General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

blanch152

christy c wrote: »

I think people care, like Margaret Cash it highlights a problem we all know exists. In this case scumbag compo culture.

I personally hope she's booted out of the party and booted out of the Dail by the electorate in the next GE.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fianna-fil-td-suing-driver-over-crash-that-left-her-with-cosmetically-deforming-6cm-scar-on-forehead-38245982.html

Maybe, you are right. Another TD compo story in the Indo today. Are there more out there?

James Brown

It's the idea that politicians dictating about a compo culture are themselves involved. Hypocrisy, not new but noteworthy and also how their party leaders tackle it. Stands to the caliber of people we are voting for. Bailey's party are in power currently too.

Charles Babbage

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fianna-fil-td-suing-driver-over-crash-that-left-her-with-cosmetically-deforming-6cm-scar-on-forehead-38245982.html

Maybe, you are right. Another TD compo story in the Indo today. Are there more out there?

Having your car written off sounds like more of an issue than falling off a swing though.

blanch152

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Having your car written off sounds like more of an issue than falling off a swing though.

I agree, it will be interesting to see where this goes. How do you judge a legitimate claim from the outside?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree, it will be interesting to see where this goes. How do you judge a legitimate claim from the outside?

Holding a bottle of wine in one hand and reaching for a beer with another while on a swing with alcohol consumed. I'm no legal eagle but there'd be doubt there, not to mention being told 'a clear cut case' by some mystery legal person.

McMurphy

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Having your car written off sounds like more of an issue than falling off a swing though.

And the other party admitting liability.

Did this TD run a 10k 3 weeks after having her car written off, despite claiming they couldn't run at all for 3 months?

Did this TD have legal advice that they had a clear cut case by Madigans, and minister Madigan stonewall any questions about if she was involved in giving out this advice?

Little details like these are important to know.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And the other party admitting liability.

Did this TD run a 10k 3 weeks after having her car written off, despite claiming they couldn't run at all for 3 months?

Did this TD have legal advice that they had a clear cut case by Madigans, and minister Madigan stonewall any questions about if she was involved in giving out this advice?

Little details like these are important to know.

And you believe she should be suing for 60k plus in the High Court for a small scar and contusions and bruising?

I didn't rush to judgement on Maria Bailey and I won't on Niamh Smyth either. There have been many compensation claims over the years by politicians, even against the Oireachtas. Who are we to judge who is genuine and who is not?

VonZan

blanch152 wrote: »

And you believe she should be suing for 60k plus in the High Court for a small scar and contusions and bruising?

I didn't rush to judgement on Maria Bailey and I won't on Niamh Smyth either. There have been many compensation claims over the years by politicians, even against the Oireachtas. Who are we to judge who is genuine and who is not?

Maria Bailey was cut and dry and was withdrawn after being exposed and embarrassed in public. Let's not try and compare where there are no comparisons, other than both TD's have made a claim for damages. Your post reads like an odd attempt to defend Maria Bailey.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

And you believe she should be suing for 60k plus in the High Court for a small scar and contusions and bruising?

I didn't rush to judgement on Maria Bailey and I won't on Niamh Smyth either. There have been many compensation claims over the years by politicians, even against the Oireachtas. Who are we to judge who is genuine and who is not?

I can only assume you didn't hear the radio interview?

Bailey's case was blatantly non genuine. You can tell that by the fact that once it got publicised, it got withdrawn.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Does anyone else care anymore about this? Seems to be a bit of a dead issue. More important things to think about.

Was discussed for a good 15minutes or so tonight by Ivan Yates, and a panel, including Kevin Doyle from the independent.

Few points Doyle made, and funnily enough, I've been stating the same since this story broke.

Unanswered questions that badly need answered, otherwise FG just look like their covering up.

Why was Bailey taking this to the circuit court, if she only wanted medical bills (that she said the hotel offered to pay anyway)

Does she really believe that swings should be supervised when used by adults, or was this someone else's idea?

What role if any did Josepha Madigan have to play in all of this?

People most definitely still care about this story, it's had non stop coverage since it broke, they're even still discussing it on televised debates.

It doesn't look like going away anytime soon either.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Holding a bottle of wine in one hand and reaching for a beer with another while on a swing with alcohol consumed. I'm no legal eagle but there'd be doubt there, not to mention being told 'a clear cut case' by some mystery legal person.

You have literally no idea whether the defendants admitted liability in that case or not. The question was certainly (as it almost always is in these matters) the quantum of damages. A plaintiff's intoxication or their own actions does not mean the defendant is not guilty of the tort - it is a question of contributory negligence more often than not (and I'd wager to be the case in this matter as well).

Armchair lawyering can be very dangerous.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You have literally no idea whether the defendants admitted liability in that case or not. The question was certainly (as it almost always is in these matters) the quantum of damages. A plaintiff's intoxication or their own actions does not mean the defendant is not guilty of the tort - it is a question of contributory negligence more often than not (and I'd wager to be the case in this matter as well).

Armchair lawyering can be very dangerous.

What case are you on about here?

The defendant in the FF TDs case admitted liability, so we do know.

"I sustained serious personal injuries and my car was a write-off. I instituted proceedings and there has been an admission of liability by the defendant in the case."

In Bailey's case, the Dean hotel denies any liability.

In an interview on the SeO’Rourke programme on RTyesterday morning, the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown TD said she was not seeking damages from the hotel group – which denies any liability for the incident – and was only seeking to have her medical expenses recouped.

We also know Bailey wasn't admitting liability in her case, when asked if she was holding something in each hand while simultaneously trying to operate a swing, she refused to answer, stating that it (a kid you not ) "would have been for a judge to adjudicate on".

She subsequently dropped the case btw.

Safehands

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Is there a big enough difference between FF and FG on policy that could be sold to voters at election time? Or is it just a case of let them have a go at it and then the next time we can vote the other crowd and let them have a go, etc, etc

Interesting question. Before the crash, the big difference between FF and FG was length of time in office. FG had never really been in power for more than one term. Whenever they came in they were fresh and enthusiastic, whereas FF in 2008, were stale and complacent and had run out of ideas. By 2011 they had nothing left to offer. FG came and had a hell of a job to do, but they knuckled down and did it. Now though, the same staleness and complacency can be seen creeping in. They are becoming arrogant and if we give them another term in power they will be every bit as bad as FF ever were.
FF have, quite rightly, been sin-binned. But they have behaved quite honourably in the last couple of years (if we can use that word about such a political party). They have supported the government, as they said they would, and seem to have put the good of the country ahead of their own political interests, with Brexit and all the difficulties associated with it coming down the tracks.
I think it is essential that FG are sidelined after the next election, just to freshen them up.
There is merit in, as you say, voting in the other crowd to let them have a go. But not for too long.
Let's keep them all on their toes. Let them know who the real bosses are!

James Brown

Safehands wrote: »

Interesting question. Before the crash, the big difference between FF and FG was length of time in office. FG had never really been in power for more than one term. Whenever they came in they were fresh and enthusiastic, whereas FF in 2008, were stale and complacent and had run out of ideas. By 2011 they had nothing left to offer. FG came and had a hell of a job to do, but they knuckled down and did it. Now though, the same staleness and complacency can be seen creeping in. They are becoming arrogant and if we give them another term in power they will be every bit as bad as FF ever were.
FF have, quite rightly, been sin-binned. But they have behaved quite honourably in the last couple of years (if we can use that word about such a political party). They have supported the government, as they said they would, and seem to have put the good of the country ahead of their own political interests, with Brexit and all the difficulties associated with it coming down the tracks.
I think it is essential that FG are sidelined after the next election, just to freshen them up.
There is merit in, as you say, voting in the other crowd to let them have a go. But not for too long.
Let's keep them all on their toes. Let them know who the real bosses are!

If by 'did it' you mean set the house of cards back up while exacerbating social crises. This isn't about running out of fresh new ideas, it's about hammering the public with failed policies over and over again until the bottom falls out. Both FF and FG are guilty of that IMO. We still have record breaking crises, this is not down to running out of ideas, it's down to continuing with failed ones which allow for them to do well elsewhere and they seem happy with that balance. We have a housing minister 'excited' at the prospect of shared living, (which will lead to tenements IMO). These people are arrogant and happy to lower the bar for others so they can continue to do their brand of business. The country needs a break from both sets.

Safehands

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If by 'did it' you mean set the house of cards back up while exacerbating social crises. This isn't about running out of fresh new ideas, it's about hammering the public with failed policies over and over again until the bottom falls out. Both FF and FG are guilty of that IMO. We still have record breaking crises, this is not down to running out of ideas, it's down to continuing with failed ones which allow for them to do well elsewhere and they seem happy with that balance. We have a housing minister 'excited' at the prospect of shared living, (which will lead to tenements IMO). These people are arrogant and happy to lower the bar for others so they can continue to do their brand of business. The country needs a break from both sets.

So who will run the country?

James Brown

Safehands wrote: »

So who will run the country?

Hopefully, people who don't have a record for crashing the economy and overseeing record breaking crises with an air of arrogance and self entitlement.
Who ever they may be it doesn't take away from the track record in government of both FF and FG.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If by 'did it' you mean set the house of cards back up while exacerbating social crises. This isn't about running out of fresh new ideas, it's about hammering the public with failed policies over and over again until the bottom falls out. Both FF and FG are guilty of that IMO. We still have record breaking crises, this is not down to running out of ideas, it's down to continuing with failed ones which allow for them to do well elsewhere and they seem happy with that balance. We have a housing minister 'excited' at the prospect of shared living, (which will lead to tenements IMO). These people are arrogant and happy to lower the bar for others so they can continue to do their brand of business. The country needs a break from both sets.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-is-close-to-full-employment-new-cso-figures-show-38183662.html


Yes, a record-breaking crisis in employment, we are running out of people who want to work.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-is-close-to-full-employment-new-cso-figures-show-38183662.html


Yes, a record-breaking crisis in employment, we are running out of people who want to work.

And what did the Greens have to do with that can I ask?
No not that. I was talking about the record breaking number of homeless children. More than ever before. Not to mention the other housing or lack there of record breaking worsening crises and the scandal of hospital trolleys as Enda phrased it.
Funny how everyone has jobs yet can't find or afford a place to live.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The country needs a break from both sets.

Can't happen until people shift their votes away from both parties in sufficient numbers to give 'others' a majority in the Dail. And I wouldn't be holding my breath for that...

is_that_so

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0625/1057428-summer-economic-statement/
Seems sensible but the Brexit clouds will gather very fast.

is_that_so

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Can't happen until people shift their votes away from both parties in sufficient numbers to give 'others' a majority in the Dail. And I wouldn't be holding my breath for that...

It's simple maths really. Parties like FF & FG get very good at being a home for all sorts. Other parties are wedded to specific positions which narrows their appeal and vote base.

Safehands

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Hopefully, people who don't have a record for crashing the economy and overseeing record breaking crises with an air of arrogance and self entitlement.
Who ever they may be it doesn't take away from the track record in government of both FF and FG.

"People"? You would need to be more specific. We can't expect the electorate to vote for a strange gathering of "People".

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

In Bailey's case, the Dean hotel denies any liability.

There is literally no way you can know that. What Bailey said was in relation to her High Court claim to damages and what was on-the-record; the general public has absolutely no way of knowing whether they admitted liability to Circuit Court jurisdiction in without prejudice correspondence.

As I outlined before, there is a pretty clear-cut case for liability on the part of the hotel in the Bailey case - but not for the damages she was seeking.

We also know Bailey wasn't admitting liability in her case, when asked if she was holding something in each hand while simultaneously trying to operate a swing, she refused to answer, stating that it (a kid you not ) "would have been for a judge to adjudicate on".

That's the problem with her case and why she ultimately dropped it (for now). I firmly believe if she went to the Circuit Court, she'd have had her medical expenses reimbursed (IIRC they were within the CC jurisdiction) and we'd be none-the-wiser.

James Brown

Safehands wrote: »

"People"? You would need to be more specific. We can't expect the electorate to vote for a strange gathering of "People".

Any party or Indie outside of FF/FG. How's that demographic?
Surely you can pick one to criticise by way of deflecting from FF/FG?

Safehands

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Any party or Indie outside of FF/FG. How's that demographic?
Surely you can pick one to criticise by way of deflecting from FF/FG?

ANY party? Ok, lets go with Sinn Fein then. This is a party who have seats in the Northern Irish Assembly, but won't take them because of some disagreement. They also have 7 seats in Westminster, but won't take them despite the fact that taking them could actually halt Brexit. This is an alternative, but give me FF or FG any day of the century. Who else? oh yes, Renua, actually oh no Renua. People before Profit? really? to run the country? God help us.

Not many choices are there?

Loafing Oaf

Safehands wrote: »

ANY party? Ok, lets go with Sinn Fein then. This is a party who have seats in the Northern Irish Assembly, but won't take them because of some disagreement. They also have 7 seats in Westminster, but won't take them despite the fact that taking them could actually halt Brexit. This is an alternative, but give me FF or FG any day of the century. Who else? oh yes, Renua, actually oh no Renua. People before Profit? really? to run the country? God help us.

Not many choices are there?

Loads of choices on the left. Not so many in the centre or on the right.

James Brown

Safehands wrote: »

ANY party? Ok, lets go with Sinn Fein then. This is a party who have seats in the Northern Irish Assembly, but won't take them because of some disagreement. They also have 7 seats in Westminster, but won't take them despite the fact that taking them could actually halt Brexit. This is an alternative, but give me FF or FG any day of the century. Who else? oh yes, Renua, actually oh no Renua. People before Profit? really? to run the country? God help us.

Not many choices are there?

Yeah that would be Foster under investigation for Fraud. If you're intent on slating them at least do the homework.
Their mandate is not to take them every single SF voter knows this when they vote. That's not so.
You'll note we are not in NI or the UK. so not sure what your point is really.
Must be tough for FF/FG supporters that the only positive thing they can really say is the others might be worse. Be hard to get excited about that TBF.

Safehands

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yeah that would be Foster under investigation for Fraud. If you're intent on slating them at least do the homework.
Their mandate is not to take them every single SF voter knows this when they vote. That's not so.
You'll note we are not in NI or the UK. so not sure what your point is really.
Must be tough for FF/FG supporters that the only positive thing they can really say is the others might be worse. Be hard to get excited about that TBF.

So they hand over total power in NI to the same Foster, with NO representation for the Nationalist community. Good strategy that!

Safehands

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Loads of choices on the left. Not so many in the centre or on the right.

Yeah, unfortunately that's correct.

PeadarCo

Matt Barrett wrote:

Yeah that would be Foster under investigation for Fraud. If you're intent on slating them at least do the homework. Their mandate is not to take them every single SF voter knows this when they vote. That's not so. You'll note we are not in NI or the UK. so not sure what your point is really. Must be tough for FF/FG supporters that the only positive thing they can really say is the others might be worse. Be hard to get excited about that TBF.

Well it beats being Argentina after default in the early 00's, Greece over the last few years, Venezuela currently or potentially the UK after a no deal brexit. These situations are what the current opposition parties bar Labour have being calling for over the last decade or so.

So ye for all Irelands many faults, it is still one of richest and democratic countries in the world.