Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anyone else like me?
Options
Comments
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »Ideally, this would be the case. But unfortunately - with people defending the indefensible (and if the cap fits, etc.....) they are not reemployed based on their performance; they are reemployed based on dynasties, being "cute hoors", being "one of the people" (or at least working hard to appear to be).
I'm sorry but it is the case. We live in a democracy (last time I checked) where every adult has the same single vote. Every Irish citizen has the opportunity to put himself forward as a public representative and we get to choose from those that do. Some of us choose to follow this path and work hard,largely in the public interest. Agreed, there are many things within the political system that ought to be fixed but by and large I believe our politicians work hard and face the ultimate judgement on their hard work once every 4/5 years. You're assertion that we don't have the right to choose our politicians based on their performance is, frankly, an insult to the electorate. Others among us choose to whinge and moan and demand change on internet bulletin boards from the comfort of our middle class homes.
I re-watched Aherne's interview this morning. One of the things he did say (that people like you will ignore) was . . "Yes, I take responsibility for the overspends, I was the Taoiseach"In addition, if their performance involves doing something right, they take credit; if it involves screwing up spectacularly, then it's because - as Ahern alluded to last night - the "expertise" wasn't there, or "the rules weren't changed", or "Lehman Bros".Why - for example - are outlandish expenses only being dealt with NOW; while all of us had to take a wallop in a Budget A YEAR AGO ? Plus a SECOND wallop in an extra, unwarranted Budget 6 MONTHS AGO ? Plus - despite the damage to the economy and the supposed "urgency" - a 4 month holiday while the country racked up a phenomenal rate of debt per day, with banks refusing to lend and businesses going to the wall, adding to the dole queue ?
I struggle to understand how you think the second budget was unwarranted ?If votes are "performance related", then the Greens and FF deserve a very large boot, and the sooner the better.....
The votes are 'performance related'. The Greens will be wiped out after the next election. FF will lose a huge number of seats and we will be addressing Enda as Taoiseach. Whether you think this is warranted or not is a matter of opinion. I don't !0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »You're assertion that we don't have the right to choose our politicians based on their performance is, frankly, an insult to the electorate.
Can I have whatever you're on that makes you see life - and my posts - completely differently from reality ? :mad: :mad: Because I NEVER, EVER, EVER said that we "don't have the right", and your post is 100% misrepresentation and has been reported.
We DO have the right, but like I said.....actually, I won't bother repeating it, because you quoted it; you just chose to put your own spin on it to avoid having to deal with the point raised, and to cause someone reading to get the impression that I insulted them.
TO CLARIFY : I NEVER, EVER suggested that "we don't, or shouldn't, have the right to choose based on performance".....I actually said "Ideally, this would be the case"
EDIT : Ironically, you've said the exact same thing as I did in another thread :hallelujajordan wrote: »Irish politics is parochial and the Irish electorate will always vote for the more well known, politically powerful people who will make things happen for their area regardless of how much time they spend legislating in Dail Eireann . . .
So therefore "performance" in the areas that they're supposed to be working on, is irrelevant to those voters. Corruption (and condoning of same) would be irrelevant, milking the expenses and blocking required reforms would be irrelevant, paying off people who didn't do their jobs would be irrelevant.
And not only that, your post is more objectionable than mine, because you lumped the entire "Irish electorate" together, saying everyone voted that warped way, whereas I only said that "some" people voted that way.
What I said was that in real life some people DON'T choose based on performance; they vote for their mates, the guy who buys them drinks, the guy who bailed them out, the "cute hoor", the guy whose dad was a great GAA man, etc, and that means that no matter what happens, a large percentage of those in the Dail are NOT there on performance or merit.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »I struggle to understand how you think the second budget was unwarranted ?
I struggle to understand how the budget (screwing us) was viewed as more important than sorting out the public service, expenses, corruption and making a proper attempt to sort out the banks.
My point was that they hit the ordinary, easy target, Joe Soap TWICE without bothering to look at the other issues; ones that are now so "urgent" that NAMA is presented as "the only show in town", "too late in the day", etc.
I also struggle to understand how the first one was so wrong, but I guess that's based on the "performance" of the Minister for Finance and his ability to actually read reports and do his job.hallelujajordan wrote: »The Greens will be wiped out after the next election. FF will lose a huge number of seats and we will be addressing Enda as Taoiseach.
Not 100% certain on Enda, but at least we agree on one thing.hallelujajordan wrote: »Whether you think this is warranted or not is a matter of opinion. I don't !
Oh, absolutely and uncategorically warranted, don't worry about that! Y'see, whether I voted based on performance (fail) or what the local guy has achieved (Willie "Shaft Shannon" O'Dea, double fail) or condoning the unacceptable (Ahern, O'Donoghue, Burke, Lawlor, Cooper Flynn, Lenihan, Cowen, Coughlan) I can't wait for the day that there's an improvement in the standards in Government. Sooner the better!
Given that Gilmore was the only one to step up to the plate, I don't think the new standards will be high enough, or fully acceptable, but at least they'll be an improvement!0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Can I have whatever you're on that makes you see life - and my posts - completely differently from reality ? :mad: :mad: Because I NEVER, EVER, EVER said that we "don't have the right", and your post is 100% misrepresentation and has been reported.
I'm so constantly amazed at how you personalise these debates and break it down to an argument around the semantics of a post rather than the substantive issues. .
For the Record, I argued that "we decide whether or not to re-employ them based on their performance" and you refuted that implying that there were some other mechanisms around which a politician may be re-elected, thus implying that we the electorate do not have the right to judge them on their performance. . report me all you like, and lets get into a massiv, stupid and off topic he-said she-said debate . . I won't report you for your constant references to 'what I am on !' because frankly, I think its a bit childish.
people can read the full context of your posts and make up their own minds about whether or not you are insulting them. I've not done anything other than to quote you accurately and try to interpret what you are saying.We DO have the right, but like I said.....actually, I won't bother repeating it, because you quoted it; you just chose to put your own spin on it to avoid having to deal with the point raised, and to cause someone reading to get the impression that I insulted them.
Saying 'Ideally this would be the case is implying that actually it isn't.TO CLARIFY : I NEVER, EVER suggested that "we don't, or shouldn't, have the right to choose based on performance".....I actually said "Ideally, this would be the case"What I said was that in real life some people DON'T choose based on performance; they vote for their mates, the guy who buys them drinks, the guy who bailed them out, the "cute hoor", the guy whose dad was a great GAA man, etc, and that means that no matter what happens, a large percentage of those in the Dail are NOT there on performance or merit.
They vote based on PERFORMANCE. How one person measures performance might be very different to how you measure performance but we all have the right to exercise that judgement and make that measurement ourselves. It's called democracy. You seem to think that if a politician hasn't lived up to your measure of performance then the rest of us who elected them are fools. . .0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I struggle to understand how the budget (screwing us) was viewed as more important than sorting out the public service, expenses, corruption and making a proper attempt to sort out the banks.
My point was that they hit the ordinary, easy target, Joe Soap TWICE without bothering to look at the other issues; ones that are now so "urgent" that NAMA is presented as "the only show in town", "too late in the day", etc.
You really need to sort out your facts . . you keep stating these things as fact that are just not true and when you are corrected you ignore it (amazing that Kenny never interviewed Cowen, Aherne eh??). They did look at the other issues. NAMA as a principle was introduced as part of the second budget and since then they have worked hard to establish the institutions to make NAMA work. There was also a need to increase the tax rate to make some movement towards correcting the public finances and so levies were increased. At the same time, politicians took pay cuts and there were wide sweeping cuts across the public sector (although I believe a lot more are required)Given that Gilmore was the only one to step up to the plate, I don't think the new standards will be high enough, or fully acceptable, but at least they'll be an improvement!
Yes, the leader of the party, funded by the trade unions who are willing to ignore the public finances and demand an extra 3.5% for all HSE workers. The same unions that sat on the board of FAS and ignored everything that was going on. The ones that will prevent the a FF/Lab govt from actually tackling the public sector mess. . . Yes, they are the ones with the moral authority to clean up Irish politics . . Gimme a break !0 -
Advertisement
-
hallelujajordan wrote: »I'm so constantly amazed at how you personalise these debates and break it down to an argument around the semantics of a post rather than the substantive issues. .
Yawn! That political spin might work in your circles, but it doesn't washhallelujajordan wrote: »For the Record, I argued that "we decide whether or not to re-employ them based on their performance" and you refuted that implying that there were some other mechanisms around which a politician may be re-elected, thus implying that we the electorate do not have the right to judge them on their performance
The "implying" bit is completely wrong, and since it's YOU that's doing your own implying, you CANNOT (a) attribute it to me, or (b) extrapolate that I was "insulting the electorate". You did BOTH.
I'll repeat my previous post (even though it is getting boring) the electorate have a right to choose, but as you said yourself many do not use it correctly as a measure of "performance", preferring to vote parochially and on side issues.
Sohallelujajordan wrote: »people can read the full context of your posts and make up their own minds about whether or not you are insulting them. I've not done anything other than to quote you accurately and try to interpret what you are saying.
Not a hope in hell! You've repeatedly misinterpreted what I said and put a spin on it.hallelujajordan wrote: »You seem to think that if a politician hasn't lived up to your measure of performance then the rest of us who elected them are fools. . .
Yet more misrepresentation. I don't care as long as there's a performance to be judged, but when (a) that performance is non-existent or (b) that performance includes engaging in or condoning dodgy goings-on, then yes, I'll criticise someone for overlooking it.
Also, when someone washes their hands of unacceptable stuff, saying it's not "against the rules" when THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN LEGISLATE FOR IT, then ANYONE with a brain should be able to see through that.
So if those members of the electorate don't see through that, I'll make no apology for calling them on it and view them as fools.
But then, I'm the one who already admitted all this, saying that "some" of the electorate were fools; and I'll stand over that.
You, on the other hand, implied that I'd insulted "the electorate" - as a whole, and even the basis for that implication was based on your own bias and interpretation / misrepresentation of what I'd said.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13665
Joey the lips wrote: »Where did you obtain your degree in arrogance? I have no doubt your job suits the education!
You can't be a troll without being arrogant I'm afraid. Comes with the territory.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Yawn! That political spin might work in your circles, but it doesn't wash
You talk of spin but yet you have turned this entire debate into a ridiculous argument around interpretations, quotations and mis-quotations . . you pick pieces of my posts to respond to in isolation and draw conclusions about me and my motives while you ignore the bits where I point out some of the gross factual inaccuracies of what you are saying . . This is incredibly boring (probably more so for everyone else than for me!) so lets give it a rest . .
BTW, if you're quoting me, don't edit, cross out or highlight bits of what I say, quote me in context and quote me completely or don't quote me at all !but as you said yourself many do not use it correctly as a measure of "performance", preferring to vote parochially and on side issues.
Again, misquoted and out of context. what I said was that Irish people vote parochially, not that they do not vote on performance. They may just measure performance differently than you do. That does not make them fools.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »You talk of spin but yet you have turned this entire debate into a ridiculous argument around interpretations, quotations and mis-quotations
I'm not the one who did that. You MISINTERPRETED that my original postLiam Byrne wrote: »Ideally, this would be the case. But unfortunately - with people defending the indefensible (and if the cap fits, etc.....) they are not reemployed based on their performance; they are reemployed based on dynasties, being "cute hoors", being "one of the people" (or at least working hard to appear to be).
....equated - in your eyes - tohallelujajordan wrote: »you refuted that implying that there were some other mechanisms around which a politician may be re-elected, thus implying that we the electorate do not have the right to judge them on their performance
Do you see the bit in bold - the bit that you added, unjustifiably and inaccurately ? THAT'S the bit I took serious objection to. Leave that spin/lie out and I'm "guilty as charged", and I'll stand over what I said. But I will not be dragged any further into "defending" what I didn't say.
And to make matters worse, you then took that spin and saidhallelujajordan wrote: »You're assertion that we don't have the right to choose our politicians based on their performance is, frankly, an insult to the electorate.
I NEVER asserted any such thing; YOU did. That is extrapolating on something that you ALREADY had no basis to say in order to suggest that I insulted "the electorate". Wrong again, on both counts.hallelujajordan wrote: »BTW, if you're quoting me, don't edit, cross out or highlight bits of what I say, quote me in context and quote me completely or don't quote me at all !
:
:
Again, misquoted and out of context.
Hold on a second now! I crossed out the bits that were downright wrong, and I've highlighted the bits that I'm trying to show that you are 100% wrong and are misrepresenting me.
If you don't like that, then don't type bits that are 100% wrong or misrepresenting.
And don't complain about misquotes and out of context when you're perfectly happy to engage in that yourself (and you actually started this side debate by doing so).
If you want to debate whether people use their votes correctly, fire away.
But DO NOT; I repeat DO NOT claim that I suggested that people don't have the right to, or that I insulted people by suggesting they shouldn't have the right to.
Because that is NOWHERE NEAR what I said, and ANYONE can see that if they read the thread.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I'm not the one who did that. You MISINTERPRETED that my original post
....equated - in your eyes - to
Do you see the bit in bold - the bit that you added, unjustifiably and inaccurately ? THAT'S the bit I took serious objection to. Leave that spin/lie out and I'm "guilty as charged", and I'll stand over what I said. But I will not be dragged any further into "defending" what I didn't say.
And to make matters worse, you then took that spin and said
I NEVER asserted any such thing; YOU did. That is extrapolating on something that you ALREADY had no basis to say in order to suggest that I insulted "the electorate". Wrong again, on both counts.
Hold on a second now! I crossed out the bits that were downright wrong, and I've highlighted the bits that I'm trying to show that you are 100% wrong and are misrepresenting me.
If you don't like that, then don't type bits that are 100% wrong or misrepresenting.
And don't complain about misquotes and out of context when you're perfectly happy to engage in that yourself (and you actually started this side debate by doing so).
If you want to debate whether people use their votes correctly, fire away.
But DO NOT; I repeat DO NOT claim that I suggested that people don't have the right to, or that I insulted people by suggesting they shouldn't have the right to.
Because that is NOWHERE NEAR what I said, and ANYONE can see that if they read the thread.
OK, Grand. . . I'm fed up arguing with you tbh. . I took from your posts the implication that the political system was filled by something other than free will democracy where we all had the right to choose our politicians and where we live with the implications of this choice. I'm willing to accept this responsibility. You would rather blame the 'fools' who made the wrong choices.
Apologies (genuinely) if I interpreted your posts a little too far but tbh you have a history of hinting at something and then attacking the poster who tries to interpret what you are saying !
Now, how about we get back on topic and debate some of the gross inaccuracies that you have been spouting ....
Why don't you address the comments I made about the second budget, about the hours politicians actually work, about your foolish comments about how Cowen/Aherne never appeared on TLLS under Kenny (no idea what this had to do with anything by the way, but you brought it into the argument for some reason) . . or best of all, about your assertion that Gilmore and his Union backers will 'clean up' Irish politics . .0 -
Advertisement
-
legal-eagle wrote: »Seriously, I personally have no anger to politicans and bankers. All this talk of Fat cats, corrupt etc etc anyone else sick of it. Politicans by and large work their boll0x of particlurarly leaders of the country. They don't exactly make a million quid a year and get grief all the time, I wouldn't even begrudge them taking a bung here and there......so what. The worst thing is most people have no understanding of the global international credit crisis or even national politics yet are the loudest critics.
I'm quite indifferent to it all, the Lisbon Treaty is another example. How many of these voters really care about Ireland's involvement in Europe, does it really affect their day to day lives....most of the "No" voters (I know) reasons for not voting were pathetic and so inaccurate. Discuss
Ok fair enough, you don't mind if the people in power line their pockets with your taxes, and make a total bollix of running the country.
That's fine, but the other 99.9999999% of taxpayers do , i think you will find.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »I took from your posts the implication that the political system was filled by something other than free will democracy where we all had the right to choose our politicians and where we live with the implications of this choice.
Alleluiah! Finally an admission that the whole "argument" was based on what YOU incorrectly "took" from my posts (despite repeated clarification).hallelujajordan wrote: »I'm willing to accept this responsibility. You would rather blame the 'fools' who made the wrong choices.
More spin. There is no "wrong choice". The correct thing to say is that I would rather blame the fools who used the wrong criteria and overlooked the indefensible.hallelujajordan wrote: »Apologies (genuinely) if I interpreted your posts a little too far but tbh you have a history of hinting at something and then attacking the poster who tries to interpret what you are saying !
Wow, I almost accepted the apology, until I read the last part; exactly how much interpretation does the following take ?Liam Byrne wrote: »Ideally, this would be the case. But unfortunately - with people defending the indefensible (and if the cap fits, etc.....) they are not reemployed based on their performance; they are reemployed based on dynasties, being "cute hoors", being "one of the people" (or at least working hard to appear to be).
In addition, if their performance involves doing something right, they take credit; if it involves screwing up spectacularly, then it's because - as Ahern alluded to last night - the "expertise" wasn't there, or "the rules weren't changed", or "Lehman Bros".
In all of this, there's one UNDENIABLE fact; the ONLY people who can change the rules are those in the Dail, and they don't. Why ? Because it suits them, and because it gives them an out and deniability when they screw up.
There is absolutely no mention of "rights", or removing "rights", from the electorate there.
So don't bull**** or put a spin on it. You were 100% wrong to attack me and accuse me of insulting the electorate.
Any factual inaccuracies or oversights, by all means challenge them, but to be honest I couldn't be arsed going back over the posts to see if you simply "misinterpreted" those too, or whether I did genuinely screw up - factually - with what I said in a post. I know you'll choose to imply that this is chickening out of the debate, but I'll reference one just to prove a point.
I actually agree with you in relation to Gilmore's links to unions, and you have a point. The only point that I made is that he's the only one in the Dail who stood up this week despite the fact that his colleagues would have been furious. I'd credit him with that - no more, no less.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Alleluiah! Finally an admission that the whole "argument" was based on what YOU incorrectly "took" from my posts (despite repeated clarification).
More spin. There is no "wrong choice". The correct thing to say is that I would rather blame the fools who used the wrong criteria and overlooked the indefensible.
It is amazing how someone can accuse others of spin and then spin around his own statements in such a ludicrous way . . Surely if they used the 'wrong criteria', 'overlooked the indefensible' and reelected the 'cute hoors' or the 'GAA men' or the 'political dynasties' then in your view they must have made the 'wrong choices' . . and are the 'fools' you describe earlier ? ?Wow, I almost accepted the apology, until I read the last part; exactly how much interpretation does the following take ?
There is absolutely no mention of "rights", or removing "rights", from the electorate there.
So don't bull**** or put a spin on it. You were 100% wrong to attack me and accuse me of insulting the electorate.
Understood . . and as I have already stated I accept that you didn't question the 'rights' of the electorate; seriously, what more do you want from me ??
However, regardless of what words you use. . . I argued that our elected polticians face the ultimate performance assessment once every 4/5 years. I think we have already seen this in action in brutal reality (PD's, FG in 2002 GE). . You seem to think that in some way our electorate does not hold them accountable and measure / manage their performance. . I don't see how you draw that conclusion, especially when you accept that the Greens are likely to be wiped out after the next GE and FF will experience the same effect that FG felt in 2002 ?
This is the pattern . . you spout things that are factually incorrect and when challenged over them you simply attack the detail of the post, get indignant about the 'attack', report the posterAny factual inaccuracies or oversights, by all means challenge them, but to be honest I couldn't be arsed going back over the posts to see if you simply "misinterpreted" those too, or whether I did genuinely screw up - factually - with what I said in a post
and ignore the inaccuracy on which you have been challenged. . .
I'm pretty sure that if I had misinterpreted you I would have got it back from you in both barrels !I actually agree with you in relation to Gilmore's links to unions, and you have a point. The only point that I made is that he's the only one in the Dail who stood up this week despite the fact that his colleagues would have been furious. I'd credit him with that - no more, no less.
Excellent . . we can debate something 'real' . I believe that the CC should have resigned this week but I do not agree with how Gilmore attacked him on the floor of the Dail. He had already said he was going to go in front of the all party commission. Whether or not you believe that this was an appropriate route, why could Gilmore not have allowed him this opportunity and then table a motion of no confidence. . What he did was populist and aimed at currying favour with an angry public in order to win votes. It had nothing to do with cleaning up politics.0 -
You're probably sick of it because it doesn't affect you, ie you're probably upper-class. Fair enough, but don't expect other people to be as happy as you are with the way things have gone down. Especially people who are out of a job and/or cannot keep up with an inflated mortgage etc.
Personally though I find the whole situation more depressing than annoying. Anyone who thinks that had FF not been in power for the last ten years or so we wouldn't be in this crisis is delusional. Back during the boom had FF taken steps to quell the growth of the property market they would have been committing political suicide. The problem wasn't Irish politics but Irish culture. And, of course, the market. Rant and b*tch all you want about FF but it won't change either of those things. FF were a symptom, the disease goes much deeper IMO.0 -
evercloserunion wrote: »Personally though I find the whole situation more depressing than annoying. Anyone who thinks that had FF not been in power for the last ten years or so we wouldn't be in this crisis is delusional. Back during the boom had FF taken steps to quell the growth of the property market they would have been committing political suicide. The problem wasn't Irish politics but Irish culture. And, of course, the market. Rant and b*tch all you want about FF but it won't change either of those things. FF were a symptom, the disease goes much deeper IMO.
I agree entirely and have said so many times on here . . The root of the entire problem is the consumer. . WE* wanted bigger cars, bigger houses; WE wanted benchmarking (at least those of us in the Public sector did); WE* wanted lower income tax and a higher standard of living; WE* wanted the free money that the SSIA's were giving us and we elected the government (three times !!) that provided all of this ! WE* (not Liam Byrne, btw . . he saw it all coming !) ought to shoulder at least some of the responsibility for the situation we are in rather than blame our politicians for everything !
*Disclaimer before you attack, WE stands for the consensus opinion of the Irish electorate . . not every single one of us !
I think you are right btw, had FF taken steps like increasing stamp duty or preventing the banks from lending too much money to fist time buyers who couldn't afford it, they would have been turfed out long ago and we would be having this same debate about some other government !0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »Excellent . . we can debate something 'real' . I believe that the CC should have resigned this week but I do not agree with how Gilmore attacked him on the floor of the Dail. He had already said he was going to go in front of the all party commission. Whether or not you believe that this was an appropriate route, why could Gilmore not have allowed him this opportunity and then table a motion of no confidence. . What he did was populist and aimed at currying favour with an angry public in order to win votes. It had nothing to do with cleaning up politics.
Firstly, O'Donoghue should have been fired. End of story. Milking expenses to that level, and adding stuff like a £1 charity donation to really give us the two fingers ?
Secondly, O'Donoghue tried to pull a fast one in case the Greens actually showed some balls and ethics yesterday; why resign "next Tuesday" ?
Yes, Gilmore maybe did something populist, but considering the Government (and the Dail in general) is so out of touch with reality and the mood of the people, it's good to see that for a change.
Let me ask you this - if Bertie "did something populist", what would your view be ? Complain about him being populist or say that it was "giving the public what they wanted" ?0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »this ! WE* (not Liam Byrne, btw . . )
*Disclaimer before you attack, WE stands for the consensus opinion of the Irish electorate . . not every single one of us !
Wow! Special treatment for me, even though the Disclaimer was there to point out the fact that yes, loads of people saw this coming, including those who ruined the Ahern ego and feelgood gravy train by pointing it out; so much so that he told them they should commit suicide!
Jeez, I hadn't realised that he was talking to me that day....or that I was worthy of singling out as one of the people who could see the obvious.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, O'Donoghue should have been fired. End of story. Milking expenses to that level, and adding stuff like a £1 charity donation to really give us the two fingers ?
The £1 charity donation is a red herring. It was a £1 donation that was added to the bottom of a legitimate hotel bill. . To imply as you do that he specifically claimed back £1 is misleading, foolish and childish.Secondly, O'Donoghue tried to pull a fast one in case the Greens actually showed some balls and ethics yesterday; why resign "next Tuesday" ?
That was my first opinion too tbh but after watching the Oireachtas proceedings the next day it was pretty clear that there was cross party support to give him time to get his affairs in order and sort out his staff issues. It was also clear that even if the govt had fallen this weekend, Gilmore would have pushed through the motion of no confidence anyway. It's also pretty clear from the reaction in Kerry that JO'D will be returned to the next Dail anyway should he choose to run for election again which makes this a bit of a moot point !Yes, Gilmore maybe did something populist, but considering the Government (and the Dail in general) is so out of touch with reality and the mood of the people, it's good to see that for a change.
Let me ask you this - if Bertie "did something populist", what would your view be ? Complain about him being populist or say that it was "giving the public what they wanted" ?
I don't mind Gilmore doing something populist, nor would I mind Bertie doing the same thing. I do mind when doing something populist involves attacking a man who is already on his knees and not allowing him to exit with a little dignity and I mind when people like you hail it as a noble act that is in some way 'cleaning up politics'.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »The £1 charity donation is a red herring. It was a £1 donation that was added to the bottom of a legitimate hotel bill. . To imply as you do that he specifically claimed back £1 is misleading, foolish and childish.
Thought you were against petty personal digs ?
A "legitimate hotel bill".....to me that'd be around €250, max.It's also pretty clear from the reaction in Kerry that JO'D will be returned to the next Dail anyway should he choose to run for election again which makes this a bit of a moot point !
Unfortunately appears to be the case alright. Sickening.I don't mind Gilmore doing something populist, nor would I mind Bertie doing the same thing. I do mind when doing something populist involves attacking a man who is already on his knees and not allowing him to exit with a little dignity and I mind when people like you hail it as a noble act that is in some way 'cleaning up politics'.
"already on his knees" ???? Come off it with the emotive rubbish, please !!!! Firstly, you show me a man who's on his wages and expenses who's "on his knees"; and secondly if he's out of favour it's because he milked the expenses to the hilt; yes, many of them aren't corrupt (just simply too high and unacceptable) but many of them are downright corrupt and sickening.
Flying to Kerry from Dublin but getting your car to follow ?
If he was using his own money it'd just be grossly pathetic self-important showboating, the "big man"
But it was OUR money.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »"already on his knees" ???? Come off it with the emotive rubbish, please !!!! Firstly, you show me a man who's on his wages and expenses who's "on his knees"; and secondly if he's out of favour it's because he milked the expenses to the hilt; yes, many of them aren't corrupt (just simply too high and unacceptable) but many of them are downright corrupt and sickening.
Flying to Kerry from Dublin but getting your car to follow ?
If he was using his own money it'd just be grossly pathetic self-important showboating, the "big man"
But it was OUR money.
Once again, you try to shift the debate in order to have a go ! Don't drag this into a debate about JOD and his expenses . . I have already said that the right thing to do was for him to resign. In fact, I believe he ought to have resigned earlier in the year when his ministerial expenses were highlighted. You using the £1 charitable donation as an example of how he mismanaged his expenses is just childish. I'm much more concerned about the misuse of the government jet.
My point is that he had already acknowledged the issue and put in place a plan to address it. Rather than give him this opportunity Gilmore attacked him in the house and forced his hand . . for no reason other than to score a political point. . . You think this was noble and is in some way a move towards cleaning up politics. I happen to think the intention to remove all corporate donations announced within the FF / Green PfG is a much stronger gesture towards cleaning up politics. . .0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »Wow! Special treatment for me, even though the Disclaimer was there to point out the fact that yes, loads of people saw this coming, including those who ruined the Ahern ego and feelgood gravy train by pointing it out; so much so that he told them they should commit suicide!.
The suicide point is one that is being bandied around a lot on these boards and it is worthy of some clarification . .
What Bertie said was as follows :
"Sitting on the sidelines, cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit suicide because frankly the only thing that motivates me is being able to actively change something"
It's pretty clear that what he is doing is criticising people who he feels are just negative about everything for the sake of being negative. . . He never told anyone that they should commit suicide !!! and you really ought not to quote him out of context continually. .
Moreover, later that same day he apologised unreservedly, explained what he had meant and accepted that it was a bad choice of words. . .
It really is a bit silly that 5 years on this comment is still being misquoted in public debate.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »The suicide point is one that is being bandied around a lot on these boards and it is worthy of some clarification . .
What Bertie said was as follows :
"Sitting on the sidelines, cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit suicide because frankly the only thing that motivates me is being able to actively change something"
It's pretty clear that what he is doing is criticising people who he feels are just negative about everything for the sake of being negative. . . He never told anyone that they should commit suicide !!! and you really ought not to quote him out of context continually. .
Moreover, later that same day he apologised unreservedly, explained what he had meant and accepted that it was a bad choice of words. . .
It really is a bit silly that 5 years on this comment is still being misquoted in public debate.
Firstly, events have proven that your / Ahern's [delete as appropriate ] assertion that "people were just negative for the sake of being negative" is INCORRECT. So you can't throw it in there as if it were fact.
And it's EXTREMELY silly that - having said the above - Ahern is allowed to go on national TV and claim that nobody warned him about the impending results of his actions.
THAT is why it is constantly brought up 5 years later; because he's saying no-one warned him. So if he says last Friday night that "ah - ha ha - economists would tell you anything", then OF COURSE we're going to point out that he's lying.
If Ahern said "Yup, well it's obvious that I was warned - sure didn't I get thick with the people who were warning me - so yup, I ignored it and ****ed up, and I'm to blame, and I'm sorry", then maybe we'd let it rest.
But he's not getting away with downright lies about not being warned, and he dug his own hole by making such a memorable reference to it. That's not anyone's fault but his own.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »Once again, you try to shift the debate in order to have a go !
Not a hope! YOU said "he was on his knees", which is emotive and incorrect.
I replied.hallelujajordan wrote: »My point is that he had already acknowledged the issue and put in place a plan to address it.
Then don't use emotive language like "on his knees"!!! Just say what you said above!
As for cleaning up corporate donations to political parties; sure aren't FF and the Greens doing that in reverse these days; the only problem is that it's OUR money, not theirs.0 -
ronbyrne2005 wrote: »They may work their b0ll1x off but usually only on local political stuff to keep their voters happy so they will be reelected. They use government/taxpayers resources to ensure their reelection in a given constituency.
Also German, French and British politicians work just as hard and get a LOT less pay/pensions.
That's not true.
Maggie Thatcher's bank account after ten years as PM had a lot more money in it than her salary.
Irish politicians, etc, don't get the lucrative directorships in return for favourable legislation as is de rigeur in London, Paris, Berlin, etc.
The higher wages we have here are the same as for everyone. All wages are too high or none are. Many would argue that wages in this country in general are too high. Both at the top and the bottom.
In fairness, the OP is probably trolling, but I see where he's coming from. I don't and have never voted FF, but all politicians are the same. A huge amount of our fcuk-ups were caused by the people voting in the same people.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, events have proven that your / Ahern's [delete as appropriate ] assertion that "people were just negative for the sake of being negative" is INCORRECT. So you can't throw it in there as if it were fact.
[/spin alert] Accepted, but I didn't throw it in there as fact . . I said that he was criticising people who he felt were being negative for the sake of it . . clearly he was wrong but that's not the point. I am outlining the context of what he said at the time . . again, you're spinning my comments around to suit your argument .. I'm getting dizzy !THAT is why it is constantly brought up 5 years later; because he's saying no-one warned him. So if he says last Friday night that "ah - ha ha - economists would tell you anything", then OF COURSE we're going to point out that he's lying.
I have no problem with people reminding him that there were economists pointing out the risks to him at the time. I have a problem with people like you talking about how he told people to commit suicide without providing the context behind the comments.
In addition, there are always economists that will support both sides of a given strategy. The government at the time has to listen to all of the economic advice and make what they feel is the right decision.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Not a hope! YOU said "he was on his knees", which is emotive and incorrect.
I replied.
Then don't use emotive language like "on his knees"!!! Just say what you said above!
As for cleaning up corporate donations to political parties; sure aren't FF and the Greens doing that in reverse these days; the only problem is that it's OUR money, not theirs.
The man has had his expenses over the past few years ripped apart and scrutinised by the Sunday papers. He has been made an example of and left to carry the can for an entirely screwed up expenses system from which every single TD in Dail Eireann has benefitted. He was attacked by Gilmore in Dail Eireann, where due to his position as CC he was unable to defend himself and has had to resign his position before being given the opportunity to defend himself. I don't believe it is over emotive to describe him as being 'on his knees' . . and it certainly isn't over emotive compared to some of the comments I have read over the past few days on this forum about FF, the Greens and Bertie Ahern.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »Accepted, but I didn't throw it in there as fact . . I said that he was criticising people who he felt were being negative for the sake of it . .
Likewise - accepted; that's why I inserted the "delete as appropriate", so that the viewpoint and blame could be apportioned correctlyhallelujajordan wrote: »clearly he was wrong but that's not the point.
But it IS the point. He was wrong (fact); he was warned (fact); but he still refuses point blank to acknowledge that he was warned.hallelujajordan wrote: »I have no problem with people reminding him that there were economists pointing out the risks to him at the time.
I have a problem with people like you talking about how he told people to commit suicide without providing the context behind the comments.
Firstly, lose that attitude, please; throwing in phrases such as "people like you" is going to drag this discussion down into the gutter again.
Secondly, I've put this in context every time I've said it; that it's sickening to watch the guy wash his hands of his ****-ups by claiming that he wasn't warned!
Yes, there are always 2 sides, and you usually take advice from both sides in forming an opinion. But not only did Ahern get it wrong, he completely dismissed the advice from half of it by condescendingly suggesting the suicide comment; and again, you said it yourself:hallelujajordan wrote: »It's pretty clear that what he is doing is criticising people who he feels are just negative about everything for the sake of being negative
He dismissed them, criticised them (your words) based on what "he felt" (your words). He FELT they were being negative for the sake of it, and completely dismissed them!
So half of our current woes are because of Ahern's feeling and dismissive reaction. By all means, listen to the other (incorrect) economists AS WELL, but he didn't WANT TO hear what the (now proven correct) negative ones were saying - he didn't even factor it in - he 100% dismissed it in one of the most patronising and dismissive comments of the whole fiasco!
Listen to both (not just what you want to hear), take everything on board, formulate an informed and balanced strategy, and I'd have no problem - even if having done that he still got it wrong, at least it would have been using a FULL combination of ALL opinion and information available at the time, and no-one could be overly criticised for that!
But ignoring - and sarcastically dismissing - half the advice ?
There is the 100% context, and there is proof that he's an arrogant, opinionated, blinkered and downright incorrect individual.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, lose that attitude, please; throwing in phrases such as "people like you" is going to drag this discussion down into the gutter again.
People like you = Those people on the forums here who continue to quote the suicide comment out of context.
No you haven't . . you have stated several times that he told his detractors to commit suicide. He clearly didn't.Secondly, I've put this in context every time I've said it; that it's sickening to watch the guy wash his hands of his ****-ups by claiming that he wasn't warned!Yes, there are always 2 sides, and you usually take advice from both sides in forming an opinion. But not only did Ahern get it wrong, he completely dismissed the advice from half of it by condescendingly suggesting the suicide comment; and again, you said it yourself:
He dismissed them, criticised them (your words) based on what "he felt" (your words). He FELT they were being negative for the sake of it, and completely dismissed them!
So half of our current woes are because of Ahern's feeling and dismissive reaction. By all means, listen to the other (incorrect) economists AS WELL, but he didn't WANT TO hear what the (now proven correct) negative ones were saying - he didn't even factor it in - he 100% dismissed it in one of the most patronising and dismissive comments of the whole fiasco!
Listen to both (not just what you want to hear), take everything on board, formulate an informed and balanced strategy, and I'd have no problem - even if having done that he still got it wrong, at least it would have been using a FULL combination of ALL opinion and information available at the time, and no-one could be overly criticised for that!
But ignoring - and sarcastically dismissing - half the advice ?
There is the 100% context, and there is proof that he's an arrogant, opinionated, blinkered and downright incorrect individual.
Actually, I believe he did listen to others around him. There were calls from all around at the time that stamp duty ought to be abolished. The effect of abolishing stamp duty would have been to inflate the bubble further and to inflate the profits of the developers whose pockets he was (apparently) in. We certainly could have afforded to abolish stamp duty at the time but we didn't because the government felt that it would be counter productive. Another example was the elimination of the first time buyers grant. Another attempt to take some of the steam out of the bubble. I would agree in hindsight that the government at the time could have done more but to say that he ignored the economic advice that was out there is just not true.0 -
hallelujajordan wrote: »People like you = Those people on the forums here who continue to quote the suicide comment out of context.
I've stated the context, and forgive me if I don't give the benefit of the doubt to someone who signed blank cheques for the biggest conman ever and also took unexplained payments from others.
So he didn't "tell them" to commit suicide; he wondered why they didn't. We're talking semantics, here. There's a difference, true, but there's the implication that they should **** off and stop bothering him and - as history shows - telling the truth; he didn't want to hear.hallelujajordan wrote: »No you haven't . . you have stated several times that he told his detractors to commit suicide. He clearly didn't.
Pray tell, why did you choose to use the word "detractors" ? I'd have used "advisers", as no-one became a "detractor" until AFTER Ahern screwed up.hallelujajordan wrote: »Actually, I believe he did listen to others around him.......I would agree in hindsight that the government at the time could have done more but to say that he ignored the economic advice that was out there is just not true.
100% agreed. He did listen to a select few. I never said that he listened to no-one. But he listened to those who advised not to trip over tree roots while - as you pointed out yourself - completely and sarcastically dismissing those who warned him about the oncoming train.
I'll say it again; the issue is that he (a) blindly ignored (and insulted) those warning him and (b) now refuses point blank to admit that he received those warnings.0 -
Advertisement
-
You didn't provide the context of the suicide comment, I did !Liam Byrne wrote: »I've stated the context, and forgive me if I don't give the benefit of the doubt to someone who signed blank cheques for the biggest conman ever and also took unexplained payments from others.So he didn't "tell them" to commit suicide; he wondered why they didn't. We're talking semantics, here. There's a difference, true, but there's the implication that they should **** off and stop bothering him and - as history shows - telling the truth; he didn't want to hear.
It's more than semantics to be fair . . it has a whole different meaning; and your completely ignoring the fact that he apologised for the remark and explained his meaning almost immediately
My bad, what I really meant was 'those people who didn't agree with him'Pray tell, why did you choose to use the word "detractors" ? I'd have used "advisers", as no-one became a "detractor" until AFTER Ahern screwed up.100% agreed. He did listen to a select few. I never said that he listened to no-one. But he listened to those who advised not to trip over tree roots while - as you pointed out yourself - completely and sarcastically dismissing those who warned him about the oncoming train.
I'll say it again; the issue is that he (a) blindly ignored (and insulted) those warning him and (b) now refuses point blank to admit that he received those warnings.
I think he probably listened to everyone and made his own mind up which is what leaders in all walks of life are paid to do. And I don't think its fair to say that he never admitted to receiving warnings. In his interview with Tubridy he made a comment about how he received all sorts of advice from all sorts of economists who changed their mind from one day to the next. He also made a comment along the lines of . . . "Yes, I take responsibility, I was Taoiseach" . . You probably missed that bit given that you turned off early !0
Advertisement