Beverley Cooper Flynn

gandalf

Who?

copacetic

gandalf wrote:

Who?

you know the guy, he was tallish and baldish and used to say something about somethings, loudish guy I think. was in some party that used to be around, the FPs or something..

gandalf

Naw doesn't ring a bell at all, he's obviously irrelevant

Could he loan Bev the cash ?

cast_iron

gandalf wrote:

You may have that character flaw I and alot of other people don't.

Yea, I do. It's a human trait...

And going by the election result, I'm not in the minority.

gandalf

cast_iron wrote:

Yea, I do. It's a human trait...

And going by the election result, I'm not in the minority.

Well if 41% is a majority ?

So you don't want your public representatives to aspire to high standards then.

Let people help others to evade tax, sure no problem.

Let people evade tax, sure no problem.

Let people take monies left right and centre and then only when found out do they claim they are "loans" when their boss at the time said if he had knowledge of the financial toing and froings he would have fired their ass, certainly suits you sir.

Let people drunk drive down the wrong side of the road, get disqualified and allow them to run anyway, hic why not!!!

jmayo

opinionated wrote:

I will tell you guys one thing...Mayo needs her to go into coallition with Bertie or we are ****ed with only one TD with a connection...

well what have the government given us over last ten years?
Oh yeah they sold the gas off our shoresw, oops I mean gave it away to shell.
They have done f all for us over last ten odd years.
Mayo does not need her or her kin. Mayo will get more with no FF TD.
That way they might be interested in getting one elected the next time.

E92

I would have thought that a bye election in Mayo would have favoured FF if that is to happen. Perhaps Enda knows something we don't with all his mutterings about him still being able to be Taoiseach?

cast_iron

gandalf wrote:

Well if 41% is a majority ?

I'd have been dissappointed if you didn't point that out.;)
However, you are trying to imply everyone that 50% of the voters voted for the opposition purely because FF are corrupt. This election wasn't about corruption, that was well clear, so labouring that point won't get you anywhere.

gandalf wrote:

So you don't want your public representatives to aspire to high standards then.

Let people help others to evade tax, sure no problem.

Let people evade tax, sure no problem.

Let people take monies left right and centre and then only when found out do they claim they are "loans" when their boss at the time said if he had knowledge of the financial toing and froings he would have fired their ass, certainly suits you sir.

Let people drunk drive down the wrong side of the road, get disqualified and allow them to run anyway, hic why not!!!

Some of that is clearly illegal, some may be unethical.
I never advocated any of it.

Not alone that, because somebody made a mistake in their lives, they should resign from the job they devoted their life to? Some would say yes, some no. I would say it depends on the severity of the offence.

All I'm saying is that alot of people see a bit of ourselves in FF, which goes some way to explaining why more people voted for them than any other party in the state. If we all lived up to your (apparent) high standards, then surely that would not have happened. No?

gandalf

BTW who says I am singling out FF theres at least one former FG minister in that list as well.

As regards the percentage you were the first person that used the arguement that the "majority" agree with you. I was just pointing out the fallacy that 41% is a majority

You see I would expect someone in the highest office in the country would have higher standards, they are responsible for administering our taxes monies and if there is doubt created by them taking funds in a "non standard" manner then yes they should be removed from that position.

Its a little different from the job I hold or I daresay you. But if my employers felt I had let an outside source dictate the way I transacted my business I would be fired rapidally......

cast_iron

gandalf wrote:

As regards the percentage you were the first person that used the arguement that the "majority" agree with you. I was just pointing out the fallacy that 41% is a majority

Well actually, I didn't. And I thought my last post explained that.

gandalf wrote:

You see I would expect someone in the highest office in the country would have higher standards, they are responsible for administering our taxes monies and if there is doubt created by them taking funds in a "non standard" manner then yes they should be removed from that position.

There are few around here that don't know that's your opinion. I've stated mine, and the stats back up the fact that I am in the majority on this one.;) (More people favoured Bertie for Taoiseach than anyone else.)

gandalf wrote:

Its a little different from the job I hold or I daresay you. But if my employers felt I had let an outside source dictate the way I transacted my business I would be fired rapidally......

Once again, the people of Ireland don't seem to hold the same opinion.

McSandwich

cast_iron wrote:

All I'm saying is that alot of people see a bit of ourselves in FF, which goes some way to explaining why more people voted for them than any other party in the state. If we all lived up to your (apparent) high standards, then surely that would not have happened. No?

We all make mistakes but people in positions of power have responsibilities not to abuse that power. If you or I were caught driving drunk on the wrong side of a dual carriageway, what would be the chance of getting away with it? By re-lecting those who abuse their positions, we're saying that (occasional) abuse is ok. Would this also be acceptable for Gardai, Priests, Teachers, Doctors...?


edit - typos

Crash

Its all down to broken window economics

gandalf

&#231 wrote: »

Its all down to broken window economics

Quote of the day, I love it

copacetic

not sure if this is what crash meant, but the parable of broken window is a reasonably well know economic theory, even wikipedia has a shot at it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

cast_iron

McSandwich wrote:

We all make mistakes but people in positions of power have responsibilities not to abuse that power. If you or I were caught driving drunk on the wrong side of a dual carriageway, what would be the chance of getting away with it? By re-lecting those who abuse their positions, we're saying that (occasional) abuse is ok. Would this also be acceptable for Gardai, Priests, Teachers, Doctors...?

I think you are confusing 2 different issues there:

1. Bertie's standards - nothing proven; if and when proven you may have a point.

2. The drink driving issue - doesn't involve an abuse of power. It's an offence that (in the case I'm assuming you are refering to) was punished by the courts.

Chakar

It is a fallacy to say that 59% voted against the government. Ireland is a parliamentary democracy made of parties and independent deputies. The parties each have a share of the vote, which are translated into seats. Thus the seats of the parties in possible options in forming any government in a parliamentary democracy is the most important criterion here.

The nature of the parliamentary system is such that there can be changes in different parties comprising the government, however in Election 2007 there was a clear alternative to the current government so the electorate chose Fianna Fáil and Bertie Ahern to lead the next government as a major coalition partner. Bertie Ahern now has two viable options between the Greens and PD's/Independents. None of their seats are of any less 'value'. Any of those options can form a government commanding an majority.

gandalf

cast_iron wrote:

I think you are confusing 2 different issues there:

1. Bertie's standards - nothing proven; if and when proven you may have a point.

But the Taoiseach at that time Albert Reynolds said he would have fired Bertie at the time had he found out, like Bertie shafted Ivor over his €2000 paintjob.

2. The drink driving issue - doesn't involve an abuse of power. It's an offence that (in the case I'm assuming you are refering to) was punished by the courts.

You can see the point, how can a man who campaigned on behalf of the government against drink driving then got caught doing the very same thing be allowed to run for office again. Surely even FF had candidates that could run instead of this tainted individual?

The fact that they are considering relying on someone who has serious questions over their name in allegedly helping others evade tax. And of course the issues that started this thread being made bankrupt.

I find it worrying that a TD can be defrocked so to speak for being bankrupt rather than one that drunk drove the wrong way along a dual carriageway!!

cast_iron

gandalf wrote:

But the Taoiseach at that time Albert Reynolds said he would have fired Bertie at the time had he found out, like Bertie shafted Ivor over his €2000 paintjob.

Which proves absolutely nothing.

gandalf wrote:

You can see the point, how can a man who campaigned on behalf of the government against drink driving then got caught doing the very same thing be allowed to run for office again. Surely even FF had candidates that could run instead of this tainted individual?

The fact that they are considering relying on someone who has serious questions over their name in allegedly helping others evade tax. And of course the issues that started this thread being made bankrupt.

I've no idea what FF's options were in Donegal.
You are blaming FF, when, in fact, the people have elected Mr McDaid.
The people of Donegal got what they voted for. Last time I checked, that was called democracy.

In fairness, I know that's not your point, but it's what you are saying - if we go by your standards.

cast_iron

Chakar wrote:

It is a fallacy to say that 59% voted against the government.... (followed by irrelevant tripe)

Yes, it is. The actual figure is 55.7%.

I can break it down for you if you like.

McSandwich

cast_iron wrote:

I think you are confusing 2 different issues there:

1. Bertie's standards - nothing proven; if and when proven you may have a point.

2. The drink driving issue - doesn't involve an abuse of power. It's an offence that (in the case I'm assuming you are refering to) was punished by the courts.

Point 1: I accept, although other politicians found guilty of abuse (or at best contempt) of their power have not been forced to resign as TDs.

Point 2: Jim McDaid pleaded guilty to a drink-driving charge and was banned from driving for two years and fined €750. The minister for justice at the time, McDowell said that "it was not unprecedented, and that Dr McDaid was not the first politician to find himself in this situation." He made this statement before the court case, was this appropriate?

http://rte.ie/news/2005/0428/mcdaidj.html

I'm no fan of Flynn, but she'll (rightfully) have to resign her seat if she files for bankrupcy - something I don't think has the potential to endanger lives.

If I purchased €10,000 of computer software and equipment which did not suit it's purpose and did not come with a warranty or service contract, I'd be fired.

If I was a public servant and did something similiar, I'd be asked to resign. However there seems to be no limit to the amount a Government minister can waste without being held accountable (e.g. e-voting, etc.).

We don't look for resignations and we vote them back in! But look at outcry when Staunton selects or leaves out certain players from the Irish football team... Maybe we're just very stupid people.

bk

cast_iron wrote:

Yes, it is. The actual figure is 55.7%.

I can break it down for you if you like.

Actually by my reckoning:
FF+PD = 44.3%
FG+Labour+Greens= 42.1%

These were the two possible blocks offered to the people and a majority of the people voted for the FF+PD block.

You can't include the SF numbers, as both blocks said they wouldn't go into government with SF, so those who voted for SF knew they wouldn't get into government and were just voting for the SF ideals.

Likewise you can't include those who voted independent, as they never declared who they would enter government with. Specially when you consider that of the 5 elected indos, 2 are very strongly aligned for FF, one FG and 2 unaligned.

Like most things in life it isn't black and white.

copacetic

bk wrote:

Actually by my reckoning:
FF+PD = 44.3%
FG+Labour+Greens= 42.1%

These were the two possible blocks offered to the people and a majority of the people voted for the FF+PD block.

You can't include the SF numbers, as both blocks said they wouldn't go into government with SF, so those who voted for SF knew they wouldn't get into government and were just voting for the SF ideals.

Likewise you can't include those who voted independent, as they never declared who they would enter government with. Specially when you consider that of the 5 elected indos, 2 are very strongly aligned for FF, one FG and 2 unaligned.

Like most things in life it isn't black and white.

that doesn't make any sense at all, people who didn't vote for the governement parties were 55.7%. They voted againt the government
if you will. Which was the stat mentioned above.

Chakar

cast_iron wrote:

Yes, it is. The actual figure is 55.7%.

I can break it down for you if you like.

I think Sinn Fein should be excluded from that percentage as they're excluded from any possible coalition government. And the rest of my post was entirely relevant to the topic discussed at hand. But the basic point as regards to voting against the government parties stands.

cast_iron

McSandwich wrote:

Point 2: Jim McDaid pleaded guilty to a drink-driving charge and was banned from driving for two years and fined €750. The minister for justice at the time, McDowell said that "it was not unprecedented, and that Dr McDaid was not the first politician to find himself in this situation." He made this statement before the court case, was this appropriate?

I don't remember mentioning McDowell once. I'm not here to discuss him. Your point is completely irrelevant to this (already derailing) thread.

bk wrote:

Actually by my reckoning:
FF+PD = 44.3%
FG+Labour+Greens= 42.1%

Indeed, I see your point. Your figures bring it down to just under 50%.
I didn't try to take what a voters actual reasoning was into account, as I am not privy to such information, but your assumptions would seem logical.
55.7% did not vote for the Govt, whether that means they are "against" the Govt....it's arguable.

McSandwich

cast_iron wrote:

I don't remember mentioning McDowell once. I'm not here to discuss him. Your point is completely irrelevant to this (already derailing) thread.

You said "The drink driving issue - doesn't involve an abuse of power." I was giving you backround info so that you could see where I was coming from. I do not agree that it was irrelevant as I made a comparison to Flynn's situation (the subject of this thread?).

cast_iron wrote:

Indeed, I see your point. Your figures bring it down to just under 50%.
I didn't try to take what a voters actual reasoning was into account, as I am not privy to such information, but your assumptions would seem logical.
55.7% did not vote for the Govt, whether that means they are "against" the Govt....it's arguable.

Derailing the thread you say??

gandalf

cast_iron wrote:

Which proves absolutely nothing.

Proves the double standards that Ahern operates under.

I've no idea what FF's options were in Donegal.
You are blaming FF, when, in fact, the people have elected Mr McDaid.
The people of Donegal got what they voted for. Last time I checked, that was called democracy.

In fairness, I know that's not your point, but it's what you are saying - if we go by your standards.

2 points, first is FF should never have allowed McDaid to run and secondally the people of Donegal should hang their heads in shame voting in a convicted drunk driver, the same the people of Tipperary should hang their heads in shame voting in Michael Lowry and the people of Mayo for voting in BCF.

Heinrich

gandalf wrote:

Proves the double standards that Ahern operates under.




2 points, first is FF should never have allowed McDaid to run and secondally the people of Donegal should hang their heads in shame voting in a convicted drunk driver, the same the people of Tipperary should hang their heads in shame voting in Michael Lowry and the people of Mayo for voting in BCF.

Oi, that would be three seats less, now we can't have that, can we?

Forgetting the Cyprian Brady democratic fiasco...

My kingdom for a horse

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Heinrich

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The fact that he got 900 or so first preferences shows that he was that he certainly was not highly regarded by the electorate. The fact that he was a FF candidate with very low personal potential riding on the Taoiseach's ticket was the fiasco. I do accept PR for what it is. A cardboard cutout of Martin Cullen would have had a similar result.

joolsveer

Heinrich wrote:

The fact that he got 900 or so first preferences shows that he was that he certainly was not highly regarded by the electorate. The fact that he was a FF candidate with very low personal potential riding on the Taoiseach's ticket was the fiasco. I do accept PR for what it is. A cardboard cutout of Martin Cullen would have had a similar result.

I recall a now deceased relative of mine saying that I should vote FF 1 2 3 in order of my choice and forget the rest. This was in the 1980s when CJH was the dominant force in politics (or corruption). So nothing has changed since.