# IMF loan - what's not to like



## Bronte (2 Dec 2010)

I've read the conditions the IMF have attached to their loan and I can't see one thing that is bad. Am I missing something? If I'd make any criticism, it is that they didn't suggest we reduce the size of the Dail but that's a minor quibble in the context of their overall conditions. So welcome IMF.


----------



## Chris (2 Dec 2010)

Well, what I don't like is that Ireland took the loan in the first place, rather than admit that it cannot repay debts. I still believe that this will be the ultimate outcome. Do you have a link to the official terms and conditions?


----------



## Westie123 (2 Dec 2010)

Bronte said:


> I've read the conditions the IMF have attached to their loan and I can't see one thing that is bad. Am I missing something? If I'd make any criticism, it is that they didn't suggest we reduce the size of the Dail but that's a minor quibble in the context of their overall conditions. So welcome IMF.



You can't see one thing that is bad. Well, how about the fact that the citizens of Ireland are being made to pay for the gambling debts of European banks who threw money at delinquent Irish banks like Anglo thinking that they would make a killing on the Irish property bubble before it burst!

How do you propose we repay the at least €10 bn a year IMF/ECB interest bill? 
The €6 bn cuts we are facing in the budget is for our own domestic deficit. 
The total debt we now have thanks to Lenny taking on the bank debts means the country owes over €200 bn. !!
We might as well be trying to put out a house fire with a toy water pistol.


----------



## PaddyW (2 Dec 2010)

Westie123 said:


> You can't see one thing that is bad. Well, how about the fact that the citizens of Ireland are being made to pay for the gambling debts of European banks who threw money at delinquent Irish banks like Anglo thinking that they would make a killing on the Irish property bubble before it burst!
> 
> How do you propose we repay the at least €10 bn a year IMF/ECB interest bill?
> The €6 bn cuts we are facing in the budget is for our own domestic deficit.
> ...



More like spitting on the fire really, isn't it?!


----------



## Firefly (2 Dec 2010)

I think the OP was referring to the steps we need to take as a condition to receiving this loan rather than receiving this load itself.


----------



## DerKaiser (2 Dec 2010)

Firefly said:


> I think the OP was referring to the steps we need to take as a condition to receiving this loan rather than receiving this load itself.


 
It doesn't help that we are being told that €50bn of the money is to pay nurses, teachers and Guards when the fact is that the debt interest on borrowings to fund the bank bailout is a very sizable chunk of this €50bn. This is on top of the €35bn additional capital earmarked directly for the banks.

Think about it. We will have borrowed €70bn+ to pay for the banks. If it was a 20 year mortgage at the rates of interest being quoted (5.8%) we will pay €6bn+ p.a. out of our own pockets each year for the banks. 

We were told only a few months ago the cost was €1.5bn p.a. in interest but this ignored: 

1) the fact we would have to ever repay the money,
2) the bailout cost more than doubled 
3) It assumed we could access credit more cheaply


----------



## Westie123 (2 Dec 2010)

Will people get their heads around the sheer scale of this debt. To use another analogy, it's like the crew of the Titanic throwing water back out with cups when the ship is sinking further and further under the mountain of water debt pouring in.
It is just not possible to pay a fraction of the bank's debt, never mind the whole lot.


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2010)

Firefly said:


> I think the OP was referring to the steps we need to take as a condition to receiving this loan rather than receiving this load itself.


 
That's correct.  The debate on why we have to take the loan is another issue.  

FF nor FG nor Labour were never going to take the steps outlined.  They never have, nor never will.  We can't as a people elect competent politicians.  Hell we're willing to elect a person because they get us a passport or a bed in hospital for Auntie Mary.  1 in 5 people are still willing to vote FF .  We accept the brown envelope society.  We don't accept that we are in any way to blame for the economic disaster that has befallen us.  We don't seem to accept that we have to pay for it.  We are blaming everybody else for what has happened.  We need to grow up and take the country back.  That I believe also means breaking down the very institutions that hold power, the judicial system and the houses of Government in particular.  Rebuilding from scratch as they are not fit for purpose.  More even than the banks.


----------



## bacchus (3 Dec 2010)

Westie123 said:


> We might as well be trying to put out a house fire with a toy water pistol.





Westie123 said:


> To use another analogy, it's like the crew of the Titanic throwing water back out with cups when the ship is sinking



Go on, can i have few more of these please ?


----------



## Complainer (3 Dec 2010)

Bronte said:


> Hell we're willing to elect a person because they get us a passport or a bed in hospital for Auntie Mary.


Or to be more accurate, we're willing to elect a person because *we think (and they are happy to propogate the myth that) *they get us a passport or a bed in hospital for Auntie Mary.  


Bronte said:


> 1 in 5 people are still willing to vote FF


More like 1 in 8 on this morning's poll. Going the right direction at least.


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> More like 1 in 8 on this morning's poll. Going the right direction at least.


 
Yes that's good but there is a big problem, nobody else to vote for.


----------



## ontour (3 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> ....... Going the right direction at least.



Enda and Eamon are the right direction?


----------



## missdaisy (3 Dec 2010)

Bronte said:


> Yes that's good but there is a big problem, nobody else to vote for.


 
This is exactly the problem. Enda and Eamon are no better a combination that Brian and Brian.


----------



## Smart_Saver (3 Dec 2010)

missdaisy said:


> This is exactly the problem. Enda and Eamon are no better a combination that Brian and Brian.


 
How can you justify that when they have never been in power ? FF have been there for what - nigh on 15 years now. Do you not think that the opposition should be given a chance ?


----------



## missdaisy (3 Dec 2010)

I think Fine Gael would be given a chance if they got rid of Enda Kenny. I have listened to what Eamon Gilmore has had to say in many interviews now and he doesn't seem to be facing reality. How can he possibly promise what he's promising? Anyway that's off topic.

On topic again I think the conditions imposed by IMF are sensible and would agree with OP's comment.


----------



## ontour (3 Dec 2010)

GoMayoGo said:


> Do you not think that the opposition should be given a chance ?



The country should not be treated as a game of pass the parcel, they should be given the opportunity if we believe they have the skills, not because they have been patient for the last 15 years.

You would not leave your kids with someone that you were not absolutely confident that they could look after them.  Why do we treat the governance of the country more like a raffle than an interview?


----------



## runner (3 Dec 2010)

This idea of 'give the other lot a chance' is a totally madcap notion.
We are in deep trouble. Would any multi-national appoint a new CEO on this basis?
Ay sure give him a go and see if it works!
Not likely. The reality is that the opposion are also not fit for purpose.
There is no group of politicians here capable of the job now required.


----------



## Shawady (3 Dec 2010)

Never voted Fine Gael and do not find Enda Kenny impressive but I think they are worth a chance in the next election. They could be no worse than FF.
The EU/IMF will ensure that the cuts are made anyway.

I would like to see the new government focus on political reform. If they did something radical like reduce the numbers of TDs and make it easier to employ outside experts as ministers, people would but into it. It would be their best chance to make a lasting contribution as the economy will be out of their hands to a certain extent.


----------



## bullworth (3 Dec 2010)

Westie123 said:


> Will people get their heads around the sheer scale of this debt. To use another analogy, *it's like the crew of the Titanic throwing water back out with cups when the ship is sinking further and further under the mountain of water debt pouring in.*
> It is just not possible to pay a fraction of the bank's debt, never mind the whole lot.



Just like the actual Titanic, the rich bankers have the life boats. Its the working man who will get screwed since unlike them he wont have his pension fund.


----------



## Shawady (3 Dec 2010)

Westie123 said:


> To use another analogy, it's like the crew of the Titanic throwing water back out with cups when the ship is sinking further and further under the mountain of water debt pouring in.
> It is just not possible to pay a fraction of the bank's debt, never mind the whole lot.


 
To use another analogy, it reminds me of the scene in the movie 'Goodfellas' when the Joe Pesci character is causing trouble in a restuarant he hangs out in. The owner makes the mafia boss a partner so Joe Pesci will behave himself when he is there. However, every month he has to come up with the money for the Mafia boss no matter what.
FF have being putting a positive spin on the IMF coming in but once they are in and the quaterly reviews are happening, there will be no wriggle room. I have no doubt there will be further cuts in PS pay, but untouchables so far like old age pension and corporation tax may be changed once targets are not met. I think they will get more hardline once they are in full control.


----------



## ontour (3 Dec 2010)

Shawady said:


> They could be no worse than FF.



I am always amazed that when bad things happen the assumption is that any alternative leadership or direction will automatically be better. This is not a defence of our current leadership by any means but I do believe that things could get a lot worse if we put the wrong people in power at the next election.


----------



## Shawady (3 Dec 2010)

The reality is in a couple of months we are going to have to vote on a new government. The choice of forming a new government will be FF, FG, LAB, SF.
The likelyhood is it will either be a FF led government or a FG/ LAB.
FF have left us with one of the biggest property crash in history, one of the most expensive bank bailouts in history and one of the largest deficits/GDP ratios in the EU. Oh yeah and the IMF have taken over. They have run the country into the ground.
How could it be any worse?

What amazes me is that people won't vote Labour because of links with public sector unions and yet it was FF that introduced two rounds of benchmarking, succesive pay deals, increased PS numbers and never bothered to reduce numbers in Health when the HSE was formed.


----------



## ontour (3 Dec 2010)

Shawady said:


> How could it be any worse?



Mass Repossessions
Collapse of Social Welfare System
Banks shut - no cash at ATMs
Increase in crime
Exodus of US MNCs to safer/ cheaper/ more tax efficient locations
National strikes closing hospitals and schools
Shut down of public transportation infrastructure
Loss of savings. loans called in by liquidators of financial institutions

...need I go on?


----------



## Shawady (3 Dec 2010)

And keeping FF in power would somehow avoid these things?
If any of these happen (and I expect huge numbers of repossions) it will be because of FF policy the past 13 years.


----------



## ontour (3 Dec 2010)

Shawady said:


> And keeping FF in power would somehow avoid these things?
> If any of these happen (and I expect huge numbers of repossions) it will be because of FF policy the past 13 years.



My point was that your assertion that things could not be any worse was deluded.  It was not a message of support for the people who have made the many mistakes of the last decade.  
I care more about understanding the risks we face and identifying who best can address them.  The blame game and giving the opposition a 'chance', IMHO, get us nowhere.

Back on topic, the IMF loan doe seem fine and ignoring whether or not we should take the loan, we would be better off if we could have got all the money needed from the IMF.


----------



## Smart_Saver (3 Dec 2010)

ontour said:


> The blame game and giving the opposition a 'chance', IMHO, get us nowhere.


 
Fair enough - however someone has to be in power to implement the policies (including IMF ones) and bring fw legislation/budgets/etc. to run the country.


----------



## Shawady (3 Dec 2010)

ontour said:


> My point was that your assertion that things could not be any worse was deluded.


 
I did not say things would not get any worse. They quite possiblly will, but if they do I doubt it will be the fault of an incoming government as they won't even have control over the economy. It will be down to FF policies.
My point regards thing not being worse at present is that if other parties had been on government the past decade I doubt we would find ourselves in a worse position as we are today. 

The reality is that when the election comes, FF will have to ask people to vote on their track record for the past 13 years in government has been a dismal failure. Either people vote for this failed government who have brought the IMF into the country to run it for us or vote for one of the opposition parties. They will be taking a chance because they have not been in government for so long but that's reality.
This government has no credibility.


----------



## DerKaiser (3 Dec 2010)

ontour said:


> Mass Repossessions
> Collapse of Social Welfare System
> Banks shut - no cash at ATMs
> Increase in crime
> ...


 
I think your 100% correct on this, and people would do well to understand that the above were far from remote possibilities.

That said, FF are tired.  A few of their main men/women have been shown to be inept and a few of the good ones will stand down.

I think FG/Labour have enough remaining experience from the 94-97 era not to be too naive about being in government


----------



## Complainer (3 Dec 2010)

Bronte said:


> nobody else to vote for.


I find that most people who come out with this line are those who voted FF last time and are still trying find ways to assuage their own guilt.


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> I think FG/Labour have enough remaining experience from the 94-97 era not to be too naive about being in government


 
Well if those who are well accustomed to being in government have brought us to our knees than how bad will a change be?  I have no worries about people being in charge who are not used to it.  I worry about the quality of the people we have to choose from and their capabilites.


----------



## DerKaiser (3 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> I find that most people who come out with this line are those who voted FF last time and are still trying find ways to assuage their own guilt.


 
40% of people voted FF.

You are categorically saying they have something to be guilty about.

The natural defensive response it to analyse whether that is the case. 

For example, one might ask what did FG or Labour promise in their 2002 & 2007 election manifestos that would have left us in a better place?

I think it's possible we would have been better off, but it's also possible we would have been worse off (see ontours list). 

Above all though, I think nothing that was said or done and nothing in those manifestos came through stongly enough to persuade the people that FF were leading us into disaster.

Having now seen budgetary plans, I'm happy that FGs are as good (if not better) than FFs. So I might lean towards voting FG.

If we do end up in the scenarios under a FG/Lab govt that ontour has highlighted, I don't expect FG/Lab voters to bear any guilt, as we have no way of telling that they would be any more likely to lead us into those situations than any alternative govt (other than the shinners )


----------



## Complainer (3 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> 40% of people voted FF.
> 
> You are categorically saying they have something to be guilty about.
> 
> ...


Or for example, one might ask what party opposed the blanket guarantee and would not have led us into a situation where €40 billion of state funds are going into Anglo Irish bank.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Or for example, one might ask what party opposed the blanket guarantee and would not have led us into a situation where €40 billion of state funds are going into Anglo Irish bank.



I know it is the function of the opposition to be as populist as possible in order to get into power but all FG and Labour did for the last ten years was tell the government that they weren’t spending enough. FG would have just done the same things and more and Labour would have taxed the skilled managers and technical people who start and run businesses out of the country. 

I’m not a FF voter; I have not voted for an FF candidate since Bertie took over so there’s no guilt on my part. I see my choices at the next election between the crony socialism of FF, in inept populism of FG or the smug moral superiority of Labour. The problem with FG, aside from their disjointed policies, is their leader. He has not got a clue how to lead and so no one will follow. The problem with Labour, aside from their smug moral superiority, is their strong anti-business policies, and their utter lack of understanding of how to allow the economy to create wealth for the benefit of society. This lack of understanding is shown over and over again by their supporters and members on TV & Radio, in the newspapers and even on this site.

I suppose I’ll have to vote for FG as the nightmare scenario is a Labour dominated government with someone like Joan Burton as minister for finance. While she’s no fool her socialist ideological dogma will inform her views on all matters. It would be a bit like putting a very clever creationist in charge of a genetics department in a university. Dogma has no place in economics or science.       

Then again maybe I'll vote for FF this time


----------



## ontour (4 Dec 2010)

Good summary, Purple.  If Labour do well then it is highly likely that Joan would be Minister for Finance so the lesser of the poor options is probably to ensure the FG do very well so that they can use independents or other minority groupings to form the next government leaving Labour in opposition.  

The good thing about Enda taking power is that I will watch a lot less television  as I attempt to forget that he is our leader.


----------



## DerKaiser (4 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Or for example, one might ask what party opposed the blanket guarantee and would not have led us into a situation where €40 billion of state funds are going into Anglo Irish bank.



What I'm trying to say is if you can just bring yourself one level deeper than hindsight and place yourself on 24th May 2007, tell me 

1) What did we know as an electorate about the impending meltdown of the banking system (it's true that there were warnings from some economists but the general view was that our banks were well capitalised)?

2) How in the name of God we would have known whether FF, FG or Labour would handle such a crisis better?

In fact, in relation to point 2 we still don't know _with _hindsight.  I can not say categorically whether we'd be in a better place now if Anglo failed.


----------



## bullworth (4 Dec 2010)

ontour said:


> I am always amazed that when bad things happen the assumption is that any alternative leadership or direction will automatically be better. This is not a defence of our current leadership by any means but I do believe that things could get a lot worse if we put the wrong people in power at the next election.



Of course its a defense. Its defending the indefensible. Its a common FF tactic akin to Peter Sutcliffe saying ''ah sure someone else would have killed them if I hadnt'' and the pathetic thing is some people of limited intellect actually swallow it.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2010)

bullworth said:


> Of course its a defense. Its defending the indefensible. Its a common FF tactic akin to Peter Sutcliffe saying ''ah sure someone else would have killed them if I hadnt'' and the pathetic thing is some people of limited intellect actually swallow it.



To expand your analogy; The other people concerned spent their time saying that they would have not just killed them but killed others as well.


----------



## ontour (4 Dec 2010)

bullworth said:


> ........ the pathetic thing is some people of limited intellect actually swallow it.



So if I understand you correctly, you are of the school of thought that if FG/LAB had been leading the country since the last election we would not be facing the problems we are now??

People of limited intellect believe the people who say that they predicted everything and that everything that they proposed would have us in a utopian bliss.


----------



## bullworth (4 Dec 2010)

ontour said:


> So if I understand you correctly, you are of the school of thought that if FG/LAB had been leading the country since the last election we would not be facing the problems we are now??
> 
> People of limited intellect believe the people who say that they predicted everything and that everything that they proposed would have us in a utopian bliss.



FF had already destroyed the country since well before the last election. Their behaviour since then was to stone the Fire Brigade at the scene of the explosion.

Any new government would have been unfairly blamed for the mess FF caused because thats how FF ruthlessly operate by twisting the truth with the aim of electoral gain and the pursuit of power. O Rourke in the Dail recently commending the government for drops in the live register is a case in point.  The fact that it was due to forced emigration with families being torn apart due to mismanagement of the country was not important to the FF spin machine.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2010)

bullworth said:


> FF had already destroyed the country since well before the last election. Their behaviour since then was to stone the Fire Brigade at the scene of the explosion.
> 
> Any new government would have been unfairly blamed for the mess FF caused because thats how FF ruthlessly operate by twisting the truth with the aim of electoral gain and the pursuit of power. O Rourke in the Dail recently commending the government for drops in the live register is a case in point.  The fact that it was due to forced emigration with families being torn apart due to mismanagement of the country was not important to the FF spin machine.


The social partnership model meant that no government could ever make tough decisions; whoever was there they had to give all things to all men. No government since the mid 90's was going to change this disaster, the dye was cast a long time ago.


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> What I'm trying to say is if you can just bring yourself one level deeper than hindsight and place yourself on 24th May 2007, tell me
> 
> 1) What did we know as an electorate about the impending meltdown of the banking system (it's true that there were warnings from some economists but the general view was that our banks were well capitalised)?
> 
> ...


If you couldn't tell that FF have a serious, serious problem with corruption after all that came out about Bertie in that campaign, then we have no hope.

If you vote for people that you know are corrupt, then you deserve everything you get.


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2010)

Anyone who thinks corruption is the root cause of our problems is very naive.
Cheap credit, an ECB interest rate that was way to low for our economy, social partnership agreements that couldn't allow hard decisions to be made and crony-socialism (and capitalism) were alos on the mix.


----------



## Chris (5 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> I’m not a FF voter; I have not voted for an FF candidate since Bertie took over so there’s no guilt on my part. I see my choices at the next election between the crony socialism of FF, in inept populism of FG or the smug moral superiority of Labour. The problem with FG, aside from their disjointed policies, is their leader. He has not got a clue how to lead and so no one will follow. The problem with Labour, aside from their smug moral superiority, is their strong anti-business policies, and their utter lack of understanding of how to allow the economy to create wealth for the benefit of society. This lack of understanding is shown over and over again by their supporters and members on TV & Radio, in the newspapers and even on this site.
> 
> I suppose I’ll have to vote for FG as the nightmare scenario is a Labour dominated government with someone like Joan Burton as minister for finance. While she’s no fool her socialist ideological dogma will inform her views on all matters. It would be a bit like putting a very clever creationist in charge of a genetics department in a university. Dogma has no place in economics or science.


Very well summarised. As an electorate all we have is a choice of conservative interventionism or liberal interventionism. Both are as destructive to the economy as each other. And those that will suffer the most are the very people we need most: entrepreneurs.


----------



## DerKaiser (5 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> Anyone who thinks corruption is the root cause of our problems is very naive.
> Cheap credit, an ECB interest rate that was way to low for our economy, social partnership agreements that couldn't allow hard decisions to be made and crony-socialism (and capitalism) were alos on the mix.



Garret Fitzgerald had a good piece in the Irish Times yesterday.  

Our major problems stemmed from ignorance about the economic impact of the euro rather than corruption.


----------



## DerKaiser (5 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> If you vote for people that you know are corrupt, then you deserve everything you get.



Again, the real dirt on Bertie (nothing of which has been yet proven as I understand) did not come out until 2008.

There were plenty of murmurs before then which you would have strongly believed if you had an anti FF bias to begin with.

Michael Lowry from his FG day has had plenty of accusations against him.

Labour are not exactly as clean as a whistle on the accusations front either.  Some of which were founded (Night time Phoenix Park trips) and others unfounded (printing counterfeit money).

So you may have convinced yourself that it's clear to the whole world that FF are corrupt to the core and Labour are squeaky clean and anyone who didn't immediately believe every rumour regarding FF corruption was naive, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Anyway this is completely off topic, I'd be happy if it was continued elsewhere as 'Why Complainer believes that people who use their vote in a way he disapproves of is an idiot'


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Dec 2010)

" Night time Phoenix Park trips "

Surely you don't equate this peccadillo with the behaviour of Bertie , Rambo Burke , Charlie, Michael Lowry , Liam Lawlor et al ?


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Again, the real dirt on Bertie (nothing of which has been yet proven as I understand) did not come out until 2008.
> 
> There were plenty of murmurs before then which you would have strongly believed if you had an anti FF bias to begin with.
> 
> ...


Ah lads, now denial is not a river in Egypt. If that's the worst that you can throw at Labour, then really, it is squeaky clean. One junior Minister stupid enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - no offence committed - no Garda/DPP charges. But a handy leak from within the Gardai to the O'Reilly newspapers. And a vague allegation from the dark distant past about a different party, some of whose members are now in Labour? 

You're not seriously suggesting that this ranks anywhere near FF's track record, with Haughey, Rambo, Lawlor and Bertie? Do you not remember Micky McDowell's 24 hours of wrestling with his conscience during the 2007 campaign, while he worked out how badly he really wanted to be Tanaiste? Do you not remember Bertie's teary explanation for why the Minister of Finance didn't have a bank account and the digouts in Manchester? All this was in the public domain in 2007. If you chose the party that had clearly demonstrated that they had no value system, then worse fool you.

If you had chosen Labour, we wouldn't be paying €50 billion odd for Anglo and Irish Nationwide now.


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2010)

No, but with Labour we'd have had much higher levels of public spending which would have further overheated the economy. They would also have taxed the wealth creating sector of the economy out of existance.


----------



## DerKaiser (5 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> If you had chosen Labour, we wouldn't be paying €50 billion odd for Anglo and Irish Nationwide now.



A suitably vague statement that's very light on how they would have actually managed to do this.  

You conveniently forget that one of the terms of the ECB propping up the entire banking system in this country is that senior bondholders don't get burnt.  

I'm also not sure of Labour's appetite to preside over a situation in which Irish depositors lost their money.

I look forward to labour coming into power.  You'll quickly see the same change from sanctimony to realism that we witnessed in the Greens over the past 3 years. Get ready for it.

And I'll reiterate that I think it's petty, highly insulting, undemocratically minded and nauseatingly smug to label 40% of the electorate fools and say they should be guilty for not choosing your crowd.


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> A suitably vague statement that's very light on how they would have actually managed to do this.
> 
> You conveniently forget that one of the terms of the ECB propping up the entire banking system in this country is that senior bondholders don't get burnt.


You conveniently forget that we wouldn't need an ECB/IMF package if FF hadn't written a blank cheque to cover the debts of Anglo and INBS. The whole reason for the run on Irish bonds was the doubt in the market about the size of the solution required to fix these banks.

It isn't rocket science. Labour would simply have not signed a blank cheque to cover these debts. The depositor protection scheme was already in place, and there is justification for the increase of this protection from €20k to €100k. There is no justification for the blank cheque to cover the Anglo and INBS bondholders.



DerKaiser said:


> I look forward to labour coming into power.  You'll quickly see the same change from sanctimony to realism that we witnessed in the Greens over the past 3 years. Get ready for it.


Labour are under no illusions about what the party is getting into. The pressure that came on the Greens will be in the ha'penny place compared to the pressure that will come onto Labour, particularly with the huge right wing media bias that exists in Ireland today. 

Don't expect to hear Gilmore whinging to the Dáil about how hard it is and how many sleepless nights he has. He'll get on with the job of Taoiseach or Tánaiste with fuss or drama. The light at the end of the tunnel is the ending of civil war politics in Ireland, and a move to a typical left/right divide, as FF spiral into a black hole.



DerKaiser said:


> And I'll reiterate that I think it's petty, highly insulting, undemocratically minded and nauseatingly smug to label 40% of the electorate fools and say they should be guilty for not choosing your crowd.


So you voted FF then.

I'm always amazed at those who scream about the importance of accountability and taking responsibility seem to run a mile for taking responsibility for their own actions, i.e. the previous voting record.


----------



## Bronte (6 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> Anyone who thinks corruption is the root cause of our problems is very naive.
> Cheap credit, an ECB interest rate that was way to low for our economy, social partnership agreements that couldn't allow hard decisions to be made and crony-socialism (and capitalism) were alos on the mix.


 
It was those things combined with the ingrained corruption that has landed us where we are.

So now that the IMF are running the show, and neither FF, FG nor Labour have shown us they are any better or will be better at running the country, aren't we better off with the IMF controlling the government.  I guess it doesn't matter who is next voted in at all.  

The other danger on it's way is SF.  That's lethal.  More toxic to the state than anything FF managed.


----------



## Sunny (6 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> If you had chosen Labour, we wouldn't be paying €50 billion odd for Anglo and Irish Nationwide now.


 
How do you know how much we would have ended up paying under Labour? Are you seriously suggesting that Labour had some magic low cost solution for the banking crisis. Amazing how I have never heard it. All I heard was nationalise the banks. How much would that have saved? Would love to see your figures.


----------



## orka (6 Dec 2010)

Bronte said:


> The other danger on it's way is SF. That's lethal. More toxic to the state than anything FF managed.


One of the opinion polls at the weekend had a Labour/SF coalition as a very possible outcome. The prospect of that should send shudders up middle Ireland and could lead to tactical fallback to voting for FF - unpalatable though that may be. From my point of view, I find the lack of palatable alternatives depressing.


----------



## DerKaiser (6 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> So you voted FF then.


Yeah I've been amongst the 45% of people who elected the government in the last 13 years, so I guess who else is there to blame for the whole mess.


----------



## DerKaiser (6 Dec 2010)

Sunny said:


> How do you know how much we would have ended up paying under Labour? Are you seriously suggesting that Labour had some magic low cost solution for the banking crisis. Amazing how I have never heard it. All I heard was nationalise the banks. How much would that have saved? Would love to see your figures.


 
I'm just surprised he didn't wait a few more years to allow the benefit of even more hindsight to say what Labour would have hypothetically done.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2010)

In fairness to Labour they are consistent; they haven’t told us how they will do/would have done anything else either.


----------



## Shawady (6 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> No, but with Labour we'd have had much higher levels of public spending which would have further overheated the economy.


 
I honestly don't think they would have increased public spending anymore than FF did, certainly not the social welfare bill.
Remember, it was Bertie that became a socialist in 2004 and replaced McCreevy with Cowen. If you look at the increases in social welfare payments between 2004-2008, they are way beyond inflation.
I have no link available but from memory, in 2003 the PS pay bill was 13 billion and the social welfare bill was 8 billion.

I agree with your previous post that there were external factors that an alternative government would have had to deal with but I cannot believe a FG/LAB would have been worse (and I am not a supporter of either party).


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2010)

You're probably right Shawady; FF under Bertie out socilaist-ed the labour party.
I suppose I'm sceptical about a different bunch of socialists being much better. Although I will admit that labour have a much more upper-class support base and so we’d get a better educated bunch of socialists from them.


----------



## Complainer (6 Dec 2010)

Sunny said:


> How do you know how much we would have ended up paying under Labour? Are you seriously suggesting that Labour had some magic low cost solution for the banking crisis. Amazing how I have never heard it. All I heard was nationalise the banks. How much would that have saved? Would love to see your figures.



For a start, the crisis would have been better managed, as happened in most European countries. The warnings signs would have beene seen and addressed. 

But most importantly, Labour would not have signed a blank cheque to provide an unlimited guarantee to the bondholders in Anglo and INBS. THis is nothing to do with hindsight. Labour are on record as opposing the bank guarantee and voted against it in the Dáil at the time.



orka said:


> One of the opinion polls at the weekend had a Labour/SF coalition as a very possible outcome. The prospect of that should send shudders up middle Ireland and could lead to tactical fallback to voting for FF - unpalatable though that may be. From my point of view, I find the lack of palatable alternatives depressing.





Bronte said:


> The other danger on it's way is SF.  That's lethal.  More toxic to the state than anything FF managed.



Interesting to see O'Reilly Newspapers trying to undermine Labour with 'guilt by association' with SF over the weekend, regardless of what Gilmore has already said about SF.




DerKaiser said:


> I'm just surprised he didn't wait a few more years to allow the benefit of even more hindsight to say what Labour would have hypothetically done.



Again, nothing to do with hindsight. Labour had the foresight to oppose the unlimited bank guarantee. That's a matter of public record.



DerKaiser said:


> Yeah I've been amongst the 45% of people who elected the government in the last 13 years, so I guess who else is there to blame for the whole mess.



I guess you'd have tried the Bertie/Brian/Brian approach of blaming Lehman's for all our woes instead.


----------



## Bronte (6 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Interesting to see O'Reilly Newspapers trying to undermine Labour with 'guilt by association' with SF over the weekend, regardless of what Gilmore has already said about SF.
> .


 
I presume you are referring to the fact that Labour said they will not go into power with SF. Where have we heard that before in relation to an election. Politicians will do anything to get into power.

I would vote Labour probably but if I thought they would go in with SF I'd be willing to vote anyone including FF and that's saying something after the mess they've created. 

Pity the nation.... an interesting article on the subject.

[broken link removed]


Anyway all this is pedantic as the IMF are calling the shots. Not FF or FG or Labour. And that's a good thing too.


----------



## DerKaiser (6 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Again, nothing to do with hindsight. Labour had the foresight to oppose the unlimited bank guarantee. That's a matter of public record.


 
Sure what else are they going to do in opposition other than oppose everything the government do?

We have no idea what Labour would have done if they were in power in the same situation (rather than on the comfort of opposition benches) and we have no idea whether our whole economy would have been done irreparable damage if Anglo and INBS depositors (as well as the bondholders) were burned so spectacularly.



Complainer said:


> I guess you'd have tried the Bertie/Brian/Brian approach of blaming Lehman's for all our woes instead.


 
Do you not see the irony here, you're the one looking for scapegoats to absolve yourself of any possible involvement in the mess right down to believing that your vote for Labour would have somehow saved the country and all those who voted FF were the villains.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2010)

Can someone ask Complainer a question (I’m on his ignore list because he doesn’t agree with my views. I however am in favour of free speech and am open minded). Anyhow. question; In relation to the banking crisis what would Labour have done instead and how much would it have cost?


----------



## Complainer (6 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Sure what else are they going to do in opposition other than oppose everything the government do?


Oh enough with the melodrama. The other opposition parties, FG, the Progressive Democrat and SF all went along with the unlimited bank guarantee. Opposition don't always oppose everything. Labour showed the foresight and judgement to know that the unlimited guarantee was a bad idea.



DerKaiser said:


> We have no idea what Labour would have done if they were in power in the same situation (rather than on the comfort of opposition benches) and we have no idea whether our whole economy would have been done irreparable damage if Anglo and INBS depositors (as well as the bondholders) were burned so spectacularly.


You have a pretty good idea of what Labour would have done based on their voting record. They opposed the unlimited guarantee. They would have struck a better balance between protecting taxpayers, protecting depositors and protecting bondholders. There was no balance in the FF solution. 

And while the impacts and outcome of this are somewhat hypothetical, we know that we would have a spare €50 billion or so floating around to cushion any blow.



DerKaiser said:


> Do you not see the irony here, you're the one looking for scapegoats to absolve yourself of any possible involvement in the mess right down to believing that your vote for Labour would have somehow saved the country and all those who voted FF were the villains.



I think I see where you're coming from. FF have been in power for the last thirteen years, therefore our economic problems are Labour's fault. 

Illogical, Captain.


----------



## Firefly (6 Dec 2010)

The only way we can save ourselves from Labour is to vote FF in the election (Labour have always maintained they wouldn't go into gov with FF). This also gives us the Brucey bonus of saving us from Enda. What with the IMF and ECB in control anyway, would FF be such a bad thing? (Tongue in cheeck)


----------



## DerKaiser (6 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Labour showed the foresight and judgement to know that the unlimited guarantee was a bad idea.
> 
> And while the impacts and outcome of this are somewhat hypothetical, we know that we would have a spare €50 billion or so floating around to cushion any blow.


 
There's a strong possibility there could be no money in the country if Labour's position came to pass. 

The ECB have prevented a run on our banks for the last two years (with funds measured in hundreds of millions) and propped up our whole financial system in doing so. 

The conditions attached to this are not consistent with burning depositors or bondholders.

You can choose to believe: 

1) Anglo and INBS operate in a vacuum and burning their depositors and bondholders would have been a situation that could have been contained with no further contagion or threat to our ability as a country to independently raise funds to pay for public sector wages, the health service, etc.

2) That the EU would have stood by and tolerated this

I believe, however, it would be very naive to dismiss the probability that labour would have had to dance to the tune of Europe in order to avoid the country grinding to a halt.

I could put forward a hypothesis that they would have been pig headed and crashed the entire financial system, but I simply believe Europe would not have permitted them to do this. 



Complainer said:


> I think I see where you're coming from. FF have been in power for the last thirteen years, therefore our economic problems are Labour's fault. Illogical, Captain.


 
I'll help you with the logic, we have no way of knowing where we'd be if labour had been the ones in power.

One thing we do know is that the Eurozone would not let the situation play out in a way that threatened the stability of the Euro.

You should probably stick to the line that Labour would not have got us into the situation we were in by 2007/2008 in the first place rather than trying to envisage how they might have saved us from that point. 

It's a lot easier to avoid awkward explanations in that hypothetical situation, just claim they would have been smarter about regulation, no one can argue with that.


----------



## Complainer (6 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> There's a strong possibility there could be no money in the country if Labour's position came to pass.
> 
> The ECB have prevented a run on our banks for the last two years (with funds measured in hundreds of millions) and propped up our whole financial system in doing so.
> 
> ...



We can agree on one thing - we have no definite way of knowing where we'd be if Labour had been in power. So let's look at what we do know for definite.

FF have been in power for the last 13 years, and for 15 out of the last 17 years. FF have driven this country into the arms of international moneylenders. A generation of Irish workers will be paying huge amounts of tax and forgoing important public services to repay money lent at punitive rates by ECB/IMF. Much of the money lent by ECB/IMF will go back overseas, to repay debts owned by German/UK/other foreign banks.

FF underwrote an unlimited guarantee of all Irish banks in Sept 2008, including Anglo and INBS. Labour opposed the unlimited nature of this guarantee at the time, and opposed the inclusion of Anglo and INBS as 'systemic'. Patrick Honahan's investigation into the guarantee confirms that went too far. He said "The extent of the cover provided (including to outstanding long-term bonds) can – even without the benefit of hindsight – be criticised inasmuch as it complicated and narrowed the eventual resolution options for the failing institutions and increased the State’s potential share of the losses."

This not hindsight. Labour would not have underwritten an unlimited guarantee that included Anglo and INBS. Labour would not have taken the actions that caused the run on Ireland to take place. Labour would not have driven Ireland into the arms of the moneylenders.


----------



## Bronte (7 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> We can agree on one thing - we have no definite way of knowing where we'd be if Labour had been in power. .
> 
> 
> Labour would not have underwritten an unlimited guarantee that included Anglo and INBS. Labour would not have taken the actions that caused the run on Ireland to take place. Labour would not have driven Ireland into the arms of the moneylenders.


 

In relation to the banking crisis what would Labour have done instead and how much would it have cost?


----------



## Bronte (7 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> FF have been in power for the last 13 years, and for 15 out of the last 17 years. FF have driven this country into the arms of international moneylenders. A generation of Irish workers will be paying huge amounts of tax and forgoing important public services to repay money lent at punitive rates by ECB/IMF. Much of the money lent by ECB/IMF will go back overseas, to repay debts owned by German/UK/other foreign banks.
> 
> FF underwrote an unlimited guarantee of all Irish banks in Sept 2008, including Anglo and INBS.


 
Because of what FF did, voted and agreed by the Irish people, we need the IMF to sort us out because we as a people are incapable of voting for anyone who is competent enough to run this country properly. Wonder has anything changed on that score. We'll soon see I guess.  Meanwhile at least we have the IMF.


----------



## orka (7 Dec 2010)

Bronte said:


> we as a people are incapable of voting for anyone who is competent enough to run this country properly.


In fairness to us, I don't think we are now (or have been in the recent past) presented with anyone competent to run the country - my voting has generally been reluctantly for the lesser of two evils. 

I would like a system similar to France where actual competent people can be appointed to important government jobs - eg Christine Lagarde to Finance.


----------



## Sunny (7 Dec 2010)

orka said:


> I would like a system similar to France where actual competent people can be appointed to important government jobs - eg Christine Lagarde to Finance.


 
Finance should be taken away from politicians. Overall budgets should be set independently and politicians can spend money as they see fit but the days of politicians using the National Finances as a political tool have to end.


----------



## Sunny (7 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> We can agree on one thing - we have no definite way of knowing where we'd be if Labour had been in power. So let's look at what we do know for definite.
> 
> FF have been in power for the last 13 years, and for 15 out of the last 17 years. FF have driven this country into the arms of international moneylenders. A generation of Irish workers will be paying huge amounts of tax and forgoing important public services to repay money lent at punitive rates by ECB/IMF. Much of the money lent by ECB/IMF will go back overseas, to repay debts owned by German/UK/other foreign banks.
> 
> ...


 
How would Labour not have caused the run on Ireland? You still haven't answered the question. All Labour suggested was nationalising the banks. What would have happened then?
Also, that is very selective quoting from Honahan's report. He actuallly agreed with the guarantee scheme and he agreed that Anglo was systemic. He only disagreed about the inclusion of exiting debt in the guarantee scheme.

Pointless argument anyway. I couldn't care less about what could or should have been done. If Labour can show me they are the party to take us out of this mess, they will get my vote. However, I remain to be convinced. Same goes for FG although they have upped their game in recent times by keeping Enda under lock and key. (And before you ask, I am not voting for FF)


----------



## Chris (7 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> This not hindsight. Labour would not have underwritten an unlimited guarantee that included Anglo and INBS. Labour would not have taken the actions that caused the run on Ireland to take place. Labour would not have driven Ireland into the arms of the moneylenders.



As someone less familiar with Labour policy suggestions, could you clarify how Labour would have achieved this? Over the past 2 years I have not heard one politician advocating one hard and short adjustment through defaulting on debts and liquidating banks. It was always said that that would put Ireland in a position like Iceland. Strangely enough Iceland is now on a path to recovery with less debts.


----------



## Chris (7 Dec 2010)

Sunny said:


> Finance should be taken away from politicians. Overall budgets should be set independently and politicians can spend money as they see fit but the days of politicians using the National Finances as a political tool have to end.



Wonderful idea, but I think it is an over-complicated solution. How about a law that simply forbids governments to borrow for any expenditure. Debts have to be paid back out of taxes, but debts allow for taxation to be deferred thereby obscuring them from view; and politicians do not exactly have a long term view when it comes to finances. For the public there should be no difference between increased taxation now or debts that increase taxation later. However, the majority of people wrongly do not look at it this way.
If politicians had to finance all expenditure through taxation, they would be forced to convince the public of every tax increase. This is a much more honest approach and keeps a check on government spending.


----------



## Sunny (7 Dec 2010)

Chris said:


> Wonderful idea, but I think it is an over-complicated solution. How about a law that simply forbids governments to borrow for any expenditure. Debts have to be paid back out of taxes, but debts allow for taxation to be deferred thereby obscuring them from view; and politicians do not exactly have a long term view when it comes to finances. For the public there should be no difference between increased taxation now or debts that increase taxation later. However, the majority of people wrongly do not look at it this way.
> If politicians had to finance all expenditure through taxation, they would be forced to convince the public of every tax increase. This is a much more honest approach and keeps a check on government spending.


 
Certainly worth examining Chris. I don't have a problem with debt in certain circumstances though. I do have a problem with debt to meet day to day expenditure. The Eurobond idea floated yesterday is interesting in that it attempts to deal with this issue.


----------



## Shawady (7 Dec 2010)

orka said:


> I would like a system similar to France where actual competent people can be appointed to important government jobs - eg Christine Lagarde to Finance.


 
Maybe Eric Cantona will put his name forward. He has some views on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11935112


----------



## Bronte (7 Dec 2010)

Sunny said:


> . I couldn't care less about what could or should have been done. If Labour can show me they are the party to take us out of this mess, they will get my vote.


  Pity more people didn't think like that.  More's the pity that no one party is showing how they will take us out of the mess.


----------



## Firefly (7 Dec 2010)

Bronte said:


> More's the pity that no one party is showing how they will take us out of the mess.



I'm with Chris on this - the more governments get involved the worse they will make it. It's IMO akin to the Gardai taking over the traffic lights - jams on all sides. We need a smaller government will a lot less "fat" around the edges. I'd reduce corp tax  even further to send out a very important message to the ECC/IMF and more importantly to those multinationals both here and contemplating on moving here


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2010)

orka said:


> I would like a system similar to France where actual competent people can be appointed to important government jobs - eg Christine Lagarde to Finance.


Don't they do this in the US as well, where the Secretaries are often taken in from industry. It would be interesting to see an analysis or comparison of this. 



Sunny said:


> Finance should be taken away from politicians. Overall budgets should be set independently and politicians can spend money as they see fit but the days of politicians using the National Finances as a political tool have to end.



Independently by who? If Govts don't control it, then who dies?



Sunny said:


> How would Labour not have caused the run on Ireland? You still haven't answered the question.


Labour would not have written a blank cheque to cover the debts of Anglo and INBS, in line with Honahan's position that came out two years later. The run on the Irish state was caused by market doubts/fears that the figures quoted to fix the banks were wrong, and that our debts were (and possible are) unmanagable.



Chris said:


> Wonderful idea, but I think it is an over-complicated solution. How about a law that simply forbids governments to borrow for any expenditure.


Strangely enough, I might even agree with Chris, but probably for different reasons. We have to get away from economic terrorism, where entire countries are at the mercy of a few financiers on Wall St or in London. Seeing these folks profit by shorting a country is revolting, and has to be stopped.

Maybe this can be done by international legislation and agreement. Or maybe it can be done by Govts simply avoiding the need to borrow.


----------



## Sunny (10 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Independently by who? If Govts don't control it, then who dies?
> 
> 
> Labour would not have written a blank cheque to cover the debts of Anglo and INBS, in line with Honahan's position that came out two years later. The run on the Irish state was caused by market doubts/fears that the figures quoted to fix the banks were wrong, and that our debts were (and possible are) unmanagable.
> ...


 
Nobody dies. I am not saying the Government doesn't control expenditure or taxation policy. They do. They just get told how much they have to spend based on how much they raise through taxation. I don't care who does it. The Central Bank would be a good start. Just as long as it is someone who doesn't have an interest in buying people's vote. 

Again, you are simply incorrect, Honahan who you seem to like has said that the Guarantee was the right thing to do. He did not say Labour's idea of nationalisating the banks was a good idea. Anyway, Labour got as far as nationalising the banks and then their ideas stopped. I want to know how Labour would have saved us from this mess like you claim. Nationalising the banks simply transfers the debts of the banks on to the National balance sheet anyway so what exactly were Labour suggesting?


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2010)

Sunny said:


> Nobody dies. I am not saying the Government doesn't control expenditure or taxation policy. They do. They just get told how much they have to spend based on how much they raise through taxation. I don't care who does it. The Central Bank would be a good start. Just as long as it is someone who doesn't have an interest in buying people's vote.


I just don't get this. Why would a Central Bank (whose board is appointed by Dept Finance) be better at setting tax policy than Government itself?



Sunny said:


> Again, you are simply incorrect, Honahan who you seem to like has said that the Guarantee was the right thing to do. He did not say Labour's idea of nationalisating the banks was a good idea. Anyway, Labour got as far as nationalising the banks and then their ideas stopped. I want to know how Labour would have saved us from this mess like you claim. Nationalising the banks simply transfers the debts of the banks on to the National balance sheet anyway so what exactly were Labour suggesting?



I haven't mentioned nationalising the banks at all. To the best of my recollection, Labour's proposals for nationalisation came AFTER the guarantee was in place, and were intended as an alternative to the guarantee itself. Instead, the Govt flaffed around for another year before then proceeding to nationalise Anglo, and our kids will be paying the bill for this.

What I have said repeatedly is that Labour would have have put in place an unlimited guarantee for INBS and Anglo. How many more times do I have to say this?


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Don't they do this in the US as well, where the Secretaries are often taken in from industry. It would be interesting to see an analysis or comparison of this.


 This could be done now. The Taoiseach appoints 11 Senators and can appoint any 2 of them to the Cabinet. The only cabinet members that have to be TD’s are the Taoiseach and the Minister of Finance. The fact that Dev and Fitzgerald are the only two Taoisigh who have done so says a lot about us.



Complainer said:


> Labour would not have written a blank cheque to cover the debts of Anglo and INBS, in line with Honahan's position that came out two years later. The run on the Irish state was caused by market doubts/fears that the figures quoted to fix the banks were wrong, and that our debts were (and possible are) unmanagable.


 Labour would have nationalised AIB and BOI and then pumped just as much money into them after Anglo collapsed and the run started on the rest of the Irish banks.


----------

