# Bertie Ahern: Good deal or bad deal for people of Ireland



## mayoman2 (27 Sep 2006)

Can't put this thread in the LOS or STB, so please move if ye want, but what do ye think of the circus last night.

For me, I couldn't stop laughing. How can this guy get away with this. He played the "Poor me" card and he had one of the best paid jobs in the country and still does. I thought at one stage he was going to cry. I think he needs a good ten inches out the door.


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Sep 2006)

Moved to _StB_ as suggested. Please respect the ...


----------



## cjh (27 Sep 2006)

Has the issue of paying tax on the €50,000 been raised?


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Sep 2006)

_You're_ one to talk, cjh! 

I'm tempted to paraphrase Mr Bailey's famous _riposte_, but I'll, ehm, moderate myself...


----------



## cjh (27 Sep 2006)

I keep getting this abuse and it's a case of mistaken identity - _I swear!_


----------



## fobs (27 Sep 2006)

> Has the issue of paying tax on the €50,000 been raised?


 
no tax liability as it wasn't a gift but a loan then he intended to pay back.


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Sep 2006)

fobs said:


> no tax liability as it wasn't a gift but a loan then he intended to pay back.



If an ordinary joe soap self-employed individual used that excuse to a Revenue Auditor or Inspector they would be laughed at...


----------



## brodiebabe (27 Sep 2006)

fobs said:


> no tax liability as it wasn't a gift but a loan then he intended to pay back.


 
A loan that he intended to pay back but that when he tried to it was refused.  Does this not turn it in to a gift????????


----------



## Humpback (27 Sep 2006)

I think this was vaguely mentioned, but would such outstanding loans be reportable by Bertie as a TD? Would such a liability be something that the Ethics committee or whatever they're called be interested in?

So, if Bertie was correct in not reporting these loans in 93/94, was he remiss in not reporting them since?


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Sep 2006)

If a little old lady with an old non-resident or offshore account tried to convince Revenue that the funds concerned came from "loans" borrowed from friends, she would have been treated as failing to co-operate with the Revenue investigation, and would have been forced to pay interest and penaties amounting to a high multiple of the amount saved.  Large numbers of elderly people lost their life savings, some lost their homes, in this manner.  These Revenue investigations were conducted with the strong support of Mr. Ahern's govenment.


Had a mythical individual earned IR£38,000 in 1993/94 and invested it in an offshore or non-resident account at the time, their tax, interest and penalties liability arising on the principal sum alone would have amounted to €89,763 by June 2006, and would have increased thereafter by approx 1% per months until settled with Revenue.  Thousands of people have been named and shamed, and some jailed, for a lot less...


----------



## Art (27 Sep 2006)

And what about the tax that was due on the £8,000 that he got for the speaking engagements in Manchester that he also mentioned. I doubt very much if he paid tax on this.


----------



## fobs (27 Sep 2006)

> And what about the tax that was due on the £8,000 that he got for the speaking engagements in Manchester that he also mentioned. I doubt very much if he paid tax on this.


 
doubting very much or knowing for a fact are two different things. His tax affairs are either in order or they are not and that is for the REvenue Conmmisioners to work out.


----------



## Humpback (27 Sep 2006)

I also have my own personal doubts over this "personal savings" which were separate from his joint account. He's saying that this money explains any large deposits made into his new own separate current account after the separation.

Where did the money for this saving come from? You'd assume his salary/declared income was going into the joint-account. Did the money then leave the joint account and go into the "personal savings" account? 

Would this be permitted in a separation case? Would his "personal savings" not be subject to the outcome of the separation case?

If not from his salary then, where did the money come from to build up this "personal savings" account which he's told us was in excess of IR£50,000?


----------



## madisona (27 Sep 2006)

A lot of unanswered questions. Only Bertie could get away with this. It was a loan but he hasn't repaid a penny 13 years later as his current income is "only" 300,000 euro but as he is an accountant he knows that it was not a gift and that there is no tax liability.  At the time he was Minister for Finance on a big salary. The amount he received would have bought a house outright at the time and was the equivalent to 2yrs salary at the average industrial wage, yet he dismisses it as a small sum.

He didn't appoint the doners to state boards because of the donations but rather because they were friends. thought that this was an extraordinary admission. surely people should be appointed on merit.

opposition seem to be afraid to go after him because he is a nice guy and very popular  and it would be "insensitive" as he was going through marriage breakup at the time


----------



## Lumpsum (27 Sep 2006)

He said the initial reported figure of 50-100.000 the tribunal was supposed to be examining was off the wall, then confirmed the money was, well, 50k.  Now today there is talk of a further 8k payment to him for some speaking engagement.  And is this the end of it?  Don't think so. So if "off the wall" was untrue spoof, it shows he is in real trouble. Expect a second wave of this stuff.


----------



## bazermc (27 Sep 2006)

fobs said:


> no tax liability as it wasn't a gift but a loan then he intended to pay back.


 
Such a loan becomes a gift usually within 7 years, if not paid back.  This was clarified on last nights prime time by a very well known tax consultant and senior counsel

If still a loan a CAT liability will arises on the "free use of property" i.e. an interest free loan for x number of years there is a deemed gift in the loan o/s at a market value interest rate each year.  This was also clarified by Prime Time last night.

I was surprised to hear bertie state that he was sure that there was no tax liability and he would know this becuase he is an accountant very amusing


----------



## jdwex (27 Sep 2006)

bazermc said:


> I was surprised to hear bertie state that he was sure that there was no tax liability and he would know this becuase he is an accountant very amusing



Especially as he isn't an accountant (snigger).


----------



## Megan (27 Sep 2006)

Did he say that he didnt have a bank account in his name whi;e he was going through his separation. Before his separation they had a joint account. When he separated did he still use the joint account. Alot of people dont have an account in their name during a separation but that way  there is no paper trial of what money you have coming in and out or have a miss something here.


----------



## Guest127 (27 Sep 2006)

1)when mrs Cu worked for one of the banks the revenue taxed any loans bank staff received at benefit in kind. ( hence a lot of bank staff have credit union loans) so an interest free loan would surely be benefit in kind, did he declare such benefit in kind on his annual tax returns?
2) I opened a small bank account in Newry in the late mid 80's ( for handiness as much as anything ie both junior cu's were born in newry and all hospital bills etc were in sterling ) had to pay the revenue tax and interest on this later when the revenue declared that interest on non resident accounts were subject to tax and penalties ( ok it was less than €200 but the same principal applies) 
3) Charlie Chalke stated on the news today that he and a few friends chipped in to help his friend Bertie in his hour of need after his solicitor said he was going through a bad time ( not exactly how you normally organise a loan)
4) will bertie pay tax on his memoirs which I beleive he will be publishing soon?. believe the title is ...... PS - I owe you


----------



## extopia (27 Sep 2006)

He made an allusion to savings of £50k that he deposited into his own account after his marriage breakup. Presumably he'd been keeping this money under the mattress as it doesn't appear to have come from any other bank account? 

He also said that he used the "donated" money to clear his loans. Now why would he replace one debt with another of equal value if he intended to repay his benefactors, knowing that the money saved on interest would be either taxable as a benefit in kind. It wouldn't be worth it - unless there was no intention to either repay the loan or declare the benefit.

I thought his attempt to appeal to the public sympathy - even getting misty eyed when he mentioned his kids - were pathetic, cynical, and embarrassing. He should resign before he gets the push, as I don't think this one will go away.

I also thought his comment about appointing his "friends" to cushy positions was extraordinary. How did Brian Dobson let him away with this?


----------



## Humpback (27 Sep 2006)

extopia said:


> I also thought his comment about appointing his "friends" to cushy positions was extraordinary. How did Brian Dobson let him away with this?


 
I personally don't think he should have been given the time on RTE. This wasn't news we watched last night, this was a party political, or a personal political, broadcast on behalf of Bertie Ahern, TD.


----------



## shnaek (27 Sep 2006)

extopia said:


> I also thought his comment about appointing his "friends" to cushy positions was extraordinary. How did Brian Dobson let him away with this?



You won't find anyone tackling him on this as this is the way appointments have always been made by all parties. Sinful I know. I predict Irish people will be out on the streets protesting. Not.


----------



## Hibernicatio (27 Sep 2006)

This could not and would not happen in any other democracy on earth.  There is absolutely no reason why he should be allowed to stay in his position after this.  If he does then I am afraid that I will have lost all (depleting) faith in this country and the supposed leaders.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Sep 2006)

shnaek said:


> You won't find anyone tackling him on this as this is the way appointments have always been made by all parties. Sinful I know. I predict Irish people will be out on the streets protesting. Not.


_Vincent Browne _did tackle this issue last night. But only cranks like me listen to _Vinny_.


----------



## Megan (27 Sep 2006)

ClubMan said:


> _Vincent Browne _did tackle this issue last night. But only cranks like me listen to _Vinny_.


Dont feel to bad Clubman this crank was listening to Vinny too but only because I was travelling.


----------



## bogwarrior (27 Sep 2006)

Probably a good time to cast your mind back to Paintgate - the Ivor Callely scandal last year (Callely didn't pay a bill of £1500 (IRP) back in the early 90's and had to resign when it was revealed last year).  

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1207/callelyi.html

some good quotes from this : http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1208/callelyi.html

_”Bertie Ahern told ministers that Mr Callely tendered his resignation in the public interest and in view of the fact that the ongoing controversies made it impossible for him to effectively and productively carry out his ministerial duties.”

”When the Taoiseach spoke about the matter in the Dáil yesterday, he said he was not impressed.”_


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Sep 2006)

Hibernicatio said:


> This could not and would not happen in any other democracy on earth.



Are you sure? I couldn't imagine Tony Blair or George W Bush resigning after a scandal like this.


----------



## Humpback (27 Sep 2006)

bogwarrior said:


> Probably a good time to cast your mind back to Paintgate - the Ivor Callely scandal last year (Callely didn't pay a bill of £1500 (IRP) back in the early 90's and had to resign when it was revealed last year).
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1207/callelyi.html
> 
> ...


 
But when this was put to Michael Martin this morning on Morning Ireland, he said that the painting incident was only part of a series of incidents in which Callely was being hounded for by the Opposition. It was all of these incidents together that necessitated his being booted out of government, not the painting thing on it's own.

Therefore, if you like, in baseball terms, the painting incident was strike 3 for Ivor, whereas Bertie is only on strike 1?????


----------



## Humpback (27 Sep 2006)

ubiquitous said:


> Are you sure? I couldn't imagine Tony Blair or George W Bush resigning after a scandal like this.


 
Totally agree with you ubiquitous. Sure they've invaded countries on the basis of bogus evidence and had hundreds of their countrymen killed and still stayed in charge. Taking a couple of quid off a few mates would be nothing to them.

I mean, George W Bush had a good friend called Ken Lay, and he never ....


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2006)

ubiquitous said:


> Are you sure? I couldn't imagine Tony Blair or George W Bush resigning after a scandal like this.



I have to agree. 
George W has raised hundreds of millions for his party since he was elected. His career as a politician has been marred by claims that he has been paid off and bailed out at every hands turn.
Jacques Chirac would most likely be in prison if he was not president of France there are so many investigations into his dealings.
Tony Blare will be interviewed by the police next month about his role in alleged illegal payments for peerages .
Silvio Berlusconi has been accused of serious crimes by opposition leaders , journalists and lawyers.

I’m not sure if Bertie should fall on his sword or not but lets keep a sense of perspective.


----------



## bogwarrior (27 Sep 2006)

ronan_d_john said:


> Therefore, if you like, in baseball terms, the painting incident was strike 3 for Ivor, whereas Bertie is only on strike 1?????



yeah, if you chose to forget his signing of blank cheques for CjH back in the glory days....


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2006)

bogwarrior said:


> yeah, if you chose to forget his signing of blank cheques for CjH back in the glory days....


That was softball, not baseball I think... anyway the one thing for sure is that it's just not Cricket.


----------



## elefantfresh (27 Sep 2006)

He's a politician - is he not supposed to be crooked???


----------



## TarfHead (27 Sep 2006)

Bertie's reported salary is currently €290K per annum. The loans, without interest, total €50K.

On salary, that amount is proportionately equivalent to my car loan, which I have borrowed over 5 years.

If he wanted to, he could clear that principal without issue.


----------



## markowitzman (27 Sep 2006)

> He's a politician - is he not supposed to be crooked???


As someone who went through a tax audit for one full year and knows only too well the stress on both myself and my family I think this country is now at a crossroads.
Either we go back to the cute whoor, gombeen, wink wink nod nod system so prevalent in the past and pat Berite on the back for a heart-tugging performance or we refer this tax issue to revenue and let them bring the full rigours of the law to bear and investigate this matter. I stress investigate and not hang and flog without due process.
While this process is ongoing I feel Bertie should step aside as a gesture of honour to the Irish people. Politically if he doesn´t I think McDowell will be left with no option but to jump ship rather than go down in same boat.


----------



## elefantfresh (27 Sep 2006)

I hear you Markowitzman, but does anyone really believe that he will stand down? that he will face the full rigours of the law? Don't be daft. He'll drag this out, just as he has been doing so well so far, and sure enough, he'll be voted in again. I'm telling you. We truly do get the government we deserve in this country. Only ourselves to blame.


----------



## Taximan (27 Sep 2006)

Is this not a red herring?

Assume A they were gifts as this is what they are in essence after 7 years

Firstly he received 22,500 in 1993 from 8 different people ( 2,500 from 7 and 5000 from 1) assume small gift exemption at the time was £700 this leaves a liability of 16,900 at 20% for tax however I do not have the leg with me but i assume threshold C stranger threshold would have covered this at the time therefore leaving him no liability. 

The amount for 1994 was 16,500 from 4 different individuals again assume small gift of 700 again leaving liability of 13,700 @20 for Cat cancelled by stranger limit threshold C again.

I know Cat Calculation has changed since the early 90's but it was still quite similar.

He has a liability for the £8000 grand after dinner speech gig but this is tiny stuff No?

I am indifferent to the rationale for the gifts and the sentimentality about his situation at the time. But just from a Tax perspective dose he have any questions to answer ?


----------



## Humpback (27 Sep 2006)

markowitzman said:


> Either we go back to the cute whoor, gombeen, wink wink nod nod system so prevalent in the past and pat Berite on the back for a heart-tugging performance


 
From a political standpoint, and given the actions of our politicians still in covering up what's gone before, and still, even years after all the tribunals have been in place, not coming clean, have we ever left the kind of Ireland you're describing there?



markowitzman said:


> we refer this tax issue to revenue and let them bring the full rigours of the law to bear and investigate this matter. I stress investigate and not hang and flog without due process.



I would like to thing that our leaner and meaner Revenue would take on this investigation and follow due process. However, given it's treatment of Charlie Haughey, I'm not all that confident that they will.  I think that we can all be sure that the Revenue will never go after Bertie like they'd go after you and me had we been found to be doing the same thing.



markowitzman said:


> While this process is ongoing I feel Bertie should step aside as a gesture of honour to the Irish people.


 
A gesture? From the man who originally told us all that this was none of our business? I think not. He still hasn't even acknowledged that he's done anything wrong. Why stand down if you've done nothing wrong?

As for honour, this is the same politician who gave the graveside oration for the biggest political crook we'll ever see in this country. Nuff said!



markowitzman said:


> Politically if he doesn´t I think McDowell will be left with no option but to jump ship rather than go down in same boat.


 
I would like to think that you're right here, but McDowell is a politician first. And despite being in the party who claim to stand for the highest morals in political life, he'll know that to jump ship so soon after taking charge would be political suicide.

A lot of people expected him to jump ship straight away. Maybe this leak was leaked by Fianna Fail to call McDowells bluff, and thereby force him into action one way or the other. Jump ship weakens the PDs. Staying on weakens the PDs.


----------



## daltonr (27 Sep 2006)

Bertie Ahern has only one question to answer. 

If any other member of the Fianna Fail front bench or parlimentary party was in this position, would you fire them/force them to resign?

The answer is an unequivocal yes, because Mr Ahern is the master of political expediency. 

So why doesn't he fire himself/force himself to resign?

His judgement is clouded by a long held ambition to serve three full terms as taoiseach. He wants to win more elections than anyone else.

He wants to go down in history as the most succesful Taoiseach in the history of the country. But success in Mr Ahernes world is measured in polls, not progress. Winning the election is all that matters, reform of healthcare, building infrastructure, keeping inflation under control, keeping the country competitive, these are all secondary to winning elections.

When pressed on his failures Bertie and his fans will repeatedly fall back on The North. What a great job he did in the North. Well the agreement was almost 10 years ago, and Bertie didn't do it all by himself. 

If Bertie was only capable of dealing with the North then he should have resigned as Taoiseach and appointed himself chief negotiator for the Irish Republic.  Allow someone else look after the rest of the people who live in the part of the island that actually elected him.

Bertie Ahern has lied repeatedly to the Dail, the has employed double standards on an epic scale. He has gotten away with a lot of it by using a new language that he has developed in which the mismash of words that spew from him can't be understood, but asking for clarification makes you look like the stupid one.

On a personal level he's the reason I ended by support of Fianna Fail many many years ago. I joined Fianna Fail inspired by stories of what Sean LeMass achieved. I left because any party that could look up to Bertie Ahern wasn't the party for me. 

Ahern is the Anti-Lemass. Lemass took a nation cripled by an isolationist attitude and no industrial base worth speaking of and transformed it into something that we're still reaping the rewards of.

Ahern took a country through the greatest economic boom in it's history and failed to translate that into improved services and infrastructure. 
Even where he built infranstructure it was half assed, botched, and grossly over priced.

When we should have been propelled to a bright future we're stuck with a backwards nation that can't build two tram lines that connect or a tunnel big enough for todays trucks.

We build hospitals wards and leave them empty rather than commit to the annual spending required to staff and run them.

We introduce social housing programs in such a way that they serve only to increase the profits of the developers who fund Mr Ahern and his party.

Was it because of a lack of ability that we had these failures?
No. When the chips are down this government can deliver. Give them a golf tournament in Kildare and they'll build you a fantastic road, ahead of schedule.

But give them something more mundane like providing facilities for the people who live in the country year round, and have to move further and further from their work to afford somewhere to live, then suddenly we need yet another review, yet another report, yet another panel, yet another task force.

Ahern is like an athlete who has used steroids. The record books will show victories and his performance in elections will look impressive. But there will always be an asterix beside his name and his ability to acquire and hold power will eventually be eclipsed by his inability to put it to good use.

He was perhaps the greatest politician the country has ever produced, And one of it's worst leaders.

-Rd


----------



## Henny Penny (27 Sep 2006)

I saw the interview with Brian Dobson last night ... all he needed was a bit of black eyeliner and he could have been mistaken for Princess Di.


----------



## elefantfresh (27 Sep 2006)

Dalton, i wish i could write like that.....


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2006)

Great post DaltonR.
I've said it before; you should be writing for a living.


----------



## Guest127 (27 Sep 2006)

great post.


----------



## dodo (27 Sep 2006)

fobs said:


> no tax liability as it wasn't a gift but a loan then he intended to pay back.


Tax expert on prime Time last night said after 7 yrs if loan not paid back it becomes a gift, so then tax would be due, if this was England they would resign


----------



## Superman (27 Sep 2006)

Great post DaltonR.


----------



## delgirl (27 Sep 2006)

Superman said:


> Great post DaltonR.


Ditto.


----------



## Hibernicatio (27 Sep 2006)

Dalton R - you have written exactly what I have been thinking.  It is difficult to put thoughts into words but you have accomplished it.

My question is - What is our alternative??

Does anybody truly believe that there are any other realistic options out there to vote for?  I strongly believe that there is no one (with a realistic chance of being in gov) that would behave any different when in power.  

Is there an inherent cutehoorism in Irish society?  There are a few people, and I mean a few people that I would really entrust power for the good of others, and even these people are not politico's.

Name one person, just one person who you think could lead this country without greed, prejudice or self gain for the good of everyone on this Island?


----------



## liteweight (27 Sep 2006)

Well we've heard what McDowell has to say on the subject! Yet another disappointment but no surprise...he chose survival over what's right. I welcomed Pat Rabitte pointing out that it's a long time since Bertie was, or indeed, has even rubbed shoulders with, the common man.

To say that his friends would not accept repayment is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Many moons ago I was in this position (but not for such an amount), I simply wrote a cheque, accompanied by a bottle of wine with a note insisting the cheque be cashed if the person in question wanted to preserve the friendship.

I believe Bertie paid these people back in kind. Playing the common, family man, worried about his kids, has sickened me!


----------



## extopia (28 Sep 2006)

Hibernicatio said:


> I strongly believe that there is no one (with a realistic chance of being in gov) that would behave any different when in power.



I strongly believe that this is a defeatist attitude. There are always a number of "untested" candidates - independents, usually - on the ballot paper. It's up to us, the voters, to actually vote on the issues, whether the candidate has a realistic chance of winning or not. Electoral success is gained in small steps.


----------



## Hibernicatio (28 Sep 2006)

extopia said:


> I strongly believe that this is a defeatist attitude. There are always a number of "untested" candidates - independents, usually - on the ballot paper. It's up to us, the voters, to actually vote on the issues, whether the candidate has a realistic chance of winning or not. Electoral success is gained in small steps.


 
Ok maybe I was a bit defeatist on that one, but I have to say I dont have much faith in any of the main political parties. There are WAY too many vested interests dictating policy, which especially applies to the building trade, and its soon to be borne out consequences. 

There does not seem to be anyone new on the horizon, just the same old faces fighting for power.

But as you say the power is in the hands of the public, but I fear the public will always vote along traditional family lines, therefore keeping the status quo.


----------



## extopia (28 Sep 2006)

Bertie's continuous shoot-the-messenger references to "scurrilous leaks" remind me of the Simpsons:

Marge: "You swore to me you'd get this gun out of the house!"
Homer: "But Marge, I never in my wildest dreams thought you'd find out."


----------



## Conan (28 Sep 2006)

The whole Bertiegate controversary has at least clarified one point:

We now know that Fianna Fail believe that businessmen supporting a Minister/Taoiseach's personal lifestyle to the extent of millions of Euro is wrong (ala CJH)
That supporting a Minister's personal lifestyle to the extent of hundreds of thousands of euro is also wrong (ala Michael Lowry/ Ray Bourke etc))
But that supporting a Taoiseach personal lifestyle to the extent of €50,000 is o.k.
So Bertie has "done the State some service" in at least setting the benchmark for an acceptable level of financial support. "But no more of that".


----------



## sherib (28 Sep 2006)

Just to be clear – I abhor cute h….ism and tax evasion (shown to be prevalent in Irish society) and have no allegiance to any political party. That said it is reasonable to ask how did someone capable of becoming the Taoiseach of this country get himself into the current mess which is miniscule in financial terms compared to those who have been and are still under investigation for financial misdemeanours. I hope it is acceptable to express an alternative viewpoint.

The origin of Mr Ahern’s “crime” for which he stands accused and convicted by a section of the population would appear to coincide with his marital breakdown and the financial implications of his separation. Since family law Courts are held in camera, no one knows the terms directed by the Judge in 1993. Given his obvious devotion to his family, is it not possible that in his desire to protect his family he contributed more to their support than that required by law thus leaving him, a Minister in the Government, homeless with less than the minimum required to maintain himself in a basic manner appropriate to his position? His style of dress did not reflect extravagance in those years – remember the anoraks?

Is it not the case than many men on separation from their spouses, evicted from the family home, find themselves in dire financial straits often living in bed-sitters. One can readily understand that his male friends rallied around to help him out temporarily. He had no other source of income unlike many Dail members e.g. teachers and others who retain their salaries and sources of income while TDs. 

Yes, he was unwise not to repay the loan he received but is the current baying for blood warranted? He made a mistake, a human error, but does that outweigh an objective assessment of his service to this country? I am not aware that he has built up a private fortune from property etc during the Celtic Tigers years as have so many ordinary people who now, self righteously, demand “his head”. What did any of those people contribute to this country? In a Court of Law mitigating circumstances are often taken into account. Is the leader of this country not deserving of the same consideration? Or is Mr Ahern to be the scapegoat for the proven crimes committed by so many as evidenced in the Tribunals. Remember too the Minister in the Midlands forced to resign yet who has headed the poll ever since as an Independent. 

The electorate will make its judgement of the Taoiseach and the Government in 2007. I think we call that democracy.


----------



## Guest127 (28 Sep 2006)

as a minister of finance who found himself in great financial difficulty as a result of seperation/divorce and who was in the fortunate position of having flush friends and who had to know the predicament of others not so well endowed with friends so generous, he didnt exactly do much to help such financially strapped citizens in his various budgets. ( might this qualify as one of the one sentence posts?)


----------



## liteweight (28 Sep 2006)

> Is it not the case than many men on separation from their spouses, evicted from the family home, find themselves in dire financial straits often living in bed-sitters. One can readily understand that his male friends rallied around to help him out temporarily. He had no other source of income unlike many Dail members e.g. teachers and others who retain their salaries and sources of income while TDs.



I thought Bertie kept the family home? There was never any fear of him ending up in a bedsit on his salary. Even at that time he earned a lot more than most of the population. Lucky him to have friends who could have a whip round for that amount and never look for it back! They did however, end up in nice little cushy numbers, in some instances. Anyway what about the 8K he admits to receiving for Q&A at dinners. He never declared this income. Yes, lots of people find themselves in financial difficulty during a separation but let one of them try using this as an excuse with the Taxman!!!


----------



## Marion (28 Sep 2006)

Hi Sherib




> He had no other source of income unlike many Dail members e.g. teachers and others who retain their salaries and sources of income while TDs.



I think you might have forgotten to include:

"The Department deducts salary and pension contributions of a replacement temporary teacher, paying the difference to the TD or senator."

Marion


----------



## Lumpsum (28 Sep 2006)

daltonr said:


> Ahern is like an athlete who has used steroids. The record books will show victories and his performance in elections will look impressive. But there will always be an asterix beside his name and his ability to acquire and hold power will eventually be eclipsed by his inability to put it to good use.
> 
> He was perhaps the greatest politician the country has ever produced, And one of it's worst leaders.
> 
> -Rd


 
You're onto the core problem in Irish politics, which is that the largest party in the State, Fianna Fail, has no ambition for what it wants to do with power, except to use it to hold onto power  in the future for itself and its associates. Bertie is, as you say, the master of this:  A consummate politician devoid of political conviction. 

But things are not as bleak as you suggest. Twenty years ago FF, FG and Labour got well over 90 per cent of the national vote between them. In 2002 they got around 75 per cent.  In the seventies there were just a few TDs from outside these parties.  Now their number is in the mid twenties.  So traditional family/local allegiances are breaking down slowly.

Labour, the PDs, the Greens, even Sinn Fein, put forward things they want to do if they gain power.  Michael McDowell and Michael D Higgins have one thing in common:  Both want to change society.  In contrast, FF and FG do focus group research to find out what the people want and then offer it to them. The public think crime is out of control?  So FG produce posters showing the country descending into anarchy and suggest FG is deeply angry about this too. They think there are too many foreigners? So the Government gives them the citizenship referendum and proposes a "crackdown".

Of course McDowell and Rabbitte ran with this stuff too - they do voter research too - but their parties in general have a critique of Irish society and put forward proposals for real change. FF and FG are market research driven parties who stand for nothing - well for very little.

But let nobody say "they're all the same".  They're not.


----------



## liteweight (29 Sep 2006)

Marion said:


> Hi Sherib
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I take your point here Marion, but temporary 'part time' teachers are not paid anything like a full time teacher. For example, they are only paid for the hours they work, which excludes all holidays etc. The TD, paying the part timer reaps the rewards of holiday pay (substantial) and full time hours.


----------



## Marion (29 Sep 2006)

> I take your point here Marion



Grand! 

Is McDowell waiting in the long grass?

Marion


----------



## sherib (29 Sep 2006)

> Originally posted by *Marion*
> Is McDowell waiting in the long grass?


 
No, he's terrified at the prospect of being put out to grass when/if he pulls the plug! Who'd want to be a politician when it's so comfortable being a critic?


----------



## Sunny (29 Sep 2006)

Did anyone see the smug looks on the Enda Kenny and Pat Rabbitte last night? This must be heaven for them. They could end up getting elected despite the fact that between the two parties, I have yet to hear one decent workable policy that will make them a better alternative to Fianna Fail. I am getting sick of the negative politics that has become the norm in Ireland over recent years. Let the people decide if Bertie is guilty and deserves to be an elected leader. Or let the tribunals deal with it and make a judgement on it. 

On another note, I would be interested to know why as a nation we apply such high standards to our leaders when it suits us but then forget to apply them to ourselves. From what I can see, the most that Bertie is guilty of is doing a nixer (albeit a very one for 8000). Would be interestesd to know how many tradesmen out there have done nixers during the past 12 months and how many people have paid them knowing that they were aiding tax evasion. I know I have. 

By the way, I should point out that I am not a Fianna Fail or Bertie supporter. I think the party as a whole is too cosy with business interests for its own good.


----------



## Purple (29 Sep 2006)

Sunny said:


> Would be interestesd to know how many tradesmen out there have done nixers during the past 12 months


Don't forget about teachers doing grinds, solicitors accepting cash and anyone pocketing a tip.
I can't stand Bertie for the same reasons that DaltonR outlined so well in his post but I still consider the alternative worse. The only reason FF is in power is there is no credible alternative. Enda and Pat with an ensemble cast of single-issue misfits and weirdo’s is a nightmare prospect.


----------



## michaelm (29 Sep 2006)

Purple said:


> The only reason FF is in power is there is no credible alternative.


Fully agree with this, however, I suspect that this time many voters will turn their backs on FF, not because the opposition have anything to offer but to put some manners on FF.  Hard to disagree with anything in DaltonR's excellent post.


----------



## TarfHead (29 Sep 2006)

Purple said:


> Don't forget about teachers doing grinds, solicitors accepting cash and anyone pocketing a tip.


 
.. and the rest of us  who are complicit in this by agreeing to pay a lower price for cash.


----------



## sherib (29 Sep 2006)

All quotes originally posted by *daltonr*



> Mr Ahern is the master of political expediency.


No quibble with that.



> His judgement is clouded by a long held ambition to serve three full terms as taoiseach. He wants to win more elections than anyone else.


Just like Thatcher, Blair and most other leaders including GWB if it were possible.



> He wants to go down in history as the most successful Taoiseach in the history of the country.


What is wrong with that ambition - historians will make their judgement



> When pressed on his failures Bertie and his fans will repeatedly fall back on The North. What a great job he did in the North. Well the agreement was almost 10 years ago, and Bertie didn't do it all by himself.


When/where did he make such a claim? Everyone knows he didn't do it alone and he has never, to my knowledge, made such a claim. A lot of credit, deservedly so, has always been given to Albert Reynolds. Wasn't he brought down when Rory Quinn demanded "a head" - or maybe someone else in that party?



> If Bertie was only capable of dealing with the North then he should have resigned as Taoiseach and appointed himself chief negotiator for the Irish Republic


Impossible - only the Taoiseach of the time could make such an appointment. 




> Bertie Ahern has lied repeatedly to the Dail..


Where is the evidence to support this?



> Ahern is the Anti-Lemass. Lemass took a nation cripled by an isolationist attitude and no industrial base worth speaking of and transformed it into something that we're still reaping the rewards of


An unsupportable assertion which I don't believe Sean Lemass would make even if he were in a position to do so. Hasn't he been dead for about 40 years? Successive leaders continued and developed that process as exigencies of the time permitted.




> When we should have been propelled to a bright future we're stuck with a backwards nation that can't build two tram lines that connect or a tunnel big enough for todays trucks.


Backward? We're one of the richest countries in the world and a model for emerging European countries. In spite of the defects, our Health, Educational and Social Services (especially for the elderly) are vastly superior and the envy of many countries _including our immediate neighbours_. Far from perfect I agree but our country could hardly be described as "backward". 

Anyone who watched the final of the Ernst & Young _Entrepreneur of the Year_ competition last night would have heard the credit given to Bertie Ahern by one of the finalists for his assistance and the promotion of this country in China and every other country he visits. 

Most important of all, with the establishment of stable political institutions in Northern Ireland reaching a crucial date, I shudder to think what would happen if either Tony Blair or Bertie Ahern are ousted as leaders especially Mr Blair. This is not the time to rock the boat.

_Whoever leaked confidential Tribunal information had a motive but we'll never know since Geraldine Kennedy has already destroyed the papers. If it were solely to bring down Bertie Ahern, would it not have had more effect on the eve of the General Election in 2007?_


----------



## Humpback (29 Sep 2006)

sherib said:


> _Whoever leaked confidential Tribunal information had a motive but we'll never know since Geraldine Kennedy has already destroyed the papers. _



What's wrong with that? Is the editor of a national newspaper obliged to keep such "papers" for any legal reason?

Even if there were such "papers", I'm pretty certain that madam editor wouldn't have revealed who the source was anyway.

This is just an attempt by Bertie to muddy the waters, and thankfully the press aren't allowing him.

There is no story as to who leaked the story. The story is what was leaked.


----------



## redstar (2 Oct 2006)

What really interests me about all this  is the concept of "debt of honour". I didn't know such a thing existed in Ireland. Is it covered under some obscure Revenue Rules section ? Can I make use of this as it seems to be a great tax break. What budget introduced it ?

I'd like to ask my employer for a loan of 50k, which I will repay when the time is right. If they agree is this a "debt of honour" ? I don't have to pay tax on it either ?

Its  the nods-and-winks culture that makes this country such a great place to live !


----------



## Ceepee (2 Oct 2006)

redstar said:


> What really interests me about all this is the concept of "debt of honour".


 
Give him de benefit of de doubt.  He meant to say 'the death of honour'.


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2006)

ronan_d_john said:


> What's wrong with that? Is the editor of a national newspaper obliged to keep such "papers" for any legal reason?
> 
> Even if there were such "papers", I'm pretty certain that madam editor wouldn't have revealed who the source was anyway.
> 
> ...



A criminal act was committed (for whatever motives). Ms Kennedy knew that the tribunal would look for the papers and knowing this she destroyed them. She could find her self in very hot water and I don't have much sympathy for her. I don't have much time for the morally self-righteous.


----------



## Humpback (2 Oct 2006)

Purple said:


> A criminal act was committed (for whatever motives). Ms Kennedy knew that the tribunal would look for the papers and knowing this she destroyed them. She could find her self in very hot water and I don't have much sympathy for her. I don't have much time for the morally self-righteous.


 
What was the criminal act?


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2006)

Leaking confidential information from a statutory enquiry.
AFAIK that's  against the law.


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Oct 2006)

Purple said:


> Leaking confidential information from a statutory enquiry.


there is no certainty that the information in question was leaked from the Tribunal. If the Tribunal did leak the information that would indeed be a criminal act. 

However if the information came from another source outside the Tribunal, it would not be a criminal act for them to reveal it it the media. It is quite possible that the information came from a disaffected high-ranking member or former member of FF, as implicitly suggested by Mary O'Rourke in the Seanad last week. 

One newspaper (afaik the Irish Indo) said last week that they had been told in 1997 of the 1993 Ahern "loan"/"donation" story by a then senior FF politician but in the absence of corroborative evidence were unable to print it.


----------



## sherib (2 Oct 2006)

> Originally posted by *Purple*
> A criminal act was committed ......I don't have much time for the morally self-righteous.


Yes - the Judge had _already_ ordered sight of the documents when Madame Editor destroyed them - on legal advice she said. She said this information would never have seen the light of day but for her revelation - _in the national interest_ presumably! Are we talking about treason or what? Methinks Geraldine is still smarting over the phone tapping incident of years ago. I can't remember the details but we never did discover who _the mole _was then who leaked confidential cabinet papers. 

The opposition parties are looking increasingly pathetic in their attempts to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. They are being allowed by sections of the media to ignore facts - like harping on about the fact the Taoiseach didn't have a bank account in his own name from 1987 to 1993. He has said that he had a *joint bank account with his wife* but this is ignored. Apparently from 1987 he was separated and out of the family home and at some stage *was* sleeping on a mattress in his Constituency office. No wonder his friends felt sympathy for him even if it was unwise from a political view point. 

Then they rant on about how he saved £50,000 and where he kept that money, sneering "under the mattress". Is that not a gross intrusion into his privacy? In my experience most Accountants (qualified or otherwise) are very thrifty (!) and he has said he started saving from his Lord Mayor days. My hunch is that there was little change out of £50,000 when the legal fees for the marital separation were paid. 

Comments are being made about his huge salary - three times the average industrial wage in 1993 - while ignoring the fact he must have been paying at least half and probably more of that to support his wife and family. Presumably that situation continues out of his current €250,000 salary. How would it look if he focussed on those aspects of his private life in order to defend himself? I have no time for the morally self-righteous either.

I never thought the day would come when I would defend Bertie Ahern but I just loathe hypocrisy and blood sports.


----------



## liteweight (2 Oct 2006)

If he only had a joint bank account then the 50K he saved WAS under a mattress or some sort. If he'd started saving from his Lord Mayor days, should this amount not have been included when separating from his wife?? Is this the reason he didn't have it in an account.......to keep it hidden??

Lots of other people were in Bertie's position in 1993 and had to support families on a much lower income, so this is a moot point IMO.


----------



## ubiquitous (2 Oct 2006)

In fairness I don't think I have heard a word from the Opposition cricitising the Taoiseach for any matter relating to his personal life, his personal savings or spending patterns.  As far as I can see, it is the media who are focussing in on these points and raising awkward questions for the Taoiseach to address.


----------



## Humpback (2 Oct 2006)

Purple said:


> Leaking confidential information from a statutory enquiry.
> AFAIK that's against the law.


 
In addition to the comments of ubiquitous above, which I endorse, I believe that there are 2 other relevant issues here which have not been fully detailed in the media.

1. The interlocutary injunction taken out by the tribunal relates to information that is relevant to the tribunal and it's findings, I believe. However, the money and payments to Bertie that we're hearing about now is not actually part of the enquiry (i.e. none of it is related in any way to planning corruption), and therefore not covered by the enquiry and in theory not subject to the injunction. 

As an aside, is this not then why there is a pending High Court case being taken by Bertie and his former wife attempting to keep these payments out of the public arena. Therefore, by implication, he knew it would get into the public domain otherwise and was worried enough by these revelations that he was willing to go to the High Court.

2. I understand from my reading on this whole matter that the interlocutary injuction was taken out against the Sunday Business Post because of its coverage and use of leaks from the Tribunal. According to the Irish Times, nothing was served on them, nor were they party to any court proceedings which in any way could imply that they were covered by this injunction.

For either or both of these two reasons, I don't think, and obviously neither does Madam Editor, believe that crime was committed by the Irish Times at all.


----------



## Humpback (2 Oct 2006)

sherib said:


> Yes - the Judge had _already_ ordered sight of the documents when Madame Editor destroyed them - on legal advice she said. She said this information would never have seen the light of day but for her revelation - _in the national interest_ presumably! Are we talking about treason or what?


 
As per my comments above, it is quite likely that this information would actually never have seen the light of day - given Berties High Court case.

As for your treason comment, no need for the melodramatics.

We're talking about a politician who has broken the rules of holding political office for government ministers, and who has broken his own personal rules of behaviour. I think that given that this is the politician who is running the country, it most definitely is in the national interest.

And the more time has gone on with regards to these issues, we're seeing more and more about how Bertie really operates, and how much he really is more like those FF politicians who've gone before him rather than being "one of us" as he would like to believe.



sherib said:


> The opposition parties are looking increasingly pathetic in their attempts to make a mountain out of a mole-hill.


 
I half agree with you. The opposition parties are looking pathetic, but only because they're not focusing on the right aspects of this whole controversy.



sherib said:


> They are being allowed by sections of the media to ignore facts - like harping on about the fact the Taoiseach didn't have a bank account in his own name from 1987 to 1993. He has said that he had a *joint bank account with his wife* but this is ignored. ......
> Then they rant on about how he saved £50,000 and where he kept that money, sneering "under the mattress". Is that not a gross intrusion into his privacy? In my experience most Accountants (qualified or otherwise) are very thrifty (!) and he has said he started saving from his Lord Mayor days.



This is actually what they should be harping on about, most definitely. The Taoiseach had a joint account, where he did not save this £50,000 in savings that he eventually lodged into his own personal bank account.

I don't think for one moment whatsoever that it's an invasion of privacy to ask a politican to prove how he was able to make a £50,000 deposit into a bank account.

Where was this money saved? Was it in a Building Society? Was it in the Credit Union? If this money didn't come from some sort of shady dealings, simply tell us where the money came from. "Savings" isn't enough of a justification given the planning corruption tribunal investigations which raised the lodgements in the first place.

Simple question. Where was the money saved? There were reports in the national newspapers that Bertie was using an account under someone elses name during this time. This would be of interest as well I would have though. Personation committed by the Minister of Finance?



sherib said:


> Comments are being made about his huge salary - three times the average industrial wage in 1993 - while ignoring the fact he must have been paying at least half and probably more of that to support his wife and family.



His salary was approaching 6 times the average industrial wage at the time - £75000 vs £13500. What's your point here?

All this money was presumably, as I've wondered here before, being paid into the joint bank account, and is all fully accounted for.

*So where did the £50000 in savings really come from?*



sherib said:


> I never thought the day would come when I would defend Bertie Ahern but I just loathe hypocrisy and blood sports.



Really? All you've been doing here on this thread has been defending Bertie.


----------



## WaterWater (2 Oct 2006)

Do we know for a fact that the €50k was used to pay his separation costs?  Do we know how much his separation costs came to? Was it not just a €50k donation that coincidentally coincided with his separation?  A handy excuse in other words?


----------



## Humpback (2 Oct 2006)

WaterWater said:


> Do we know for a fact that the €50k was used to pay his separation costs? Do we know how much his separation costs came to? Was it not just a €50k donation that coincidentally coincided with his separation? A handy excuse in other words?


 
This has me confused as well.

Bertie received £38,000 from his mates in late 1993 to pay off a loan he'd already received from AIB in order to pay off costs associated with the separation. This is according to the interview. This money was all to "settle the bills".

He then received £16,000 from more mates earlier in the year, plus the £8000.

This money was mostly used, it might appear, to pay the £20,000 he had to put aside for the education of his daughters.

And then, after all that, there was the lodgement of £50,000 savings.

So he's net £50,000 better off, the savings. Where'd that come from?


----------



## sherib (2 Oct 2006)

> Originally posted by *WaterWater*
> Do we know for a fact that the €50k was used to pay his separation costs?


Is that anyone's business but his and his wife's? All we can be certain about it that that bill was paid - or perhaps we ought to be told the Solicitors' names so we can check that out too. But I did hear him say that *the legal bills took all of his savings, i.e. the £50,000. *It's likely the "whip-around" by his friends paid other bills and got him off the mattress on the floor of his Constituency office or helped as a down payment on the semi-d in Drumcondra in which he reportedly still lives. 



> Originally posted by *WaterWater*
> Do we know how much his separation costs came to?


Maybe someone should ask their TD to table that question in the Dail - *if it's relevant.* IMO that's more intrusion into what should be a private and personal matter and is clearly painful to speak about in public. It's common knowledge that legal costs in these cases are enormous. 

I have no difficulty in believing the £50,000 were honest savings unless shown to be otherwise. Perhaps he had an "emergency fund" account - that's a reasonable assumption. If he kept it under a metaphorical mattress - so what.


> Originally posted by ronan_d_lyons
> All you've been doing here on this thread has been defending Bertie


And why not - unless there is a rule against it? I try to be objective and fair and to base any assessment on *facts* rather than "spin" and bias - though most of us are subject to some degree of bias. The *facts* were revealed to the Mahon Tribunal and should have been confidential. Further I am satisfied with the statement made by An Tanaiste - that he was fully confident that Bertie Ahern was honest and was never party to corruption. He did make *an error of judgement* but I have no problem in believing that when a person is under stress (as he must have been) they are capable to doing something that they might later regret. Most of us are capable of human error - except maybe the *"holier than thou-s"*  .

PS In reply to *Ubiquitous*' last post, on the Politics Show last evening I saw Brendan Howlan sneering about the Taoiseach's lack of a Bank Account when it was perfectly clear he had a joint account with his wife. Further, the _hugely important (?) _information *was *leaked from the Tribunal. The Government should be allowed to get on with running the country rather than be wasting time on this trivia.


----------



## liteweight (2 Oct 2006)

I am certainly not a 'holier than thou' but I'd like to know why an educated man, an experienced politician and an ex Lord Mayor of Dublin, felt the need to keep his money under a mattress...metaphorical or not!! It's a straight forward question...was he trying to keep this amount hidden during the period he was separating from his wife? Did he keep this money in an account under someone else's name? Where did he get this money if he was so strapped that he had to sleep on a mattress in his office? Was this just to keep tabs on his money? Or was he homeless? Where were all these generous friends when he needed a bed?

Sherib, I think you protest too much. A politician's life is always open to public scrutiny and they tacitly, if not overtly, agree to that when they take on the role. Nobody expects him to talk about his sex life, his childrens' reaction to the divorce, private conversations with his ex etc. but we DO expect him to explain where, when, why and how he came by such an amount of money. We DO expect to ask and be told whether tax was due and paid. And if you don't.....then you should!!  We get the politicians we deserve.


----------



## sherib (3 Oct 2006)

> Originally posted by *liteweight*
> Sherib, I think you protest too much.


You're entitled to your opinion but there's no need to get personal



> Originally posted by *liteweight*
> ....was he trying to keep this amount hidden during the period he was separating from his wife?...we DO expect him to explain where, when, why and how he came by such an amount of money. We DO expect to ask and be told whether tax was due and paid.


 
Referring to his €/£50,000 savings: who knows? - that would be between him, his wife and their legal representatives IMO; none of my business or anyone else's. If it was concealed from his wife, no doubt there's a letter from the Solicitors winging its way as I write this! Apart from reading it here, I'm not aware that *anyone* has demanded to know how he had savings or raised any question about their legality. It seems that good old Irish begrudgery is alive and well.


----------



## Humpback (3 Oct 2006)

sherib said:


> But I did hear him say that *the legal bills took all of his savings, i.e. the £50,000. *It's likely the "whip-around" by his friends paid other bills and got him off the mattress on the floor of his Constituency office or helped as a down payment on the semi-d in Drumcondra in which he reportedly still lives.


 
sherib - Can you tell us where and when you heard Bertie say this? I think you are mistaken. The legal bill was paid by a bank loan from AIB.

As Bertie said in his infamous interview - 



> It was, they, they knew, a good few of them knew that I had taken out a loan with AIB in O'Connell Street to settle my legal bills. I had taken out the loan so I actually used the loan to settle the bills.


 
As for the savings, and the more I read of this, the more intriguing it becomes, here is what happened to the £50,000 savings he had (in Berties own words from that interview again).



> I'd saved quite a substantial amount of money because it was from the time I was lord mayor in '86 I'd saved in the order of 50,000. The trouble was that in the separation I agreed to provide 20,000 for my children to an educational account as part of the agreement that I made. I don't like giving details of the children but for completeness, I did that. I also had to pay off other bills, so the money I'd saved was gone.


 
Do I understand it then that the £50,000 that was lodged in 1994 when Bertie finally got his own personal bank account was actually the money that he got from his friends, plus whatever was left over from his original savings back to 1996?



			
				sherib said:
			
		

> I have no difficulty in believing the £50,000 were honest savings unless shown to be otherwise.


 
Neither do I. But there's enough questions and doubt over his activities at that time for the question to be legitimately asked. And if Bertie has nothing to hide, let him answer the question properly and truthfully.


----------



## WaterWater (3 Oct 2006)

liteweight said:


> Where were all these generous friends when he needed a bed?


 
Exactly?  How close were these friends?  Did he go to sports events with them, have a few pints with them at the weekend, go on holiday with them, was he on the phone to them regularly. How close were these friends?


----------



## liteweight (3 Oct 2006)

sherib said:


> You're entitled to your opinion but there's no need to get personal



Was I being personal? Sorry.





> Referring to his €/£50,000 savings: who knows? - that would be between him, his wife and their legal representatives IMO; none of my business or anyone else's.



If he's in charge of the finances of the country and therefore MY finances. then it definitely is my business and yours and every other citizens'. Of course I want to know where he got it from......maybe some of it is mine!! If I move more than 5K in the bank there are questions asked. When I try to buy a house I have to fill out a form for the CAB. Why should Bertie be any different?




> It seems that good old Irish begrudgery is alive and well.



I hope you're not implying I'm a begrudger? Thought you didn't like to get personal? I don't begrudge Bertie anything as long as he's honest. I've a right to question what went on and to call it begrudgery is just another form of 'put down' in order to keep people silent on the subject.


----------



## Audrey (3 Oct 2006)

liteweight said:


> Was I being personal? Sorry.
> 
> If he's in charge of the finances of the country and therefore MY finances. then it definitely is my business and yours and every other citizens'. Of course I want to know where he got it from......maybe some of it is mine!! If I move more than 5K in the bank there are questions asked. When I try to buy a house I have to fill out a form for the CAB. Why should Bertie be any different?
> 
> ...


You're absolutely right Liteweight.  Why shouldn't you ask the questions.  What class of a SIN is it?  As I've said in a separate thread, Gawd help us but we certainly do get the Government that some of these posters deserve.  It reminds me of the old days (my mother told me about them!) when men & women went to the doctor, took whatever medication or advice the doctor gave, and asked no questions.  It was "rude" apparently to ask the doctor questions, or it wasn't "nice" because he was a "busy man".  Now it's apparently "bedgrudging" to ask legitimate questions about the Taoiseach and his finances.  Just like it's "racist" these days to simply question the authenticity of some asylum seekers, etc etc etc.  (I know that's a different topic, but I'm just making a point about free speech).  Some people seem to be quite scared of those of us who dare to ask questions.  I wonder if there's a medical term for that phobia?  [In Bertie-speak it would probably be something like b-b-b-begorrahphobia]!


----------



## Guest127 (3 Oct 2006)

wish I was so broke I could go to watch my favourite 'british' team play 6 times a year.


----------



## extopia (4 Oct 2006)

He should be run out of town on a rail!


----------



## liteweight (4 Oct 2006)

extopia said:


> He should be run out of town on a rail!



Don't think that's likely to happen! I was talking to a construction worker this morning and his politics were very simple......when FF are in power, I work....when they're not, I don't.


----------



## Glenbhoy (4 Oct 2006)

extopia said:


> He should be run out of town on a rail!


As long as it's not by rail, as there'd be no room if it's like a normal commuter train!


----------



## Megan (4 Oct 2006)

cuchulainn said:


> wish I was so broke I could go to watch my favourite 'british' team play 6 times a year.


 
Isn't that the question that Fine Gael's Damien English asked in the Dail yesterday. he wanted to know if Bertie was broke and couldnt afford B&B in Dublin and had to sleep on a matress yet he could afford to go to Manchester 6 times in that year. I am sure he (or maybe someone else) had to pay for B&B in Manchester as well as Flights. Something doesn't add up.
I don't think Bertie answered that question in the Dail.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2006)

Megan said:


> Isn't that the question that Fine Gael's Damien English asked in the Dail yesterday. he wanted to know if Bertie was broke and couldnt afford B&B in Dublin and had to sleep on a matress yet he could afford to go to Manchester 6 times in that year. I am sure he (or maybe someone else) had to pay for B&B in Manchester as well as Flights. Something doesn't add up.
> I don't think Bertie answered that question in the Dail.



Bertie has questions to answer but is that really one of them?


----------



## Glenbhoy (5 Oct 2006)

liteweight said:


> I am certainly not a 'holier than thou' but I'd like to know why an educated man, an experienced politician and an ex Lord Mayor of Dublin, felt the need to keep his money under a mattress...metaphorical or not!!


It's simple really, Bertie wanted to show just how honest he really was.  Presumably at that stage the position of finance minister gave one some influence over central bank interest rates.  Now, a normal finance minister would obviously be impacted either positively or negatively by a change in rates, Mr. Ahern wishing to show his absolute incorruptibilty decided he could not allow himself to be in a position where his decision could have an impact on his financial well being.  Ah, if only there were more like him!!


----------



## Guest127 (5 Oct 2006)

at that one but as liteweight above states its how it affects you personally or your family is what a lot of people go by. in next years election for instance if FF are re-elected as government Dermot Ahern will be a minister. If however FG are elected as government then Fergus O'Dowd will  ( probably ) be a minister. So are people of north Louth going to displace a certain minister with a south Louth possability? are people of south Louth going to pass up an opportunity to get a minister?   and thats only one small county. pretty sure it translates to other areas as well.  and thats before the bungs start in December. oh I know about the government sticking to fiscal policy but as Bertie said 'that was the position then'  when referring to 1993  so come December fiscal policy guidelines for October will have been the policy for October - not December and certainly not  2007.


----------



## Megan (6 Oct 2006)

Have you ever been to Manchester?

Been tere, done tat, wore te Taoiseach !!!


----------



## liteweight (11 Oct 2006)

So it's all true then.....a storm in a teacup! We'll all give out about it for a few days and then it blows over! Maybe the politicians know us better than we think?


----------



## bearishbull (11 Oct 2006)

Suprised this aspect of bertie story hasnt been wider reported

[broken link removed]


----------



## liteweight (11 Oct 2006)

bearishbull said:


> Suprised this aspect of bertie story hasnt been wider reported
> 
> [broken link removed]




It surprises me too........in fact I never noticed it!


----------



## RainyDay (11 Oct 2006)

Did I get the details right on his savings? Did he really say that he saved £50k approx around that time without using a bank account? So he had the cash under the mattress or at the back of the wardrobe?

And this was the man responsible for regulating the entire financial services industry at the time? Incredible (literally)....


----------



## Guest127 (11 Oct 2006)

and he obviously omitted to tell his solicitor he was flush, otherwise why was the his solicitor dropping hints all over the place about bertie's financial woes? and the 'bhoys' in manchester obviously didnt know he had a  jacobs tin under the bed full of used fivers either.
another point: how exactly are td's paid? into their bank account or in cash? just wondering how his ministers salary was actually paid and received by him?


----------



## Chamar (11 Oct 2006)

Bertie Ahern disgusts me. All he does is cut ribbons while people are dying on hospital trollies in appalling conditions. After 10 years in office with a booming economy behind him he should be ashamed at this. This scandal aside, I hope he gets voted out. Do I think it will happen? No.


----------



## Humpback (12 Oct 2006)

RainyDay said:


> Did I get the details right on his savings? Did he really say that he saved £50k approx around that time without using a bank account? So he had the cash under the mattress or at the back of the wardrobe?
> 
> And this was the man responsible for regulating the entire financial services industry at the time? Incredible (literally)....


 
This has been one of my key questions all along. I believe it is also the reason why the tribunal are going after Celias bank accounts around that time as well now.


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2006)

I give up.  There's no hope.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1012/poll.html

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (13 Oct 2006)

Of course there's hope - you can always vote for others next election can't you?


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2006)

Pat and Enda, the best assets that Fianna Fail have.


----------



## contemporary (13 Oct 2006)

Chamar said:


> Bertie Ahern disgusts me. All he does is cut ribbons while people are dying on hospital trollies in appalling conditions. After 10 years in office with a booming economy behind him he should be ashamed at this. This scandal aside, I hope he gets voted out. Do I think it will happen? No.



I remember an Ireland where those who could afford a college education only did it to leave the country, I remember an Ireland where Barry Desmonds health cuts crippled the health service,  I remember an Ireland where unemployment was rampant, I remember an Ireland where primary teachers were on a list to lose their jobs when class sizes were 30 children plus

Why do we have people dying in hospitals? look at the amount of drunks in A&E on a saturday night, look at the mindless violence that is on our streets, the increase in drug use. I had a conversation recently with a bloke from clare who was up for the all ireland final, he was giving out about bertie and the boom and how his mother spent 2 days on a chair in limerick general, just like the quoted post. Where was he the night before the all ireland? lying in james a&e out of his head on booze and coke. 

Sometimes people should look to their own behaviour and see what effect that is having on the rest of society


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2006)

good post contemporary


----------



## ashambles (13 Oct 2006)

It's harsh to blame an individual minister like Barry Desmond for cutbacks, no doubt the finance minister (Bruton) in aggreement with the government told him how much money he had to work with. Every health minister would prefer to be dispensing largesse than cutting back.

There was a general policy fiscal rectitude as CJH called it anyway by all parties from the early eighties to about the mid nineties. I seem to remember the Fianna Fail in 87 continued the cutbacks with increased vigour, despite whining hypocritically about them while in opposition.

I believe all parties were trying to keep the punt and economy reasonably healthy to encourage inward investment - it may just have worked.


----------



## Glenbhoy (13 Oct 2006)

contemporary said:


> when class sizes were 30 children plus


So it used to be better than now?


> Why do we have people dying in hospitals?


Because we don't have the capacity to treat everyone effectively, despite throwing billions at the problem?


> Sometimes people should look to their own behaviour and see what effect that is having on the rest of society


Agree 100%.
The problem that us disillusioned have is that much of the benefits of the increased prosperity seem to have been squandered, our transport, education and health systems are in pretty dire straits, I realise that not everything is bad and that FF can take many plaudits for overseeing many aspects of the boom.  However, I personally would be much more likely to vote for them if the present taoiseach were gone - he is the face of FF that I cannot abide (though Hannafin, Cullen and Martin run him close).


----------



## Chamar (13 Oct 2006)

contemporary said:


> I remember an Ireland where those who could afford a college education only did it to leave the country, I remember an Ireland where Barry Desmonds health cuts crippled the health service,  I remember an Ireland where unemployment was rampant, I remember an Ireland where primary teachers were on a list to lose their jobs when class sizes were 30 children plus
> 
> Why do we have people dying in hospitals? look at the amount of drunks in A&E on a saturday night, look at the mindless violence that is on our streets, the increase in drug use. I had a conversation recently with a bloke from clare who was up for the all ireland final, he was giving out about bertie and the boom and how his mother spent 2 days on a chair in limerick general, just like the quoted post. Where was he the night before the all ireland? lying in james a&e out of his head on booze and coke.
> 
> Sometimes people should look to their own behaviour and see what effect that is having on the rest of society



Of course people should look at their own behaviour, everyone should do that always, regardless of FF/Bertie & friends. But I'm sorry, when you have a government in power for the length of time Bertie has been with all the resources at his disposal and people are LITERALLY dying on TROLLIES in hospitals is unacceptable. No matter how many other good things you think Bertie & co. are doing this alone should have people calling for his head. I'm sorry but it just really disgusts me when Bertie is lauded for being able to attend 15 functions a day. If I see one more picture of him cutting a ribbon or planting a tree I am going to vomit. I mean, why do we elect a president??? Can't she do these things? Him taking that money was plain wrong but frankly that is not the issue for me. People needlessly DYING is the issue for me.  And I know the opposition are crap but god, it just depressing to think of the current bunch getting re-elected which you just know is going to happen.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2006)

Chamar said:


> people are LITERALLY dying on TROLLIES in hospitals is unacceptable. No matter how many other good things you think Bertie & co. are doing this alone should have people calling for his head........  People needlessly DYING is the issue for me.


Are people dying because they are on trolleys? 
What government will be able to take on the consultants and the INO? 
I ask because the waste in the health service will not stop until this happens. 
BTW I heard on RTE radio that the number of people on trolleys has dropped by 45% over the last year. The guy from the INO welcomed this and accepted that Mary Harney was doing her best to improve the situation.


----------



## Vanilla (13 Oct 2006)

Bertie must be feeling fairly smug today. 

I feel like I have just had a glimpse of the real Bertie and I don't like what I saw. Everyone must make their own mind up, that's the essence of a democracy, if he comes out of this unscathed, well, so be it. It's probably a reflection in what we have come to expect of our politicians- evidently there is not an expectation that they should be above such irregularities ( my own opinion is that irregularity is not the correct term but this is not clear).

Bertie is a very clever man. But I won't be voting for him or for a party with him as a leader.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2006)

Vanilla said:


> I won't be voting for him or for a party with him as a leader.


Ditto, but not for the few quid he got, more for the billions he wasted.


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2006)

The cutbacks of the 80's were required to some extent because Jack Lynch bought an overall majority in 1977 and paid a hell of a lot more than he needed to get it.

Of course the economic story in Ireland over the last 10 to 15 years has been remarkable.  And we should acknowledge the politicians who contributed to that, even CJH deserves credit though I know people despise him.   I honestly believe his *net* contribution to the country was greater than Aherns.  

It's interseting that the Finance Minister who presided over a good deal of the prosperity was shipped off to Europe by Ahern.   During his time in charge McCreevy did a good job of managing the finances that was his job.  And despite what you may have been led to believe, he did give money to departments like Health.  It's not his fault if that Department couldn't be controlled.

McCreevy did some things I didn't like, like increasing indirect (regressive taxes),  but it's notable that when they sent him away, they didn't reverse any of those policies, so that wasn't the aspect of his performance that they didn't like.

It wouldn't surprise me if numbers on trollies is finally dropping.  It's about bloody time.  I do think Mary Harney is extremely good, though I'll admit she's surrounded by a shower that make for good comparison.

She's had her off days as well, the Nursing Home issue being a case in point, but in general, It's fair to say that if Health was as bad when she left it as when she took over then we'd be in real trouble.

After the week or two of refelations that we've seen and after Aherns abject failure to perform in the Dail, it is utterly depressing that opinions polls show an increase in support for Fianna Fail.

If this opinion poll turns out to be true then prepare for lots more teary eyed stories by ministers and other politicians.  Party Political broadcasts will all begin with "Once upon a time...", and Sinead O'Conner will have a new career training ministers on how to shed a tear on demand.

The only bright spot is tinged with a little saddness for me.   I honestly thought the PD's represented something new and hopeful in Irish Politics.  I liked many of the people who set it up and I think they were sincere in what they were trying to do.

Michael McDowells rise to prominence pretty much ended my interest in the party, and taking over the leadership killed it completely.   I will take a tiny bit of satisfaction from seeing him fail spectacularly as leader,  I'll be astonished if they get more than 2 seats, and I'm hopeful they'll get none at all.  

That photo of him up the lamp post should be handed to any PD folk who come knocking for votes, along with one word..."Explain".

Mixed emiotions though.  It's like watching someone you really hate driving a Ferrari off a cliff.  Good to see the back of them, but shame we couldn't save the Ferrari.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2006)

Brilliant!


----------



## Chamar (13 Oct 2006)

Purple said:


> Are people dying because they are on trolleys?



Are you for real??? Do you think it's okay for seriously ill people to be left on a trolly in the corridor?



Purple said:


> What government will be able to take on the consultants and the INO?



Not this one, that is for sure.




Purple said:


> BTW I heard on RTE radio that the number of people on trolleys has dropped by 45% over the last year. The guy from the INO welcomed this and accepted that Mary Harney was doing her best to improve the situation.



Hurrah! After 10 years we have a REDUCTION in the number of people on trollies. We won't talk about the abominable treatment of many critically ill people with cancer etc. No regional strategy, appalling hygiene in hospitals, asshole consultants etc. etc. etc. 

It's really sad. People in this country obviously just take their health for granted and so long as it's not one of them they are happy to carry on rewarding this, backslapping, wink-wink, cute hoorism as is evidenced by the latest poll results. We get what we deserve.


----------



## contemporary (13 Oct 2006)

Hang on, billions are put into the health service, people who sadly dry on trolleys are not dying because they are on a trolley nor are the dying because they are not being seen to. When my time comes dying in a bed rather than a trolley isnt going to make me less dead. Have a look at the reasons why there isnt beds available for the people on trolleys, drunks, brawlers druggies will take up large slice of an A&E's resources at a weekend.

I  once spent  3 days on a trolley in tallaght a&e, all of which was spent in a major burns treatment room (i wonder what would have happend to someone with major burns), the trolley next to contained a bloke too out of it to speak his name, he soiled himself and the room on a regular basis, half the others were drunk or had ODed which was a lovely environment to spend 3 days, there was 30 on trolleys with one toilet and a hand basin to wash in. I discharged myself AMA on day three because the conditions were so bad, but it wasnt the fault of the government that the gob****e next to me would pi$$ in the corner every couple of hours.

I dont know what has changed in Irish hospitals over the years, i suspect that many drunks were sent home rather than admitted because of fear that "my little johnny was turned away from hospital and died".

Take the example in my earlier post, there was a bed/trolley taken up with someone who didnt need to be there, someone who shouldnt have put himself into the condition that he ended up there, look at what he cost you and me, 
1. the cost of transporting him by ambulance. 
2. the cost of the time of the admin staff to admit him. 
3. the cost of the nurse to triage him. 
4. the cost of the doctor to treat him 
5. the cost of the nurse to monitor him over the night. 
6. the cost of the admin staff to discharge him
7. the cost to send him his a&e bill and follow up payment.

How much do you think that cost you and me??? I dont know the exact cost but I can bet you its a damn sight more than the €55 a&e charge that he got.

There is a perfect example of waste in our health system, easily avoided if he didnt do a few lines of coke and stopped after the 2nd or 3rd short. No matter how many billions we throw at the HSE if people dont take responsibility for their own actions then very little will improve


----------



## contemporary (13 Oct 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> So it used to be better than now?



My father is a teacher in low income area of Dublin, his class size is 18, the average class size in the school is 22, not perfect, but not 30 either

I'm not a mad fan of FF or even the PD's I would normally look to vote for FG , which i wont now because of their labour association, or Inds however I am sick of people telling us how bad we have it, i remember when it was a lot, lot worse.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2006)

Chamar said:


> Do you think it's okay for seriously ill people to be left on a trolly in the corridor?


No, but I think it’s Ok for a person to spend some time on a mobile bed in an A&E department while they are being treated.



Chamar said:


> Not this one, that is for sure.


 I know that but that’s not what I asked.



Chamar said:


> Hurrah! After 10 years we have a REDUCTION in the number of people on trollies. We won't talk about the abominable treatment of many critically ill people with cancer etc. No regional strategy, appalling hygiene in hospitals, asshole consultants etc. etc. etc.


 So you would support a government that forces change through even if the unions disagree with it? Would you continue to support them if they started sacking nurses that were on strike? Because that’s what they would have to do. 



Chamar said:


> It's really sad. People in this country obviously just take their health for granted and so long as it's not one of them they are happy to carry on rewarding this, backslapping, wink-wink, cute hoorism as is evidenced by the latest poll results. We get what we deserve.


 I don’t take my health for granted but I don’t take the knee jerk simplistic view that it’s all the fault of those pesky politicians. There are 100’000 people paid by the exchequer working in the health service. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask some of them and their lobby groups to shoulder a portion of the blame.


----------



## Humpback (13 Oct 2006)

Purple said:


> Are people dying because they are on trolleys?


 


			
				Chamar said:
			
		

> Are you for real??? Do you think it's okay for seriously ill people to be left on a trolly in the corridor?


 
Chamar, I think the point is that people are not dying because they're on trollies. They're dying because they're sick, and they may sometimes happen to be on trollies.

Come to think of it, are you not just scaremongering with your assertions here? Can you tell us any/how many occasions where someone has actually died while they were on a trolley in any hospital in this country?


----------



## Vanilla (13 Oct 2006)

Although I didn't agree with everything he said or did, or the way he did it, I used to have a grudging admiration for McDowell for the way he stood up to the Republicans. I had this impression that he was the kind of person who stood up for what he believed in regardless of the consequences- that he was a straight talker and honest. That he didn't suffer fools gladly. But in one fell swoop he turned that image on it's head. Sad to see that his need for power outweighed his need for justice. Power corrupts and absolute power...


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2006)

> When my time comes dying in a bed rather than a trolley isnt going to make me less dead.


 
True, but it might make you more comfortable, which isn't much to ask.
Or perhaps it is too much to ask.

You are absolutely correct of course. There are bad people in every society, and they make things difficult for everyone else. But the conditions you describe of discharging yourself after 3 days on a Trolly IS the fault of the people charged with responsibility for running the Health Service.

Yes, we should be taking a harder line with drunks who clog up A&E. Yes, those people should have to pay a severe penalty.

I spent quite a while in hospitals in the 80's. On one occasion a guy who escaped from police by jumping out of a second floor window was brought in with injuries. I don't even know what he was doing in hospital, because he seemed to have recovered and was up and walking around when he arrived in the Ward. I personally think there was nowhere for him in Prison.

That guy was a lunatic. He was a danger to everyone else in the ward. I personally saw him urinate in a Lucozade bottle of another patient. Had I not seen it happen, and alterted the nurses, who knows...

I saw him physically threaten patients, and he tried unsuccessfully to intimidate me.

We can reserve the medical wing of Mountjoy so criminals like Liam Lawlor doesn't have to mix with other prisoners, but patients like you and me have to put up with them in our wards and A&E while we're recovering from illness.

There's no point asking drunks and criminals, and coke heads to look into their hearts and examine their behaviour. The best we can hope for is the the state will do it's best to keep them away from the rest of us.

It doesn't seem to be difficult to protect their own ass when one of them ends up in Jail. But then again....they're special aren't they?

Let's not absolve government and the state so easily from it's responsibility. Or if we do absolve them let's at least ask why certain sections of society get such a good deal.

When one group go to jail and are surrounded by medical staff, and another goes to hospital and are surrounded by criminals, then you've got a seriously screwed up value system.

-Rd


----------



## Glenbhoy (13 Oct 2006)

contemporary said:


> My father is a teacher in low income area of Dublin, his class size is 18, the average class size in the school is 22, not perfect, but not 30 either
> 
> I'm not a mad fan of FF or even the PD's I would normally look to vote for FG , which i wont now because of their labour association, or Inds however I am sick of people telling us how bad we have it, i remember when it was a lot, lot worse.


My wife teaches in middle class Dublin and has 36 pupils - not perfect either (I do acknowledge there have been great strides in disadvantaged areas).
Re your plan to vote FF, do you know that the bookies favourite (and what I've heard from sources within ff) is a labour and FF coalition??  Like many others on here my problem is not ff, but their leader, and it's not his little bungs, it's the profligacy with which they've handed out needless tax breaks, given away state assets and generally never obtaining value for the taxpayer.  The opposition may be poor, but can they do much worse??


----------



## contemporary (13 Oct 2006)

my plan to vote FF? where did i say that? I said I wasnt a mad fan of FF but I dont think they did as bad a job as some like to make out. The willingness of Kenny to jump into bed with Pat Rabbitte was enough to turn me off the FG/Lab option, I'd rather vote for the PD's if it served to keep the shinners out. 

I'd disagree with you idea of needless tax breaks, some have been here since the 60's, things like reducing CGT from 40% to 20% actually saw the tax take increase, lower PAYE has beeen good for us all, they brought in a minimum wage, I'm starting to sound like a bandwagon supporter....

headlines like 180 millionaires paid no tax are down to effective tax planning and investing in things like car parks, hotels, private nursing homes, retirement homes, things we all either directly or indirectly gain from. Can you honestly say if you had the ability to legally avoid tax you wouldnt, I know I would.


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2006)

> I said I wasnt a mad fan of FF but I dont think they did as bad a job as some like to make out.


 
I think the Irish economy is in good shape, and one of it's architects has been banished.   The Infrastructure is very poor, there's no 2 ways about it.

I visited rural parts of Malaysia that had a better road network than any part of Ireland.  Granted I managed to stay in a place that only had water every second day from time to time, but even there they managed to build an impressive road network.

The planning and development of Dublin has been awful, and we can't blame lack of understanding, or building the city on a shoestring, much of Dublin's spread and development has happened recently.

I used to think as I looked and the endless cranes that it'll be a great city when they finish building it.   But I now see I was wrong.  Through either corruption or incompetence we've screwed up the capital city to an extent that I can no longer even imagine feasible ways to improve it.

In sport it's ok to look at the score board at the end and say, they played poorly, the made serious mistakes, cheated at every opportunity, but at least they got away with the three points.

In life you can't excuse mistakes on the scale we've seen by pointing to the scoreboard and saying, at least the GDP looks good.

Perhaps Bertie does think he is in sports management.  Perhaps he genuinely believes that all that matters is the score.   Perhaps the cliche's about living in an economy instead of a society are not just true, but part of the plan.

-Rd


----------



## Glenbhoy (13 Oct 2006)

contemporary said:


> I'd disagree with you idea of needless tax breaks, some have been here since the 60's, things like reducing CGT from 40% to 20% actually saw the tax take increase, lower PAYE has beeen good for us all, they brought in a minimum wage, I'm starting to sound like a bandwagon supporter....
> 
> headlines like 180 millionaires paid no tax are down to effective tax planning and investing in things like car parks, hotels, private nursing homes, retirement homes, things we all either directly or indirectly gain from. Can you honestly say if you had the ability to legally avoid tax you wouldnt, I know I would.


The reduction of cgt from 40% to 20% is not a tax break (although i would be in favour of paying it at top rate), nor is lower paye, but I certainly don't want it going lower.
What i'm referring to are the continued existence of property tax breaks (amongst others), whilst initially a good idea, they should have been phased out 6/7yrs ago.  I have absolutely no problem with people planning effectively to avoid tax, nor do i have a problem with tax incentives, the thing is, the incentive should be to provide something useful for the community, a plethora of hotels or holiday apartments in Carrick on Shannon are not in my opinion long term strategic goals for the Irish nation. 
Is our construction industry not overheated enough as is?


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2006)

> the thing is, the incentive should be to provide something useful for the > community

A good example would be to abolish stamp duty for anyone buying a home in underpopulated areas,  but double the stamp duty for people buying second homes there.

If you must give property incentives then some sort of incentive to actually move away from the overdeveloped east cost, particularly around Dublin, rather than giving people incentives to blot the countryside with holiday homes, while they keep living in Dublin.

Right now anyone who bought a house in Dublin would have to write off any stamp duty they've already paid, and write another cheque for the stamp duty on a house down the country.

If we can't get incentives that do some good, can we at least get rid of the ones that do harm?

-Rd


----------



## Chamar (13 Oct 2006)

ronan_d_john said:


> Chamar, I think the point is that people are not dying because they're on trollies. They're dying because they're sick, and they may sometimes happen to be on trollies.
> 
> Come to think of it, are you not just scaremongering with your assertions here? Can you tell us any/how many occasions where someone has actually died while they were on a trolley in any hospital in this country?




Ronan, I am fully aware of the point the poster was making and I find it disgusting to sincerely remark or imply that since a person is dying it doesn't matter or it is not a big deal that they are left on a trolley in a hospital corridor.  I don't think anyone, dying or otherwise should be subject to these conditions given our priviliged position in the world. And I find it shocking to be arguing this point.

As for scaremongering, I'm not trying to say it happens everyday but frankly once is too much.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1579202&issue_id=13798


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2006)

> I don't think anyone, dying or otherwise should be subject to these conditions given our priviliged position in the world. And I find it shocking to be arguing this point.


 
Sadly, settling for less seems to becoming more common in the New Ireland.  On another thread we had the discussion about whether people should change job, and/or move house, to fit their life around the woeful public transport system.

Let's not get hung up on whether or not the person is dying, though you are right, once is one too many.  It would be a sad day if dying became the criteria for getting a bed.

Any patient, young or old deserves more that to spend days on a trolly.  How many of you have spent any time on one?  I mean really spent time, as in, you can't move on your own.   I don't mean you can sit up, or go for a walk.

Try lying on one for a couple of hours and then see what you'd think of a couple of days.  Then tell me again how wealthy the country is, and how ungreatful we all are for questioning things.

Perhaps you could do a public service and go to A&E wards and cheer up the residents by reminding them of the 70's and 80's.

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (13 Oct 2006)

contemporary said:


> I remember an Ireland where those who could afford a college education only did it to leave the country, I remember an Ireland where Barry Desmonds health cuts crippled the health service,


Oooh very selective memory there - Barry Desmond (or Bruton as Minister for Finance) inherited vast defecits after CJH went on a 'sailor in a whorehouse' spending spree to try to buy the results of the 81 election. The spending came just after his 'we have to tighten our belts' broadcast to the nation.


----------



## Megan (13 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> Sadly, settling for less seems to becoming more common in the New Ireland.  On another thread we had the discussion about whether people should change job, and/or move house, to fit their life around the woeful public transport system.
> 
> Let's not get hung up on whether or not the person is dying, though you are right, once is one too many.  It would be a sad day if dying became the criteria for getting a bed.
> 
> ...


I thinlk we have all gone soft in this new Ireland. I think it is a case of until you youself or someone very close to you is lying on a trolly we dont really know what it is like. When you spent time with an elderly relative on a trolly in a corridor of a busy hospital and every nurse looks straight ahead in case she would catch your eye and her not having any answer for you, again I say until it is at your door you dont really understand. When those politicans come calling to my door I will be asking why? and I would ask everyone else to do likewise.


----------



## contemporary (14 Oct 2006)

RainyDay said:


> Oooh very selective memory there - Barry Desmond (or Bruton as Minister for Finance) inherited vast defecits after CJH went on a 'sailor in a whorehouse' spending spree to try to buy the results of the 81 election. The spending came just after his 'we have to tighten our belts' broadcast to the nation.



The_ Honestly it was like that when we got here_ pleas never did go down well with the electorate

I was more comparing the state of the nation then with the state of the nation now, as opposed to any one political party, however historically Barry Desmond will always be associated with health cuts.

One of the important things to ask is has the government learnt from its mistakes? Like every other person I have made mistakes i have regretted, i think it is a bit rich to expect the government, who are people too, get every call right, somethings they got wrong like the port tunnel however they learnt from the (very expensive) mistakes of that and introduced contracts that have seen infrastructure, like the bypasses on the N7/M7 opening quicker  than planned and on budget.

I suppose I work on the philosophy that the man who never made a mistake never made anything at all


----------



## RainyDay (14 Oct 2006)

contemporary said:


> The_ Honestly it was like that when we got here_ pleas never did go down well with the electorate
> 
> I was more comparing the state of the nation then with the state of the nation now, as opposed to any one political party, however historically Barry Desmond will always be associated with health cuts.


You're right insofar as the electorate never liked the blaming stuff. But that doesn't affect the facts - it just makes them unpalatable facts.

In terms of Barry Desmond & health cuts, this was never an associate that would ever have sprung to my mind.  gives a pretty clear result as to who most people associate with health cuts.



cuchulainn said:


> and he obviously omitted to tell his solicitor he was flush, otherwise why was the his solicitor dropping hints all over the place about bertie's financial woes? and the 'bhoys' in manchester obviously didnt know he had a  jacobs tin under the bed full of used fivers either.
> another point: how exactly are td's paid? into their bank account or in cash? just wondering how his ministers salary was actually paid and received by him?



Now this is getting interesting. Presumably he wasn't paid in cash. Given that he didn't have a bank account, payment by transfer wouldn't have been possible. So payment by cheque was the only possibility.

So was he cashing the cheques in Fagan's? Not very appropriate for a Minister for Finance. Did the Dept of Finance really issue uncrossed cheques that would have allowed him to cash them without having his own account?

Curiouser & curiouser.....


----------



## contemporary (14 Oct 2006)

naughty naughty rainyday, this googlefight would blame desmond.....


not that google fight has anything to do with the mindset or memories of people of a certain age group, who they blame, or peoples voting patterns in general.


----------



## micamaca (14 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> Yes, we should be taking a harder line with drunks who clog up A&E. Yes, those people should have to pay a severe penalty.
> 
> -Rd


 

I agree absolutely.  A friend of mine from Croatia says anyone who is picked up drunk or out of it on the streets is put in jail for the night by the police. They are most certainly not sent to hospitals. 

Who would be a  nurse in this country? Most people choose to become nurses to help ill people and to help the helpless. Drunk and drugged teenagers and adults are not ill, they are not helpless. They use their own free will to make themselves very ill.  

I think someone in authority needs to take a stand, the best people would be the government.  What is there to dissuade people from unsociable drinking...nothing.  nothing at all.  and so the problem grows and our drunken reputation grows around the world. 

I feel the same as some people, I think this government has got used to teh power and most of them don't want to lose it so they will stick with Bertie as it means they don't risk an election just yet. Michael McDowell is a prime example. .Can't stand him either, an obnoxious aggressive bully are words that spring to mind everytime I hear him speak. I don't want FF in power as they have no fear of retribution but FG/Labour are not inspiring either. What to do..who to vote for...its not very bright for the future. And we are far too forgiving as a nation...in so many ways. We need to wake up and do more than complain to each other. Myself included.


----------



## Glenbhoy (14 Oct 2006)

micamaca said:


> I agree absolutely.  A friend of mine from Croatia says anyone who is picked up drunk or out of it on the streets is put in jail for the night by the police. They are most certainly not sent to hospitals.
> 
> Who would be a  nurse in this country? Most people choose to become nurses to help ill people and to help the helpless. Drunk and drugged teenagers and adults are not ill, they are not helpless. They use their own free will to make themselves very ill.


And do we really want to adopt Croatian practices??  They don't seem particularly humane to me.
So when we decide not to treat people who become ill through their own free will, where does it stop - should we stop treating obese people because they had a doughnut (or two) too many, smokers, motorists (who may have been exceeding the speed limit).......


----------



## Superman (14 Oct 2006)

micamaca said:


> Drunk and drugged teenagers and adults are not ill, they are not helpless. They use their own free will to make themselves very ill.


Aah... I think you just contradicted yourself there.


----------



## micamaca (14 Oct 2006)

I'm not suggesting we adopt Croatia's methods but I'm just comparing how the two countries deal with a social problem...perhaps somewhere inbetween there might be a solution. Yes, it might seem a very hard line approach but the soft line approach of welcoming them into our wards is not helping them really is it? They go back out and do it again the next week...and I suppose I find it hard to understand how there is so much tolerance for people getting so drunk they cannot look after themselves but have to be admitted to hospitals when there is a crisis in our health care anyway. 

I don't see how you can bring up obesity in the same argument. Obese people are rarely admitted at all hours of the morning, abusive and vomiting on themselves and staff are they? 

Dangerous driving is being addressed by the government, why isn't this? Asking Diageo and others to put "drink in moderation" at the end of ads is hardly enough.


----------



## daltonr (14 Oct 2006)

A very simple solution would be to breath test or blood test anyone who appears drunk in A&E. I presume there would be no constitutional issues with that as it's presumably necessary to check if their condition is alcohol induced or not.

Set a limit, let's say 3 times or 4 times the legal limit for driving. Anyone who arrives in A&E over and above that higher limit would be charged (or fined if you prefer) a very substantial sum of money, which would be ring fenced for A&E funding.

The presense of any level of illegal drugs in the system would automatically incur the fine.

Anyone unable to pay cash, would have either their welfare reduced, or their tax credits reduced until the fine is paid off.

One would hope that taking some cash out of their pocket would at best give them pause for thought, and at worse give them a little less to spend on alcohol and thereby make it slightly more difficult to get into the same mess again.

Yes, I know this could be hard on spouses, children, yes I know that some of these idiots will probably spend money on Beer and drugs than on food. But you know what, they're doing that now anyway.

I don't think there should be a question of withholding medical treatment from anyone, regardless of how they were injured. However there is no reason why some punishment can't be applied.

If this is genuinely a very serious problem that is impinging on the comfort and well being of genuine patients, then we should face up to it and build a couple of specific A&E wings to treat those with anti-social behaviour problems. I'd attach an A&E unit to a couple of prisons around the country so that their criminal behaviour can be processed in the same place as their medical condition, and as soon as they are able to move they can be moved to a cell.

A problem like this in a society is a symptom of a deeper social illness. We need to find the cause and cure it, but in the meantime we need to perform some social triage and get these people out of the A&E units and into units where they can be treated by people specifically trained to deal with them. We don't need to do this for their benefit, but for the benefit of everyone else who is put in harms way by having to deal with them, or deal with the A&E overcrowding that they contribute to.

-Rd


----------



## micamaca (14 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> A very simple solution would be to breath test or blood test anyone who appears drunk in A&E. I presume there would be no constitutional issues with that as it's presumably necessary to check if their condition is alcohol induced or not.
> 
> Set a limit, let's say 3 times or 4 times the legal limit for driving. Anyone who arrives in A&E over and above that higher limit would be charged (or fined if you prefer) a very substantial sum of money, which would be ring fenced for A&E funding.
> 
> ...


 

I think you make a lot of sense! Yes, I think if someone was hit financially then they may have to change their social habits... as you say, they are getting money from somewhere to drink too much so perhaps if they had less money because of their habit, maybe the penny would drop.

And I'm not suggesting people don't get treated, but after they get treated there should be something to deter them from getting so bad again. A lesson learnt so to speak. But there is a big problem here and we don't know the half of it. Unless you spend time in A&E, I don't think any of us will realise how this problem is affecting our health system and thus other people here...
Unfortunately its in our culture, you only have to look at the number of bars in Ireland see just how much. It's a tough one.


----------



## micamaca (17 Oct 2006)

okay to bring it back on topic...Bertie and co are aiming for their third term of office....so who is to blame for our health system ? Bertie and Co?  Do we feel strongly enough to do something about it or are we afraid of Podge and Rodge getting into Government and making matters worse? 

Are Bertie and Co doing good for the people here overall? It seems to be the impression judging on many polls lately.  Bertie is home and dry...no further need for anoraks.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Oct 2006)

Just to try to get back on topic - Would the Dept of Finance have issued uncrossed cheques to the Minister for his salary? If not uncrossed, how on earth could Bertie have cashed the cheques anywhere?


----------



## Megan (19 Oct 2006)

RainyDay said:


> Just to try to get back on topic - Would the Dept of Finance have issued uncrossed cheques to the Minister for his salary? If not uncrossed, how on earth could Bertie have cashed the cheques anywhere?


 
Did he lodge them in Celia's account. Isnt that where the tribunal are looking now.


----------



## CCOVICH (19 Oct 2006)

Discussion of US Healthcare etc. moved to here.


----------



## daltonr (19 Oct 2006)

> Did he lodge them in Celia's account. Isnt that where the tribunal are 
> looking now.

Do you mean joint account?
I can't see any reason why there would be difficulty lodging such a cheque in a joint account.

-Rd


----------



## Megan (19 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> > Did he lodge them in Celia's account. Isnt that where the tribunal are
> > looking now.
> 
> Do you mean joint account?
> ...


Didn't Bertie say he had no Bank Account during this period. Would he have said that if he had a joint account?


----------



## Humpback (19 Oct 2006)

daltonr;300182Do you mean joint account?
I can't see any reason why there would be difficulty lodging such a cheque in a joint account.[/quote said:
			
		

> But wouldn't a joint account have been liable for inclusion in any discussions with regards to his separation? It'd hardly be likely that Celia would open up to her assets being included in such a legal situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## daltonr (19 Oct 2006)

> But wouldn't a joint account have been liable for inclusion in any discussions with regards to his separation? It'd hardly be likely that Celia would open up to her assets being included in such a legal situation.


 
I presume you're referring to the 50K that he saved.   Your point being that if it was saved out of his salary which had been paid into the account then it would be included in the legal situation.

Of course a simple answer to the question... "How did you get paid?" would end all this speculation.   I'm sure as Taoiseach he'd want that,   for the good of the country obviously.

I mean what kind of Taoiseach would want such questions hanging over him going into an election, when they could be so easily dispensed with by giving a simple answer.

Unless....You don't think....what if there is no simple answer?    
Oh!....I think I get it now.  Wow.

-Rd


----------



## Humpback (19 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> Of course a simple answer to the question... "How did you get paid?" would end all this speculation.



Absolutely, and I'm sure I'd stated this already here. We had a situation where the whole country was watching Enda Kenny in that Dail debate where they'd been fighting for more time to ask questions. He then stands up and asks 15 questions in one breath.

This kind of nonsense public debating allowed Bertie to cherry pick the questions he liked, and ignore the rest.

If Enda Kenny had asked the simple question above, or something similar along the lines of "Where did you save the £50,000 if you didn't have a bank account?" he wouldn't have fallen so dramatically in the recent polls, and probably would have increased his popularity by showing some decisiveness. You gotta wonder what kind of muppets are advising Deputy Kenny.


----------



## daltonr (19 Oct 2006)

> Absolutely, and I'm sure I'd stated this already here

You sure did, and it's worth repeating over and over until the question get's asked in such a way that people can see it is being evaded.

-Rd


----------



## micamaca (19 Oct 2006)

ronan_d_john said:


> But wouldn't a joint account have been liable for inclusion in any discussions with regards to his separation? It'd hardly be likely that Celia would open up to her assets being included in such a legal situation.
> 
> If I remember, he originally said that he had no bank account in his name, and that no one else was operating a bank account for him. However, in a little reported comment he seemed to give the impression that he was operating a bank account in someone elses name.
> 
> ...


 
My God....I just read the abpve article...there's some difference in morals between here and Sweden ja! In Sweden they have to resign for something as little as a tv licence and here in the Green Isle (cos we're so green around the ears by now) they can get loans and not make repayments or pay interest for several years and still call it a loan... and they can get paid lump sums for summat and not have to pay tax on it as Finance Minister and accountant. There is something wrong here with this scenario methinks... we can now be known as a 'nation of twits and sinners!'


----------



## daltonr (19 Oct 2006)

Rest assured if it was any other member of Fianna Fail, or a Junior or even senior minister,  and Michael McDowell said he wanted that persons head on a plate, in return for staying in government, Bertie would have served it up with fries and a milkshake.

And said person could have done a whole lot less than Bertie to get taken out.

The only reason Bertie is still in charge is there was no way for the PD's to topple him without taking out the whole government, including themselves.
When you've just taken over a party and you're sitting on half as much public support as your sworn enemy Sinn Fein, it takes a special kind of leader to trigger an election.

And Michael McDowell is not a special kind of leader.  He's just a great man for shouting the odds when the odds are in his favour.

-Rd


----------



## joe sod (10 Nov 2006)

Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fail represent modern ireland, there is no question about it. If you ask any young person under 25 who they would vote for it is bertie ahern and fianna fail. Even with all the mistakes and lite corruption that is going on. They are afraid of the short term consequences if fianna fail don't get into power like  high paid jobs in construction and the public sector drying up. Even though this maybe necessary for the long term viability of the country. The long term cosequences of fianna fails time in power will be the deplorable destruction of our countryside by urban sprawl and one off housing. This is an issue which under 25s don't care about and fianna fail knows it. We have the government we deserve and we only have ourselves to blame, thats democracy


----------



## Guest127 (11 Nov 2006)

as the poser of the original question as to how bertie managed to cash his cheques or if they were paid into an account of some sort I also have to admit bertie has some great people skills, which I witnessed first hand yesterday. his helicopter landed on one of the playing fields of St Pats in Drumcondra around 5pm yesterday and he had 2 cars waiting to transport him from there. unfortunately for him it was graduation day at the college and there was still a 500 hundred parents/graduates on campus. he alighted from the 'copter and headed towards the cars where there was a gathering of people just watching the spectacle. bertie being bertie waded straight into the throng and was happy to pose for the graduates/parents and this being 2006 every graduate had a state of the art digital camera with the result he spent upwards of half an hour or even longer  for those photos etc and he was in top form throughout this period. Somehow I couldn't see the new leader of the pd's doing the same. grizzly definitely but the rest? still doesnt explain away paddy the plasterer of course, nor how his salary was actually received by him.


----------



## RainyDay (11 Nov 2006)

cuchulainn;315041 said:
			
		

> This is a very interesting question. If he was being paid by crossed cheque, the only way these could have been cleared would be via an account in his name. Yet he tells us he had no account at that time???


----------



## edo (13 Nov 2006)

joe sod said:


> Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fail represent modern ireland, there is no question about it. If you ask any young person under 25 who they would vote for it is bertie ahern and fianna fail. Even with all the mistakes and lite corruption that is going on. They are afraid of the short term consequences if fianna fail don't get into power like high paid jobs in construction and the public sector drying up. Even though this maybe necessary for the long term viability of the country. The long term cosequences of fianna fails time in power will be the deplorable destruction of our countryside by urban sprawl and one off housing. This is an issue which under 25s don't care about and fianna fail knows it. We have the government we deserve and we only have ourselves to blame, thats democracy



  Too true Joe , Too Too True

Our main problem here is we do not have a viable opposition anymore. That fact hit home to me very clearly this week looking at the midterm elections in the States. I know there are a lot of self-righteous so and so's in this country who continually decry the state of the US , but there was something quite admirable about it all last week - democracy is alive and well in the US - when we hold up the mirror to ourselves - can we say the same thing here?

It you look how long FF have been in power over the history of the state - you'd have to ask the question what do we truly understand here by democracy? if you look at the stats since 1932 FF have been in power for 58 years and counting , the scattered occasions of FG and whoever else can make up the numbers comes to 17 in total - That is nowhere near the US or the UK or any of our Western European neighbours - its closer to that quasi democracy Japan and other latin american caudillo republics - even Fidel Castro hasn't been in power that long!

Fianna Fails domination is quite overwhelming and the longer they are in power the more entrenched they will become. It could be argued that this is pretty much par for course in ex-colonial countries particularly in the nation building period of our independent history when the creation of myth and legend was far more important than actual fact. The constant bit by bit creation of the republic/creating a separate identity from Britain is perfect example of this. 

From the moment Dev played the cute hoer and stayed at home during the Treaty negotiations - the die had been cast - The purists made a grab for the soul of Romantic Ireland and its been theirs ever since . Fianna Fail are the "Slighty constitutional"* heirs to this tradition. In a country where family loyalty, religion, parish, history and tradition play such a huge part , a culture what revels in its supposed love for the "underdog" , admiration for the rogue and chancer , and most importantly a culture in where its more important who you know, rather than what you know , its very very easy to see why Fianna Fail are the "natural party" of Governent in this state. 

One could argue that the moment Michael Collins signed the treaty in 10 Downing Street on that fateful night nearly 85 years now - he not only signed his death warrant , but also doomed his political heirs to be forever tainted with Britain and british rule - not really fully Irish in the republican sense.

After the war of independence and the resulting civil war , an already desperately poor society that had totally missed out on the Industrial revolution (well the 26 counties anyway) was completely on its knees. We were not part of the UK, yet at the same time tied at the hip economically. The Free state government had to try and rebuild a broken country at a time of laisse faire economics with the clippings of tin made worse by the flight of the Anglo Irish who possessed most of the wealth here in the first place, try and impose a degree of law and order where for the previous 10 years anarchy ,rejection of civil authority and rule of gun, and also have a cowered but undefeated popular opposition in exile still lurking in the long grass. All this against a background of the spectre of communism and facism swirling around the rest of Europe. I think its a miracle they did aswell as they did and something we should all be forever grateful for. 

However we were still a 26 county dominion,we kept on the British parliamentary and civil services practices and our head of state was still the British Crown. Add to that the financial austerity that was required to get the country on its feet (No IMF , World Bank or EU to beg a few billion quid off then), you coulld stay at home and face abject poverty in a society where the Catholic Church, for so long the repository of Irish identity for a poor and ignorant conservative people, took its rightful place at the head and imposed its stratified and stifling grip , or emigrate which people did in their thousands. 

Once Devalera, to his great credit ,decided to enter parliamentary politics , Fianna Fail's blend of populist demagogery,a nod to the church, socialist leaning economics beautifully wrapped in the flag and Brit bashing was understandably very attractive to not only to the 44% of the population who had rejected the free state in the first place , but to many others totally disillusioned with the economic condition of the country (bad luck having the great depression when you're in power). Fianna Fail were like a breath of fresh air and those first 6 years of power after 1932 were to put the seal on the enormous popularity and sympatheic disposition given to them down to this day.


 They were blessed in having extremely able ,talented and brave leadership, while C na G, pre Fine gael self destructed with O Duffy and that bunch of headbangers known as the Blueshirts. DeValera , lemass, McEntee, O'Kelly etc etc took to Government like ducks to water and skillfully set about dismantling the Free state and its Legacy. Drawing from socialist and facist notions alike , the policy of self sustainabiity in a time of protectionism, producing all we can at home , slowly and surely getting rid of symbols of British rule in the most flamboyant way possible was very popular with a people who wanted something to feel good about. the effectiveness economically in hindsight , is questionable , emigration still continued unabated thru the thirties ,but all these industries as unviable as they were , created scarce jobs and patriotism did the rest. 


Unquestionably Dev's greatest achievement was the 1937 Constitution. At a time when He literally had enough power to become a dictator, some more militant elements in the Catholic Church were urging him to follow Franco's lead - he turned around and gave us with out doubt one of the most liberal consitutions possible (bear in mind where all the other agrarian Catholic countries were at , at this time) , particularly his reference to tolerance for minorities,the Jews, was momentous in light of what was happening in Germany , Poland and most of Europe at the time. In that light he was years ahead of most of his fellow countrymen aswell. In this Fianna Fail had great leadership right up to the 70's. You mightn'd have agreed with them , but you could not doubt their sincerity and their personal morality and piety. All this combined with their wonderful organisation in very parish - they became and see themselves as a movement not just a party.

Still and all , We chucked them out a few times very 16 years or so to teach them some manners, always in time of economic downturn it would seem. We really just put them on detention . FF have been been blessed in that they have never had a fully coherent opposition movement to deal with. I mean, lets call a spade a spade , its been Fianna Fail versus everybody else since the 30's - They know it and they love it. FF have always managed to bring all sorts under their umbrella. Their long years in power have built up to unrivalled influence and patronage . And as everybody knows - power and influence draw in those who like to benefit from power and influence . CJH's dodgy but very astute romancing of the business classes with TACA and the such was a masterstroke. It might have upset the party elders and other keepers of Fianna Fail's egalitarian socialist flames but Charlie knew that they were fading away and money would be what counted in a developing Ireland.


The easy money to be made in Ireland then as now I believe as requires a generous dollop of government intervention- infrastructure contracts, public service contracts, planning decisions,state licences and monopolies etc etc. And Money will always go where it feels it can profit most. Why Bother with a motley crew of West Brits, capitalists, social democrats, socialists , marxists, bin charge protesters ,greens and other general grouches ,who when they can agree on anything will only stick together for a limited amount of time and most of that will be paralysis until they are kicked out again and the natural heirs return from exile. Fianna Fail are the boys to talk to if you want something - they are in gov most of the time , have appointed most of the civil service and fill nearly all the quangos - are far more disciplined and obeying of their leader (witness the almost comical performances of FF ministers during Charlies time and the recent Bertiegate episode in support of the boss - Im sure you all have your favourite one of these they happen so often) . Its a self perpetuating circle - where the money goes , ambitious people go and round and round and round we go. 


FF's unbelievable luck recently to be in right place at the right time economically has helped (Dont tell me that God came down to Charlie in 1987 and said - "Thou will lead thy people to the promised land - heres the instruction manual its all here" -gimme a break -The whole Political establishment had no choice but to keep supping on the hard medicine that FG , to the virulent opposition of Labour in the coalition government , had started to dole out from '84 onwards after we had a close call with bankruptcy and had to be helped into the straightjacket by the EU and the IMF after Jack lynch and Charlie went mental with the state cheque book in the late 70's and early 80's have you ever read the 1977 Fianna Fail election manifesto? - a trade unionists wet dream - massive payrises for the entire public sector which was massive then, enormous road building projects, money for health, gardai,farmers ,fishermen and whatever you're having yourself -cloud cookoo land stuff in the midst of the worst global economic depression ,punctuated by oil shortages and spikes, since the 30s - in a country where you couldn't be guaranteed any state services or utilities from one week to the next as one mob would be out on strike!) 

that and the world economic recovery which we , thank god, for the first time in our history were actually fit enough to benefit from has kept fianna fail , par perverted priests explosions and the like , in office ever since. 

Its funny how people will see what they want to believe in , as opposed what is actually there. In the case of our economic renaissance I believe this to be case with our continuing love-affair with Fianna Fail. As outlined above the foundations for that had shag all to do with them. Im quite sure, had things not been so extremely bad ,and had the EU commission not been effectively running the department of finance -no discipline no more goodie bags from Brussels - Charlie would have continued on in much the same vein as before.


Yet as Harold McMillan famously said when asked about what changes things in politics "events , dear boy, events" and we hit the jackpot - our newly enforced financial discipline, combined with US economic rebirth and the silicon boom aided by vast largesse from Brussels created the Celtic Tiger and to give the politicians their credit - they didn't make a complete balls of it. How far this will continue in to the future is a matter of conjecture (Don't worry Brendan - I wont mention the P Word!)

I believe we are entering a new era in our history where some difficult decisions will have to be made in a timely fashion. Also I think people's aspirations and what they consider important are changing also. Even though it mightn't look it on the surface I think the whole political scene is extremely fluid - a moment of real opportunity for those who are brave enough to take it. Fianna Fail , IMO, look shagged out. They've grown too comfortable ,lethargic and completely out of ideas except for throwing money at whatever little issue that comes up and the PD's are taking the flack in Health and Justice - the two populist issues and the north appears to be reaching end game. However they will get re elected unless the overall economy crashes to the ground in the next 6 months - I've more of a chance in the next Miss Universe than that happening.

Our main problem is the opposition - There is no way around it - We don't have one. Until we get a real one – well get used to the status quo or leave the country – your choice.

The choice at the moment is between the current Gov who say they will keep doing things kind of the same way but better in the future and an embryonic opposition who say they will do the same things only they will be better and more moral about it.


Well maybe they have a point – look at the democrats in US last week – they basically ran on the ticket that they weren’t with Stupid (GWB) 

Then again never in the history of the US has there been a more clueless ,usless , corrupt , hypocritical arrogant divisive and ultimately out of touch ruling party. I have to admit they even make Bertie look good.

We are in the same situation that Britain has been under labour – Tony Blair is not popular , labour look tired and the tories in disarray.

   Back here when I look at the opposition parties I have to despair.

Fine Gael are coming to a moment when they will have to make a decision as to whether they are a real political party with the kind of ideals and vision that made them electable under Garret Fitz , or if they are just the political wing of the consumers assoc of Ireland – instantly springing to action to decry whatever the government is going regardless of the merits.

Labour – I really have no idea where the labour party are going at the moment. The more radical elements have defected to Sinn Fein – Bertie has the unions in his pocket. All that is left is the personality politicians who have been around for ages, the remnants of the spring tide over a decade ago now and it would seem to be an even more nepotic party than Fianna Fail with a strong dose of anti Americanism thrown in for good measure.

The Green Party – ditto the labour party – yet even more reactionary and negative and completely failing to come up with any coherent and realistic policies of their own.

All in All It might not be a bad time to lose an election as I believe Fianna Fail might be about to reap the whirlwind for their incompetence in the couple of years. Time for the opposition to take a hard look at themselves and see its time to move from "We're not Fianna Fail" and come up with something radical and visionary - it may take time - but it may have a more lasting effect and ultimately more benificial to the country in the long run , rather than worrying about the numbers to see if they will qualify for mercs and perks when the results come in at the election

* Sean Lemass


----------



## Guest127 (13 Nov 2006)

best read I had all day edo. agree with most of it. while Dev's 1937 Constitution was probably the best we could hope for in this country it nowhere matched Kamel Ataturks constitution for Turkey in 1923 for bravery or forward looking. Good post though.


----------



## auto320 (16 Nov 2006)

Bertie continues to survive by default -- Enda Kenny is simply not a viable choice as Taoiseach in most people's eyes. However, whether we should be content to accept the kind of government that is there by such default is another matter.

I think that FF will return to power again, and FG will then realise that they need to gain some credibility by getting leaders and policies. Maybe Mairead McGuinness will come back from Brussels at that stage and provide taoiseach material?

As to whether Bertie is good for the country, in my view, no, I abhor the "cute hoor" politics and self serving nature of the current mob. Unfortunately there appears to be a poor selection of alternatives out there. At a time when we have a lot of spare money in government coffers, a bit of visionary leadershiop would lay the foundations for a great country for the future, but this is sadly lacking.


----------

