Leo is the new king of Ireland.

blanch152

christy c wrote: »

Some didn't want to balance the books, some proposed taking on more debt to fund current expenditure.

Have you seen anything to suggest that they might not drive the country in to the ground?

By the way I'm not saying this as a FG or Leo fan. Best of a bad lot is not a compliment. And I think if we continue on the path we're on that we're in for trouble (narrowing tax base, increasing spending). Just that if any of the others get in and do as they promise, that this trouble would come sooner rather than later.

I might vote for Renua, they had no candidate in my constituency last time so didn't look in to them too much. Bit if some fiscally sane party was to emerge, they'd get my vote

Agree with a lot of what you say, but Renua proposals favour the rich.

It is actually very difficult to find a party that wants to reduce taxes on earned income (i.e. the sweat and tears of hard work) and wants to increase taxes on unearned income (i.e. profit from shares and savings, renting houses) and also increase taxes on property (including home-owners, as the poorest can't afford to buy).

If ever such a party existed, they would get my vote.

I end up voting for the Greens because after the tax reform agenda above, which no party is close to, the climate change and environment agenda is next important. Although they don't have all the right answers (and have some very strange ones) they are the only party addressing the issue.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

You could get a job in Leo's spin unit with that answer. I asked you which leader you think is better and why, and did not get an answer. Given that we only have a handful of party leaders I thought it would be easy for you.

As I said I vote for who I see as best of a bad lot, not because I think others might be worse (not sure why you felt the need to invent that).

Again, I did answer. Anyone with the potential of being honest and following through on not even policy but the intent to at least try genuinely to follow through. I know Leo isn't genuine. I know he's full of crap. Therefore anyone who has not shown themselves to be such is better than Leo. I look on the ballot, a name I don't even know, better than Leo. I'd hopes for Harris but he's proven to be full if it too not to mention Murphy so I don't have much faith in the bright lights of FG.therefore I cannot in good conscience take even the wearable PR/manifesto elements seriously. In short any non-FG/FF person is a better bet than Leo. If you vote for Leo based on his tax funded baloney you're fooling yourself for certain.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Better at party leadership or better at being a Taoiseach?

I said at the time that any party could introduce a package of austerity to put the country back on it's feet.

What I was looking for was a leader that would do it fairly and without making those who generally suffered most from the collapse suffer even more in the recovery.

Needless to say, FG didn't deliver that even though they may have delivered an area restricted recovery.

They didn't deliver on what got them in; an end to cronyism, hospital trolley scandal, changing the way we do business, no more quangos etc.etc.
Austerity was the public. Tax exemption and low rates for AIB, corporates and the vulture funds. Not to mention bond holders.

If any one else kissed Trump's arse as much, and I'm not "taking the piss" as per Leo, coupled with your tax dollar financing his PR certain folks would be 'outaraged'. Imagine Clare Daly calling in a favour for Trump regarding wind turbines? Even if she said 'talking the piss'. All very humorous.

McMurphy

Boasting about interfering with a planning application, on behalf of a billionaire to the world wide audience won't be long on taking a bit of the shine of the new king of Ireland's crown.

That's some level of (delete where appropriate) naivety/stupidity/inexperience/arrogance where the leader of the country boasts to meddling in due process because he was asked to.

One can only assume Leo got the tip off that D.T was about to drop him in it and catching him unaware, and he decided he'd better get his side of the story in first, or else his ego needs overrode common sense.

Either way, there's gonna be a shti storm to ride out now from the opposition, and the media/journalists.

I already see that the wind farm potentials are talking about legal action because of potential interference.

Oh Leo.

You had one job.

FrancieBrady

The backroom boys will be discussing doing an 'Enda' with him.
Keep him away from the media as much as possible. He seems unable to stop himself.

Wheeliebin30

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The backroom boys will be discussing doing an 'Enda' with him.
Keep him away from the media as much as possible. He seems unable to stop himself.

You are relentless francie, ill give you that!!

FrancieBrady

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

You are relentless francie, ill give you that!!

Commenting just like I would if any other politician admitted to something like this.

So the latest seems to be that he made an off the record intervention on behalf of a billionaire he was publicly (taking advantage of the public mood) being extremely critical of.

New politics?

seamus

It's the sycophancy which will hurt him most here. He didn't interfere in any planning process, that's very clear.

But it's the "Oh, well, I already spoke to Mr. Trump before, he called me personally and asked for a favour. And even though I didn't really do anything, I got a pat on the head and a gold star already. So he loves me the most"

That's what will hurt him. He has a golden opportunity to represent Ireland's population in front of the worst and most dangerous US president in history, and instead he goes talking cutesy name-dropping anecdotes.

johnnyskeleton

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

You are relentless francie, ill give you that!!

Mod note:

Please don't personalise the issues.

Podge_irl

I would be amazed if there is more than a handful of TDs who have not raised concerns or questions regarding planning decisions when asked by either constituents or businesses in their constituency. There isn't even any suggestion that he influenced the decision.

He was, I presume, asked about meeting the President and had a bland anecdote about how he had actually talked to him before. People are trying to turn it into Watergate.

McMurphy

Podge_irl wrote: »

I would be amazed if there is more than a handful of TDs who have not raised concerns or questions regarding planning decisions when asked by either constituents or businesses in their constituency. There isn't even any suggestion that he influenced the decision.

He was, I presume, asked about meeting the President and had a bland anecdote about how he had actually talked to him before. People are trying to turn it into Watergate.

This is the point, Leo as minister for tourism/sport would have had a myriad of reasons for mentioning how he had reason to talk to him before (golf course/hotel).

Leo lacked the gumption to not keep possible interference in due process to himself on a world stage.

Inexperienced Taoiseach meets inexperienced President while the world's media look on shocker.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Commenting just like I would if any other politician admitted to something like this.

So the latest seems to be that he made an off the record intervention on behalf of a billionaire he was publicly (taking advantage of the public mood) being extremely critical of.

New politics?

Like Gerry Adams making an off the record intervention on behalf of the Stacks?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Like Gerry Adams making an off the record intervention on behalf of the Stacks?

I believe I commented on that, yes.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Like Gerry Adams making an off the record intervention on behalf of the Stacks?

Blanch I see the leader of the party you keep reminding us that you give your number 1s to has come out condemning Leo.

Eamon Ryan

Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said the Government’s attempts to explain Mr Varadkar’s intervention in the planning system “don’t add up.”

“Who is telling the truth about then-minister Varadkar’s intervention in the planning process on behalf of Donald Trump? Do we take the Taoiseach’s word for it, that he intervened personally?” said Mr Ryan.

“Do we accept the excuse this morning that it was an inquiry by one of Mr Varadkar’s officials? Or Clare County Council, who have no record or knowledge of the intervention taking place?

“The story doesn’t add up.”

The Green leader said the “fact that he could not see the intervention was inappropriate is what he has to defend.” Public confidence had been further undermined by the council’s statement.

“What the Minister did was clearly wrong. If Fine Gael could only hear their own defence of the indefensible, it would make them blush,” he said.

Thoughts?

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

Agree with a lot of what you say, but Renua proposals favour the rich.

It is actually very difficult to find a party that wants to reduce taxes on earned income (i.e. the sweat and tears of hard work) and wants to increase taxes on unearned income (i.e. profit from shares and savings, renting houses) and also increase taxes on property (including home-owners, as the poorest can't afford to buy).

If ever such a party existed, they would get my vote.

I end up voting for the Greens because after the tax reform agenda above, which no party is close to, the climate change and environment agenda is next important. Although they don't have all the right answers (and have some very strange ones) they are the only party addressing the issue.

a few things on this, please define "rich" because the amount of "rich" in Ireland, by my definition, would be less than 1% of the population, you think Renua want to win now seats? they are targetting the squeezed middle! take a look at the below! When it comes to election time, they will have to get their message out there and straight! I will find a video of a Renua meeting and link to it here, the notion that they are only for the rich, is laughable. If you deem the rich people earning 50,60k,000 a year, yeah maybe. In Dublin, I wouldnt call that earning, far off working poor, if you are renting or faced with current prices to buy a property!

Secondly I totally agree with you on the green front, but the drive for change, is being forced very quickly. Look at the speed that diesel has gone from savior to frowned on! Europe and market forces will drag us along on this front, Ireland itself is a joke on this front. Just look at water, the contamination, sewage into streams etc... The greens were the ones who thought the diesel idea was great, who are against medium to high rise in Dublin "but wait a minute, arent they all about sustainability" except when it hits their votes :rolleyes:

James Brown

To be fair to FG they have gone as far as they can towards looking after the environment. Recycling is going up for households and the failed attempt with water. Point being they've attempted to make money off it as best they could. They only act on things if there's a shilling in it. If you can come up with a money maker for them and theirs re the environment they'd be all green over night.

As regard taxes it's natural for people to want tax cuts when they see the tax take squandered and misused while things for the average tax payer remain poor.
People are wising up to the 'economy' ****e talk.

Idbatterim

https://www.facebook.com/renuairl/photos/a.620456441389170.1073741829.614189535349194/941444612623683/?type=3&theater

the above posted by Renua is STAGGERING! Posted in January 2017, it says that "workers earning over E30,000, pay over 95% of all income tax!" Its truly unbelievable and in this country, the empty vessels, really do make the most noise! The media and in particular RTE, are incredible!

Edward M

I see Leo has retracted his original story, he didn't contact Clare Co Co, at all, he sent an email to failte ireland.
This was confirmed by a man with two pints and a bulging wage packet!

Phoebas

So it was a storm in a teacup after all.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

So it was a storm in a teacup after all.

Yep. Much ado about nothing. I wonder how they feel about the proposed recycling waste charges?

McMurphy

Phoebas wrote: »

So it was a storm in a teacup after all.

It might be attempted to be portrayed that way by the SCU, but its far from a storm in a teacup, and it's certainly not over either, in fact it might be just the beginning.

Leo's email to Failte basically confirms what he stupidly and naively told a world media.

Trump rang him and told him his concerns. Leo emailed his mate in Failte passing on his concerns, and Failte objected to the wind farm - specifically mentioning Trumps resort when doing so.

I can understand the process and thoughts behind some who might try and "nothing to see here" and wish this away though.

Leo messed up. Simple.

Jawgap

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It might be attempted to be portrayed that way by the SCU, but its far from a storm in a teacup, and it's certainly not over either, in fact it might be just the beginning.

Leo's email to Failte basically confirms what he stupidly and naively told a world media.

Trump rang him and told him his concerns. Leo emailed his mate in Failte passing on his concerns, and Failte objected to the wind farm - specifically mentioning Trumps resort when doing so.

I can understand the process and thoughts behind some who might try and "nothing to see here" and wish this away though.

Leo messed up. Simple.

They've released all the emails etc haven't they?

So we're getting the primary information instead of the spin from the SCU?

Did you you miss the bit where FI mention that they make dozens of submissions on planning permissions each year and are a stautory party under the planning acts?

McMurphy

Jawgap wrote: »

They've released all the emails etc haven't they?

So we're getting the primary information instead of the spin from the SCU?

Did you you miss the bit where FI mention that they make dozens of submissions on planning permissions each year and are a stautory party under the planning acts?

It was a figure of speech JG - and I think you knew that.

As for missing bits? No - I missed nothing, I even mentioned the chain of events from the Don calling his budser Leo - Leo relaying his budsers concerns to FI (after endeavouring to do so) and fake Failte specifically objecting to the wind farm due to Trumps resort.

I'm also hearing reports about the head of the SCU and a possible link to Failte at the time - not sure on how reliable this is, still seems to be breaking.

Leo and his ego. Leo and his big stupid mouth eh?

Jawgap

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It was a figure of speech JG - and I think you knew that.

As for missing bits? No - I missed nothing, I even mentioned the chain of events from the Don calling his budser Leo - Leo relaying his budsers concerns to FI (after endeavouring to do so) and fake Failte specifically objecting to the wind farm due to Trumps resort.

I'm also hearing reports about the head of the SCU and a possible link to Failte at the time - not sure on how reliable this is, still seems to be breaking.

Leo and his ego. Leo and his big stupid mouth eh?

Not at all - the planning file is there for all to see, the email has been published, FI has timelined their involvement - so I return to my earlier point, the primary source material is there for anyone to examine and reach their own conclusions.

Why would anyone be surprised, outraged, shocked etc that a minister responsible for tourism would relay on concerns or observations about a potential project that might impact tourism?

Leo, undoubtedly, over-egged the pudding had his "Enda, the army and the ATMs" moment, and he's managed to single-handedly wreck the St Patrick's Day bun fight in the US in terms of taking the focus off the usual paddy-whackery that surrounds this annual sweep through the States (that's not necessarily a bad thing) - so aside from naively wrecking an annual week during which we're supposed to hear nothing but good news about the country, what exactly is he guilty of?

Nitrogan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

To be fair to FG they have gone as far as they can towards looking after the environment. Recycling is going up for households and the failed attempt with water. Point being they've attempted to make money off it as best they could. They only act on things if there's a shilling in it. If you can come up with a money maker for them and theirs re the environment they'd be all green over night.

As regard taxes it's natural for people to want tax cuts when they see the tax take squandered and misused while things for the average tax payer remain poor.
People are wising up to the 'economy' ****e talk.

Isn't that the right way of running a government?

Making sure non-essential projects are as self-sustaining as possible so that the maximum tax revenues can be available for services like education, welfare and health free of charge to people who wouldn't be able to afford them otherwise.

There are still a lot of things subsidised by the state which are available to the very wealthy, I think the government could do better things with that money.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Not at all - the planning file is there for all to see, the email has been published, FI has timelined their involvement - so I return to my earlier point, the primary source material is there for anyone to examine and reach their own conclusions.

Why would anyone be surprised, outraged, shocked etc that a minister responsible for tourism would relay on concerns or observations about a potential project that might impact tourism?

Leo, undoubtedly, over-egged the pudding had his "Enda, the army and the ATMs" moment, and he's managed to single-handedly wreck the St Patrick's Day bun fight in the US in terms of taking the focus off the usual paddy-whackery that surrounds this annual sweep through the States (that's not necessarily a bad thing) - so aside from naively wrecking an annual week during which we're supposed to hear nothing but good news about the country, what exactly is he guilty of?

Leo quite clearly demonstrated that he loved the idea of being thought a lawbreaker.
And that he was publicly lambasting Trump while privately doing him favours as a businessman.

Quite disturbing really.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo quite clearly demonstrated that he loved the idea of being thought a lawbreaker.
And that he was publicly lambasting Trump while privately doing him favours as a businessman.

Quite disturbing really.

Well if people find that "quite disturbing," one can only wonder what they make of SF's behaviour in relation to bullying, child abuse and murder.

Also, what laws is he supposed to have broken?

His contact may be open to ethical questioning, but I'm not familiar with any law that he may have broken in contacting a statutory notice party?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if people find that "quite disturbing," one can only wonder what they make of SF's behaviour in relation to bullying, child abuse and murder.

Also, what laws is he supposed to have broken?

His contact may be open to ethical questioning, but I'm not familiar with any law that he may have broken in contacting a statutory notice party?

If SF were involved in any of the above as a party, I would of course, like any decent person be disturbed by it.


I don't know if any laws were broken or not, but Leo was quite clearly (and cringely) delighted that Trump believed that he had aided the refusal of permission (which would be a breaking of all laws around planning).
Which is what I said.

Leo quite clearly demonstrated that he loved the idea of being thought a lawbreaker.

Mr.Micro

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0316/947958-county-councillors-planning/

It is seen as a right here to interfere in planning.. Why not make it a criminal act, instead of sending out a letter that nobody will take any heed of. Varadkar had no right to interfere in any capacity IMO.

markodaly

Foreign tourism and hospitality investor contacts department in charge of tourism and hospitality as they have concerns of an infrastructure project.

Minister of department sends informal email to state body responsible for the advancement of tourism to review the planning.

State body, who has a statuary obligation and responsibility to make sure that tourism is not impeded nor damaged by new developments lodge an objection to the development.

Planning permission is declined (I think there were 40 other objectors), it was appealed to An Bord Pleanála but decision was upheld.

All of this is above board and lawful with no proof any any wrong doing, either legally or morally.

Put it this way, if there was a plan to erect wind turbines near The Hill of Tara, the Cliffs of Moher, NewGrange and a body like Failte Ireland, did NOT make an objection to it, then there would be blue murder.

So, lets put that to bed now.

The only thing Leo is guilty of is telling a story and getting some of his lines wrong.
It happens, he fluffed his lines a bit, its unfortunate but it happens and it was of no serious consequences and there is a very detailed paper trail.

If that is the biggest thing people have on him, then good luck to them as he will be a shoe in to be the next Taoiseach