Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

I answered the question clearly over a number of posts.
As I said, we know your position now, I asked the question originally because the tone of what you where saying seemed to suggest that TD's had no right to use taxpayers money on campaigns outside their constituency. It looked like you had a conflict going on between a moral objection to the campaign and TD's being entitled to expenses.

I have no conflict whatsoever, my views are crystal clear. Your interpretation of "my tone" is exactly that - your interpretation.

Again, what you think I thought it irrelevant. And you did not answer the question, an answer would be - Yes, I agree that all TD's should campaign on any/all issues including any/all that incite, support, encourage people to break any/all laws. Or no I do not.

Happyman42 wrote: »

AFAIK The accounts where pub
lic and accompanied by receipts and passed for payment (As he has to pay them back)

They were not accompanied by receipts - they were unvouched and the investigation was instigated by Claire Daly revealing what she actually claimed for.

Happyman42

sarumite wrote: »

I think encouraging people to evade tax is intrinsically wrong. I agree it is a grey area, which is why I asked the question. Our version of democracy relies upon people to contribute to society as a whole, including the payment of taxes. I have no problem with the hard left fighting to have the tax repealed. As a legislator, that would fall within the remit of Higgin's et al job function. However, actively encouraging people to evade tax is not. Using tax payers money to support a campaign that encourages people to evade tax is also wrong imo.

I don't think it is wrong if you see the 'tax' as being unfair and a sizable amount of those liable, do. As a public representative you have to decide if you are going to represent those people or not. That is the area of taking responsibility.
If people are prepared to go to jail for their beliefs, so be it. People conscientiously object all the time, which is what this is.
Rosa Parks broke 'the law' too. Some of the greatest changes made in our civilisation came about because people 'broke the law'. Suffragettes, civil rights campaigners, etc etc. Sometimes, it is the only way to make your point. In this case, and at this stage, I prefer to call it 'challenging the law'.

creedp

daltonmd wrote: »

They were not accompanied by receipts - they were unvouched and the investigation was instigated by Claire Daly revealing what she actually claimed for.

If they were unvouched then how will anyone know what expenses were inappropriate and what has to be refunded?. Its all very well to be excited about unvouched expense claims from a couple of TDs who have stated what some of these unvouched expenses were for. If we have a system of unvouched expenses then how in the hell are we ever going to know what they are being spent on? When selecting these TDs for a particular bashing are people seriously implying that all unvouched expenses claimed by TDs under this heading are actually related to the 'intended' use for this allowance? If that is the case then people are more naieve than I thought! By all means bash away as this was not the 'intended use' for this allowance but the very fact that the Oireachtas had to seek legal advice to clarify this speaks volumes.

daltonmd

creedp wrote: »

If they were unvouched then how will anyone know what expenses were inappropriate and what has to be refunded?. Its all very well to be excited about unvouched expense claims from a couple of TDs who have stated what some of these unvouched expenses were for. If we have a system of unvouched expenses then how in the hell are we ever going to know what they are being spent on? When selecting these TDs for a particular bashing are people seriously implying that all unvouched expenses claimed by TDs under this heading are actually related to the 'intended' use for this allowance? If that is the case then people are more naieve than I thought! By all means bash away as this was not the 'intended use' for this allowance but the very fact that the Oireachtas had to seek legal advice to clarify this speaks volumes.

Because Claire Daly revealed that she used her expenses to campaign for the anti - household charge around the country - VB stated, "hang on, I thought that these expenses were for work and travel in your constituency and to and from work".

From the Herald.ie

"The controversy emerged after outspoken TD Clare Daly revealed that she had been pumping the travel expenses into the campaign to encourage people against paying the €100 Household Charge. "


And the oireactas sought legal advice at Joe Higgins request to confirm their function. Which is:

"Parliamentary funding was intended to cover the expense of TDs in running an office and travelling to and from Leinster House, and within their own constituencies."

Again, if there was any confusion, then they should have done, what RBB did and asked for clarification. If they were unhappy with the decision then they should have fought it. But they didn't, they claimed it, revealed they claimed, the Oireactas reacted as they never envisioned that the expense would be used for any other function then the one laid out above.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

I have no conflict whatsoever, my views are crystal clear. Your interpretation of "my tone" is exactly that - your interpretation.

Again, what you think I thought it irrelevant. And you did not answer the question, an answer would be - Yes, I agree that all TD's should campaign on any/all issues including any/all that incite, support, encourage people to break any/all laws. Or no I do not.

Is everything in your life a Yes or No? I have supplied my answer several times now, you are entitled to disagree but you are not entitled to claim I didn't answer.

They were not accompanied by receipts - they were unvouched and the investigation was instigated by Claire Daly revealing what she actually claimed for.

Fair enough, but they aren't hiding what the money was spent on. Higgins has supplied a breakdown of the 900 approx he is liable for.

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Again, if there was any confusion, then they should have done, what RBB did and asked for clarification. If they were unhappy with the decision then they should have fought it. But they didn't, they claimed it, revealed they claimed, the Oireactas reacted as they never envisioned that the expense would be used for any other function then the one laid out above.

Be fair here, it isn't black and white, some people are clearly confused about it's use, Brian Hayes has said;

“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.”

and it is now the subject of independant legal advice. Simon COveney when asked about Hayes's statement kicked the ball to touch because he too, didn't know enough and wasn''t clear about it. You are too anxious to damm 'some' for being confused about it, we have people across the political spectrum, left and right, involved here.

Laminations

@ Jolly Red Giant

V good post on expenses. Highlights why we need expenses reform which I don't think anyone jere disagrees with. But it left me confused as to where the SP TDs wages go to get them down to AIW.

They are paid ~ 92k
They donate maximum allowed to party ~5k

Where does the rest go and what are they left with?

Sully

Higgins gives TDs' pre-paid envelopes to protesters

JOE Higgins is giving pre-paid Oireachtas envelopes -- a perk for TDs paid for by the taxpayer -- to a group campaigning against the household charge.

The Socialist Party TD was found to be in breach of Leinster House travel expenses rules this week, by claiming expenses for travelling to anti-household charge meetings around the country.

Mr Higgins is providing Oireachtas envelopes to the Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes.

The envelopes were used to advertise a meeting in his Dublin West constituency last night and the letters were on headed paper of the campaign.

The only reference to Mr Higgins on the letter is to acknowledge he covered the postage. The letter was sent out by Jimmy Dignam of the Dublin West Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes (CAHWT).

Mr Dignam also acts as a spokesman for the Socialist Party. He was unavailable for comment last night.

TDs are given 15,000 postage-paid envelopes a year to write to their constituents.

The Campaign Against the Household Tax is not actually part of the Socialist Party, but does have several links to Mr Higgins's party.

Socialist Party Councillor Ruth Coppinger is a spokesperson for the group.

CAHWT says it is a coalition including trade unionists, tenants' association organisers, TDs, and others against the €100 household charge.

Mr Higgins is going to fight a legal battle with the Leinster House authorities after they ruled he had to repay almost €1,000 in travel expenses.

The move came after three days of controversy regarding the use of travel expenses by him and two other left-wing TDs as they travelled throughout the country canvassing against the charge.

The Leinster House authorities received legal advice that it was not possible for TDs to use their travel expenses for such purposes, and that the money would have to be repaid.

Source: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/higgins-gives-tds-prepaid-envelopes-to-protesters-3160432.html

Good awl Joe representing the working class still anyway. A TD who is "fighting" against austerity and claims to represent the working class still feels the need to get his generous wages, leaders allowance, expenses which he has additionally milked the state for against the rules, a generous pension and now he has been giving out pre-paid envelopes that we (the tax payer) and his supporters (the working class) have to additionally pay out for on top of everything else.

Is this not such a contradiction to the socialist views? Is this type of money not what he should be against? The tax payers are struggling as it is without someone creaming us for everything we can give - right or wrong.

creedp

daltonmd wrote: »

Because Claire Daly revealed that she used her expenses to campaign for the anti - household charge around the country - VB stated, "hang on, I thought that these expenses were for work and travel in your constituency and to and from work".

From the Herald.ie

"The controversy emerged after outspoken TD Clare Daly revealed that she had been pumping the travel expenses into the campaign to encourage people against paying the €100 Household Charge. "


And the oireactas sought legal advice at Joe Higgins request to confirm their function. Which is:

"Parliamentary funding was intended to cover the expense of TDs in running an office and travelling to and from Leinster House, and within their own constituencies."

Again, if there was any confusion, then they should have done, what RBB did and asked for clarification. If they were unhappy with the decision then they should have fought it. But they didn't, they claimed it, revealed they claimed, the Oireactas reacted as they never envisioned that the expense would be used for any other function then the one laid out above.

Do I take it so that you would be of the view that all unvouched expenses from TD's under his particular heading are for the 'intended' purpose? As I said before there are a lot of TD's considering their position with respect to this scandal. The real problem here is the unvouched nature of the allowance. How can you seriously police an allowance when you can't verify what is is people are claiming expenses for. I know we all believe in the high standards of morality of our politicians but humans are humans.

I remember reading somewhere (apologies for lack of links) where junior ministers (senior boys had their State cars to pick up children for school and nightclub at the time) can claim a max of 60k miles a year mileage. As we are so sure of the morality of our politicians Im presuming they only claimed mileage for the 'intended purpose' as it was also unvouched. I mean our estemed Minister for Public Sector Reform when badgering Clare Daly about her expenses and said just because you can claim doesn't mean you should claim up to the max. The hyprocisy of it all!! We really should do a 'Yes Minister' type show in this country .. we could serialise the Oireachtas TV .. wouldn't cost a bob!

Laminations

Sully wrote: »

Higgins gives TDs' pre-paid envelopes to protesters



Source: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/higgins-gives-tds-prepaid-envelopes-to-protesters-3160432.html

How will he claim to have misunderstood the regulations here?

Members of all parties, right up to ministerial level, have been caught trying to steal a march on their rivals by using the parliamentary postal system -- intended for replies to constituents' representations -- for private political purposes.
The free envelopes system for TDs and senators is continuing to be abused, five years after a promised clampdown. Yesterday the SIPO warned it would not tolerate breaches of ethics through the use of the envelopes for the local and European elections. Each envelope costs the taxpayer 60c.
The commission warned: "TDs and Senators should not provide pre-paid Oireachtas envelopes, or other Oireachtas facilities ,to candidates at the forthcoming local and European elections."

From 2009
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/watchdog-raps-politicians-for-27m-abuse-of-free-envelopes-1696830.html

BARCODES are to be printed on all free-post envelopes supplied to TDs in a bid to stamp out abuse of the system. The official Oireachtas stationery must only be used for legitimate correspondence and constituency work.
Officials acted after the Irish Independent revealed last year that some politicians made personal use of them to send Christmas cards and, in some cases, party political literature.

From 2007
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/barcode-plan-to-stamp-out-abuse-of-dail-mail-61348.html

daltonmd

creedp wrote: »

Do I take it so that you would be of the view that all unvouched expenses from TD's under his particular heading are for the 'intended' purpose? As I said before there are a lot of TD's considering their position with respect to this scandal. The real problem here is the unvouched nature of the allowance. How can you seriously police an allowance when you can't verify what is is people are claiming expenses for. I know we all believe in the high standards of morality of our politicians but humans are humans.

So I take it that you mean - sure everyone is doing it so they're not doing anything wrong?

creedp wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere (apologies for lack of links) where junior ministers (senior boys had their State cars to pick up children for school and nightclub at the time) can claim a max of 60k miles a year mileage. As we are so sure of the morality of our politicians Im presuming they only claimed mileage for the 'intended purpose' as it was also unvouched. I mean our estemed Minister for Public Sector Reform when badgering Clare Daly about her expenses and said just because you can claim doesn't mean you should claim up to the max. The hyprocisy of it all!! We really should do a 'Yes Minister' type show in this country .. we could serialise the Oireachtas TV .. wouldn't cost a bob!

Who funds RTE?

Laminations

Actually in 2009 the barcodes were removed after a Seanad debate

This is from SIPO themselves

The Standards Commission considers that it is entirely inappropriate for members to pass such facilities on to other persons - such as election candidates - for personal, electoral or party political gain. Oireachtas facilities such as free pre-paid envelopes are provided at public expense to assist members in the performance of their functions as public representatives and the relevant codes of conduct require that such resources are used only for the purpose for which they are granted.

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/PressReleases/Name,9862,en.htm

But other people have done it in the past so lets all excuse Joe

The Standards Commission is also disappointed to note that, notwithstanding previous correspondence with office holders and with the Chairpersons of the Committees on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann and of Seanad Éireann, it continues to receive enquiries from concerned members of the public about this inappropriate use of Oireachtas facilities by persons who are not members of the Oireachtas.

creedp

daltonmd wrote: »

So I take it that you mean - sure everyone is doing it so they're not doing anything wrong?

No my point being that these unvouched expenses are being used by TD's in a way that cannot be verified by anyone so unless we accept that our politicians are morally of a high standard they are being flouted left, right and centre. What people should therefore be calling for is a complete reform of the system to have a vouched system of travel expenses. Otherwise leave it unvouched and continue to allow TD's to use their travel expenses any way they wish.

Who funds RTE?

There would be little or no marginal cost to serialising the Oireachtas TV and selling it worldwide for entertaintment purposes!

Happyman42

creedp wrote: »

No my point being that these unvouched expenses are being used by TD's in a way that cannot be verified by anyone so unless we accept that our politicians are morally of a high standard they are being flouted left, right and centre. What people should therefore be calling for is a complete reform of the system to have a vouched system of travel expenses. Otherwise leave it unvouched and continue to allow TD's to use their travel expenses any way they wish.

It's absolutely what has to happen.

Laminations

So Happyman42, Joe has been passing on Oireactas envelopes, is this still just a problem with the system or is there an issue with his behaviour with regard to tax payer funded Oireactas allowances and facilities?

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

So Happyman42, Joe has been passing on Oireactas envelopes, is this still just a problem with the system or is there an issue with his behaviour with regard to tax payer funded Oireactas allowances and facilities?

As a member of the working class, I am glad Joe is keeping the pitch level until EVERYONE is playing by the rules.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

As a member of the working class, I am glad Joe is keeping the pitch level until EVERYONE is playing by the rules.

Well thats your opinion, it is my opinion that that is a disgraceful attitude and one of the reasons this country is where it is.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

Well thats your opinion, it is my opinion that that is a disgraceful attitude and one of the reasons this country is where it is.

Well, the ruling class, (those who have been in power since the founding of the state) have had ample oppurtunity to sort this system out, why should the working class not be advantaged? Nobody can prove that Higgins etc lined their own pockets, it went to the benefit of fighting campaigns for the working classes. The same cannot be said of Callelly, O Donoghue etc.

Sort the system or condemmnation is as useful as ashtrays on motorbikes.

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, the ruling class, (those who have been in power since the founding of the state) have had ample oppurtunity to sort this system out, why should the working class not be advantaged? Nobody can prove that Higgins etc lined their own pockets, it went to the benefit of fighting campaigns for the working classes. The same cannot be said of Callelly, O Donoghue etc.

Sort the system or condemmnation is as useful as ashtrays on motorbikes.

I work, therefore I am a member of the working class. Higgins campaign did not benefit me in any way, in fact it had the opposite affect. He promoted a culture of tax evasion which means that I (as a member of the working class) have to pay more to get the same services to offset the loss of taxes through Higgins and co's nefarious actions.

Jolly Red Giant

Laminations wrote: »

They are paid ~ 92k
They donate maximum allowed to party ~5k

Where does the rest go and what are they left with?

Okay - the €92K salary is subject to tax etc - leaving a nett of a certain figure.

To calculate Joe Higgins salary we take the AIW as gross and then take away the deductions that would be due on that salary.

We then take the nett of the AIW salary and take it from the nett of the €92K Dail salary.

From this Joe Higgins donates €6,348 to the Socialist Party. After this Joe Higgins will donate money to any or all of the following (and its not an exhaustive list) -
Local and National Campaign groups (e.g. CAHWT)
Trade union strike funds
Community groups
Indivdual causes
International solidarity (e.g. after the tsumani in Sri Lanka in 2004 Joe Higgins purchased a large quantity of water purification tablets that were sent to Sri Lanka. Last year he provided funds for striking mine workers in Western Kazakhstan who were being tried on trumped up charges following a police massacre at a pro-strike demonstration).
On top of that he would do things like pay for the hiring of meeting rooms for various campaigns etc, provide funding for leaflets and posters etc.

All of the expenditure is documented and receipted and full accounts are placed before the Socialist Party annual Conference for scrutiny. Subsequently Socialist Party representatives make the accounts available for public scrutiny.

Happyman42

sarumite wrote: »

I work, therefore I am a member of the working class. Higgins campaign did not benefit me in any way, in fact it had the opposite affect. He promoted a culture of tax evasion which means that I (as a member of the working class) have to pay more to get the same services to offset the loss of taxes through Higgins and co's nefarious actions.

I think you might want to be pointing the finger at a few others for having to pay more, before Joe comes into sight.

Jolly Red Giant

Sully wrote: »

A TD who is "fighting" against austerity and claims to represent the working class still feels the need to get his generous wages, leaders allowance, expenses which he has additionally milked the state for against the rules, a generous pension

I am getting a little fed up of replying to slurs like this - Joe Higgins does not and never has made any personal gain from his Dail salary or expenses and his expenses are among the lowest for all TDs.

Sully wrote: »

and now he has been giving out pre-paid envelopes that we (the tax payer) and his supporters (the working class) have to additionally pay out for on top of everything else.

he is using the envelopes for the job he was elected to do.

Laminations wrote: »

How will he claim to have misunderstood the regulations here?

Nope - he was using the facilite of pre-paid envelopes exactly for what it was intended - communicating with people in his constituency on an issue of direct relevence to them.

Last week I got a leaflet from a local FG TD in an Oireachtas envelope outlining welfare entitlements and telling me to apply early for the back to school allowances. I could have found out all of this information on the citizens information website yet he felt it necessary to 'inform' me by post.

K-9

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I am getting a little fed up of replying to slurs like this - Joe Higgins does not and never has made any personal gain from his Dail salary or expenses and his expenses are among the lowest for all TDs.


he is using the envelopes for the job he was elected to do.


Nope - he was using the facilite of pre-paid envelopes exactly for what it was intended - communicating with people in his constituency on an issue of direct relevence to them.

Last week I got a leaflet from a local FG TD in an Oireachtas envelope outlining welfare entitlements and telling me to apply early for the back to school allowances. I could have found out all of this information on the citizens information website yet he felt it necessary to 'inform' me by post.

Unfortunately that isn't the issue here. The TD is allowed to do that and some might find it useful, just because they aren't of use to you doesn't mean they aren't of some service. A TD isn't allowed to give them to third party groups and rightly so.

daltonmd

creedp wrote: »

No my point being that these unvouched expenses are being used by TD's in a way that cannot be verified by anyone so unless we accept that our politicians are morally of a high standard they are being flouted left, right and centre. What people should therefore be calling for is a complete reform of the system to have a vouched system of travel expenses. Otherwise leave it unvouched and continue to allow TD's to use their travel expenses any way they wish.

Creedo, that's why they're unvouched - to save money, to spare a body that would otherwise be engaged in spending time checking receipts. It's like asking the tram driver to go through the carriage and check everyones tickets at each stop - it's an "honours" system. Should it be changed - well when there's no honour!!

creedp wrote: »

There would be little or no marginal cost to serialising the Oireachtas TV and selling it worldwide for entertaintment purposes!

:rolleyes:

Happyman42

daltonmd wrote: »

Creedo, that's why they're unvouched - to save money, to spare a body that would otherwise be engaged in spending time checking receipts. It's like asking the tram driver to go through the carriage and check everyones tickets at each stop - it's an "honours" system. Should it be changed - well when there's no honour!!






:rolleyes:

Or it's set up to be abused by those who refuse to change it. They may be hoist by their own petard yet!

sarumite

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you might want to be pointing the finger at a few others for having to pay more, before Joe comes into sight.

I have enough fingers to have at least one of them point towards Joe.

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you might want to be pointing the finger at a few others for having to pay more, before Joe comes into sight.

How Irish. Divert attention when caught red-handed.
Peas in a pod...

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

How Irish. Divert attention when caught red-handed.
Peas in a pod...

How even more Irish. Ignore what's really going on while aiding and abetting a witch hunt by right wing vested interests, because you don't like a political standpoint.

sarumite

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Last week I got a leaflet from a local FG TD in an Oireachtas envelope outlining welfare entitlements and telling me to apply early for the back to school allowances. I could have found out all of this information on the citizens information website yet he felt it necessary to 'inform' me by post.

To be fair, his leaflet sounds like it was actually more of a reminder than for information. While you could have found the information on the citizens information website, you may not have remembered to look. While an email would have had the same affect, I doubt the FG TD had an exhaustive list of their constituents email addresses. I imagine in future times the leaflet will eventually be sent 100% electronically, however until then a postal reminders will probably remain. However, despite all the above, it would appear the TD was using the envelope for the purposes it was meant for.

daltonmd

Happyman42 wrote: »

Or it's set up to be abused by those who refuse to change it. They may be hoist by their own petard yet!

It'll be interesting to watch alright.

sarumite

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I am getting a little fed up of replying to slurs like this - Joe Higgins does not and never has made any personal gain from his Dail salary or expenses and his expenses are among the lowest for all TDs.

I could be wrong and I am open for correction, but I don't believe this is true. From what I remember, his expenses are in the middle somewhere. He isn't in the list of the lowest claiments according to thejournal.ie

itzme

sarumite wrote: »

I could be wrong and I am open for correction, but I don't believe this is true. From what I remember, his expenses are in the middle somewhere. He isn't in the list of the lowest claiments according to thejournal.ie

Sorted by total claimed in 2011, he had the 55th lowest amount out of 168.
He claimed € 24,485.70.
This is just under half the highest of € 53,714.95.
This is just under 8 times the lowest € 3,705.61 from Ruairi Quinn. ( I'm ignoring eamonn maloney the labour td who refuses to take any expenses)

expenses 2011

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Okay - the €92K salary is subject to tax etc - leaving a nett of a certain figure.

To calculate Joe Higgins salary we take the AIW as gross and then take away the deductions that would be due on that salary.

We then take the nett of the AIW salary and take it from the nett of the €92K Dail salary.

From this Joe Higgins donates €6,348 to the Socialist Party. After this Joe Higgins will donate money to any or all of the following (and its not an exhaustive list) -
Local and National Campaign groups (e.g. CAHWT)
Trade union strike funds
Community groups
Indivdual causes
International solidarity (e.g. after the tsumani in Sri Lanka in 2004 Joe Higgins purchased a large quantity of water purification tablets that were sent to Sri Lanka. Last year he provided funds for striking mine workers in Western Kazakhstan who were being tried on trumped up charges following a police massacre at a pro-strike demonstration).
On top of that he would do things like pay for the hiring of meeting rooms for various campaigns etc, provide funding for leaflets and posters etc.

All of the expenditure is documented and receipted and full accounts are placed before the Socialist Party annual Conference for scrutiny. Subsequently Socialist Party representatives make the accounts available for public scrutiny.

This is complete bullsh!te. Complete and utter. Fair play to anyone giving to charity but when you are advertising is like that, then you are really just paying for publicity.

And he's getting good value for it by getting it on the double. First he claims higher moral ground by implying he's saving the state money by being an saint and only claiming AIW from his job. Then he's claiming credit for giving the money, that he implies he doesn't claim from the state in the first place, to random charities and using it as publicity for himself. It's either his money that he's claiming (and entitled to) and then giving away, or he's not claiming it, in which case he's giving away the states money.

I'm sure all TDs give to charity and local causes. There would be very few who would not have to dip their hands into their pockets to support the local gaa/school/church raffle/fundraiser/whatever. Most don't then go and itemise it on their website saying "I'm great, everyone look at me. I gave a fiver to charity"
So let Joe claim his full wages and then give it to charity on the side if he likes. He can still profess his support for them, just don't be ramming it down our throats how much he is giving.
And sure if he's pushing for TDs wages to be reduced to near the AIW, sure isn't he really just effectively pushing for a reduction in charity donations. The ba$tard :-D

itzme

It really does seem quite simple to me.

Should a TD be allowed mount a national campaign to change a law?
Yes of course, irrespective of the constituency they belong to, if the issue is important enough to them and their core voters they should have the conviction to push and try and create a national campaign to change legislation.

Should a TD be allowed advocate the breaking of the law?
Yes most definitely they should, there is nothing wrong with civil disobedience. It is up to the state then to arrest or prosecute those that break the law. There are also extra protections in our legislation to stop this being abused, i.e incitement to hatred, racial abuse and so on.

Should a TD be allowed use tax payers money (or stationary) to advocate breaking the law?
Not in the slightest. There is no defence for this. As has been stated many times, if a party takes a position against a new (or old) law and they want to change it. It is up to the party to fund this. The state (through expenses) should not be used as a tool for a parties attempt to change national legislation.

K-9

Just a reminder that there was a mod warning a few days ago about keeping replies civil. Calling opinions bull doesn't help the discussion.

yore

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Joe Higgins TD, Clare Daly TD and Paul Murphy MEP donate the legal limit allowed to the Socialist Party on a yearly basis - no more and no less.


well let me try and explain it to you seeing as you don't appear to know how the system works -

In 2011 the following political parties reported that they received the following donations -

Fine Gael - zero
Labour Party - zero
Fianna Fail - €6,348
Sinn Fein - €12,000
Socialist Party - €12,649
PBP - zero

(source: http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/PressReleases/Name,15702,en.htm )

In 2010 the following was declared
Fianna Fail - zero
Fine Gael - zero
Labour Party - zero
Sinn Fein - €24,000
Socialist Party - €5,819
PBP - zero
Green Party - €38.088

(source: http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/AnnualDisclosures/DisclosurebyPoliticalParties/270511-DonationStatementsfurnishedbyPoliticalPartiesfor2010/Name,14060,en.htm

2009 was the same story - none of the three main political parties in the country declared any donations during 2009.

Your statement was to the effect that because the SP party receive more personal donations, that proves that the other parties are fiddling the system. That, my friend, is a non sequitur. It's makes as much sense logically as saying something like "because the SP have more people signed up to their email list it proves that every member of party X is corrupt". You are stating a fact, but then using that fact to support a conclusion that does not follow. It would be like me stating "Fact: Fianna Fail got far more seats in Munster than the SP. This shows that the SP members are in cahoots with developers who destroyed towns and villages across the province". or "Fact: Labour have far more members in Connaught than the SP. This shows that the SP don't care about rural people" . I'm pulling those "facts" out of my head but I'm sure I could pull up some official links to support them!

And as for the donations...your amount for the SP is 12,649. Is that number real and in single Euros? It's incredibaly small. Does this include the 3 TDs contributions? I'm sure it does as wouldn't they have to be classed as personal donations. In the same post you claim that 3 TDs each donate the maximum amount allowable. In the links you post there is the sentence

The maximum value of donations which a political party can accept from the same donor in the same year is €6,348.69.

Hey, I might not know how the system works, and thanks for you barrage of incoherent links and numbers, but I can do basic arithmetic. And if those three TDs did in fact contribute the maximum, then they alone would have brought it over the disclosed number. Which doesn't leave many other donations does it? That gives even less weight to your argument

yore

K-9 wrote: »

Just a reminder that there was a mod warning a few days ago about keeping replies civil. Calling opinions bull doesn't help the discussion.

Sorry, noted. BTW, I wasn't calling an opinion bull. I was calling the presented "facts" bull.

Am Chile

Sully wrote: »

Well firstly, its old news. This topic is all about Joe, Clare and Joan who claim to represent the working people but whom are able to go around claiming additional expenses for work outside their constituency, and also for the promotion of an illegal activity. If we had a thread about some controversy in relation to members of a party which I support, I wont be hiding from it.

Secondly, I have openly criticised the expenses system in the Dail and Senate. The options that are there are excessive and open to abuse - as shown here. I firmly believe that this is one key area in political reform and I do not believe the party is taking it as a high priority. It is my intention to try seek a motion on the matter at the next available opportunity. Sadly, I have no active Fine Gael branch in my area.






The expenses in question were not specifically travel related.

QUOTE=Am Chile;79559660]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.

Joe, Clare and Joan who claim to represent the working people but whom are able to go around claiming additional expenses for work outside their constituency,

We also have learned recently-Brian hayes fg td used his travel expenses to travel around the country also.

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.

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.

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

and also for the promotion of an illegal activity

So whats the real issue here the fact they used expenses to travel and campaign around the country or the fact they re sticking to their pre election promises which can,t be said about fg/lab.

yore

Am Chile wrote: »

We also have learned recently-Brian hayes fg td used his travel expenses to travel around the country also.



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




So whats the real issue here the fact they used expenses to travel and campaign around the country or the fact they re sticking to their pre election promises which can,t be said about fg/lab.

What promises? What have they changed?.......Was it some magic ambiguous rhetorical phrase like "fighting austerity"? Well if so, it looks like they're not doing too well on that front!

Were their promises to moan and whine about everything and to abuse their expenses for free self-publicity trips around the country? Or maybe even to pass stolen Dail resources like pre-paid envelopes onto their mates and cronies?
Sure I could run as an independent on a platform of free coke and hookers for everyone and no taxes for anyone and nobody every having to work or pay taxes, then if I got enough idiots to vote for me to get elected, I'd be safe in the knowledge that I'd never get into power to actually implement it. Then I could rant and moan from the sidelines about the lack of coke and hookers and about people having to pay taxes and work.

If Hayes misused his expenses then he's a guilty as them and should be forced to pay it back also. He does not have any kind of infallibility that I am aware of. Just because Hayes did something does not make it right. FF and FG party members and their associates have been found guilty of taking bribes and being corrupted. If it were proved that members of all other parties did similar, it does not make it right or absolve them.

Sully

Am Chile wrote: »

We also have learned recently-Brian hayes fg td used his travel expenses to travel around the country also.



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




So whats the real issue here the fact they used expenses to travel and campaign around the country or the fact they re sticking to their pre election promises which can,t be said about fg/lab.

What I notice is that when someone ignores, for the second time, pretty much all my arguments and decides to hit back with something new (deflecting) - it generally means they have no answer for what I had said and cant take the heat. Block it all out, drag something else in.

Indeed we have learned that one FG Minister thought it was open for such, and he came out and said so rather than it being "uncovered". He was open about it. Indeed, even Enda Kenny said today that he thought there was a expense that allowed Brian to carry out his specific duty.

But it doesn't really compare fully, does it? Brian isn't fighting against government policy in an inappropriate and illegal way and then putting the bill to the people he faces. He isn't someone who claims to just represent the working class, but still screws them for everything they have anyway. He doesn't pass around pre-paid envelope to friends and campaigners, once against the rules. Nor is he part of a small group of TDs where at least one of them knew what Joe etc. were doing was wrong.

But no, lets use this piece of news to shy completely away from Joe, Clare and Joan from abusing the working class (and the rest) and misusing and abusing the expenses system completely. Lets pretend the big news story is something else, anything else, but the abuse of the expense system by Joe, Clare and Joan.

Face up like I did - the people you support and believe in were wrong. They screwed the people they represent and screwed the people they didn't represent. They didn't care when they were told and went on a big rant, blamed everyone else and claimed that it was a "manufactured controversy" and that it was "absolutely justifiable"!

Silvics

What does it amount to?A couple of thousand euros? What about the use of our money by the incumbents in spindoctors and jobs for their pals, not to mention the millions squandered on e-voting machines to perverse land purchases and pension topups and nest feathering? Penny wise pound foolish.

Good loser

The Socialist Party, Sinn Fein and others claim their TDs take only the average industrial wage.

What is this figure in euro? Interesting to know if all use the same figure. I have never heard them asked what the figure is.

yore

Silvics wrote: »

What does it amount to?A couple of thousand euros? What about the use of our money by the incumbents in spindoctors and jobs for their pals, not to mention the millions squandered on e-voting machines to perverse land purchases and pension topups and nest feathering? Penny wise pound foolish.

Ok, a number of people, either through ignorance or something more sinister, needlessly wasted and cost the people of the country a lot of money in the past. So that means we should grant anyone, in any current or future position of power or privilege, carte blanche to abuse any scheme that siphons off state money or assets? Is that what you are saying? Because the e-voting machine fiasco is in the past and that can't be changed. However it is possible to tighten up on these other rules to prevent future abuses. That scandal should never be forgotten but ranting about it now isn't going to get anything back or prevent future wastage. nor should it be used as cover to distract attention from current smaller scale scams.

Happyman42

Sully wrote: »

What I notice is that when someone ignores, for the second time, pretty much all my arguments and decides to hit back with something new (deflecting) - it generally means they have no answer for what I had said and cant take the heat. Block it all out, drag something else in.

Indeed we have learned that one FG Minister thought it was open for such, and he came out and said so rather than it being "uncovered". He was open about it. Indeed, even Enda Kenny said today that he thought there was a expense that allowed Brian to carry out his specific duty.

But it doesn't really compare fully, does it? Brian isn't fighting against government policy in an inappropriate and illegal way and then putting the bill to the people he faces. He isn't someone who claims to just represent the working class, but still screws them for everything they have anyway. He doesn't pass around pre-paid envelope to friends and campaigners, once against the rules. Nor is he part of a small group of TDs where at least one of them knew what Joe etc. were doing was wrong.

But no, lets use this piece of news to shy completely away from Joe, Clare and Joan from abusing the working class (and the rest) and misusing and abusing the expenses system completely. Lets pretend the big news story is something else, anything else, but the abuse of the expense system by Joe, Clare and Joan.

Face up like I did - the people you support and believe in were wrong. They screwed the people they represent and screwed the people they didn't represent. They didn't care when they were told and went on a big rant, blamed everyone else and claimed that it was a "manufactured controversy" and that it was "absolutely justifiable"!

Great rant, but a dishonest rant at the same time.
Hayes was in opposition at the time he used the expenses and he came out because he probably knows that the ****storm is going to uncover him anyways. We don't know the full story yet, but we do know that all parties are playing fast and loose with the truth.
REMEMBER the salient FACTS here, none of the 3, hid, obstructed or lined their own pockets, the sums are minimal AND we are only at the start of the story.
I will judge Joe Higgins very harshly if he doesn't push this to full disclosure of the entire story. But I suspect that the good old system we call government in this country will manage to avoid facing up to what is really going on. And the reason is because of people like you, who will carve this story up and interpret it with a skewed moral perspective.
And really, Joe, Claire and Joan...screwing the working class?
I don't do the 'believe' and undying 'support' nonsense, I know that they are politicians too and consequently have to indulge in PR of sorts. But I judge people on their actions and on THEIR stated beliefs. I am not a SP member or regular voter, but I can see where their hearts and principles still are. At the very least, they are standing up for people who need to be stood up for, in this country, at this time.
You people would damm Nelson Mandela because he stole toilet paper to write instructions to his party members when he was in prison.:rolleyes:
If FG/Lab are credible, they will call for system change and lead the way as the power brokers, if they don't, well then the system and the abuses have been given their blessing.

Am Chile

Indeed we have learned that one FG Minister thought it was open for such, and he came out and said so rather than it being "uncovered". He was open about it. Indeed, even Enda Kenny said today that he thought there was a expense that allowed Brian to carry out his specific duty.

Seriously with enda kenny being a td over 30 years and he thought the expenses covered it but didn't actually know whether they did or not.

Brian isn't fighting against government policy in an inappropriate and illegal way

Who are you to decide what way to campaign is inappropriate or not? Throughout history to the present day people have fought and resisted unjust laws-Lech Wałęsa resisted unjust laws under soviet rule-women have fought against unjust laws denying them the right in vote-Manal Al-Sharif presently in Saudi Arabia is fighting unjust laws denying women the right to drive-Gandhi resisted unjust laws under British rule and I could go on-but Im sure you get the picture- and people will resist unjust taxes whether the establishment likes it or not.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=276371

claimed that it was a "manufactured controversy"

That's because it is a manufactured controversey- some of us recognize political witchhunts when we see them- first the witchhunt of Pearse Doherty and expenses- Pearse is cleared of any wrongdoing- then move next onto Joe and the Ula-anyone deemed as a threat and who doesn,t want to do whatever the Imf/Ecb want is being targeted-some of us notice the story of Brian Hayes using his travel expenses for travelling around the country hasn't being hyped and sensationalized by the tax exiles who own the Indo aka Denis o Brien and the media in general in the same way they made a sensation over expenses with Pearse Doherty and the Ula.

But no, lets use this piece of news to shy completely away from Joe, Clare and Joan from abusing the working class (and the rest) and misusing and abusing the expenses system completely

Whatever expenses they have used is vouched and they were honest and straight up about what they used them for- same can't be said other fg/ff politicians going down the unvouched expenses route- why is that ? what is the money being spent on with these unvouched expenses ?

Happyman42

Good loser wrote: »

The Socialist Party, Sinn Fein and others claim their TDs take only the average industrial wage.

What is this figure in euro? Interesting to know if all use the same figure. I have never heard them asked what the figure is.

They claim to 'live' on the AIW. Neither SF or SP claim that they only 'take' the AIW.
I think it is impossible to only 'take' the AIW because of regulation. But I may be wrong about that. I would be interested to know though.

Am Chile

Good article in the journal on the expenses controversy.

THE CONTROVERSY THAT has erupted because of the alleged misuse of expenses by Socialist Party TDs, Joe Higgins and Clare Daly, probably says more about the expenses system and the level of debate on political reform in Ireland than it does about the TDs in question.

They freely admitted to claiming expenses, such as mileage, for their travel to protests against the household charge. It has emerged that there may be a rule in the Oireachtas expenses system that the travel one is entitled to claim for as a TD is to do with constituency duties, so travel to and from the Dáil to a TD’s constituency is alright, as is travel within one’s own constituency, but apparently if you venture outside you cannot claim your expenses.

Now this is not all that clear and the Oireachtas is getting legal advice. But even if they are breaking the letter of the rules, surely the rules are the problem, not their actions. Some may object that what they were doing in their travel is to encourage people to break the law, ie, not to pay the
Household Charge, and it seems perverse that the state should subsidise them in their endeavours.

But the bigger point is whether TDs are encouraged only to do constituency work or to campaign nationally. I suspect many TDs were surprised when this issue arose, as some, such as Brian Hayes admitted that as a front bench spokesman he claimed expenses for travel to engagements related to his policy area.

At a time when we are crying out for politicians to deal with national issues and get away from parish pump politics, it seems ridiculous to leave in place and enforce rules that encourage them to stick to their own constituencies. TDs are elected by constituents in a certain geographic location, but they legislate for all of us, so their votes in the Dáil don’t just relate to their constituency. As citizens we presumably want access to frontbench spokesmen from the opposition parties, but how can they do this if their expenses are not covered?

A populist response to this is that TDs are well paid and that they should cover this travel from their own salary. The rest of us don’t get travel expenses to cover our bus fare to work, so why should they? But equally if any of us lucky enough to have work are asked to travel somewhere for our work we wouldn’t expect to be out of pocket for it – so why should TDs? TDs work harder and longer hours than most people, and while much of what they do may not be that useful, that is to some extent our fault for rewarding certain types of behaviour with re-election. Look at Joe Higgins and Michael McDowell, some of the best nationally-focused parliamentarians we had, yet they were both dumped out of the Dáil in 2007.

“The main problem is the fact that expenses are unvouched”
If there is a problem with the Oireachtas expenses system, this is not it. The main problem is the fact that expenses are unvouched, so TDs can buy a standard class train ticket but charge us for a first-class one. In this way expenses can be used to supplement their salary. The daily allowance they get for signing in to work in Leinster House is also difficult to justify, especially when the Dáil restaurant is so highly subsidised.

The minor expenses controversy also says something about the debate on political reform in Ireland. We have a tendency to focus on the wrong things. We focus on populist stuff, such as expenses, that makes no appreciable difference to how well the political system works. The reform agenda is focused on abolishing the Seanad, when it is clear this would fix nothing, and may even make it harder for the committee system to do its job. We’re going to have a smaller number of TDs, but this will make little or no difference.
Bizarrely the imminent Constitutional Convention won’t be allowed to consider these issues, but will look at removing the article on the role of women – an article so out of date that it could be removed without controversy in a tidying up exercise. The Convention will consider a small number of issues of political reform, but not in a complete or holistic way; they’ll be allowed to look at bits and pieces to encourage women’s participation and the electoral system. But it’s not starting out with an analysis of what is wrong with the political system.

The make-up of the Constitutional Convention is just as odd. There was a call to have ordinary citizens involved, but rather than allow them make decisions to put to the people, the citizens will probably be dominated by the 33 Oireachtas members who’ll form part of it. And the Convention

won’t be able to make recommendations that can automatically be put to the people; instead the government can pick the bits it likes and discard what doesn’t suit it. A basic principle should be that politicians are not the best people to design a political system – they have their own special
interests. While they certainly do have something to offer the debate, they should not have the final say.

Even though we’ve put in place a new government to replace Fianna Fáil, the political system that allowed such huge policy errors to happen is still in place. And to judge by the quality of the debate on Clare Daly’s expenses, we haven’t learned much from our mistakes either.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-td-expenses-controversy-misses-the-point/

yore

Happyman42 wrote: »

REMEMBER the salient FACTS here, none of the 3, hid, obstructed or lined their own pockets, the sums are minimal AND we are only at the start of the story.

Not lining of one's pockets is irrelevant. Two other stories mentioned here are Hogan's trip to Brazil and the e-voting machines. None of the decision makers seem to have benefited financially directly from those decisions yet that does not excuse them. In Hogans case, we also need to see evidence that money was wasted or that it could have been done cheaper although common sense would suggest this is the case.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't do the 'believe' and undying 'support' nonsense, I know that they are politicians too and consequently have to indulge in PR of sorts. But I judge people on their actions and on THEIR stated beliefs. I am not a SP member or regular voter, but I can see where their hearts and principles still are. At the very least, they are standing up for people who need to be stood up for, in this country, at this time.
You people would damm Nelson Mandela because he stole toilet paper to write instructions to his party members when he was in prison.:rolleyes:
If FG/Lab are credible, they will call for system change and lead the way as the power brokers, if they don't, well then the system and the abuses have been given their blessing.

Seeing as how you use a irrelevant example like Nelson Mandela, I can reply in kind. Having beliefs and hearts and principles does not excuse one's actions. Hitler also held some strong beliefs and (warped) "principles" and acted on same. Does that make everything ok in your book?

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

How even more Irish. Ignore what's really going on while aiding and abetting a witch hunt by right wing vested interests, because you don't like a political standpoint.

Silly thing to say. If you're snared, you're snared. No excuses. No diversionary piffle. No moral relativism.
Just answer the misdemeanour and take what's coming in punitive discourse.
That counts for everybody. Even the TDs you're feebly attempting to admonish.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

Silly thing to say. If you're snared, you're snared. No excuses. No diversionary piffle. No moral relativism.
Just answer the misdemeanour and take what's coming in punitive discourse.
That counts for everybody. Even the TDs you're feebly attempting to admonish.

Yes, misusing expenses, envelopes is wrong, and deserves censure, but I can also spot a good old witch hunt of those whose politcial ideologies you don't like. There is a little thing called perspective.