Tonight With Vincent Browne Thread v2.0

Elmo

Storm 10 wrote: »

McGuinnes won because all of the twitters were Sinn Feinn, same as the Joe Duffy show recently in a text poll.

Your basing who won the vote because of how well SF did on Twitter????

I only saw the end of the debate and the only one, like with previous debates, who you could take seriously was Higgins. (I will admit I am bias there) but even if I felt someone else had done a good job I would say so.

The rest were like headless chickens trying to either one up each other or Brown. Or come to a consensus to avoid controversy. Suicide, Mental Health, Children, Hope, Change sure we all agree (doesn't make for much of a debate TBH)

Norris was very bad, while again I might be bias as I don't see him as a President, he finds it difficult not to smile, while McGuiness has the opposite problem.

Dana and Mary are both nice people but aren't suitable, while I think the media have created a storm in a tea cup for Mary, I just don't see her as President.

Gallagher was possible the best of the rest.

As for Mitchell he is very dull, however he topped the poll in Dublin for his Seat in the EU, but then he was the only FG candidate. And multi-seat elections are different.

Krusader

I would rate them from last night as:

1; Higgins
2. McGuinness
3. Gallagher
4. Davis
5. Mitchell
6. Dana
7. Norris

starlit

I would rate them from last night as:

1. Davis
2. Gallagher
3. Mitchell
4. Higgins
5. Dana
6. McGuinness
7. Norris

Elmo

Ireland AM poll

1. MMcG (55%)
2. Gallagher (18%)
3. Higgins (11%)
4. Norris (7%)
5. Gay (5%)
6. Dana and Mary (2%)

I am sure they could like with all phone in polls exclude restricted phone numbers and repeating phone numbers :rolleyes:

I demand One Phone, One Vote.

Skid

Interesting article by Vincent Browne in The Irish Times today on NAMA and Harry Crosbie's recent appearance on The Saturday Night Show

Wouldn't be surprised if he discusses this sooner or later on his show (again)
I agree with Vincent - that interview unveiled NAMA as a vehicle designed to bail out Developers - Lenihan and his cohorts were spoofing, yet again


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1005/1224305257468.html

DEVELOPERS ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO NAMA

HARRY CROSBIE, one of our more ebullient developers, was on the Saturday Night Show , hosted by Brendan O’Connor, on RTÉ at the weekend talking about the children’s hospital at the Mater, of which he is chairman, writes VINCENT BROWNE



He spoke about the plans to build the hospital and the facilities it will provide and how wonderful it all would be.
He got in to talking about the other projects with which he is involved, including the O2, the Point Village, the Grand Canal Theatre, Vicar Street and the convention centre.


He was asked about how much he owed and about his involvement in Nama and he became evasive.
He denied he owed half a billion euro but said he could not be specific about these matters because Nama required him not to speak of his dealings with it.


He then went on to speak quite a bit about his dealings with Nama and he said some astonishing things. Now it could be that what he said was untrue, but it is very unlikely that he was deliberately deceptive, for, aside from anything else, that would get him into big trouble with Nama.
It could also be that what he said was honestly mistaken. However, that too is unlikely for Harry Crosbie is an able, intelligent fellow, who knows his business and could be trusted to know fully the terms of his relationship with an institution such as Nama, which has enormous relevance for what he and many others are doing.


But before I get to what Harry Crosbie said on Saturday night I want to quote what the late Brian Lenihan said in the Dáil on October 14th, 2009, when speaking in reply to the debate on the second stage of the Nama Bill.
He said: “Another misplaced claim that has been made during the course of the second stage debate is that this Bill represents a bailout for developers. This is just not so.


“Let me be clear – Nama is not designed to be and will not be permitted to operate in practice as a bailout mechanism for developers who have operated irresponsibly.
“The amount a borrower owes will not change because of the transfer of a loan from his bank to Nama. The agency will have a statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers’ return and will therefore be expected to use its entire means to this end. The Bill also provides the agency with the wide range of powers it needs to pursue borrowers and enforce security.
“In some cases this will mean that borrowers’ personal assets will have to be assumed by Nama. In such circumstances, I cannot understand how the misconception that Nama will bail out developers continues to run.”


Now back to Harry Crosbie on Saturday night.
He said Nama had been very helpful in helping to complete the Grand Canal Theatre development by affording working capital to complete the project.
He said Nama had also funded the completion of the Point Village, where there will be offices, residential units, a cinema and other facilities. And then he said: “We will pay back what they [Nama] paid”.
Just to explain that: he borrowed some hundreds of millions from the banks; Nama took over these loans from the banks, but at a discount, and Harry Crosbie will pay back, not what he initially borrowed, but what Nama paid the banks on the transfer of the loans.


In other words, Nama is a device to bail out the developers.
Remember what Brian Lenihan said just two years ago: “The amount a borrower owes will not change because of the transfer of a loan from his bank to Nama. The agency will have a statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers’ return and will therefore be expected to use its entire means to this end.”


According to Harry Crosbie the amount the borrower owes will and has changed and the purpose of Nama is not to maximise the taxpayers’ return (incidentally, I believe the word “taxpayer” is ideologically loaded and I use it here just because Brian Lenihan used the word).
I phoned Nama and asked to speak to their press office. I was told they did not have a press office, that their communications were being handed by Gordon MRM. I got to talk to the managing director and owner of Gordon MRM, Ray Gordon, who told me: “The priority of Nama is to recover the amount Nama paid for the loans”.


He went on to say that Nama would pursue the full amount in many cases, depending on the level of co-operation they had received from the borrower but often there was no point. He said the focus of Nama on recovering the amount Nama paid for the loans had been stated in the latest annual report and in statements made recently on behalf of Nama.
So there you have it.


In spite of all the promises made just two years ago that Nama would not be a bailout agency for developers, Nama is a bailout agency for developers. The developers will not be pursued for every penny they’ve got, they will escape debts of hundreds of millions in many instances, while people in negative equity in their homes will be pursued for every penny they’ve got.
And, we, the people of Ireland, will pick up the tab.
Well done!

fred funk }{

Yum yum...... Nice bit of eye candy tonight.

irishh_bob

vinny going off on one of his usual idealogical tangents there , thus eclipsing the entire thesis of the 1st speaker

Jess16

I'm very glad that Vincent made the point about paying VAT. Irish consumers play a vital role in promoting economic growth which is something that is constantly overlooked and undermined. Paying income tax is all very well but your earnings aren't of much economic benefit if they're left languishing in a bank. Consumers are essential and important taxpayers too

Skid

I hate it when he has Sarah McInerney on the panel, but he won't talk to her. :mad:

The director is getting a few wide shots in so i can get a look at her, at least. Fair play to him.

hotmail.com

820,000 watched the debate last night. Fantastic figure for TV3. I think that might be higher than the LLS "debate".

ascanbe

irishh_bob wrote: »

vinny going off on one of his usual idealogical tangents there , thus eclipsing the entire thesis of the 1st speaker

Yes, Vincent is going off on his ideological tangents.
However; the 'entire thesis' of the first speaker is b*ll****.
Have to laugh at John Bruton, the good European and cheerleader for those behind the ideological decisions that continue making this crisis worse, on behalf of the banks, practically making doe-eyes at the smooth talking fellow from the banking sector.
At least i think he's a banker, or a former one; certainly sounds like it.

JonathanAnon

I think I'm in love with Sarah McInerney..

ascanbe

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think I'm in love with Sarah McInerney..

I think John Bruton is in love with the fellow to her left.

Skid

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think I'm in love with Sarah McInerney..

I saw her first.

I challenge you to Pistols at Dawn, at Ballymount.

take everything

Sad story.

Jess16

So imprisoning environmentally aware pensioners is a priority for our country now. I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic

Callan57

Jess16 wrote: »

So imprisoning environmentally aware pensioners is a priority for our country now. I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic

You might not laugh so loud if you were without Electricity for a week or two

steelcityblues

What is it with Fine Gaelers having blatant digs at other candidates?

Bruton on Michael D tonight, the latest example.

JP Liz V1

Watched the debate repeat last night Gallagher, Higgins and McGuinness did well imo Gallagher is surprising me tbh

JonathanAnon

When I saw Clare Daly on the panel, I nearly put my left wing through the screen...

My name is URL

"Polls are meaningless but I have 30% of the Farmer's vote"

- Gay Mitchell, October 2011

Min

Claire Daly making a good point :eek:

JonathanAnon

David Norris was the first one to come out.. Does that mean he gets Ming's vote..

I do love his bluntness all the same..

Min

Nice one Ming with Kenny's nose :pac:

SB-08

It was obvious from day one Mitchell would have no chance. He is a career politician and not a likable personality. His appeal is very limited. John Bruton would have walked the election had he decided to run. Shame on Inda and Richard Bruton etc for not pushing him more.

Harry Angstrom

Ming is a legend!

Red Right Hand

Ming is lucid, when did he get off the ****?

Min

Pascal is deluded.

JonathanAnon

SB-08 wrote: »

It was obvious from day one Mitchell would have no chance. He is a career politician and not a likable personality.

I agree with you that the problem is the man has a serious likeability problem... But why did FG have to limit their options to Pat Fox (who would have been annihilated for his arrogance and his FF links) and the Gay Mitchell, the grumpiest man since Van Morrison..

It really is a huge pity for them that Bruton didnt want it.. I reckon he would have had a good shot...

Oh_Noes

Red Right Hand wrote: »

Ming is lucid, when did he get off the ****?

Was that a comment about his wife