2007-public-private pay gap was 48%!

murf313

tell me this jimmmy, did you take a paycut yet?

jimmmy

murf313 wrote: »

tell me this jimmmy, did you take a paycut yet?

I am earning a lot less than years ago....so are many of those I know who are not in the public sector.

murf313

jimmmy wrote: »

I am earning a lot less than years ago....so are many of those I know who are not in the public sector.

im earning less than i did years ago when i worked as a plumber, but you dont hear me whinging about it.....

i presume that means you didnt take a recent paycut. yet everyone of your posts is aimed at having ordinary joes taking a significant cut in their pay after already taking one.

i do not know one person in the private sector that has taken a pay cut yet.... actually someone i know who works in a bank actually got a rise earlier in the year.

every thing has been blown way out proportion by the media and is made worse by the likes of you preaching religiously that the public sector are lazy money sucking monsters that all get paid about a grand a week!

ardmacha

I am earning a lot less than years ago

Are you earning less because your services are less in demand, or are you offering your services at a lower rate per hour?

ParkRunner

jimmmy wrote: »

I am earning a lot less than years ago....so are many of those I know who are not in the public sector.

4.6 posts per day complaining about the public sector would have that effect alright

AARRRGH

murf313 wrote: »

i do not know one person in the private sector that has taken a pay cut yet...

I know loads of people in the private sector who have taken pay cuts. Including me.

A lot of businesses will have been delaying cutting pay for as long as possible, but the time has come where they can't wait any more. Expect to see a lot more pay cuts and redundancies over the next few months.

97i9y3941

Independent.ie
Gardai hire legal heavyweight for cuts battle

By JIM CUSACK
Sunday September 27 2009

Rank and file gardai are going to court to challenge the public service pension levy.

The former Attorney General John Rogers SC has been retained to challenge the Government in the High Court next month on behalf of the Garda Representative Association (GRA).

The GRA confirmed yesterday that the case is to start on October 16 but had nothing further to say. It is understood the association wrote to Finance Minister Brian Lenihan last month in respect of the exemption clause in the legislation, seeking to have the GRA's 12,000 members excluded from the 10 per cent pay cut.

Mr Lenihan refused the request and the GRA leadership consulted its lawyers and has now retained a legal team to begin proceedings.

If the case were to succeed it could have major implications, not only for the entire force of 14,500 gardai, but across the public sector.

The GRA itself is taking part in a series of meetings of workers in the emergency services, known tentatively as the "24-7 Alliance" with meetings scheduled next month for Sligo, Kilkenny, Cork and Dublin.

Representatives of the ambulance services, fire brigades and nurses, with members of other trade unions involved in emergency services, are expected to take part in rallies calling for the repeal of the salary and pension cuts.

GRA sources told the Sunday Independent that the cuts have severely affected many gardai, particularly young members who have taken on large mortgages in the belief that they would not encounter pay cuts in the public sector.

One GRA source pointed out that gardai face an additional problem in relation to indebtedness, as the Garda Siochana Regulations contain a provision -- unique in the public sector -- that gardai cannot be undischarged debtors and could face disciplinary measures, up to and including dismissal from the force.

It was not clear last week what grounds the legal action against the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill will take.

But it is believed it will centre on Section 8 of the act, which provides the minister with the power to exempt certain groups.

The press release accompanying the act said the minister has the power to exempt "from the deductions or modify the extent of the deduction if he is satisfied they are materially distinguished by some particular aspect of their employment terms from others subject to the deduction".

irish_bob

Fred83 wrote: »

Independent.ie
Gardai hire legal heavyweight for cuts battle

By JIM CUSACK
Sunday September 27 2009

Rank and file gardai are going to court to challenge the public service pension levy.

The former Attorney General John Rogers SC has been retained to challenge the Government in the High Court next month on behalf of the Garda Representative Association (GRA).

The GRA confirmed yesterday that the case is to start on October 16 but had nothing further to say. It is understood the association wrote to Finance Minister Brian Lenihan last month in respect of the exemption clause in the legislation, seeking to have the GRA's 12,000 members excluded from the 10 per cent pay cut.

Mr Lenihan refused the request and the GRA leadership consulted its lawyers and has now retained a legal team to begin proceedings.

If the case were to succeed it could have major implications, not only for the entire force of 14,500 gardai, but across the public sector.

The GRA itself is taking part in a series of meetings of workers in the emergency services, known tentatively as the "24-7 Alliance" with meetings scheduled next month for Sligo, Kilkenny, Cork and Dublin.

Representatives of the ambulance services, fire brigades and nurses, with members of other trade unions involved in emergency services, are expected to take part in rallies calling for the repeal of the salary and pension cuts.

GRA sources told the Sunday Independent that the cuts have severely affected many gardai, particularly young members who have taken on large mortgages in the belief that they would not encounter pay cuts in the public sector.

One GRA source pointed out that gardai face an additional problem in relation to indebtedness, as the Garda Siochana Regulations contain a provision -- unique in the public sector -- that gardai cannot be undischarged debtors and could face disciplinary measures, up to and including dismissal from the force.

It was not clear last week what grounds the legal action against the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill will take.

But it is believed it will centre on Section 8 of the act, which provides the minister with the power to exempt certain groups.

The press release accompanying the act said the minister has the power to exempt "from the deductions or modify the extent of the deduction if he is satisfied they are materially distinguished by some particular aspect of their employment terms from others subject to the deduction".

i seriously doubt they will get much support from the public , they are over paid as it is

murf313

irish_bob wrote: »

i seriously doubt they will get much support from the public , they are over paid as it is

yeah but according to you every one in the public sector is "overpaid"

they will get my support......

AARRRGH

murf313 wrote: »

they will get my support......

How long do you and many other public sector workers plan on living in cuckoo land?

Have you been keeping up with current affairs at all over the past few years?

From the sounds of it you haven't, so this may be a shock to you: what happened in Ireland over the past 10 years was credit fuelled insanity. It was not realistic and cannot continue.

This means everything is going to have to reduce in price. From houses (we're still in the middle of a property bubble - our houses are not anywhere near realistic prices) to wages (especially the extremely overpaid public sector works) to the price of a cup of coffee.

I understand many public sector workers believe they deserve some sort of sex in the city lifestyle and as a result are carrying a lot of debt, but unfortunately the country cannot afford to continue paying for their delusion and everyone is going to have to return to reality.

By all means continue to demand your crazy wages, but one way or another - either through mass redundancies or the IMF taking over the country - you are not going to get your way.

If I were you, I'd face up to reality. The country can no longer afford the majority of its public sector workers. The choice will soon be take a pay cut or lose your job. There is no other option.

NewDubliner

AARRRGH wrote: »

This means everything is going to have to reduce in price.

Will the private sector reduce the amount that people must pay for houses bought during the boom? Will the private sector refuse to accept massive government bailouts of its banks and will it refuse to cooperate with government measures (NAMA) to maintain property prices at artificially high levels?

optocynic

NewDubliner wrote: »

Will the private sector reduce the amount that people must pay for houses bought during the boom? Will the private sector refuse to accept massive government bailouts of its banks and will it refuse to cooperate with government measures (NAMA) to maintain property prices at artificially high levels?

You still think the private sector is only bankers! Get the blinkers off buddy. I would not support the finance sector at all. A bonus driven mess, playing roulette with other peoples money.

But what about the 99% of the private sector. Technology, manufacturing, service etc.

You just seem to want to moan about the drop in your house equity! And expect the government to bail YOU out. I am in 0 - negative equity, but that is MY fault for buying the house when I did. I don't expect a handout for bad timing!

Where do you think this mortgage bail out for you would come from... who would pay for it?

AARRRGH

NewDubliner wrote: »

Will the private sector reduce the amount that people must pay for houses bought during the boom? Will the private sector refuse to accept massive government bailouts of its banks and will it refuse to cooperate with government measures (NAMA) to maintain property prices at artificially high levels?

I don't think you understand what's going on. I'll break it down for you:

1. The government pays public service wages out of tax income.
2. Tax income has massively decreased.
3. The government can no longer afford to put public service wages.

If the above were a private company, it would mean massive redundancies or massive paycuts. The same will have to happen in the public service. There is no other option.

The private sector have nothing to do with this issue, but as it's somewhat relevant, the private sector are making redundancies and paycuts.

Stop thinking emotionally and start thinking logically. Seriously, you are not making any sense.

dodgyme

amacca wrote: »

No he is just deliberately trying to provoke outrage, probably by quoting "average" figures.

Oh ya that old cunning trick of sticking to the facts:rolleyes:

I cant believe when people in the PS try to say that average figures are a distortion. What you supppose people do? Ignore the average figures like ignore the elephant in the room. If people in the PS have a problem with average figures being quoted perhaps they should concentrate on getting that average figure down (by lobbying their unions) rather then berating those who highlight it. The money being taken out need to be taken down, simple!

MrMicra

NewDubliner wrote: »

Will the private sector reduce the amount that people must pay for houses bought during the boom? Will the private sector refuse to accept massive government bailouts of its banks and will it refuse to cooperate with government measures (NAMA) to maintain property prices at artificially high levels?

It is my understanding the messrs Ahern, Lenihan and Cowen are public servants. The misallocation of the national wealth is something for which every class of person must bear some responsibility (though not every person). The simple reality is that current expenditure on the public services is predicated on revenue which no longer exists.

NewDubliner

MrMicra wrote: »

The simple reality is that current expenditure on the public services is predicated on revenue which no longer exists.

Realities are rarely simple. How can we afford NAMA and not afford to pay people providing public services?

Dannyboy83

NewDubliner wrote: »

The simple reality is that current expenditure on the public services is predicated on revenue which no longer exists.

Realities are rarely simple. How can we afford NAMA and not afford to pay people providing public services?

But that is the simple reality.
C'mon lads, be logical about this, This constant denial by the PS is fairly mind boggling stuff.

There is 500 in the bank
The PS wages are 700.
That leaves a defecit of 200.
That gap needs to be closed.

What is the alternate reality?
What is the alternate solution?
Are you suggesting that Fianna Fail have 50billion stashed under their matress?
This government have never had the foresight to anything like this.

Don't forget, when PS wages are finally brought into line, prices will also begin to fall.

I sympathise that its very hard to accept you have to take a pay cut when the politicans and judges and the rest are milking it beyond belief, but perhaps thats an issue that the public sector unions can tackle.

That is the only legitimate leg they have to stand on.

PS pay reductions are coming - there are no if or buts.
But, the PS unions should demand that if they have to take a pay cut, so should other members or employees of government.

Perhaps the unions would be able to do somthing beneficial for this country for the first time in their life.

If I was in a public sector union, I would demand that politicians et al take their fair share of the pain when my wage reductions came too.

amacca

dodgyme wrote: »

Oh ya that old cunning trick of sticking to the facts:rolleyes:

I cant believe when people in the PS try to say that average figures are a distortion. What you supppose people do? Ignore the average figures like ignore the elephant in the room.

Taken a little out of context mon ami....In the first instance, I was only trying to keep Jimmmy on the straight and narrow. Subsequent to this he was being fairly nasty to a poster who asked him if he was trying to insinuate that all public sector workers earn €966 per week even though Jimmy had neglected to include the crucial word average in his original post.


Now, to address your post as best as I can.


I cant believe how people with any mathematical knowledge whatsoever cant see that an average can hide a multitude of blemishes. I believe that the problem with an average is simply that it does not differentiate sufficiently to make an informed decision about quite a lot of issues.

Lets take an un pay-related example to illustrate my point:


In general most good doctors will analyze the results of clinical trials on a particular medicine to see if it will suit the patient before he or she prescribes it.

Now they could take the average result from such trials and say that, oh 90% of patients recover/ have a good quality of life using this medicine so I will just blanket prescribe it, however using an average in this fashion would result in say the 72 year old diabetic patient with a ragged pulse having a 30% mortality risk over and above say the 50 year old patient with no previous complications. Wouldnt you like your doctor to go beyond the average a bit or do you believe the average is the be all end all of decision making? I often wonder if people just use averages because the alternative is just too much work?


In any event...You do have a point, if the average is very high and out of kilter with the private sector average then it does point to a pay imbalance. However my post never once said that the average should be ignored, im simply of the belief that of itself it is not a basis to go cutting all public sector wages by x percentage.........would you agree?

It would appear to me that many posters on the extreme slash and burn the public sector/smash the unions side of things do think that if on average the public sector is overpaid by 25% then they should all take a 25% paycut (rather moronic and simplistic thinking in my book but then again maybe its as good if not better than rampant sustained corruption...who knows)

My post also pointed out that all public sector wages are included in this average (included the grossly overinflated top level wages) whereas not all the private sector wages are included in the private sector figure (they exclude the top level grossly overinflated wages) I was just pointing this out. There are good reasons for this but if posters are going to persist in using averages (because they couldnt be bothered putting more effort into it and it wouldnt quite satisfy the bile rising in the back of their throats at the very mention of public sector) then why shouldnt they be reminded of this discrepancy?

Im also of the opinion that while the public sector is very well treated many private setor workers are very shabbily treated and they should be as much up in arms about this as the conditions offered to the public sector. One of the reasons many private sector workers pay and conditions are so poor is because a larger slice of the pie (larger than is fair or sustainable imo) is going to upper management etc (not middle management mind) and they dont have a group to represent them. The unions are not all bad although they do seem to have lost their way.

As for my view on it, I think that if there are to be cuts in public sector wages and there appears to be a case for it, then a proportionally bigger cut should be taken from the higher earners (anyone earning above 200k should be able to afford a 20% cut whereas the lower earners 30k should only have to shoulder 5% ----just an example of the relative proportions I was thinking of--I have not thought about viability, implications of such a cut etc, just trying to illustrate the relative proportions of cuts I would go for without the research etc, 160k per annum should be more than enough for any earner)

I also think that before these cuts should happen or as part of an agreement to allow it happen, our taxation system should be overhauled. There are axceptionally rich people out there not paying their fair share at all. If you applied an average to them......lets say the average of their income that goes in tax versus a normal PAYE worker you would see very interesting elephant in the room also.

asdasd

private sector reduce the amount that people must pay for houses bought during the boom? Will the private sector refuse to accept massive government bailouts of its banks and will it refuse to cooperate with government measures (NAMA) to maintain property prices at artificially high levels?

You do realise that the private sector is not just bankers, dont you?

In any case a "bailout" of the banks - which I disagree with - is a bailout by the private sector working classes of banks. The money comes entirely from the private sector. No revenue is gained at all from the public sector - the "tax" on public sector incomes is merely the government not paying you the gross ( as opposed to garnishing the taxes from teh private sector). Economics 101.

Not anything to do with you. After we have bailed out the banks we have less money to pay you.

jimmmy

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But that is the simple reality.
C'mon lads, be logical about this, This constant denial by the PS is fairly mind boggling stuff.

There is 500 in the bank
The PS wages are 700.
That leaves a defecit of 200.
That gap needs to be closed.

What is the alternate reality?
What is the alternate solution?
Are you suggesting that Fianna Fail have 50billion stashed under their matress?
This government have never had the foresight to anything like this..

Good post. There is a 20 billion plus deficit in public finances ...public service unions and their followers are brainwashed if they think we can continue to have the highest paid public service in the known world.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I sympathise that its very hard to accept you have to take a pay cut when the politicans and judges and the rest are milking it beyond belief, but perhaps thats an issue that the public sector unions can tackle.

That is the only legitimate leg they have to stand on.

PS pay reductions are coming - there are no if or buts.
But, the PS unions should demand that if they have to take a pay cut, so should other members or employees of government..

yes...why are they not doing this ?

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If I was in a public sector union, I would demand that politicians et al take their fair share of the pain when my wage reductions came too.

yes, so would I, but I would be embarassed to be a member of a public service union given the damage they are doing to the country / other people. The govt has to cut government spending. Our little country cannot afford to continue to borrow heavily to pander to the relatively highly paid public sector. ( average € 966 p.w. : source C.S.O. ). Our kids + grandkids have to pay back the borrowings as it is. As Eddie Hobbs said last night, because of the public sector, the unemployed are now going to get it "in the neck" in Decembers budget.

Riskymove

some points

1.

The welfare bill is higher than the public sector pay bill, niether can avoid attempts at a reduction

welfare is as in need of attention as the public pay bill but it should be a detailed approach not a simple across the board cut

2.

the current public sector pay bill is being reduced through the introduction of the pension levy, the income levies, health levies etc, the national pay deal was forgone (6%), etc

in addition some high-paid public servants voluntarily took a further pay-cut; a further report on high-level pay is due soon and is likely to include further reductions

the budget is likely to see a further increase in the pension levy ( I have heard up top 10%, perhaps over a year or two)

people retiring are not being replaced, 17,000 posts earmarked to be phased out etc

all these actions will result in a decrease in the public sector pay bill

optocynic

Riskymove wrote: »

some points

1.

The welfare bill is higher than the public sector pay bill, niether can avoid attempts at a reduction

welfare is as in need of attention as the public pay bill but it should be a detailed approach not a simple across the board cut

2.

the current public sector pay bill is being reduced through the introduction of the pension levy, the income levies, health levies etc, the national pay deal was forgone (6%), etc

in addition some high-paid public servants voluntarily took a further pay-cut; a further report on high-level pay is due soon and is likely to include further reductions

the budget is likely to see a further increase in the pension levy ( I have heard up top 10%, perhaps over a year or two)

people retiring are not being replaced, 17,000 posts earmarked to be phased out etc

all these actions will result in a decrease in the public sector pay bill

How much of a decrease are we estimating from these reductions etc.??

97i9y3941

SIPTU serves 3.5% pay claim on HSE
Tuesday, 29 September 2009 15:02
SIPTU has served a 3.5 % pay claim on the Health Service Executive on behalf of 34,000 health workers.

Paul Bell of SIPTU said the increase was the first tranche of the 6% increase agreed by the Social Partners last September.

He said that a moratorium on public sector pay increases had expired and that the money was now due to his members.
Advertisement

The grades affected range from porters and catering staff to radiographers and nurses.

The move will increase pressure on the Government, which is currently exploring ways to cut the €20bn public sector pay bill.

There has been speculation that the Government may be considering an across-the-board pay cut for State employees, over and above the pension levy that was introduced earlier this year.

The public service is already subject to a pay freeze as well as a recruitment embargo. Incentivised career break and early retirement schemes have also been introduced to try to reduce numbers on the State payroll.

Earlier Tánaiste Mary Coughlan said unions should sit around the negotiating table, rather than engage in strike action.

Responding to last night's turnout of over 1,000 people at the first meeting of a new alliance to fight pay cuts, Mary Coughlan said the McCarthy report was only part of the discussions and preparations for the Budget.

Speaking in Dublin, Ms Coughlan said no-one wanted to see a reduction in frontline services, but she said savings still needed to be found.

'We do have to find our savings and that is on-going,' she said.

Ms Coughlan acknowledged that there was a considerable amount of concern from those in frontline services 'who don't want to see a diminution of those services'.

'None of us want to see that happen,' the Tánaiste added.



Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0929/partnership.html

dodgyme

amacca wrote: »

Lets take an un pay-related example to illustrate my point:.

Now I know why pay talks take so long in the PS

amacca wrote: »

if on average the public sector is overpaid by 25% then they should all take a 25% paycut.

Most of the Public believe that if the PS is overpaid by an average of 25% then the figure should be reduced by that amount by whatever means is necessary so as the PS is not overpaid by 'an average' of 25%. Again an issue for the PS and their unions. Is That not why you have unions??

I honestly think that people in the PS want to cloud the issue so much that they hope by the time it comes to the chopping board, the building will have burnt down. Elephant and room come to mind

jimmmy

dodgyme wrote: »

I honestly think that people in the PS want to cloud the issue so much that they hope by the time it comes to the chopping board, the building will have burnt down.

Excellent point. In 20 / 30 years time our kids ( as they struggle to pay back the interest on the money our govt is blowing on itself + their employees now ) will be asking their parents + grandparents why did the ordinary decent taxpayers let it all happen.

ixoy

What is SIPTU's motivation for this pay demand from the HSE? They know they won't get it (probably lucky not to get -3.5%). I can only assume they're doing this in the hope of trying to meet the government in the middle somewhere, despite the fact that the government just cannot afford even a 0% "increase", nevermind 3.5%.

amacca

dodgyme wrote: »

Now I know why pay talks take so long in the PS

Ah yes very good, now I see why your username contains a reference to the word dodge. I think you know why I used that example.... it was a simple illustration of the pitfalls of basing decisions solely on averages. But if were going to start point scoring...........anyway

I subsequently addressed part of the issue relating to the use of averages alone to compare wage levels I have and so addressed the problem directly. If anyone is starting to ignore things and deal selectively with ....oh never mind, pot kettle black comes to mind with a big pink elephant standing on it in the corner of this particular room.

dodgyme wrote: »

Most of the Public believe that if the PS is overpaid by an average of 25% then the figure should be reduced by that amount by whatever means is necessary so as the PS is not overpaid by 'an average' of 25%. Again an issue for the PS and their unions. Is That not why you have unions??

I honestly think that people in the PS want to cloud the issue so much that they hope by the time it comes to the chopping board, the building will have burnt down. Elephant and room come to mind

Would have to clarify some things and disagree with you on some things in the above section of your post I'm afraid.

1) Are you saying that if the public sector is overpaid by 25% then every single public servant should take a 25% hit regardless of their level of pay, how highly skilled/undesirable the work is, the level of benchmarking increases they got...................are you arguing for no differentiation whatsoever because if you actually take the time to read my post you will see that this is my main issue with averages which you failed to reply to or address or probably even bother to read......

If you are arguing that every single public sector worker should get cut by 25% then I think you are wrong and your view is so simplistic its laughable... If you are not then what are you arguing?

2) when you say by whatever means is necessary I presume legally and with due process or do you have your pitchfork at the ready..................... if the latter then I do have an issue with this. Im not actually still a public sector worker but I do take a dim view of bullying and lynch mob mentalities in general so I would be inclined to reject any argument whatsoever such a personality would come up with.

3) Are you really naieve enough to think that the function of any union is to ensure that their members are not paid too much?

perhaps in an ideal world this is the way things should work and there would be an ideal balance (the dark side of the force would be in perfect balance, the yin and the yang blah blah blah) but basically what happens with nearly all representative organisations is they try to get as much as possible for their members, its in their own best interests (short term interests at least) to do this. Its what their members demand of them etc.

If you paid a subscription to a union would you be expecting it to be advocating a reduction in wages or would you want it to fight to improve your pay and conditions as much as possible? hint: if you think its the first one, then perhaps you should reconsider your answer or perhaps you are a wonderful selfless human being with more in common with mahatma gandhi and mother teresa than most of the rest of the human race.

dodgyme

amacca wrote: »

1) Are you saying that if the public sector is overpaid by 25% then every single public servant should take a 25% .

Again yes again..I think if the PS is overpaid by an average of 25% then the figure should be reduced by that amount by whatever means is necessary so as the PS is not overpaid by 'an average' of 25%.
And as for

amacca wrote: »

the level of benchmarking increases they got

They now should take the level of benchmarked decreases they should get.

amacca wrote: »

when you say by whatever means is necessary I presume legally and with due process or do you have your pitchfork at the ready..................... if the latter then I do have an issue with this.

Make up an argument you can win technique :rolleyes: although

amacca wrote: »

pitchfork .

dont tempt me.!! Its probably the first thing that comes to mind as the PS try to defend their bloated benchmarked increases by " whatever means is necessary"

amacca wrote: »

I do take a dim view of bullying and lynch mob mentalities in general so I would be inclined to reject any argument whatsoever such a personality would come up with..

more waffle.. come on now stick to the point.

amacca wrote: »

Are you really naieve enough to think that the function of any union is to ensure that their members are not paid too much?..

Let me turn that one on its head and ask are you saying it is the function of the union now not to accept benchmarking which they have signed up for. It is supposed to work both ways mate.

amacca wrote: »

its in their own best interests (short term interests at least) to do this. Its what their members demand of them etc. .....If you paid a subscription to a union would you be expecting it to be advocating a reduction in wages

Lots of people in this economy have taken massive pay reductions where they are paying agencies and agents to represent them often a large % of their earning. Why should they rest of society suffer for the PS's short term interests??

amacca wrote: »

perhaps you are a wonderful selfless human being with more in common with mahatma gandhi and mother teresa than most of the rest of the human race.

no I just live in the real world. Its nothing to do with being selfless and more to do with a bit of cop on. The PS and the unions just wont face the issues!

NewDubliner

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But that is the simple reality.
C'mon lads, be logical about this, This constant denial by the PS is fairly mind boggling stuff.

The constant ignoring of the great NAMA swindle is very interesting.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

The constant ignoring of the great NAMA swindle is very interesting.

If the government and others in receipt of the government cheques eg the central bank and financial regulator had done their job properly, there would be no need for Nama. Besides, as Colm McCarthy said on Frontline the other evening, the p.s. pay debate has nothing to do with Nama ; the deficit exists before a cent is paid to Nama, and would exist even if Nama did not.