John O'Donoghue and his travel spending spree

optocynic

Deleted User wrote: »

Any sign of him at Croke Park yesterday or is he keeping a low profile outside Kerry?

Conor, do you think he will run again?
.. and if so, do you think he will get a seat?

optocynic

optocynic wrote: »

Conor, do you think he will run again?
.. and if so, do you think he will get a seat?

I presume he'll be taking his seat as the CC and not facing the electorate. If he had to run at some future election, there is a huge amount of antipathy, think a lot of people are really appalled by his level of living it up. A lot of his supporters would be the 'small farmer' type who must be fairly disgusted by his excess. I know he'd lose a lot of votes where I am, in recent elections know FG and Labour supporters who gave him no. 1 because they have seen what having a Minister has done to the constituency. But now everyone knows what he was getting himself, that's all gone.

optocynic

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume he'll be taking his seat as the CC and not facing the electorate. If he had to run at some future election, there is a huge amount of antipathy, think a lot of people are really appalled by his level of living it up. A lot of his supporters would be the 'small farmer' type who must be fairly disgusted by his excess. I know he'd lose a lot of votes where I am, in recent elections know FG and Labour supporters who gave him no. 1 because they have seen what having a Minister has done to the constituency. But now everyone knows what he was getting himself, that's all gone.

Well, that is a bit comforting.
I would rather people were appaled at the lack of integrity he has shown. Followed by the lack of respect he has shown us too.

But, to turn against him simply because he was living it up is kinda missing the point!

donkey balls

murphaph wrote: »

I would be interested to know Joe Higgin's expenses before he lost his seat. I wonder would he have been in a (moral) position to question all this or was he just as bad?

this is the reply i got from joe higgens assistant

Hi Dave,

I work as an assistant to Joe and he asked me to respond to your query. Unfortunately, he's under a lot of pressure for time with the Lisbon Treaty campaign so I hope that I can be of some assistance.

The position of Joe, the Socialist Party and any of our public representatives and trade union representatives is that it's impossible to genuinely represent the people who elect you, unless you live under the same finanical and social conditions that they live under. All our public representatives are mandated by the National Conference of the Socialist Party (the highest body of the organisation), to take home no more than the Average Industrial Wage. This is a prerequisite for their selection as public representatives. In that way, they cannot have living standards vastly removed from the people they represent, which is the current situation with the vast majority of trade union leaders and TDs. Any wages above the AIW are donated back to workers' organisations, community campaigns and trade union struggles. In some cases, our public reps are actually on lower wages than the AIW, depending on their personal circumstances.

As for expenses, we are absolutely opposed to the current system of unvouched expenses and the exorbitant expenses that are claimed by TDs, Ministers, trade union leaders etc. There are obviously legitimate expenses that are incurred by the very nature of being a representative; phone costs, postage, some travel & accommodation expenses etc. but public representatives should be forced to vouch and prove that such expenses are legitimate.

Our position on funding and expenses also applies to the Socialist Party itself. We're entirely self-funded through donations from our supporters and membership subscriptions as well as the sale of our publications. Our simple logic behind this is that "he who pays the piper, calls the tune". We refuse to accept donations from any commerical or private interests because we believe that would make us not just financially dependent but politically dependent on groups who represent conflicting policies to our own. The only way to remain independent and representative of working people is to remain financially independent.

It's no surprise that the Opposition is not calling for heads to roll over this scandal because they're absolutely no different to the Government on this matter as Leo Varadkar's expenses show. There's definitely comparisons between the MP scandals in Britain and here where the Opposition were completely unwilling to take advantage of the abuse of taxpayers' money because they didn't want their own finances focused on. I had a quick browse through that thread on Boards.ie and it's interesting to see some people actually trying to defend it. I'm pretty sure that I had a discussion with someone Fíanna Fáil members on the same issue on that website a few years back. It was like bouncing your head off the wall trying to discuss it. I did notice an interesting comment on the first page which tried to put the blame on the Civil Servants who make O'Donoghue's travel arrangements. I'm pretty sure that Civil Servants or no Civil Servants, you'd know whether you were staying in a €50 per night or a €1,000 per night hotel, even if you didn't book your own accommodation!

Thanks for your email anyway Dave and it's good to hear that you're voting No again! If you have any queries or issues on anything, feel free to email me back or you can give us a ring in the office at 01-6719036.

Regards,
Stephen

walshb

With all this talk of John on boards, me thinks John will investigate the possibility of getting boards shut down. I bet it would pass in a Dail vote too.

donkey balls

i would not be surprised walshb if the f**kers in tha dail did try and close boards down

bonzos

the worrying thing is .if he manages to weather this storm we are going to be looking at the smug git living it up for another 5 years at our expense

Biggins

bonzos wrote: »

the worrying thing is .if he manages to weather this storm we are going to be looking at the smug git living it up for another 5 years at our expense

No major change there then.
We have had 165 other smug faces staring up at us in the public gallery for yonks!

donkey balls

donkey balls wrote: »

i would not be surprised walshb if the f**kers in tha dail did try and close boards down

I doubt it. This isn't exactly Solzhenitsyn railing against the evils of Communism stuff. I think we'll avoid the Gulags...

ismynametoolong

Nobody in Irish Politics resigns or it would appear gets pushed so I have no doubt we will be looking at the Bull for some time to come.Were just too soft a nation I really dont think it would be tolerated in any other democracy.

Liam Byrne

ismynametoolong wrote: »

.....I have no doubt we will be looking at the Bull for some time to come......

...and the associated Bullsh1t.....

murphaph

Everyone knows where he works. If people were really bothered about it they'd march. I conclude therefore that people aren't that bothered by it on the whole. I'm fcuking raging personally but ho-hum-the irish get what the irish deserve.

Sizzler

Sizzler wrote: »

Slightly OT for a moment but how many people on here have actually written to their TD to ask them to comment on their expenses as published here -

http://www.unitedpeople.ie/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.unitedpeople.ie/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/IMG_0007.jpg&target=tlx_piclwkl

My two local TD's managed to rack up €184k between them despite only living a few miles from their place of work :rolleyes:

One of them only got elected in the last election! I doubt if I will even get a reply but we'll see how we get on.

murphaph wrote: »

<raises hand>

Anyone else?

Deleted User wrote: »

As my TDs are John himself, Healy Rae and Tom Sheehan FG, it's a waste of a stamp

I have got a reply from one of the TD's but hes struggling to explain all of the expenses. The other chap has yet to reply, obviously way too busy.

Interesting to note though, a few things -

All TD's were getting €61.50 a day just for turning up in he dáil. Its recently been dropped to €50, where else would you get a job that rewards you for attending?

They get €6k a year to cover their phone.

They get just shy of €9k a year towards their constituency office.

TD's who were on the various committess such as the PAC / Transport etc. were getting €10K a year for that extra burden, its since been withdrawn by Lenihan in recent months.

It would seem that being a TD is more about what your country will do for you, not what you will do for your country :rolleyes:

Riskymove

Sizzler wrote: »

All TD's were getting €61.50 a day just for turning up in he dáil. Its recently been dropped to €50, where else would you get a job that rewards you for attending?

They get €6k a year to cover their phone.

They get just shy of €9k a year towards their constituency office.

TD's who were on the various committess such as the PAC / Transport etc. were getting €10K a year for that extra burden, its since been withdrawn by Lenihan in recent months.

It would seem that being a TD is more about what your country will do for you, not what you will do for your country :rolleyes:

without (hopefully) just being accused of defending them


can I ask what you would suggest with regard to these allowances you mention? particularly the phone and constituency office allowance?

if you want TDs to represent the people, would you not expect them to have (a) an office, some staff etc and (b) make calls, write etc on their behalf?

(or perhaps you dont think they should be doing that sort of thing, which is a valid point too)

the system allows a TD these allowances in order that they can do these things

as for the attendance and committee allowances - I certainly agree they should be done away with

Seth Brundle

Riskymove wrote: »

without (hopefully) just being accused of defending them


can I ask what you would suggest with regard to these allowances you mention? particularly the phone and constituency office allowance?

if you want TDs to represent the people, would you not expect them to have (a) an office, some staff etc and (b) make calls, write etc on their behalf?

(or perhaps you dont think they should be doing that sort of thing, which is a valid point too)

the system allows a TD these allowances in order that they can do these things

as for the attendance and committee allowances - I certainly agree they should be done away with

Is an office in the Oireachtas not enough? Do you mean that they should be provided with an extra office to help them deal with local topics?

Seth Brundle

I suppose after thinking about it, an oireachtas office wouldn't suit many of them! It would be too far for their family members to commute to work!

bonzos

kbannon wrote: »

Is an office in the Oireachtas not enough? Do you mean that they should be provided with an extra office to help them deal with local topics?

most people agree that TD's should get their general day to day costs paid for (like any other business),the problem is then you have chancer like JOD who abuse this privilege EG..hat hire,€500 limos at airports,staying in top hotels in bev hills and claiming €6k to attend a poverty comference in south africa:eek:.He is a typical example of someone whos was given an inch but took a mile!this country can not afford to maintain the likes of this guy anymore ....mary harney announced today that cut of €1.2bn the be made in health services yet still only 4 of the 166 TD took their pay cut .they are giving us the finger:mad:

Darsad

If this country was a business then heads would have rolled long ago. The cabinet table alone have a collective ringfenced defined benefit pension fund in excess of €56 Million. These people have the comfort of knowing no matter how badly they perform theyll not personally be affected.
Gormless and that other veggie Ryan have now clocked up pension funds in excess of €3 million each its no wonder they have no problem with taxing us back to the stone age.

Liam Byrne

Darsad wrote: »

If this country was a business then heads would have rolled long ago.

Any time the Government are involved, there's ZERO chance of heads rolling, be they TDs wasting money on ego projects or eVoting, former Taoisigh getting cash under the counter, regulators failing to regulate, bank heads making crap decisions, FAS heads wasting fortunes - the list goes on and on and on....

In all of the above cases, the corruption and/or wastage gets rewarded with pensions, moves to less-high-profile-but-cushy jobs, massive pensions and severance pay, etc.

WHAT is wrong with our Government that they can't introduce a law for so-called "public service" that says "If you **** up badly, you get fired; no pension, no payoff" ?

They're happy to make and change the laws when it comes to their own pay; why not make a law that changes the "job for life no matter what you do" bull**** ? :mad:

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

former Taoisigh getting cash under the counter

Who was that?

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

Who was that?

I personally believe Charles Haughey took a lot of money from businessmen in return for political favours. Even on his salary I doubt he could have afforded to buy Kinseally, all those horses and a feckin island to boot.

NewDubliner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

WHAT is wrong with our Government that they can't introduce a law for so-called "public service" that says "If you **** up badly, you get fired; no pension, no payoff" ?

You mean like in the banking sector? Like helping a mate cook the books at his bank, ruining your own and getting a 1m bonus and a 27m pension fund. OK then, sounds fair enough to me.

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

You mean like in the banking sector? Like helping a mate cook the books at his bank, ruining your own and getting a 1m bonus and a 27m pension fund. OK then, sounds fair enough to me.

Have you ever heard the expression "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Do you think ordinary PAYE workers in the private sector support the carry on in the banks any more than they support incompetent waste in the public sector?

You seem to equate the private sector with banks and developers and nothing else.

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

Have you ever heard the expression "two wrongs don't make a right"?

So you want one law for the private sector and another for the public?

murphaph wrote: »

Do you think ordinary PAYE workers in the private sector support the carry on in the banks any more than they support incompetent waste in the public sector?

Well, what has the ordinary Joe done about the banks?

murphaph wrote: »

seem to equate the private sector with banks and developers and nothing else.

No, I'd also include the rip-off IT and telecommunications companies.

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

So you want one law for the private sector and another for the public?

Of course not. If that was your point then why didn't you say that AS WELL as incompetent PS getting the sack that the corrupt incompetent bankers should also go? I'd be happy to see every banker that ever messed around to be behind bars. I would jut expect incompetent public servants to be sacked, no more.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Well, what has the ordinary Joe done about the banks?

Is that a serious question? Are you now trying to blame ordinary PAYE workers for failing to stop the banks with their silly carry on? What do you suggest an ordinary factory worker on an assembly line does to reform banking?

NewDubliner wrote: »

No, I'd also include the rip-off IT and telecommunications companies.

Ok, but would you blame the staff on the production lines/call centres? (many of whom have since been made redundant anyway)

Liam Byrne

NewDubliner wrote: »

So you want one law for the private sector and another for the public?

Well, what has the ordinary Joe done about the banks?

Actually, the single common denominator between the banks and the public sector is the assholes in the Dail.

And the "banks" were supposed to be regulated by a "public servant".

So I'll stand over my statement; the root of most waste in this country is the bunch of self-serving, selfish idiots in Kildare St and their appointees.

NewDubliner wrote: »

No, I'd also include the rip-off IT and telecommunications companies.

What's with the "the" rip-off IT and telecommunications companies ? Are you applying a sweeping generalisation to ALL of them ? Or just "some" of them ?

Because I can tell ya that - as an IT person - at this stage I would gladly switch to and survive on the very lowest of the salaries of the TDs, banks or public servants.

aidan24326

Liam Byrne wrote: »

WHAT is wrong with our Government that they can't introduce a law for so-called "public service" that says "If you **** up badly, you get fired; no pension, no payoff" ?

Because that could potentially affect themselves or their cronies. They're not going to mess with their own cosy status-quo. This is about looking after the lads.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

I personally believe Charles Haughey took a lot of money from businessmen in return for political favours.

That may well be true alright.

And of course some opposition TDs were involved in counterfeiting and were on active service for the IRA.

There's a lot of sins floating around the Dail!

But Liam was quite specific about a former Tanaiste and I'm curious as to who he means. I doubt he means Haughey, don't believe he ever served as Tanaiste.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

But Liam was quite specific about a former Tanaiste and I'm curious as to who he means. I doubt he means Haughey, don't believe he ever served as Tanaiste.

MISQUOTE ALERT! Never mentioned a Tanaiste.

Ah, my error. Sorry.

Think I'd share your suspicions about Haughey alright. And probably at least two other former Taoisigh who are still alive...

I'm starting to think that the best hope for the Lisbon Treaty is for O'Donoghue and Coughlan to say 'No'. Coughlan could always claim afterwards that she meant yes anyway, and it was just another slip of the tongue...