George Lee to run for Fine Gael In Dublin South.

truebluedub

InFront wrote: »

Actually that is pretty misleading on your part. According to his page on the FG site, he was a senior economist with Riada stockbrokers, treasury economist with FTI and a senior economist with the Bank of Ireland. He was also named journalist of the year for his uncovering of a major banking scandal at NIB and has a MSc from the highly respected London School of Economics.

Many people have a lot of respect for Lee and I'm afraid the words "academically published" aren't really going to change that. Clearly he just didn't choose to work in a third level institution, for whatever reasons. I'm sure you don't honestly think he wouldn't have the option.

So prior to working at RTE as chief economic CORRESPONDENT he had a job that involved monitoring the economic situation as part (ok head) of a team, advising a bank or stockbrokers based on research done by a team, evaluate staff performance for the banks and stockbrokers and provide some PR for them. In other words he has had jobs which can best be described as economic analysis rather than being a real economist in anything but title.

And White doesn't work in an academic institution either but still academically publishes work with public policy implications such as on tribunals and the old broadcasting ban.

MikeC101

truebluedub wrote: »

So prior to working at RTE as chief economic CORRESPONDENT he had a job that involved monitoring the economic situation as part (ok head) of a team, advising a bank or stockbrokers based on research done by a team, evaluate staff performance for the banks and stockbrokers and provide some PR for them. In other words he has had jobs which can best be described as economic analysis rather than being a real economist in anything but title.

And White doesn't work in an academic institution either but still academically publishes work with public policy implications such as on tribunals and the old broadcasting ban.

Without getting into the semantics game of defining what a "real" economist is, surely a the economist more suited to help run a country is one who has actually worked in a real world situation applying their skills to real life situations rather than one who has solely worked in the academic world, and to whom being published in peer approved journals on the basis of their theoretical work is all they've done?

It can be nice and cosy writing papers and conducting studies when they're not being put to the test, but I would have a lot more faith in someone who was in their position on the basis of their proven ability.

truebluedub

And having political experience in the Seanad isn't somewhere to prove your ability as a polititcian. I might as well point out that I am a labour voter. I suspect the other posters are FG.

Should an economist (real or by title) even be given a position given that it was the influence they had over public policy for years which has led to Ireland's vulnerability to the recession.

And George Lee has shown political naiveity, assuming he gets in he won't be reforming the country or deciding policy. That's a matter of compromise with the leadership of your party or, in the off-chance that this election leads to a 90's situation and FF are booted out, coalition partners. His 10 point plan is a serious of uncosted and vague soundbytes which as a journalist he's well trained at delivering.

gimme5minutes

truebluedub wrote: »

So prior to working at RTE as chief economic CORRESPONDENT he had a job that involved monitoring the economic situation as part (ok head) of a team, advising a bank or stockbrokers based on research done by a team, evaluate staff performance for the banks and stockbrokers and provide some PR for them. In other words he has had jobs which can best be described as economic analysis rather than being a real economist in anything but title.

What the hell are you talking about, what part of "he was a senior economist with Riada stockbrokers, treasury economist with FTI and a senior economist with the Bank of Ireland" don't you understand. The majority of an economist's job is taken up with economic analysis, that's what they do, duh. He's got a master's from the London School of Economics. He's an ECONOMIST for god sake. This crap of he's not a real economist is serious nonsense. It's like saying a guy who delivers post for a living isn't a postman.

ninty9er

Tragedy wrote: »

No-one actually called you a troll.

It appears a comment was edited, anyhow most people never said Charlie Haughey did anything illegal...they still implied it...what's your point?

gimme5minutes

truebluedub wrote: »

Should an economist (real or by title) even be given a position given that it was the influence they had over public policy for years which has led to Ireland's vulnerability to the recession.

I dont know what you are talking about here. Lee had nothing to do with economic public policy, how are you even suggesting that he has something to do with the currrent crisis? That makes zero sense. Who were the people in charge and making decisions for the last 12 years - Fianna Fail, not Lee.

truebluedub

gimme5minutes wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about, what part of "he was a senior economist with Riada stockbrokers, treasury economist with FTI and a senior economist with the Bank of Ireland" don't you understand. The majority of an economist's job is taken up with economic analysis, that's what they do, duh. He's got a master's from the London School of Economics. He's an ECONOMIST for god sake. This crap of he's not a real economist is serious nonsense. It's like saying a guy who delivers post for a living isn't a postman.

Actually I know economists (from ESRI) and they'll tell you that what they do is far more complex than working in the private sector.

truebluedub

gimme5minutes wrote: »

I dont know what you are talking about here. Lee had nothing to do with economic public policy, how are you even suggesting that he has something to do with the currrent crisis? That makes zero sense. Who were the people in charge and making decisions for the last 12 years - Fianna Fail, not Lee.

I'm not suggesting Lee had anything to do with the current crisis the point I made is that FF and the PD's were following policy that was advised on and often legitimated by economists in general not any specific economist. Economists in general have had a major impact on public policy in this country ie the NDP, privatising parts of the public sector, the low tax regime, the HSE, centres of excellence, etc.

jimmmy

truebluedub wrote: »

Actually I know economists (from ESRI) and they'll tell you that what they do is far more complex than working in the private sector.

Economists from the public sector ( ESRI, financial regulator, Central bank etc ) have a lot to answer for , when you look at the economic mess this country is in. This despite those same economists from the public sector are still employed, have not been sacked, and can look forward to extra generous pensions ( huge lump sum plus multiples of times of average industrial wage ). They may say "that what they do is far more complex than working in the private sector ", but they would say that , would'nt they. George Lee is worth ten of them any day. My only criticism of George Lee is that he has now gone soft on public sector pay cuts.

InFront

Actually George Lee has also worked in the public service despite most of his experience being in private enterprise. And please don't try tell us that the best economists are habitually employed in the public service. Tbh I think trying to tarnish Lee's name in economics as opposed to White's who isn't an economist at all, is completely daft.

truebluedub

InFront and Jimmmy
The economists in the banks have also been known to inform public and corporate policy during the Irish Ferry's dispute some economists (not George Lee) backed the Ferry company.

Why should we assume that being an economist whether academic or public (ie non-ivory tower, working at the cold face of reality) is more qualified to be a politician than a man who is a lawyer, politician and occasionally sociologist. Economists are just easier for parties/companies to spin. They over rely on the assumption

truebluedub

With the exception of senior staff, university economists, and those in Government Dept's most public sector economists are on short term contracts.

MikeC101

truebluedub wrote: »

Actually I know economists (from ESRI) and they'll tell you that what they do is far more complex than working in the private sector.

And I know economists working in investment firms who will tell you what they do is far more complex than working for the ESRI.

Doesn't prove a thing, it's not possible to quantify in any meaningful way who has the more complex jobs - but I will say that working in the private sector as an economist means if you make mistakes they impact a lot more on you than if you're simply conducting studies / social research.

The way I see it - if you're an economist in a private firm and you consistently make mistakes with your predictons and lose the firm money, you'll lose your job. That's about as "real" as it gets.

truebluedub

MikeC101 wrote: »

The way I see it - if you're an economist in a private firm and you consistently make mistakes with your predictons and lose the firm money, you'll lose your job. That's about as "real" as it gets.

But most economists in the private sector are on longer contracts than public bodies such as NGOs or the ESRI who generally get work by the project and their next job is dependent on how good the previous study was. Apologies for getting very off topic despite trying to steer it back to George Lee over several posts.

MikeC101

truebluedub wrote: »

But most economists in the private sector are on longer contracts than public bodies such as NGOs or the ESRI who generally get work by the project and their next job is dependent on how good the previous study was. Apologies for getting very off topic despite trying to steer it back to George Lee over several posts.

Really? From my understand of the ESRI (I could be wrong)they have a main body of staff of a hundred or so, who are permanent, and they also have associates who are involved in studies (a lot of these are from academic institutions)

But it's not a case of these guys living from contract to contract, fighting over the next job, they're all permanently employed, they just work on different studies from time to time - outsourced to governments / european initiatives etc.. (for extra money afaik)

Tragedy

ninty9er wrote: »

It appears a comment was edited, anyhow most people never said Charlie Haughey did anything illegal...they still implied it...what's your point?

You kept changing your point and what your argument was from post to post, getting more ridiculous each time as people challenged what you said.

Then you threw your hands in the air and cried "They called me a troll, THEY MUST BE FROM POLITICS.IE AND HATE ME!!! I'm out!".

That's my point.

thebman

truebluedub wrote: »

Actually I know economists (from ESRI) and they'll tell you that what they do is far more complex than working in the private sector.

Is that why they get it right almost half the time

The same ESRI being discussed in this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055568178

givyjoe81

InFront wrote: »

Actually that is pretty misleading on your part. According to his page on the FG site, he was a senior economist with Riada stockbrokers, treasury economist with FTI and a senior economist with the Bank of Ireland. He was also named journalist of the year for his uncovering of a major banking scandal at NIB and has a MSc from the highly respected London School of Economics.

Many people have a lot of respect for Lee and I'm afraid the words "academically published" aren't really going to change that. Clearly he just didn't choose to work in a third level institution, for whatever reasons. I'm sure you don't honestly think he wouldn't have the option.

Well actually he was in giving us a talk before xmas in DIT ( to masters students over a number of courses), extremely likeable, knowledgeable guy which is more than can be said for the majority of our politicians.

Also judging by the fact that every lecturer there was nearly wetting themselves and falling over each other to get a piece of him ,id say DIT at least would give him a job;)

InFront

Truebluedub this attempt to knock Lee's well established credentials, particularly from his work in private industry is childish.
You cannot say that economists are less valuable than other lawyers in political life, especially in the current crisis, or that such a statement can even be quantifiably proven. So this is ridiculous! Maybe deal with Lee's policies if you have a problem with them, but I can't see anyone seriously buying what you are saying about his track record. Do you have a position on his policies?

truebluedub

InFront,

InFront wrote: »

Truebluedub this attempt to knock Lee's well established credentials, particularly from his work in private industry is childish.
You cannot say that economists are less valuable than other lawyers in political life, especially in the current crisis, or that such a statement can even be quantifiably proven. So this is ridiculous! Maybe deal with Lee's policies if you have a problem with them, but I can't see anyone seriously buying what you are saying about his track record. Do you have a position on his policies?

I already have said I have a position on his policies and unlike you and others who have responded I've been willing to acknowledge my own political affiliation.

truebluedub wrote: »

And having political experience in the Seanad isn't somewhere to prove your ability as a polititcian. I might as well point out that I am a labour voter. I suspect the other posters are FG.

Should an economist (real or by title) even be given a position given that it was the influence they had over public policy for years which has led to Ireland's vulnerability to the recession.

And George Lee has shown political naiveity, assuming he gets in he won't be reforming the country or deciding policy. That's a matter of compromise with the leadership of your party or, in the off-chance that this election leads to a 90's situation and FF are booted out, coalition partners. His 10 point plan is a serious of uncosted and vague soundbytes which as a journalist he's well trained at delivering.

OK lets elaborate on the third paragraph here's his 10 point plan and a brief response to each point:

1. I would finance a massive job-intensive investment programme in green energy, broadband and clean water, financed in part by selling off state companies like Bord Gais and parts of ESB that the State no longer needs to own.



Ok where are the figures to show that this even viable.



2. I would fight for a fairer sharing of the burden of rising taxes. Middle income families on an average wage should not be paying 51pc in tax on every extra euro earned (41pc income tax, 4pc PRSI, 4pc health levy, income levy 2pc), while non-resident millionaires who creamed it during the boom years pay nothing. This is hardly the strategy needed to encourage people to put in the effort and initiative needed to create new jobs and economic opportunities.



Define fairer, would he for example suggest that those who don't want to be taxed lose their citizenship. He gives no indication of his solution to the problem so it's just populist rhetoric.



3. I would reverse the increase in the VAT to 21.5pc announced by the Government last October, which has combined with the weakness of sterling to see a deluge of hard-pressed Irish shoppers crossing the border, at the expense of thousands of Irish jobs and hundreds of millions in lost tax revenues.



Fair enough, here he has a concrete idea and is dead right.



4. I would cut the reduced 13.5pc rate of VAT to just 10pc between now and the end of 2010. This would stimulate labour-intensive services like construction, help the tourism industry through the downturn, and give a huge incentive for first time buyers to bring forward purchases of new houses, helping to resolve crises in banking and the public finances.



Does he have any qualitative or quantitative evidence to suggest this would work and has he costed it.



5. I would freeze local authority rates for at least five years.



Why? Does he have a reason for this or does it just sound good.



6. I would legislate to make upward only rent reviews for small businesses illegal.



Fine, intervening in the free-market has to be done by the state if there is a market failure, which has taken place.



7. I would exempt employers who take on additional staff from additional employer PRSI obligations until the end of 2010.



Costings please.



8. I would make sure that taxpayer support for banks is used only to support new lending to small businesses and families, not to nurse along dodgy property related debts to Fianna Fail's developer friends. The banks, the professional investors who funded them and developers should between themselves take care of the mess they have created. They made the big profits in the good years. They should now eat the losses.



Ok this statement is just populism plain and simple playing on the electorates hostility to the bankers and FF despite the fact his parties policies are largely identical to FF.



9. I would fight to make performance, accountability and thrift core values of our public service once again, starting with the political system itself, and cut top-end public sector salaries, including those of TDs, by at least 5pc.



Opens with populism but at least ends with a solid proposal.



10. I would overhaul the massive public sector quangos like the HSE, CIE and FAS and expose them to more competition in order to deliver vital health, transport and training services more effectively and at less cost to the taxpayer.


I've seen this before, on every PD manifesto for years.



http://www.herald.ie/national-news/george-lee-how-i-would-fix-the-economy-1732996.html

in other while there are one or two decent poilicies there his proposals are in the main uncosted and designed just to be popular rather than having any real value.
Does he have any other policies.

InFront

truebluedub wrote: »

InFront,

I already have said I have a position on his policies and unlike you and others who have responded I've been willing to acknowledge my own political affiliation.

I've already said I'm a member of FG and have never made a secret of it.

1. I would finance a massive job-intensive investment programme in green energy, broadband and clean water, financed in part by selling off state companies like Bord Gais and parts of ESB that the State no longer needs to own.

Ok where are the figures to show that this even viable.

He's selling off the ESB and Bord Gais and presumably the rest is coming from the exchequer and/ or public private partnership. That's hardly rocket science.

2. I would fight for a fairer sharing of the burden of rising taxes. Middle income families on an average wage should not be paying 51pc in tax on every extra euro earned (41pc income tax, 4pc PRSI, 4pc health levy, income levy 2pc), while non-resident millionaires who creamed it during the boom years pay nothing. This is hardly the strategy needed to encourage people to put in the effort and initiative needed to create new jobs and economic opportunities.

Define fairer, would he for example suggest that those who don't want to be taxed lose their citizenship. He gives no indication of his solution to the problem so it's just populist rhetoric.

Don't want to be taxed? What are you talking about? I don't think he is giving them a choice he is saying he would tax them Truebludub it sounds like you are the one using empty rhetoric here. What do you mean no solution to the problem? He just said he would decrease the tax burden on middle income families, consequently freeing up their disposable income and instead focusing on the super rich. Does Labour disagree with this?

4. I would cut the reduced 13.5pc rate of VAT to just 10pc between now and the end of 2010. This would stimulate labour-intensive services like construction, help the tourism industry through the downturn, and give a huge incentive for first time buyers to bring forward purchases of new houses, helping to resolve crises in banking and the public finances.

Does he have any qualitative or quantitative evidence to suggest this would work and has he costed it.

Without getting into GL's brain, I'd imagine he sees the initial drop in VAT in encouraging economic growth and consumer spending and thereafter by spiralling the decrease in VAT per unit time he can coax consumer spending upwards over a number of years, getting Ireland back to economic recovery. Do you seriously have a problem with this??

5. I would freeze local authority rates for at least five years.

Why? Does he have a reason for this or does it just sound good.

Are you kidding? Do you not understand how freezing rates is a pro-enterprise move designed to help SMEs in particular? I can't believe anyone with an interest in the economy would ask "why" to this question.

7.

I would exempt employers who take on additional staff from additional employer PRSI obligations until the end of 2010.

Costings please.

Personally I am not going to try come up with some grand calculation in response to those two words. If you want to tell us that this is impractical and show us why not, then go ahead.

8. I would make sure that taxpayer support for banks is used only to support new lending to small businesses and families, not to nurse along dodgy property related debts to Fianna Fail's developer friends. The banks, the professional investors who funded them and developers should between themselves take care of the mess they have created. They made the big profits in the good years. They should now eat the losses.

Ok this statement is just populism plain and simple playing on the electorates hostility to the bankers and FF despite the fact his parties policies are largely identical to FF.

Are you opposed to giving lending priority to SMEs and families? Decrying everything as populism when it makes full sense is starting to become a trademark of yours on this thread and you're not actually backing up your opposition with anything substantial. That has in fact been characteristic of the Labour party so far this year and clearly it has dripped down to grassroots level.

Does he have any other policies.

Yes. Perhaps if you are interested in finding what policies your Labour TDs will probably be voting for after the next general election, you should visit the Fine Gael website here

truebluedub

8. I would make sure that taxpayer support for banks is used only to support new lending to small businesses and families, not to nurse along dodgy property related debts to Fianna Fail's developer friends. The banks, the professional investors who funded them and developers should between themselves take care of the mess they have created. They made the big profits in the good years. They should now eat the losses.

I'll break it down into little pieces:

I would make sure that taxpayer support for banks is used only to support new lending to small businesses and families

[Tells us who this statement is aimed at, and fine as far as it goes but lets see how he expands on this with an analysis of how this will rebuild the economy]

not to nurse along dodgy property related debts to Fianna Fail's developer friends.

[boo evil Fianna Fáil public enemy no.1 , rhethoric]

The banks, the professional investors who funded them and developers should between themselves take care of the mess they have created.

[when FG says this it sounds like rhethoric, evil bankers public enemy no.2]

They made the big profits in the good years. They should now eat the losses.

[rhetoric, lets see FG implement this]

truebluedub

If someone doesn't want to be taxed they use a loophole like u2 or others.

Having looked into it he did have another policy reducing senators but hang on FG said no.

InFront

You're still not giving your oppsosition to the idea. All you are doing is breaking it down into little parts and calling each part "rhetoric" which is no better than what you were previously doing in trying to tag everything as "populism" or denigrate George Lee's reputation as an economist. Again, this is typically Labour.

You're not coming up with any possible alternative solution or showing any substance to your opposition. Calling Fine Gael ideas rhetoric or populism is not opposition, it is just very frustrating and meaningless!

truebluedub

InFront wrote: »

You're still not giving your oppsosition to the idea. All you are doing is breaking it down into little parts and calling each part "rhetoric" which is no better than what you were previously doing in trying to tag everything as "populism" or denigrate George Lee's reputation as an economist. Again, this is typically Labour.

You're not coming up with any possible alternative solution or showing any substance to your opposition. Calling Fine Gael ideas rhetoric or populism is not opposition, it is just very frustrating and meaningless!

I'm not the one running for political office and putting out 519 word long newspaper articles which amount to manifestos. Or putting words in a candidates mouth to make it look like he has real policies. And supplying qualitative evidence is perfectly acceptable when using newspaper reports.

And to return the favour from earlier here's what your likely allies in the next coalition want http://www.labour.ie/policy/

Care to respond to why we should vote for someone with zero political experience over someone with 5 years experience in local and national politics at the county council, as deputy mayor, at committee level and as a senator.

*Tripper*

InFront

truebluedub wrote: »

Care to respond to why we should vote for someone with zero political experience over someone with 5 years experience in local and national politics at the county council, as deputy mayor, at committee level and as a senator.

So you're advocating a system whereby we just vote back into power those with political experience?

Fair enough, lets all vote for whoever is in office in our local constituency so, forget all new candidates:rolleyes:

Personally trubludub, this is my reason. I think we both know that Fine Gael and Labour are going to be in power next. As a voter in the constituency in question, I have to decide whether I want Alex White or George Lee representing me and forming part of the cabinet. For his economic expertees alone, and the fact that I like his integrity, I'm voting for George Lee. I'm not even sure that Alex White could make it anywhere near the cabinet table.

Rebelheart

I was thinking George Lee would be a great man to have making economic decisions, and I expect he will cruise to victory. I feel sorry for Alex White who has been working, by all accounts, very hard on the ground for a long time.

But today I discovered that one Brian Hayes is the campaign manager for George Lee. There has been no more obnoxious, arrogant, sanctimonious and conceited person in Dáil Éireann in the past 15 years than that utterly smug Brutonite. Just reading his support (in The Irish Times a couple of months ago) for the state taking €100 million per annum out of the public school system in order to fund private secondary schools turned my stomach. His views on the North are up there with his patron, John Bruton.

It galls me that of all people that wretch might get credit for a result which is a foregone conclusion. He personifies all that is worst about Fine Gael.

I'd even be happy to see the Blueshirts in power as long as that snivelling lickspittel of a guttersniping little seoinín is nowhere near the doors of power.

serfboard

Rebelheart wrote: »

I was thinking George Lee would be a great man to have making economic decisions, and I expect he will cruise to victory. I feel sorry for Alex White who has been working, by all accounts, very hard on the ground for a long time.

I wouldn't feel so sorry for Alex White if I was you - I was listening to The Late Debate last night and he pretty much wiped the floor with George Lee - and the rest of them.

Now, whether that translates into votes or not is another matter ...

truebluedub

Anyone spot George Lee and several other FGs standing around waving at traffic earlier. Looking as inspiring as those gormless twats surrounding RTE's journalist David Davin-Power at the FF Ard-dheis.