General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

McMurphy

Denis is just a very lucky individual, who definitely doesn't get heads-up from anyone, preferential treatment, tip offs, or ministers being loosely lipped.

He just happens to win lucrative state contracts due to him always being in the right place at the right time, and having incredible foresight and ingenuity*........

If the state ran the euro millions draw, I think uncle Dinny might even be a winner twice a week. Even if he never bought a ticket - that's how lucky the man seems to be.*









*When FG are in govt.

James Brown

Mr. O'Brien is a very successful businessman. Any deals that lose the tax payer money or are not the best deal for the tax payer is on the government of the day. A businessman would be a fool not to avail of such things. As with personal taxes, he owes us no favours.

In Irish politics, being seen to act inappropriately for the possible benefit of private business, to the detriment of the tax payer simply isn't a problem. If it were my political party, I'd have a look in the mirror.

In a much broader scale it's the same attitude and bad policy has us in a housing crisis IMO.

abcabc123123

Matt Barrett wrote: »

In Irish politics, being seen to act inappropriately ... simply isn't a problem.

You regularly criticise Leo and Eoghan on here for being obsessed with spin and optics, and now you're complaining that the government don't care about negative optics. Completely contradictory.

Personally, I'd like our politicians to not care in the slightest about how they are "being seen" and just do the right thing even if it looks bad or costs votes. But maybe that's just me.

blanch152

https://www.rte.ie/news/budget-2019/2018/1005/1001236-donohoe/

Getting back on topic to the performance of the government, I see that we will be able to run a balanced budget in 2019.

When you think that some of the people on here were claiming that we were going bust every week just a few short years ago, it must be to the government's credit that the country has been pulled back from the brink like that.

McMurphy

abcabc123123 wrote: »

You regularly criticise Leo and Eoghan on here for being obsessed with spin and optics, and now you're complaining that the government don't care about negative optics. Completely contradictory.

Personally, I'd like our politicians to not care in the slightest about how they are "being seen" and just do the right thing even if it looks bad or costs votes. But maybe that's just me.

Id say you were fuming about all that money spunked away on Leo's spin machine so.

James Brown

There's doing nothing and creating positive spin and there's being inappropriate and looking like you or an associate are on the take, (not suggesting anyone is, talking optics). Any genuine ethical party should be avoiding the latter. The public need to have confidence in the system. I would expect the law and order party to be all over that kind of thing, or even a parish Residents Association for that mater.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's doing nothing and creating positive spin and there's being inappropriate and looking like you or an associate are on the take, (not suggesting anyone is, talking optics). Any genuine ethical party should be avoiding the latter. The public need to have confidence in the system. I would expect the law and order party to be all over that kind of thing, or even a parish Residents Association for that mater.

Then what are you suggesting?

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Then what are you suggesting?

I was pointing out that spin with no substance and being seen to be acting inappropriately are two different things. One is bluster to cover inaction or fluff up something the other needs addressing IMO. Showing that due diligence is being done as regards any tenders the tax payer is financing is very important and hardly the same as a photo op or PR campaign.
Twice now Naughton has been caught out acting inappropriately. He needs reigning in. To shrug and say he's not FG is neither here nor there.
I'm quite sure Mr. O'Brien would want all the facts of his above board dealings made public. It's not fair on Mr. O'Brien to have such questions left hanging IMO, should his consortium win out.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I was pointing out that spin with no substance and being seen to be acting inappropriately are two different things. One is bluster to cover inaction or fluff up something the other needs addressing IMO. Showing that due diligence is being done as regards any tenders the tax payer is financing is very important and hardly the same as a photo op or PR campaign.
Twice now Naughton has been caught out acting inappropriately. He needs reigning in. To shrug and say he's not FG is neither here nor there.
I'm quite sure Mr. O'Brien would want all the facts of his above board dealings made public. It's not fair on Mr. O'Brien to have such questions left hanging IMO, should his consortium win out.

I'm quite sure he wouldn't, he's gone to great lengths before to make sure his dealings remain private.
However it is up to govt to make sure all their dealings are, fair, clear, clean and transparent.
Back to spin, let's face it its not just govt or FG that engage in spin, they all do, all positively in their own favour and negatively in everyone else's.
I take spin on what they all say they will do with a pinch of salt.
No other party outside govt are going to react positively to what govt does, no govt is going to accept that their policies aren't positive of successful.
Its all spin I feel, its just which spin we the voters find the most believable that makes the difference.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

I'm quite sure he wouldn't, he's gone to great lengths before to make sure his dealings remain private.
However it is up to govt to make sure all their dealings are, fair, clear, clean and transparent.
Back to spin, let's face it its not just govt or FG that engage in spin, they all do, all positively in their own favour and negatively in everyone else's.
I take spin on what they all say they will do with a pinch of salt.
No other party outside govt are going to react positively to what govt does, no govt is going to accept that their policies aren't positive of successful.
Its all spin I feel, its just which spin we the voters find the most believable that makes the difference.

True. It was alleged if I have a problem with optics, fluff to make government look good, I should be okay with the Naughton broadband affair being left lie. I was making the distinction.
If Mr. O'Brien gets yet another state contract or not, the tax payer needs to know they are getting value, due to the apparent lack of magic money trees.

abcabc123123

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Id say you were fuming about all that money spunked away on Leo's spin machine so.

I said I'd like, I didn't say I'd have a nervous breakdown at the sight of it. I thought the communications unit was a good idea poorly executed, though... and I was fuming when I read about the spin accounts idea.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

True. It was alleged if I have a problem with optics, fluff to make government look good, I should be okay with the Naughton broadband affair being left lie. I was making the distinction.

There isn't really a distinction, though. The government does its work in housing, gets criticised, defends its record. The government does its work in broadband, gets criticised, defends its record. In one case you attack them for empty optics and in the other you attack them for not offering empty optics. The distinction is purely derived from you dismissing their work in housing because it doesn't fit with your view of how it should be done.

VonZan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's doing nothing and creating positive spin and there's being inappropriate and looking like you or an associate are on the take, (not suggesting anyone is, talking optics). Any genuine ethical party should be avoiding the latter. The public need to have confidence in the system. I would expect the law and order party to be all over that kind of thing, or even a parish Residents Association for that mater.

The public don't have confidence in the system of governance. There is very little that could be done to restore that confidence. The problem is that as always older people control the elections and that's why selling tomorrow for a better today or buying votes will always be government policy.

Ireland is in a particularly precarious position of falling into the hands of an extreme left or extreme right party. The centrists are failing massively all over Europe meanwhile our government creeps from crisis to crisis, micromanaging everything.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Mr. O'Brien is a very successful businessman. Any deals that lose the tax payer money or are not the best deal for the tax payer is on the government of the day. A businessman would be a fool not to avail of such things. As with personal taxes, he owes us no favours.

In Irish politics, being seen to act inappropriately for the possible benefit of private business, to the detriment of the tax payer simply isn't a problem. If it were my political party, I'd have a look in the mirror.

In a much broader scale it's the same attitude and bad policy has us in a housing crisis IMO.

Wasn't it in some Dublin Credit Union 20 cars went missing?


Obviously everyone is at it. All drivers any way.

Edward M

VonZan wrote: »

The public don't have confidence in the system of governance. There is very little that could be done to restore that confidence. The problem is that as always older people control the elections and that's why selling tomorrow for a better today or buying votes will always be government policy.

Ireland is in a particularly precarious position of falling into the hands of an extreme left or extreme right party. The centrists are failing massively all over Europe meanwhile our government creeps from crisis to crisis, micromanaging everything.

I don't know of any dangerously right party here that looks like getting anything close to getting seats or being in govt.
Some indies perhaps yes.
Left is more likely to cause problems than right as far as I can see in Ireland.
The thing about left is, it does sound like the perfect world, while in reality it could be a disaster economically and ruin the country to the point of where no international aid would be forthcoming in stressful times, Greece would be a case in point.

Edward M

I'm posting this, not as the story itself that matters, there's an after hours thread on the story.
Its the cost of the development I'm interested in highlighting, not exactly the cheap houses we are being tod about are they?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/they-want-us-to-drop-our-culture-and-throw-it-aside-traveller-families-wont-move-into-17m-homes-without-stables-and-land-37394115.html

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

I'm posting this, not as the story itself that matters, there's an after hours thread on the story.
Its the cost of the development I'm interested in highlighting, not exactly the cheap houses we are being tod about are they?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/they-want-us-to-drop-our-culture-and-throw-it-aside-traveller-families-wont-move-into-17m-homes-without-stables-and-land-37394115.html

That is a very good point. We have had posters on here telling us ad nauseum with zero or little evidence that there is no problem for local authorities to build social housing for €150,000 a unit and that it is all Leo and Eoghan's fault. Well, stories like the one you have linked show how foolish that claim of cheap social housing is. Perhaps we might get posts a little lighter on rhetoric and heavier on facts when discussing this in future.

The second issue that story throws up is the entitlement culture in Irish society. We had the story a few weeks ago of the single mother on social welfare who only wanted a little three-bedroomed house with a garden big enough for a trampoline. Now we have the half-acre site with stables demand. We have also had mammies on the radio from South Dublin despairing that their children can't afford houses in their area. It doesn't seem to matter what social class or social grouping you come from, the entitlement culture is alive and well. Not to mention the statistics on the number of refusals of housing by people on the housing list. Until we get some realistic expectations into society, there will continue to be a housing crisis.

abcabc123123

blanch152 wrote: »

The second issue that story throws up is the entitlement culture in Irish society. We had the story a few weeks ago of the single mother on social welfare who only wanted a little three-bedroomed house with a garden big enough for a trampoline. Now we have the half-acre site with stables demand. We have also had mammies on the radio from South Dublin despairing that their children can't afford houses in their area. It doesn't seem to matter what social class or social grouping you come from, the entitlement culture is alive and well. Not to mention the statistics on the number of refusals of housing by people on the housing list. Until we get some realistic expectations into society, there will continue to be a housing crisis.

How so? I don't see much reason to believe people's expectations have shifted significantly, and we haven't always had a housing crisis.

blanch152

abcabc123123 wrote: »

How so? I don't see much reason to believe people's expectations have shifted significantly, and we haven't always had a housing crisis.

I would see back gardens with trampolines, getting to live in the most expensive parts of cities and half-acres with stables as a shift in expectations compared to the types of local authority housing we built over the decades.

abcabc123123

blanch152 wrote: »

I would see back gardens with trampolines, getting to live in the most expensive parts of cities and half-acres with stables as a shift in expectations compared to the types of local authority housing we built over the decades.

Those examples point to the expectations of a couple of people rather than society as a whole. Even if prospective social tenants are broadly making excessive demands, which I'm not convinced of, I don't see how that makes the crisis irretrievable. Rents aren't sucking up an unsustainable percentage of many people's incomes because some people are complaining about not having a huge garden.

Chips Lovell

Anecdotes =/= data. Just because there are some people asking for stables doesn't magic away the entire housing crisis.

blanch152

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Anecdotes =/= data. Just because there are some people asking for stables doesn't magic away the entire housing crisis.

You are correct that the plural of anedote isn't data.

At the same time, anecdotes serve a useful function in explaining certain statistics and contextualising them. When you see a headline such as this:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews//ireland/one-in-five-offers-of-social-housing-refused-in-2017-849919.html

or this:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/almost-one-third-of-families-refusing-social-housing-were-homeless-1.3414714

neither of which come from much-maligned independent, and you want to think about the stories behind the headlines, then you reach into the entitlement culture. And this isn't an entitlement culture confined to those seeking housing. We have pensioners who expect to have a comfortable lifetime in retirement, having not saved a penny themselves towards that retirement. We have people in the public service expecting to be paid as much as people who work twice as hard as them etc. etc.

The housing crisis isn't a product of the entitlement culture, but the entitlement culture exacerbates the housing crisis.

Chips Lovell

You're still trying to create a narrative about an "entitlement culture" out of one anecdote. Unless they're all turning down houses because of lack of stables, it doesn't really say much. Indeed, Dublin City Council themselves aren't making a big deal out of it:

Brendan Kenny, head of Dublin City Council’s housing unit, said the “vast majority” of households who turned down an offer accepted their second one. He added that people refusing an initial offer did not cause “inordinate” delays, and this was not considered a particular problem by the local authority.

blanch152

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

You're still trying to create a narrative about an "entitlement culture" out of one anecdote. Unless they're all turning down houses because of lack of stables, it doesn't really say much. Indeed, Dublin City Council themselves aren't making a big deal out of it:

I don't think whether or not the refusals of social housing were a problem for the local authority tells us anything about whether the refusals were the result of an entitlement culture.

The fact is, people who are homeless feel free to turn down offers of social housing in large numbers.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

I don't know of any dangerously right party here that looks like getting anything close to getting seats or being in govt.
Some indies perhaps yes.
Left is more likely to cause problems than right as far as I can see in Ireland.
The thing about left is, it does sound like the perfect world, while in reality it could be a disaster economically and ruin the country to the point of where no international aid would be forthcoming in stressful times, Greece would be a case in point.

Any incoming left government would have a tough time beating FG on the problem scale. That bogeyman won't wash for most. I don't think it's an either or situation even if FG use that as a scaremongering tactic. Ideally a government that doesn't tend to the needs of the private market over the well being of the broader public.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

You're still trying to create a narrative about an "entitlement culture" out of one anecdote. Unless they're all turning down houses because of lack of stables, it doesn't really say much. Indeed, Dublin City Council themselves aren't making a big deal out of it:

What was it 80 of the countries top wealthiest paid less tax than the average industrial wage worker? Nobody is saying all wealthy are misers and chancers etc. I don't see the same folk calling for cuts to welfare and housing looking to tackle these people with as much vigour. These stories are designed to stir. We often miss the context. Personally I'm appalled by the dependence on hotels. What's that worth in Christmas bonus outrage points?

Chips Lovell

Actually, there's a good chance that most of those 80 are non-resident. What's of more interest (and should probably warrant more attention, because there's more we can do about it) are remainder of the high net worth people who are likely resident but managing to pay tax at a lower rate than the average Joe.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Any incoming left government would have a tough time beating FG on the problem scale. That bogeyman won't wash for most. I don't think it's an either or situation even if FG use that as a scaremongering tactic. Ideally a government that doesn't tend to the needs of the private market over the well being of the broader public.

It seems it is washing though.
FGs problems are all potential govts problems.
Leaving aside the muck, the country is performing better economically under them.
Money, for social housing for example, won't wash well with a lot of taxpaying house owners with huge mortgages.
There are a lot of leftist ideals that don't or won't ever encourage a lot of taxpayers to sign up or vote for politicians or party's planning to spend their taxes to the advantage of some other section of society over and above their section.

VonZan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's not believable. When a business puts themselves in the running for a contract, they have a very good idea of what they are tendering for.
The idea that any consortium, with Naughton's/FG's ear or not is doing it as a favour is beyond ridiculous.
Nokia and O'Brien are doing us a solid? The problem with Naughton's 'inappropriate behaviour' is it gives the impression some consortium got the inside track and the others bowed out. I don't believe that for one minute... but that's how it could look to someone besides myself I suppose, when you've inappropriate behaviour and ministers.
Broadband will not win or lose any election IMO.

You are suggesting they take a bad deal with a guarantee of a hum dinger down the road? Great use of tax payer monies.

EDIT:
In fact, if that is the case and whomever takes a hit with the promise of a fat contract down the road, were the others offered same? If not, that's a problem.

The tendering process dealt with the easy contracts at the start. I don't know why you find this hard to believe when most of the companies have already pulled out. I'm not saying that the government wanted this to happen but the fact is rural broadband is much more expensive to provide. There are many locations where it is simply not feasible.

McMurphy

Edward M wrote: »

I'm posting this, not as the story itself that matters, there's an after hours thread on the story.
Its the cost of the development I'm interested in highlighting, not exactly the cheap houses we are being tod about are they?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/they-want-us-to-drop-our-culture-and-throw-it-aside-traveller-families-wont-move-into-17m-homes-without-stables-and-land-37394115.html

Heard this being discussed on the radio yesterday, didn't get the name, but some local Sinn Fein councillor said (quite rightly) that the people in question should be given a time framed ultimatum to either move in to the houses or they be redistributed to others on the housing list in the area.

When did the responsibility to provide housing for animals become the states problem?

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

It seems it is washing though.
FGs problems are all potential govts problems.
Leaving aside the muck, the country is performing better economically under them.
Money, for social housing for example, won't wash well with a lot of taxpaying house owners with huge mortgages.
There are a lot of leftist ideals that don't or won't ever encourage a lot of taxpayers to sign up or vote for politicians or party's planning to spend their taxes to the advantage of some other section of society over and above their section.

By muck you mean the various crises?
Performing economically well is becoming the 'don't vote SF because IRA something' and 'don't vote any lefties because they'll bring on the end of days'. Tales losing their weight as the crises deepen, be it health or housing. Basically, if my partner and I are both working but can't afford living expenses, what good is someone telling me the economy is doing great? In fact FG should be ashamed to have an economy doing great, what else are they missing so? What do they need to give them the tools to govern effectively?
Social housing owned by the state built on state owned land and a rent charged or put people up in the Gresham? The 'forever home' 'free home' tales won't stick as more and more working tax payers see themselves needing a form of state aid just to be able to function, work, pay tax.