The new Rotten Boroughs

MadsL

I propose we end once and for all the tactic of vote buying by declaring that you are not taking your TD's salary.

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157052/Sinn-F-barely-leave-wages-make-TD-Sandra-McLellan-says-partys-pay-policy-deter-candidates.html

I believe Luke Ming Flanagan 's 'schemes' are disingenuous in the extreme, he is professing to be overpaid, then rather than return the money to State coffers to pay for things, Flanagan gets to splash the cash - €9,000 to Boyle town council to buy 21 new road signs.

I consider this cheap, vote buying publicity, at the taxpayers expense. Cost to Ming €0 as he has already 'pledged' to only take 50% of his salary. It's a cheap and dubious tactic to buy re-election. I'm astonished that it is permitted under parliamentary rules.

Anyway, I believe this "My money, I'll decide where it is spent" attitude should not be permitted for public representatives as it distorts both democracy and transparency in public office. It is not the TD's money, it is public funds give in exchange for public service. If they are not required they should be returned to the Exchequer.

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

I consider this cheap, vote buying publicity

Except he asks for his donations to be anonymous...

MadsL

Seaneh wrote: »

Except he asks for his donations to be anonymous...

So why did he go public with the €9k he gave for roadsigns?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

An Coilean

Thats not what a rotten borough means.

AndyP

Dunny on the Wold is a rubber button.

Someone had to do it...

MadsL

An Coilean wrote: »

Thats not what a rotten borough means.

That's why I said new...

Seaneh

MadsL wrote: »

So why did he go public with the €9k he gave for roadsigns?

He didn't, someone from the council told a local paper.

MadsL

http://www.joe.ie/news/current-affairs/luke-ming-flanagan-to-donate-half-his-td-earnings-to-local-projects/

Very public about it here...

An Coilean

MadsL wrote: »

That's why I said new...

Language doesnt really work like that. You can't just put 'the new' before a word and then use it for a compleatly different meaning.

I don't understand.

On the one hand you have a TD that works on a national level, realising he doesn't need the 90k, so he gives a lot away to local groups.

On the otheryou have ministers and other TD's gobbling up as much money as possible.

Yes, you could say he's buying votes, but we livein a free democracy, if people don't want him to help out, they vote someone else in.

It appears you have a massive chip on your shoulder regarding Ming, why?

Fr Tod Umptious

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand.

On the one hand you have a TD that works on a national level, realising he doesn't need the 90k, so he gives a lot away to local groups.

On the otheryou have ministers and other TD's gobbling up as much money as possible.

Yes, you could say he's buying votes, but we livein a free democracy, if people don't want him to help out, they vote someone else in.

It appears you have a massive chip on your shoulder regarding Ming, why?

If I am not mistaken, from what I recall of some of his/her previous postings the OP has a massive chip on their shoulder about rural Ireland.

BQQ

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand.

On the one hand you have a TD that works on a national level, realising he doesn't need the 90k, so he gives a lot away to local groups.

On the otheryou have ministers and other TD's gobbling up as much money as possible.

Yes, you could say he's buying votes, but we livein a free democracy, if people don't want him to help out, they vote someone else in.

It appears you have a massive chip on your shoulder regarding Ming, why?

+1
How many threads has the OP started about Ming at this stage?

If he has some personal issues with Mr. Flanagan, I wish he'd go and work through them somewhere else and not clog up this board with endless sniping threads.

SeanW

I don't understand OP - a public representative claims that ALL politicans are overpaid, so rather than agree or disagree that they are overpaid, you excoriate the original claimant for doing something useful with his "overpayment" which you seem neither to agree nor disagree exists, but yet, he should be regluated on how he spends his phantom surplus to prevent him doing something useful with it as opposed to the rest of the politicians, but he (and the rest of the political class) may or may not be overpaid

I seem to be missing something here.

murphaph

An Coilean wrote: »

Language doesnt really work like that. You can't just put 'the new' before a word and then use it for a compleatly different meaning.

New Labour anyone?

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand.

On the one hand you have a TD that works on a national level, realising he doesn't need the 90k, so he gives a lot away to local groups.

On the otheryou have ministers and other TD's gobbling up as much money as possible.

Yes, you could say he's buying votes, but we livein a free democracy, if people don't want him to help out, they vote someone else in.

I'm pointing out that this so-called altruism has a less than sunny side and putting that out for debate. More politicians are at this than Ming and I feel that it is a disingenuous way of using State money.
Political salaries should not be some race to the bottom auction, otherwise we end up with people who will work for free in persuit of some future gain.
I'm for transparancy and integrity in politics, I don't give a damn if it is Ming or any other TD doing it.

]It appears you have a massive chip on your shoulder regarding Ming, why?

Based on what? My criticism of a publicly elected official who flouts the law of the country?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If I am not mistaken, from what I recall of some of his/her previous postings the OP has a massive chip on their shoulder about rural Ireland.

Nice, Ad Hominem attack. WTF has this to do with rural ireland?

BQQ wrote: »

+1
How many threads has the OP started about Ming at this stage

Four. Excessive you think?

If he has some personal issues with Mr. Flanagan, I wish he'd go and work through them somewhere else and not clog up this board with endless sniping threads.

If you have an issue with my threads, please report them to the mods.

SeanW wrote: »

I don't understand OP - a public representative claims that ALL politicans are overpaid, so rather than agree or disagree that they are overpaid, you excoriate the original claimant for doing something useful with his "overpayment" which you seem neither to agree nor disagree exists, but yet, he should be regluated on how he spends his phantom surplus to prevent him doing something useful with it as opposed to the rest of the politicians, but he (and the rest of the political class) may or may not be overpaid

I seem to be missing something here.

You are. The effect of spending State funds that have not been allocated to projects in the public representatives constituency which are expropriated by the TD in order tp popularise his term of office. Nothing phantom about a surplus when someone announces they do not need the salary, yet continues to draw it. We also have the potential that a proportion of that foregone salary is diverted back to the TD unbeknowns to the electorate.

If any politician states he doesn't need half his salary, fine. Great in fact. Let's not pay it. But paying it, and then pretending he is doing something great by giving it away is just a joke frankly.

Let's say a Govt Dept conducts a cost cutting exercise and determines that it no longer needs 50% of the funds it received last year. Fantastic, but what it if it still drew those funds and the executives decided to go on a nice cruise with the 50% they didn't need. Not so fantastic.

TDs who get up to this attention-seeking should have their salaries cut by the declared amount, but in my view, should not get the additional benefit of splashing the cash in their constituency.

MadsL

murphaph wrote: »

New Labour anyone?

New World Order? New York?

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If I am not mistaken, from what I recall of some of his/her previous postings the OP has a massive chip on their shoulder about rural Ireland.

BQQ wrote: »

+1
How many threads has the OP started about Ming at this stage?

If he has some personal issues with Mr. Flanagan, I wish he'd go and work through them somewhere else and not clog up this board with endless sniping threads.

Mod:

If you have an issue with a poster starting too many threads on a topic/personality report the threads to the mods, don't bring the thread off topic by bringing it up, thank you.

MadsL wrote: »

Based on what? My criticism of a publicly elected official who flouts the law of the country?

Nice, Ad Hominem attack. WTF has this to do with rural ireland?

Four. Excessive you think?

If you have an issue with my threads, please report them to the mods.

Agian, please report posts rather than enter into a tit for tat that will just derail the thread and end up in cards/bans.

Crooked Jack

Still at a loss as to what the Sinn Fein link is about

expectationlost

dermot looney current labour mayor of south dublin council ( and Deputy Mayor Eamon Tuffy chipping in too,) is doing a similar thing but using 10k of their allowances http://www.sdublincoco.ie/index.aspx?pageid=939&pid=27293 call's it their mayor fund,

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Still at a loss as to what the Sinn Fein link is about

TDs unable to afford to do their jobs properly because of artificial enforced pay limits determined by the party.

expectationlost wrote: »

dermot looney is doing a similar thing but using 10k of their allowances http://www.sdublincoco.ie/index.aspx?pageid=939&pid=27293 call's it their mayor fund, Deputy Mayor Eamon Tuffy chipping too

This strikes me as being absolutely autocratic. I put in X amount from my salary and now I get to play God with grants.

Democracy anyone?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TrueIt

Ming only has good intentions in mind for the people who voted him in.

MadsL

TrueIt wrote: »

Ming only has good intentions in mind for the people who voted him in.

He's a saint I'm sure. He's not very good at following laws however.

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

TDs unable to afford to do their jobs properly because of artificial enforced pay limits determined by the party.

A lack of make up is hardly stopping her from doing her job properly and SF average industrial wage policy is well established and known about. its not as if they springed it on her. plus, it has nothing to do with your "rotten borough" accusations, just nothing. its a totally different subject, but sure throw it in there anyway if it gives you your RDA of shinner bashing

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

A lack of make up is hardly stopping her from doing her job properly and SF average industrial wage policy is well established and known about. its not as if they springed it on her. plus, it has nothing to do with your "rotten borough" accusations, just nothing. its a totally different subject, but sure throw it in there anyway if it gives you your RDA of shinner bashing

Shinner bashing? How am I doing that?

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

Shinner bashing? How am I doing that?

The other posts have an at best tenuous link to your "rotten borough" accusations, the SF one has absolutely nothing to do with it, yet you felt the need to stick it in there anyway. It's pretty clear what you were at.

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The other posts have an at best tenuous link to your "rotten borough" accusations, the SF one has absolutely nothing to do with it, yet you felt the need to stick it in there anyway. It's pretty clear what you were at.

Clear what I was at? You've lost me. I'm highlighting an political trick that runs across FG, Independents and SF.

I think you might be a bit sensitive about defending SF. I'm not attacking them.

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

Clear what I was at? You've lost me. I'm highlighting an political trick that runs across FG, Independents and SF.

I think you might be a bit sensitive about defending SF. I'm not attacking them.

Im not defending SF, I'm pointing out that the article you linked has nothing to do with the subject the thread is about.

MadsL

Of course it does. The thread is about TDs announcing that they will not take their full salary (as SF TDs announce) and the TD or the party deciding where the remainder of the salary is spent.

I fail to see how you miss the connection...

the party’s policy of only paying its TDs €34,000 a year while taking the rest of their salary for the party’s use.

is in the first paragraph.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I assume you sign an agreement when you get nominated. If you get elected on a SF ticket and then defect...could be interesting.

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

Of course it does. The thread is about TDs announcing that they will not take their full salary (as SF TDs announce) and the TD or the party deciding where the remainder of the salary is spent.

I fail to see how you miss the connection...



is in the first paragraph.

No, you're being disingenuous here. Youve opted to name the thread "new rotten boroughs" and in your opening sentence accused people who dont take their full salary of buying votes.
That's a whole different discussion from what you've outlined above and it's also one that, despite the fact that it's clearly nothing more than your frankly skewed opinion, you've just decided to state as a fact from the starting point of the thread.
You havent opened up any discussion here, all you've done is gone off on a rant here about some politicians you dont like and thrown some totally unsubstantiated claims on top of that.

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No, you're being disingenuous here. Youve opted to name the thread "new rotten boroughs" and in your opening sentence accused people who dont take their full salary of buying votes.
That's a whole different discussion from what you've outlined above and it's also one that, despite the fact that it's clearly nothing more than your frankly skewed opinion, you've just decided to state as a fact from the starting point of the thread.
You havent opened up any discussion here, all you've done is gone off on a rant here about some politicians you dont like and thrown some totally unsubstantiated claims on top of that.

I'm questioning the whole tactic of buying votes via this mechanism of 'discount' TDs who supposedly do not take a full salary.

The three examples I gave were Ming and his 'projects', a FG TD 'buying' and extra teacher for a school, and SF making TDs only take 34k a year and subverting the rest into party funds.

My proposition very clear - that TDs should either take the full salary, or return a portion to State funds and that parliamentary rules prohibit publicity proclaiming that TDs are not drawing a full salary when in fact they are drawing the full salary and allowances.

Feel free to discuss that, but I'm done with your nitpicking about SF, I'm not sure why you are so defensive about them.

Padraig Mor

One aspect that goes unmentioned with these TDs is pension contributions - given their silence, I think it's fair to assume they will accrue pension benefits based on their FULL salary.

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

I'm questioning the whole tactic of buying votes via this mechanism of 'discount' TDs who supposedly do not take a full salary.

The three examples I gave were Ming and his 'projects', a FG TD 'buying' and extra teacher for a school, and SF making TDs only take 34k a year and subverting the rest into party funds.

My proposition very clear - that TDs should either take the full salary, or return a portion to State funds and that parliamentary rules prohibit publicity proclaiming that TDs are not drawing a full salary when in fact they are drawing the full salary and allowances.

Feel free to discuss that, but I'm done with your nitpicking about SF, I'm not sure why you are so defensive about them.

Look, forget SF, I only mentioned that link specifically because it was by far the most tenuous of the links provided. My issue is that you've skipped completely over whether or not these people are indeed "buying votes" as you claim. You've set that up as an established fact and asked us to have a discussion beyond this, it's preposterous.

Setting aside your thoroughly unsubstantiated accusation of vote buying, the salary is given to TDs for performing a service. It really is up to them what to do with it.
If some of them choose to channel this money back into their own constituencies, terrific. I dont see what difference a few hundred thousand would make to the central pot but I'm sure the people of certain constituencies appreciate their new road signs etc...
Perhaps we're just so used to seeing corrupt, self-promoting career politicians here that when someone comes along with a shred of principle some of us cant help but assume the worst.
If nothing else, those who dont take their full salary are highlighting the ludicrous salaries paid in Leinster House, which can only be a good thing.

Crooked Jack

Padraig Mor wrote: »

One aspect that goes unmentioned with these TDs is pension contributions - given their silence, I think it's fair to assume they will accrue pension benefits based on their FULL salary.

and? It's not an Im-poorer-than-you competition. It's a principled stand.
I can't believe that after the way we've seen politicians act in this country, not only are we seeing FF back on the rise, but people are actually nitpicking over the handful of TDs that arent self-serving career politicians.

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Look, forget SF, I only mentioned that link specifically because it was by far the most tenuous of the links provided. My issue is that you've skipped completely over whether or not these people are indeed "buying votes" as you claim. You've set that up as an established fact and asked us to have a discussion beyond this, it's preposterous.

Setting aside your thoroughly unsubstantiated accusation of vote buying, the salary is given to TDs for performing a service. It really is up to them what to do with it.
If some of them choose to channel this money back into their own constituencies, terrific. I dont see what difference a few hundred thousand would make to the central pot but I'm sure the people of certain constituencies appreciate their new road signs etc...
Perhaps we're just so used to seeing corrupt, self-promoting career politicians here that when someone comes along with a shred of principle some of us cant help but assume the worst.
If nothing else, those who dont take their full salary are highlighting the ludicrous salaries paid in Leinster House, which can only be a good thing.

You think it is done for principle, I'm pretty sure it is done to ensure re-election.

I'd lay 100-1 if you forced these politicians to take their full salary or hand the rest back to State funds, the tune would change.

It's especially ironic in a system that allows €40k of unvouched expenses.

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

and? It's not an Im-poorer-than-you competition. It's a principled stand.

Really? Is that why there was almost a bidding war in the last Presidential election?

I can't believe that after the way we've seen politicians act in this country, not only are we seeing FF back on the rise,

You are suggesting that my point encourages FF??

but people are actually nitpicking over the handful of TDs that arent self-serving career politicians.

If by pointing out that taking a public salary cut and still drawing the same salary is disingenuous in the extreme then yes I'm 'nitpicking'.

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

You think it is done for principle, I'm pretty sure it is done to ensure re-election.

Why are you sure? Where is your evidence? I fail to see how funneling wages which you have acknowledged are too high into your constituency is a bad thing. Like I said, Ming's few extra grand isnt going to make a difference to the central pot but the road signs sure will to the people of his constituency. Isnt he elected by them to work for them. If this is the case you could argue that any politician who does anything for his constituency is "buying votes" to ensure reelection.

MadsL wrote: »

I'd lay 100-1 if you forced these politicians to take their full salary or hand the rest back to State funds, the tune would change.

Whose tune? The politician's or the voters'?
Either way, I'd take that bet and spend my winnings on a fancy new hat.

MadsL wrote: »

It's especially ironic in a system that allows €40k of unvouched expenses.

How exactly are they unvouched. During the Presidential and Westminster elections SF released statements and documents showing all their representatives expenses to be vouched.
I don't know about other parties or TDs in the Dail but if extra expenses are incurred in the execution of their duties it's not totally unreasonable that these should be covered. If individual TDs abuse this they should be dealt with accordingly but insinuating that certain TDs are on the pig's back while buying votes is just a lie.

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

Really? Is that why there was almost a bidding war in the last Presidential election?

It certainly got a bit ridiculous during the PResidential election but again, if politicians are going to do something useful with their bloated salaries I don't see the problem.

MadsL wrote: »

You are suggesting that my point encourages FF??

I was referring to a post by another poster and making the point that there is serious political reform needed in this country yet some people seem to be obsessed with scrutinising the few TDs who appear to be doing something positive with their wages. Surely this behaviour should be encouraged, not hounded until it gets to the point where people are punished for it.

MadsL wrote: »

If by pointing out that taking a public salary cut and still drawing the same salary is disingenuous in the extreme then yes I'm 'nitpicking'.

Who does this? Your point and the point of this thread seems to change post to post.

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It certainly got a bit ridiculous during the PResidential election but again, if politicians are going to do something useful with their bloated salaries I don't see the problem.

The problem is that it is a handy way to circumvent (re)election spending limits.

I was referring to a post by another poster and making the point that there is serious political reform needed in this country yet some people seem to be obsessed with scrutinising the few TDs who appear to be doing something positive with their wages. Surely this behaviour should be encouraged, not hounded until it gets to the point where people are punished for it.

Oh we should encourage relinquishing salaries alright, what we should discourage is personal slush funds funded by the taxpayer.

Who does this? Your point and the point of this thread seems to change post to post.

Nope. That's been the case all along.

Ming draws a full salary and then funds 'projects'
Our FG friend draws a fully salary and gives half to the school
SF TDs draw a full salary and give everything above 34k to the party.

They are all drawing full salary though.

creedp

MadsL wrote: »

I'm questioning the whole tactic of buying votes via this mechanism of 'discount' TDs who supposedly do not take a full salary.

The three examples I gave were Ming and his 'projects', a FG TD 'buying' and extra teacher for a school, and SF making TDs only take 34k a year and subverting the rest into party funds.

My proposition very clear - that TDs should either take the full salary, or return a portion to State funds and that parliamentary rules prohibit publicity proclaiming that TDs are not drawing a full salary when in fact they are drawing the full salary and allowances.

Feel free to discuss that, but I'm done with your nitpicking about SF, I'm not sure why you are so defensive about them.

Would people prefer if the TD's spend their money on booze and pot? Its much easier for the TD's of bigger parties to get re-elected as the party machine does much of the re-election heavy lifting - not fighting like with like when it comes to independents/small parties. As in business you have to eke out a competive advantage to raise your little head above the madding crowds and survive.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Crooked Jack

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's so hard to take posts like this seriously. Whatever your point was, and it may have been a valid one (I doubt it but it's possible) is instantly lost because it's clear that you cant even get through a single post without succumbing to this sort of foaming-at-the-mouth rage.

MadsL

creedp wrote: »

Would people prefer if the TD's spend their money on booze and pot? Its much easier for the TD's of bigger parties to get re-elected as the party machine does much of the re-election heavy lifting - not fighting like with like when it comes to independents/small parties. As in business you have to eke out a competive advantage to raise your little head above the madding crowds and survive.

That's why we have audited election spending limits. To level the playing field.

Would you feel the same if a TD simply walked around town handing out cash in the weeks before election day?

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

The problem is that it is a handy way to circumvent (re)election spending limits.

You still havent demonstrated that that's what's happening here, jsut expected us to take your word for it.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh we should encourage relinquishing salaries alright, what we should discourage is personal slush funds funded by the taxpayer.

Agreed. You still havent demonstrated how these two things are linked or how they're linked to this thread

MadsL wrote: »

Nope. That's been the case all along.

Ming draws a full salary and then funds 'projects'
Our FG friend draws a fully salary and gives half to the school
SF TDs draw a full salary and give everything above 34k to the party.

They are all drawing full salary though.

But you still havent demonstrated how any of this amounts to buying votes, rotten boroughs, slush funds or abused expenses. You're just expecting everyone to take your word for it that that's what it's all about.

Crooked Jack

MadsL wrote: »

That's why we have audited election spending limits. To level the playing field.

Would you feel the same if a TD simply walked around town handing out cash in the weeks before election day?

Firstly, that's not the same thing, and secondly, in a country with a secret ballot, how much of an impact would any of that have anyway?

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You still havent demonstrated that that's what's happening here, jsut expected us to take your word for it.

How are you still not getting this? A TD very publically donates half his salary to a local school to national press coverage, in excess of the election spending limit, gets re-elected. Altruistic or crafty?

Agreed. You still havent demonstrated how these two things are linked or how they're linked to this thread

Because TDs only "being paid 50% of a TDs salary" still get paid 100% of a TDs salary, whilst codding us that their personal slush fund of 50% of a TDs salary is in the public interest.

But you still havent demonstrated how any of this amounts to buying votes, rotten boroughs, slush funds or abused expenses. You're just expecting everyone to take your word for it that that's what it's all about.

Are you claiming that these TDs do this for altruistic reasons? If so, why would they not simply return the cash to the State?

MadsL

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Firstly, that's not the same thing,

It is. Ming slings cash over to any project HE decides is worth funding. No different to handing a wad of cash to an individual as far as I can see. No transparency involved.

Whisko

This guy is just full of hate.

Its his money, it's not the states money. It's part of his wage and he's entitled to spend it how he pleases.