaps he should have joined up with FF and settled down for a drink with the tax evaders in the tent at the Galway Races.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Aug 2007)

suffers a bit from the Ml Noonan factor in that he appears competent while on the attack but you'd wonder could he ever lead or be effective in power.

Not the worst I suppose, could add a bit of colour at times


----------



## Johnny Boy (23 Aug 2007)

well you cant not do much in opposition can you.This is something that I cannot understand how we the Irish see ourselves as so honest so correct like saints and only the politictions espcially FF are the only people that are sinning.Who the people elect  represents us who we are 
warts and all


----------



## Green (23 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> Who the people elect represents us who we are warts and all


 
Hmmm.. really, a reflection of us all eh. I never got a supermarket tycoon to pay for my extension or give me a dig out to pay for my extravagant lifestyle..I never went to pub to receive money for my county council vote. You should read Stephen Collins book on FF since Lemass.


----------



## Johnny Boy (23 Aug 2007)

I always thought that Labour should have been the biggest party in Ireland but somehow they disinfrachise themselves from the voters. Pat Rabbitte did not or was too snoobish to engage with the electorate and pandered to the horrible middle class mentality. He failed and failed miserebly to have any impact on anything substantial.I hope that Labour elect Brendan Howlin and that he has the common touch to bring forth a fresh agenda(Health Health Health) and policies and not the change of Government as being the basis of getting elected. Good luck to him anyhow


----------



## room305 (23 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> I always thought that Labour should have been the biggest party in Ireland but somehow they disinfrachise themselves from the voters. Pat Rabbitte did not or was too snoobish to engage with the electorate and pandered to the horrible middle class mentality.



Are the middle class not Ireland's largest body politic?


----------



## BOXtheFOX (23 Aug 2007)

I will always remember him taking pleasure in "gutting" those involved in the non resident accounts scandals of a few years back. I reckoned it was only time before he turned his attention to the rest of us over something or other.  I believe that this was the reason Labour did not do as well as they might have in the last election. I'm glad he's gone.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

boris said:


> Also what about his double standard banging on about fee paying schools and his own children going to one in Templeouge.  He shut up fairly quickly on that topic.


Reminds me of _Frank Cluskey's _response to accusations that he was being hypocritical in claiming to be a _Socialist _but having private health insurance - _"Sure nothing's too good for the working classes"_. 



Betsy Og said:


> suffers a bit from the Ml Noonan factor in that he appears competent while on the attack but you'd wonder could he ever lead or be effective in power.
> 
> Not the worst I suppose, could add a bit of colour at times


I suppose grey is technically a colour alright. I suspect that politicos and journos create their own mythology. For ages I've heard about how great an orator and character _PR _is/was but could never see it myself. Maybe if you repeat something often enough etc...?


----------



## Johnny Boy (24 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Are the middle class not Ireland's largest body politic?


The definition of middle class varies it seems but my thinking of middleclass is the people who could and did go to University in the 19760s/1970s. They seem to be embarresed or try and be shy about how much money they have . They can also talk so eloquently about the poor the pain they feel about people on hospital trolleys,they know the right facial expressions to use(watch Liz McManus in action) but do not have the guts to do anything about it like go into Goverment. Could go on and on about them but would stray away from original point. Ooops the rant stops here


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> but do not have the guts to do anything about it like go into Goverment.


 
I think that a prerequiste for going into Government is that you have a coalition party with whom you are willing & capable of doing business with. PR didn't want to do business with FF but as we have seen they picked up a few tax evaders to help them out along the way.


----------



## z109 (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I suppose grey is technically a colour alright. I suspect that politicos and journos create their own mythology. For ages I've heard about how great an orator and character _PR _is/was but could never see it myself. Maybe if you repeat something often enough etc...?



The key to great oratory seems to be:
1. Don't asnwer the question
2. Make the point you want to make in a loud, braying voice
3. Talk over anyone else trying to respond to you
4. Out-boor the FF'ers
5. Jump on every band-wagon with the tuppeny sound bites

Not a fan. Though Descartes help us all if Joan Burton gets elected to replace him.


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Betsy Og said:


> but you'd wonder could he ever lead or be effective in power.


 
How do we define effective in power? Do you mean in a policy or political sense? How difficult do you think the process of being in Government is? Have a look at the ranks of our Junior Ministers, are we weighed down with talented individuals who are effective and efficient, I dont think so. Being in Government isn't as difficult as you might think.....


----------



## Caveat (24 Aug 2007)

yoganmahew said:


> The key to great oratory seems to be:
> 1. Don't asnwer the question
> 2. Make the point you want to make in a loud, braying voice
> 3. Talk over anyone else trying to respond to you
> ...


 
 

He was prone to pomposity and evasive techniques alright.

But the end result was still I think much more impressive than the mumbling, stuttering, inarticulate, winking, devoid of charisma excuses for public representatives that make up 90% of Pat's colleagues.


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> But the end result was still I think much more impressive than the mumbling, stuttering, inarticulate, winking, devoid of charisma excuses for public representatives that make up 90% of Pat's colleagues.


 
I agree with your comments. And you can make that 90% of the entire TD's. Joe Higgins will be sorely missed too.


----------



## Caveat (24 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> that 90% of the entire TD's.


 
That's what I meant actually - colleagues in the widest sense.  I would have respect for Joe Higgins too.


----------



## Betsy Og (24 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> How do we define effective in power? Do you mean in a policy or political sense? How difficult do you think the process of being in Government is? Have a look at the ranks of our Junior Ministers, are we weighed down with talented individuals who are effective and efficient, I dont think so. Being in Government isn't as difficult as you might think.....


 
Well I cant say I know what it takes to be in government, but you have to credit some of the FFailers for cuteness & ability to get things done. E.g.

Bertie, Cowen, McDowell (to some extent & I know he was PD!), Harney (ok a PD - against all odds she made some headway but dont agree with private hospitals on public land), Hanafin?, Roche (unfairly malaigned?)

None of these are junior ministers but I presume they had their day as junior ministers.

I'm not a FFailer so I can also see the dross - Cullen, Dempsey (had high hopes of him at one time), Lenihan.

Fine Gael in Kenny, Bruton & a few more if I could think of them off hand would be good in office.

& then theres Pat Rabitte - jee, dunno about him, probably ok in his ministry but I just dont see him as a leader of men. For all the slagging Enda Kenny got I think he does have that quality.

Being relentlessly negative or sniping leads me to believe (maybe wrongly) that a politician has no great vision of their own, I want to vote for someone with a vision and enough smarts to at least get part of the way there, Pat wouldnt have ever convinced me of his vision.


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> The definition of middle class varies it seems but my thinking of middleclass is the people who could and did go to University in the 19760s/1970s.



So middle class _and_ middle aged?


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Betsy Og said:


> Well I cant say I know what it takes to be in government, but you have to credit some of the FFailers for cuteness & ability to get things done. E.g.


 
Yes, indeed you do have to credit some of FF, e.g. how did Charlie get all that money? What did Ray Burke go to prison for? And don't forget the recent report of the European Environmental Agency which cited Dublin to Eastern European cities as the worst example of planning and the one not to follow. Yes, indeed you do have the marvel at the cuteness of the FF and guess what? We are still paying for it! 

Irish people don't vote for vision mainly because they can't understand it. Imagine a politican turning up at a clinic saying I've read legilsation or saying we have to think in a regional/national context and forget one dimensional local issues. How long do you think s/he would last? The current Shannon issue is a case in point.


----------



## Johnny Boy (24 Aug 2007)

This is one of the best countries to live in at the present.There is no doubt that things could be improved but what a transformation. Who is responsable or who can take credit is wide and varied alot of people played their part. Pat Rabbitte will not be up there. What has he done? I am not asking this in an argumenative way but enlighten me


----------



## Caveat (24 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Irish people don't vote for vision mainly because they can't understand it. Imagine a politican turning up at a clinic saying I've read legilsation or saying we have to think in a regional/national context and forget one dimensional local issues. How long do you think s/he would last? The current Shannon issue is a case in point.


 
Yep. As far as I can see, most people vote with their stomachs, wallets, hearts...etc - never their heads.


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> This is one of the best countries to live in at the present.
> 
> *On what basis do you deduce this? The long commutes, the long public health waiting lists, the bad planning, the corruption, do seriously erode the quality of life. *
> 
> There is no doubt that things could be improved but what a transformation. Who is responsable or who can take credit is wide and varied alot of people played their part. Pat Rabbitte will not be up there. What has he done? I am not asking this in an argumenative way but enlighten me


 
An interesting question and the answer to which we will never fully know. I would imagine that it has been a combination of factors. There have been a number of people who have taken credit not that we are experiencing a slight downturn it will be interesting to see what will be said. In regard to Pat Rabitte's contribution, you could ask that question of any politician Govt or opposition.


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Yep. As far as I can see, most people vote with their stomachs, wallets, hearts...etc - never their heads.


 
But will we ever learn in this country and or will the gombeen man always win out? Politicians in this country seriously pander to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Johnny Boy (24 Aug 2007)

*"On what basis do you deduce this? The long commutes, the long public health waiting lists, the bad planning, the corruption, do seriously erode the quality of life."*


Quaility of Life is  very good here (try living in England) a great educational system surplus of employment Liberal thinking society. My biggest with this quam with this Government is their policies or lack of on energy where by all accounts Nuclear seems to be the most rational. Bad planning seems to happen anyways whether there is corruption or not


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> Bad planning seems to happen anyways whether there is corruption or not


 
I don't necessarily agree, our bad planning has been definitely been influenced by corruption. And in some senses you can never recover from bad planning...once its done its done..the link between transport and planning has never been established in this country...a major, major failing...


----------



## Johnny Boy (24 Aug 2007)

> And in some senses you can never recover from bad planning...once its done its done..the link between transport and planning has never been established in this country...a major, major failing...


 
I would agree 100% but at the fast rate this country's economy developed in the last 15 years it took everybody by surprise.The infastruture was very basic 20 years ago. I hope that labour elects a leadar that will embrace new Ireland and will be policy driven and that will go into Government. They  used to say to FF and FG to leave the civil war politics behind them, now its time Labour left the holier than thou image behind and be honest with themselves. At the minute they are relics of a bygone era


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> . I would agree 100% *but at the fast rate this country's economy developed in the last 15 years it took everybody by surprise.*The infastruture was very basic 20 years ago.


 
Not necessariliy true, we were making bad and corrupt planning decisions before 1992 (see Mahon Tribunal - Dublin Castle). We are still not linking planning and tranport decisions. The recommendation to allow Local Authorities to veto transport plans which was contained in the report by the group establishing the Dublin Transport Authority was rejected By Minister Cullen in November 2006.


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> Bad planning seems to happen anyways whether there is corruption or not



I agree, the only way to eradicate bad planning is to scrap planning.


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> I agree, the only way to eradicate bad planning is to scrap planning.


 
The Friday afternoon feeling has definitely entered this thread


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> The Friday afternoon feeling has definitely entered this thread



I wasn't joking!


----------



## Green (24 Aug 2007)

Fair enough. Can you expand on your theory, please?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Fair enough. Can you expand on your theory, please?


See this thread perhaps?

*Nanny state - agree/disagree*


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Fair enough. Can you expand on your theory, please?



By scrapping planning laws you

- Discourage land hoarding
- Encourage better build quality as it is the only means developers can differentiate their product
- Remove corruption, or just councils sanctioning inappropriate development to gain more funding for the town
- Keep prices down through free and open competition


----------



## Green (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> By scrapping planning laws you
> 
> - Discourage land hoarding
> - Encourage better build quality as it is the only means developers can differentiate their product
> ...


 
Ok, lets say you do all that, how do you deliver services to people if everybody builds anywhere they want to?


----------



## room305 (27 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Ok, lets say you do all that, how do you deliver services to people if everybody builds anywhere they want to?



Not anywhere they want to, just anywhere they own land - you couldn't build a house in your neighbours garden for example. The person building will have to factor in the cost of providing services, which would be a lot more efficient than the current mess.


----------



## Green (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Not anywhere they want to, just anywhere they own land - you couldn't build a house in your neighbours garden for example. The person building will have to factor in the cost of providing services, which would be a lot more efficient than the current mess.


 
Fair enough but that still does does not answer the question in regard to services such as schools, transport, hospitals etc,...There is no guarantee that the services they want will be near the land that they own.


----------



## room305 (27 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Fair enough but that still does does not answer the question in regard to services such as schools, transport, hospitals etc,...There is no guarantee that the services they want will be near the land that they own.



Stands to reason they shouldn't build there then if they aren't happy with the services in the area. See how the system is self-regulating without any requirement for planning departments?


----------



## Green (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Stands to reason they shouldn't build there then if they aren't happy with the services in the area. See how the system is self-regulating without any requirement for planning departments?


 
No, I wouldn't agree with either point. Firstly, I think people will always want to build on their own land as its cheaper and they get exactly what they want in a house. We see all over the country where people build where they are not near services of any nature. IMHO the State can best provide services where people lives in clusters the further distant people are to each other the more strain there are on services. Also, there must be some enforcement of standards particularly now in view of the need to conservce energy. I can see what you are suggesting but I dont see Irish people buying into such a self regulating system.


----------



## room305 (27 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> No, I wouldn't agree with either point. Firstly, I think people will always want to build on their own land as its cheaper and they get exactly what they want in a house.



It's cheaper precisely because the cost of providing services is socialised. If you want people to live in clusters then this is more likely to come from a system that accounts for the externality of service provision, not one that relies on "knowing the system".

As for energy conservation - laughable. We still build houses they way they did in the 1930s. If planning was scrapped I imagine we would see a wealth of low cost affordable homes, such as those built by Kingspan. We'd also be more inclined to build smaller homes - ones that meet our needs now, not ones we hope will meet our needs in ten years time.


----------



## Green (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> As for energy conservation - laughable. We still build houses they way they did in the 1930s. If planning was scrapped I imagine we would see a wealth of low cost affordable homes, such as those built by Kingspan.


 
Why can't those "low cost affordable homes" be built now?


----------



## Betsy Og (27 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> IMHO the State can best provide services where people lives in clusters the further distant people are to each other the more strain there are on services.


 
On this particular point the State isnt out of pocket because people choose to live far from services. We paid a council levy for no service so far. We paid an ESB contribution to connect us to a line that already passed a couple of hundred yards from our house. We have our own water source & sewage, all paid up front by ourselves. 

A private operator collects our bin - so its not like its uneconomic to provide services to us. An Post drops the mail beside the road they already travel on.

So barring a community mini-bus that would be pub runs and a few "mercy missions" as required, I dont see that a) we have any significant lack of services or b) that it would be impossible to provide the remainder of services. This holds true for the majority of country dwellers.

I'm anxious to know if the Green will develop a mature attitude to country living - their view on other more serious issues have proven to be a bit flexible so far.


----------



## room305 (28 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Why can't those "low cost affordable homes" be built now?



Because planning creates a deliberate bottleneck, throttling supply. This adds an artificial premium to the price of land and as such, it may not be economically viable or desirable to build low cost affordable housing on a resource that is so precious.

Planning laws in the UK, including "greenfield zones" and the like, were a move to protect the value of land held by wealthy landowners and I don't see our laws as being any different.


----------



## room305 (28 Aug 2007)

Betsy Og said:


> I dont see that a) we have any significant lack of services or b) that it would be impossible to provide the remainder of services. This holds true for the majority of country dwellers.



Being from the country myself I understand that service provision in the country is not impossible. However, it is fact that city dwellers subsidise their country brethren.

That is not to say everybody should live in the city - but a more transparent system would make determining costs easier. I find it most bizarre that when I travel to visit friends in Meath - who moved there along with many others because a "shortage" of housing in the city made prices there unaffordable - I must travel past acres of green fields to reach them.


----------



## Green (28 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Planning laws in the UK, including "greenfield zones" and the like, were a move to protect the value of land held by wealthy landowners and I don't see our laws as being any different.


 
I would agree that land is held in banks by developers and given the close relationship between them and political parties (FF tent Galway Races) I don't see this situation changing soon.


----------



## room305 (28 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> I would agree that land is held in banks by developers and given the close relationship between them and political parties (FF tent Galway Races) I don't see this situation changing soon.



Agreed, I don't see it changing soon either but it is no harm to be aware of their purpose. Since planning laws are used to prevent free market competition and protect the wealthy, it follows that scrapping them would be beneficial.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2007)

Back on topic, while I got the impression that Pat Rabbitt is probably quite a nice man I never liked his brand of 1980's style opposition for oppositions sake politics. I didn't like the holier than thou pontificating that passed for speeches but what I really don't like about the Labour party in general can be summarised by YORB's quote;


YOBR said:


> But will we ever learn in this country and or will the gombeen man always win out? Politicians in this country seriously pander to the lowest common denominator.


  So the 40 odd percent of the population that vote FF are gombeens; dishonest and/or stupid,  and the smart principled people vote Labour.
If only there were more of those smart principled people so that Labour could run the country. I find that attitude both arrogant and insulting and I’m not in Fianna Fail.


----------



## Green (30 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> Back on topic, while I got the impression that Pat Rabbitt is probably quite a nice man I never liked his brand of 1980's style opposition for oppositions sake politics. I didn't like the holier than thou pontificating that passed for speeches but what I really don't like about the Labour party in general can be summarised by YORB's quote;
> So the 40 odd percent of the population that vote FF are gombeens; dishonest and/or stupid, and the smart principled people vote Labour.
> If only there were more of those smart principled people so that Labour could run the country. I find that attitude both arrogant and insulting and I’m not in Fianna Fail.


 
No, you have extrapolated incorrectly from the comments I made. In nay case, what is arrogant and insulting about my comments? I stick to the comments I made, politicians do pander to the lowest common denominator....look at the increasing number of constituency offices...read all of my posts and you might understand what i am saying..


----------



## gonk (30 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> So the 40 odd percent of the population that vote FF are gombeens; dishonest and/or stupid


 
Beverly Flynn was re-elected to the Dáil despite the Supreme Court finding that she encouraged tax evasion and has no reputation deserving of protection. Bertie Ahern has stated since her re-election that "Beverly Flynn will come back into her natural home which is Fianna Fáil" and "she definitely has a very good future as an office holder". Enough said . . .


----------



## room305 (30 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> No, you have extrapolated incorrectly from the comments I made. In nay case, what is arrogant and insulting about my comments? I stick to the comments I made, politicians do pander to the lowest common denominator....look at the increasing number of constituency offices...read all of my posts and you might understand what i am saying..



When you say "lowest common denominator" what do you mean? I would have thought that in a representative democratic system, a politician who doesn't appeal to the wants of the broadest range of the populace (i.e. the majority) is the politician who stays out of power.


----------



## Green (30 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> Beverly Flynn was re-elected to the Dáil despite the Supreme Court finding that she encouraged tax evasion and has no reputation deserving of protection. Bertie Ahern has stated since her re-election that "Beverly Flynn will come back into her natural home which is Fianna Fáil" and "she definitely has a very good future as an office holder". Enough said . . .


 
Precisely my point! And, of course, this is nothwithstanding the deal that was done with Michael Lowry. You will remember the bold Michael does an illegal deal with Dunnes, tells lies to the Dail, to his constituents, and then realises he has to get reelected so what does he do, yes, you've guessed it, he blames the Dublin "medja", who are out to get him. Then of course, ignoring the facts, the locals elect him to top the poll. Because it wasn't really Michael's fault, it was that Dublin "medja" and their agenda! 

And thats even before I get started on the Bailey brothers and the FF tent!


----------



## room305 (30 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Then of course, ignoring the facts, the locals elect him to top the poll. Because it wasn't really Michael's fault, it was that Dublin "medja" and their agenda!



Maybe the locals were fully cognisant of the facts but chose to vote for Lowry anyway on the basis that what he did was "nothing I wouldn't have done meself if I was given the opportunity". Certainly an opinion I've heard expressed on many occasions.


----------



## Green (30 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Maybe the locals were fully cognisant of the facts but chose to vote for Lowry anyway on the basis that what he did was "nothing I wouldn't have done meself if I was given the opportunity". Certainly an opinion I've heard expressed on many occasions.


 
Maybe they would have known some things but that doesn't excuse his insinuations that the "dublin medja" were out to get him. Also, given that he lied to Dail about his offshore account when he read out his personal statement it would have been hard for the locals to know *all the facts*. It always easy to blame "dem fellas up in Dublin!".....


----------



## gonk (30 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Maybe the locals were fully cognisant of the facts but chose to vote for Lowry anyway on the basis that what he did was "nothing I wouldn't have done meself if I was given the opportunity". Certainly an opinion I've heard expressed on many occasions.


 
Exactly! So the people who knowingly vote for these chancers _*are*_ - to answer Purple's question - dishonest, or at least see nothing wrong with dishonesty in their elected representatives. The only crime is getting caught and for many people even getting caught is no big deal.


----------



## Green (30 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> Exactly! So the people who knowingly vote for these chancers _*are*_ - to answer Purple's question - dishonest, or at least see nothing wrong with dishonesty in their elected representatives. The only crime is getting caught *and for many people even getting caught is no big deal*.


 
Especially, when those who are caught can socialise, interact and have the ear of those in Government. In 2006, Bovale Limited (principals Mick & Tom Bailey) made the largest tax settlement in the history of the State, €22m. Last year and again in 2007, they were welcomed into the FF tent at the Galway races. The who are elected to make and preserve the laws, including tax law, sitting with those who break them.

What did the late Leona Helmsley say "taxes are for the little people".


----------



## Green (30 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> When you say "lowest common denominator" what do you mean? I would have thought that in a representative democratic system, a politician who doesn't appeal to the wants of the broadest range of the populace (i.e. the majority) is the politician who stays out of power.


 
I mean low grade work following up routine issues for constituents. Correct me if I'm wrong but one of the reasons that we began to pay Councillors was to ensure that they did they looked after the small stuff and the TD's could concentrate on legislation and policy. In addition, each TD was also given a political researcher too to assist in this task. However, it appears that TD's are content to keep the status quo and we are paying councillors and researchers for nothing. I could think of other ways to spend this money.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> I mean low grade work following up routine issues for constituents. Correct me if I'm wrong but one of the reasons that we began to pay Councillors was to ensure that they did they looked after the small stuff and the TD's could concentrate on legislation and policy. In addition, each TD was also given a political researcher too to assist in this task. However, it appears that TD's are content to keep the status quo and we are paying councillors and researchers for nothing. I could think of other ways to spend this money.


I agree that our national representatives spend far too much time on local issues but I stand by my comment that your views are offensive and arrogant in that they assume that everyone who votes FF is OK with tax evasion and lobbying of government by interest groups. As the biggest party in the state this is a damning opinion on your country men (and women). I don’t know Ms Flynn and I don’t like what I’ve seen in the media but I am more disturbed by the Irish Independent’s campaign against her than I am about her re-joining Fianna Fail. I have never been to the Galway races but I am just as disturbed by how Labour held fundraisers when Ruairi Quinn was minister for finance where industry leaders were invited to a £1000 a head dinner where they would get close personal access to the minister. 
I vote based on which party’s economic policies I support as it seems that the Supreme Court is in charge of the social and moral issues these days. I don't vote for Labour because I don't like their economic policies. If I did like their economic policies I would vote for them, despite their arrogance, moral superiority and the blatant hypocrisy of many of their members.


----------



## Green (30 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> I agree that our national representatives spend far too much time on local issues but I stand by my comment that your views are offensive and arrogant in that they assume that everyone who votes FF is OK with tax evasion and lobbying of government by interest groups. As the biggest party in the state this is a damning opinion on your country men (and women). I don’t know Ms Flynn and I don’t like what I’ve seen in the media but I am more disturbed by the Irish Independent’s campaign against her than I am about her re-joining Fianna Fail. I have never been to the Galway races but I am just as disturbed by how Labour held fundraisers when Ruairi Quinn was minister for finance where industry leaders were invited to a £1000 a head dinner where they would get close personal access to the minister.
> I vote based on which party’s economic policies I support as it seems that the Supreme Court is in charge of the social and moral issues these days. I don't vote for Labour because I don't like their economic policies. If I did like their economic policies I would vote for them, despite their arrogance, moral superiority and the blatant hypocrisy of many of their members.


 
I have not stated that everybody who votes for FF is ok with tax evasion. On an earlier post I have stated that you extrapolated incorrectly, a point which you have chosen to ignore! The difficulty for me is that many Irish people are seduced by local issues and what politicans can do for them locally and ignore the bigger regional and national picture.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Perhaps he should have joined up with FF and settled down for a drink with the tax evaders in the tent at the Galway Races.





YOBR said:


> Hmmm.. really, a reflection of us all eh. I never got a supermarket tycoon to pay for my extension or give me a dig out to pay for my extravagant lifestyle..I never went to pub to receive money for my county council vote. You should read Stephen Collins book on FF since Lemass.





YOBR said:


> I think that a prerequiste for going into Government is that you have a coalition party with whom you are willing & capable of doing business with. PR didn't want to do business with FF but as we have seen they picked up a few tax evaders to help them out along the way.



I think it was your constant reference to the FF tent at the Galway races and tax evaders and FF that gave me that impression, my apologies.
For the record which serving Fianna Fail TD’s do you respect or admire?
I can list them off from all parties. I can also list off the ones I don’t like but I don’t let ideology colour my views.


----------



## Green (30 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> I think it was your constant reference to the FF tent at the Galway races and tax evaders and FF that gave me that impression, my apologies.
> For the record which serving Fianna Fail TD’s do you respect or admire?
> I can list them off from all parties. I can also list off the ones I don’t like but I don’t let ideology colour my views.


 
I did make reference to certain issues involving FF, ethics and those who they associate with. It is a huge leap to then conclude that a result of these comments that every single FF voter is ok with tax evasion. I might also add that all my comments are *facts* and not opinion or indeed, extrapolation. 

Seamus Brennan, Cecilia Keaveny (now a senator), Sean Flemming, Jim Glennon was also honest in his appraisal of politics when he announced his decision not to seek reelection. I will miss Joe Higgins from the Dail.


----------



## gonk (30 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> It is a huge leap to then conclude that a result of these comments that every single FF voter is ok with tax evasion.


 
Actually, on the basis of the party leader's post-election assessment of Beverly Flynn's character, it's reasonable to conclude that anyone who votes for Fianna Fáil in future _is_ ok with tax evasion. Certainly, Bertie seems to have no problem with it.


----------



## Green (30 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> Actually, on the basis of the party leader's post-election assessment of Beverly Flynn's character, it's reasonable to conclude that anyone who votes for Fianna Fáil in future _is_ ok with tax evasion. Certainly, Bertie seems to have no problem with it.


 
Maybe Bertie will appoint her as Minister for State at the Department of Finance!


----------



## MrMan (30 Aug 2007)

Maybe other party members are just better at tax evasion - they don't get caught.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> Actually, on the basis of the party leader's post-election assessment of Beverly Flynn's character, it's reasonable to conclude that anyone who votes for Fianna Fáil in future _is_ ok with tax evasion.



I don't think that such a conclusion is reasonable at all. Is it reasonable to conclude that anyone who attends a Catholic Church on Sundays is "ok with" child abuse?


----------



## gonk (30 Aug 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I don't think that such a conclusion is reasonable at all. Is reasonable to conclude that anyone who attends a Catholic Church on Sundays is "ok with" child abuse?


 
Not a valid comparison.

The Catholic Church did, of course, grossly mishandle the issue of sexual abuse by clergy in the past, to put it extremely mildly. However it is, I think, now fair to say that it has come to a proper realisation of the gravity of the crime and deals with it accordingly. 

With Beverly Flynn, we have a situation where the leader of Fianna Fáil believes a person whom the Supreme Court has found facilitated and encouraged tax evasion and has no reputation worthy of protection should be welcomed back into the party and in time given ministerial office. Bertie has learned nothing, except maybe that his supporters don't give a toss about standards in public office.


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> However it is, I think, now fair to say that it has come to a proper realisation of the gravity of the crime and deals with it accordingly.



Not really evidenced sadly by the reaction of the Irish Christian Brothers last week to the recent publication of the "Fr Moore Report" from the 1960s into Artane Industrial School.



gonk said:


> With Beverly Flynn, we have a situation where the leader of Fianna Fáil believes a person whom the Supreme Court has found facilitated and encouraged tax evasion and has no reputation worthy of protection should be welcomed back into the party and in time given ministerial office.



You could surely just as easily say:
"we have a situation where the leader of the Catholic Church believes that persons convicted by the Courts of extreme and cruel sexual and physical abuse of children, and who were found to have facilitated and encouraged others to abuse children, and who have no reputation worthy of protection, should be welcomed back into the Church and be allowed to remain as priests of the Church until the day they die."

Although this statement is true, it does not necessarily follow that "it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who attends a Catholic Church on Sundays is 'ok with' child abuse". Therefore I fail to see how your own statement, quoted above, proves or illustrates that all FF voters are "ok with" tax evasion.


----------



## gonk (31 Aug 2007)

Well, we could argue till the cows come home about the institutional Catholic Church's response to child sexual abuse by its clergy - suffice it to say I would agree that, to put it in Bertie's words, there's "a lot done, more to do."

I do not, however, accept the validity of your comparison between a religion and a political party. If one is a convinced Catholic (or indeed an adherent of any other religion) the misconduct of members of the clergy, no matter how vile, does not invalidate one's beliefs in the tenets of the religion. Nor does one choose every few years whether to remain Catholic, or perhaps convert to Buddhism, Judaism or Islam.

By contrast, in a parliamentary democracy such as Ireland, the voters do express in the ballot box at regular intervals a preference for the political parties they want to see in goverment. So long as Bertie Ahern remains leader of Fianna Fáil, I stand over my view that a vote for that party constitutes an implicit endorsement of Bertie's view that Beverly Flynn is a suitable and worthy candidate for ministerial office. If you want Fianna Fáil in power, it necessarily follows that you either approve of or are at least prepared to tolerate Beverly Flynn as a member of the Government. 

To push your strained analogy with the Catholic Church to its logical conclusion, Bertie's stance on Flynn is equivalent to having "a situation where the leader of the Catholic Church believes that persons convicted by the Courts of extreme and cruel sexual and physical abuse of children, and who were found to have facilitated and encouraged others to abuse children, and who have no reputation worthy of protection, should be welcomed back into the Church _*and be promoted to be bishops*_."


----------



## Johnny Boy (31 Aug 2007)

wait a minute did Pat Rabbitte have something to do with official Sinn Féin? who supported the official IRA who in turn robbed banks planted bombs murdered people. Now posters think he is Nelson Mandela.He has done nothing of consequence except run away from power where if he had the will he would have followed up on his rheoteric. Labour talks good but rheoteric and actions are too differtent in their policies A few posters here seem to have lost the run of themselves too long up on the high horse.


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

The crux of the matter really is that people vote for political parties for a wide range of reasons. As such it does not make sense to conclude that all the voters of a particular party are in agreement with each and every aspect of that party's policies and procedures, or even sometimes the people they vote for.

To take one example, many people in Co. Leitrim voted for John Ellis in the last election because they wanted a Co. Leitrim TD at any cost despite the fact that they neither supported FF nor had any time for Ellis, whose controversial business career has alienated many people over the years. 

At the other end of the spectrum, I really doubt that the several thousand voters who voted for Joe Higgins were all in favour of hardline Marxist policies including nationalising industries & banks etc, and I suspect that quite a few of his votes came from people who supported him on specific issues (eg waste charges) but not on others.

Much as I might like to at times (ie when they win the odd football match) I also refuse to accept that the thousands of Kerrymen and women who vote for Martin Ferris are all complicit in the IRA's murder campaign of the past decades.


----------



## Green (31 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> wait a minute did Pat Rabbitte have something to do with official Sinn Féin?


 
Do you have evidence or factual proof of same?


----------



## gonk (31 Aug 2007)

YOBR said:


> Do you have evidence or factual proof of same?


 
Rabbitte was a member of Democratic Left AKA The Workers Party AKA Sinn Féin the Workers Party AKA Official Sinn Féin, before the DL merger with Labour.

He was first elected to the Dáil for the Workers Party.


----------



## gonk (31 Aug 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> The crux of the matter really is that people vote for political parties for a wide range of reasons. As such it does not make sense to conclude that all the voters of a particular party are in agreement with each and every aspect of that party's policies and procedures, or even sometimes the people they vote for.


 
I never said every Fianna Fáil voter agrees with Bertie's opinion of Flynn - I _do_ say that a vote for Fianna Fáil must imply one is at least prepared to tolerate her in Government.



ubiquitous said:


> At the other end of the spectrum, I really doubt that the several thousand voters who voted for Joe Higgins were all in favour of hardline Marxist policies including nationalising industries & banks etc, and I suspect that quite a few of his votes came from people who supported him on specific issues (eg waste charges) but not on others.


 
I'm sure lots of people voted for Higgins because he was a very effective parliamentarian and opposition spokesman. I'm equally sure that if there was any prospect of him actually getting into power his vote would diminish significantly. As it is, he was not returned to the current Dáil. By contrast, voters for Fianna Fáil cast their votes in the knowledge that they are very likely to assist in returning that party to power.



ubiquitous said:


> Much as I might like to at times (ie when they win the odd football match) I also refuse to accept that the thousands of Kerrymen and women who vote for Martin Ferris are all complicit in the IRA's murder campaign of the past decades.


 
They are.


----------



## Johnny Boy (31 Aug 2007)

[broken link removed]

This is a fast google but did not he belong to "sinn fein the workers party" if you do not know this and you know everything that goes on in the tent at the Galway races your arguments are based on soundbites from the last election.
(am in hurry)


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> I never said every Fianna Fáil voter agrees with Bertie's opinion of Flynn



Indeed you didn't, but you did say



gonk said:


> Actually, on the basis of the party leader's post-election assessment of Beverly Flynn's character, it's reasonable to conclude that anyone who votes for Fianna Fáil in future is ok with tax evasion


which is a long way from saying...


gonk said:


> ...a vote for Fianna Fáil must imply one is at least prepared to tolerate her in Government.


----------



## gonk (31 Aug 2007)

"OK with" or "tolerate" - what's the difference?


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

There is a big difference between "being ok with" (ie supporting or agreeing with)  crimes and tolerating (or even voting for) someone who has either committed or facilitated such crimes in the past.


----------



## gonk (31 Aug 2007)

When I used the expression "ok with" I was actually quoting another poster.

To clarify my own view


Beverly Flynn has been found by the Supreme Court to have facilitated and encouraged tax evasion.
She insists, however, there was nothing wrong with what she did.
Despite the above two facts, Bertie Ahern would welcome her back into Fianna Fáil and considers she would make a good minister.
In light of the foregoing, anyone who now votes for Fianna Fáil either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the government they support. Truly, we do get the governments we deserve.


----------



## Green (31 Aug 2007)

Johnny Boy said:


> He has done nothing of consequence except run away from power where if he had the will he would have followed up on his rheoteric. Labour talks good but rheoteric and actions are too differtent in their policies A few posters here seem to have lost the run of themselves too long up on the high horse.


 
As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, PR chose to rule out a coalition with FF on the basis that he could not work with them. He made a choice to offer an alternative with FG, that was rejected by the electorate and he has now resigned. While I agree you cannot implement policy if you are not in power he obviously felt he could not work with FF. FF, on the other hand, have had no difficulty working with all different ideologies, which I suppose is easy to do especially when you have no ideology of your own.


----------



## room305 (31 Aug 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> There is a big difference between "being ok with" (ie supporting or agreeing with)  crimes and tolerating (or even voting for) someone who has either committed or facilitated such crimes in the past.



I'd say you'd be hard pressed to fit a credit card through the differences you've just described.


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> I'd say you'd be hard pressed to fit a credit card through the differences you've just described.



That's your opinion. It still remains my opinion that it is possible to vote for someone without necessarily agreeing with everything they stand for and everything they have done in the past.


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> In light of the foregoing, anyone who now votes for Fianna Fáil either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the government they support.



Would you agree then that everyone who supports the Mahon Tribunal and its work "either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the" tribunal?

[broken link removed]


----------



## Green (31 Aug 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Would you agree then that everyone who supports the Mahon Tribunal and its work "either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the" tribunal?
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
I was reading that article you quote above then spotted this one further down in the Ireland section of the same issue, ironic really...

[broken link removed]


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

Sorry, can't read that link without subscription.


----------



## Green (31 Aug 2007)

There you go.

*Builder says he paid TD for new address*

*Paul Cullen*
[broken link removed]
Mr Seamus Ross: claimed he paid Mr Liam Lawlor over #40,000 to change the postal address of the housing estate he was building in Earlsfort from Clondalkin to Lucan.
Photograph: Bryan O'Brien
*MAHON TRIBUNAL:* A leading builder has told the Mahon tribunal that he paid former Fianna Fáil TD Mr Liam Lawlor over £40,000 to get the postal address of a housing estate changed from Clondalkin to Lucan.
Mr Séamus Ross of Menolly Homes estimated the change allegedly arranged by Mr Lawlor was worth £5,000 a house to him, or a total of over £2.5 million. The payments were not political contributions, he said.
Mr Lawlor went on to press him for money throughout the 1990s, he said, and he made further payments of £5,000, political contributions amounting to £2,500 as well as a £20,000 discount on a house which was furnished at a cost of £5,000.
Mr Ross was summonsed to appear before the tribunal yesterday after receiving legal advice that it would be "inappropriate" for him to attend voluntarily for interview by tribunal lawyers.
He said that he first got to know Mr Lawlor in 1984 when he moved to Newcastle and met people who worked for the politician. He supplied him with a caravan at election time and gave him a contribution of £500. In 1996, his firm, Menolly Homes, started work on a site for 550 houses on the Clondalkin side of Lucan. Rival builders in the area started telling their customers that Mr Ross's homes at Earlsfort were inferior because they were located in Clondalkin, not Lucan.
Mr Ross said he could not believe this when he heard it. He tested the matter by addressing letters to himself at his site office, addressed to Lucan. They were not delivered.
He asked the postman, who told him they wouldn't be delivered and he would have to collect the letters himself at the post office.
Mr Ross said the difference in address would lead to a difference in selling price, which he estimated at £5,000 for a three-bed house.
One Saturday when he was working on the site, Mr Lawlor drove in, dressed in a tracksuit, Mr Ross said.
He showed some surprise when told that the site was not located in Lucan and said he would "look into it".
He said three or four days later, Mr Lawlor returned and said: "I might have some good news for you. I can have the address put right for you. But you're going to have to pay me."
Mr Ross said the politician asked for either £30,000 or £50,000. He said he could not believe it and told Mr Lawlor the amount was very high. "That's what it will cost you. That's what it's worth to your houses," Mr Lawlor is said to have replied. Mr Ross said he could pay £20,000 in cash, which Mr Lawlor accepted.
He collected the money from Mr Ross's house later that evening.
Mr Ross said the selling agent was provided with a letter from An Post stating that the postal address of Earlsfort was in Lucan. But he had not been able to find this letter. Asked if he had considered whether there was anything wrong or inappropriate in handing over this money to Mr Lawlor, the witness replied: "No".
He thought Mr Lawlor, as a politician, had the power to do "this type of thing".
He told Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, that he had not made any representation to An Post about the matter. He had been thinking of this when Mr Lawlor called into his site.
In July 1996, Mr Ross said he made a further payment of £20,000 to Mr Lawlor.
One evening, Mr Lawlor came to his office and asked for money.
He asked for cash, saying: "Things are going well for Earlsfort because of what I done for you."
Mr Ross asked how much he was looking for.
Mr Lawlor asked for £20,000 or £30,000. "I said to him: 'when is this going to stop?' I wasn't happy with the man. This was getting on my nerves. He was coming more often than I wanted to see him."
Mr Lawlor offered to provide Mr Ross with an invoice. The following day, he gave the builder an invoice in the name of Baltic Timber Products for an amount of £20,002.79. This was done "to make it look official".
Asked who suggested this, Mr Ross said "it certainly wasn't me".
Asked if he considered it a legitimate invoice, he conceded that he had "some doubts" about it.
The cheque was lodged to an account in London, his accountant had told him.
Mr Lawlor's "justification" was that he had had the postal address of the houses at Earlsfort changed.
© 2003 The Irish Times


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

From the posting guidelines





> If the site is a subscription only site, do not reproduce the entire article. You may use selective quotations – but be selective. For example, the archives of The Irish Times are subscription only. Do not reproduce Irish Times or other newpapers' articles available only under subscription.


----------



## gonk (31 Aug 2007)

Ah look, this is nonsense.

Firstly, we the voters don't get to choose the members of the judiciary. We do choose the members of the government.

Secondly, Judge Mahon has accepted he was at fault and has paid all the tax due, with penalties and interest. Furthermore, it is not at all clear from the report you refer to whether he deliberately evaded tax or whether it was an error made in good faith.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Flynn knowingly encouraged and facilitated illegal tax evasion and more importantly to this day won't accept she did anything wrong. Yet, Bertie would have us accept she is suitable for ministerial office.


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> Firstly, we the voters don't get to choose the members of the judiciary. We do choose the members of the government.


Actually, we don't. That privilege is in the hands of the Taoiseach.



gonk said:


> Secondly, Judge Mahon has accepted he was at fault and has paid all the tax due, with penalties and interest. Furthermore, it is not at all clear from the report you refer to whether he deliberately evaded tax or whether it was an error made in good faith.
> 
> On the other hand, there is no doubt that Flynn knowingly encouraged and faciliated illegal tax evasion and more importantly to this day won't accept she did anything wrong. Yet, Bertie would have us accept she is suitable for ministerial office.



I agree with you 100% on this. However, I don't agree with your conclusion that everyone who votes FF must therefore either support, or be regarded as tolerant of, tax evasion. 

I personally support the Mahon Tribunal (despite its many flaws) and its work. I do not condemn it out of hand on the basis of Judge Mahon's past tax indiscretions. However that does not mean that I either support or am tolerant of tax evasion. If you take the opposite view, fair enough that is your opinion, but I don't for a second believe that you can credibly label as such the large numbers of Irish people who support the Mahon Tribunal.


----------



## gonk (31 Aug 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Actually, we don't. That privilege is in the hands of the Taoiseach.


 
Well, if you want to split hairs, then you are strictly speaking right. But the Taoiseach only gained this privilege by being elected to the Dáil himself along with sufficient other members of Fianna Fáil and selects the members of the Government from other elected members of the Dáil. (I know technically he could appoint members of the Senate too, but this very rarely happens - I can only remember it being done once.) 



ubiquitous said:


> I personally support the Mahon Tribunal (despite its many flaws) and its work. I do not condemn it out of hand on the basis of Judge Mahon's past tax indiscretions. However that does not mean that I either support or am tolerant of tax evasion. If you take the opposite view, fair enough that is your opinion, but I don't for a second believe that you can credibly label as such the large numbers of Irish people who support the Mahon Tribunal.


 
I do not take the opposite view - you raised the issue of the Mahon Tribunal, not me. Please don't invent opinions and then ascribe them to me. I have already pointed out that Judge Mahon accepted he was at fault and settled his outstanding tax liabilities. He also made full disclosure of his settlement with the Revenue when he was applying for appointment to the bench.

Flynn, on the other hand told RTÉ in a interview last June - "'I never believed I did anything wrong. I have always believed that I have worked within the law." (http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0625/flynnb.html)

For so long as the Irish people continue to elect the likes of Flynn, there is no reason for our representatives to take ethics seriously - we're clearly sending them the message that we don't.

She was expelled from Fianna Fáil following the failure of her libel appeal. What has changed in the meantime that would justify her being readmitted and potentially appointed to government when she adamantly continues to deny any wrongdoing? 

Actually, it's obvious - the election of three Fine Gael TDs in Mayo.


----------



## Purple (2 Sep 2007)

gonk said:


> For so long as the Irish people continue to elect the likes of Flynn, there is no reason for our representatives to take ethics seriously - we're clearly sending them the message that we don't.


Is any party ethically pure?
Exclude the parties that have not held office as they have not been tempted by power.


----------



## gonk (2 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> Is any party ethically pure?


 
No, and at a personal level, none of us is without sin. But the fact that an ideal world is unobtainable doesn't mean we can't hold our public representatives to reasonable ethical standards and sanction them appropriately when they fall short.

The problem I have with Flynn is not so much what she did at NIB, as her attitude now.

She encouraged and facilitated her clients to illegally evade their tax. To the extent that she got commission on the resulting sales and her career was advanced, she personally benefitted from the crimes of her clients. If she put up her hands and said, "OK that was wrong and I shouldn't have done it", I wouldn't have any problem with giving her a second chance.

But she insists vehemently she did nothing wrong. Presumably, that means if she was in the same situation, she wouldn't see anything wrong with repeating her facilitation of tax evasion. Fianna Fáil - rightly - disciplined her when the courts found against her. Now, and as far as I can judge purely for reasons of electoral strategy, Bertie would have us believe that unrepentant as she is, she would still make a great minister. I beg to differ.


----------



## Purple (3 Sep 2007)

I agree with you about Flynn, my only qualification is that she was doing what so many others working in AIB were doing and she did so with at least the knowledge, and possibly at the instruction, of her employer. It galls me that AIB have not been targeted by RTE or the print media as doing so doesn't serve any political agenda.


----------



## gonk (3 Sep 2007)

In fairness to AIB, Flynn worked for _*NIB*_


----------



## Purple (3 Sep 2007)

Typo(s), my apologies.


----------



## Sunny (3 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> I agree with you about Flynn, my only qualification is that she was doing what so many others working in AIB were doing and she did so with at least the knowledge, and possibly at the instruction, of her employer. It galls me that AIB have not been targeted by RTE or the print media as doing so doesn't serve any political agenda.


 
I agree that Flynn wasn't the only one at it and lets be honest here, there are few bankers from that era with clean hands. I have to agree with the poster who said that it is her attitude now and when she was caught more than the crime itself that is more galling. If she had come out and explained that yes she did it but that it was a policy of NIB, most people would have gone fair enough and moved on. Unfortuantly she decided to sue the State braodcaster which is funded by the taxpayer all the way to the Supreme Court and lost every legal battle. And she is quiet entitled to do this but she then leaves the taxpayer out of pocket and shows no remorse for her actions and has yet to admit to any wrongdoing. As far as I am concerned, the people of Mayo are entitled to elect her to represent them but I do not want her representing me in a ministerial position.


----------



## ubiquitous (3 Sep 2007)

You would have to wonder about an ethical code that absolves an individual for their crimes but condemns them for their arrogance and attitude.


----------



## Sunny (3 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> You would have to wonder about an ethical code that absolves an individual for their crimes but condemns them for their arrogance and attitude.


 
Why shouldn't remorse and acceptance of guilt play a part in the severity of someones punishment? Judges look at it all the time with regard to sentencing. And no-body is talking about absolving her for the crime. She was punished by Fianna Fail at the time and most people would have accepted that she had paid her dues and allowed her back into the fold if she had shown any basic understanding of what she had done wrong. Beverly Flynn has shown no inclination to apologise for her actions and so why should I support her move back into government any more than I would support a criminal getting early release while still laughing at his/her victim?


----------



## gonk (3 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> You would have to wonder about an ethical code that absolves an individual for their crimes but condemns them for their arrogance and attitude.


 
The key point is not that she should be absolved, but simply that she should accept she was in the wrong in the first place.

If she does not, and is appointed as a minister, what moral authority would the government have to enforce the tax laws against ordinary citizens, when it includes a minister who aided and abetted tax evasion, got personal financial benefit from the tax evasion, yet who will not accept there was anything wrong with what she did?

Anyway, leaving aside the rights & wrongs of the matter, in my opinion Flynn has shown such phenomenally bad judgement in this whole affair, that alone should permanently disbar her from ministerial office.

But Bertie is willing to overlook all that because she can deliver the votes in Mayo - hence my view that "anyone who now votes for Fianna Fáil either approves of tax evasion or at a minimum is prepared to tolerate it in a member of the government."


----------



## ubiquitous (3 Sep 2007)

Sunny said:


> most people would have accepted that she had paid her dues and allowed her back into the fold if she had shown any basic understanding of what she had done wrong. Beverly Flynn has shown no inclination to apologise for her actions



The problem with this logic is that when someone is held to account for an alleged misdemeanour or crime it becomes very easy for them to avoid blame simply by shedding a tear or two, saying "I'm sorry" and walking away. Bertie Ahern did this very successfully in the "dig-out" interview last Autumn and was able to avoid a whole array of awkward questions by doing so. If another Michael Lowry/Ray Burke/Liam Lawlor-type scandal is uncovered in the next year or two, what is to stop those  implicated from shedding a few tears in front of a camera in order to avoid any serious scrutiny of their actions?



Sunny said:


> and so why should I support her move back into government any more than I would support a criminal getting early release while still laughing at his/her victim?



I can't answer that as its obviously for you to decide. For what its worth, the prospect of Ms Flynn becoming a minister appalls me as well.



gonk said:


> Anyway, leaving aside the rights & wrongs of the matter, in my opinion Flynn has shown such phenomenally bad judgement in this whole affair, that alone should permanently disbar her from ministerial office.


I happen to agree.


----------

