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

[Sunny]

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

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

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

 

[michaelm]

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

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

 

[TarfHead]

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

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

 

[sherib]

All quotes originally posted by daltonr

Mr Ahern is the master of political expediency.

No quibble with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bertie Ahern has lied repeatedly to the Dail..

Where is the evidence to support this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humpback]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[redstar]

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

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

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

 

[Ceepee]

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humpback]

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

What was the criminal act?

 

[Purple]

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

 

[ubiquitous]

Leaking confidential information from a statutory enquiry.

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

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

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

 

[sherib]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[liteweight]

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

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

 

[ubiquitous]

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

 

[Humpback]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humpback]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WaterWater]

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

 

[Humpback]

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

This has me confused as well.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sherib]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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