# Pat Kenny's new show



## Sunny (22 Sep 2009)

Anyone see it?

Didn't think he did too badly. Current affairs suit him much better. Wasn't convinced about the format though. Bit too much like a tv version of liveline for me! 
Thought Brian Lenihan wiped the floor with Eamonn Dunphy which was good to see as well. Lenihan is one man who has certainly improved during this crisis. Might not agree with him all the time but I find him coming across better and better recently. Especially compared to when he was first in the job and Richard Bruton was wiping the floor with him.


----------



## Shawady (22 Sep 2009)

I thought the set looked like one of those day time chat shows they do in the UK.
Tom Parlon was quiet.
I can't believe the air-time Dunphy gets.
I aggree that Lenihan has improved since he first became minister for finance. He looks much more capable than Cowen or Coughlan and he was not part of the government from 2002-2007 so has more credibility.


----------



## Yorrick (22 Sep 2009)

Dunphy was doing his usual playing to the audience line. Really what financial expertise does he have. We all know at this point what went wrong and why. It doesn't need to be repeated time and time again on every show. 
Of course Fintan O Toole was there to give his tuppenceworth. Where was John Waters and Terry Prone ?
Ireland is such a small country that its the same circle of know alls who appear on every show be it economic, political, sporting.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2009)

Yorrick said:


> Dunphy was doing his usual playing to the audience line. Really what financial expertise does he have. We all know at this point what went wrong and why. It doesn't need to be repeated time and time again on every show.
> Of course Fintan O Toole was there to give his tuppenceworth. Where was John Waters and Terry Prone ?
> Ireland is such a small country that its the same circle of know alls who appear on every show be it economic, political, sporting.



Eamonn Dunphy, a sports writer who knows bugger all about economics and Fintan O’School, a “culture” writer who knows bugger all about economics, both pontificating about economics. It’s no wonder that their populist hyperbole doesn’t stand up to any informed scrutiny.


----------



## shnaek (22 Sep 2009)

I turned it off after 5 miuntes. Liveline is bad enough. Is this what we're paying Pat close to €1million for? Where can I apply for the job?!


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2009)

shnaek said:


> I turned it off after 5 miuntes. Liveline is bad enough. Is this what we're paying Pat close to €1million for? Where can I apply for the job?!



I thought it was quite good.


----------



## ivuernis (22 Sep 2009)

I thought it was good, a welcome change to Prime Time’s tired format. Pat Kenny did well, it’s something RTE should have had him years ago instead of the LLS, a much better use of his abilities.


----------



## liaconn (22 Sep 2009)

I thought it was excellent and it's been getting great comments on a lot of radio programmes. I don't agree with the liveline comparison. The real life stories were followed by strong interviews with relevant politicians and other key players and I thought the balance between the stories and the interviews was very good.


----------



## MANTO (23 Sep 2009)

I really liked it too, but i have been asking myself was it because if the debate in question & that Brian Lenihan was on?.....

I think i will make my mind up after a few more shows


----------



## liaconn (23 Sep 2009)

The main thing, as has been said on other boards, is that a load of party hacks don't start filling up the audience and supporting whatever Minister or TD is being interviewed that particular week.

ps Surely the debates and the people, chosen to feature on the programme, are the main things that should decide your opinion?


----------



## shnaek (23 Sep 2009)

Perhaps I turned it off to early. I'll give it longer next Monday.


----------



## dockingtrade (23 Sep 2009)

shnaek said:


> Perhaps I turned it off to early. I'll give it longer next Monday.


 
rte player, very handy 

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1055891


----------



## Sunny (23 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> ps Surely the debates and the people, chosen to feature on the programme, are the main things that should decide your opinion?


 
They have to relevant though. Eamonn Dunphy and Fintan O'Tool were not relevant the other night. They just like to think of themselves as amoung the great thinkers of our time with a opinion on everything. 

I thought the way that the developers and builders there were turned into cartoon villians by Dunphy and other contributors was childish and unnecessary. If you are going to debate something, you have to be fair to both sides.

Like I say though, I thought it was a good first outing. Apparently the format is not set in stone.


----------



## liaconn (23 Sep 2009)

The show's blog says:

For the rest of the team the challenge is to live up to the reputation that Questions and Answers built up in this slot over the last 25 years, while offering people a real sense that The Frontline is new and different.
So, how will it be different? Well, the new show will be more flexible and less predictable. Pat won’t be chained to his desk each week – he’ll have the freedom to move around amongst the audience in a way that we hope will shift the “centre of gravity” of the programme towards those who have questions to ask and personal experiences to relate. 
You’ll find that the number of topics in the programme will vary from week to week and on occasions we’ll devote the entire programme to a single subject. At other times guests will come and go during the show rather than remaining in place throughout in the old Q&A style.


----------



## DerKaiser (23 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> They have to relevant though. Eamonn Dunphy and Fintan O'Tool were not relevant the other night. They just like to think of themselves as amoung the great thinkers of our time with a opinion on everything.


 
Is that what they think? They are two of the most detached from reality people in this country and I'm sick of them getting platforms they do not deserve. Vincent Browne is about the only one I can think of who has a more closed mind.

Come to think of it I'm sick of people wailing on TV with their bleeding heart, off the cuff, ill thought through opinions.  Pat MacArdle was the only person who actually questioned why you would give credit to businesses with no long term viability.  Everyone else was too busy basking in irony and hypocracy to think things through.


----------



## Sunny (23 Sep 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> Is that what they think? They are two of the most detached from reality people in this country and I'm sick of them getting platforms they do not deserve. Come to think of it I'm sick of people with their bleeding heart, off the cuff, ill thought through comments. Vincent Browne is about the only one I can think of who has a narrower mind


 
I know. Kept expecting John Waters to pop out from behind a screen to complete the set.


----------



## Staples (23 Sep 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> Pat MacArdle was the only person who actually questioned why you would give credit to businesses with no long term viability. Everyone else was too busy basking in irony and hypocracy to think things through.


 
Pat McArdle's comments were at the tail end of an exchange that began with Pat Farrell's assertion that 80% of small firms had no problem currently getting credit and that the other 20% weren't good risks anyway.  The point was then reasonably made that the lack of credit availabaility is presented as one of the main justifications for NAMA.  

Pat McArdle was merely making the point that it will never make sense to make loans to the remaining 20% (if never bothered the banks beforem, but that's another story).  However, if the only ones shy of credit at the moment are the bad risks, what the hell difffernce is NAMA going to make?

I think that the failure of those invloved to effectively articlualte why NAMA is needed gives creedence to any counter arguments offered,  regardless of who makes them.


----------



## Purple (23 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> They have to relevant though. Eamonn Dunphy and Fintan O'Tool were not relevant the other night. They just like to think of themselves as amoung the great thinkers of our time with a opinion on everything.
> 
> I thought the way that the developers and builders there were turned into cartoon villians by Dunphy and other contributors was childish and unnecessary. If you are going to debate something, you have to be fair to both sides.


 I agree with all of that.


----------



## lightswitch (23 Sep 2009)

I thought Dunphy and O'Toole made some really valid points and certainly added to the show.  I suppose it depends what your perspective is.  

This is the first time I have seen a debate take place on TV re NAMA where the view of "Joe Public" was to the front of the agenda.  Possibly with the exception of the Vincent Browne Show, I'm a big fan of his


----------



## Purple (23 Sep 2009)

lightswitch said:


> I thought Dunphy and O'Toole made some really valid points and certainly added to the show.  I suppose it depends what your perspective is.


 O'Toole made some valid points but didn't know enough about the details to stand up to rebuttal from Lenihan. Dunphy was talking populist excrement and shouted down the developer who was making some valid points. He'd a buffoon. 

Lenihan was well able for all that was thrown at him. He was very impressive.



lightswitch said:


> Possibly with the exception of the Vincent Browne Show, I'm a big fan of his


 Browne is utterly biased and has no credibility.


----------



## lightswitch (23 Sep 2009)

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree Purple .

Never could grasp how quite a number of people describe Lenihan as intelligent.  As for impressive, the mind boggles............  Can't remember the last time I found an Irish Politican impressive.


----------



## Staples (24 Sep 2009)

At least Lenihan had the guts to show up and he seems to have known what went before in the show and what he was in for.

He certainly put on a brave front and spoke impressively but there were some very good counter-arguments and not just from O'Toole and Dunphy.

Protection of the banking structure is obviously crucial but whether this should involve the proctection of all banks is a moot point.

O'Toole and Dunphy may have no banking or economic background but what about the credibility of those who do? What about all the banks' economic cheerleaders who spoke about the "soft landing" for the property market? Should we really be expected now to accept their views on NAMA?



Purple said:


> Browne is utterly biased and has no credibility.


 
And as for Browne being biased, so what? So is every banker in the country but we're being asked to believe that they changed spots and are now acting primarily in the national interest.  What about their credibility? 

And the less said about Tom Parlon the better.

How can Joe Public possiblly know who to believe in these circumstances?


----------



## liaconn (28 Sep 2009)

Apparently it's about the Public v Private Sector tonight, with half and half in the audience. Should get fairly heated!


----------



## Caveat (28 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> Apparently it's about the Public v Private Sector tonight...


 
In what way do you know?

Or are they just pitting them against each other, gladiator style, in a big arena


----------



## liaconn (28 Sep 2009)

Well, that would ease some of the frustration and then maybe we could all start talking sensibly to each other.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2009)

Staples said:


> And as for Browne being biased, so what?



So he hosts the show and should try to be balanced.


----------



## Cayne (29 Sep 2009)

Turned it off after Pat went to the audience when C McCarthy had finished speaking. 

It was a free for all! Uncomfortable viewing. The ambulance driver did himself nor the profession he represents any favours.


----------



## bogle (29 Sep 2009)

Cayne said:


> ...The ambulance driver did himself nor the profession he represents any favours.



Have to disagree with that. The "paramedic" laid it out more or less exactly - what his earnings are, how much his pension is worth, and what his job entails e.g. picking up body parts after car crashes, pulling needles out of drug addicts etc.

However the "well heeled" private sector chap wouldn't reveal how much he earned but would only say that his salary was down by 50% and that god forbid he was now earning less than €100K!!!


----------



## Sunny (29 Sep 2009)

Cayne said:


> Turned it off after Pat went to the audience when C McCarthy had finished speaking.
> 
> It was a free for all! Uncomfortable viewing. The ambulance driver did himself nor the profession he represents any favours.


 
Yeah it was pretty poor. My favourite quote came from the teacher who said that her salary increases didn't cause inflation, they just chased it. Hopefully she is not teaching economics. Any chance she will accept her wages chasing deflation. Don't think so. 

Do be honest I have given up caring anymore. I am beat. Listening to the teachers union this morning talking about how they will only schedule parent/teacher meetings during normal school hours as a way of protest was the last straw. Let the outside bodies come in and run the Country. I don't have kids so I don't have to worry about inflicting decades of economic misery on them. Just have to worry about protecting my own job. Its obviously every man for himself.


----------



## Cayne (29 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> Yeah it was pretty poor. My favourite quote came from the teacher who said that her salary increases didn't cause inflation, they just chased it. Hopefully she is not teaching economics. Any chance she will accept her wages chasing deflation. Don't think so.


 
Yes good point, and not a word of benchmarking  As for the ERSI report showing current earnings in the public sector as opposed to private, whats dat?


----------



## Teatime (29 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> Do be honest I have given up caring anymore. I am beat. Let the outside bodies come in and run the Country. I don't have kids so I don't have to worry about inflicting decades of economic misery on them. Just have to worry about protecting my own job. Its obviously every man for himself.


 
Thats exactly it. Every man for himself now. I turned it off shortly after McCarthy left because it became a farce and Pat didn't handle it well. McCarthy looked shocked at the way people just weren't getting it. He was being personally blamed for making suggestions to the govt on how we can plug the massive budget deficit and slow down our out-of-control borrowings.


----------



## liaconn (29 Sep 2009)

I thought it was very good.

Eddie Hobbs came across as very defensive and kept trying to interrupt people.

Seems that a lot of private sector workers on here just 'switched off' rather than listening to the public sector workers having a say.


----------



## demoivre (29 Sep 2009)

Overall thought it was very poor. McCarthy as always bores me to tears. The audience as usual seem to be generously sprinkled with people who are in denial of the seriousness of our economic situation. The only ingredient missing from last nights show was an utterly clueless journalist like John Waters or Nell McCafferty.


----------



## Shawady (29 Sep 2009)

Sunny said:


> Its obviously every man for himself.


 
Thats the way it seems alright.
When you see that only half the judges have voluntarily taken a pay cut you have to wonder.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/half-of-all-judges-still-to-accept-cut-in-pay-1898826.html


----------



## liaconn (29 Sep 2009)

demoivre said:


> Overall thought it was very poor. McCarthy as always bores me to tears. The audience as usual seem to be generously sprinkled with people who are in denial of the seriousness of our economic situation. The only ingredient missing from last nights show was an utterly clueless journalist like John Waters or Nell McCafferty.


 
The audience was divided equally between public and private sector workers. I agree that the ambulance driver was a bit over emotional but thought the rest of the public sector workers came across well. I thought most of the private sector workers also came across well, apart from the guy who has taken a 50% cut and is now earning 'less than 100k'. 
I wasn't impressed with McCarthy, I have to say, and had really thought I would be when I heard he was going to be on.


----------



## VOR (29 Sep 2009)

I though Pat handled the whole thing very poorly. Salaries are not the issue in the PS. The *NUMBER* of people getting the salaries are the issue.
Private sector workers understand that if you cannot pay the wages, salaries get cut initally and then people get fired. It's awful but true.
I was quite shocked that nobody thought of saying that to the public sector. It's about time we started cutting numbers to make budget.

Oh and I must say that this union line that X% of the public sector earn less than €30K has to be challenged. Most of those on less than €30K work 3 day weeks. It's not the 37-40 hour week that is expected.


----------



## csirl (29 Sep 2009)

They seemed to avoid the elephant in the room - the cost of social welfare.

The graphic they put up with % of expenditure showed that the government is giving more money to people who are not working than people employed inthe public sector. This is utter madness. 

Another point that seemed to be brushed over was that the public sector pay cuts seem to be well in excess of those in the economy. They conceded that the economy will constrict by 5.7%, yet the public sector workers received a 7-8% pay cut earlier this year and are facing another or similar magnitude in the Budget. 

For someone who is a financial expert, Eddie Hobbs was very unknowledgeable about the most common levels of pension contributions and benefits in both public and private sector employments. I think he was way of the mark on both counts.


----------



## csirl (29 Sep 2009)

> I though Pat handled the whole thing very poorly. Salaries are not the issue in the PS. The *NUMBER* of people getting the salaries are the issue.


 
Well said. Its the fact that the Government is going to cut some programmes, and already has, but the staff working in these areas will still be employed with little or nothing to do and staff working in functioning areas will have to take a pay cut to keep these unnecessary people in work.

I think that the Government has taken a decision not to lay off any public sector workers because it is worried about unemployment. This is a very dangerous short term gain long term pain strategy.


----------



## VOR (29 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> Another point that seemed to be brushed over was that the public sector pay cuts seem to be well in excess of those in the economy. They conceded that the economy will constrict by 5.7%, yet the public sector workers received a 7-8% pay cut earlier this year and are facing another or similar magnitude in the Budget.


 
But the 7-8% was on the gross. After tax relief it is in reality a 3.5%-4% reduction of take home pay. And this money will be given to the employee anyway when he/she retires.

Hardly a pay cut. A pay deferral would be a more appropriate term.


----------



## Calico (29 Sep 2009)

I thought the show was a reminder of just how impossible the task ahead looks. Probably only a matter of time before the IMF get involved...


----------



## Sunny (29 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> I wasn't impressed with McCarthy, I have to say, and had really thought I would be when I heard he was going to be on.


 
McCarthy didn't stand a chance and fair play to him for agreeing to do it. People just didn't get it. Its like the guy who decided we could solve our €400m a week deficit by putting a levy but not a tax on property developers!!! 

People know the public finances are in bits but no-one has the stomach for the fight. We can't touch the vunerable, we can't touch teachers, guards, nurses, paramedics, civil servants. We can't cut services, we can't reform work practices in the public sector. 

What's left except taxation? Even if we introduce a 48% tax band like labour and the unions want, it won't even get close to €400m a week.

Like I say I am beat. I have accepted our fate!


----------



## Mucker Man (29 Sep 2009)

I was always against the IMF getting involved but if people insist on burying their head's in the sand, I don't think we have an option. Borrrowing €400 million a week isn't sustainable, so it's only a matter of time before the country goes bankrupt and no one gets paid.


----------



## Booter (29 Sep 2009)

I thought the research underpinning the whole debate showed signs of laziness: One very basic pie-chart, and away we go!

At no stage was it made clear that the figures shown for each category (I have no idea if they were correct) were Gross figures. It would have been useful to see the equivalent Net figures. 
I am assuming that for Social Welfare, the Gross figure of €21bn is equal to the Net figure, as this is not subject to Tax, (ie this full amount is paid out to recipients) and similarly for Public Services, the Gross figure of €15.8bn = Net is a safe enough assumption. However for public sector pay & pensions the Gross figure shown of €19.8bn must be considerably higher than the Net figure. I have no idea of the Net however it would likely be less than half of that, given the amounts withheld in the form of Paye, PRSI, Health Levies, Incomes Levies, Pension Contributions, W&O contributions, Pension Levies. 
I would have thought that this was crucial to any sensible analysis of what might be cut from this piece of the pie. 
For instance, if (big IF!) the Net PS pay & pensions is actually €9bn, then this is the amount of "pie" available from which cuts can be made, not the higher figure.


On another point, I think it finally dawned on me last night that the governments plan of reducing the deficit by successive annual amounts of, IIRC, 4bn, 4bn, 3bn, 3.5bn, is totally dependant on a return to growth providing the room for such cuts. Otherwise its totally unachievable.


----------



## bogle (29 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> ... For someone who is a financial expert, Eddie Hobbs was very unknowledgeable about the most common levels of pension contributions and benefits in both public and private sector employments. I think he was way of the mark on both counts.



I think Eddie Hobbs more than met his match on last nights program. Maybe he might consider address the following which is from a recent OECD report...

"Pension funds, which account for most private pension assets, have been hit hardest in OECD countries where equities make up over a third of total assets invested. Irish pension funds experienced the worst investment performance, losing just over 30% of their value in nominal terms (33% in real terms).
The losses to both defined benefit and defined contribution plans underline the urgent need for further reforms of private pension systems, according to this research."


----------



## zxcvbnm (29 Sep 2009)

Indiansign said:


> I thought the research underpinning the whole debate showed signs of laziness: One very basic pie-chart, and away we go!
> 
> At no stage was it made clear that the figures shown for each category (I have no idea if they were correct) were Gross figures. It would have been useful to see the equivalent Net figures.
> I am assuming that for Social Welfare, the Gross figure of €21bn is equal to the Net figure, as this is not subject to Tax, (ie this full amount is paid out to recipients) and similarly for Public Services, the Gross figure of €15.8bn = Net is a safe enough assumption. However for public sector pay & pensions the Gross figure shown of €19.8bn must be considerably higher than the Net figure. I have no idea of the Net however it would likely be less than half of that, given the amounts withheld in the form of Paye, PRSI, Health Levies, Incomes Levies, Pension Contributions, W&O contributions, Pension Levies.
> ...


 
That's not correct.
teh only figure to concern ourselves is teh bottom line deficit - which is a net figure !

Teh deficit of 20bn which we are running includes tax receiopts from teh public sector.

So if you want to include only after tax figures in your figures for the cost of PS, then teh overall income tax reduces accordingly.

So this is the correct figure to be starting any arguments with as displayed on the pie chart last night.
i.e.overall incomings versus overall outgoings.

And that figure leaves us with an annual deficit of 20bn - and this is the gap we need to bridge.


----------



## VOR (29 Sep 2009)

bogle said:


> I think Eddie Hobbs more than met his match on last nights program. Maybe he might consider address the following which is from a recent OECD report...
> 
> "Pension funds, which account for most private pension assets, have been hit hardest in OECD countries where equities make up over a third of total assets invested. Irish pension funds experienced the worst investment performance, losing just over 30% of their value in nominal terms (33% in real terms).
> The losses to both defined benefit and defined contribution plans underline the urgent need for further reforms of private pension systems, according to this research."


 
That was the point he was making. Public sector workers are guaranteed their pension irrespective of losses on the investment. The "reforms" mentioned above include moving the remaining DB pensions to DC. 

The fact is that the PS pension bill is now over €100bn. It is twice what NAMA is. One way or another, numbers have to be cut.


----------



## bogle (29 Sep 2009)

The point is public sector pension contributions are not invested full stop! csirl has explained in quite a lot of detail the exact situation with regard to pensions for plain vanilla PS/CS staff in other threads. 

The question is why did/do Irish pension funds have the worst performance in the OECD, and don't get me started on the charges and commissions!


----------



## Teatime (29 Sep 2009)

Mucker Man said:


> I was always against the IMF getting involved but if people insist on burying their head's in the sand, I don't think we have an option. Borrrowing €400 million a week isn't sustainable, so it's only a matter of time before the country goes bankrupt and no one gets paid.


 
+1
Exactly, sooner the better.


----------



## ivuernis (29 Sep 2009)

How would such a process play out. Would it be the IMF? Or would it be the ECB? Or, the IMF under the dictate of the ECB? No eurozone country has gone bust before, we’d be the first. The ramifications, not just for Ireland, but for the Euro would be huge I’d imagine.


----------



## shnaek (29 Sep 2009)

lightswitch said:


> This is the first time I have seen a debate take place on TV re NAMA where the view of "Joe Public" was to the front of the agenda.



Yeah, but who wants to hear that? The view of Joe Public is rarely based on in-depth knowledge. In fact, Joe Public has to take some of the blame for landing us in the current situation by democratically voting FF in election after election, and preferring short term gain over long term goals.


----------



## zxcvbnm (29 Sep 2009)

For my money one of teh few people that made any sense last night was mcarthy.

The main points he made were :

This current problem is not related to the banking issue.

And that basically, mathematically, the problem we are faced with cannot be solves by taxes - therefore cuts must apply.
And given that social welfare and public sector wages account for nearkly 70% of that then these areas cannot remain untouched.

Everyone in the audience was only looking at their own personal situation with a poor mouth as opposed to the big picture.

People will sooon stop loaning to us if we carry ion like this. That is teh reality of the situiation. That is not some idle talk.

There is no other alternative to public wage cuts.

THey will definitely happen.
And i also expect strikes to definitely happen.

This is gonna get nasty i reckon.
I've no idea how it will be resolved because the government simply cannot afford to give in. THey have no plan B because a plan B simply does not exist.

Out of curiosity - can anyone on this thread that is opposed to public wage cuts put forward an alternate solution please as i am curios what these peopel are thinking.
For those that do decide to offer an alternative, before you post can you please keep in mind that applying extra taxes, be it a wealth tax or whatever, will not nearly narrow the deficit.


----------



## csirl (29 Sep 2009)

> Out of curiosity - can anyone on this thread that is opposed to public wage cuts put forward an alternate solution please as i am curios what these peopel are thinking.


 
The alternative to pay cuts is to cut numbers. You're better having a smaller number well paid staff doing necessary productive work than a larger number of poorly paid staff, many of whom are surplus to requirements. And a numbers cut should not be a recruitment embargo or pro rata across all public services. It should be cutting those who's jobs are not needed.


----------



## zxcvbnm (29 Sep 2009)

csirl said:


> The alternative to pay cuts is to cut numbers. You're better having a smaller number well paid staff doing necessary productive work than a larger number of poorly paid staff, many of whom are surplus to requirements. And a numbers cut should not be a recruitment embargo or pro rata across all public services. It should be cutting those who's jobs are not needed.


 
I would certainly agree with that - and also have pay cuts on top of that would be my solution.


----------



## Booter (29 Sep 2009)

zxcvbnm said:


> That's not correct.
> teh only figure to concern ourselves is teh bottom line deficit - which is a net figure !
> 
> Teh deficit of 20bn which we are running includes tax receiopts from teh public sector.
> ...



You say "that's not correct" in response to a post with more than one point - what are you saying is incorrect?

I understand the point you are making regarding the deficit already including tax receipts, however you seem to misunderstand my point. The amount of money withheld by the state in respect of taxes etc from its public sector employees, cannot be withheld again. There is no contribution that can be made from this pot of money to any narrowing of the deficit. Simple as that. The only contribution which can made from this sector must come from the balance, which the state it does not withhold.


----------



## Peter C (30 Sep 2009)

I think P.K. has a lot of learning to do to get the format right, could be my imagination but the man appears to give more time to those who are saying what he wants to hear instead of taking on the role of impartial chairman.

Regarding last nights show it was an excellent opportunity to get both Public and Private sectors to agree on even one point, instead he allowed it to become a fight among the people instead of finding some common ground.

McCarthy held his own, if anything I think he held his counsel instead of expanding on what his report may have contained if he wasn't relying on the heads of the different Government Departments to provide the information that was used to put the report together, maybe a proper audit of each department is needed.

I think another opportunity was lost when the Lady disclosed her home had been repossesed, at the very least the point could have been made that if nobody bought her house and the others like it the lenders would have to negotiate, even if the mortgage period doubled they would have a home and the lender would be getting an income. 

The important point being the borrowing by people from all sectors for over priced houses were covering the excesses and instead of looking at the level of private debt our Government were only looking at a diminishing level of national debt and clapping themselves on the back all the time instead of controlling spending.

The bonds were issued by the private banks to fuel the bubble so now the very people who paid some 40% of the house cost in indirect tax must pay again either in pay cuts or raised taxs while still keeping up the mortgage payments which should be some 40% less.

Imagine if the level of private borrowing could be reduced by 40% how easy it would be to roll back all the pay rises and make our country competitive once more.

I believe while we have the big mortgages to service nobody can afford pay cuts or more tax's, I also believe it is wrong to demeen people because their employer is a Government Department, they work hard for their pay maybe when we respect each other the solution will be found.

Sorry if I am not getting my point across it's late and I'm all FF'd out.


----------



## zxcvbnm (30 Sep 2009)

Peter C said:


> I think another opportunity was lost when the Lady disclosed her home had been repossesed, at the very least the point could have been made that if nobody bought her house and the others like it the lenders would have to negotiate, even if the mortgage period doubled they would have a home and the lender would be getting an income.


 
sorry but I have to pull you up on this point as it doesn't make sense.

What exactly are you saying here?
That there should be a ban on buying houses ?

As in - a house can always sell regardless of the market conditions if attractively priced.


----------



## Peter C (1 Oct 2009)

What I am saying is do not buy repossesed homes. The reason being the lender will be more inclined to renegotiate the terms of the loan. While the borrower may have taken on too much (not a good idea) banking by its very business plan should have been more careful where lending for buying a home was concerned. There are plenty of empty houses available at knock down prices all around the country why take advantage of someone elses misfortune ?


----------



## zxcvbnm (2 Oct 2009)

Peter C said:


> What I am saying is do not buy repossesed homes. The reason being the lender will be more inclined to renegotiate the terms of the loan. While the borrower may have taken on too much (not a good idea) banking by its very business plan should have been more careful where lending for buying a home was concerned. There are plenty of empty houses available at knock down prices all around the country why take advantage of someone elses misfortune ?


----------



## zxcvbnm (2 Oct 2009)

Peter C said:


> What I am saying is do not buy repossesed homes. The reason being the lender will be more inclined to renegotiate the terms of the loan. While the borrower may have taken on too much (not a good idea) banking by its very business plan should have been more careful where lending for buying a home was concerned. There are plenty of empty houses available at knock down prices all around the country why take advantage of someone elses misfortune ?


----------

