10.10.06
Tim O’Malley is a dick
This guy (PD TD Limerick) really annoys me. He first came to my attention when he accused Fine Gael’s Dan Neville last year of “playing politics” or some other stupid phrase like that, with the issue of suicide. Now, Dan Neville has been a champion for suicide prevention for as long as I can remember – so that’s at least 25 years. He continually raises the issue and I think on that occasion was looking for better mental health services. When I heard O’Malley say this, I thought, what a nasty little shit. Neville hadn’t plucked the issue out of the hat, and was certainly not playing politics, whatever that ridiculous phrase means, but that was all O’Malley could come up with in an effort to defend his Department’s (he is junior minister at Health) lamentable performance on mental health.
ANYWAY, he issued a pathetic statement yesterday complaining about FG’s ethics. This is continuing a FF line that first got trotted out by blatant and well briefed plants in the Q&A audience last Monday. It’s part of the “sure they were all at it” strategy. For example, he refers to a €100,000 donation that Ben Dunne made to Fine Gael in May 1993 and which was lodged to FG accounts in a way that concealed who had made the donation. This outrageous act he claims means that FG is in no position to lecture any other party on ethics.
Tim, let me see if I understand you correctly.
A businessman makes a €100,000 donation to Fine Gael. A perfectly legitimate, if extremely generous, donation, which they use to fund their next election campaign. At this time there are no limits on donations to political parties, and no requirement for donations to be declared. They do however take steps to make sure that it doesn’t get out (to the press) that Ben Dunne is the donor.
This is EXACTLY the same as Bertie Ahern, MINISTER FOR FINANCE, taking money personally from businessmen, calling it a loan so he doesn’t have to pay gift tax, using it to fund his personal expenses, and never paying it back until he gets caught AND saying in the Dail in 1999 that he NEVER received ANY payment which could be described as unorthodox, unusual or irregular and telling the nation a couple of weeks ago that there was nothing wrong in accepting the money (and remember that was before he’d paid it back).
Yes Tim, a donation to a political party and a so-called personal loan to the Minister for Finance, which is never to be repaid – they are definitely exactly the same. You are SO on the nail. Not.
btw, just on this line about how FG “mysteriously” paid off a €5m debt (or something massive), which Vincent Browne also trots out, in an attempt to sully FG’s reputation. There is no mystery and I have no idea why its getting currency in the meeja.
FG arrived in government by complete surprise in 1994. There had been no expectation that they would be in office, and hadn’t been since 1987. Suddenly they had power. So what did they do? They ran a big pile of fundraising events which were instantly sold-out. This was the time I was working for Esat and we were going to all the dinners. They had ones in every constituency and several big national events too. One was in the Burlington and I think 3000 people attended it (or something) everyone on £100 a plate. All the Ministers would be trotted out to host tables and you want to see the way business men would line up for the privilege of sitting beside a Minister – particularly a Minister that they had foolishly ignored for the past 7 years cos they thought they never would be a Minister. I know this whole system of fundraising seems grubby to all you non-politicos out there, but this is the way its done. There is a dinner. People pay tickets to go and hob-nob with politicians. The Taoiseach makes a speeech (Brutal’s were excellent) and they all go home delighted. Its not remotely corrupt or unethical or anything else. Its just a richman’s table quiz. I personally attended about 10 dinners/lunches and there was always a mix of local party supporters and business people. Anyone could stand outside any hotel and see who was going in and do the numbers. There is no mystery.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 10, 2006 at 6:48 pm
The PD’s are an awful party. I’d actually rather see FF in power on their own than with them!!!
Limerick Lad said,
October 10, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Very well observed Sarah hopefully our Tim will not be returned to the Dail at the next election as he only scraped in the last time and any drop in support for the Government Parties should see his exit from national politics.
tomcosgrave said,
October 11, 2006 at 9:52 am
know this whole system of fundraising seems grubby to all you non-politicos out there, but this is the way its done.
That post could only have been written by a Fine Gaeler
That may be the case, but it doesn’t make it any less grubby.
And yes, Tim O’Malley is an eejit. I heard him on The Right Hook the other day, and wanted to throttle him.
Sarah said,
October 11, 2006 at 10:50 am
but Tom seriously, this is how political parties raise money! How else would they do it? Do you want to abolish all fundraising and have the state fund political parties? How would they organise that? The biggest party gets the most most money? That would be great, wouldn’t it?
Do you say, ok, a table quiz at €10 a skull is ok, but a lunch at €50 is not ok? Limits have been set – isn’t it €2,500 or something? The money has to come from somewhere…
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 11, 2006 at 4:43 pm
It isn’t that complicated. There should just be diffenent thresholds wherby parties getting over a certain number of seats get a certain amount of money.
Sarah said,
October 11, 2006 at 7:32 pm
yeah, but that means that since money is crucial to campaigning that a built in preservation of the status quo is established. Now this happens to a certain degree already (cos parties do get state funding based on size) but to make funding SOLELY dependent on size would be unfair. Sinn Fein for example would lose out big time. Shame, not, but unfair nevertheless.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 11, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I think that parties should be allowed hold fundraisers but that the money they can receive from them should be capped, at e.g €1,000.
Having a couple of these fundraisers in every consituency would ensure that, along with the money from the State, every party would be ok.
I agree with you about fundraising abroad. But given that we have a party that is a threat to the state and that capitalises big time in America, I think we should ban fundraising abroad- no more Manchesters!!!!!!!
Didn’t the opposition parties, and the PD’s, refuse to agree with Northern representation in the Dáil on the sole basis that it would give Gerry Adams a great propaganda forum? I disagree with them there, but the best way to hit at corrpution in politics is through corrupt politicans pockets. This would also make it more attractive for more decent people to enter it.
Ray said,
October 12, 2006 at 10:04 am
Eliminate fundraising by eliminating campaign spending.
Any candidate that gets on the ballot has four manifesto pages (two for council seats) to set out their policies/achievements/photos. The electoral commission collects the manifestos, prints them in a single book, and delivers that book to every household in the constituency. National TV and radio ads are proportional to the number of seats contested in new Dail and held in old Dail, and are all filmed in the same studio, that features a desk, a stand for a flipchart, and a single camera. No posters. No billboards. No leafletting between elections.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 12, 2006 at 3:33 pm
That goes too far I think Ray. Come on, “no posters. No billboards. No leafletting between elections” “are all filmed in the same studio, that features a desk, a stand for a flipchart, and a single camera”. We need a bit of colour, even if its only marketing to cover the fact that most of our TD’s are boring people.
Sarah said,
October 12, 2006 at 4:19 pm
i agree, plus that doesn’t cover staff costs.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 12, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Do you still think that corporate funding is OK though?
Ray said,
October 12, 2006 at 4:38 pm
‘Colour’ seems to be another way of saying ‘nice marketing’. Why should taxpayers pay to be advertised at? If the candidates are boring people and their policies are unappealing, so be it.
Staff costs – every TD gets an allowance for a secretary, right? There’s your staff. (Okay, maybe a couple of extra people in proportion to seats won) Everyone else can volunteer.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 12, 2006 at 4:45 pm
No, you have to include the staff who work in the HQ of the various parties.
“Why should taxpayers pay to be advertised at?” Some people have to be reminded that there is an election on and of who the candidates and parties are.
Ray said,
October 12, 2006 at 8:30 pm
I only have to include them if I think they’re necessary. (If it will make you happy – HQ workers can be paid for by membership fees. Which are capped, so they won’t be backdoor donations)
I started by suggesting a publicly funded maildrop and free TV and radio ads, which takes care of reminding people of the election (I imagine it might get mentioned in the media too) and informing them of the candidates and parties.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
October 12, 2006 at 8:34 pm
They should all have publicly funded HQ workers, their number depending on their size. Membership fees, by even the biggest parties, wouldn’t pay one person probably.
Andrew said,
October 12, 2006 at 10:29 pm
I’d settle for a ban on the phrases:
‘I’m not taking any lectures on…’
‘I didn’t interrupt you…’
and
‘moral high ground’ -
all of which have been taught to stupid politicians by ‘media trainers’, for use when they’re being out-argued and haven’t a rhetorical leg to stand on.
Most of the people who use them need plenty of lectures on the difference between right and wrong, need urgently to be interrupted every time they open their mouths, and would need oxygen if they accidentally strayed onto the MHG.
faolain said,
October 12, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Sarah, could we have a way of giving kudos to some postings?
Ray would definitely get mine for his at 10.04 am (I post as someone involved in PR/marketing).
If I want colour I’ll vote for someone like Screaming Lord Sutch, not the person/party with the best policies.
Having said which, the best political PR recently was Celebrity Your A Star – but only for the individuals, not the parties!
Sarah said,
October 13, 2006 at 8:58 am
hmm, perhaps I’ll introduce a comment of the week feature
I think there is nothing wrong with corporate donations provided its totally transparent and no limit set on the declaration. So every €100 declared. Once everyone knows where the money is coming from there is no problem.
Ray said,
October 13, 2006 at 12:10 pm
The problem with corporate donations is that they invite the question “what are they getting for their money?” Because you’d have a hard time convincing me that party policies or individual decisions are not going to influenced by the knowledge that one side of a dispute is a regular donor to the party and the other side isn’t.
“But everyone will know about the donation” you say. Sure, but how do they show that the donation was the deciding factor in a decision, and not the arguments proposed? If you appoint someone with absolutely no experience to a semi-state board, that’s obviously questionable. If you appoint someone and say “Sure, he donated money to my campaign. He thinks I do a good job. And I appointed him because I think he’ll do a good job.”, no-one can prove otherwise. But it still stinks.
Gordon DAVIES said,
October 13, 2006 at 5:38 pm
It would be legitimate to ask if when Bartholemew Patrick (to use Ahern’s real name) chose to dump McDowell’s cafe-bar proposal, and follow the lead of the publican lobbyists, did the Minister for Justice know that BP had received money from 2 publicans and a contractor specialising in restoring pubs. No conflict of interest here!
In FF’s case corporate donations are generally in light of “services rendered” as the party seems to consistently develop policies that favour their most lasting creation – the new Ascendency, who so regulariliy demonstrate for gratitude. It would seem that payments are only corrupt if the corrupted party does something in return after the money is paid.
As the latest opinion polls seem to suggest “sleaze pays”
Gordon
Joe’s Blog » Blog Archive » Limerick East - O’Malley & O’Donnell said,
May 9, 2007 at 11:48 am
[...] gets up Sarah’s nose too: http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2006/10/10/tim-omalley-is-a-dick/ [...]