# mcwilliam and lenihan



## capall (2 Nov 2009)

what do people think about mcwilliams revelations this weekend

its pretty cheap on his part i think, i have lost alot of respect for the guy


----------



## z104 (2 Nov 2009)

Yeah, Brian must be really embarrassed about the whole Garlic thing


----------



## MOB (2 Nov 2009)

Cheap shots alright;  possibly deserved.  Neither party emerges from the episode with any great credit.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2009)

capall said:


> what do people think about mcwilliams revelations this weekend
> 
> its pretty cheap on his part i think, i have lost alot of respect for the guy



+1


----------



## Staples (2 Nov 2009)

The whole thing has become a bit crass.

Given the circumstances, McWilliams should never have revealed details of conversations/visits/exchanges he had in the context of trying to address the country's economic circumstances.  His own agenda is clearly more important to him than the state of the country's finances and his interventions must now be regarded (if ever there was any real doubt) as cynically self-serving.

Regardless of whether he was right or wrong in his interpretation of what took place, he's revealed himself as someone who can't be trusted. 

The response of the FFers has been pretty predictable.  Why he felt he could say what he said and be left unchallenged is anyone's guess.

I see he's now to become the permanent host of "The Panel".  That should add to his academic credentials.


----------



## Betsy Og (2 Nov 2009)

He's definitely damaged himself. Even before he property bubble burst he was unbelievably smug, I think his recent success has gone straight to his brain and he's now undergoing his own hubris period, he is the man with the answers to all the worlds ills.

One wonders has he, or will he, correctly call his own market crash?


----------



## Emiso (2 Nov 2009)

I've always liked the way he manages to make the whole boring topic ( well to me anyway) of Economics sound interesting to the man on the street.

However i was disappointed to read about where he revealed details of his meetings with the Minister and wondered about why he would do this .


----------



## demoivre (2 Nov 2009)

capall said:


> what do people think about mcwilliams revelations this weekend
> 
> its pretty cheap on his part i think, i have lost alot of respect for the guy



I never had any for him in the first place. As I've said before he's the Katie Price of Economics.


----------



## Chocks away (2 Nov 2009)

demoivre said:


> I never had any for him in the first place. As I've said before he's the Katie Price of Economics.


Very succinctly put. The guy is a bounder. As for his exhortations - everything is cyclical. He's been bleating about the demise of the celtic tiger the day after it was born. He also got kudos (wrongly) for being the father of that expression.


----------



## capall (3 Nov 2009)

Yes, i think this has been a major lapse of judgement on mcwilliams part.

I havent heard anyone trying to defend his actions . 

I wonder will it help or hinder his book sales


----------



## AgathaC (3 Nov 2009)

demoivre said:


> I never had any for him in the first place. As I've said before he's the Katie Price of Economics.


 Agreed. If he was made of chocolate he would eat himself. I think he has damaged himself more by this than he has damaged Brian Lenihan.


----------



## crabbybear (4 Nov 2009)

According to George Lee On Vincent Browne, what has happened after the devising of the blanket guarantee,Mcwilliams feels Lenihan doesn't deserve the encounter to be kept private.


----------



## Bluebells (4 Nov 2009)

Does anybody think that Mr. Mc Williams sounded very unlike his normal self when he was interviewed by Marian Finucane on Sunday morning? I thought that he sounded very guarded and deliberate. Not the usual confident delivery, I thought he sounded a bit rattled, and gave a very unconvincing reason why he revealed that a meeting had taken place. 

When Marian read him a message that had been sent by Willie O Dea ( although, now that I think about it, it was a bit unusual ), saying that the love affair of Mc Williams and Mc Williams will go on and on, he was really stung, by the sound of his reply - " When I have to start taking economic advice from the likes of Willie O Dea........."


----------



## dusmythb (4 Nov 2009)

I'm by no means affiliated to any political party but I have the utmost sympathy for Brian lenihan in this case. McWilliam's revelations were cheap and totally unwarranted with the sole purpose of improving book sales. 

In my opinon I think it reflected a degree of humility on Lenihan's part to approach McWilliams for an economic opinon in the first place.


----------



## DeeFox (4 Nov 2009)

It definititely lessens his credibility - his comments about Miriam O'Callaghan were very gossipy and unprofessional.


----------



## Betsy Og (4 Nov 2009)

DeeFox said:


> his comments about Miriam O'Callaghan were very gossipy and unprofessional.


 
Without wanting them repeated in detail or anything, was it about her interviewing style/related to journalism, or was it just more inappropriate "revelations".


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2009)

dusmythb said:


> i'm by no means affiliated to any political party but i have the utmost sympathy for brian lenihan in this case. Mcwilliam's revelations were cheap and totally unwarranted with the sole purpose of improving book sales.
> 
> In my opinon i think it reflected a degree of humility on lenihan's part to approach mcwilliams for an economic opinon in the first place.



+1


----------



## capall (4 Nov 2009)

B*ut McWilliams wrote: "Miriam winks, with a faint pout and the casual lick of those hyper-glossed lips. You're mine now, boy, she signals. This is my web you've just walked into. Clothes on or off."*
*But he also notes that despite using a "High School Musical twang" she had him "by the balls" during an interview in which she asked him if he thought "real workin' people were dumb" for investing in houses. 
*


----------



## capall (5 Nov 2009)

Saw mcwilliams on the panel he does seem very contrite about misdemeanours. I guess anyone can make a mistake. as they said on the show it's not like he screwed up the economy


----------



## Caveat (6 Nov 2009)

Heard him on Matt Cooper yesterday. I dunno. It really seemed to me like a lot of his answers were very contrived, politician-like almost - more concerned with sounding omniscient than with giving an informative response some of the time. He's always been like this IMO but he seems to be getting much worse.

I don't know enough about economics to provide anything resembling an in depth critique of what he was saying - and a lot of his views did make sense to me anyway - but where are the other economic commentators? Who agrees or disagrees with him and why? Can they not speak up? 

By most accounts DMcW is well informed with very solid background/experience but he isn't God!!

I know he is very media present, but are other economists getting a say anywhere? Maybe they are and they just off my radar...


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> I know he is very media present, but are other economists getting a say anywhere? Maybe they are and they just off my radar...



Constantine what’s-his-face called things about right over the last few years and he hasn't turned into a celebrity economist/pundit.


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2009)

I've just being thinking about this whole think. McWilliams is being criticised for hosting “The Panel” and being a celebrity. I’ve done it here (I’m sure he doesn’t lose sleep about that I think of him!) and so have others. I suddenly realised I sounded like my mother in law talking about priests going around without their roman collars on. It’s almost as if economists have become the new clergy and McWilliams is engaging in conduct that undermines their high office.

Just because he hosts a comedy news show and/or writes books it doesn’t mean he’s not entitled  to his opinion or that his opinion is not valid because of that. I agree that the comments in his books were unprofessional and damaging to his career but other than that he’s hardly put a foot wrong. 

I do find his style smarmy and annoying but then again he’s not alone there.


----------



## capall (6 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Heard him on Matt Cooper yesterday. I dunno. It really seemed to me like a lot of his answers were very contrived, politician-like almost - more concerned with sounding omniscient than with giving an informative response some of the time. He's always been like this IMO but he seems to be getting much worse.
> 
> I don't know enough about economics to provide anything resembling an in depth critique of what he was saying - and a lot of his views did make sense to me anyway - but where are the other economic commentators? Who agrees or disagrees with him and why? Can they not speak up?
> 
> ...



Brian lucey,jim fitzpatrick ,the guy from galway whos working for lenihan now ,i think there are plenty of economists on airwaves ,too many maybe.
Too be honest they all sound plausible ,they all believe in their own opinions , they could be right or wrong how can you tell.
Its like listening to doctors arguing over a complex medical case and how to treat it.
I guess the main thing is they have to do something decisive see how it works be prepared to try something different if it doesnt, hoping that the patient survives the attempted treatments !


----------



## Staples (6 Nov 2009)

capall said:


> Too be honest they all sound plausible ,they all believe in their own opinions , they could be right or wrong how can you tell.


 
Start by questioning who they work for (or have ever worked for).


----------



## Ruam (6 Nov 2009)

Staples said:


> Start by questioning who they work for (or have ever worked for).



Exactly, until the global crisis we never really heard on the RTE news any economists who were critical of government policy.  They sometimes appeared on Prime Time.  With the onset of the global meltdown it became necessary to seek 'real' economists to explain what was happening and it was only then some of the alternative economists became house hold names. 

Do you remember 'the fundamentals are sound' 'soft landing' etc from bank economists.  If they didn't do their banks bidding they would have been sacked.


----------

