Charles Haughey Has Died + Poll

14-06-2006 1:14pm

Dragan wrote:

Instead he went a messed it all up by being a greedy, corrupt and arrogant man.

He was greedy corrupt and arrogant. What I contest is that this 'messed' anything up - if anything it simply messed up his own party and the purges saw a lot of FF's leading lights flee. I mean, the economic turnaround and the start of the peace process certainly were not 'messed', and as I said above that matters more to me than planning problems in West Dublin or even something like the apathy of peope towards politics nowadays.

Dragan wrote:

Not everyone would folks, some small percentage do still have a degree of moral fibre.

To paraphrase a line I saw elsewhere, the road to continuing civil war and economic depression was paved with moral fibre. Ask Garrett Fitzgerald.

Esel · 14-06-2006 1:24pm

@darkman2:

What was he charged with? Misleading a tribunal

Was he convicted? No, because the case never went to trial. Why? Because Mary Harney said he should go to jail. This meant that now he couldn't get a fair trial! Yeah right. Maybe the week or the month after she said it.

Let me see . .

Amassed huge wealth by insider dealing. e.g. Beaumont hospital. When asked on TV about rumours about how he made his fortune, had the brass neck to reply "No-one can prove anything."

Fostered a culture of tax evasion which left us penniless. People died because of the state of the healthcare system; children lost out on a good education; hundreds of thousands had to emigrate etc. etc.

Planning corruption resulted in, inter alia, shopping centres being built in the wrong area. Clondalkin fcuked as a result.

Need I go on? The man lived by his own rules; didn't give a toss about anyone else.

I'm sure the papers today (or some of them anyway) will give lots more detail.

IMO, his family are saints for having put up with him. But they should have had the good sense to refuse the offer of a state funeral. We had to offer, they didn't have to accept.

All the 'good' he may have done is negated by the bad.

Giblet · 14-06-2006 1:28pm

stovelid wrote:

The guy is getting banned just for that?!

No.

Dragan · 14-06-2006 2:00pm

Deleted User wrote:

He was greedy corrupt and arrogant. What I contest is that this 'messed' anything up - if anything it simply messed up his own party and the purges saw a lot of FF's leading lights flee.

Please, i was talking about his legacy and how that legacy is remember, not what happened to the country etc.

I thought that was pretty obvious from the preceeding lines no??? Thats what really galls people i think.....he could have been Ireland greatest leader, that little exclamation point that would follow every sentence. Instead he turned into just another criminal.

As for the second part of your post..... yeah, your right.....i'd rather be living in a corrupt world as long as i get my money. :rolleyes:

14-06-2006 2:12pm

Dragan wrote:

your right.....i'd rather be living in a corrupt world as long as i get my money. :rolleyes:

You moving back from Utopia then?

Dragan · 14-06-2006 2:13pm

Deleted User wrote:

You moving back from Utopia then?

Not yet, i need to wait for some of the more apathetic people to die off.....there's no room.

Dyr · 14-06-2006 2:25pm

While we're on about moral fibre:in a few day's, the people in the meedja will be banging on about Haugheys corruption and recounting plenty of anecdotes illustrating about what a little b***** he was.

Ask yourself this: Where we they when all this was happening? They knew what was going on but didnt have the bottle to stand up and say a word. Same with the planning tribunals, it took a dodgy lobbyist to blow the whistle, everyone else knew what was up but didnt say a word.

CMF · 14-06-2006 2:26pm

I'm too young to remember much of Charlie as leader of the country but too be honest I was never surprised at all of the things he did in his time in power (whether as Taoiseach or a Minister). Charlie was incredibly charismatic and it takes a certain type of person to have that sort of effect on people - i.e. someone who is egotistical, charming, cocky, risque, feckless, intelligent etc. I agree with Saintly that he had the potential to be such an amazing leader. BUT people with that sort of potential are walking a very thin line. He was so sure of himself, it appears he began to think of himself as invincible... Unfortunate.

It has to be said though, he has had an incredibly interesting life!

Mr.Nice Guy · 14-06-2006 5:53pm

I agree 100% with Dragan. People in this country who tolerate the corruption of our immoral politicians give these scumbags a license to carry on doing it. As I said earlier, if Haughey lived in another country he would have got twenty years.

Instead we have to put up with the same tired old guff.

"Ah sure oul' Charlie was alright really. Sure he made a few mistakes but who doesn't?"

It's quite extraordinary. This guy was a crook and the worst Taoiseach this country has ever had. We should be trying our best to forget him not remember him.

They should drape a charvet shirt over his coffin instead of the tricolour.

nesf · 14-06-2006 5:59pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

This guy was a crook and the worst Taoiseach this country has ever had.

Eh, you're being a bit melodramtic there tbh. Sure the guy ****ed up, but tbh we've had worse Taoiseachs who put together worse, and more unstable, governments and by doing so did more damage to our country. You'd think the likes of Dev were angels or something.

lomb · 14-06-2006 7:34pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

They should drape a charvet shirt over his coffin instead of the tricolour.

thats the funniest thing ive heard, never a truer word said, it sums up 'oul charlie':D

PonderStibbons · 14-06-2006 8:10pm

ChityWest wrote:

Couldnt agree more - who cares if he got his shirts from paris - he was the leader of the country and some people would have preferred him in dunnes t-shirts by the sounds of it.

Yes he had wealth and affairs but at least he had character and was a bit more interesting than garret fitzgerald. Who would you prefer a cad /rogue who got things done or an incompetent ****wit ?

Look at the likes of mary harney now ? Can you honestly say we would be better off with her in power ?

Plus he had a backbone - he actually spoke out about the british handling of the falklands - cant remember bertie standing up to blair over iraq in the recent past.

I think people can forgive a lot on the basis of results - and he put down the groundwork for a lot of results in the economy and in the peace process.

Haughey getting his shirts in Paris isn't really the issue though - in fairness. He was living a lifestyle fit quite literally for a King, when he should have been merely reasonably wealthy on the pay he was on. He undoubtedly abused his position of power to make himself richer. Can you really say this was all right? Calling him a 'cad' or a 'rogue' is part of the problem in this country - he wasn't some sort of cheeky artful dodger type, it was much more sinister than that.

Mr.Nice Guy · 14-06-2006 8:42pm

nesf wrote:

Eh, you're being a bit melodramtic there tbh. Sure the guy ****ed up, but tbh we've had worse Taoiseachs who put together worse, and more unstable, governments and by doing so did more damage to our country. You'd think the likes of Dev were angels or something.

I don't think I'm being melodramatic. We haven't had many Taoiseachs as our State is pretty young and I honestly don't feel there has been a Taoiseach worse than Haughey. This guy was a national disgrace.

Regarding de Valera, I would view him as the greatest Taoiseach this country has ever had for how he handled the country during WW2 and for his response to criticism from Churchill after the war.

Just my opinion. I'm sure others would disagree strongly.

nesf · 14-06-2006 9:15pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I don't think I'm being melodramatic. We haven't had many Taoiseachs as our State is pretty young and I honestly don't feel there has been a Taoiseach worse than Haughey. This guy was a national disgrace.

Regarding de Valera, I would view him as the greatest Taoiseach this country has ever had for how he handled the country during WW2 and for his response to criticism from Churchill after the war.

Just my opinion. I'm sure others would disagree strongly.

We can agree to disagree on de Valera, but I'd find it odd that you wouldn't consider any of the Taoiseachs who handled the country so badly in the 70s and 80s up there as being candidates for worst Taoiseach. Corruption is bad enough but running the economy into the ground and leaving problems that still effect us 20 years later is quite another.

simu · 14-06-2006 11:44pm

All Taoisigh get state funerals.

Haughey was a Taoiseach.

...

Relax ppl!

rsta · 14-06-2006 11:53pm

junkyard wrote:

And I'll bet you'll vote for FF too again and again.:rolleyes:

I've never voted for FF ever in my life and probably never will. Personally I support the Greens only, have a slight interest in what FG are up to as they too are becoming more 'Green' as they know it is the way forward and its the way to get the younger populations votes. But I've not once in my life ever supported FF.

CJH is just part of our history good, bad, scandalous whatever is all I'm saying. But he was a man with a good heart, he was never malicious or evil. Let the man be buried in peace.

rsta · 14-06-2006 11:55pm

PHB wrote:

You'll be shown to be quite wrong. He still has a huge huge following, people that just don't care he was corrupt, because he was their leader.

IMO a state funeral is about remembering who we are as a state, and Haughey is part of our history, rightly or wrongly, and the state should reconigse that with a state funeral.

Well said PHB.

There will be a huge turnout for his funeral. Expect them in Donnycarney in their droves on Friday.

constitutionus · 15-06-2006 12:00am

nesf wrote:

We can agree to disagree on de Valera, but I'd find it odd that you wouldn't consider any of the Taoiseachs who handled the country so badly in the 70s and 80s up there as being candidates for worst Taoiseach. Corruption is bad enough but running the economy into the ground and leaving problems that still effect us 20 years later is quite another.

theres a difference between being incompentant and being corrupt. on the whole most law abiding people happen to believe crriminals shouldnt run the country. particularly seeing as we have laws against people with long criminal records (over six months ) even setting foot in the dail. haughey may have used his clout to avoid jail but he was still a criminal and his regiem of corruption destroyed whole swathes of irish society.
the other taoiseachs may have been useless, but they didnt give us the ghettoised nightmares that surround cork dublin and galway either. that was haughey and his mates cracking the whip on the councills for his golden circle
and that to me is his legacy, he's not only the worst taoiseach weve ever had, he brought politics into disrepute. damn near half the country wont vote now because of apathy and cynicism, and CJ has a lot to do with that

nesf · 15-06-2006 12:18am

constitutionus wrote:

theres a difference between being incompentant and being corrupt. on the whole most law abiding people happen to believe crriminals shouldnt run the country. particularly seeing as we have laws against people with long criminal records (over six months ) even setting foot in the dail. haughey may have used his clout to avoid jail but he was still a criminal and his regiem of corruption destroyed whole swathes of irish society.
the other taoiseachs may have been useless, but they didnt give us the ghettoised nightmares that surround cork dublin and galway either. that was haughey and his mates cracking the whip on the councills for his golden circle
and that to me is his legacy, he's not only the worst taoiseach weve ever had, he brought politics into disrepute. damn near half the country wont vote now because of apathy and cynicism, and CJ has a lot to do with that

Give me a competent but corrupt leader over an honest but incompentent one any day. Then, maybe I'm a realist.

15-06-2006 9:46am

Deleted User wrote:

And frankly in any democracy I'll take good government by a fellow on the take over crap government by a saint any day...

nesf wrote:

Give me a competent but corrupt leader over an honest but incompentent one any day. Then, maybe I'm a realist.

Separated at birth?

shnaek · 15-06-2006 11:45am

David McWilliams on Haughey:

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/Articles/view.asp?CategoryID=-1&CategoryName=&ArticleID=368

Saintly · 15-06-2006 12:00pm

nesf wrote:

Give me a competent but corrupt leader over an honest but incompentent one any day. Then, maybe I'm a realist.

Really? I'm not a fan of your reality. Corruption and competence hardly go hand in hand. Corruption impacts upon performance. It breeds contempt for legal, rightful processes and kills competition - depending on who is slipping that brown envelope into your back pocket. Corruption creates a culture in which the fat cats get fatter, wealth buys political decisions and democratic principles become of secondary importance. Its naïve to imagine that it doesn’t have an effect upon competence – but I guess it is all in your assessment of what constitutes competence - and for that matter, corruption. I mean just how much corruption could you tolerate before you're voting for the incompetent saint? Where do you draw the line? With a Taoiseach, a Minister, a HSE executive? Tolerating it, or compromising on political integrity at all is completely unacceptable IMO. Ultimately, there is always a price to pay for corruption - it may not have a direct impact upon your own particular lifestyle, but there may be an economic, social, political or cultural cost. Just look at the huge costs of the tribunals and the distrust and apathy about politics. Haughey wasn't solely responsible, but he had a huge part to play.

The point is that the choice doesn't have to be so stark - there are plenty of competent politicians who wish to serve the country well, with integrity in every political party. Stamping out the Haughey political culture means that no party would ever tolerate such behaviour again and that the political system itself would demand and expect ethical practice. Conor74, I honestly hope that your feelings on this point aren't representative of the wider FF community. I hope the party spirit and ethos is firmly committed to honest and competent political action in the future.

Saintly

Dragan · 15-06-2006 12:06pm

Saintly wrote:

Stamping out the Haughey political culture means that no party would ever tolerate such behaviour again and that the political system itself would demand and expect ethical practice. Conor74, I honestly hope that your feelings on this point aren't representative of the wider FF community.

Carefully Saintly, i have found that those who are not willing to allow corruption in politics and would expect good people to do a good job can be met with a degree of shock and sarcasm.

Personally i agree with you completely, there are many good people out there who could do great things.

15-06-2006 12:12pm

Dragan wrote:

Carefully Saintly, i have found that those who are not willing to allow corruption in politics and would expect good people to do a good job can be met with a degree of shock and sarcasm.

Hmmmm, I have studied the paragraph and cannot see how it relates to the life and times (and crimes) of Charle Haughey. You just having a go at the writing style of those who disagree with you?

Saintly wrote:

Conor74, I honestly hope that your feelings on this point aren't representative of the wider FF community. I hope the party spirit and ethos is firmly committed to honest and competent political action in the future.

I hope so too, but I suspect my view is one shared not only by those in FF but across the whole political spectrum by anyone who believes in realpolitik over idealism. It's why many in FG still vote for Lowry in huge numbers. Your aspirations for a cleaner healtheir political world are noble, given what happens in just about every country in Europe I think they are not attainable...

um7y1h83ge06nx · 15-06-2006 12:14pm

shnaek wrote:

David McWilliams on Haughey:

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/Articles/view.asp?CategoryID=-1&CategoryName=&ArticleID=368

Good article, hopefully will make the blind see.

Dragan · 15-06-2006 12:19pm

Deleted User wrote:

Hmmmm, I have studied the paragraph and cannot see how it relates to the life and times (and crimes) of Charle Haughey. You just having a go at the writing style of those who disagree with you?

Nope, still saying what i've been saying all along, that i don't agree with the attitude of "sure their all up to it" "best of a bad lot" "we'd all do the same" "the good he did outweighs the bad" is all.

I'd have thought that, once again, was obvious. Remember, i'm the kind of the guy that just expects more from our political leaders. Shame on me.

nesf · 15-06-2006 3:17pm

Saintly wrote:

Really? I'm not a fan of your reality. Corruption and competence hardly go hand in hand. Corruption impacts upon performance. It breeds contempt for legal, rightful processes and kills competition - depending on who is slipping that brown envelope into your back pocket. Corruption creates a culture in which the fat cats get fatter, wealth buys political decisions and democratic principles become of secondary importance.

1) You're being overly simplistic here, I never said corruption and competence go hand in hand I just said that they weren't mutually exclusive.

2) Corruption does damage efficiency, I agree, however when you are speaking in those terms you have to look at corruption at a nationwide level, and not soley as embodied by a particular leader. Corrupt figures don't just appear in uncorrupted societies, there is almost always a route from the ground up that produces them. Corrupt leaders don't exist in a vacuum.

3) It is the nature of capatalism that the fat cats get richer and the poor get poorer. Corruption is not responsible for it, it is a product of this trend.

As for the rest. Um, retrospect is fantastic isn't it?

Saintly · 15-06-2006 7:53pm

Deleted User wrote:

I hope so too, but I suspect my view is one shared not only by those in FF but across the whole political spectrum by anyone who believes in realpolitik over idealism. It's why many in FG still vote for Lowry in huge numbers. Your aspirations for a cleaner healtheir political world are noble, given what happens in just about every country in Europe I think they are not attainable...

I take your point about idealism, let me clarify – I don't expect corruption to completely disappear from politics, we all know that money and power breed contempt. I do think however that there has been a shift in some aspects of political culture since the Haughey era, when he refused to answer questions about his personal acquisitions and wealth to today, when Ivor had to go because of his free home improvements. My hope is that this culture will continue to change and improve. Corruption does occur across Europe, however to varying degrees. It can be the exception or the norm. I do find it utterly depressing that someone in FF would consider serving under/supporting a corrupt, if competent leader again, in any circumstances. You can vote a crap government out, weeding out corruption and it's long term effects is a far harder task. Personally, I believe that political systems can operate in ways that minimise or maximise possibilities for corrupt behaviour. Having or tolerating a corrupt leader just allows it breed everywhere else.

As for Lowry, you're absolutely right. People still vote for him, mostly because he is known as competent local representative. That's democracy, we have to tolerate that. His corruption, we don't. Hence his departure from FG and his non existent chance of ever serving at Ministerial level.

nesf wrote:

1) You're being overly simplistic here, I never said corruption and competence go hand in hand I just said that they weren't mutually exclusive.

Not mutually exclusive, but corruption certainly impacts upon competency, reducing a leader's ability to make competent, unbiased decisions. I was just flipping the coin over on that point.

nesf wrote:

2) Corruption does damage efficiency, I agree, however when you are speaking in those terms you have to look at corruption at a nationwide level, and not soley as embodied by a particular leader. Corrupt figures don't just appear in uncorrupted societies, there is almost always a route from the ground up that produces them. Corrupt leaders don't exist in a vacuum.

Absolutely - which is why I didn't pin the blame for all of the ills of Irish society on CJH. The point is that corruption at more senior levels such as those of Taoiseach/political leaders has far more serious consequences for society than say the corruption of a local social welfare officer/ civil servant etc. I am all for rooting out corruption at any level - so to even consider it acceptable at senior political level is a completely alien concept to me, in any circumstances.

nesf wrote:

3) It is the nature of capatalism that the fat cats get richer and the poor get poorer. Corruption is not responsible for it, it is a product of this trend.

Corruption can occur in any political system. It occurs when someone doesn't play by the agreed rules or accepted norms of a society.

nesf wrote:

As for the rest. Um, retrospect is fantastic isn't it?

Yes, retrospection and hindsight is fantastic - It means that we can learn from past mistakes and ensure that political culture and climate changes for the better. That's why I found your assertion that you could tolerate a corrupt leader in specific circumstances, strange.

Saintly.

nesf · 15-06-2006 8:13pm

My point on retrospect was that CJH's corruption only came to light for the general public after his term really. He wasn't voted in by people who knew he was corrupt. Usually a leader's corruption isn't evident until they are established in Government or afterwards.

That's why I find your argument about voting for a corrupt leader odd. I think it's something that is only relevant in retrospect and we cannot account for it when we are casting votes the vast majority of the time. What most of the posters here are arguing for when they say they can have some respect for CJH is that in retrospect despite his corruption he did well for the country. They are not saying they'd vote for him knowing that he was corrupt.

constitutionus · 15-06-2006 8:57pm

actually its been my experience that corruption and competence do go hand in hand, thats kinda the problem. if the corrupt were incompetant they wouldnt get anywhere. bear in mind all the people haughey helped are still vital influences in our economy now. case in point harney just had to admit she got payments off monarch properties, the same lads who spilled the beans to a pr consultant (bill o herilihy of all people!) that all you need to get planning permission for anything was pay of one fianna failer for a block vote back in haugheys day.
and guess who was one of the biggest donators to FF at the galway races last year? yup monarch properties, the gov even exempted them from two million in taxes they were supposed to pay on some governmet development schemes (joe higgin caught this one, i never seen bertie insult someone so much when he raised it

)these are the guys who own all the land our future houses are gonna be on. and theyre the reason were paying the most for our housing in a country with one of the lowest populations densities in europe.

haughey may be dead, but his legacy lives on.

Fraggle Rocks · 15-06-2006 10:50pm

Sarky wrote:

Plan a grand monument, but have most of the funding mysteriously diverted to help pay for housing and liver transplants, resulting in a monument of a 4x4 slab of chipboard with his name misspelled in crayon.

A self-claimed patron of the arts like Haughy will surely appreciate the poetry.