In relation to Michael Walsh, I've little doubt that he is a very talented person. That makes his role in presiding over the organisation that has cost the State €8 billion (i.e. €2k for every man/woman/child in the country) all the more mysterious. He cannot claim ignorance, as the problems at Irish Nationwide were clearly called out to him at repeated AGMs. He has never come out and apologised to INBS members or to taxpayers that are footing the bill for his failure. He has never returned his Chairman's fees, which while not material in the INBS scenario, would demonstrate some principles.
In relation to Dermot Desmond, I’ve little doubt that he too is very talented. I’m not so sure about him being the original inspiration behind the IFSC. Didn’t I read somewhere that Con Power (also late of Irish Nationwide, funnily enough) claims credit for coming up with the idea when he worked at Dept of An Taoiseach?
I really don’t think I ‘played the man’ in this case. I’m attacking the lack of balance in the article. It is just a bit rich for Desmond to lash out at the public sector, when there is no mention of the role of Walsh/Fingleton/Fitzpatrick and all their cronies at AIB and BOI. I’m frequently reminded of the commentator in RTE’s Freefall programme who expressed the view that the senior bankers were either liars or fools, given what they told the Govt at the time of the guarantee.
Desmond’s comment about “a choice between a moderate tax economy with a competitive social welfare and public sector, versus an economy with high taxes and generous social and public packages.” is a bit of an oversimplification. For a start, it ignores the tax reliefs that cost us one-fifth of the total tax take – at least €11.4 billion, and that’s not even the full figure – see
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1130/revenue.html. It ignores the essential public services that many people rely on. It ignores the evidence about the many millionaires that pay little or no tax. His proposal that “The State must ensure that it deploys its resources in line with the needs of a modern knowledge based economy” forgets that we are a society first, and an economy second. The economy is there to serve and facilitate society. His demands for “fundamental political and constitutional reform of the State” conveniently ignore the need to reform the banking system and our whole business environment, to make sure we never end up paying the price for greedy speculators again.
You also seem to be missing the important difference between FF/FG and Labour – the bank guarantee. Labour voted against the guarantee, and would not have signed up to the blanket guarantee. We would not be beholden to the IMF moneylenders if Labour had been in power.