Comments on: When is a loan not a loan?

By: fmk

fmk — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:27:26 +0000

wrt the right of the press to publish stories such as this. what i find interesting is that there are currently three bills in circulation – a defamation bill, a privacy bill and a broadcasting bill – which add up to major changes in the media landscape, yet they are hardly evening been mentioned in the irish media, let alone the blog o’sphere – certainly if the lack of comments on http://www.mediaforum.ie/?p=43 is anything to go by. my impression is that, by and large, not only do the public not care whether bertie took a bung, they don’t care whether the media should be able to investigate it.

By: Stephen Neill

Stephen Neill — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:20:08 +0000

Just watching a webcast of last night’s Panorama report by Colm O’Gorman and having serious second thoughts about my comments on press controls! Maybe it is a case of the lesser evil to let the Press have free rein so that such systemic evil as portrayed by O’Gorman’s report can be uncovered and the vulnerable protected – even if it means occassional intrusion in the lives of those who do not deserve it. I am horrified at what I am watching. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5397346.stm – Incidentally not suggesting this sort of thing does not happen within the Anglican Church but I genuinely think it is less prevalent due to a less repressed attitude to sexuality in our structures. But we could always do better.
Stephen

By: Stephen Neill

Stephen Neill — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:06:13 +0000

>HOWEVER Stephen is wrong in one important respect: this does not mean >that those of who do not ascribe to this manner of doing business have no >right to call politicians to account.

Sarah – I will concede your point above but I would also suggest that this group forms a tiny minority of any society – a lot of us, myself and I am sure yourself included have high ideals but that is not to say I always live up to them!
Another interesting dimension of this issue is the emergence (rubber-stamping) of another arm of the judiciary, and no I am not talking about the Garda Reserve but rather The Irish Times! I am all for investigative journalism and would be the first to applaud the heroic efforts of Veronica Guerin and others like her who have paid the ultimate price, but if the Media in general are going to become more prominent in exposing criminal activity, as seems likely, then we will need to find mechanisms to ensure that the various arms of the media are not used and abused by those with vested interests in selective targeting which could distort and undermine the whole judicial process. It is a huge power to hold to be able to decide what is or is not in the public interest to know, and bearing in mind the private ownership of many organs of the media this has huge implications. I am not suggesting gagging or censorship but a responsible approach to the release of sensitive personal and private information. There seems to be a widely held view that all information is of public interest and in the public interest to be released. The reality is that if this line of thought is taken to its logical conclusion many individuals and organisations who deal in sensitive issues and situations will be effectively paralysed. Sometimes it is not in the public interest to know everything. I am not familiar with the minutae of the proposed Privacy Bill which looks set to be shelved on the back of the Ahern affair but I can see that there is a need for some paramaters to be drawn.
Stephen

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:57:17 +0000

Middle class or not, I will repeat an observation I’ve made before – and this ties into something Stephen said: politicians accurately reflect the will of the people. By the time we have the next election, FF will have been in government for 18 out of the last 20 years. The people know perfectly well that they break the rules and they don’t seem to care because they appear to believe that this is the only way that you can get ahead in this country. In fact, a lot of them appear to think that *not* breaking the rules makes you a fool. They didn’t care that Haughey had a fabulous lifestyle clearly not based on his earned income and they sneered at Garrett’s basement flat living. Even in the 90′s I remember incredibly snide comments by Angela Phelan about John Bruton and Finola flying Ryanair to Paris – an example of how cheap they were. Of course, she was angling for upgrades from Aer Lingus but the fact that she could get away with those comments shows that Irish people assume that only fools and people who have no other option try and save money. Anyone with any brains finds a sneaky way to get ahead.

Stephen is also right when he says that the corruption of politicians is simply a matter of scale. From signing on and working, to taking cash for a job, to PAYING cash for a job, to finding tax havens for your capital gains – tax evasion is a national pastime and the only people complaining are the ones who can’t do it.

HOWEVER Stephen is wrong in one important respect: this does not mean that those of who do not ascribe to this manner of doing business have no right to call politicians to account. ESPECIALLY politicians who have made grossly hypocritical speeches about members of the opposition in the past.
There is a basic standard we should expect politicians to meet – paying their tax – ESPECIALLY if the politician in question in a Minister for Finance.

Furthermore, the sheer stupidity of Ahern has to be taken into account. It would have been so easy for him to sort this out when the Tribunals were set up. The fact that he didn’t says two things:
- he’s thick
- even if he didn’t do any favours for these guys, he is so inherently morally corrupt he couldn’t see that there was anything wrong. He STILL can’t see that he’s done anything wrong. He believes he’s a victim in this – not a criminal who got caught. (and yes not paying your taxes is a crime). THAT speaks volumes.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:11:28 +0000

I’m confused. Gerry calls me a ‘weirdo’ – assuming that it’s my post he’s referring to – and then goes on to agree with me, except that he suggests that I say the middle classes are less liable to corruption than than others. I don’t, of course: ‘such closed circles are as liable to corruption as the closed circles of privilege’ is what I wrote.
I was trying to point out a few of the assumptions behind Bertie’s defence that he took for granted we share: that friends give each other a financial ‘dig out’; that part of the point of political power is the chance to give friends jobs; that the financial obligations of government ministers are not compromising – if they say so.
In England, it’s a political clichÃ© that Tory scandals are about sex; Labour ones are about money. Maybe Bertie is a socialist after all.

By: gerry

gerry — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:43:11 +0000

you get some right weirdoes on this list Sarah. It’s a class thing? The middle classes are less likely to be corrupt? It’s great to see the petit bourgeoise feeling empowered but this is surely the most idiotic analysis yet committed to cyber paper.

Look the reason he didn’t pay tax on these “loans” is that he didn’t want to draw attention to their existence in the first place. But the only judgement you need to make is to what extent his personal corruption has affected his ability to perform in his job. IMHO you’d need your head tested to vote FF in the first place as this is a party with the mantra of enriching the TD and his mates at the very core of its philosophy. Pretending to be surprised that its leader has taken the odd bung over the years is like being surprised that a lion might attack a gazelle.

So spare us the outrage and let’s make the decision we have always made – is the level of corruption tolerable? I would think Bertie’s liking for the odd envelope is a far preferable weakness to the impeccably middle class McDowell’s obvious lust for power and status. I know nothing about the FG leader so couldn’t comment on what his vice might be; peace and quiet perhaps.

By: petedg

petedg — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:27:02 +0000

I find it hilarious that McDowell is portraying himself as sitting on the moral high ground, demanding Bertie come clean or else. This the same man who, as minister for justice, deliberately gave confidential police files to the press in order to destroy the good name of a person that the courts had found not guilty, but who he thought was guilty. I’d say that makes McDowell a very, very corrupt person who is not fit to hold public office.

By: fmk

fmk — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:59:46 +0000

the point sarah makes above – that it was a gift, as the donors refused to accept repayment – is important. the man *should* have paid tax on it. especially given that he is an elected official. especially because he was a govt minister – the one with responsibility for finance. what sort of example is he setting? do as i say, not as i do?

going back to stephen’s comment, about it being wrong to hold elected officials to higher standards. that is just bullshit totally fails to undertsand the role elected officials play in a society. elected officials are the people who set the laws. they are people who are required to set an example. what example are we getting from them? that the tax laws are there for the dumb schmucks in the bewildered heard and that friendship is more important than ability when it comes to government appointments to public boards?

that this *is* the way business is run in this country is no reason to accept that this is the way it *has* to be run.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:56:22 +0000

Everyone has his/her own favourite line from Bertie’s apologia – and I did like the bit about state board appointments being for ‘friends’, not creditors – and mine is the assumption that we’ve ‘all’ been involved in a whip-round for a pal in financial trouble. Well, actually, Bertie, we haven’t. As with Charlie, so it is with Bertie: the unspoken factor in both their stories is class – the thing we can’t speak about in Ireland now that we can all speak about money and marital breakdown.
There is an Ireland – in many ways an admirable place – in which lads who worked their way up in the world, without the benefit of fee-paying schools and university degrees, look after each other through networks of their own involving the GAA, Fianna Fail, semi-state boards, weekends away for golf, soccer etc.
The problem is that such closed circles are as liable to corruption as the closed circles of privelege. The lads that Bertie had known for years gave him a dig out in the same way as the drinkers in a GAA club bar on a Sunday night would throw a few bob in a bucket to help out a neighbour in trouble. What could be wrong with that?
Well, for a start, these pals were millionaires. The assumptions of park football don’t obtain in the premiership: you don’t throw two grand in a bucket. More importantly, Bertie’s world view is not the one we expect from a 21st century prime minister. Has Michael McDowell or Trevor Sargent ever taken part in a whip round? I doubt it. The middle classes expect people to sort out their own financial problems and they probably don’t think that giving a pal a job on a state board is part and parcel of politics. I hope not, anyway.
If my financial situation deteriorated drastically, I would love to think that I’d have a friend or two that would offer to help. But twelve? No – and if people were queuing up, I’d be pretty worried about their motives.
The politics of the group of lads, the upwardly-mobile, hanging together and looking after each other in times of difficulty, is not despicable, but it is totally outdated. We are supposed to have a democracy now, where duty to your country is more important than loyalty to your mates. The very last people that Bertie should have accepted money from were his close personal friends. It would actually be more reassuring if he admitted just getting a fist full of fivers from a builder. At least we’d know their motives. I think that what people objected to most about Haughey was his sense of entitlement – I’ve worked hard to get here and now I deserve my share of the cake, and more – and we’ve always thought that the cake didn’t matter to Bertie. If you’ve grown up without much cake, maybe it does – even if it’s only something to share out among your mates.

By: Stephen Neill

Stephen Neill — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:53:19 +0000

OK Sarah – He certainly made a grave error and may well have been guilty of a breech of ethics but does this mean we hang him out to dry? Or is it a case of one strike you’re out? That’s a very high standard to apply to anyone in any walk of life. Things have obviously moved on tonight with the distancing of the PDs from Bertie through the Tanaiste’s statement and it may well be that the Manchester payment will be the crucial issue which brings this to a head. I still think that we are allowing the agenda to be dictated by those who are using this for cynical party political gain. As for the PDs,they are not the party of principle that Des O’Malley founded – they are merely backing the winning horse! Politicians and politics and society at large have come a long way since the Haughey era and I think we are being totally unreasonable in applying the standards of today to a time when we all tolerated and often benifitted from the politics of nods and winks! I am not suggesting that the Taoiseach is blameless but I do wonder how we can in all conscience pretend that we are in a position to condemn him. Bertie Ahern is very representative of the man in the street -that’s why he is/was so popular. If we are going to jetison him at this point then we will need to be prepared to jetison a lot more besides. He is not that different than the rest of us!
Stephen