# Berties Monies



## pinkyBear (3 May 2007)

Hi All,
I am confused, Bertie is in the news again about money.. I know there is an election comming up and this is overshadowing the election, the thing is while I don't condone what he did I cannot throw the first stone. As I have taken cash for little jobs (small websites and stuff) that I did and not paid tax. In the past and was broke...

The thing is Enda Kenny only retired as a teacher this year after 30 years leave of service, which I think is far worse - he was holding up a permanent post, paying a sub and pocketing the rest (plus full entitlements to a pension) ....

What do people think???


----------



## CCOVICH (3 May 2007)

If he would come clean about it maybe the fuss would die down.

But explaining the 30k payment as a 'stamp duty issue' raised more questions, as I don't think anyone has the slightest clue what he is talking about.


----------



## pinkyBear (3 May 2007)

Can he say anything publicly - could this have implications in the tribunal?? Any legal buffs out there know?

I agree he should come clean - but can he??


----------



## CCOVICH (3 May 2007)

You could be right-but he would have been better off saying nothing to begin with.


----------



## homeowner (3 May 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> Hi All,
> The thing is Enda Kenny only retired as a teacher this year after 30 years leave of service, which I think is far worse - he was holding up a permanent post, paying a sub and pocketing the rest (plus full entitlements to a pension) ....
> What do people think??


 
I am completely confused. Are you saying that Enda K was getting paid for the past 30 years for NOT working as a teacher. He then paid someone else less money to do the job for him and he pocketed the rest?

Is that true? Surely the dept of education do not pay teachers that are not working for 30 years.

I would have assumed that leave of service means you dont get paid but the job is there for you if you want to return. However 30 years leave of service is generous in the extreme.


----------



## Glenbhoy (3 May 2007)

homeowner said:


> I am completely confused. Are you saying that Enda K was getting paid for the past 30 years for NOT working as a teacher. He then paid someone else less money to do the job for him and he pocketed the rest?
> 
> Is that true? Surely the dept of education do not pay teachers that are not working for 30 years.
> 
> I would have assumed that leave of service means you dont get paid but the job is there for you if you want to return. However 30 years leave of service is generous in the extreme.


He should have resigned long ago, but you are correct in your interpretation of leave of service, it does however entitle him to a full pension (i think), but only because he was a dail member.

As for Bertie, there is no restriction on him talking about whatever he wants, it certainly didn't stop him last October.  The reality is that he should never have opened his mouth, but once you start airing your business in public, you can't stop just because the story no longer makes sense.  And to mention stamp duty in the week that's in it, ffs!!


----------



## ubiquitous (3 May 2007)

I don't see a whole lot wrong with politicians being entitled to return to teaching or other civil service posts if they lose their seats. I would not criticise the likes of Enda Kenny or Mary Hanafin for exercising this entitlement if/as it is legally open to them. They would be foolish not to do so. Kenny only held on to his seat by the skin of his teeth in the last election. If he had lost his seat, I don't think it would have been fair to deny him the opportunity to return to his teaching post, after devoting many years to public service as a TD. Similarly Mary Hanafin was widowed in tragic circumstances a few years ago and it would have been a scandal had she ended up on the dole queue if her family committments as a single parent had forced her to step down as a TD.

The notion that the practice of TDs holding onto teaching posts is somehow comparable to those taking bungs from private businesses is preposterous. Which is more serious, Padraig Flynn's retention of his teaching post for 30+ years or his alleged acceptance of €50,000 from Tom Gilmartin?


----------



## pinkyBear (3 May 2007)

> politicians being entitled to return to teaching or other civil service posts if they lose their seats.


 
Thats all well and good, if after 5 -10 years but 30 years and if they lost their seats I would seriously doubt they would be looking for a teaching post, they would be looking at a higher post, given their experience... So why hold onto the post for 30 years... 

As for Paidraig, believe me I think what went on was discusting and Bev was no better.. There have alway been rumors about Bertie (unsubstantiated), maybey he is the last of the breed that did take money...  I don't know .. and this is what confuses me.

When I look at FF, I can personally vouch for the man who represents my area, I have had personal dealings with him.

The fine geal candidate I know personally from where I used to work and to be honest he is a complete sleaze bucket.. so he is definatly out for me.
The labour candidate to be honest I never hear/see from her - except in the last 2 weeks when I got a note in the door...

In respect to the government, mabey a change is good, but locally I would hate to see the locall FF candidate go as he is really good, and this payment thing with bertie is holding his own party back.. Maybey he should gracefully resign ....


----------



## Grumpy (3 May 2007)

pinkyBear said:


> Hi All,
> ....I don't condone what he did I cannot throw the first stone. As I have taken cash for little jobs (small websites and stuff) that I did and not paid tax. In the past and was broke...



I'm not 100% honest but I still wouldn't leave a crook in charge of my financial affairs.Bertie is the leader of a government that spends over Eur50 BILLION of our money per year.Does it matter whether he, or his colleagues, are honest?You bet it does.


----------



## pinkyBear (3 May 2007)

> he won't resign, that's for sure.


 
I know - cause if he does it looks as though he has done something wrong.... But he should really at this stage... He has already said that if her does get elected - he wont be in for the full term....


----------



## Megan (3 May 2007)

I wonder would it help if Bertie were to sign a pre - nup oh sorry a pre election document saying that if he is  re elected and then if the tribunal does find that he has done something wrong that he would then resign. something like what Enda Kenny is saying that if he is in goverment and that if he doest deliver on his promises that he won't stand again.
Anyone putting themselves forward for any job should have to answer any questions they are asked regarding how they are going to do that job.
I think that is the problem Bertie doesnt seem to think that he should give us the answers.


----------



## triplex (3 May 2007)

_Quote: I don't see a whole lot wrong with politicians being entitled to return to teaching or other civil service posts if they lose their seats Unquote._

to clarify: Public servants and every other irish citizen can be elected to Dail/Seanad. 

Civil servants can not.


----------



## Marcecie (3 May 2007)

Well it looks like Bertie has answered the questions at last. The 30k was not given to him but to Ms Larkin, it was given for the renovations of the house, he also put his money into the house, end of!!! now we might get on with the election hopefully,
 As a landlady myself hope my tenants are not expecting 30k to do up their houses how they like.


----------



## ubiquitous (3 May 2007)

triplex said:


> to clarify: Public servants and every other irish citizen can be elected to Dail/Seanad.
> 
> Civil servants can not.




Is this true?


----------



## ajapale (3 May 2007)

I googled this interesting article http://www.indiana.edu/~csrc/millar3.html



> With regard to the interdependencies between the political and administrative systems, whilst the Minister of the department officially employs his departments civil servants, they do so on the recommendation and nomination of individuals by the Civil Service Commission, political affiliation or support is extraneous to the procedure.
> 
> Any successful candidate appointed to the civil or public service, if a member of a political party is required to relinquish membership on appointment. Furthermore, civil servants who declares himself a candidate for a local, national or European election must retire from the service regardless of the election outcome.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marcecie (3 May 2007)

homeowner said:


> I am completely confused. Are you saying that Enda K was getting paid for the past 30 years for NOT working as a teacher. He then paid someone else less money to do the job for him and he pocketed the rest?
> 
> Is that true? Surely the dept of education do not pay teachers that are not working for 30 years.
> 
> I would have assumed that leave of service means you dont get paid but the job is there for you if you want to return. However 30 years leave of service is generous in the extreme.



Is it true that Bertie is on extended leave from his job as accounts clerk at the Mater hospital?


----------



## Z100 (4 May 2007)

Marcecie said:


> Well it looks like Bertie has answered the questions at last. The 30k was not given to him but to Ms Larkin, it was given for the renovations of the house, he also put his money into the house, end of!!!



It's only just begun. Sunday papers will be interesting........


----------



## Purple (4 May 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I don't see a whole lot wrong with politicians being entitled to return to teaching or other civil service posts if they lose their seats. I would not criticise the likes of Enda Kenny or Mary Hanafin for exercising this entitlement if/as it is legally open to them.


 When a teacher becomes a TD their replacement cannot be made permanent so in Enda’s case someone has been teaching his classes for 30 years on a temporary basis. That temp teacher does not get paid for holidays and does not get a proper pension (the major financial attraction of becoming a teacher). Enda gets paid the difference between what the temp teacher gets and what he would get if he was still there full time. He also gets a teachers pension. I accept that it could be a good idea for their job to be left open for one term or the Dail but not beyond that.



ubiquitous said:


> They would be foolish not to do so.


  They would be honourable if they did not do so.



ubiquitous said:


> The notion that the practice of TDs holding onto teaching posts is somehow comparable to those taking bungs from private businesses is preposterous. Which is more serious, Padraig Flynn's retention of his teaching post for 30+ years or his alleged acceptance of €50,000 from Tom Gilmartin?


 I agree that in general it’s more serious to take bribes (from anyone) but in the case sited by the OP Enda Kenny has gained a lot more by exploiting a temp teacher for 30 years than Bertie ever got from dinner buddies or plasterers. It is, in my opinion, no right to keep a job open for yourself if doing so seriously disadvantages the person who replaces you.


----------



## micamaca (4 May 2007)

Are people not a little tired listening to Bertie fobbing us off by saying that it's a campaign to ruin his party's chances at re-election.

Everytime something is released to the media, he says it's sabotage. Fair enough, but can we also focus on the issue itself a bit more.  Why was a businessman giving 30,000 to Celia Larkin...she can't pull any strings for him. Would it be fair to presume her relationship with Bertie was a factor in this 30,000 being handed over. If Bertie was already putting money into the house, perhaps that was 30,000 less he had to put in.  Is this a wild conclusion? I think not. 

It's getting ridiculous at this stage...Bertie has no credibility left in my mind. If there weren't so many hidden agendas with Bertie, there would be nothing to be released to the media and nothing to hide.  How many more will come out of the woodwork...


----------



## room305 (4 May 2007)

micamaca said:


> Everytime something is released to the media, he says it's sabotage. Fair enough, but can we also focus on the issue itself a bit more.  Why was a businessman giving 30,000 to Celia Larkin...she can't pull any strings for him. Would it be fair to presume her relationship with Bertie was a factor in this 30,000 being handed over. If Bertie was already putting money into the house, perhaps that was 30,000 less he had to put in.  Is this a wild conclusion? I think not.



£30,000GPB and some £50,000IRP of renovations ear-marked for a house that was four years old and worth maybe £140,000IRP at the time. Not exactly a coat paint a new set of curtains, sounds like there must have been massive structural damage.

So why did the renovations never go ahead? Why did Bertie buy the house (for whichever of the two sums he says he did) and still not carry out any repairs? How is the place still standing if it needed work equivalent to more than half its cost (actually probably more than the cost of knocking it down and rebuilding it at the time) over a decade ago?

What the hell was the "stamp duty" comment about? I was under the mistaken impression people paid stamp duty to the revenue rather than the partner of a potential tenant.


----------



## CCOVICH (4 May 2007)

room305 said:


> What the hell was the "stamp duty" comment about?


 

Has that comment actually been clarified?  I would love to know what on earth Bertie was talking about.


----------



## xavier (4 May 2007)

Spin and counter spin. The mire that is being created around this issue is a thing to behold. Yesterdays events made for fantastic viewing. Pure pantomime. 

So if we are to tow the line we must subscribe to the following:

Ah leave him alone. We need to focus our minds on what is important here. Bertie (for he is our pal) is only being hounded by the media and persons with "an agenda". The plain people of Ireland don't care that our politico's are bent. What odds if a senior governmental office holder was getting cash from friends or wealthy business people. These matters are his own private affairs. He is professional enough (as are all our elected representatives) to be able to take money in their private capacity and not have it impact on their actions as an office holder.

We are small minded to be even thinking that the "no favour asked or given" line in these matters is anything but the truth. 

I mean what is the world coming to when you not only have to be clean but also be seen to be clean. Ceasers wife should have moved here....

Shame on us.


----------



## Megan (4 May 2007)

CCOVICH said:


> Has that comment actually been clarified?  I would love to know what on earth Bertie was talking about.



It would be interesting to get a comment from Celia on this or has she done a deal with Bertie.


----------



## room305 (4 May 2007)

CCOVICH said:


> Has that comment actually been clarified?  I would love to know what on earth Bertie was talking about.



Apparently so, according to this [broken link removed]



> Mr Wall and Mr Ahern have told the tribunal that on December 3rd, 1994, Mr Wall produced £30,000 sterling in cash during a meeting in Mr Ahern's constituency centre, St Luke's. Mr Ahern's then partner, Celia Larkin, was also at the meeting. Mr Ahern put the cash in a safe.
> 
> Mr Ahern told the tribunal the money was to be used on structural work on the house that was being purchased by Mr Wall, and that Ms Larkin would oversee this.
> 
> The money was deposited by her in a bank account in her name on December 5th. Some of the money was later used to settle a stamp duty bill of approximately £8,400 that arose from the purchase of the house by Mr Wall.


----------



## micamaca (4 May 2007)

Megan said:


> It would be interesting to get a comment from Celia on this or has she done a deal with Bertie.


 
It would appear that just about everyone in this town has done a deal with Bertie


----------



## auto320 (4 May 2007)

The reality is that Irish voters don't really mind if a crook is representing them in Dail Eireann, regardless of which party is involved. Many politicians get elected with the backing of vested interests who then cash in after the election -- remember that some of Bertie's donors were well looked after in intervening years. The electorate just doesn't care about this -- we expect politicians to be crooked and we continue to support crooked politicians. I don't expect this to impact greatly on Bertie's election chances, he will still top the poll.


----------



## Purple (4 May 2007)

I do care about this and would like Bertie to clarify his position. I would like him to get lost and Brian Cowen to be in charge but that ‘aint gonna happen! 
But, and there’s always a “but”, I care more about how the next government is going to run the country. I care more about how they are going to improve public services. I care more about how they are going to plan for the future.
It is to the credit of both Fine Gael and the Labour party that they have avoided the payments to Bertie issue and concentrated on things that are more important. It’s a pity that the media is too lazy to do so as well. 
For example Pat Rabbitt has said that he wants to improve public services… that’s like saying you are in favour of Christmas and holidays and sunny days. What I do not know is how he proposes to do it. Is he going to just spend more money or is he going to reform the public sector so that it is run for the benefit of the people who consume the services rather than the people who provide them? I’m sure he had a policy document or two on the subject but there’s too much noise about Bertie to hear about it.


----------



## Megan (4 May 2007)

micamaca said:


> Are people not a little tired listening to Bertie fobbing us off by saying that it's a campaign to ruin his party's chances at re-election.
> 
> Everytime something is released to the media, he says it's sabotage. Fair enough, but can we also focus on the issue itself a bit more.  Why was a businessman giving 30,000 to Celia Larkin...she can't pull any strings for him. Would it be fair to presume her relationship with Bertie was a factor in this 30,000 being handed over. If Bertie was already putting money into the house, perhaps that was 30,000 less he had to put in.  Is this a wild conclusion? I think not.
> 
> It's getting ridiculous at this stage...Bertie has no credibility left in my mind. If there weren't so many hidden agendas with Bertie, there would be nothing to be released to the media and nothing to hide.  How many more will come out of the woodwork...



Pillow talk.


----------



## DrMoriarty (4 May 2007)

[broken link removed], in case anyone missed it.

Fair play to V.B., I say. I liked his little reminder to P.J. about the attempts to question Haughey, back in the good ol' days...


----------



## room305 (4 May 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> [broken link removed], in case anyone missed it.
> 
> Fair play to V.B., I say. I liked his little reminder to P.J. about the attempts to question Haughey, back in the good ol' days...



I loved Ahern's line "I earned the money ... I got some of it from friends, it was my money ..."

Ah, to have such generous friends.


----------



## brodiebabe (5 May 2007)

Purple said:


> I agree that in general it’s more serious to take bribes (from anyone) but in the case sited by the OP Enda Kenny has gained a lot more by exploiting a temp teacher for 30 years than Bertie ever got from dinner buddies or plasterers. It is, in my opinion, no right to keep a job open for yourself if doing so seriously disadvantages the person who replaces you.


 
What Enda is doing is entirely legal.  While taking bribes etc., is not legal.


----------



## brodiebabe (5 May 2007)

xavier said:


> Spin and counter spin. The mire that is being created around this issue is a thing to behold. Yesterdays events made for fantastic viewing. Pure pantomime.
> 
> So if we are to tow the line we must subscribe to the following:
> 
> ...


 
Great post Xavier!


----------



## Megan (6 May 2007)

room305 said:


> I loved Ahern's line "I earned the money ... I got some of it from friends, it was my money ..."
> 
> Ah, to have such generous friends.


Some of them in America. Is there some talk now of $45,000. I would like to have friends like that but then again maybe not.


----------



## xavier (7 May 2007)

Perhaps this is all a black op designed by some FF backroom boys. Perhaps all we are to do for the next week or so is talk about nothing other than berties monies. Perhaps there is a perfect explination for all this and we are all being kept in the dark. In a few weeks this explination will be wheeled out and we'll all see that poor bertie was wronged and we'll have to vote him in again.

Who gains from all the talk of berties monies? Ok on the face of it fg and lab - but they are being drowned out by all the talk of the berties monies. Keep the focus on bertie and then wheel him out as a poor put upon daecent bass drinkin nort sider. I smell a contrived bertie bounce.

What was it CJ said, the most devious, the most cunning of them all....


----------



## room305 (7 May 2007)

xavier said:


> Perhaps all we are to do for the next week or so is talk about nothing other than berties monies.



If he can come up with a convincing explanation for all of this, I'll vote for him on principle ...

I don't think that he is politically corrupt (beyond the usual FF moral bankruptcy) or surely there would be less comical buffoonry involved. Rather I think he has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide money from Miriam and her lawyers. I doubt he disclosed to the courts that he had ten of thousands in ready cash lying about the place. If this proves to be the case, it could land him in real trouble.


----------



## Marcecie (7 May 2007)

room305 said:


> If he can come up with a convincing explanation for all of this, I'll vote for him on principle ...
> 
> I don't think that he is politically corrupt (beyond the usual FF moral bankruptcy) or surely there would be less comical buffoonry involved. Rather I think he has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide money from Miriam and her lawyers. I doubt he disclosed to the courts that he had ten of thousands in ready cash lying about the place. If this proves to be the case, it could land him in real trouble.



you will vote for him on principle----- so leaving aside all the money stuff you think the Gov of the past 10 years have done a great job. The country was awash with money but our health service, schools, water,  crime are all ok in your view not to mention roads, the underspend in the BMW region, the price of houses for our young people. 
No I am not a FF or FG supporter I have always voted for the person that did the most in my area and when I see the amount of money that has been wasted by this gov I could cry. E voting machines, paying twice to much for a prison site, now the tara road situation, if they get back in again is it going to be any different or more broken promises.  "Rant over"


----------



## room305 (7 May 2007)

Marcecie said:


> you will vote for him on principle----- so leaving aside all the money stuff you think the Gov of the past 10 years have done a great job.



I think they have done a dismal job just like every other government before them and likely every other government we will ever elect. The only variance is just how dismal they are, with some proving marginally less dismal than others. It is on the basis of this that I tend to vote for the government that is likely intrude in my life the least.

The comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, in that should Bertie manage to contrive a satisfactory explanation for some extremely bizarre goings-on, he should be deserving of a vote as a nod to his creativity if nothing else.


----------



## xavier (9 May 2007)

I must admit I'm pretty sickened by this whole thing. It is pretty clear to me now that this whole thing was the FF game plan for their election campaign. It was designed to push all other parties to the sidelines, drown out their campaigns.

After all the spin and convulsions of the past week bertie is left to take his time to deign us with an explanation. I'm sure there is a reasonable one and I'm doubly sure that when he wheels it out he'll be shouting FG/Lab dirty tricks.

Poor bertie sure here's another 5 years. 

We are a bunch of mugs. Hook, line and sinker. I'm sure the lads can hardly contain themselves in private.

Anyway we're bored now and need some more distraction - sure they are all the same ain't they.

Well no, not really. But when you have no etics and your conscience doesn't intrude so much who cares if you feed cynicism and debase your profession.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2007)

What’s Bertie’s biggest asset?
Despite all the mud that is now sticking the alternative is STILL worse!
It's the economy, stupid.


----------



## Ceist Beag (10 May 2007)

That's you opinion Purple, not fact - how do you know the alternative is worse - it's not like they have been given the opportunity to prove one way or the other. I for one am willing to give them that chance now - FF are just to smug and arrogant for my liking and the economy is not just down to FF or the PDs, don't fall for that one.


----------



## jmayo (10 May 2007)

Purple, would that be the economy where the two biggest employers are the construction industry and the public sector.  
Neither of these sectors are noted for their exports which brings wealth into the country.
One is a drain on the tax revenues of the country giving little in return in terms of value for money or productivity, the other sells us something we buy with somebody elses money that we repay over our entire life.

Did you know there are more people employed in construction than manufacturing.

Yeah some great economy we have.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2007)

jmayo said:


> Purple, would that be the economy where the two biggest employers are the construction industry and the public sector.
> Neither of these sectors are noted for their exports which brings wealth into the country.
> One is a drain on the tax revenues of the country giving little in return in terms of value for money or productivity, the other sells us something we buy with somebody elses money that we repay over our entire life.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you say. My point is that many people, including me, fear that a Labour dominated coalition will make us even more uncompetitive. If the old Labour party people were still in charge I would be less fearful but since the reverse takeover by Democratic Left I have no confidence in them.  



Ceist Beag said:


> That's you opinion Purple, not fact –(sic)the economy is not just down to FF or the PDs, don't fall for that one.


 Yes, it’s my opinion and yes, the economy is not just down to FF or the PD’s. The current government has let public spending run out of control and we have seen very little return for all that money.
FG say that they will give us 2’300 more hospital beds and medical insurance for all under 16. Without deep structural reform of the health service none of this will happen. No government with a Labour party tail waging the dog will take on the unions. Without taking on the unions no structural reforms will take place.
Free insurance for all under16 is a stupid idea. Who will pay for it and how will it help those it should help? It will just be more money for consultants with insurance companies deciding what hospitals stay open and what procedures are covered. 
I see no evidence that FG or Labour policies have actually been thought through. 
It seems that their pitch is “We won’t fix anything, we’ll just throw more of your money at it.” Or they could say “We’ll be just as incompetent but on a bigger scale”.


----------



## xavier (10 May 2007)

Purple said:


> No government with a Labour party tail waging the dog will take on the unions. Without taking on the unions no structural reforms will take place.


 
FF won't take on the unions either. They've just spent 10 years not doing it. Why would you think that they'll do it in the next 5 years?


----------



## Purple (10 May 2007)

xavier said:


> FF won't take on the unions either. They've just spent 10 years not doing it. Why would you think that they'll do it in the next 5 years?


 I agree that they won't but Labour will be worse, that's all I was saying.


----------



## room305 (10 May 2007)

Purple said:


> Yes, it’s my opinion and yes, the economy is not just down to FF or the PD’s. The current government has let public spending run out of control and we have seen very little return for all that money.



Out of control public spending is the economy now. It's FF's plan to keep the construction lobby and the unions placated. Why do you imagine that after ten years of profligate spending FF are suddenly in a position to steward the country through some difficult times ahead? I am inclined to think that FG are like every party in the run-up to an election, promising everything but inserting a "as long as the economy remains healthy" clause.

So far, FG are the only party I have heard talk about the importance of low inflation and the damage inflation is doing to our economy. FF have positively been cheerleaders for rampant inflation and seem to regard it as the sign of a healthy economy.

That's why I am voting for FG in this election.


----------



## polaris (10 May 2007)

room305 said:


> So far, FG are the only party I have heard talk about the importance of low inflation and the damage inflation is doing to our economy. FF have positively been cheerleaders for rampant inflation and seem to regard it as the sign of a healthy economy.
> 
> That's why I am voting for FG in this election.


 

If they are in coalition with Labour they are not going to be able to restore competiveness to our economy. That's my big worry about voting FG.


----------



## Purple (10 May 2007)

polaris said:


> If they are in coalition with Labour they are not going to be able to restore competiveness to our economy. That's my big worry about voting FG.



Agreed


----------



## xavier (10 May 2007)

restoring competativeness? sure they were the ones who messed it up in the first place

so one lot make a mess and you don't trust the other lot to fix it so you leave the first lot to get on with it?

FF have proven they cannot manage it - and you fear the other lot cause you think they'll be worse? How will you ever know?


----------



## Purple (10 May 2007)

xavier said:


> restoring competativeness? sure they were the ones who messed it up in the first place


 They were the ones that turned the economy around under Charlie McCreevey. Then Bertie shipped him off to Europe because he wasn’t afraid to make hard decisions. Since then things have gone down the tubes.



xavier said:


> so one lot make a mess and you don't trust the other lot to fix it so you leave the first lot to get on with it?


 Yea, not very positive, am I?



xavier said:


> FF have proven they cannot manage it - and you fear the other lot cause you think they'll be worse? How will you ever know?


 FF under different leadership could do it but not under Bertie. How will I know? It’s just my opinion based on what they have said and done over the last 20 years.


----------



## Ceist Beag (10 May 2007)

Purple once again you seem to be crediting FF with the economy - the economy was on the way up before FF/PD took over government - so to say Charlie McCreevy turned it around is incorrect.


----------



## room305 (10 May 2007)

polaris said:


> If they are in coalition with Labour they are not going to be able to restore competiveness to our economy. That's my big worry about voting FG.



Well FF are directly responsible for our lack of competiveness so I'm going to give FG a chance. The fact that they even recognise inflation as a problem is encouraging.


----------



## RainyDay (11 May 2007)

Purple said:


> They were the ones that turned the economy around under Charlie McCreevey. Then Bertie shipped him off to Europe because he wasn’t afraid to make hard decisions. Since then things have gone down the tubes.


Purple might want to check out which Minister for Finance brought in the 12.5% corporation tax rate which is generally credited with playing a huge role in creating the Celtic Tiger.


----------



## xavier (11 May 2007)

Who did what when doesn't seem to come into it - the mantra is FF good all else untrustworthy


----------



## Purple (11 May 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Purple might want to check out which Minister for Finance brought in the 12.5% corporation tax rate which is generally credited with playing a huge role in creating the Celtic Tiger.


I know that Ruairí Quinn introduced the 12.5% rate. I think he was a very good minister for finance, but I have said that to you before. The current Labour party is a world away from the one that Ruairí Quinn led. Since they were taken over by Democratic Left and Pat Rabbitt purged the party (Stalin style) of it smoked salmon wing they are different beast.
The reason I liked Charlie McCreevey so much is because he had a plan and stuck to it. He was not a populist and did what he thought was right.


----------



## RainyDay (11 May 2007)

I always find it funny how those outside of Labour (Phoenix magazine, Purple, other meeja interests) seem to be much more interested in Labour/DL/takeovers/splits than those inside the party. I've no history on these matters, not having been around for the pre-DL period, but I can assure that there is almost zero discussion/comment/gossip on DL vs Labour matters inside the party. Pat & Liz were elected by the party membership on a 1-man, 1-vote system. I think we are the only party that operates this system. For the record, I didn't vote for Pat - I voted for Eamonn Gilmore - but it really doesn't matter. If anything, the party has moved towards the centre under Pat, so claims of a DL takeover just don't stand up. 

But let's not let the facts stand in the way of a good rant.....


----------



## auto320 (11 May 2007)

To get back to Berties backhanders, I should state at the outset have never had an allegience to any party -- I despise them all equally. However I have a base line that I will not go below when casting my ballot. I Will not vote for anyone whom I believe to be crooked or open to being influenced by money. As someone who spent a lifetime working in countries where corruption was common, I have seen how the practice has held countries back and resulted in decisions being made that were very often not in the best interests of the citizens. While Bertie may wriggle his way out of his current position, and the average voter doesn't seem to give a toss whether or not he was on the make, the fact remains that a member of a state body was appointed at a time when Bertie had been given money by this appointee. That is reason enough for me to vote for almost anyone else this time round (except of course the shinners, god help us!)


----------



## Graham_07 (14 May 2007)

Am I missing something or maybe this has been answered already in the media, but when Bertie said he didn't have a bank account at that time and for I think 4 years due to his "Judicial Separation", where was his Dail salary going? Do the Houses of Oireachtas pay Cash as well as cheque/dd ?


----------



## Amygdala (14 May 2007)

Perhaps he was paid by cheque which he cashed in Fagans while having a Bass.
This goverment needs to be given a "bloody nose" especially when then leader of one of the supposedly wealthiest countries in the world holds an interview in an attempts to squeeze out a crocodile tear.. (See Ahern interviewed by Dobson 2006).
How can a Minister for Finance not have a bank a/c for 4 years? Was he cheating the revenue, his wife or worse?
We should be deeply ashamed of the standard of politican we have here..we have the highest paid amateurs, a bunch off self-serving part-time lawyers and accountants.


----------



## RainyDay (14 May 2007)

Amygdala said:


> Perhaps he was paid by cheque which he cashed in Fagans while having a Bass.


But if the cheque was crossed (as one might expect from Dept of Finance), it could not have been cashed in Fagans or any other pub, or by any other party.


----------



## Megan (14 May 2007)

RainyDay said:


> But if the cheque was crossed (as one might expect from Dept of Finance), it could not have been cashed in Fagans or any other pub, or by any other party.


This is the same Bertie that signed blanked cheques. Anything is possible. Remember the late Brian Lenihan  -  "No Problem".


----------

