Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do I think there is a difference between openly showing your accounts and hiding the fact.......YES!

As to you scutinising the accounts, that's fine too, but you also have to 'actually' listen to their interpretation, not condemm first and then spend many pages defending your position.
There is no more to be said about these particular cases, there is plenty to be said for the governments failure to answer calls for the system to be fixed.

But why is the system broken? Because it allows inappropriate expense claims?

You have to acknowledge these were inappropriate first, if you are to claim them as examples of a broken system

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

Water doesn't have a mind of its own,

I think you'll find it does, otherwise I could tell it to stay in the f**king pipe!

Laminations wrote: »

But why is the system broken? Because it allows inappropriate expense claims?

You have to acknowledge these were inappropriate first, if you are to claim them as examples of a broken system

Laminations, the little fact that escapes you on all of these condemnation threads is that they are 'defending' their positions and reasons for doing this. The 'system' has yet to deem them inappropiate, it has said that no breaking of the rules happened in one case and it is seeking legal advice on the other.
You think(which is your perogative) they are inappropiate despite the above and the defence offered by those concerned, so the 'system' needs changing to make you right. It that so hard to grasp?

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Laminations, the little fact that escapes you on all of these condemnation threads is that they are 'defending' their positions and reasons for doing this. The 'system' has yet to deem them inappropiate, it has said that no breaking of the rules happened in one case and it is seeking legal advice on the other.
You think(which is your perogative) they are inappropiate despite the above and the defence offered by those concerned, so the 'system' needs changing to make you right. It that so hard to grasp?

Yes. Because you are abdicating your responsibility to determine whether something is appropriate or not to a system. If the system says its okay, you think it's okay. Under such a moral system you'd have to accept politicians using taxpayers money on prostitutes as appropriate if the system allowed it.

You are arguing for a change to the system. Why? It is clear you must have some standards independent of the system

invinciblePRSTV

What's quite amusing is that the OP is a shill for Paudie Coffey TD. A TD who has claimed nearly twice the amount of expenses as Joe Higgins has, but chooses to claim them under the 'unvouched' system, so no one knows exactly what Coffey has spent taxpayers money he's claimed back on.

This contrasts nicely to Joe Higgins who at least declares all his expenses publicly.

Where's the outrage Sully? why aren't you giving out about your man taking advantage of the ridiculous 'unvouched' expenses system? where's your outrage about the political party which you're a member of having 2 TDs in your constituency who claim expenses in a manner which can easily be abused?

It's not like the FG organisation in Waterford can exactly claim to be whiter then white given recent headlines.....

yore

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

What's quite amusing is that the OP is a shill for Paudie Coffey TD. A TD who has claimed nearly twice the amount of expenses as Joe Higgins has, but chooses to claim them under the 'unvouched' system, so no one knows exactly what Coffey has spent taxpayers money he's claimed back on.

This contrasts nicely to Joe Higgins who at least declares all his expenses publicly.

Where's the outrage Sully? why aren't you giving out about your man taking advantage of the ridiculous 'unvouched' expenses system? where's your outrage about the political party which you're a member of having 2 TDs in your constituency who claim expenses in a manner which can easily be abused?

It's not like the FG organisation in Waterford can exactly claim to be whiter then white given recent headlines.....

I had to google coffey's name. It tells me he's a TD for Waterford. You can't claim that expenses from Waterford should be the same as someone from West Dublin!

If this Coffey fella had been pontificating about these types of abuses, I'd say that you'd have a point in showing his hypocracy. Maybe he has; feel free to point me to examples. I don't think know if he has because as I said, I'd never heard of him or ever seen him on nightly TV panel shows shouting rhetorical crap.

Jolly Red Giant

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

It's not like the FG organisation in Waterford can exactly claim to be whiter then white given recent headlines.....

And remember - Fine Gael as a party spent nine years evading tax by paying their staff under the counter - and raised €3million to fight the general election from 'golf classics' despite the fact that they declared zero income from political donations.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Just a reminder: ad hominem and other overly personalized attacks are not welcome in this forum.

Am Chile

yore wrote: »

I had to google coffey's name. It tells me he's a TD for Waterford. You can't claim that expenses from Waterford should be the same as someone from West Dublin!

If this Coffey fella had been pontificating about these types of abuses, I'd say that you'd have a point in showing his hypocracy. Maybe he has; feel free to point me to examples. I don't think know if he has because as I said, I'd never heard of him or ever seen him on nightly TV panel shows shouting rhetorical crap.

The Senate sat for only 98 days last year but average expenses for the Waterford senators were from €48,000 for Paudie Coffey

http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/waterford-senators%E2%80%99-expenses/

I've seen paudie coffey in action and heard in him in debates, he has a habit of constantly Interupting people, paudie in action in this debate bashing peoples right to join a trade union. 3.50 into the video.

Jolly Red Giant

Laminations wrote: »

But why is the system broken? Because it allows inappropriate expense claims?

The system is designed to feather then nests of establishment politicians - the only reason that is being exposed is because socialists have consistantly questioned how the system operates.

The only political groups to openly support a reduction of TD's salaries and the implementation of a system of expenses based solely on receipts is the ULA and Sinn Fein.

K-9

PM the mods if you have a problem with moderation or post on the feedback thread on the main page. Accusations of shilling are frowned on in the forum to protect all posters.

Shea O'Meara

Spin from the powers that be and other right wing concerns.
There is a marked difference between this and any previous expense 'scandal'.
They openly said what they were using the expenses for, the issue is not that they got caught out as it's being spun, but that it may be a misuse, which is currently being debated.
What I expect is, and would never happen with others, if found to have done wrong they will endeavour to make amends.....not fight tooth and nail to hold on to any ill-gotten gains as others with the real brass necks would.

Jolly Red Giant

Statement by Joe Higgins TD Socialist Party/ULA

Travel costs of Joe Higgins TD relating to attending political or campaign related events outside Dublin January to June 2012

“When travelling by car to political or any campaign related events outside of Dublin, to recoup the cost of petrol, I use the the AA fuel cost reckoner. On that basis the costs, which I sought to recoup for the period of January to June 2012 are as follows:

Cork (by train) – €71; Castlebar – €74 – Bed & Breakfast – €35; Monaghan-NIL; Ennis (by train) – €63 – Bed & Breakfast – €36; Waterford – NIL; Dundalk – €25; Navan – €17; Mullingar – €24; Naas – €11; Wicklow – €14; Tralee (by train) – €79; Carlow (train one way) – €16; Donegal – €72; Galway – €60; Limerick (by train) – €58 – Bed & Breakfast – €54; Clonmel – €56; Enniscorthy – €34; Tullamore – €30; Killarney (one way) – €44; Killarney/Cork – €13; Cork/Dublin – €37; Kilcoole, Co. Wicklow – €13

TOTAL: €935.00

If the legal advice sought by the Oireachtas Commission says that costs for travel to public events outside of Dublin are not contemplated by the monthly Oireachtas Travel Allowance then this amount will be restored to the fund.

Dublin United Left Alliance TDs seek urgent meeting with Oireachtas Commission

The four Dublin based United Left Alliance deputies Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Richard Boyd Barrett and Joan Collins have written today to the Oireachtas Commission seeking an early meeting with it in regard to aspects of the travel allowances to members of the Oireachtas. We are seeking a more detailed exposition regarding the travel allowance than a mere question of whether it is to be applied only within a constituency and for travel to Dail Eireann

http://www.joehiggins.ie/2012/07/press-statement-travel-costs-of-joe-higgins-td-outlined/

Chips Lovell

To be honest, I find it a rather academic question as to whether a politician should be allowed claim expenses only on constituency business or whether they can claim them relating to national issues too.

However, from a moral perspective, I find it objectionable that someone is using tax payer's money to encourage people to break the law.

If you don't agree with a tax, fine. Build support against it and ensure that a government is elected that will abolish it at the next election. Encouraging non-payment only adds to the cost of collecting the tax and adds to the burden of all tax payers.

invinciblePRSTV

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And remember - Fine Gael as a party spent nine years evading tax by paying their staff under the counter - and raised €3million to fight the general election from 'golf classics' despite the fact that they declared zero income from political donations.

We could be here all day JRG if we start talking about the shady and murky practices carried out by FG politicians over the years.

Which is why when FG supporters start harping on about the Higgins/Daly/Collins expenses, expenses which are vouched for and directly related to political activity, rather then feathering one's owns nest as is the classical FF/FG tradition, one can only smile at the hypocrisy of it all.

Ask yourself this JRG, on the yearly politicians expenses list, why is it mainly FG/FF politicians who've decided to go down the 'unvouched' expenses route?

What are they hiding?

Jolly Red Giant

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you don't agree with a tax, fine. Build support against it and ensure that a government is elected that will abolish it at the next election. Encouraging non-payment only adds to the cost of collecting the tax and adds to the burden of all tax payers.

Fine Gael and the LP have broken practially every promise they made before the election (I am assuming that you heard both Quinn and Rabbitte say last night that they lied to the electorate before the election). Ireland does not a mechanism to recall or change a government - this government if it can keep its majority together can drag on until 2016 imposing untold misery on the working class people of this country.

The CAHWT isn't simply opposing the household charge - it is campaigning against austerity and outlining an alternative that requires taxing the rich and implementing policies of growth. At some stage it may be necessary to launch a campaign to bring down this austerity government and the working class of this country would be perfectly within their rights to do so.

Chips Lovell

But there is a mechanism to bring down a government before its term expires. A government is reliant on the support of a parliamentary majority. Individual TDs can be lobbied to withdraw their support from the government. If enough of them do so, it'll lose its majority. Willie Penrose for example.

daltonmd

They have to pay it back.

Jolly Red Giant

daltonmd wrote: »

They have to pay it back.

The establishment have opened up a can of worms with this attack - and if you think the ULA will let it lie at this then you are sorely mistaken.

Note the following from the above statement -
We are seeking a more detailed exposition regarding the travel allowance than a mere question of whether it is to be applied only within a constituency and for travel to Dail Eireann

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

You are arguing for a change to the system. Why? It is clear you must have some standards independent of the system

I think the system is unclear and needs to be changed. What is required is a simple change, if the will is there to do it. It isn't, I am more interested in why that is and I have my suspicions. And further, I think we will see those suspicions confirmed.
Do I think a TD deserves reasonable recompense for expenses incurred while fulfilling his/her duties?....Yes, I do. I am not one of those shouting 'they're all at it' on other threads, and I'm certainly not inferring that because one does it, that all party members are corrupt and hypocritical. That is the territory of the political buffoon.

yore

Am Chile wrote: »

The Senate sat for only 98 days last year but average expenses for the Waterford senators were from €48,000 for Paudie Coffey

http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/waterford-senators%E2%80%99-expenses/

I've seen paudie coffey in action and heard in him in debates, he has a habit of constantly Interupting people, paudie in action in this debate bashing peoples right to join a trade union. 3.50 into the video.

I looked at your video (well I fastforwarded to 3:50) ........... he didn't bash anyone's right to join a union :rolleyes: . the question wasn't even about the right to join a union!

And in relation to the expenses, maybe we can agree that all politicians (or at least the examples put forward in this thread) are all the same ? These ULA wasters are no better morally than any other shower.

yore

daltonmd wrote: »

They have to pay it back.

I wonder will they pay it back from their "average industrial wage" that they harp on about or will they still get the same amount into their pocket and have their party pay for it

"average industrial wage" is a nice net amount to have in your pocket after all your day-to-day expenses have been taken care of!

Mr. Loverman

Sully wrote: »

it seems all these left-thinking parties in the Dail who claim to be elected to fight for the working class are all just out to rob the country blind.

Why are you surprised? The people who make it to the level of TD are the ruthless egomaniacs.

RedRightHand

What's the big surprise? Like all true socialists they believe in wealth distribution. Every utterance of theirs amounts to 'what is yours is mine also'.

Jolly Red Giant

yore wrote: »

I wonder will they pay it back from their "average industrial wage" that they harp on about or will they still get the same amount into their pocket and have their party pay for it

"average industrial wage" is a nice net amount to have in your pocket after all your day-to-day expenses have been taken care of!

poor attempt at innuendo - Socialist Party representatives are only reimbursed for expenses accruing from their job - in the same way when I (on a rare occasion) travel for job purposes I am reimbursed for my expenses. All Socialist Party elected representatives live on the average industrial wage - the excess is allocated to a wide variety of political, social and community groups, campaigns and activities. No Socialist Party representative is allowed to make any financial gain from political activity - it is a party policy that is strictly enforced.

For Forks Sake

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

All Socialist Party elected representatives live on the average industrial wage - the excess is allocated to a wide variety of political, social and community groups, campaigns and activities. No Socialist Party representative is allowed to make any financial gain from political activity - it is a party policy that is strictly enforced.

This nonsense again. Each one of them still cost the exchequer €92000 PLUS expenses per annum. Whether they decide to spend it on their party, rocket cars or flying monkeys is utterly irrellevant. This 'average industrial wage' is a smokescreen, there is no saving to the national coffers by electing a ULA/Socialist/Sinn Fein TD

If they truly want to take the national industrial wage, then let them come to an arrangement whereby they will only be paid a salary of 36k from the state, or let them refund the difference between 92k and the 'average industrial wage' back to the exchequer, rather than the current mockery.

Jolly Red Giant

For Forks Sake wrote: »

This nonsense again. Each one of them still cost the exchequer €92000 PLUS expenses per annum. Whether they decide to spend it on their party, rocket cars or flying monkeys is utterly irrellevant. This 'average industrial wage' is a smokescreen, there is no saving to the national coffers by electing a ULA/Socialist/Sinn Fein TD

And not surprisingly you miss the entire point of the exercise - the reason that Socialist Party public representatives only take the average industrial wage is that they were elected by people who live on the AIW - A TD on €92K a year plus expenses of up to €50K a year plus free golf club membership (Enda has four of them) etc etc has no idea what it is like to struggle on the AIW trying to put a roof over your head, food on the table and have a decent health and education system for your children. Ministers and TDs live in the world of the richest 10% - Socialist Party representatives live with the 90%

For Forks Sake wrote: »

If they truly want to take the national industrial wage, then let them come to an arrangement whereby they will only be paid a salary of 36k from the state, or let them refund the difference between 92k and the 'average industrial wage' back to the exchequer, rather than the current mockery.

I've got a far better idea - how about we cut the TDs salary to the average industrial wage and only allow reimbursement of expenses for work connected with the job and with receipts. Then we ban corporate donations to political parties and make ALL personal donations declarable (unlike the FG 'golf classics' where everyone pays just below the rate for public declarations - including Denis O'Brien). Then we stop the media owners who have a vested interested in political manipulation printing tribe about people without declaring their interest.

I could go on - but the point is pretty obvious.

christmas2012

half the dail could do with a shakeup they are a bunch of hypocrites telling us to tighten our belts while they are living off expenses and the like..

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Socialist Party representatives live with the 90%

How many of the "90%" claim expenses from their employer for travelling to Socialist Party demonstrations?

For that matter, how many of them can claim expenses for travelling to and from work?

How many of them are paid by the taxpayer to encourage people to break the law?

daltonmd

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The establishment have opened up a can of worms with this attack - and if you think the ULA will let it lie at this then you are sorely mistaken.

Note the following from the above statement -
We are seeking a more detailed exposition regarding the travel allowance than a mere question of whether it is to be applied only within a constituency and for travel to Dail Eireann

In the same article from Joe:

"If the legal advice sought by the Oireachtas Commission says that costs for travel to public events outside of Dublin are not contemplated by the monthly Oireachtas Travel Allowance then this amount will be restored to the fund," said Mr Higgins. "


They sought legal advice did they not?

I mean correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there a recent kuffufle with a certain party when they accused the state of using public funds to take a paticular stance in a recent referendum?

So the state are not allowed to use taxpayers money to argue for a yes vote, but the left think it's ok, not only to use public money, but to use money designated for another purpose, to argue and fight for a "no" vote - a vote by the way that was not called as the household charge is now law?

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

but to use money designated for another purpose.

That is what is in dispute, which makes your point null and void I'm afraid. Until the system is clear there will be no change.

Jolly Red Giant

daltonmd wrote: »

They sought legal advice did they not?

And so is Joe Higgins, which he is perfectly entitled to do. In fact the ULA is looking for the Oireachtas Commission to outline the legal position on all aspects of Dail allowances and expenses, not just the narrow issue of travelling to and from the Dail.

daltonmd wrote: »

I mean correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there a recent kuffufle with a certain party when they accused the state of using public funds to take a paticular stance in a recent referendum?

Big difference here - and if you can't see it then you should take off the blinkers.

daltonmd wrote: »

So the state are not allowed to use taxpayers money to argue for a yes vote, but the left think it's ok, not only to use public money, but to use money designated for another purpose, to argue and fight for a "no" vote - a vote by the way that was not called as the household charge is now law?

The government did use public money to campaign for a yes vote - the government is also using public money to threaten ordinary decent citizens (who have no responsibility for the crisis) - the government will also use public money to drag the same citizens before the courts.

Furthermore this is the same government that refuses to change company law so a tax-dodging TD can be force to pay his tax bill from ALL his assets - a government that refuses to change the law to force tax-dodging exiles (who fund the FG party) to pay their fair share - a government that refuses to change tax breaks that only benefit the super-rich - a government sets a salary cap for consultants and promptly breaks it - a government that has broken practically every promise it made before the election (and has government ministers admitting they lied to the electorate) - and a Fine Gael party shouting about tax abuses when it spent nine (9) years dodging its own tax responsibilities by paying its staff under the counter. And I haven't even mentioned Hogan's junket to Rio or Varadker's junket to india.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many of the "90%" claim expenses from their employer for travelling to Socialist Party demonstrations?

Evidence that Joe Higgins or Clare Daly have done this?

oscarBravo wrote: »

For that matter, how many of them can claim expenses for travelling to and from work?

How many of the TDs in the Dail support the Socialist party proposals to cut TDs salaries to the AIW and scrap unreceipted expenses?

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many of them are paid by the taxpayer to encourage people to break the law?

Joe higgins and Clare Daly are keeping their election promises and doing what they said they would do if elected - I know that's a bit of a noveltuy for a hack like you.

Better to break the law than break the poor.

gerryo777

SocSocPol wrote: »

Good to see these chancers shown up for what they are, they protest against everything at our expense!
They are worse than FF ever were.

I don't remember any members of the ULA bankrupting the country, funnily enough!

Padraig Mor

Don't forget that the taxpayer pays pension contributions for the ULA shysters based on their full TD wage, and they will later receive a pension based on this wage. All aboard the gravy train!

20Cent

Trains and B&Bs Joe sure is living the high life there. I hope this results in an end to unvouched expenses (Higgins et al have submitted receipts for all their claims unlike the rest of them) and tighter regulations. Could open up a big can or worms I doubt the other parties want to see their unvouched gravy train end. There is no reason a TDs receipts can't be scanned in and published. There are even apps that do this now.

Laminations

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

the reason that Socialist Party public representatives only take the average industrial wage is that they were elected by people who live on the AIW

Well they don't have the exclusive claim to these voters. AIW voters vote for all parties id imagine,

no idea what it is like to struggle on the AIW trying to put a roof over your head, food on the table and have a decent health and education system for your children.

Yes it's such a struggle for them

For representatives of the common man they shouldn't really be standing by a tax cheat ex-millionaire developer who shafted his workers and doubled his salary as his company was failing and purposely evaded tax.

This expenses issue is the latest example of them being typical politicians, look after your own and fleece the system. Calling for regulation reform is the right thing to do but abusing the system until it happens is wrong.

'Bring in stricter rules cos we can't help ourselves' doesn't have as nice a ring to it

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is what is in dispute, which makes your point null and void I'm afraid. Until the system is clear there will be no change.

See my plectrums example. When something is unclear it's better to seek clarification or air on the side of conservatism instead of filling ones pockets and later asking 'oh was that wrong, I didn't understand you'.

They stretched the interpretation of what that allowance could be used for to a point where the Oureactas service had “never envisaged” .

And despite what the 'rules' may have said (rules from a system they recognise as flawed and open to abuse) they never stopped to ask themselves 'wait is it really right for us to use tax payers money for this?'

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

Well they don't have the exclusive claim to these voters. AIW voters vote for all parties id imagine,



Yes it's such a struggle for them

For representatives of the common man they shouldn't really be standing by a tax cheat ex-millionaire developer who shafted his workers and doubled his salary as his company was failing and purposely evaded tax.

This expenses issue is the latest example of them being typical politicians, look after your own and fleece the system. Calling for regulation reform is the right thing to do but abusing the system until it happens is wrong.

'Bring in stricter rules cos we can't help ourselves' doesn't have as nice a ring to it

Claire Daly made it very clear what her opinion was on Wallace AGAIN last night.
But if your point of reference is the Daily Mail.....you might have missed that.

Mr Wallace's dress code rarely departs from clothes more suit- ed to the building sites he once frequented.

:rolleyes:

K-9

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Joe higgins and Clare Daly are keeping their election promises and doing what they said they would do if elected - I know that's a bit of a noveltuy for a hack like you.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Don't forget that the taxpayer pays pension contributions for the ULA shysters based on their full TD wage, and they will later receive a pension based on this wage. All aboard the gravy train!

Thread is getting very personal and uncivil. Please don't refer to posters as hacks or politicians as shysters, this is Politics, not AH. There already has been a couple of mod warnings on this.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

See my plectrums example. When something is unclear it's better to seek clarification or air on the side of conservatism instead of filling ones pockets and later asking 'oh was that wrong, I didn't understand you'.

They stretched the interpretation of what that allowance could be used for to a point where the Oureactas service had “never envisaged” .

And despite what the 'rules' may have said (rules from a system they recognise as flawed and open to abuse) they never stopped to ask themselves 'wait is it really right for us to use tax payers money for this?'

So you agree it is unclear...that's progress, I suppose.
Again I ask you, why, if there was malice aforethought would they publish this stuff, openly, in their accounts?
Please answer that question not one you make up.

gerryo777

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Don't forget that the taxpayer pays pension contributions for the ULA shysters based on their full TD wage, and they will later receive a pension based on this wage. All aboard the gravy train!

The gravy train is being driven by enda and eamon don't forget.

Good to see enda deferring his €100,000 pension from his 4 years of teaching until he retires........oh yea and his €30k a year he'll get from that one........... and his lump sum from his political career....... and his annual pension from politics after that which, if going by previous leaders pensions, will be another €150,000 a year.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=enda%20kenny%20teacher%20pension&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fkenny-says-he-will-defer-e100k-pension-lump-sum-until-he-leaves-politics-87736-Feb2011%2F&ei=-tH0T67DIoq3hQeIyITTBg&usg=AFQjCNFKrPnML2QL4yekYy7RKe-L4A_nXg

Am Chile

THREE UNITED Left Alliance TDs embroiled in a public row over the use of their Dublin travel allowances have found a most unlikely ally in the form of a Fine Gael Minister.

Brian Hayes, Minister of State at the Department of Finance, disclosed yesterday that when in opposition he had used his allowance, worth €1,000 per month, to cover the costs of his travel throughout the country in his capacity as Fine Gael education spokesman.

He said he had sympathy for the three TDs: Joe Higgins and Clare Daly of the Socialist Party and Joan Collins of People Before Profit.

He said that an interpretation of the rule that did not include travel outside the constituency fulfilling a TD’s essential public duties and responsibilities was “bizarre”.

His intervention came as the Houses of the Oireachtas service yesterday said legal advice it had sought confirmed its finding that the three TDs were not entitled to use the allowance for travel outside their constituencies, unless it was to and from Leinster House.

All three said they used the allowance to cover the expenses of attending meetings and rallies against household charges and water taxes outside Dublin.

Mr Hayes told The Irish Times yesterday: “My understanding in opposition was that it was for use for travelling in your own constituency, but also for travel throughout the country in your role as a public representative.

“I was the party spokesman on education and went to universities, institutes and schools throughout the State to meet people, to attend meetings, to listen to people. I was getting no money from the party for that. I used my allowance for that.

“To suggest that it does not cover travel and accommodation costs for politicians in terms of doing their public duty is, in my view, bizarre.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0705/1224319429077.html

I wonder will all those bashing Joe and Clare also call for Brian Hayes to return the money he used from travel allowance to travel around the country as an opposition td? although I won,t hold my breath.

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

poor attempt at innuendo - Socialist Party representatives are only reimbursed for expenses accruing from their job - in the same way when I (on a rare occasion) travel for job purposes I am reimbursed for my expenses. All Socialist Party elected representatives live on the average industrial wage - the excess is allocated to a wide variety of political, social and community groups, campaigns and activities. No Socialist Party representative is allowed to make any financial gain from political activity - it is a party policy that is strictly enforced.

Nope. No innuendo here. It's a direct question. They have this mockery of living off the "average industrial wage" (They should be looking for the median, not the average if they want to be on a par with the "average person", but however).

They are claiming they will pay back the expenses if required. I'm simply asking if they'll pay it back from this magic amount they claim goes into their own pocket and thus leaving them with less, or if they'll pay it with the rest of the salary that also goes into their bank account every month, but they choose to ignore counting that. Who will be at the loss of the money - the politicians or the causes they donate it to! If it's the second one, it's no skin off their noses to pay it is it?


All TD's get paid far more than the AIW. And I'm sure that every TD will incur expenses in order to keep their standing in the local community or get their name about. That might be small things like buying tickets for the local GAA car raffle or expenses on attended whatever local function to be seen. Most don't get to write it off as pseudo expenses - which is what the SP do by claiming their full wages and "writing off" the portion they put towards their own party in order to increase their election chances.

If I get paid 100 grand a year, I can't claim I live on the AIW because I spend over half of it down the bookies and on coke and hookers.


Oh, and to use your own analogy. you get reimbursed your work expenses. But suppose your work found out that one of your receipts should not have been allowed as it was for something not allowed under the rules, you'd have to pay it back out of your own pocket. You wouldn't get extra money to cover

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is what is in dispute, which makes your point null and void I'm afraid. Until the system is clear there will be no change.

Yes and your point is null because as you said "they have now opened a an of worms" - the emphasis is on "what" they used it on.

There's no disputing that members of the dail have used these allowances for the nature of their dail duty - and not just to and from work. But Dail business is not arguing against what is law.

They are an absolutel disgrace. They claim to represent the "workers" - how many workers get paid to travel to and from work in the first place?

They get more expenses than other get in wages - they stood for change and gave us more of the same.l

daltonmd

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And so is Joe Higgins, which he is perfectly entitled to do. In fact the ULA is looking for the Oireachtas Commission to outline the legal position on all aspects of Dail allowances and expenses, not just the narrow issue of travelling to and from the Dail.

Read it again. He said if the legal advice that they took advice and it was shown that the money should not have been used for that purpose then he would repay it - they did as he asked and he's not repaying it.

Richard Boyd Barrett asked this before he submitted the claim - e was told not to as travel expenses were not there to be used for that purpose.

RBB is a member of the technical group is he not? He asked the question and received and took the advice he was given - but other's didn't?

That shows an absolute lack of respect for taxpayers money - it really is saying "we will use it for whatever we want and if we are wrong then prove us wrong" - instead of asking for advice and then, as RBB did, respecting that advice.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Big difference here - and if you can't see it then you should take off the blinkers.

I'm not the blinkered one around here I can assure you.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The government did use public money to campaign for a yes vote - the government is also using public money to threaten ordinary decent citizens (who have no responsibility for the crisis) - the government will also use public money to drag the same citizens before the courts.

No they did not. If you recall this was found not to be the case in a court of law.

The household charge is law, and people have broken the law. We take people to court for murder, burglary, assault - these are laws. I can't pick and choose which law to break. Take your fight into the Dail - but a law is a law and they are bound to that law like anyome else.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Furthermore this is the same government that refuses to change company law so a tax-dodging TD can be force to pay his tax bill from ALL his assets - a government that refuses to change the law to force tax-dodging exiles (who fund the FG party) to pay their fair share - a government that refuses to change tax breaks that only benefit the super-rich - a government sets a salary cap for consultants and promptly breaks it - a government that has broken practically every promise it made before the election (and has government ministers admitting they lied to the electorate) - and a Fine Gael party shouting about tax abuses when it spent nine (9) years dodging its own tax responsibilities by paying its staff under the counter. And I haven't even mentioned Hogan's junket to Rio or Varadker's junket to india.

So all of this means that it's ok for others to abuse the system? As I said, these were the people who wanted to change this carry on, instead they are now no better than any of them.

Laminations

Am Chile wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0705/1224319429077.html

I wonder will all those bashing Joe and Clare also call for Brian Hayes to return the money he used from travel allowance to travel around the country as an opposition td? although I won,t hold my breath.

If it emerges most politicians interpreted the allowance this way then we can put it down to a clarity issue with the rules. As it stands I'd say Brian Hayes was wrong, he should have sought clearance to use his TAA like that. And yes he should pay it back.

At the same time there's a marked difference between spreading education policy and meeting with students and institutions and encouraging and supporting people to break the law. But he was wrong, same as these three.

Happyman42

Brian Hayes being pushed out to try and soften this, FG running scared as they probably know this is going to engulf them all.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

If it emerges most politicians interpreted the allowance this way then we can put it down to a clarity issue with the rules. As it stands I'd say Brian Hayes was wrong, he should have sought clearance to use his TAA like that. And yes he should pay it back.

At the same time there's a marked difference between spreading education policy and meeting with students and institutions and encouraging and supporting people to break the law. But he was wrong, same as these three.

Laminations softening his cough too.......I thought there was going to be hangings yesterday. Funny how a guilty FG changes everything.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Laminations softening his cough too.......I thought there was going to be hangings yesterday. Funny how a guilty FG changes everything.

How does it change everything. He was wrong, he shouldn't have done it, he should pay it back.

How is he a guilty FG TD when you haven't labelled the other three guilty? At least I'm consistent. They all misused the allowance

daltonmd

Laminations wrote: »

How does it change everything. He was wrong, he shouldn't have done it, he should pay it back.

How is he a guilty FG TD when you haven't labelled the other three guilty? At least I'm consistent. They all misused the allowance

And it begs the question again,why did RBB check it out?

"Mr Boyd Barrett said he had personally checked with the Leinster House authorities last year because the travel expense rules were very confusing. He said he had been told it was not possible to claim for travel to meetings outside his Dun Laoghaire constituency. As a result, he used funds raised by his People Before Profit movement to pay the travel costs.
"We went to great lengths to double check all of this because I was a bit anxious about it," he said."


If there was confusion then why didn't Joe Higgins check it out BEFORE claiming it?



To use it, be caught out for using it and to then fight it, is wrong.



Brian Hayes jumps into it? Of course - the gravy train is under threat - all parties can come together when something that they want to protect is in jeopardy.