Performance to date of our new TD`s

Smiley Burnett

wtf is John Halligan getting a leader's allowance of 40,000 euro???

This is a joke!! And some fools fall for it because he "gives it away"!!!

He shouldnt be taking 40,000 more from the taxpayer than any td from a political party, and then using it in a gimmicky fashion, in order to help his re-election¬

decies

Your point is valid ,grand hes giving it away but he should not be getting it in the first place its our money and just because its going to charity it doesnt make this right even if its not johns fault. All this expenses-allowances crap needs to stop these people are on a damn good salary while the unwashed have to just get on with it. Perhaps our dissapeared local tds might have something to say on this perhaps not :rolleyes:

AdMMM

Independents were granted a leaders allowance in a FF and IND supported government. John doesn't agree with this but it's something that all other tds get but it goes to their party.

If John surrendered the allowance it would have gone back to the government to be redistributed or used to pay our debts. John supports a strategy of default so he prefers to see the money benefit those locally rather than the IMF.

If this was an election trick, it would have been carried out a week before the elections.

Simple fact is that the same amount of money is being given by the local tds to help fund their AGM and their election canpaigns.

I'd much rather this money being distributed locally rather than going to a central party fund.

But maybe that's just me.

Sully

Think id prefer we paid our debts rather then the whole not bothering and just going bankrupt. I'm not a fan of donating wages, when the country is in such a state, but its their right. Saying that, certain "rights" need to be removed

Justin Collery

I think the charities should get money, just not this way.

I have an issue with Halligan using my tax € and making it look like the money is coming out of his pocket. It's not, it's coming out of all our pockets. It shows a complete disrespect for public money and a disregard of due process in allocating public money. He's supposed to show leadership. If he doesn't agree with the allowance, don't take it.

To refuse the money outright, that would be leadership. Convincing other independent TD's in the Dáil to the same would show real leadership. To divvy out the money as he sees fit, I'm a little cynical.

JC

calvin_zola

they are a useless shower of sh*t that where elected other than Halligan, that big red haired fella ye elected is like a big pub politician sitting in the Dail

Sully

calvin_zola wrote: »

they are a useless shower of sh*t that where elected other than Halligan, that big red haired fella ye elected is like a big pub politician sitting in the Dail

Paudie? He sits down the back, you would hardly notice them!

Besides, ya need a red head in the Dail to even things out and make it more Irish

O Riain

Justin Collery wrote: »

I think the charities should get money, just not this way.

I have an issue with Halligan using my tax € and making it look like the money is coming out of his pocket. It's not, it's coming out of all our pockets. It shows a complete disrespect for public money and a disregard of due process in allocating public money. He's supposed to show leadership. If he doesn't agree with the allowance, don't take it.

To refuse the money outright, that would be leadership. Convincing other independent TD's in the Dáil to the same would show real leadership. To divvy out the money as he sees fit, I'm a little cynical.

JC

John does not agree with the bailout and as such why would he put the money into something he does not agree with? Is John the only politician in the country doing anything like this? I really can't see anything wrong with it and would rather see my tax money go to people who genuinely need it(due to mistakes of last government) then to pay off some debt that I don't think we should pay either.

Most of the country also agree that we should not be paying it. Yet we voted in a government who see's no other option!?!?!?

Sully

O Riain wrote: »

John does not agree with the bailout and as such why would he put the money into something he does not agree with? Is John the only politician in the country doing anything like this? I really can't see anything wrong with it and would rather see my tax money go to people who genuinely need it(due to mistakes of last government) then to pay off some debt that I don't think we should pay either.

Most of the country also agree that we should not be paying it. Yet we voted in a government who see's no other option!?!?!?

Well, its the more sensible option. Going bankrupt is never a sensible option. Just my view though.

What proof is there that most of us don't think we should be paying it? Surely voting in two parties that want to pay it, and ignoring those who don't, speaks volumes?

O Riain

Sully wrote: »

Well, its the more sensible option. Going bankrupt is never a sensible option. Just my view though.

What proof is there that most of us don't think we should be paying it? Surely voting in two parties that want to pay it, and ignoring those who don't, speaks volumes?

Well it's one of those things fecked if ya do and fecked if ya don't. As for most of the country not wanting to pay it, the Irish times did a poll on the run up to the election may have even been the one done while voting was taking place. As for the two parties fine Gael would have been the majority party no matter what their stance, Irish people are actually terrified not to/convinced it's the only way to go. Personally I think parties are venomous dishonest own agenda seeking organisations, using johns 40k as an example every member of fine Gael and labour gets this, we are complaining about John but all the other TDS 40k+ goes to their party.

Sully

O Riain wrote: »

Well it's one of those things fecked if ya do and fecked if ya don't. As for most of the country not wanting to pay it, the Irish times did a poll on the run up to the election may have even been the one done while voting was taking place. As for the two parties fine Gael would have been the majority party no matter what their stance, Irish people are actually terrified not to/convinced it's the only way to go. Personally I think parties are venomous dishonest own agenda seeking organisations, using johns 40k as an example every member of fine Gael and labour gets this, we are complaining about John but all the other TDS 40k+ goes to their party.

Eh? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/1218/1224285837910.htm

When asked if they welcomed the provision of EU/IMF support or not, 51 per cent said they welcomed it, while 37 per cent said they did not and 12 per cent said they did not know.

Only in January, the majority wanted it re-negotiated.

An overwhelming majority of Irish voters want the terms of a 67.5 billion euro EU-IMF bailout renegotiated, according to an opinion poll out Sunday.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/ireland-economy.8dl

Its obvious most people support the bailout, but want better terms. Nobody wants to be bailed out, of course, but in reality we need the money and the Irish people don't want to just go bankrupt.

As for the Irish people being scared or whatever -- we have always seen a Fianna Fail government. The Irish people voted, if I recall even more came out than normal, and booted them firmly out. They opted for the next in line - Fine Gael/Labour coalition.

They ignored the majority of Independents and Left-Wing people. The majority didn't support their policies, or trust them in power. If they did, they would have voted for that agenda. The Irish people might be slow at looking for change, but when they want to and they push themselves - they do exactly that as this election proved.

I think, if people had the option, they would vote that if the politician didn't want the wage they got (which I think, most people agree is far to much anyway) that it would be put back in the pot and used to pay bills rather than donating to a local charity. As much as I think what he did is very generous, as he could have kept it, its a bit of a tough call because most people want us out of recession and any moneys that can go towards that would be welcomed. Instead, it was donated along with front page publicity.

MoodRacer

Sully wrote: »

Well, its the more sensible option. Going bankrupt is never a sensible option. Just my view though.

What proof is there that most of us don't think we should be paying it? Surely voting in two parties that want to pay it, and ignoring those who don't, speaks volumes?

Not so sure about where you are going with your bankrupt option Sully.Tbh I would tend to believe accomplished and repected economists such as David McWilliams, Contanin Gourdiev and Brian Lucey, who coincidently have been spot on in their modelling for the last 3 years, more so than the current Government who are moving forward with the same failed policies of the last Government, depite all their pre election hot air.

Proof: http://www.newswhip.ie/national-2/poll-should-ireland-burn-the-bondholders

Let 'em burn, it's worth the risk 93.66%

Honor our obligations, however dumb 2.82%

It's complex - leave it up to the experts 3.52%

Justin Collery

O Riain wrote: »

John does not agree with the bailout and as such why would he put the money into something he does not agree with?

Maybe your right. If he is that principled perhaps he'll stop all payments to the government - income tax, road tax etc.

For the record, I think the banks should be let go, and I think it can be done without sending us back to the stone age. The way we achieve it is by balancing the books. Stop spending money we do not have. This includes stop giving (or taking) independents 'leadership' allowances who some people have 'principled' objections too.

Sully

MoodRacer wrote: »

Not so sure about where you are going with your bankrupt option Sully.Tbh I would tend to believe accomplished and repected economists such as David McWilliams, Contanin Gourdiev and Brian Lucey, who coincidently have been spot on in their modelling for the last 3 years, more so than the current Government who are moving forward with the same failed policies of the last Government, depite all their pre election hot air.

Proof: http://www.newswhip.ie/national-2/poll-should-ireland-burn-the-bondholders

Let 'em burn, it's worth the risk 93.66%

Honor our obligations, however dumb 2.82%

It's complex - leave it up to the experts 3.52%

Not sure I would call an online poll like that credible, to be fair. It can easily be abused. I think the figures would be much closer, and two official polls show a different slant on the whole thing. See how this site has a different set of results (same agreement, different results)::

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-bailout-or-default-2010-11/?voted=1

Online polls can not be used as an accurate measurement of how people are feeling.

Well its one thing is obvious - both parties were going to honour the bailout and they made that very clear in the run up. With a coalition, you get a mix of two party policies rather than just the one.

Saying that, I still think they could have taken a different approach in areas of the four year plan that Fianna Fail mapped out but I am happy that there is movement, and there is change, rather then a stagnant approach to government we have been having for so long.

It was never going to be clear cut, or radical. It was all about who you wanted in charge, and who you trusted more that would bring some level of change rather than radical change. We are in the mess we are in, and its time to work hard and get out of it. How we do that, is a matter of opinion many economists and people disagree on.

deiselady73

I think it's shameful that John Halligan has plastered himself all over the papers and naming all the charities he is giving money to. If this was a genuine act of kindness then he would have just given the money quietly in the background...but instead in true Halligan form he blows his own trumpet as though he's a great fella....makes me sick..shame on you Halligan. As for Conway...i cringe everytime i hear her speak.

O Riain

deiselady73 wrote: »

I think it's shameful that John Halligan has plastered himself all over the papers and naming all the charities he is giving money to. If this was a genuine act of kindness then he would have just given the money quietly in the background...but instead in true Halligan form he blows his own trumpet as though he's a great fella....makes me sick..shame on you Halligan. As for Conway...i cringe everytime i hear her speak.

shameful?
John could have taken this money and it is no doubt A LOT of money and spent it himself.
He didnt do this and he handed it over to charity. Anyone who thinks this is shameful needs their head examined and possibly removed.

rinuccini

Im not from waterford, but i'd like my politicians to speak well, rather than often. Yer man wallace speaks at every chance he gets, but hes afflicted with verbal diarrehaea!

dayshah

deiselady73 wrote: »

I think it's shameful that John Halligan has plastered himself all over the papers and naming all the charities he is giving money to. If this was a genuine act of kindness then he would have just given the money quietly in the background...but instead in true Halligan form he blows his own trumpet as though he's a great fella....makes me sick..shame on you Halligan. As for Conway...i cringe everytime i hear her speak.

He's a politician, not St Vincent de Paul.

I think what he did with the money is good, and it might put others under pressure to do the same.

Chiparus

The TDs from Waterford are never going to get ministerial positions. Dreadful quality.

O Riain

rinuccini wrote: »

Im not from waterford, but i'd like my politicians to speak well, rather than often. Yer man wallace speaks at every chance he gets, but hes afflicted with verbal diarrehaea!

wallace is from wexford

deiselady73

O Riain wrote: »

shameful?
John could have taken this money and it is no doubt A LOT of money and spent it himself.
He didnt do this and he handed it over to charity. Anyone who thinks this is shameful needs their head examined and possibly removed.

My problem is not with people giving to charities (of course), but this idea that Halligan is some sort of saint for doing it and then broadcasting the fact is what i object to. Lets not be foolish enough to think he did this for anything else other than to gain publicity. If that was not the case then he would have just done it and not had a big spread in the papers.

MoodRacer

deiselady73 wrote: »

My problem is not with people giving to charities (of course), but this idea that Halligan is some sort of saint for doing it and then broadcasting the fact is what i object to. Lets not be foolish enough to think he did this for anything else other than to gain publicity. If that was not the case then he would have just done it and not had a big spread in the papers.

Agree 100%. If Halligan was anyway decent or noble, he would have donated the cash without all the media exposure. Of course he is doing it for personal gain, not for the benefit of the charities/clubs involved. Anyone who believes different is dillusional. He is a chancer and always has been. I genuinely believe my view will be vindicated over time.

I believe he should not have taken the money. He may not be directly using it for personal gain but there is absolutley no doubt he is using indirectly for personal gain.

Two words - GRAVY TRAIN.

deiselady73

MoodRacer wrote: »

Agree 100%. If Halligan was anyway decent or noble, he would have donated the cash without all the media exposure. Of course he is doing it for personal gain, not for the benefit of the charities/clubs involved. Anyone who believes different is dillusional. He is a chancer and always has been. I genuinely believe my view will be vindicated over time.

I believe he should not have taken the money. He may not be directly using it for personal gain but there is absolutley no doubt he is using indirectly for personal gain.

Two words - GRAVY TRAIN.

My point exactly, well said!

jive

MoodRacer wrote: »

I believe he should not have taken the money. He may not be directly using it for personal gain but there is absolutley no doubt he is using indirectly for personal gain.

This will obviously help him to get re-elected if he goes for election again. It's a popularity contest and donating to charity will obviously make him more popular. You could almost look at him donating to charity as spending money - you have to spend money to make money! Most people will look at it as a kind gesture rather than what it really is.

Having said that, he has still done a good deed regardless of his reasons for doing it. I'm not going to say fair play to him or kudos to him because his intentions are obvious, otherwise he would have made the donation without the media coverage. A clever decision for sure.

O Riain

What then if he had of kept the money?
What of the other politicians who have kept the money? surely we should be calling for their heads?

Facts

O Riain wrote: »

What then if he had of kept the money?
What of the other politicians who have kept the money? surely we should be calling for their heads?

I'm new to posting on this site but have read and observed discussions for some time but felt the need to clear up this whole 'Halligan charity' thing with the 'FACTS'.

The fact is John Halligan still gets paid the exact same as Paudie Coffey, John Deasy and Ciara Conway even after given away this 42,000! Madness I hear you all shout, how could that be possible?

Well I'll tell you how.. because John Halligan is an Independent, he qualifies for what is known as a 'party leaders allowance'.. yes the same as what Enda Kenny, Micheal Martin, Gerry Adams and Eamon Gilmore qualify for. That surely cant be right? Well it is, and every other independent gets it too so they are effectively paid 42,000 more that any party TD. So this is purely a gimic by John Halligan as other posters have alluded to and draws an unfair criticism of the other three TD's. He gets to give 42,000 to local charities, people say shor isn't he great why don't the others do that (including the News and Star John A Murphy Column).., well thats why folks plain and simple!!

dayshah

Are you suggesting he should have just pocketed the cash instead?

He's a public figure, and got publicity for putting public money to good use for charities that serve the public.

If you have a gripe specifically about John Halligan just come out and say it. Trying to smear him for allocating the money to local charities is fairly odd.

Facts

dayshah wrote: »

Are you suggesting he should have just pocketed the cash instead?

He's a public figure, and got publicity for putting public money to good use for charities that serve the public.

If you have a gripe specifically about John Halligan just come out and say it. Trying to smear him for allocating the money to local charities is fairly odd.

I'm certainly not trying to smear anyone, just laying the facts out for everyone to see, I dont care if he gives all his money to charity, what I do have a problem with is people saying 'shor thats putting it up to the other 3 TD's' and 'why won't the other 3 TD's step up to the mark and do a good deed like John'. This is simply unfair becuase this 42,000 which he is giving to charities is not accessed by the other 3 TD's.

AdMMM

The simple fact is that each and every single TD earns this allowance, only it goes to their Party. They can reclaim this money from their party as a constituency expense and could very well choose to give it to charity. But they don't. Instead, they choose to spend this money on organising party activities such as Ard Fheis and the like, something which I vouch for as being one gigantic piss up at the tax payers expense or in the case of Ciara Conway, sending unsolicited mail.

Be under no illusions that the main parties use this PLA to fund their election campaigns to try and win votes. The only difference between what John did and what the main parties did is that a) this is John offering proof of following through with a pre-election promise and b) it benefits the entire region and those most in need, rather than those who are members of a political party.

Of course there are going to be those that are cynical but please consider what the main parties squander this allowance on (e.g. The Labour party bus for Eamon Gilmore to roll into constituencies in style in or SF's boasting of their representatives claiming only the industrial wage yet failing to tell everyone that not only do they claim the full PLA but also have their representatives donate the additional wage to the party funds which, you guessed it, they spend on the exact same things as FF, FG and Lab) before you come on here claiming them to be shameful.

dayshah

AdMMM wrote: »

Be under no illusions that the main parties use this PLA to fund their election campaigns to try and win votes. The only difference between what John did and what the main parties did is that a) this is John offering proof of following through with a pre-election promise and b) it benefits the entire region and those most in need, rather than those who are members of a political party.

That's it. Some people seem to think that our reps shouldn't be held accountable, that public representation is something that can be done in private.