opinions on Cowen's change to pension legislation for Woods

tech77

Here's the story: www.independent.ie/national-news/cowens-8364500000-pension-boost-for-exminister-1207683.html

He changes the legislation re. backdating pension entitlement for the benefit of ONE former minister (Woods).

Yet he trots out some pathetic line about not being able to do the same for the benefit of a member of the garda.

Fcuking sickening.
2 fingers to the ordinary guy on the street if ever I saw it.

TBH I used to think Cowen wasn't the worst of them but they're all the same really.
I suppose he's eyeing the top job and this won't do him any harm among the FF faithful.

Opinions.

gurramok

Add this to the mix..

Ray Burke is still allowed to claim his €100k a yr pension despite being a convicted crim on corruption charges.
Now do you see the said minister(Biffo) changing the legislation so fast to stop this?

Something is rotten in the state of Ireland

gandalf

Can't wait for the tighten our belts speech in around a months time for the budget.

It is a disgrace, as stated above is two fingers by this government to the people of the country. They seem to forget their job is to run the country to the benefit of all the citizens of the country and not a select few.

At this stage I am absolutely amazed that anyone votes for them.

gurramok

Well it seems some are copping on that they were conned, new poll shows drop of 9% in support
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1101/politics.html?rss

On the point i raised about Burke's lucrative pension, can any FFer defend it?

tech77

gandalf wrote: »

At this stage I am absolutely amazed that anyone votes for them.

This puzzles me as well.
In the payrise thread here and AH practically everyone is in agreement the payrises are ridiculous and there is a genuine anger out there.

The conclusion being this government did a fantastic job putting the frighteners on the electorate about the economy the last time around and they're doing as they bloody well please now.

Lets hope people remember that next time round.

tech77

gurramok wrote: »

Well it seems some are copping on that they were conned, new poll shows drop of 9% in support
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1101/politics.html?rss

Nice one.
Those are significant drops.
Why do I feel it won't last though.

radioactiveman

Ray Burke is still allowed to claim his €100k a yr pension despite being a convicted crim on corruption charges.

another thing I don't understand is why the pension tax relief is so low for lower income earners. It's literally double for people on the higher rate - imo this has to change. I know alot of people are on the higher rate eventually but if you don't make it you're screwed.
The 1 euro for every 3 transferred out of an SSIA into a pension was good but it's still less than normal contributions for a higher band earner.
Maybe it's not an issue because alot of people just don't think about pensions... (down off my soapbox now:D )

Voipjunkie

gurramok wrote: »

Well it seems some are copping on that they were conned, new poll shows drop of 9% in support
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1101/politics.html?rss

On the point i raised about Burke's lucrative pension, can any FFer defend it?

I think you are being optimistic we have seen this all before Election over FF **** us over they drop in the opinion polls before taking the sweets back out in 3 years time all this will be forgotten about.

If you want evidence that people have not copped on look at Brian Cowens approval rating higher than any of the party leaders.
Bertie is taking the blame but sure he will be gone before the next election and people will row back in behind FF.

People bitched and moaned for 5 years but when the crunch came they voted FF back in despite the hospital trolleys and the lack of childcare and the state of the schools the charging of OAPs for nursing care and the traffic and the wasted money on pet projects without proper planning etc etc etc. In 5 years time the only people who will remember Micheal Woods pension are the people who would not for FF anyway and FF know that.

I tried tackling my local FF candidate at the door during the election and he looked down the list and said sure you don't vote FF anyway and walked off.

ian_m

i find it very hard to trust him

DublinWriter

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Bertie is taking the blame but sure he will be gone before the next election and people will row back in behind FF.

Bertie et al could chop up live babies on Kildare St. for all that the Irish electorate care.

The last election proved to me that we Irish are firmly in the "I'm allright Jack" school of collective morality.

We got the government we elected for, now suck it down.

gandalf

DublinWriter I certainly didn't vote for them. But then again most of my mates claim they didn't either and I know some of them are lying !!!

Woods is one thing, I mean I am sure he is not doing badly out of his pension entitlement already but Burke who has been convicted is quite another. He should be stripped of that pension. How in the hell can you discourage corruption in politics when it seems that there are no consequences for being corrupt except for a slap on the wrist and a bit of bother with the media. These guys have necks on them like a Jockies bollix so its nothing to them.

We need a new Elliot Ness for the 21st century because it looks like we have another pack of Gangsters who seem to think they are above us all again.

the_syco

Voipjunkie wrote: »

I tried tackling my local FF candidate at the door during the election and he looked down the list and said sure you don't vote FF anyway and walked off.

I'd love to know how he'd know... the voting being anonymous and all...

I note that the opposition and in particular Richard Bruton havent condemned this piece of legislation.

I'd love to know how he'd know... the voting being anonymous and all...

Tallies from the boxes-they couldnt be sure but they'd be making a rough guess.
For instance something like 90% of the boxes in the huge charlesland estate voted first preference for FF.
That statistic was in the Wicklow people in their count analysis reporting.

I take it none of them have found their way over here then...

Colonel Sanders

slightly OT but are there statistics for party support by age profile? I am in my mid 20's so most of the people I know, drink with etc are my age plus or minus a few years. What i find is that the younger generation (among those I speak to) are less likely to vote FF. I was wondering if there is actually a trend here or is it just in the small sample of people I know?

Mick86

tech77 wrote: »

He changes the legislation re. backdating pension entitlement for the benefit of ONE former minister (Woods).

In fairness it wouldn't be done for just any old minister. It had to be a FF minister. And doesn't old Woody deserve his backdated pension. He toiled long and hard to earn it. Time to lie back and smell the roses Woody, fair play to ya.

kaiser sauze

Voipjunkie wrote: »

I tried tackling my local FF candidate at the door during the election and he looked down the list and said sure you don't vote FF anyway and walked off.

sorry to derail the topic, but this ^^ really caught my eye:

I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong, but are you saying that the FF candidate knew your vote from a list he had in his possession?

I would've knocked him out and brought the list to the Garda station and had him for breach of privacy.

In relation to the actual topic, nothing these FF scumbags do surprises me anymore.

LostinBlanch

kaiser sauze wrote: »

sorry to derail the topic, but this ^^ really caught my eye:

I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong, but are you saying that the FF candidate knew your vote from a list he had in his possession?

I would've knocked him out and brought the list to the Garda station and had him for breach of privacy.

In relation to the actual topic, nothing these FF scumbags do surprises me anymore.

Kaiser,

anyone can buy a list of who voted at the last (or any) election, and compare it against the votes per tally box so can have a good idea of who voted for which party. Add in local knowledge etc and you have a nearly foolproof way of knowing who voted which way. I'm thinking of the stories of Mary O'Rourke looking down on a town in her constituency and almost being able to name off where her votes came from.

As for the question about the op, I'm wondering how much mr Woods cost us with his idea to (de facto) indemnify the church against abuse claims. I had no idea that Ray Burke was still in receipt of a dail and ministerial pension.

But this isn't the only time that legislation has been brought in to benefit one person only. I remember reading that a special tax break was brought in for a property developer to enable him to have a picture in his house without having to pay tax on it. I can't remember exactly who it was so won't say on here. But I do remember the tribune making a big fuss about it at the time and wondering why it was brought in.

Make of that what you will

Hotblack Desiato

LostinBlanch wrote: »

anyone can buy a list of who voted at the last (or any) election, and compare it against the votes per tally box

That sounds very odd to me.
You can't even get hold of the full electoral register any more, only the edited one, so why on earth would it be possible or desirable to make available a list of who did or did not vote?
Surely the right to a secret ballot also means the right to secrecy as to whether one voted.

As for the question about the op, I'm wondering how much mr Woods cost us with his idea to (de facto) indemnify the church against abuse claims.

About a billion, was the consensus among the papers at the time.

The scary thing is that that might not be the most expensive mistake ever made by a Minister...

kaiser sauze

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Kaiser,

anyone can buy a list of who voted at the last (or any) election, and compare it against the votes per tally box so can have a good idea of who voted for which party. Add in local knowledge etc and you have a nearly foolproof way of knowing who voted which way. I'm thinking of the stories of Mary O'Rourke looking down on a town in her constituency and almost being able to name off where her votes came from.

I was really under the impression that your vote at a general election, or any election of public officials for that matter, is subject to a 'secret ballot'. It is certainly something I am going to check out further.

ninja900 wrote: »

That sounds very odd to me.
You can't even get hold of the full electoral register any more, only the edited one, so why on earth would it be possible or desirable to make available a list of who did or did not vote?
Surely the right to a secret ballot also means the right to secrecy as to whether one voted.

Agreed. It does not sound right at all. I think he may have been using local knowledge alone.

LostinBlanch

Kaiser,

I may be open to correction on this, and apologies if I am. But afaik your vote is secret, but anyone can buy a list of tallies from boxes as Tristrame pointed out in his post. So then by comparing the number of votes for candidates in specific boxes parties can have a good idea of how many people in different streets etc voted for their candidates. Throw in detailed local knowledge of political allegiances (subtract the votes of people who are say FG members) and then that leaves a smaller number of votes cast that could have gone to her. All parties do this, it helps them to analyse voting patterns etc.

Technically the votes are secret but candidates can have a very good guess who voted for them in certain situations. This is easier in rural constituencies now as they still have a stronger sense of community and people tend to have stronger local knowledge than in (sub)urban ones.

Anyway, this is off topic. Maybe someone should discuss this in another thread and give a better explanation than I have.

stovelid

I think - I hope - they merely meant that your name wasn't on a list of known supporters in the area......

Still a cheeky cnut though.