Extreme care required… July 4, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
I mentioned this in relation to SF last week, but it seems appropriate in light of the latest news of TDs expenses. There are FOI’s flying around the Oireachtas regarding politicians expenses and use of same and have been since the start of this Dáil, and understandably so.
Of course this is a political attack – and noticeably so given the way the spotlight keeps coming back to the Opposition (bar, tellingly FF, at least so far), but it is one shaped for the times we live in and one designed to achieve maximum impact. It’ll blow over sooner rather than later, but necessary to ensure that there are no other rakes lying in the grass waiting to be stepped upon.
There are FOI’s flying around the Oireachtas regarding politicians expenses and use of same and have been since the start of this Dáil
Well this one is very much an own-goal, as opposed to a vast right-wing conspiracy, given that Clare Daly walked the SP right into the mire on the Vincent Browne programme.
But, still, you gotta love the tone of the SP press release: counter-pointing misuse of the travel allowence, with the apparent discovery of a hitherto-unknown anomoly in the leaders allowance.
Should the legal advice state that TDs Travel Allowance is only for use within their constituency or between the constituency and Leinster House, we will require the Government and the Oireachtas Commission to look at the following major anomaly.
Not that learned legal advice should really be required to parse section 4.(1) of the instrument in question:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/si/0084.html
SF didnt cover themselves with glory either, with Dohertys sudden recollection that he had paid €25 to renew his drivers license – and with a single bound, Pearse was free!
Wait a minute though, is he saying he wouldnt have bothered with a drivers license had he not been a TD? Are such formalities not required in Donegal?
Not that learned legal advice should really be required to parse section 4.(1) of the instrument in question:
Yes. It is entirely clear from the section that the SP use of expenses is an appropriate use.
Of course, one does have to wonder at why someone living in Dublin would need €12,000 to cover the expense of travelling to Leinster House (if that is the strained interpretation we are applying). Also, the next band up is almost €30,000. Why someone in Howth would need this amount is beyond me?
Of course, one must laugh at Alan Farrell lecturing anyone on use of public monies. This is the same TD who hired his wife as parliamentary assistance (she’ll earn between 41k – 52k) after he could not get her elected to his old Fingal council seat. I presume he will be publishing a full list of his travel expenses legitimately incurred in travelling to and from Malahide to Leinster House.
Bollix Bartley, bollix. Ethically, they did nothing wrong whatsoever – if they broke the rules, it’s the rules that are out of step, awarding as they do 7 figure sums to the three conservative parties to build up their party structures, while media clowns huff and puff about a couple of TDs using part of a €12,000 allowance to do the work they were elected to do.
What this is really about is an attitude in the Irish media that you can say what you like when running for office as long as it’s all forgotten once the polls close and you play the game according to their rules after that. Daly, Higgins and Collins were elected to be campaigning, activist TDs – that’s what people voted for, that’s what people expected them to do. Part of the reason why it’s necessary for TDs to travel around the country speaking at public meetings to oppose the household charge is because they can’t rely on national newspapers constantly editorialising and slanting the news on their behalf, unlike the government.
And yes, there is a ‘right-wing conspiracy’ of sorts at work here, although calling it ‘vast’ would suggest a grandeur it doesn’t possess: there’s obviously a tag-team between the government parties and the main conservative newspapers when it comes to issues like this, the government’s spin doctors brief journos with a certain line, that gets reflected faithfully in the papers. Most of the Irish media is just a glorified conservative echo chamber, with banalities and falsehoods bouncing back and forth from Leinster House to Montrose to Tara Street and back again. Try reading Stephen Collins on a Saturday and try telling the difference between his column and a government press release (except when he criticises the government for not being right-wing enough).
WBS’s point about ‘rakes in the grass’ is a fair one, but this is just a tactical question, not a moral one—it’s purely a matter of not giving the shysters an opportunity for diversion tactics like this. Daly, Higgins and Collins have done nothing wrong, and have nothing to apologise for.
“awarding as they do 7 figure sums to the three conservative parties to build up their party structures, while media clowns huff and puff about a couple of TDs using part of a €12,000 allowance to do the work they were elected to do.”
Don’t disagree with the bulk of what you say, but I would be personally averse to have that much of a go at state funding of Political parties. It has its difficulties, but its far preferable to corporate funding.
Except that it only applies to established parties with elected members, smaller parties and independent who don’t get elected have to fund their own campaign and try and build a party whilst at the same time try to earn a living. The system is designed to maintain the status quo, just change the faces at the trough.
+1
+1 to Ed, no Blissett
Ethically, they did nothing wrong whatsoever – if they broke the rules, it’s the rules that are out of step, awarding as they do 7 figure sums to the three conservative parties to build up their party structures
Well for a start thats a completely different rule that you reckon is out of step (defined via a totally separate statute).
But just to dig into your claim a tad. The funding isnt awarded to those parties on the basis of their being conservative, rather its awarded on the basis of their first preference vote share.
During 2011, funding was paid to four qualified parties (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and The Labour Party) – this was solely determined by the results of the February 2011 general election.
Strange that the Shinners presence on that list slipped your mind, not usually considered a force of conservatism. Then again, looking at their record in government in the North, maybe you could make a case …
The other key factor here is that the cut-off point is set deliberately low (2%) and the funding is structured in such a way as to favour smaller parties (being a combination of a €127k fixed lump sum with a top-up proportionate to the FPV share).
The Socialist Party werent excluded because theyre too radical, rather they were excluded from funding because theyre simply too niche. Similarly with the Christian Solidarity Party.
In fact had the SP (who came in at 1.2%) merged with the Socialist Workers before the election (PPB notched up 1%), they would have gotten over the 2% line and received that funding too.
Finally lets not forget the indirect funding the SP receives from the state – its TDs all donate to the party the portion of their salary above the average industrial wage. This funding, provided indirectly by the state, is not a million miles away from the amount they would have received if the threshold was set as low as say 1%.
Daly, Higgins and Collins have done nothing wrong, and have nothing to apologise for.
I think the jury is still out on that. Its hard to see that travelling around the country whipping up support for non-payment of a tax could fall under this definition:
… amount payable to a member of Dáil Éireann as part of the parliamentary standard allowance for the relevant period in respect of travelling facilities for distances, from the member’s normal place of residence in respect of the distance referred to in that column, to and from Leinster House, overnight expenses and travel expenses which the member is obliged to incur in the performance of his or her duties as a member of Dáil Éireann.
The key phrase is obliged to incur in the performance of his or her duties as a member of Dáil Éireann.
Engaging in political activity isn’t a duty, now?
A real stretch to work up the obligations of Dáil membership to include incitement to evade a democratically instituted tax.
While by-passing democratic structures in order to block the institution of a tax on the finance industry is just fine, of course:
“There is no public debate on the FTT. The proposals come before the European Parliament in a matter of weeks, yet most of our MEPs are strangely silent. The tax is most opposed by those it would hit. The financial sector. And the Government is consulting only this industry on these crucial policy proposals. Under Childers’ FoI documents, the only analysis of the FTT was a 30-page research paper from AIMA — an international hedge fund lobby. It seems that there was little or no analysis or impact assessment done on the FTT.
“So, here is exactly how the real world works. According to the documents, officials from the Department of Finance sent out a “questionnaire” to various financial services organisations. A civil servant noted that “unsurprisingly, the industry is very negative about the proposals”. Despite this remarkable insight that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, another civil servant states that “input from the International Financial Services sector will be crucial to informing our views on the proposal”. The upshot? The Irish State will lose €500m in revenues from the financial sector a year.”
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/elaine-byrne-ifsc-living-by-its-own-rules-and-not-in-the-real-world-3101326.html
What’s that you say, €500m a year is more than three times the estimated revenue from the household charge? I do believe you’re right, sir.
You would do well to read the regulation you are such an expert on. Section 5 deals with expenses incurred as ‘member is obliged to incur in the performance of his or her duties as a member’. Section 5(4)(c) provides a list of such expenses which includes office cleaning ( an Oireachtas member is obliged to clean their office), leaflet and newsletter distribution (someone should tell SF they have to print leaflets), and attendance at meetings and conferences relating to the performance of their duties. Only an absurd interpretation would have this to mean that a member could only expense a conference if it concerned going to the Oireachtas, addressing the Ceann Comhairle, or proper plotting on how to smear your rivals.
A real stretch to work up the obligations of Dáil membership to include incitement to evade a democratically instituted tax.
So it would only be a legitimate expense if you agreed with it or if it was in support of every government measure?
Even for you, this is ridiculous.
I’ve already said, I don’t really care about the precise wording of the rules, as far as I’m concerned, they incurred these expenses doing the work they were elected to do, campaigning work. Ethically, their conduct is beyond reproach. The only question is a tactical one, whether it’s wise to do something that leaves the Indo the opportunity to cook up an artificial controversy.
Sure, the conservative parties get 7 figure sums primarily because they’re big. But it just adds to the enormous advantages they enjoy in getting their message across: having the Indo and the Times batting for you every day on the household charge is worth far more than the state funding FG and Labour receive. Higgins, Daly and Collins were just making the playing field that tiny bit more even.
As with the whole question of tax dodging, the scandal is often not the fact that something is illegal, but that it isn’t. For example, Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen didn’t break any Dáil rules when they went for a private meeting with Tony O’Reilly before the 2007 election and bartered for the support of his newspapers (we don’t know what was agreed in private; we do know that Ahern was so grateful that he put Eoghan Harris in the Seanad as a reward). Yet that was a shocking abuse of public office, giving a tax-dodging billionaire a voice in shaping government policy. And Enda Kenny would do the same for Denis O’Brien in a heartbeat. No chance, though, of any Dáil ctte making a ruling on whether they transgressed. Until I see the Indo and the IT denouncing that with full-throated anger, I’ll take their cosmetic horror about this matter with a big lump of Saxo.
Blissett, the issue about state funding is a complex one, I agree that it’s better than corporate funding, but it’s still far from ideal. Peter Mair had a great article a few years ago called ‘Ruling the Void’ about the hollowing-out of western democracy (unfortunately it’s behind a paywall on the New Left Review site); he made the point that greater reliance on state funding was part of a process whereby political parties have increasingly become part of the state, instead of vehicles for representing social interests outside the state. And dependence on state funding has become a problem for some radical-left parties in Europe:
“The PRC was configured, organised and structured exclusively in relation to elections. Life revolved around elections, it dominated internal battles and its big political turns. Elections, the number of votes and the ability to play an institutional role formed the overwhelming preoccupation of its leadership groups. This is the way it shaped itself, quite naturally and in good faith. If the objective is presence in the institutions, increasing your vote, then it is quite natural that over time the local branches, the circles would become election committees, the local leaders would find career paths in the institutions, and economic survival for the party would be based on state financing. The only motivation of the leadership group would be tied up with the institutions.”
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2559
My preference would be for some public funding, combined with a total ban on corporate donations of any kind and tight ceilings for election spending, so that the advantage would go to parties able to mobilise teams of people for canvassing and leafleting rather than those able to pay for massive billboard campaigns.
I am ad idem as regards your last paragraph. I was simply coming from the point of view that right wing hang ‘em high brigade would consider public funding anathema, and that there isnt anything wrong with public funding per se, but not question that it as currently constituted it is flawed and favours established parties.
This funding, provided indirectly by the state
This is as Jesuitical a point as we can expect to see all year.
(For younger readers, “Jesuitical” is like “trolling”.)
There was a less-than-classic 90s film called ‘The Last of the High Kings’, which was chiefly memorable for Stephen Rea’s cameo as a taxi driver. At one point when he has two gullible young Americans in the cab, he claims to have often had James Joyce as a passenger (the film is set in the late ‘70s). ‘He was scribbling away there. “What’re you writing, Jimmy,” I says. “A buke,” he says. “What sort of a buke?” I says. “A big buke.” He could be fierce Jesuitical sometimes.’
It’s worth noting that his “Jesuitical” point rests on an outright falsehood. In fact, the socialist TDs only give €6,000 approximately to their parties each year, as there is a legal limit on party political donations. The rest of their salaries, above the average industrial wage, is given to a variety of campaign groups and the like.
Yep, I was expecting some clarification of how those donations were, ahem, structured … given that the Standards in Public Office Commission has begun to sniff around:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0702/household-charge-reminder-letters.html
Still €12k to the core party, plus substantial funds to off-shoot campaigns, sub-groups, super-PACs, whatever, is still a hell of a lot more indirect state funding than other fringe parties get.
I bet the folks in the Christian Solidarity Party would be over-joyed to receive such funding.
There’s something particularly laughable about the right wing media going after the TDs who don’t take their full salaries
From the point of view of the exchequer, Daly and Higgins not taking their full salaries is of no benefit. If they handed the money back to the state, well that would be something. But if you dont view their donations as quasi-state-funding of their party, then the SP TDs choosing to spend their salaries in that way is pretty much irrelevant to the tax-payer.
“I bet the folks in the Christian Solidarity Party would be over-joyed to receive such funding.”
And if they ever managed to elect two TDs, who were willing to hand over a significant chunk of their salary, they would.
“From the point of view of the exchequer, Daly and Higgins not taking their full salaries is of no benefit. If they handed the money back to the state, well that would be something. But if you dont view their donations as quasi-state-funding of their party, then the SP TDs choosing to spend their salaries in that way is pretty much irrelevant to the tax-payer.”
But not to the people who elected them – they voted for activist, campaigning TDs, so it makes a great deal of difference whether they use their salaries to promote political campaigns for a more equal and democratic society, or to enhance their own lifestyles. A few grand here and there would make no difference whatsover to the state’s coffers, but it can be a real help to campaigns that have no chance of receiving donations from wealthy businessmen and must face a hostile media as they go about their work.
You are a dishonest troll.
No “clarification” of where Socialist Party TD’s salaries go is necessary. It has always been the case that party rules forbid them from keeping their full salaries, on the “workers representatives on a workers wage” principle common in the socialist movement for a century and a half. It has always been the case that the bulk of the excess over the average industrial wage has been donated to various campaigns, community groups and struggles and not to the Socialist Party.
The state funding of political parties has nothing to do with this and is rigged in favour of the larger parties, just as the rules of the Dail are rigged in favour of the larger parties when it comes to things like speaking Dail. The larger parties make the rules to suit themselves and to disadvantage smaller parties which may threaten them.
As for “irrelevance” to the exchequer, the Socialist Party doesn’t demand that its representatives avoid profiting from being public representatives under some idiotic belief that the money would be better spent on unsecured bondholders. It does so because public representatives who earn vast salaries end up with lifestyles completely divorced from those of the working class people who they wish to represent. It’s for similar reasons that the Socialist Party advocates all union officials having their pay cut to that of the average of the workers they represent.
This is a right wing smear campaign, aimed at undermining left wing opposition to the status quo, nothing more and nothing less.
I was not of course referring to Ed as a dishonest troll, but to a certain consistent parrot of idiotic media talking points.
But if you don’t view their donations as quasi-state-funding of their party
No I don’t, nor does any sensible person. Nor did I view it as state funding of any cause I happened to support when I was employed in the public sector. Not did I consider that a university was funding any cause I happened to support when I was employed in university libraries. Nor did I consider…..
…but what’s the point eh?
Trolling is for people who have no good points to make.
From the point of view of the exchequer, Daly and Higgins not taking their full salaries is of no benefit. If they handed the money back to the state, well that would be something. But if you dont view their donations as quasi-state-funding of their party, then the SP TDs choosing to spend their salaries in that way is pretty much irrelevant to the tax-payer.
It’s probably unwise to get sucked into what’s become a rather obvious baiting exercise. But I want to pick up one point in the paragraph above.
It’s true that from the point of view of the exchequer (exchequer defined as a big pot of money) it doesn’t make any difference what the SP reps do with the salary they’re paid.
But the “tax-payer” is not the same thing as the exchequer. Being a tax-payer is one part (and not even a necessary part) of being a citizen. I would argue that what the SP TDs do with their salary, as well as with their time and energy matters very much to citizens and tax-payers in this country. But, then, I don’t think individuals should be defined by whether they pay tax or not, or how much they pay. SP TDs (indeed, all TDs) are duty bound to defend the best interests of their constituents, all their constituents, not just the ones who paid taxes, and not just the ones who are entitled to vote. By campaigning against the household charge, including by encouraging non-compliance (a very long-standing method of civil disobedience) they are simply discharging their mandate.
Of course, if one wishes to limit debate entirely, they you simply change the terms. You talk about the country as if it’s a private business in some respects (essentially in terms of privatisation of services) or as a household in others (when it comes to budgets – strangely enough, the business analogy is seldom used when pundits are discussing the running of a deficit in order to stimulate growth, preferring to use the household example where there’s no link between income and expenditure, and both are simply given).
And you talk about ‘tax-payers’ rather than citizens, workers or people.
I wonder did any gov’t TDs incur any travel expenses while travelling outside their own constituencies during the campaign for the Fiscal Treaty?
There are old leaflets from FG opposing property taxes up on IELB’s blog. I wonder if those were expensed or did Fine Gael pay for them out of the money they hid from the inland revenue?
What was the cost of bringing Michael D Higgins and Sabina Coyne to Belfast to witness a handshake between the UK head of state \ commander-in-chief of British Armed Forces, and a Deputy First Minister in one of Britain’s Regional Parliaments? I bet it was a lot more than some ULA TD’s house tax meeting trips.
There’s something particularly laughable about the right wing media going after the TDs who don’t take their full salaries, trying to smear them for using political expenses for political activism. It just shows the discomfort which the Campaign Against Household and Water Charges is creating amongst our political class and their journalist friends.
It will, of course, have some impact. Just managing to print an article with an elected representative’s name and the word “expenses” in it will have some negative impact. But the left have to expect this kind of treatment, and much worse, when they manage to threaten the right wing orthodoxy in however limited a way.
@MarkP
No “clarification” of where Socialist Party TD’s salaries go is necessary.
Well, tell that to the Standards in Public Office Commission, who are actively seeking exactly such clarification.
And if the SP want to continue getting paid, probably best not to respond to their query with your usual dishonest troll denunciation.
The limits of what can be donated to a party are very clear. The SP TDs can’t give more than 6k apiece. I doubt they’d be so stupid as to give any more. And I suspect SIPO will find there’s nothing wrong in what they’re doing (and tbh SIPO’s involvement seems entirely pro forma).
Whatever about the use of the travel allowance which is frankly a completely different matter (and up to now somewhat ambiguous though it’s not something if anyone had asked me I’d have recommended that it should be used – given the climate as regards expenses) this is a wild goose chase, not least because the rules in this area (party funding) are extremely stringent and transparent in application.
And if the SP TDs, or wheover, choose to give the remaining balance of their salaries to one cause or another or whatever I can’t see how it’s any business of anyone else as long as it is within the law. And again, I doubt they’d be so foolish to have done otherwise.
Yawn. Bored now. We’ve seen you move the goalposts from one end of the pitch to the other and back again. Every ‘argument’ of yours has been demolished immediately on this thread, whereupon you bring up another irrelevant point which is immediately demolished. Who could blame Mark for wanting to cut to the chase? If you only brought a little wit or intelligence to your trolling it might be worth indulging you. Sadly that appears too much to ask.
I might add that I spent some of my youth attending a Jesuit school, and it would be a great insult to the traditions of that order to describe your approch as ‘Jesuitical’. I’m struggling to think which strand of Catholicism would be appropriate to your level of rambling inanity – I would say Opus Dei, but at least they have a kind of sinister efficiency about them. It’ll come to me.
A response to Bartley obviously, not WBS
@Ed
Every ‘argument’ of yours has been demolished immediately on this thread
Hmmm, lets look back at how you demolished my argument that Daly and Higgins had broken the travel expenses rules:
- by appealing to the 7 figure sums that the conservative parties were granted through a completely different funding mechanism
(whereupon I patiently explained that this funding was not directed to conservative parties alone, as SF are a huge beneficiary, and indeed the SP would also qualify if they merged with their confederates in the SWP, or just emerged from the fringe on their own right)
- by stating that you didn\’t care about the rules, preferring to hold the SP to a self-defined standard of ethics
(stating the obvious, but in reality Daly & Higgins are required to conform to the actual rules if they wish to continue claiming such expenses)
- by diverting attention to the sins of Bertie & Cowen
(obviously doesn\’t justify any unrelated breaking of rules)
- and finally, with the standard appeal to right-wing media bias
Really, is that what you call demolishing an argument?
Well, if thats a win for you, I really would hate to see what lame arguments you would consider meriting a draw.
I’m struggling to think which strand of Catholicism would be appropriate to your level of rambling inanity – I would say Opus Dei, but at least they have a kind of sinister efficiency about them.
Its comforting to know that religious tolerance is alive and well on the side of shining righteousness.
Sorry, forgot, only some kinds of intolerance are bad (defined by you, of course …).
Yawn. Troll away, my friend. As anyone who reads over the thread can see (and as anyone who has read your contributions to other threads will already know), your only debating trick is to move the goalposts. Every time your argument is dealt with, you change the subject. You thrash around desperately hoping that nobody will notice what you’re at, saying things that only make sense in the confines of your own head (the last comment about religous tolerance being an especially fine example of your bizarre thought process—do you imagine that it actually means something?).
I could list off all the points that you have dismally failed to address on this thread, from my posts and from others, but it would be a tedious waste of time—reading your posts is like following one of Eamon Gilmore’s performances answering questions in the Dáil, when he responds to a serious point with some fatuous non sequitor, sure in the knowledge that the clowns on the benches behind him will honk with delight regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Mark had every right to dismiss you as a dishonest troll—it saves time for more productive activity.
Fair play to Brian Hayes (or maybe he just sees the full implications of the position of the Oireachtas Commission for other TDs, not just ULA ones): http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0705/1224319429077.html
+1
And of course those FOI’s presumably can peer back aways… those records of Haye’s will I imagine still exist, and if for him then for others. There’ll be many a TD from various parties one suspects thinking back with some concern.
Not sure really sure where Freedom of Information requests come into it, didnt Daly and Higgins volunteer the information themselves on their unvouched expense claims?
Given the unvouched route chosen, I dont think an FoI request would have revealed anything about the SP expenses other than the raw total.
But yeah, good for Hayes that he has come out and fessed up now. Better to repaying if necessary alongside Daly & Higgins (if it comes to that), than to be caught out later in the day.
I also note the furious back-pedaling on the legal advice – first it was that repayment would follow if the Oireachtas committees legal advice required it, then there was talk of a clear body of legal opinion, now he is talking about taking independent legal advice.
Are you still maintaining, in the face of this, that the regulation is perfectly clear and supports your interpretation (only covers expenses from constituency to Leinster House) in the face of Brian Hayes openly stating that such an interpretation is ‘bizarre’?
Hayes was not offering a legal opinion as far as I can see, he was simply speaking in a personal capacity, no doubt with his own prior behavior in mind.
The best indication we have so far on the official interpretation of the regulations is the statement from the Oireachtas Commission:
The only specific travel allowances which were reckonable for TDs were those incurred travelling to and from Leinster House and within their constituency
Of course, the word ‘constituency’ does not appear anywhere in regulation 4. If this is a ‘legal opinion’ from the Oireachtas Committee, it is a laughably suspect one. I would wonder at the legal advice they received.
And Hayes’ point is an insight into how the regulation was interpreted in practice. It is instructive that he feels such an interpretation is ‘bizarre’. If the expense is only for travelling to and from Leinster House, why are they allowing someone living out in Balbriggan to claim almost €30,000 in unvouched expenses for travel and overnight accommodation?
Now, that is a bizarre interpretation.
Excellent point RosencrantzisDead. It’s impossible to explain Hayes behaviour if the regulation was perfectly clear. And there’s little doubt that there will be more.
As regards the FOI point I made earlier, it merely is underlining that the media are all over these sort of stories. That may well be problematic for some on the left. But it’s most certainly going to be equally, if not more problematic for those on the right given the demographics within the Oireachtas.
“Mr Higgins also released details of his travel and accommodation expenditure. He travelled to 22 locations outside Dublin, including Mayo, Monaghan, Clare, Waterford, Kerry, Donegal, Galway, Limerick, Tipperary, Wexford, and Offaly. His total bill for more than 6,000km travelled came to a modest €935, including a BB bill for €35.”
Snouts in the trough, wha! That Higgins, living it up at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayer. What kind of orgiastic pleasures must he have obtained in that B&B for the princely sum of 35 euro? I bet he had a second rasher with his breakfast, and used all the hot water in the morning too, the greedy bastard.
The amounts charged are quite irrelevant.
Joe himself tried to play the béal bocht along those lines on Morning Ireland earlier today – shure, if he had traveled round the country by an auld donkey and cart, it wouldnt have been any cheaper!
All he had to do was throw in a “shure, Glory be to God!”, and he would have had the Healy-Rae patter down to a tee.
Enjoy here from about 13mins 15s:
http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2012/pc/pod-v-0507121sthour52m43smorningireland-pid0-3163536_audio.mp3
Also note the later spin on the description of an eventual repayment – now Joe is insisting on “reconcile and recompense”, as opposed to “repay”.
The amounts charged are quite irrelevant.
I would suppose that De minimis no curat praetor is irrelevant when you are trolling.
I would suppose that De minimis no curat praetor is irrelevant when you are trolling.
Ah now, Rosencrantz, please dont start busting out the Latinisms. Theyre like nuclear weapons, soon we\’d all be it …
Yes, the amount of the individual line items in his questionable expense report are of course irrelevant. Whether he blew the entire €935 in a single night at the Ritz, or over multiple nights in Mrs O Flahertys B&B, makes not a wit of difference. Either way the law is perfectly well able to concern itself with trifles of that size.
trifles of that size
A contradiction, no?
Ah, now your trolling is starting to become amusing again, keep it up.
Sure everyone knows Higgins and Healy-Rae are peas in a pod, don’t they both come from Kerry? I’m sure if we dig deep enough, we’ll find that Higgins also spent a small fortune in public money ringing premium-rate phone lines when one of his relatives was on a reality TV show. Wouldn’t that just be the type of him?
Those cute hoors from Kerry, you can’t be up to them and their tricks! Stuffing their faces with rasher and sausage and toast, guzzling down all the tea they can fit in their gob, laughing all the while at those eejits up in Dubellin who have to pay for their extravagance.
Didn’t Higgins even bring his mother into the Dáil canteen for a meal after he won the Euro seat – that’s subsidised by the hard-pressed taxpayers too, he should have taken her to Eddie Rockets on South Anne St if she was hungry. In fact, he should have taken her to the Abrakebabra beside it and gotten her a chip butty, and then given back the money he would have spent in Eddie Rockets to the exchequer so that they could have some more silk ties made.
@smiffy
And you talk about ‘tax-payers’ rather than citizens, workers or people.
I use tax-payers to emphasize the stake they hold in the state being run efficiently, tax being collected from all who owe it (as opposed to those who feel like paying it), and that revenue being spent in the common good (as opposed to being wasted on feather-bedding).
In fact, the tax-payer characterization is far more inclusive than either worker or citizen. The way our tax system is structured, that group includes children, the retired, students, welfare dependents, migrants, and even corporations.
So while tax-payer may have a whiff of ring-wing that disagrees with you, its actually far more inclusive than many of the labels so beloved of the left.
More inclusive than ‘people’? Well, if you want to put corporations on a par with individuals, I suppose so.
More inclusive than ‘people’
No … as I stated clearly above, more inclusive than workers or citizens.
Well, if you want to put corporations on a par with individuals
I dont and I didnt.
(I merely stated that corporations pay tax too)
So, are you positing a heirarchy with ‘taxpayers’ occupying a first order of priority; mere citizens (including children, pensioners, the unemployed etc) in the second order and; occupying steerage, a third and lowest order of priority for ‘workers’? Of course, in the first group you’ll have those who pay very little tax and those who pay a lot. Consequently, in the interests of ‘fairness’, there’ll have to be a further reweighting of influence so that those who pay more tax have more influence and those who pay less have less. That’s a very reasonable inference from your position, as set out. It’s suspiciously close to Milton Friedman’s idea of the free market as the most perfect form of democracy where one dollar equals one vote. If that’s not right wing, I don’t know what is. The whole thing is further complicated by the fact that the term ‘taxpayers’ includes those who VAT – which draws in children, pensioners, the unemployed, but which excludes nearly every multi-national trading from this state, who get a VAT free status for inputs.
I think citizenship does the job fair better and with less capacity for pointless hairsplitting or Jesuitical contortions over social rights.
Or you could adopt the communist idea of ‘from each according to their ability and to each according to their need’.
There is one benefit I could see, from a Left perspective, to the above prioritisation of taxpayers. Since the vast majority of tax is paid by workers through income tax, VAT and duty, as well as PRSI, motor tax etc, etc, the likes of IBEC, ISME etc would suddenly fall to the lowest rung of political influence while the trade unions would occupy the top rung, given that the tax take from the country’s trade union members is several multiples of that from business.
“…corporations pay tax too”
Really? which ones?Corporations in Ireland may pay indirect taxes, but direct taxation via corporation tax?
Two-thirds of all corporations in Ireland pay zero in corporation tax.
As far as tax payment as a better indicator of citizenry (and by extension, rights), what about the old, infirm, very young? Those who earn less than 10,000 a year?
To monetize human rights- what a vile way to see humanity.
Still, such a vile way is in the majority, that’s for sure. You’ll get many a clink of the wine glasses for those sentiments.
@Alphaville
Really? which ones?Corporations in Ireland may pay indirect taxes, but direct taxation via corporation tax?
Yes corporations pay corporation tax, to the tune of circa €4 billion per annum.
Obviously I\’m not going to provide you with a list of those corporations, surely the raw total is sufficient to establish the point that such tax is paid?
As far as tax payment as a better indicator of citizenry (and by extension, rights), what about the old, infirm, very young? Those who earn less than 10,000 a year?
You will note of course that I didnt say income-tax-payers, I said tax-payers.
The old do pay tax: in the form of DIRT on their nest-eggs, VAT on their purchases, CGT on their investments, household charges on their property. And, yes the old do own stuff (deposits, shares, property etc.), quite a lot if it in fact.
Similarly low earners, the infirm etc. are all economic actors and as such end up paying some tax in one form or another. In fact its practically impossible to exist in this country, short of falling off the grid and living off the land, without paying some tax.
The idea of tieing in rights and responsibilities with the imposition of taxes in not a new one. Its goes back at least as far as the American Revolution.
(Hat tip to the Founders, given that day that was in it yesterday …)
To monetize human rights…
Who did that? Not I.
@CMK
So, are you positing a heirarchy with ‘taxpayers’ occupying a first order of priority; mere citizens (including children, pensioners, the unemployed etc) in the second order and; occupying steerage, a third and lowest order of priority for ‘workers’?
Nope, a flat list does not imply any sort of hierarchy.
And in the hierarchy you describe, the top tier would actually encompass your lower orders and steerage.
Look, the corporate media (particularly INM) will use any issue to embarrass or discredit radical left td’s. Look at how the Wallace vat issue was used. It is a clear agenda to do so after the austerity treaty referendum – that and a renewed assault on public service workers are what is on the agenda now.
I would also hazard that the independent newspaper stable of corporate mud-slingers has been investigating the private lives of radical left and Sinn Fein representatives. Remember the intrusion into Mick Wallace’s private life (including fingering his teenage son as one of the boys expelled from Oatlands) recently by the Independent.
Yes – stand up against the establishment and its media & political class – AND IF YOU ARE PERCEIVED AS ANY KIND OF SERIOUS THREAT, the assault will begin. Sections of workers – like train drivers, teachers and others were on the receiving end of this kind of treatment during industrial disputes.
Yes – usually the assault can’t be avoided but nevertheless, extreme care should be taken not to gift the attack dogs of the ruling elite with needless issues to use.
Odd that the Mick Wallace coverage is still being viewed as some sort of stitch-up or unfounded smear campaign. The man was damned utterly by this own admissions.
Similarly your concern about the outing of his son is touching, as are your later thoughts about protecting teachers from unwarranted attacks.
Maybe you didnt hear why he was expelled – “vile and baseless” sexual allegations posted on-line against named teachers, leaving the victims “hugely upset” and “distraught”. But of course young Wallaces anonymity should have been protected, right?
“Odd that the Mick Wallace coverage is still being viewed as some sort of stitch-up or unfounded smear campaign. ”
Yes. That’s exactly what 1798Mike said. Yes.
The public interest was served by the dissemination of the facts in relation to Mick Wallace’s tax affairs.
What public interest was served by the breaching of his son’s anonymity?
@RosencrantzisDead – July 5, 2012
And Hayes point is an insight into how the regulation was interpreted in practice.
Well as a counter-point on how the regulation was applied in practice, how about considering the case of a good friend and comrade to Deputies Collins, Daly, and Higgins?
Of whom do I speak?
Why, the right honourable Richard Boyd-Barrett, TD.
Now RBB saw the potential contradiction in claiming tax-payer funds to campaign against the payment of a tax. So he did the right thing, and simply asked the relevant authorities. And was told apparently in no uncertain terms that such a claim would be inappropriate. So he followed the rules to a tee, and didnt claim for the questionable travel.
Again, the point is the regulation is not clear. RBB even said himself it was confusing. You, however, said:
Not that learned legal advice should really be required to parse section 4.(1) of the instrument in question[.]
I’ll ask again: are you still claiming that this regulation is clear and that it is readily apparent that what the TDs in question did is wrong?
And if the Oireachtas Commission is claiming it only covers ‘constituency’ travel, they are waffling. A restrictive interpretation would only allow travel from ‘principal place of residence’ to Leinster House. There is a big difference there (cf. Ivor Callely).
OK, lets forensically deconstruct section 4 of the instrument if you really insist.
Spot the difference between the otherwise identical regulation for TDs:
…from the member’s normal place of residence [...] to and from Leinster House, overnight expenses and travel expenses which the member is obliged to incur in the performance of his or her duties as a member of Dáil Éireann.
and for Senators:
… from the member’s normal place of residence [...] to and from Leinster House and overnight expenses which the member is obliged to incur in the performance of his or her duties as a member of Seanad Éireann.
So the clue is in the emboldened phrase. Travel expenses are explicitly allowed for TDs in respect of the additional duties they have, beyond those of a Senator.
Do Senators travel the country whipping up support for one campaign or another? Sure, they do, Ivana Bacik for one is always at it.
So that couldnt be the additional duty or obligation that TDs labour under, it must something else. What could it be?
A-ha, Eureka! Only TDs have geographically defined constituencies where they are expected to perform out-reach, run clinics and the likes for their constituents. Whereas Senators have highly dispersed electorates, to whom they are not expected to minister in the same way.
Bada-bing, the section is duly parsed without the need for the learned and expensive legal advice.
Beware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
In addition, given the rather complex ‘parsing’ you’ve given it, you still cannot accept that there is another interpretation, taken together with current Oireachtas practice, which allows for the use of travel expenses, can you not?
This is hardly the ‘hand in the till’ moment you are making it out to be. And it is, as you acknowledge above, a trifle.
Sure its possible that it could be interpreted another way.
However, if confused Higgins should have asked for clarification (as did RBB).
Failing that, he should have accepted the initial determination of the Oireachtas Commission.
Failing that, he should have accepted the legal advice received by the Oireachtas Commission (as he initially indicated he would).
Instead he has blustered around, first pledging to repay if the legal advice went against him, then kicking the can down the road saying he\’d get his own legal advice, then seeking to minimize the issue by pointing to small individual line items, then seeking to divert attention away to the completely separate and transparent mechanism for state funding of political parties, then donning the mantle of victimhood, the innocent target of a scurrilous right-wing media smear-campaign.
But maybe Higgins wasn’t confused. Maybe it seemed to him, as it clearly did to one B. Hayes before him, that this was an entirely appropriate use of the funds when he used them. And in light of that information re B. Hayes perhaps he’s decided that there might be a case to be made that what he did was legitimate, sauce for the FG gander being good enough for the SP goose – or at least worthy of contesting it legally.
Yes. That’s exactly what 1798Mike said. Yes.
The defining feature of an unfounded smear campaign is that the allegations are without foundation.
Whereas in fact the allegations in this case were entirely truthful and admitted.
So much so that normally libel-shy newspapers openly brand him a tax cheat – they can do this not because of his radical left wing politics, but simply because he cheated on his taxes!
What public interest was served by the breaching of his son’s anonymity?
The interests of thousands of teachers who would prefer not to end up “hugely upset” and “distraught” as a result of “vile and baseless” sexual allegations being posted on-line against them.
And even to characterize it as “breaching anonymity” is to mis-represent what happened. The chap used his own Facebook account to disseminate vile allegations about named teachers, on y\’know the like public internets?
There was no anonymity from the get-go, for neither the victims nor the perp. That was the whole point – had it simply been Dr. X jousting with Bartley or vice versa, no harm would have done beyond a few ruffled feathers. But the fact is that there was no veil of anonymity from the start, which is what made his actions so serious and worthy of the punishment received.
“Yes. That’s exactly what 1798Mike said. Yes.
“The defining feature of an unfounded smear campaign is that the allegations are without foundation.
“Whereas in fact the allegations in this case were entirely truthful and admitted.”
And now the sheer gormless incompetence of your trolling begins to offer its own amusement: the phrase ‘unfounded smear campaign’ was entirely your own coinage, 1798Mike did not use that phrase, or any approximation of that phrase, nor was its meaning implict in anything he said. Yet you quote back your own words to yourself so that you can refute a point nobody made.
This appears to be a rare instance of a troll eating his own tail. You can imagine this happening in a bad fantasy novel, where the hero ties a tasty piece of meat to the troll’s tail so that he will consume himself by mistake, thus clearing the way for the hero to get the treasure that was being guarded by the troll. But you appear to have managed it unaided.
Context, Ed, its all about context.
Look back at the post from Dr. X to which I replied:
“Odd that the Mick Wallace coverage is still being viewed as some sort of stitch-up or unfounded smear campaign. ”
Yes. That’s exactly what 1798Mike said. Yes.
Not just one yes in agreement with my characterization, but two!
And a “That’s exactly” thrown in for good measure!
So we were in total agreement, myself and Dr. X, that the Mick Wallace coverage was viewed as an unfounded smear campaign.
No tail-eating there. Just to a segueway into debating whether that view was justified or not.
I don’t think I’m presuming too much on behalf of Rosencrantz when I say that you may need to consult this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Now this I didn’t know myself:
“In certain Ethiopic languages, sarcasm and unreal phrases are indicated at the end of a sentence with a sarcasm mark called temherte slaq, a character that looks like an inverted exclamation point ¡.”
If we were only having this discussion in an Ethiopic language, your confusion might have been averted.
When somebody decides to miss the point, it seems it is missed by a 1,000 miles. I do not view Wallace being called to account for his vat under-declaration as an “unfounded smear campaign”. I was referring to the manner in which the attack dogs of the Independent used it as an excuse to intrude into his private life. None of you obviously looked at a Saturday edition of the Independent in which there was a long article, with photographs, about the “women in Mick Wallace’s life”. It was offensive and intrusive. Some of his former partners were door-stepped and harassed in an effort to get them to say something negative or embarrassing about Wallace.
As for his son. He and the other youngsters who committed the “vile” offense paid the the price. But only one was identified. Why? Should every child or teenage off-spring of a public representative be identified when they get into trouble? My point was that the people employed by the Independent, who masquerade as ‘journalists’, identified one boy in order to cause embarrassment to a parent.
My larger point was that outfits like the Independent will clearly intrude into the private and family life of public representatives whom they want to politically damage.
Ask Clare Daly about this?
Now go and read my original post again.
I see Bartley has tried to walk away from the mess that he made all over himself on this thread and troll somewhere else. Before expecting anyone to respond to your nonsense elsewhere, Bartley, you should try and get yourself out of this hash. Are you still arguing that 1798Mike views the exposure of Wallace’s tax affairs as an ‘unfounded smear campaign’? If not, are you going to admit that you made it up out of thin air, quoted your own words back to yourself in triumph, missed the kind of obvious sarcasm a child would pick up on, and generally made an arse of yourself?
Why would you expect anyone to engage with your juvenile trolling about Israel and racism when we all know what the story is – when your arguments are demolished, you change the subject and move the goalposts hoping nobody will notice.
@Ed
I actually did post a response to 1798Mike yesterday, but it didnt appear. Despite me posting it twice.
Whether the post was moderated, censored, or just lost to the gremlins of the internets, I know not.
But due to the wonders of my browser back-button, I can retrieve the post and try once more …
Once more unto the breach …
@1798Mike
Well of course I missed the point about the “women in Mick Wallace’s life”, seeing as you didnt even make that point in your original post, you mention it only now. I can hardly be expected to predict what youre going to post in the future.
The point that you did make was about his son, which I rebutted.
Wallace junior made false allegations in a public forum with intent to severely damage the reputations of others, whom he named. He disseminated those allegations under his own name. As such he directly outted himsef and waived any rights to anonymity.
I\’m really struggling to understand where you think the wee lamb derives any expectation of anonymity, given the public nature of the offence. Ones own medicine and the tasting thereof, springs to mind.
Or why you seem to be more concerned with the embarrassment caused to Wallace senior, given the much more extreme embarrassment caused to the victims.
… continuing on the question of me not picking up on sarcasm.
Maybe try adding a bit more zing or even an eye-roll, as opposed to just repeating Yes twice, as if that\’s the international signifier of sarcasm.
And given that Mike referred to INM using any issue to embarrass or discredit radical left TDs and also maintaining a stable of corporate mud-slingers, sure sounds like a smear campaign to me.
“No, we’d rather die of thirst!”
“No, we took a detour by southern Yemen!”
“No, we’d rather sleep in a ditch!”
“How dare you! Apologise to his grace immediately!”
“I’m so, so, SO, sorry!”
I guess you must have struggled with that episode.
I don’t know who you are trying to impress Bartley but you shift, dodge and squirm to avoid dealing with my central points about the methods and agenda of INM. In case you don’t know what INM is – it’s a media corporation now dominated by a major tax avoider. A media corporation, which before the last election sought to implicate Gilmore with involvement in property speculation – when they thought he might be a social democrat.
I see that Joe now stands accused of the horrific crime of sending people political information through the Dail envelope system which exists for the purposes of allowing TDs to send out political information.
All I can say about this bullshit is that the CAHWT is clearly rattling some cages.
For the last 30 years approx., one B. Howlin has been circulating Labour Party members and supporters in Wexford, using Dail envelopes. He hands over wads of them to the local ‘organisation’ or rather ‘family institution’. Do not expect to read this in the Independent.
Spot on. It’s common practice. Given that they are given a limited number of those envelopes I personally cannot see the problem here. If anything Higgins is doing himself a disservice by limiting his direct usage of that particular resource.
I wasn’t quite buying the ‘smear’ line of the SP, but have to admit, the near daily attacks on the TDs would suggest its shifted into that territory.
I think you’re right there Mark P.A group of 9 TDs openly campaigned against the Household Tax,about 5 per cent ofTDs,yet hundreds of thousands of citizens refused to pay it.How can such a small group of loonies alien to the Indo’s love of “middle Ireland” be so successful?Let’s cut them down to size.Meanwhile Ulster bank continues to defy gravity,any cahnce of a Croke Park for them?While AIB announces that it will rely even more so on computers and technology while letting people go
Interesting, Higgins says legal advice contradicts Oireachtas Commission ruling on travel expenses: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0719/1224320381153.html#.UAf58zwANiM.twitter
Don’t expect to read about this in the Independent or Herald.
Hi there, its fastidious article about media print, we all
be aware of media is a impressive source of data.