Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thanks.

Pre-nationalisation, the state had no responsibility to the Anglo bondholders? Or am I wrong here?
It seems more a case of being seen as a safe bet as a nation, in the eyes of the very financial cartels holding all the strings. Borrow from us to bail out bondholders, so you have good standing with us?

Ah, in terms of the Anglo bondholders I think so yes. Unfortunately once you say you are good for it, you have to back up your word or no one will believe you again. You don't really get to say "I'm only going to screw over these vulture cartels" and expect everyone else to view you as rock solid.

I don't put much faith in anything opposition parties say, so I'm reluctant to completely lash into SF for their pronouncements. But it is true that there were sensible voices in FG and the electorate utterly and completely dismissed them. There is no one to blame for that but ourselves.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ah, in terms of the Anglo bondholders I think so yes. Unfortunately once you say you are good for it, you have to back up your word or no one will believe you again. You don't really get to say "I'm only going to screw over these vulture cartels" and expect everyone else to view you as rock solid.

I don't put much faith in anything opposition parties say, so I'm reluctant to completely lash into SF for their pronouncements. But it is true that there were sensible voices in FG and the electorate utterly and completely dismissed them. There is no one to blame for that but ourselves.

I appreciate your time.
I think it's a bit much for FG to come in under a 'we'll revisit the terms/change the way we do business/FF are the responsible ones' and then within days, turn to 'paddy likes to party' and property tax for anyone who wants it, or doesn't. Our bad for putting faith in what the opposition party FG said.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I appreciate your time.
I think it's a bit much for FG to come in under a 'we'll revisit the terms/change the way we do business/FF are the responsible ones' and then within days, turn to 'paddy likes to party' and property tax for anyone who wants it, or doesn't. Our bad for putting faith in what the opposition party FG said.

I agree to a point.

But we, as an electorate, do not vote for politicians and parties who are realistic about what they can achieve.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

I agree to a point.

But we, as an electorate, do not vote for politicians and parties who are realistic about what they can achieve.

2011 was historic though. If ever any party had a chance to legitimately redraw the lines with the HSE and essentially how the mechanics of government work, especially regarding cronyism, it was Fine Gael, (with Labour, as both parties had almost matching manifestos). It most certainly could have been worse, but what they gave us was essentially more of the same. There was no much anticipated sea change or even effort to move towards one. Very disappointing waste of an opportunity. If they were half as cute as they seem to think they are they could of overhauled 'the way we do business' and set themselves up for an easy second term, but alas our politicians are all about the quick buck. Once the electorate sniffed them out, with Reilly's clinics and IW among other things, they were on the decline.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You were lauding FG for their work in getting us out of the crisis. It's been pointed out they followed a plan in place. You can pat them of the back for following it. I don't know who suggested someone somewhere else might have done better.
What the EU/FG/IMF/Troika et al. have shown me is the population of any given EU country take second place to the concerns of the financial cartels, (banks/bondholders). The argument that we need be in good standing has some merit, but not, as borne out by the years since of a one sided recovery, to all of society and every working tax payer.

Why not laud them for the things I think they got right, they sail a steady ship.
I'm no FGite though, I will criticise them for anything I think they got wrong too!
I don't subscribe to the practice of criticising everything just because they get some things, a lot of things even,wrong. They get a lot of things right too.
I don't subscribe to or vote for any party as a staunch supporter, if there's a church gate collection I'll throw something in the pot for any of them, that's the way I see it, they all deserve a voice and a bit of support for their rights, one keeps the other sort of grounded by having opposing positions and fear of losing out to the others if they go too potty.
FG and Labour deserve some credit for the period after the collapse, and a lot of people criticising them for the ills some of our services face now are forgetful of our financial situation.
I don't believe any govt has a magic bullet, or can fix things in the short term, I'm even afraid of the affect some of them might have by the way they promise to go about it.
I think at present it might be harmful to change too much as the economy and our financial situation are still very volatile!

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thanks.

Pre-nationalisation, the state had no responsibility to the Anglo bondholders? Or am I wrong here?
It seems more a case of being seen as a safe bet as a nation, in the eyes of the very financial cartels holding all the strings. Borrow from us to bail out bondholders, so you have good standing with us?

Wrong, and I have tried to explain this to you many times. Here is a journal article from December 2014 with many interesting quotes.

http://www.thejournal.ie/bank-guarantee-oral-history-30-september-2008-1103254-Dec2014/

"John Gormley: “I got a call very late and Brian Lenihan said that he was in government buildings, they were now discussing this issue with the banks and I said, I remember my clear recollection was that: ‘Are we going with the David McWilliams option?’

“I remember saying that and then the late Brian Lenihan said to me: ‘Yes, that’s what we’re going with.’ So I was fairly satisfied at that stage that that was the right option.”

So, first, the bank guarantee was McWilliams' idea and he gave it to Lenihan who brought it to government.

"Patrick Honohan: “Prior to the announcement early in the morning of 30 September, both the ECB and the EU were informed of the Government‘s action. Some concerns were expressed bilaterally as regards the lack of international consultation prior to the Irish decision and the effect that it might have on flows of funds internationally.”

Lorenzo Bini Smaghi: “I think they were surprised and it was annoying, it was an initiative not coordinated and on delicate issues. I wouldn’t say we lost confidence but certainly it was a bit irritating. It was like: everyone takes care of himself, forgetting the others.”

Secondly, it was our decision, ourselves alone, making the decision. We ignored the concerns of the ECB.

"Christine Lagarde, French Finance Minister (10): “Brian actually rang me before the opening of the stock market and I think just before he made the announcement and he told me that he felt he had no other option but to issue that sort of broad guarantee for all the Irish banks.”

Brian Lenihan: “Her reply was: ‘Oh gosh’. That’s my first memory.”"


Alistair Darling: “I spoke to Brian Lenihan shortly after nine o’clock that morning… I said that what he had announced put us in an impossible position.”

Thirdly, our EU friends didn't like it and knew what it meant.

"Alastair Darling: “It meant the Irish government was effectively underwriting its banks in a way that no other country in the world had done…. I knew full well that if the Irish government’s bluff was called they would be bankrupt. It was a promise on which they could never deliver.”"

In fact, Alastair Darling knew exactly what was going to happen.

Joan Burton: “In the Dáil then there was a huge amount of shock. All of the rhetoric of the boom and rhetoric of the soft landing essentially vanished overnight and the Dáil was left, if you like, to address the wreckage…

“… I was enormously apprehensive about what had been done when I was given the impression that Seán FitzPatrick and Michael Fingleton had a business model which was robust, when the dogs on the street involved in [the Department of] Finance knew that both of those financial institutions had extraordinary problems and I could not see that they were sustainable.

“So, there was a meeting, on the evening of the day of the guarantee, of the parliamentary party and there was a discussion in which I recommended, absolutely 100 per cent supported by Eamon Gilmore, that the Labour Party would not support the guarantee and we used the term that it was a ‘blank cheque’.”

As did Joan Burton and the Labour Party.

And so it came to pass. Freely, without anyone asking us, and without telling our EU partners, the Irish government took a punt on Anglo on 30 September 2008. Having made the promise, and completely disrupted all European banking markets, the EU and the ECB made us keep our promise when the house collapsed. There is an argument that we Irish were responsible for a lot of the other problems later in European banking because of the foolishness of our guarantee.

So, when we wonder when we became beholden to the bondholders, it was on that day in September 2008.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

One liner digs removed.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Why not laud them for the things I think they got right, they sail a steady ship.
I'm no FGite though, I will criticise them for anything I think they got wrong too!
I don't subscribe to the practice of criticising everything just because they get some things, a lot of things even,wrong. They get a lot of things right too.
I don't subscribe to or vote for any party as a staunch supporter, if there's a church gate collection I'll throw something in the pot for any of them, that's the way I see it, they all deserve a voice and a bit of support for their rights, one keeps the other sort of grounded by having opposing positions and fear of losing out to the others if they go too potty.
FG and Labour deserve some credit for the period after the collapse, and a lot of people criticising them for the ills some of our services face now are forgetful of our financial situation.
I don't believe any govt has a magic bullet, or can fix things in the short term, I'm even afraid of the affect some of them might have by the way they promise to go about it.
I think at present it might be harmful to change too much as the economy and our financial situation are still very volatile!

Fair enough. As regards why they got mugged as you say, there's no mystery. The electorate saw it was pretty much business as usual. It was sad to see. A grown man, the political leader of the country, spinning yarns and dismissing critics as 'whingers'.
It's not about criticising FG/Lab for not being a cure all, it's about Labour aiding and abetting FG's return to normalcy, ie: crony appointments and inappropriate behaviour. As borne out to this day with a growing economic numbers economy in tandem with record breaking crises. As I've said, something doesn't connect there and I think FG are okay with that.

McMurphy

Gene Kerrigan had a very interesting article in the Sindo at the weekend which discussed the other party's trying to get dictate to the rest of us about their suitability (or not) of being in govt.

It is worth the 5 mins taken to read it.

Here's the gist.
A cartel that puts the mock in democracy

Same applies to FG.

But, aren't the Shinners untouchable, morally impure, unfit for government (except in the North, where we relax our standards)?

Well, the IRA ceasefire was 24 years ago. In comparison, Fine Gael was formed in 1933, from three entities, one of which - the National Guard - was an unashamed fascist outfit.

The official FG line these days is that its first leader was WT Cosgrave. But that's not true. Its first leader was Eoin O'Duffy, a fascist. (He later led 700 men to Spain, to join the fascist forces in the fight to suppress an elected left-wing government and impose a dictatorship.)

In I948, just 15 years on from those roots, FG was in government. In 1954 it made a junior minister of Oliver Flanagan who in the 1940s spoke approvingly of the Nazis and told the Dail it was time to "rout the Jews out of this country". Oliver was FG's kind of guy. This unapologetic anti-semite was made a full minister as late as 1976.

It's valid to remind FG of its past. It is not valid to describe FG today as fascist - they're right-wing Christian Democrats, with a sideline in social liberalism.

It's valid today to point out, as this column has already done, that Sinn Fein continues to drag its past behind it like a corpse. It is not valid, 24 years after the ceasefire, to deny the party's democratic mandate.

While Jim Daly suggests a possible FG coalition with SF, party grandee Brian Hayes has a conniption at the very thought of the Shinners.

Brian, in Alan Partridge fashion, displays a level of pomposity only seen in those who lack an awareness of their own limitations.

He recently wrote eloquently of the need for "free speech" in political parties. Tell it to Lucinda Creighton and her mates, driven out of FG when they wished to defend views on abortion that differed from those of the leadership.

Brian throws insults around, and says SF will "over time" evolve into an "acceptable" party. Well, that's not for Fine Gael to say. It's for the voters.

As it happens, I don't vote for Sinn Fein. I vote to the left of them - though I've once given it a later preference. But, anyone can see that there's talent there, and the voters have obviously seen something they like.

I derived great amusement from the 2016 general election, when Fine Gael and Labour and Fianna Fail totted up their figures and told us about the "fiscal space". And Pearse Doherty told them they'd got their figures wrong. And the Department of Finance confirmed that Doherty was right.

(To be fair, FG was wrong by a mere €2bn, out of €8bn.)

In the long term, what's valuable about Sinn Fein has been that it's outside the rightwing cartel. For decades, FF and FG passed power back and forth between them. Two halves of the same ideology, their cartel has put the mock into democracy.

One of them takes office, and caters to whichever business sector is prospering at the time.

When voters wise up that these people have interests other than our best welfare, we demand change. And the only change on offer is to swap one wing of the cartel for the other.

christy c

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Gene Kerrigan had a very interesting article in the Sindo at the weekend which discussed the other party's trying to get dictate to the rest of us about their suitability (or not) of being in govt.

It is worth the 5 mins taken to read it.

Here's the gist.
A cartel that puts the mock in democracy

He describes FG as right wing, while they p1ss away 40% of our budget each year on social welfare. Yeah

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

He describes FG as right wing, while they p1ss away 40% of our budget each year on social welfare. Yeah

Social Welfare doesn't just mean lads on the dole you know?

christy c

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Social Welfare doesn't just mean lads on the dole you know?

Yes

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

Yes

Do you also know that the vast majority is spent on pensions, yeah?

Red_Wake

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

christy c wrote: »

He describes FG as right wing, while they p1ss away 40% of our budget each year on social welfare. Yeah

Social Welfare doesn't just mean lads on the dole you know?

Such a large expenditure on social protections, of various forms, has never been characteristic of right wing governments. Nor has the introduction of gay marriage, or the holding of the abortion referendum.

christy c

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Do you also know that the vast majority is spent on pensions, yeah?

Vast majority? No I thought it was 30ish %. Anyway what right wing parties support spending a huge chunk of their budget on social welfare?

Chips Lovell

Germany under the CDU and the UK under the Tories both spend a greater proportion of GDP on social protection. Both would be as right wing as FG.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

Vast majority? No I thought it was 30ish %. Anyway what right wing parties support spending a huge chunk of their budget on social welfare?

Closer to 40% actually.

You realise how percentages work, yeah?

40% of the total sw budget can still be the vast majority, you know that, right? Just checking.

christy c

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Closer to 40% actually.

You realise how percentages work, yeah?

40% of the total sw budget can still be the vast majority, you know that, right? Just checking.

30% can be the vast majority? I'm afraid I have no idea what you are on about

oscarBravo

I suspect it's a mixup between the concepts of "majority" and "plurality".

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

30% can be the vast majority? I'm afraid I have no idea what you are on about

Going by the chart, taken from here pensions seem to be taking up the majority of the total sw budget.

Almost double that spent on disabilities, carers etc.

christy c

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Going by the chart, taken from here pensions seem to be taking up the majority of the total sw budget.

Almost double that spent on disabilities, carers etc.

From the chart, pensions are approx 7.5 billion from a total of 20, or approx 38%. So unless it's Gerry Adams doing the maths, that's not even a majority not to mind the vast majority.

Biggest single item? Yes

McMurphy

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suspect it's a mixup between the concepts of "majority" and "plurality".

Yes possibly badly worded on my part, but pensio payments take the biggest chunk out of the total sw budget.

Are ministers and TDs peniosns paid for from this budget? I would assume so, but am open to correction.

seamus

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Going by the chart, taken from here pensions seem to be taking up the majority of the total sw budget.

Almost double that spent on disabilities, carers etc.

Well, no. The "majority" of the Social Welfare budget is non-pension spending.

But pension spending is the largest single expense in the social welfare budget.

Are ministers and TDs peniosns paid for from this budget? I would assume so, but am open to correction.

I would doubt that TD pensions are paid by the department of social protection.

I expect there is some other vehicle that is responsible for those payments.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

From the chart, pensions are approx 7.5 billion from a total of 20, or approx 38%.

yes I stated earlier that it was closer to 40%.

So unless it's Gerry Adams doing the maths, that's not even a majority not to mind the vast majority.

Biggest single item? Yes

Yeah, correct, wrongly worded on my part, but you got the point.

seamus

In terms of where TD pensions come from, it looks like it's probably handled by the Dept. of Public Expenditure; https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2015/0629/711388-65-million-in-pension-payments-to-former-politicians/

According to the last Budget, the DPER's overall budget is about €1.2bn, of which half goes on public service pensions.

Colonel Claptrap

Comparing FG today to the times of Eoin O'Duffy is laughable.

My nephew turned 18 this year and can vote. His great great great grand father may or may not have voted for O'Duffy. Who knows? More importantly, who the hell cares?

Anyone who bases their vote today on the actions of long dead politicians needs to have their head examined.

We're talking about a time when women had just received the vote, capital punishment was enforced, and this country, in it's present form didn't even exist.

I keep seeing O'Duffy comparisons trotted out here as if it's somehow shameful to be associated with him.

The man is dead. Move on with your life. Hardly anyone cares about tribal politics anymore. And certainly not going back that far.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Vast majority? No I thought it was 30ish %. Anyway what right wing parties support spending a huge chunk of their budget on social welfare?

I'd wager we spend more on schemes and quangos. That would balance any FG concerns about them being socialist.
I would go on to suggest the lack of interest in fixing the myriad social crises would out weigh any fears regarding a drift to communism.
I thought the economy was flying and employment at a great level? Varadkar had his welfare cheat campaign years ago.
What's the problem? Why the big spend on the sick, poor, elderly?
Mind you, some landlords might have trouble getting their customers if there was no rent allowance supplement. You see a lot of this welfare spend is to prop up working tax payers who cannot make ends meet.
I would expect the department has checks and measures by which need is assessed? If not, FG need get on that. Our economy requires the tax payer to pick up the slack when the worker can't afford to function.
It'll run out of road, you can't keep sucking from the bottom to feed the top.

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Comparing FG today to the times of Eoin O'Duffy is laughable.

My nephew turned 18 this year and can vote. His great great great grand father may or may not have voted for O'Duffy. Who knows? More importantly, who the hell cares?

Anyone who bases their vote today on the actions of long dead politicians needs to have their head examined.

We're talking about a time when women had just received the vote, capital punishment was enforced, and this country, in it's present form didn't even exist.

I keep seeing O'Duffy comparisons trotted out here as if it's somehow shameful to be associated with him.

The man is dead. Move on with your life. Hardly anyone cares about tribal politics anymore. And certainly not going back that far.

Not sure where you read that:

It's valid to remind FG of its past. It is not valid to describe FG today as fascist

On that note, how long must we sing this song re: the troubles and SF? I think that was partially the point.
It seems FF are forgiven for Bertie, Biffo, Haughey, DeValera, Burke, Lawlor, Flynn....

McMurphy

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Comparing FG today to the times of Eoin O'Duffy is laughable.

I can see you didn't read the whole article.

Not comparing them was pretty much the whole point.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd wager we spend more on schemes and quangos

If you have a link to support that I would be interested in reading it.