Trevor Sargent revelations - Fianna Fail dirty tricks?

Lest it be forgotten, Sargent was the leader of the Greens who promised in 2007 that he wouldn't lead them into government with FF. What might reasonably have been deduced from this is that the Green Party itself wouldn't go in with FF and they undoubtedly got support from many voters who thought they were voting for change.

While he resigned as leader before entering government (thus ensuring that he was "technically" straight), his acceptance of a ministerial office suggests his opposition to FF was a bit less resolute than the electorate were led to believe.

While his exit from government may be a personal loss, I find it hard to have any sympathy for someone who should always have been on the back benches anyway.
 
While no doubt I'll be derided for being the cause of who we have in office, I think Sargents "crime" was fairly harmless. Of the text that isnt blacked out he asked that witnesses be interviewed before the summons proceeded against his constituent.

Why he had to ask for that logical step is one matter, other than that I dont think he was looking for the case to be dropped.

On the merits of the case itself it seems his constituent was more sinned against than sinning, copping a headbut from a known criminal (bit of previous .. 10 counts in fact) for complaining about vandalism.

Nobody is perfect, as the saying goes about consitutency clinics, 1/3 want you to do something illegal, 1/3 want you to do something immoral/inappropriate and the last 1/3 are just lonely. So he shouldnt have written the letter, fair enough, but in this zeal of puritanism are we not in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?????

If we limit current representatives and future candidate to 100% squeaky clean, will we have to open up a few enclosed religious orders (no interaction with outside world - before we go on a tangent...) to find those who are without sin??

The fact that he raised the bar and failed to meet it himself seems to be his main problem (and I can see some logic in that), but others made representations in far worse cases and brassnecked it out.
 
Last edited:
Betsy Og said:
While no doubt I'll be derided for being the cause of who we have in office, I think Sargents "crime" was fairly harmless. Of the text that isnt blacked out he asked that witnesses be interviewed before the summons proceeded against his constituent.

Why he had to ask for that logical step is one matter, other than that I dont think he was looking for the case to be dropped.

On the merits of the case itself it seems his constituent was more sinned against than sinning, copping a headbut from a known scanger (bit of previous .. 10 counts in facts) for complaining about vandalism.

Nobody is perfect, as the saying goes about consitutency clinics, 1/3 want you to do something illegal, 1/3 wasnt you to do something immoral/inappropriate and the last 1/3 are just lonely. So he shouldnt have written the letter, fair enough, but in this zeal of puritanism are we not in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?????

If we limit current representatives and future candidate to 100% squeaky clean, will we have to open up a few enclosed religious orders (no interaction with outside world - before we go on a tangent...) to find those who are without sin??

The fact that he raised the bar and failed to meet it himself seems to be his main problem (and I can see some logic in that), but others made representations in far worse cases and brassnecked it out.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
While in opposition any party can be as principled as they like but once in office the reality that (in a democracy) politics is the art compromise dawns on people. That’s how consensus is reached and how decisions are made. I’m not making excuses for this particular transgression or the blatant corruption in the planning area that seemed to be endemic for the last few decades, I am making a broader point about how things work in practice. The alternative is a parliament full of parties who won’t work with each other and a sort of perpetual stalemate where the legislature is unable to appoint an executive to form a government and run the country. That would be far more damaging to democracy than a parliament full of people who realise that pragmatism requires compromise.
 
Leo said:
Only if a little over half of 500,000 is 436,936 as of January. That's an increase of 110,664 in the year.
Leo
Click to expand...

The Live Register, which you have quoted, does not measure unemployment in Ireland and is not designed to measure unemployment. Unemployment and the unemployment rate is measured by the Quarterly National Household Survey. As of Qtr 3 2009 there were 279,800 people unemployed in Ireland ( which is just above half of 500,000 as I indicated earlier ), giving an unemployment rate of 12.7%.
 
Why do people go to TDs to access social services?

How many TDs exercise "influence"?

It shows the state of Irish Politics when you see opposition partys being po faced trying to take the moral ground preaching.
 
censuspro said:
I would say Trevor Sargent. Limerick has massive unemployment and crime rates, Willie O'Dea is their TD and minister and he still couldn't follow through on the proposed regeneration project.
Click to expand...

True, i hear Dublin is now devoid of crime and employment rates are rapidly expanding. Between gang crime and general scumbag behaviour, our country has a problem to deal with. Limerick has its share as has every other city and town in the country, we don't have the correct measures in place to deal with them.
 
MrMan said:
True, i hear Dublin is now devoid of crime and employment rates are rapidly expanding. Between gang crime and general scumbag behaviour, our country has a problem to deal with. Limerick has its share as has every other city and town in the country, we don't have the correct measures in place to deal with them.
Click to expand...

The difference is that Willie O'Dea wouldnt get elected in Dublin.
 
Thats correct. In Dublin they would elect George Lee, Podge and Rodge or anyone else who they think is a celebrity
 
Jim Davis said:
The difference is that Willie O'Dea wouldnt get elected in Dublin.
Click to expand...

If we get into a tit for tat debate on politicians in different counties it would soon showcase the level of talent at our disposal, for your WoD tit i could say Bertie tat etc etc.
 
Staples said:
Lest it be forgotten, Sargent was the leader of the Greens who promised in 2007 that he wouldn't lead them into government with FF. What might reasonably have been deduced from this is that the Green Party itself wouldn't go in with FF and they undoubtedly got support from many voters who thought they were voting for change.

While he resigned as leader before entering government (thus ensuring that he was "technically" straight), his acceptance of a ministerial office suggests his opposition to FF was a bit less resolute than the electorate were led to believe.
Click to expand...

Maybe I have my dates mixed up but I thought that Sargeant stated that he wouldn't go into government with FF AFTER the General Election and not before.

Also, the political party voted democratically to enter into government with FF.

Subsequently Sargeant resigned as party leader.

Seems like a fairly reasonable principled thing to do IMO
 
I was a bit surprised at the judge's reported remarks in the original court case. The barrister for the constituent, who contacted Trevor Sargent, described him as a concerned citizen and the judge was reported to have retorted "Too much concerned". Neither the Garda nor individual judges are saints and they do have their own bias and people should be free to comment on court cases and their outcomes. In my opinion this man was badly treated by both.
 
Yorrick said:
Thats correct. In Dublin they would elect George Lee, Podge and Rodge or anyone else who they think is a celebrity
Click to expand...

As opposed to Mary Coughlan, Michael Martin, Brian Cowen, Noel Dempsey and the rest of the FF cronies that we have inflicted upon us.
 
Yorrick said:
Thats correct. In Dublin they would elect George Lee, Podge and Rodge or anyone else who they think is a celebrity
Click to expand...

Lee is an economist who know's how to communicte the degree of how fecked thing up are - not just a pretty face.

Beverly Cooper Flynn anyone:rolleyes:
 
The way I see this is the ethics for a TD are not as important as the ethics for a Minister. Surly if something is a ministerial resigning matter its also a TD resigning issue. Or are the ethics of a TD different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top