Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

sarumite · 07-07-2012 10:19am

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

They could always follow this example and instead of giving it to their party give it back to society

http://www.thejournal.ie/brendan-griffin-kerry-fybough-national-school-499297-Jun2012/

A FINE GAEL TD is giving half of his salary to a school in his constituency to allow it to hire a teacher after cuts in the education budget meant its teaching numbers were reduced.

Happyman42 · 07-07-2012 10:41am

sarumite wrote: »

They could always follow this example and instead of giving it to their party give it back to society

http://www.thejournal.ie/brendan-griffin-kerry-fybough-national-school-499297-Jun2012/

A FINE GAEL TD is giving half of his salary to a school in his constituency to allow it to hire a teacher after cuts in the education budget meant its teaching numbers were reduced.

That guy needs a bit of redemption after his attempts at establishing a 'political dynasty' became embarrasingly public. http://www.thejournal.ie/fine-gael-td-defends-actions-in-hiring-family-members-as-staff-113174-Mar2011/

sarumite · 07-07-2012 11:05am

Happyman42 wrote: »

That guy needs a bit of redemption after his attempts at establishing a 'political dynasty' became embarrasingly public. http://www.thejournal.ie/fine-gael-td-defends-actions-in-hiring-family-members-as-staff-113174-Mar2011/

There you go then, a clear path to redemption for Higgins and co. Of course, my point was that it is possible to arrange a situation whereby a SP politician can take the average industrial wage without using the rest of the money to fund their party political machine.

I must admit I am not in the least surprised with malleability of some peoples political tolerances. What I am surprised with is the continual efforts to try and deflect attention away from Higgins rather than defend him outright.

Happyman42 · 07-07-2012 11:13am

sarumite wrote: »

There you go then, a clear path to redemption for Higgins and co. Of course, my point was that it is possible to arrange a situation whereby a SP politician can take the average industrial wage without using the rest of the money to fund their party political machine.

You should have said that then, without the party political broadcast.
I am interested in how it works technically, I still think you 'have' to draw down the payment and then either give it back or donate it.

invinciblePRSTV · 07-07-2012 12:05pm

Sully wrote: »

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.

You say you're concerned about the expenses system operated in Leinster House but yet it didn't stop you from canvassing for a candidate who is welded to the dodgy, ripe for abuse, old 'unvouched' system of expenses? Given this, surely the expenses issue can't be as high a priority for as you claim if you're not concerned about what expenses Paudie Coffey is claiming?

And why is it FG & FF TDs in the main who are the ones who choose to go down the route of claiming unvouched expenses? You seem quite interested in the vouched expenses of "lefty" TDs, yet it doesn't appear to bother you much that many of the TDs from your political party choose not to even furnish receipts?

So what good will a poxy motion do? The "lefty" parties oblige their TDs to provide receipts right now, given the scandals of times gone by why haven't FG implemented this system anytime in the past 5 years?

Sully wrote: »

Indeed I couldn't agree more that the expenses were extremely high. Again, I repeat that the reforms given to the expenses do not go far enough and more accountability and strict control over them needs to be brought in as part of political reform.

The difference here between you and I is that I will happily stand up and criticise the expenses incurred of a party/TD I support. I wont start long rambling posts dodging the question, or trying to create long winded arguments to justify it or trying to drag in other posters parties to shine the spotlight as far away from the people you support.

Then why aren't you shouting from the rooptops in this thread, or created a new thread, about Brian Hayes? You've used the 3 TDs and their expenses issue in this thread to pontificate wildly about "lefty" "working class" heroes and bloviated on about the household charge and the like.

Whats quite clear here you as a FG member decided to use the Higgins/Daly/Collins expenses issue to score cheap political points against rival political parties. It was never about the expenses, it was about denigrating your party's political rivals.

Sully wrote: »

However, you cannot say that Paudie Coffey claimed expenses inappropriately by breaching the rules he has to obey. Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misused the expenses system and did not obey the rules. The expenses they claimed were never supposed to be used in the way they used them. While its on the topic of expenses, they are polar opposites on the crust of the issue.

We'll never know that Coffey has breached expenses rules because he continues to choose the 'unvouched' system. For all we know Paudie could be spending his expenses on jewellery and cat food, but we'll never know for sure now will we?

Sully wrote: »

Joe etc. immediate response is to blame the media, blame everyone else and not just simple say "If I have made a mistake, I apologise to the people of Ireland and I will do my best to rectify it". Sinn Fein blamed the Oireachtas (its their fault they were allowed claim so much, according to Mary Lou on the Ink Gate scandal). Both these parties claim to represent the working class. The working class do not have the luxury of super wages, super expenses, super bonuses for committees and leaders allowances, and super pensions which their representatives go around claiming and abusing. They elected people to fight for the lower paid - but they elected people who do the exact things they don't like.

Would Joe, Clare and Joan continue to go around the country pushing their agenda if they thought they would be caught out and told to pay it back? If they knew that they wouldn't get away and would actually be out of pocket- would they do it?

Here we go again, another party political broadcast attacking the ''lefty'' parties.

Sully · 07-07-2012 12:31pm

Am Chile wrote: »

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.

Well there was a major reform recently, and with the amount of possible expenses available to our TDs, I can see where the confusion arises. But I suppose its okay for the Socialists to be confused, well anybody but the parties you don't support. Right?

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

Doesn't say very much about your argument in this debate if your comparing the increase in taxation to raise funds for a near-bankrupt state to the breach of human rights in the middle east.

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.

How are they a threat? Sinn Fein are loosing support. The main government party is pretty solid in the polls with another two or so years on the clock. Now your line of thinking so far would make me believe you will say that these polls are fake (despite nearly always being accurate) and just government propaganda. But the Irish people voted in favour of the Fiscal Treaty. They could have stuck two firm fingers up at the government, and patted the left on the back. But they didn't. So it seems to me that nobody has anything to be concerned about - the way this tax was brought in it was obvious a very large amount of people would pay and a very large wouldn't. Its been a farce.

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 ?

Not every FG/FF politician is claiming unvouched. Considering both parties are larger than the socialists, you cant compare. But if you want to - we can find the same number of FG/FF TDs claiming vouched expenses as there are Socialist TDs in the Dail. Plus, its not FG/FF that are constantly in expenses scandals. And for Sinn Fein, its a regular occurrence in the North.

Sully · 07-07-2012 12:47pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You say you're concerned about the expenses system operated in Leinster House but yet it didn't stop you from canvassing for a candidate who is welded to the dodgy, ripe for abuse, old 'unvouched' system of expenses? Given this, surely the expenses issue can't be as high a priority for as you claim if you're not concerned about what expenses Paudie Coffey is claiming?

Its a high priority but not enough that I wouldn't canvass or show my support for a TD/Party that has claims unvouched. His expenses were above board and within the rules. Yes I believe they should be vouched, yes I don't like the expenses system in the Dail. I doubt you do - but it didn't stop you voting in the election I assume? I wouldn't expect anybody, even if they were a left party supporter, not to vote or campaign for their candidate purely based on how they claim expenses (within the rules).

We are here talking about expenses that were not above board, and all you and others can do is try swing the spotlight onto others to take the heat away from those claiming to represent the working class but instead just rob them blind. Classic deflection.

And why is it FG & FF TDs in the main who are the ones who choose to go down the route of claiming unvouched expenses? You seem quite interested in the vouched expenses of "lefty" TDs, yet it doesn't appear to bother you much that many of the TDs from your political party choose not to even furnish receipts?

I believe unvouched expenses should be abolished. The reason why I have interest in the "left" TDs here is because they are in breach of the rules and are completely contradicting their mandate that they were elected to do. Yet they slam the government parties for not going by their mandate, or for trying to raise money to get the country back on its feet. Yet they go around and milk the state coffers for as much as possible helping ensure austerity sticks around that bit longer.

So what good will a poxy motion do?

Motions that have arisen at branch level have managed to get into party policy. I am not a government TD or Minister. I am powerless and the options available to me, rather than just sitting here moaning, would be to propose a motion and try get it party policy.

The "lefty" parties oblige their TDs to provide receipts right now, given the scandals of times gone by why haven't FG implemented this system anytime in the past 5 years?

So as long as the "lefty" parties supply receipts, they can take as much as they like and break the rules - as long as they tell us what they are spending it on? Also, Fine Gael are only in government a little over two years.

Then why aren't you shouting from the rooptops in this thread, or created a new thread, about Brian Hayes? You've used the 3 TDs and their expenses issue in this thread to pontificate wildly about "lefty" "working class" heroes and bloviated on about the household charge and the like.

This topic started, by me, when Brian Hayes had not came out on his own accord and stated that he also used the expenses in a similar fashion. I was unaware of any other TDs doing so. But if any other TDs do come out, then I don't see why it cant be discussed here - like we are doing now. Three TDs from one party compared to one TD from a government party?

Whats quite clear here you as a FG member decided to use the Higgins/Daly/Collins expenses issue to score cheap political points against rival political parties. It was never about the expenses, it was about denigrating your party's political rivals.

Yes, because clearly Higgins/Daly/Collins etc. are a serious threat to the government or to my local TDs.

Where are they in the polls? How are there campaigns going? Not very well, lets be honest.

This is down to the expenses, and its something I have been saying for sometime now. We have three socialist TDs who like to pretend they represent the working class. You and other supporters refuse point blank to deal with the issue at hand and openly admit what they did was in complete breach of the rules, showed a complete lack of regard for their supporters and our economy while being completely contradictory to their own policies.

Meanwhile, you attack me and I openly say that it was wrong when it comes to the party I support. I don't hide from it, I don't pretend I never saw it, I don't dodge the bullet and deflect from the situation. I answer it.

We'll never know that Coffey has breached expenses rules because he continues to choose the 'unvouched' system. For all we know Paudie could be spending his expenses on jewellery and cat food, but we'll never know for sure now will we?

"breached expenses rules"? Since when could a TD not claim unvouched expenses?

sarumite · 07-07-2012 12:48pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

You should have said that then, without the party political broadcast.
I am interested in how it works technically, I still think you 'have' to draw down the payment and then either give it back or donate it.

You accusing me of making a party political broadcast :pac: I don't even have any party affiliation that I could broadcast for.

Though you could be right about having to donate it. I would prefer if Higgins's et al would just keep their salary and not claim any expenses (the same for any politician btw). For me at least, whether he takes the full 90k or takes the aiw and donates the rest to his political party makes no difference. His contribution to his party doesn't make any positive impact on society nor does it save any money for the taxpayer.

Happyman42 · 07-07-2012 1:22pm

sarumite wrote: »

His contribution to his party doesn't make any positive impact on society nor does it save any money for the taxpayer.

He represents taxpayers that don't have money to save, and it's to them you should address the question about positve impacts. Had the SP party not been in the Dail the cuts targeted at those with no voice or a very faint one would imo been more severe.
You may have no party affiliation, but to come out with the comment above would put you down as a firm supporter of the right wing.....FG, FF, Lab.....take your pick.

invinciblePRSTV · 07-07-2012 1:44pm

Sully wrote: »

Its a high priority but not enough that I wouldn't canvass or show my support for a TD/Party that has claims unvouched. His expenses were above board and within the rules. Yes I believe they should be vouched, yes I don't like the expenses system in the Dail. I doubt you do - but it didn't stop you voting in the election I assume? I wouldn't expect anybody, even if they were a left party supporter, not to vote or campaign for their candidate purely based on how they claim expenses (within the rules).

Were you even aware, before it was pointed out to you, that your TD chose to receive unvouched expenses?

Sully wrote: »

We are here talking about expenses that were not above board, and all you and others can do is try swing the spotlight onto others to take the heat away from those claiming to represent the working class but instead just rob them blind. Classic deflection.

I can't speak for others, but I'm only here to show your hypocritical views on the issue of expenses. You've flip-flopped between saying the issue of TD's expenses IS important to you, then isn't, then kind of is but wouldn't influence your voting behaviour.

Sully wrote: »

I believe unvouched expenses should be abolished. The reason why I have interest in the "left" TDs here is because they are in breach of the rules and are completely contradicting their mandate that they were elected to do. Yet they slam the government parties for not going by their mandate, or for trying to raise money to get the country back on its feet. Yet they go around and milk the state coffers for as much as possible helping ensure austerity sticks around that bit longer.

So you admit then that you're using the issue of expenses as a stick to beat rival parties with as they dare to critique FG/Government policy?

Southsiderosie are you reading this??????

Sully wrote: »

Motions that have arisen at branch level have managed to get into party policy. I am not a government TD or Minister. I am powerless and the options available to me, rather than just sitting here moaning, would be to propose a motion and try get it party policy.

Do you think i was born y'day? The vast, VAST majority of motions put forward at branch meetings or conferences are ignored by political parties, be they in government or in opposition.

Sully wrote: »

So as long as the "lefty" parties supply receipts, they can take as much as they like and break the rules - as long as they tell us what they are spending it on? Also, Fine Gael are only in government a little over two years.

You don't seem to be clear on the simple point which I've made. The Left parties insist their TDs declare their expenses. Your party or FF don't. For all we know, Paudie Coffey and the rest of the FG TDs could be running a printer ink scam or paying for taxi's for the kids and we'll never know. Why don't you insist your party's TDs declare as a matter of recourse ALL their expenses before you start pontificating on other party's TDs who do?

Saying that the issue of TDs expenses is important but not that important doesn't really cut the mustard now does it?

Sully wrote: »

This topic started, by me, when Brian Hayes had not came out on his own accord and stated that he also used the expenses in a similar fashion. I was unaware of any other TDs doing so. But if any other TDs do come out, then I don't see why it cant be discussed here - like we are doing now. Three TDs from one party compared to one TD from a government party?

But why aren't you castigating Brian Hayes in the same terms as you have been the 3 ULA TDs on this thread? You've used their expenses issue as a base from which you've lambasted them over other issues not related to the expenses. Are you going to do the same to Brian Hayes & FG?

Sully wrote: »

Yes, because clearly Higgins/Daly/Collins etc. are a serious threat to the government or to my local TDs. Where are they in the polls? How are there campaigns going? Not very well, lets be honest.

A revealing insight into your mentality.

Sully wrote: »

This is down to the expenses, and its something I have been saying for sometime now. We have three socialist TDs who like to pretend they represent the working class. You and other supporters refuse point blank to deal with the issue at hand and openly admit what they did was in complete breach of the rules, showed a complete lack of regard for their supporters and our economy while being completely contradictory to their own policies.

I'm not supporting anyone on this thread, merely pointing out gross hypocrisy.

Sully wrote: »

Meanwhile, you attack me and I openly say that it was wrong when it comes to the party I support. I don't hide from it, I don't pretend I never saw it, I don't dodge the bullet and deflect from the situation. I answer it.

You've done nothing but deflect, flip-flop and play up and then play down the topic of expenses as it suits you. Clearly your chief aim in this thread was to rundown the ULA TDs who you quite clearly despise as they disagree with your party on a particular issue.

Sully wrote: »

"breached expenses rules"? Since when could a TD not claim unvouched expenses?

Expenses are paid on the basis of TDs being compensated for things like petrol used whilst carrying out their duties.

For all we know Paudie Coffey could be using his unvouched expenses money to pay for his 2 weeks in Santa Ponsa, we'll never know because... well you know why by now I'm only repeating myself......

JustinDee · 07-07-2012 3:11pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

Don't assume anything about what I post, thanks.
Playing the victim doesn't excuse anyone of anything. Despite being someone who pontificates about right and wrong, the TD in question is, to apply and quote some Ben Elton, as guilty as a puppy next to a pile of poo . . . regardless of some limp noodle claims of unfairness.
Suck it up and pay it back.

Happyman42 · 07-07-2012 3:18pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Don't assume anything about what I post, thanks.
Playing the victim doesn't excuse anyone of anything. Despite being someone who pontificates about right and wrong, the TD in question is, to apply and quote some Ben Elton, as guilty as a puppy next to a pile of poo . . . regardless of some limp noodle claims of unfairness.
Suck it up and pay it back.

I assumed nothing and I can read both the lines and between them.

Has he ever said anything that makes you think he won't pay it back if it is found to be wrongful use? Why should he hold up his hands and say 'the right wing are correct, here's your money back' ? He is testing this with independent legal advice as is his right and his constituents and supporters right.

daltonmd · 07-07-2012 3:31pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I assumed nothing and I can read both the lines and between them.

Has he ever said anything that makes you think he won't pay it back if it is found to be wrongful use? Why should he hold up his hands and say 'the right wing are correct, here's your money back' ? He is testing this with independent legal advice as is his right and his constituents and supporters right.

He was told by the Oireactas that the money was not intended for that use.

He was told what Richard Boyd Barrett was told when he enquired as to could he claim the same expenses. RBB felt "uncomfortable" claiming them.

So Joe Higgins, a member of the same technical group as RBB didn't check it out, assumed that he could claim these allowances and is now taking legal advice that may force these allowances to be paid to all TD's, on top of a very generous salary and an already way too extravagent expenses system.

While bizzarely, at the very same time calling for the system to be reviewed along with salaries and expenses to be cut?

The expenses were not for that purpose - and Joe is fighting so they can be used for that purpose.

You couldn't make this s*** up.

JustinDee · 07-07-2012 3:45pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can read both the lines and between them

That is assumption . . .

Happyman42 wrote: »

Has he ever said anything that makes you think he won't pay it back if it is found to be wrongful use? Why should he hold up his hands and say 'the right wing are correct, here's your money back' ? He is testing this with independent legal advice as is his right and his constituents and supporters right.

It has already been correctly called out as "wrongful use" (in your words).
No problems with him seeking legal advice as is indeed his right. However, finger pointing at whatever pigeon-hole suits your current cause-du-jour changes nothing and excuses nobody.
Give the apologism a rest.

Happyman42 · 07-07-2012 4:04pm

daltonmd wrote: »

He was told by the Oireactas that the money was not intended for that use.

He was told what Richard Boyd Barrett was told when he enquired as to could he claim the same expenses. RBB felt "uncomfortable" claiming them.

So Joe Higgins, a member of the same technical group as RBB didn't check it out, assumed that he could claim these allowances and is now taking legal advice that may force these allowances to be paid to all TD's, on top of a very generous salary and an already way too extravagent expenses system.

While bizzarely, at the very same time calling for the system to be reviewed along with salaries and expenses to be cut?

The expenses were not for that purpose - and Joe is fighting so they can be used for that purpose.

You couldn't make this s*** up.

Which is all very well, but they have been accused of something by an hysterical and biased media and they are simply seeking to clear their names. You say the expenses where not for that purpose, they say they interpreted it differently. It isn't their fault if the idiots that dreamt up this system didn't make it crystal clear what it was to be used for. Ask Brian Hayes. That RBB was sufficiently confused to seek clarification, is proof that the rules are confusing, nothing else....it does not prove that Higgins, Daly and Collins were corrupt, however much you want that to be so.

Sully · 07-07-2012 4:28pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Were you even aware, before it was pointed out to you, that your TD chose to receive unvouched expenses?

Yes, it was in all the local papers and on local media. It was even mentioned on Boards.

I can't speak for others, but I'm only here to show your hypocritical views on the issue of expenses. You've flip-flopped between saying the issue of TD's expenses IS important to you, then isn't, then kind of is but wouldn't influence your voting behaviour.

Ah very nice of you to pop in, a very personal service I must say! Its hardly hypocritical considering we are not debating a group of TDs using vouched or unvouched expenses. I am here criticising the TDs for misusing the system, and their reaction to this since being caught out. You jumped in and tried to draw a comparison. Apples and Oranges spring to mind.

The only fair comparison is Brian Hayes. Paudie Coffey, until he is found to be misusing the expenses system by the rules, has nothing to do with this debate. Your bringing him in because its the best stick you can use, and even at that its a bit blunt.

So you admit then that you're using the issue of expenses as a stick to beat rival parties with as they dare to critique FG/Government policy?

Southsiderosie are you reading this??????

Nice twist, but not clever enough! I have stated why I created this thread, and my reasons for my opinions expressed in this thread. I have also stated that I do not see the socialists as a threat nor Sinn Fein. Therefore, I see no advantage in just doing it because they are a rival party whose views the majority of this country don't seem to consider. Why waste my time poking them with a sharp stick when they are not causing damage to the main parties, bar the household tax which I don't support? Plus I don't think the people are fully supporting it for different reasons, not just because the socialists tell them.

Its wasting my time, their supporters are that way inclined and would never support the policies of FG/FF and partly Labour (who you seem afraid to attack, probably because they are more left).

Do you think i was born y'day? The vast, VAST majority of motions put forward at branch meetings or conferences are ignored by political parties, be they in government or in opposition.

So what's the alternative? Do nothing? Sit here and tell you I think its wrong, but also tell you I cant even try? I don't believe expenses is a strong enough reason for me to withdraw support from the party. Unless they were at what Sinn Fein were at up North.

You don't seem to be clear on the simple point which I've made. The Left parties insist their TDs declare their expenses. Your party or FF don't.

If they insist, then why have some of the ULA, Independents and Sinn Fein went down the unvouched route? You said above the left don't, but that's not really right now is it, because some do?

For all we know, Paudie Coffey and the rest of the FG TDs could be running a printer ink scam or paying for taxi's for the kids and we'll never know. Why don't you insist your party's TDs declare as a matter of recourse ALL their expenses before you start pontificating on other party's TDs who do?

Who said I don't?

Saying that the issue of TDs expenses is important but not that important doesn't really cut the mustard now does it?

In your opinion.

But why aren't you castigating Brian Hayes in the same terms as you have been the 3 ULA TDs on this thread? You've used their expenses issue as a base from which you've lambasted them over other issues not related to the expenses. Are you going to do the same to Brian Hayes & FG?

Brian seemed unaware and as soon as the spotlight on the issue was there, he immediately came out and stated he also did this in the past and was unaware it was a problem. I think its inappropriate to use the allowance in this way, regardless of who you are. There are big differences, which is probably why the media nor discussion boards are talking about the story as much as this particular topic.

The Socialists didn't care when they were told. They claim to represent the working people, claiming to take home only the industrial wage to show the people how they want to work for a small wage. Yet three of them openly abused the expenses system (at least one in more ways than the travel allowance), claim expenses, receive a leaders allowance and a generous pensions. So like Sinn Fein, they do not live on the industrial wage and they milk the state coffers for extra money to make up for it. These perks most of the working class don't have.

A revealing insight into your mentality.

Can you not debate without getting personal every time? Awful bad habit.

You've done nothing but deflect, flip-flop and play up and then play down the topic of expenses as it suits you. Clearly your chief aim in this thread was to rundown the ULA TDs who you quite clearly despise as they disagree with your party on a particular issue.

I haven't deflected or flip-flopped anyway. You asked me about Paudie, I answered it. You asked me about Brian Hayes, I answered it. I gave my views which were not positive towards their situation. I have openly said I don't agree with the expenses system nor unvouched expenses and I see it as a priority government should take to reform. But in addition to that, while I see it as a priority, I do not see it as a big enough issue to withdraw my support from a TD or party. When it comes to the three socialists TDs, all we seem to get from their supporters is examples of other TDs and party wrong doings (in their view) which doesn't compare.

Funnily enough, if their issue is regards to the household tax - count me in. Myself and the ULA agree that its an unfair and unjust form of taxation. Seems rather pointless I would knock them for taking a view I agree with them on, does it not?

Expenses are paid on the basis of TDs being compensated for things like petrol used whilst carrying out their duties.

For all we know Paudie Coffey could be using his unvouched expenses money to pay for his 2 weeks in Santa Ponsa, we'll never know because... well you know why by now I'm only repeating myself......

Indeed, and the same can be said for the 57% of all independent TDs, 40% of ULA TDs and 7% of Sinn Fein TDs who go down the unvouched route.

The left are on the gravy train just as much as anybody else, but lets pretend they don't eh?

daltonmd · 07-07-2012 4:32pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is all very well, but they have been accused of something by an hysterical and biased media and they are simply seeking to clear their names. You say the expenses where not for that purpose, they say they interpreted it differently. It isn't their fault if the idiots that dreamt up this system didn't make it crystal clear what it was to be used for. Ask Brian Hayes. That RBB was sufficiently confused to seek clarification, is proof that the rules are confusing, nothing else....it does not prove that Higgins, Daly and Collins were corrupt, however much you want that to be so.

They have been accused of mis-using public funds. There is/was no media witch hunt because Claire Daly revealed, when asked by VB, how could she rack up expenses of 25k (approx) when she lived in Dublin.

He is a journalist and he said "I thought that money was to be used for your constituency work and for travelling to and from work".

He knew what the money was for. Yet we have TD's claiming they didn't?

"Rules on travel and accommodation entitlements — €12,000 a year for every Dublin TD — say members must certify the money covered transport from their home or temporary accommodation to work in Leinster House."

Now you need to look at that statement. To me, a layperson, it means that when they submit their unvouched (unchecked and unverified) expenses they are certifying that they used the money to cover transport from their home or temporary accomadation to work in Leinster house.

They are confirming that the expense claim is true, accurate and genuine that they have used their allowances for the purpose it was designed for. To go to and from Leinster house.

Claire Daly revealed that she used this money to travel around the country attending anti - household charge (anti - government) campaigns.

There is the first problem. I do not see where it is unclear.

She even revealed where (to her and her party) the alleged anomoly lay:

"However a separate payment system, the public representation allowance (PRA), says TDs can claim under this for “attendance at conferences relating to the performance of his or her duties as a member (except expenses relating to travel)”.

And here's the second problem. They still cannot claim for travel under this "anomoly".

Now it is clear to me from her own revelations that she read both of these "rules" - yet still submitted a claim for travel and expenses.

This is not their money to use in whichever way they feel entitled - and then look for clarification. It is a privelge that is given on an honours system and part of that system puts the onus on TD's to check out these alleged anomolies in the first instance.

I don't see any anomoly.

Can I claim for travel outside my constiuency - NO.

Even if I am "in attendance at conferences relating to the performance of my duties as a member", I still cannot claim travel - I can claim lodging and food, but not travel.

Any TD that has submitted and been paid these allowances should be forced to pay it back - but the irony will linger that the abuse was uncovered because of the actions of the Socialist Party.

sarumite · 07-07-2012 4:52pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

He represents taxpayers that don't have money to save, and it's to them you should address the question about positve impacts. Had the SP party not been in the Dail the cuts targeted at those with no voice or a very faint one would imo been more severe.
You may have no party affiliation, but to come out with the comment above would put you down as a firm supporter of the right wing.....FG, FF, Lab.....take your pick.

Enjoy the thread, I'm done wasting time when this is the level of responses I can expect.

Am Chile · 07-07-2012 6:05pm

Well there was a major reform recently, and with the amount of possible expenses available to our TDs, I can see where the confusion arises. But I suppose its okay for the Socialists to be confused, well anybody but the parties you don't support. Right?

Who says I support or don't support any one particular poltical party ? I merely happen to agree with Joe and anyone else who's taking a stand against taxes on the family home.

Doesn't say very much about your argument in this debate if your comparing the increase in taxation to raise funds for a near-bankrupt state to the breach of human rights in the middle east.

Im comparing unjust laws throughout history/unjust in the present day in other countries and a current unjust law in Ireland at the present moment-an unjust form of taxation being made law is one which seeks to impose a tax in a disproportionate way with no consideration taken of someones circumstances or ability and means to pay.

The main government party is pretty solid in the polls

For the time being- if some of the media reports are true about what's being planned in the next budget we see how solid they are in the polls then.

But the Irish people voted in favour of the Fiscal Treaty. They could have stuck two firm fingers up at the government, and patted the left on the back. But they didn't

Over 50% of people didn't bother voting-a lot of people didn't bother voting most of us already knew even if it had a been a no vote there would of being rerun until people voted the way the establishment wants them to vote- as admitted by richard bruton if we voted no there would of being a rerun- says a lot about democracy in this country when a goverment minister is open about not recognizing referendum results if the result doesn't go their way.

Sully · 07-07-2012 7:20pm

Am Chile wrote: »

Who says I support or don't support any one particular poltical party ? I merely happen to agree with Joe and anyone else who's taking a stand against taxes on the family home.

Great, we agree on something. Who knew. But my point still stands.

Im comparing unjust laws throughout history/unjust in the present day in other countries and a current unjust law in Ireland at the present moment-an unjust form of taxation being made law is one which seeks to impose a tax in a disproportionate way with no consideration taken of someones circumstances or ability and means to pay.

Once again, there is no comparison.

For the time being- if some of the media reports are true about what's being planned in the next budget we see how solid they are in the polls then.

Heard that before.

Over 50% of people didn't bother voting-a lot of people didn't bother voting most of us already knew even if it had a been a no vote there would of being rerun until people voted the way the establishment wants them to vote- as admitted by richard bruton if we voted no there would of being a rerun- says a lot about democracy in this country when a goverment minister is open about not recognizing referendum results if the result doesn't go their way.

Turnout was 50.60%, not below. Richard Bruton did not admit to that, but I can see why you played on his words. Either way, it didn't stop people voting No before when they expected a re-run. It would have sent a strong signal. But instead they decided to vote Yes.

Happyman42 · 07-07-2012 8:52pm

daltonmd wrote: »

They have been accused of mis-using public funds. There is/was no media witch hunt because Claire Daly revealed, when asked by VB, how could she rack up expenses of 25k (approx) when she lived in Dublin.

He is a journalist and he said "I thought that money was to be used for your constituency work and for travelling to and from work".

He knew what the money was for. Yet we have TD's claiming they didn't?

"Rules on travel and accommodation entitlements — €12,000 a year for every Dublin TD — say members must certify the money covered transport from their home or temporary accommodation to work in Leinster House."

Now you need to look at that statement. To me, a layperson, it means that when they submit their unvouched (unchecked and unverified) expenses they are certifying that they used the money to cover transport from their home or temporary accomadation to work in Leinster house.

They are confirming that the expense claim is true, accurate and genuine that they have used their allowances for the purpose it was designed for. To go to and from Leinster house.

Claire Daly revealed that she used this money to travel around the country attending anti - household charge (anti - government) campaigns.

There is the first problem. I do not see where it is unclear.

She even revealed where (to her and her party) the alleged anomoly lay:

"However a separate payment system, the public representation allowance (PRA), says TDs can claim under this for “attendance at conferences relating to the performance of his or her duties as a member (except expenses relating to travel)”.

And here's the second problem. They still cannot claim for travel under this "anomoly".

Now it is clear to me from her own revelations that she read both of these "rules" - yet still submitted a claim for travel and expenses.

This is not their money to use in whichever way they feel entitled - and then look for clarification. It is a privelge that is given on an honours system and part of that system puts the onus on TD's to check out these alleged anomolies in the first instance.

I don't see any anomoly.

Can I claim for travel outside my constiuency - NO.

Even if I am "in attendance at conferences relating to the performance of my duties as a member", I still cannot claim travel - I can claim lodging and food, but not travel.

Any TD that has submitted and been paid these allowances should be forced to pay it back - but the irony will linger that the abuse was uncovered because of the actions of the Socialist Party.

Why in God's name would somebody who was corrupt and 'illegally' and 'knowingly' taking money that they weren't entitled to say it on a TV programme?

Laminations · 07-07-2012 10:00pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why in God's name would somebody who was corrupt and 'illegally' and 'knowingly' taking money that they weren't entitled to say it on a TV programme?

Yes because people who openly encourage others to break the law and not pay tax and who have not paid the tax themselves would never incriminate* themselves on radio.

*not that misusing allowances and envelopes is a crime, it just shows poor standards and a low level of personal responsibility

Happyman42 · 07-07-2012 10:11pm

Laminations wrote: »

Yes because people who openly encourage others to break the law and not pay tax and who have not paid the tax themselves would never incriminate* themselves on radio.

*not that misusing allowances and envelopes is a crime, it just shows poor standards and a low level of personal responsibility

You say this even though anybody ever caught for corruption or misappropriating funds in the entire history of the Dail has had to have the information dragged out of them, right up to establishing tribunals? Gimme a wee break here. She said it because she believed in her heart and soul that there was nothing wrong with it, and our wonderful 'independent' morally pure media jumped all over it.

daltonmd · 08-07-2012 9:09am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why in God's name would somebody who was corrupt and 'illegally' and 'knowingly' taking money that they weren't entitled to say it on a TV programme?

The same way thousands of people protest on the streets, in venues all over the country and state in the full glare of the media that they won't pay their household charge.

Because they feel they are entitled to do so.

JustinDee · 08-07-2012 10:42am

That tends to be the trouble with the Irish. A strange perception of entitlement along with not liking to be told what to do. What then follows is sanctimonious and hypocritical finger pointing when taken to task.

Happyman42 · 08-07-2012 12:32pm

daltonmd wrote: »

The same way thousands of people protest on the streets, in venues all over the country and state in the full glare of the media that they won't pay their household charge.

Because they feel they are entitled to do so.

JustinDee wrote: »

That tends to be the trouble with the Irish. A strange perception of entitlement along with not liking to be told what to do. What then follows is sanctimonious and hypocritical finger pointing when taken to task.

Those people haven't done anything wrong and further they have nothing and never had anything to hide. Your answers come nowhere near to explaining what she did, the attempt to construct corrupt politicians has failed, folks, because you know you cannot prove motivation to defraud here.

daltonmd · 08-07-2012 12:49pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

They haven't done anything wrong and further they have nothing and nevar had anything to hide. Your answers come nowhere near to explaining what she did, the attempt to construct corrupt politicians has failed, folks, because you know you cannot prove motivation to defraud here.

My answers are based on fact.

I never said they were hiding anything.

The explanation is from Clare Daly herself.

I never went out to prove motivation to defraud.

I have never attempted to "construct" corrupt politicians, although it's interesting that you believe that if they are found to have used the allowance incorrectly then you must believe that this finding equals corruption?

I have posted the rules pertaining to the allowances. Now, why don't you deal with the facts?

"Rules on travel and accommodation entitlements — €12,000 a year for every Dublin TD — say members must certify the money covered transport from their home or temporary accommodation to work in Leinster House."

"However a separate payment system, the public representation allowance (PRA), says TDs can claim under this for “attendance at conferences relating to the performance of his or her duties as a member (except expenses relating to travel)”.

Now, both Claire and Joe claimed TRAVEL expenses that they were not entitled to.

If we accept that the rules are unclear and they mistakenly claimed for them, then when clarification was given to then, they should have put their hands up and accepted that outcome.

John O' Donoghue wasn't found to be corrupt, he didn't hide anything, he felt he was perfectly entitled to claim what he claimed.

So deal with the facts - for a change.

christmas2012 · 08-07-2012 12:54pm

there not the only ones fraudulently claiming travel expenses,theres ruari quinn,and remember mary harney and the fas florida scandal?the green party gombeen with state car and all,our whole system is a joke..

daltonmd · 08-07-2012 12:57pm

christmas2012 wrote: »

there not the only ones fraudulently claiming travel expenses,theres ruari quinn,and remember mary harney and the fas florida scandal?the green party gombeen with state car and all,our whole system is a joke..

They mis used them at worst and when the position was clarified as to what the expenses were intended for they refused to accept it and are digging their heals on so that they are made for that purpose.

Happyman42 · 08-07-2012 1:10pm

daltonmd wrote: »

They mis used them at worst and when the position was clarified as to what the expenses were intended for they refused to accept it and are digging their heals on so that they are made for that purpose.

Wouldn't you and the right just love a situation where you could point a finger and everybody accepted your point of view.
The FACT is that these people have the right to seek independent legal advice in an effort to clear their names. Will YOU accept the outcome of that if it goes against your current thinking?

christmas2012 · 08-07-2012 1:15pm

no i wont,expense fraud is still fraud even when you hold position in the dail,had this been an ordinary person they would have been convicted already..thats the shame,but in god aul ireland were still debating if their guilty or innocent,even though the claiming of thier travel expenses has been proven to be fact..

daltonmd · 08-07-2012 1:16pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wouldn't you and the right just love a situation where you could point a finger and everybody accepted your point of view.
The FACT is that these people have the right to seek independent legal advice in an effort to clear their names. Will YOU accept the outcome of that if it goes against your current thinking?

These are the FACTS below.

"Rules on travel and accommodation entitlements — €12,000 a year for every Dublin TD — say members must certify the money covered transport from their home or temporary accommodation to work in Leinster House."

"However a separate payment system, the public representation allowance (PRA), says TDs can claim under this for “attendance at conferences relating to the performance of his or her duties as a member (except expenses relating to travel)”.

Will you accept that they did not abide to those rules in the first instance? And if you beleive they did then could you please say why?

Thanks.

Happyman42 · 08-07-2012 1:25pm

daltonmd wrote: »

These are the FACTS below.

"Rules on travel and accommodation entitlements — €12,000 a year for every Dublin TD — say members must certify the money covered transport from their home or temporary accommodation to work in Leinster House."

"However a separate payment system, the public representation allowance (PRA), says TDs can claim under this for “attendance at conferences relating to the performance of his or her duties as a member (except expenses relating to travel)”.

Will you accept that they did not abide to those rules in the first instance? And if you beleive they did then could you please say why?

Thanks.

I accept that they got monies they where not entitled to, and that they should pay them back.
I do not accept that their motivation or intention was to defraud the public purse and that confusion lies at the core of the problem.

daltonmd · 08-07-2012 1:35pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I accept that they got monies they where not entitled to, and that they should pay them back.
I do not accept that their motivation or intention was to defraud the public purse and that confusion lies at the core of the problem.

In fairness on post 131 you said to me, in respose to my statement :

"but to use money designated for another purpose"

"That is what is in dispute"

I never said they were corrupt, hiding things, out to defraud.

I am also wondering could independant legal advice go their way - considering the two rules above?

Happyman42 · 08-07-2012 1:46pm

daltonmd wrote: »

In fairness on post 131 you said to me, in respose to my statement :

"but to use money designated for another purpose"

"That is what is in dispute"

I never said they were corrupt, hiding things, out to defraud.

I am also wondering could independant legal advice go their way - considering the two rules above?

The advice could back up Brian Hayes contention that the Oireachtas interpretation is indeed bizarre or it could side with the Oireachtas in which case the ****storm starts as Higgins et al will have no choice but to insist on an inquiry into who else used the expenses in this way.

daltonmd · 08-07-2012 2:15pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

The advice could back up Brian Hayes contention that the Oireachtas interpretation is indeed bizarre or it could side with the Oireachtas in which case the ****storm starts as Higgins et al will have no choice but to insist on an inquiry into who else used the expenses in this way.

Well their interpretation seems pretty clear, it's the interpretation of the TD's involved that seems to be the issue.

"Rules on travel and accommodation entitlements — €12,000 a year for every Dublin TD — say members must certify the money covered transport from their home or temporary accommodation to work in Leinster House."

In this one it really is clear that if you are submitting unvouched expenses, then you are stating that they were used for this purpose only. To me that is pretty clear. It is saying that I accept these expenses, unvouched, because I spent 12k travelling around my constituency and to and from work.

"However a separate payment system, the public representation allowance (PRA), says TDs can claim under this for “attendance at conferences relating to the performance of his or her duties as a member (except expenses relating to travel)”.

This is the grey area one, and in my opinion there are two issues for the SP and one for Brian Hayes.

Should the SP or Brian Hayes have claimed the travel expenses? On reading it then to me it's no, they could have claimed other expenses, lodgings, food etc, but not the travel.

Regarding the other expenses - we now look at what the actual nature of the business was for both SP and BH.

Brian Hayes was drumming up party support.

SP supporting/drumming up the anti household charge campaign.

Now, whether we view them as "different" is up for debate. Let's say we don't and both are justified in claiming the food and lodgings - they still cannot claim for the travel element of allowance.

So even if they are right and justified in the nature of the business they attended - they are still wrong, all of them, for claiming the travel - is that fair to say?

Happyman42 · 08-07-2012 2:51pm

daltonmd wrote: »

Well their interpretation seems pretty clear, it's the interpretation of the TD's involved that seems to be the issue.

"Rules on travel and accommodation entitlements — €12,000 a year for every Dublin TD — say members must certify the money covered transport from their home or temporary accommodation to work in Leinster House."

In this one it really is clear that if you are submitting unvouched expenses, then you are stating that they were used for this purpose only. To me that is pretty clear. It is saying that I accept these expenses, unvouched, because I spent 12k travelling around my constituency and to and from work.

"However a separate payment system, the public representation allowance (PRA), says TDs can claim under this for “attendance at conferences relating to the performance of his or her duties as a member (except expenses relating to travel)”.

This is the grey area one, and in my opinion there are two issues for the SP and one for Brian Hayes.

Should the SP or Brian Hayes have claimed the travel expenses? On reading it then to me it's no, they could have claimed other expenses, lodgings, food etc, but not the travel.

Regarding the other expenses - we now look at what the actual nature of the business was for both SP and BH.

Brian Hayes was drumming up party support.

SP supporting/drumming up the anti household charge campaign.

Now, whether we view them as "different" is up for debate. Let's say we don't and both are justified in claiming the food and lodgings - they still cannot claim for the travel element of allowance.

So even if they are right and justified in the nature of the business they attended - they are still wrong, all of them, for claiming the travel - is that fair to say?

The issue has always been about intention and interpretation. Even the Oireachtas had to seek legal advice before it made a ruling, which suggests to me that even they aren't sure about the rules. The rules and the regulations are a sham and need overhaul.

daltonmd · 08-07-2012 3:42pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

The issue has always been about intention and interpretation. Even the Oireachtas had to seek legal advice before it made a ruling, which suggests to me that even they aren't sure about the rules. The rules and the regulations are a sham and need overhaul.

Not quite:

"The Oireachtas Service has issued a statement to say that its legal advice confirms TDs allowances do not cover travel outside their constituency."

The Oireactas have been very clear. They beleive that the expenses were for a specific purpose. They took legal advice to confirm that.

Jolly Red Giant · 08-07-2012 4:05pm

Statement from Joe Higgins - (given the comments on the last couple of pages I have highlighted the rules as they exist in relation to travelling expenses)

This week the tragedy that is mass unemployment was intensified further with the official rate rising to 14.9%, a total of 440,600 people and the highest since 1994. This week, also, the Troika is in town to make sure that the Irish people continue to wear the suffocating straitjacket of austerity in the interests of salvaging the fortunes of the failed property gamblers from the European financial markets. Last week a further €1.2 billion was paid out to unsecured bondholders.

Against this unfolding national crisis, sections of the billionaire owned press spent days manufacturing giant headlines and spilling buckets of ink in a frenzy of artificial outrage because three Dublin based, Left wing Members of the Dail said they used part of a travel allowance they are paid, to take up invitations to speak at mass meetings all over the country. They were invited by campaign groups mobilising against austerity and against the household and septic tank taxes in particular. This, screamed a few journalistic hacks, was an abuse of taxpayers’ funds because the fixed allowance which all Dublin TDs receive should only be used in Dublin.

With the shrill clamour, some people might have been fooled into thinking that a grand larceny was underway, that the nation was being raided by unscrupulous public representatives, enriching themselves on the backs of taxpayers. Being one of the deputies involved I thought it appropriate to let the truth speak to this media abuse of power by outlining the reality, which is truly unshocking.

Between January and June this year, I travelled to public meetings and rallies in 21 cities and towns. Thousands of people on aggregate attended with 700 coming to one very vibrant rally in Waterford . I travelled by train or car. I took Bed and Breakfast on three occasions, stayed with friends or activists on other occasions, but mostly drove back to Dublin often arriving in the early hours and on many occasions having pulled off the road for a short sleep to ensure safe driving while very tired.

On Wednesday I outlined in a statement how I sought to determine the cost of this work to recoup the bare expenses involved. When travel involves a car, the AA Road Planner website has a very convenient ‘fuel reckoner’ which gives the cost of fuel for any journey. Using this, the cost was €74 for travel to Castlebar, €56 for Clonmel, €14 for Wicklow town and so on. The accommodation was €35, €36 and €54 – a total of €125. Total petrol and train fares came to €810 which means the entire costs were €935. For that I covered 6,289 kilometres or 3908 miles. Had I been able to make the journeys by ass and cart, I couldn’t have done it more cheaply!
A Travel allowance for Members of the Dail is regulated by Statutory Instrument 84/2010 under the relevant legislation. It states that it is to cover travel from the Member’s residence to Leinster House and then adds, ‘and travel expenses which the member is obliged to incur in the performance of his or her duties as a member of Dail Eireann.’ The Commission which administers this allowance says that this means only travel within the constituency and that their legal advice agrees. I view my duty as being an active representative for working class people and those campaigning for justice on many issues no matter which part of the country is involved. That is why I am now seeking independent legal advice to clarify this issue.

The very modest travel costs of a few Left wing TDs who work flat out straining to assist the fight against austerity merited several full pages in the Evening Herald. We were denounced as having sold out and it was cynically implied that we were on the ‘gravy train’. This is nothing short of a smear campaign to try to vilify and destroy the credibility of socialist deputies and their political parties, which are strongly fighting on behalf of ordinary working class people against the massive and unjust austerity agenda and for an alternative society run for the millions rather than for billionaire greed.

The massive anti Household Tax Campaign involves 50% of homeowners boycotting the tax. This is a barrier to the establishment agenda to go over to a property tax that, with other impositions, will quickly go to a €1,000 and beyond. Seizing on the non issue of Dail Members travelling to campaign meetings and barely covering their costs is intended to try and damage this campaign also. It won’t succeed.

Elected representatives to a national parliament should have modest expenses incurred in their work reimbursed with a system that would ensure the very minimum expenditure of public funds. But a legislator’s role, while serving their local constituency, is also, crucially, a national one.

http://www.joehiggins.ie/2012/07/comment-smear-campaign-of-socialist-tds-will-not-damage-household-tax-struggle/

Happyman42 · 08-07-2012 4:06pm

daltonmd wrote: »

Not quite:

"The Oireachtas Service has issued a statement to say that its legal advice confirms TDs allowances do not cover travel outside their constituency."

The Oireactas have been very clear. They beleive that the expenses were for a specific purpose. They took legal advice to confirm that.

Tbh if you have to seek legal advise, somebody is confused.

Sully · 08-07-2012 5:23pm

Awful shame Joe & Co just don't get it. When the heat is on them, they (and their supporters) deflect. Blame the media, blame the government - blaming everyone but them. They are not, and never will be, at fault. They can take as much as they want, and abuse the system as much as they want and shall point to other matters within the government as their excuse.

That is not representing the working class. Its representing saving your own ass.

yore · 09-07-2012 3:20am

One thing I'd like to ask the people supporting the abuse of expenses/envelopes is how would they feel, if say someone with certain well publicised ultra-conservative religious beliefs, was in the Dail and used Dail resources to travel the length and breadth of the country campaigning against the introduction of gay marriage for example? And gave pre-paid Dail envelopes to certain groups to let them send letters protesting to whoever. Would that be ok with you too? As long as they stood on a platform opposing "preservation of family values" or similar ambiguous phrase analogous to "fighting austerity".

Or a right-wing nutter, perhaps similar to the BNP people in England, who got a seat somewhere and used his expenses to travel the country promoting bigotry and encouraging people to break the law by discriminating against foreigners for example.
Basically, is it just ok to so whatever to "fulfill a mandate" if it's one you personally agree with?

yore · 09-07-2012 3:28am

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Statement from Joe Higgins - (given the comments on the last couple of pages I have highlighted the rules as they exist in relation to travelling expenses)

...
...
...
A Travel allowance for Members of the Dail is regulated by Statutory Instrument 84/2010 under the relevant legislation. It states that it is to cover travel from the Member’s residence to Leinster House and then adds, ‘and travel expenses which the member is obliged to incur in the performance of his or her duties as a member of Dail Eireann.’ The Commission which administers this allowance says that this means only travel within the constituency and that their legal advice agrees. I view my duty as being an active representative for working class people and those campaigning for justice on many issues no matter which part of the country is involved. That is why I am now seeking independent legal advice to clarify this issue.

Blah blah blah. mention a few emotive generic terms.... unsecured bondholders...blah blah...billionare controlled media....blah blah...smear campaign conspiracy ...blah blah.. mention I'm a working class hero...
Why is comrade Joe against a property wealth tax anyway????? He goes on about there being X billions of wealth owned by the top 1% or whatever when surely most of that is in the form of property.....
And I'm glad he's getting legal advice......sure it ain't cheap.... but sure can't he publish his receipts for it so it'll be grand. It probably won't come out of his AIW. Don't ya just love expenses baby!!

Laminations · 09-07-2012 11:01am

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Statement from Joe Higgins - (given the comments on the last couple of pages I have highlighted the rules as they exist in relation to travelling expenses)

This week the tragedy that is mass unemployment was intensified further with the official rate rising to 14.9%, a total of 440,600 people and the highest since 1994. This week, also, the Troika is in town to make sure that the Irish people continue to wear the suffocating straitjacket of austerity in the interests of salvaging the fortunes of the failed property gamblers from the European financial markets. Last week a further €1.2 billion was paid out to unsecured bondholders.

Against this unfolding national crisis,

this week hundreds of thousands of children will die from starvation and disease. This week conflict will tear entire communities apart and war will kill and maim thousands. This week millions of people will have their voices quashed under oppressive regimes. Millions of people will contract diseases and die due to lack of access to meducation and vaccination.

Agaist this backdrop of internation crisis, Joe spins some rubbish about Ireland

Or how about

This week a super nove destroyed a galaxy wiping out countless planets which may have supported life. This week a black hole distorted space time and destroys all matter that enters. This week asteroids collide with a massive planet.

Against this galactic chaos, humans complain about their brief existence ( which on the grand scale of things has altogether lasted as long as a click of their fingers.

Relativism can be used to minimise the importance of any event or the I correctness of any behaviour. If Joe is trying to put all this is perspective he could've summed it up as. 'On top of Ireland being in an economic crisis, Joe dealt a blow to hopes of political reform as he misuses expenses in the Dail'.

sections of the billionaire owned press spent days manufacturing giant headlines and spilling buckets of ink in a frenzy of artificial outrage because three Dublin based, Left wing Members of the Dail said they used part of a travel allowance they are paid, to take up invitations to speak at mass meetings all over the country. They were invited by campaign groups mobilising against austerity and against the household and septic tank taxes in particular. This, screamed a few journalistic hacks, was an abuse of taxpayers’ funds because the fixed allowance which all Dublin TDs receive should only be used in Dublin.

Ad hominem, hyperbole, misdirection. What a wordsmith. What a one man spin machine. Manufactured? Artificial? What beautiful choices of words. Also a nice touch suggesting this was just a few journalists in sections of the press. Practically every paper reported this.

With the shrill clamour, some people might have been fooled into thinking that a grand larceny was underway, that the nation was being raided by unscrupulous public representatives, enriching themselves on the backs of taxpayers. Being one of the deputies involved I thought it appropriate to let the truth speak to this media abuse of power by outlining the reality, which is truly unshocking.

Building a nice strawman here. No Joe, no one was fooled into thinking grand larceny was underway. No you didn't rob the Northern Bank, you didn't bankrupt the state, the amounts are miniscule. You don't get it. It's the attitude you have towards expenses, a system you rightly criticised in the past. No word about the envelopes BTW?

Again choice use of words. Shrill clamour. Lots of mentions of 'truth' and 'reality'. You build a strawman of what they reported and then say you'll show it's not true. Genius!

Between January and June this year, I travelled to public meetings and rallies in 21 cities and towns. Thousands of people on aggregate attended with 700 coming to one very vibrant rally in Waterford . I travelled by train or car. I took Bed and Breakfast on three occasions, stayed with friends or activists on other occasions, but mostly drove back to Dublin often arriving in the early hours and on many occasions having pulled off the road for a short sleep to ensure safe driving while very tired.

Irrelevant.

On Wednesday I outlined in a statement how I sought to determine the cost of this work to recoup the bare expenses involved. When travel involves a car, the AA Road Planner website has a very convenient ‘fuel reckoner’ which gives the cost of fuel for any journey. Using this, the cost was €74 for travel to Castlebar, €56 for Clonmel, €14 for Wicklow town and so on. The accommodation was €35, €36 and €54 – a total of €125. Total petrol and train fares came to €810 which means the entire costs were €935. For that I covered 6,289 kilometres or 3908 miles. Had I been able to make the journeys by ass and cart, I couldn’t have done it more cheaply!
A Travel allowance for Members of the Dail is regulated by Statutory Instrument 84/2010 under the relevant legislation. It states that it is to cover travel from the Member’s residence to Leinster House and then adds, ‘and travel expenses which the member is obliged to incur in the performance of his or her duties as a member of Dail Eireann.’ The Commission which administers this allowance says that this means only travel within the constituency and that their legal advice agrees. I view my duty as being an active representative for working class people and those campaigning for justice on many issues no matter which part of the country is involved. That is why I am now seeking independent legal advice to clarify this issue.

The oireactas guidelines are quite clear. Why are you citing from the statute book when this is not what you'd have read in outlining the allowance? You initially said you'd pay it back if you were told it wasn't permitted. You've been told this. You are now pursuing this on a legal technicality, trying to justify something that's morally wrong. Sounds like the actions of those billionaires you rally against.

The very modest travel costs of a few Left wing TDs who work flat out straining to assist the fight against austerity merited several full pages in the Evening Herald. We were denounced as having sold out and it was cynically implied that we were on the ‘gravy train’. This is nothing short of a smear campaign to try to vilify and destroy the credibility of socialist deputies and their political parties, which are strongly fighting on behalf of ordinary working class people against the massive and unjust austerity agenda and for an alternative society run for the millions rather than for billionaire greed.

It's not the amounts involved. When will the 'penny' drop. Again reference to other 'more important' matters - aka deflection.

The massive anti Household Tax Campaign involves 50% of homeowners boycotting the tax. This is a barrier to the establishment agenda to go over to a property tax that, with other impositions, will quickly go to a €1,000 and beyond. Seizing on the non issue of Dail Members travelling to campaign meetings and barely covering their costs is intended to try and damage this campaign also. It won’t succeed.

You can't claim anyone who hasn't paid yet as part of your campaign. Slippery slope argument against the rights of a property tax tucked in there too. Joe is now using what should have been a short explanation and apology to campaign...

Elected representatives to a national parliament should have modest expenses incurred in their work reimbursed with a system that would ensure the very minimum expenditure of public funds. But a legislator’s role, while serving their local constituency, is also, crucially, a national one.

What they should have and what they do have are two different things. Legislators should check what allowances should be used for before spending them on opposing laws that the house in which they belong democratically brought in. Left wing politicians should know better.

Happyman42 · 09-07-2012 11:24am

Laminations wrote: »

It's not the amounts involved.

....it's the intention, which none of the firing squad have adequately dealt with.
Was the intention here to defraud the state?, we didn't wake up to the newspapers telling us that TD's get expenses, that's not the news. We woke up to the insinuation that these three TD's intentionally defrauded the state.

The debate about TD's getting expenses and other perks is a different matter.

daltonmd · 09-07-2012 11:28am

Happyman42 wrote: »

....it's the intention, which none of the firing squad have adequately dealt with.
Was the intention here to defraud the state?, we didn't wake up to the newspapers telling us that TD's get expenses, that's not the news. We woke up to the insinuation that these three TD's intentionally defrauded the state.

Insinuation? Post a link?

Happyman42 · 09-07-2012 11:48am

daltonmd wrote: »

Insinuation? Post a link?

I can't find the article I want which had a few choice 'interpretive' words mixed in with what seemed to be factual news reportage. The Independent are at it all the time. But here's two classics of the 'throw everything but the kitchen sink at them' genre that we call journalism here.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/ian-odoherty-hey-they-can-do-what-they-want-3159195.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sinn-feins-cheap-little-power-game-with-queen-3147562.html

Laminations · 09-07-2012 11:57am

Happyman42 wrote: »

....it's the intention, which none of the firing squad have adequately dealt with.
Was the intention here to defraud the state?, we didn't wake up to the newspapers telling us that TD's get expenses, that's not the news. We woke up to the insinuation that these three TD's intentionally defrauded the state.

The debate about TD's getting expenses and other perks is a different matter.

When Dempsey spent 50 million on e-voting machines he wasn't intending to defraud the state. You don't need to have the intention to defraud and you don't need to personally benefit for something to be wrong. What these TDs did was wrong and it's their attitude (not intention) towards taxpayers money that's the issue. It wouldn't have dragged on so long had they just apologised. Instead we got their loyal supporters using the defence 'well if you can't beat em join em'

daltonmd · 09-07-2012 12:23pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can't find the article I want which had a few choice 'interpretive' words mixed in with what seemed to be factual news reportage. The Independent are at it all the time. But here's two classics of the 'throw everything but the kitchen sink at them' genre that we call journalism here.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/ian-odoherty-hey-they-can-do-what-they-want-3159195.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sinn-feins-cheap-little-power-game-with-queen-3147562.html

I didn't ask for that.

I asked for a link from a newspaper that accuses them of intending to defraud the state.

Where has any newspaper reported/claimed that the actions of the SP of claiming expenses for one purpose was an "intentional act of fraud".

"To constitute fraud the misrepresentation or omission must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident, or in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity".

No-one accused them of this, as far as I have seen anyway.

Happyman42 · 09-07-2012 12:31pm

Laminations wrote: »

When Dempsey spent 50 million on e-voting machines he wasn't intending to defraud the state. You don't need to have the intention to defraud and you don't need to personally benefit for something to be wrong. What these TDs did was wrong and it's their attitude (not intention) towards taxpayers money that's the issue. It wouldn't have dragged on so long had they just apologised. Instead we got their loyal supporters using the defence 'well if you can't beat em join em'

Did Calelly set out to defraud, Bertie etc? This thread is littered with insinuation that the intention was to defraud, right from the the first post

but 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.

But of course what blows that argument out of the water is the fact that if your intention is to defraud then you are secretive about it, you obscure the facts. (witness Calelly and Ahearn etc) None of which happened here.

What in the world has Dempsey and e-voting machines got to do with this?

Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, and Joan Collins misuse expenses

Comments