Dermot Ahern v. Bryan Hayes - Ahern is slick, cool-headed and always seems like someone just woke him up to come in to the studio and he's still in a faraway dream where he was floating high up over the earth in a state of blissful disembodiment.

What's this about Howlin and the Morris tribunal?

Feckin Brilliant. I loved the last bit with the voice over on the wednesday protests.

Howlin and Higgins brought info about Garda corruption to the attention af Minister for Justice ages ago which sparked the whole deal off.

I've never seen Howlin so genuinely angry.

The TD from Limerick, Niall Collins must have felt fairly scolded there. We know from the Bertie trial last year that TDs get some legal immunity from what they say once inside but Howlin was offering him outside to say the same thing.

Serious stuff, Collins must have had a brick in his jocks. Howlin is a solicitor or is that Alan Shatter ?

TDs have Dáil privilege. Anything said inside the chamber cannot be actioned for slander or libel or anything else. Howlin's remark was to indicate that if Collins said the exact same thing outside Govt buildings, he would sue his arse off.

The implication was that Ahern set Collins up to read all the Morris stuff and try to damage the opposition TDs who brought the original accusations. Backfired big time imho. Collins looked like he shat himself alright. Fuckin eegit. Pat Rabbite tore strips off Ahern because of it, and rightly so.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

TDs have Dáil privilege. Anything said inside the chamber cannot be actioned for slander or libel or anything else. Howlin's remark was to indicate that if Collins said the exact same thing outside Govt buildings, he would sue his arse off.

The implication was that Ahern set Collins up to read all the Morris stuff and try to damage the opposition TDs who brought the original accusations. Backfired big time imho. Collins looked like he shat himself alright. Fuckin eegit. Pat Rabbite tore strips off Ahern because of it, and rightly so.

It backfired in the Dail, but most of the f'in newspapers buried the Morris Tribunal story, which is incredible and should be compulsory reading for schoolchildren, under a big headline saying TDs were censured in it for raising a query about the Garda Superindent (turned out to be wrong). I think the Tribunal Report itself was outrageously at fault in questioning the T.D.s actions which were imo entirely proper and within their rights.

Enda Kenny on now ! "The probability of there being an election in 2009 is high" he says. He says he isn't going to force it so what will FG do ? They sound like they're going on the road anyway.

He didn't dismiss going into Government with Fianna Fáil

- and he expects to be Taoiseach this time next year or so.

R.T.E. reporters and presenters have started to repeat the Government blague that our economic crisis is to do with the US credit crunch.

Edit - Ah, good: the contrary view is now being expressed.

Sean nailed him on that CF

Crossed posts. He did indeed - but I lost count in the last three days of the number of times that I heard RTE journalists claim it is an external crisis.

Sean just got a final dig in there about running construction into the ground during the boom. The Sunday Tribune today reports on how the OECD are about to look at our budget - strategyless, just what Arthur Morgan said there.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/nov/02/oecd-verdict-more-tax-hikes-less-spending/

Auditor #9 wrote:

Sean just got a final dig in there about running construction into the ground during the boom. The Sunday Tribune today reports on how the OECD are about to look at our budget - strategyless, just what Arthur Morgan said there.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/nov/02/oecd-verdict-more-tax-hikes-less-spending/

You saw what Ciaran O'Hagan said last week about unprecedented levels of deficit spending, in relation to Maastricht. Whatevery about election promises, having got elected what in the name of all that's holy led the two Brians to do nothing all last year?

Cowen more or less admitted on Friday that he doesn't understand the banks. He didn't read Lisbon either (in any sense of the word). less than 30% of the electorate think he can deal with this situation. Are the 70% wrong?

(4,000 euro on coffee and tea for the Mahon Tribunal. )

Bit much Arthur Morgan lecturing on ethics and whether or not people should still be involved in politics based on past history.

johnfás wrote:

Bit much Arthur Morgan lecturing on ethics and whether or not people should still be involved in politics based on past history.

Indeed. But then the whole affair of criminal terrorist murderers from both sides being released from prison on foot of a political agreement failed to find any association in my brain.

Hope ye're still watching RTE. Fantastic program about Obama.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Hope ye're still watching RTE. Fantastic program about Obama.

And John McCain too! An in-depth and extraordinarily illuminating account of both hopefuls' lives. I loved the bit where Will Burns, Obama's deputy campaign manager in 2004 said that his tour de force at the Democratic National Convention in the same year was the same speech he delivered to a handful of people in the Chicagoan cold. I also believe that Obama's tenure as president of the Harvard Law Review will be a template for his rule as president of the USA. I think he'll take on quite a few more Beltwayers than people might think.

cactus flower wrote:

(4,000 euro on coffee and tea for the Mahon Tribunal. )

It's well worth it, cactus.

They can't have been drinking a whole lot then, that is only 400 euro a year. When you think of the amount of coffee they'd have had to drink to keep themselves alert while trying to listen to the testimony of Mssrs Ahern, Lawlor et al.

Lordy but it was a good show tonight yeah right. Fiona O'Malley doesn't strike me as a professional politician - did her Daddy get her in ? Who's Roisín Shortall again ? Who was the other fella - John McGuinness ?

I didn't watch the Obama slice I wonder what Brian Dowling said about him.

Was just posting on small number of women politicians but lost post

FF 14% of candidates
FG 16%
Others 25% ish.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Bit much Arthur Morgan lecturing on ethics and whether or not people should still be involved in politics based on past history.

Indeed. But then the whole affair of criminal terrorist murderers from both sides being released from prison on foot of a political agreement failed to find any association in my brain.

For the very same reason any politician can comment on the economy or budget - he's elected. For the very same reason a bunch of terrorists and murderers ran our first and successive govts - becuase they were elected by the people.

We seem to accept broken promises and deceit as fair game in politics. Whilst policy has to change due to circumstances many of the initial statements prior to elections are clearly simply ridiculous lies.

Should we set up a more rigorous system whereby political parties have to put forward a time based contract for government which are treated as formal contracts with consequences for failure to deliver.

I feel that for democracy to work reality needs to be introduced into electioneering. If it is not then you promise the sun and the noon and the electorate vote for you, but if there is a personal down side to such promises perhaps then we would get some realistic platforms?

How can you enforce such a system, obviously legally you cannot, but even morally? It is a chicken and egg scenario. If a politician stands up and tells it how it is, promises tax increases and a small reduction in services they will lose at the polls. If they promise the world they may well be hated for breaking them but they will probably retain their seat time after time.

They public could have voted out the Government after their broken promises before the last election. They did not. Instead they chose to scapegoat the PDs and in particular Michael McDowell. I am no fan of either but destroying the PDs wasn't going to destroy the PD policies to which Fianna Fáil have now become wholly committed.

I've had that thought before Squire and I think it makes some sense. If the devils are going to promise x y and z worth of school spending then this type of data must determine how people vote for them because it means better managment and less electioneering. They need to be prosecuted on their budgets and their promises. This last government were measuring everything in terms of road kilometerage built and houses erected. whoopeedo. Now what are they going to be judged on ?

Trouble is, data could get very hard to get out of them if they were to be contracted like that.

johnfás

Why can there not be a legally binding contract? If elected I promise to do this and this is how I will pay for it. Elections in 5 years just does not work, because they spend their time massaging the system to try and provide favourable economic conditions come the election.

You can have a list of formal policy statements that they promise to deliver. Take an example, repeal of Patriot Acts it is easy, yes or no? Reducing government expenditure as a percentage of the overall economy. You can either do it or you can't and if you cant you should have the sense to remain silent or say you can't and why.

It is obvious that we will not have responsible government if we treat the job as some fair ground act. The current system clearly lacks adequate rigour and encourages irresponsibility both among politicians and the electorate. It rewards deceit, it is a perversion.

Audi

I agree where there is a will there is a way. A lot of it is simple enough, identity cards, immigration etc. When it gets to the financial side it becomes more difficult as tax take can vary with the economy, but generally that is more stable than many wish to admit.

Currently they get away with the greatest nonsense about paying for whatever by reductions in the inefficient Civil Service etc yet they have not the slightest idea about how to deliver these improvements in efficiency.

We not only seem to be willing to put up with a system that is corrupt and corrupting, but seem loath to insist on improvement. The current system simply is not fit for purpose.