General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

McMurphy · 01-11-2019 4:20pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't see any incompatibility.

The inquiry can clear Maria Bailey, the Taoiseach can accept that, but he can still conclude that she is politically damaged and is no longer the best candidate to take a seat for Fine Gael. That is perfectly logical and in no way contradicts the finding of the inquiry.

So then, wouldn't it be the job of the electorate to decide on whether or not someone's the best candidate for a seat or not in this instance?

Leo has come out defending Maria due to a report he won't release, but expects us to believe exonerated her.

Paschal's very recently been saying she's an extremely hard working and extremely competent TD in all and every aspect of her work.

Party first and foremost is it?

Josepha Madigan and Alan Farrell have been attracting similar negative attention lately too, should they be hung out to dry next if leo thinks they're going to cost the party votes?

James Brown · 01-11-2019 4:43pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Generally speaking: Why should someone suffer political fallout for, at worst, professional negligence (and I think that's a stretch to be honest) in their previous career?

More specifically: In fact, there's no professional negligence here. The case was, as I've pointed out previously, on the top end of the Circuit Court jurisdiction based on the book of quantum, therefore it's a coin-toss really as to whether it's worth the financial risk for the Plaintiff to bring the case in the High Court and potentially suffer adverse costs implications if they're awarded damages in the Circuit Court jurisdiction.

That's ultimately a client decision.

If for argument sake: Joseph Madigan, a FG TD, gave Bailey advice that she had 'a clear cut case' it would tar Madigan with the same brush as it were. In fact Bailey has claimed she only proceeded because of that advice.
So once again in Irish politics, it's not illegal, but it certainly isn't a decent way for a public representative to carry oneself.
Bailey did nothing illegal and this has dragged on and on thanks in part to Leo and chums trying to dismiss it as nothing.

blanch152 · 01-11-2019 4:45pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Do you think her legal advisor will suffer fallout?

I can see why people are turning their fire on the legal advisor, bigger target, female Minister etc. I am struggling a bit with the relevance.

What Madigan did, as a lawyer, is confidential to the client. It also has to be directed at what is best for the client, not what is best for society in general. For example, Madigan could hold a view, both personally and politically, that legal claims such as those in this case are wrong, however, her duty would have been to professionally advise the client on the best course of action for the client.

So even if it is shown that Madigan advised Bailey that she should take the action, and legally had a good chance of success, she would have been professionally required to offer that advice if it is her professional opinion, no matter her own personal moral views on whether such a case should be taken.

blanch152 · 01-11-2019 4:48pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So then, wouldn't it be the job of the electorate to decide on whether or not someone's the best candidate for a seat or not in this instance?

Leo has come out defending Maria due to a report he won't release, but expects us to believe exonerated her.

Paschal's very recently been saying she's an extremely hard working and extremely competent TD in all and every aspect of her work.

Party first and foremost is it?

Josepha Madigan and Alan Farrell have been attracting similar negative attention lately too, should they be hung out to dry next if leo thinks they're going to cost the party votes?

Why? The electorate only get to vote on whoever is nominated for election. A party can choose to put forward whomever they wish as their candidate.

If a person is deeply unpopular, no matter whether they have done anything right or wrong, a party would be mad to put them on their ticket.

James Brown · 01-11-2019 4:54pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I can see why people are turning their fire on the legal advisor, bigger target, female Minister etc. I am struggling a bit with the relevance.

What Madigan did, as a lawyer, is confidential to the client. It also has to be directed at what is best for the client, not what is best for society in general. For example, Madigan could hold a view, both personally and politically, that legal claims such as those in this case are wrong, however, her duty would have been to professionally advise the client on the best course of action for the client.

So even if it is shown that Madigan advised Bailey that she should take the action, and legally had a good chance of success, she would have been professionally required to offer that advice if it is her professional opinion, no matter her own personal moral views on whether such a case should be taken.

Bailey was trying to sue for a fall. Nothing illegal their either, but look where we are.
We know solicitors are in it to make a living and are by no means moral guardians but Madigan is finished in politics, (IMO) if she turns out to be the one. Her professional stance won't come into it unless she tries to prove while a family law solicitor out drinking with the claimant she was obliged to tell a non-client, (at the time) to try sue because she had 'a clear cut case'. I don't think anyone will buy that.

FreudianSlippers · 04-11-2019 12:34pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If for argument sake: Joseph Madigan, a FG TD, gave Bailey advice that she had 'a clear cut case' it would tar Madigan with the same brush as it were. In fact Bailey has claimed she only proceeded because of that advice.
So once again in Irish politics, it's not illegal, but it certainly isn't a decent way for a public representative to carry oneself.
Bailey did nothing illegal and this has dragged on and on thanks in part to Leo and chums trying to dismiss it as nothing.

Ignoring entirely the fact that Josepha Madigan was not a FG TD at the time.

FreudianSlippers · 04-11-2019 12:37pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Her professional stance won't come into it unless she tries to prove while a family law solicitor out drinking with the claimant she was obliged to tell a non-client, (at the time) to try sue because she had 'a clear cut case'. I don't think anyone will buy that.

You love making unsubstantiated allegations on this website. The fact that they're entirely nonsense and fantasy-world stuff is just the icing on the cake. There is absolutely nothing you've said here that is in any way factual or has a basis in reality; particularly your allegation that there was some obligation that a solicitor may have to a non-client.

There is also zero evidence to support the claim that Bailey didn't have a "clear cut case" - in fact she did on its face without any question - the issue was over quantum of that case and alleged inflation of damages.

tayto lover · 04-11-2019 1:11pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) You haven't addressed what I said;
2) What relevance is it whether her solicitor was with her at the time of the incident?
3) What relevance is someone's career prior to being a politician?

It’s relevant to the voters especially those who have concerns about insurance fraud surely. They might see those two as being in cahoots to defraud.
That could be very relevant to a voter who sees his/her insurance costs rising significantly.
Whether one of them was in politics or not wouldn’t matter. They wouldn’t want a chancer representing them.
And whether either or both of them were lawfully doing their business it’s still down to whether the voter believes them or not.

James Brown · 04-11-2019 3:01pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ignoring entirely the fact that Josepha Madigan was not a FG TD at the time.

Yes the public will. Also that has zero to do with my comment as regards Blanch's post. She wasn't her legal adviser and not professionally obliged to advise her she had a 'clear cut case', which was bad advice any way, IMO.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You love making unsubstantiated allegations on this website. The fact that they're entirely nonsense and fantasy-world stuff is just the icing on the cake. There is absolutely nothing you've said here that is in any way factual or has a basis in reality; particularly your allegation that there was some obligation that a solicitor may have to a non-client.

There is also zero evidence to support the claim that Bailey didn't have a "clear cut case" - in fact she did on its face without any question - the issue was over quantum of that case and alleged inflation of damages.

Less of the personal and false advertising there FS, thanks. I will give you one shiny donkey for any false allegation you can assign to me.
These are my opinions based on what we know. You cannot refute them. You can have a different take. Until all the facts come out it's mostly speculation.
No basis in reality? Read this:

blanch152 wrote: »

...

What Madigan did, as a lawyer, is confidential to the client. It also has to be directed at what is best for the client, not what is best for society in general. For example, Madigan could hold a view, both personally and politically, that legal claims such as those in this case are wrong, however, her duty would have been to professionally advise the client on the best course of action for the client.

So even if it is shown that Madigan advised Bailey that she should take the action, and legally had a good chance of success, she would have been professionally required to offer that advice if it is her professional opinion, no matter her own personal moral views on whether such a case should be taken.

Now you tell me, was Bailey her client at the time of the fall? Was she, if she did, obliged to tell Bailey she had a clear cut case'? Do you think it was a clear cut case? I don't. My opinion is as valid as yours. I would suggest the fact she dropped it and the fall out, no, t'wasn't clear cut.
She chanced her arm, it went wrong and looks like she'll be blaming who ever gave her the advice. Privileged and arrogant.

McMurphy · 04-11-2019 3:53pm

Leo caught in the headlamps yet again with the Bailey Case.

Things weren't supposed to play out like this, the report he tried to bury under Boris Johnson's headlines was supposed to placate the plebs for a few months in the hope this would die down, and be forgotten about.

And then in comes the local DL branch of FG to say they want Bailey off the ticket, Maria is reportedly "defiant" and claims not everything relating to her dropped claim is in the public domain.
If that's not a thinly veiled threat, I don't know what is.

They'd want to be extremely careful in how they approach this, force her out, and my guess is the public will know every thing about the case, including them bits not in the public domain, which I assume would include the full extent of Madigans role.

Leo has egg on his face, because that report he decided to not publish, obviously said a lot more about Ms Bailey's infamous claim than he told the public about, he should have used it as the perfect excuse to get shot of her then, but he didn't.

Could it be because it reflects badly on others too?

Leo couldnt have handled this more ineptly if he had of tried.

is_that_so · 05-11-2019 6:08pm

Economy roars on but dangers as full employment all but here.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/jobless-rate-drops-to-just-4-8pc-as-economy-comes-close-to-full-employment-38663251.html

blanch152 · 05-11-2019 8:14pm

tayto lover wrote: »

It’s relevant to the voters especially those who have concerns about insurance fraud surely. They might see those two as being in cahoots to defraud.
That could be very relevant to a voter who sees his/her insurance costs rising significantly.
Whether one of them was in politics or not wouldn’t matter. They wouldn’t want a chancer representing them.
And whether either or both of them were lawfully doing their business it’s still down to whether the voter believes them or not.

You do realise that just because something is of interest to the public, that doesn’t mean it is of public interest.

tayto lover · 05-11-2019 8:59pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You do realise that just because something is of interest to the public, that doesn’t mean it is of public interest.

I bet the voting public are very interested and there are people with vested interests who will keep it in the public domain. That you can bet on.

James Brown · 06-11-2019 3:19pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Economy roars on but dangers as full employment all but here.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/jobless-rate-drops-to-just-4-8pc-as-economy-comes-close-to-full-employment-38663251.html

It's a great example of a broken system. By the Right wing logic we should be all flying instead of dying on hospital trolleys and some workers not able to pay rent and buying a home has become a fantasy for most. Not to mention record breaking and rising numbers of homeless children.

**************

Nice to see the Solidarity-PBP, SF, Greens, Labour and Indies 'hurlers from the ditch, who don't want to be elected' speaking out representing democracy:

The motion is seeking to alter the rules of the house to allow dozens of stalled pieces of legislation to proceed.

This legislation has been paused after the Government rejected it using what is called a 'Money Message'.

This relates to legislation that would have an impact on the public finances and governments are not obliged to accept it, even if it has the backing of a majority of TDs.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1106/1089025-solidarity-pbp-politics-court/

Another opportunity for FF to look like viable opposition too.

blanch152 · 06-11-2019 5:04pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a great example of a broken system. By the Right wing logic we should be all flying instead of dying on hospital trolleys and some workers not able to pay rent and buying a home has become a fantasy for most. Not to mention record breaking and rising numbers of homeless children.

**************

Nice to see the Solidarity-PBP, SF, Greens, Labour and Indies 'hurlers from the ditch, who don't want to be elected' speaking out representing democracy:

Another opportunity for FF to look like viable opposition too.

That is the ultimate hurler on the ditch response from them.

They want to be able to pass legislation that commits a government to spend any amount of money, but when it comes to finding a way through taxation to raise the money to spend on that legislation, they can wash their hands and cry about the government robbing people.

It makes having your cake and eating it look generous.

If you want to pass "money message" legislation, man up and go into government.

James Brown · 06-11-2019 5:35pm

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the ultimate hurler on the ditch response from them.

They want to be able to pass legislation that commits a government to spend any amount of money, but when it comes to finding a way through taxation to raise the money to spend on that legislation, they can wash their hands and cry about the government robbing people.

It makes having your cake and eating it look generous.

If you want to pass "money message" legislation, man up and go into government.

Every party bar Fine Gael?
Another issue where you are against the Greens?

It's policy the majority of elected TD's voted in favour of being held up by FG. The 'money message' isn't the problem. Every party bar Fine Gael reckon FG are abusing it to refuse to implement policy, the majority of TD's want to see.

The opposition and faux opposition, (FF) are right and doing their job.

is_that_so · 06-11-2019 6:17pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a great example of a broken system. By the Right wing logic we should be all flying instead of dying on hospital trolleys and some workers not able to pay rent and buying a home has become a fantasy for most. Not to mention record breaking and rising numbers of homeless children.

**************

Nice to see the Solidarity-PBP, SF, Greens, Labour and Indies 'hurlers from the ditch, who don't want to be elected' speaking out representing democracy:

Another opportunity for FF to look like viable opposition too.

Being debated doesn't mean being passed and all they get is the right to challenge his decision. A lot of private members bills just get binned because they are crap. I'd wager a lot of that 50 are under that umbrella and look who it is!

As a potential Govt partner in-waiting I can't see FF giving their blessing to anything that would financially curtail their own plans in government.

blanch152 · 06-11-2019 6:47pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Every party bar Fine Gael?
Another issue where you are against the Greens?

It's policy the majority of elected TD's voted in favour of being held up by FG. The 'money message' isn't the problem. Every party bar Fine Gael reckon FG are abusing it to refuse to implement policy, the majority of TD's want to see.

The opposition and faux opposition, (FF) are right and doing their job.

Well, if they are so united, pass a vote of confidence and go into government. They are giving Varadkar the perfect excuse to call an election.

James Brown · 06-11-2019 7:20pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Being debated doesn't mean being passed and all they get is the right to challenge his decision. A lot of private members bills just get binned because they are crap. I'd wager a lot of that 50 are under that umbrella and look who it is!

As a potential Govt partner in-waiting I can't see FF giving their blessing to anything that would financially curtail their own plans in government.

I'd wager you're guessing, which you are of course.

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if they are so united, pass a vote of confidence and go into government. They are giving Varadkar the perfect excuse to call an election.

What nonsense. They all agree on this so are fit to partner in government? Maybe FF could pull the rug out.

christy c · 06-11-2019 7:47pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Economy roars on but dangers as full employment all but here.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/jobless-rate-drops-to-just-4-8pc-as-economy-comes-close-to-full-employment-38663251.html

Bit of a meaningless statistic IMO, in 2018 almost 1 in 6 households with working age adults was jobless (don't know if there is more up to date info).

When such a huge chunk of adults are excluded from the workforce, talking about the tiny numbers unemployed is a waste of time.

is_that_so · 07-11-2019 9:37am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd wager you're guessing, which you are of course.

What nonsense. They all agree on this so are fit to partner in government? Maybe FF could pull the rug out.

50 bills is an awful lot of time. I'd like to see what these things plan to do. Given the likely proposers I wouldn't be optimistic they are beneficial to the country.
There will be no rug pulling, just an agreed date for an election and a civilised breakup.

Geuze · 07-11-2019 11:02am

is_that_so wrote: »

Economy roars on but dangers as full employment all but here.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/jobless-rate-drops-to-just-4-8pc-as-economy-comes-close-to-full-employment-38663251.html

Although unemployment is low, employment isn't very high.

James Brown · 07-11-2019 3:36pm

is_that_so wrote: »

50 bills is an awful lot of time. I'd like to see what these things plan to do. Given the likely proposers I wouldn't be optimistic they are beneficial to the country.
There will be no rug pulling, just an agreed date for an election and a civilised breakup.

Every single party and some independents are complaining that FG are abusing the 'money message' as a stalling tactic. So outside of Fine Gael you've no faith that anyone is genuine? You realise the FG party are overseeing worsening crises in housing, homelessness for nearly a decade now? What gives you the illusion what they do is always in the best interest of the country?

is_that_so · 07-11-2019 7:52pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Every single party and some independents are complaining that FG are abusing the 'money message' as a stalling tactic. So outside of Fine Gael you've no faith that anyone is genuine? You realise the FG party are overseeing worsening crises in housing, homelessness for nearly a decade now? What gives you the illusion what they do is always in the best interest of the country?

No just this bunch, the tax "anyone we call the rich" simpletons. Is there a link to that statement about other parties? Nobody disputes the housing issue but it requires very large doses of hallucinogens to imagine that Paul Murphy et al have the answer to that or any other problem.

James Brown · 07-11-2019 7:57pm

is_that_so wrote: »

No just this bunch, the tax "anyone we call the rich" simpletons. Is there a link to that statement about other parties? Nobody disputes the housing issue but it requires very large doses of hallucinogens to imagine that Paul Murphy et al have the answer to that or any other problem.

Every political entity (and some indies), are complaining FG are misusing the process.
You went around my comments and questions. Who said anything about answers to any specific issue? This is about stalling policy TD's want enacted. And you judging every other party to a higher standard than you seem to hold Fine Gael.
Not sure why you are going off topic, but have fun.

is_that_so · 07-11-2019 8:00pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Every political entity (and some indies), are complaining FG are misusing the process.
Not sure why you are going off topic, but have fun.

I was actually curious where you saw or heard it but if you can't remember that's OK too.

James Brown · 07-11-2019 8:02pm

is_that_so wrote: »

I was actually curious where you saw or heard it but if you can't remember that's OK too.

The motion is seeking to alter the rules of the house to allow dozens of stalled pieces of legislation to proceed.

This legislation has been paused after the Government rejected it using what is called a 'Money Message'.

This relates to legislation that would have an impact on the public finances and governments are not obliged to accept it, even if it has the backing of a majority of TDs.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1106/1089025-solidarity-pbp-politics-court/

What did I win?

is_that_so · 07-11-2019 8:05pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What did I win?

Nuttin', 'cos that just says them, not all other parties!

James Brown · 07-11-2019 9:22pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Nuttin', 'cos that just says them, not all other parties!

It did. They've since changed it. They even took out quotes from Michael Martin and query by the Greens on the legality of blocking amending it. You'll see my quote which I used isn't even in the article anymore.

Here's the readable search result for the article:

1 day ago - Solidarity-PBP seeking injunction over 'money message' ... allowed her party to put forward motions to change the Dáil rules. ... while Green Party leader Eamon Ryan called on the Ceann Comhairle to share ... RTÉ.ie is the website of Raidió Teilifís Éireann, Ireland's National Public Service Broadcaster.

Funnily enough you spoke on portions of the issue not in the original text nor this edited one, (50 bills) yet need my verifying it again? You've commented on this the other day but only looked at the link today?

Here's one explaining why TD's are complaining:

Why is the Government doing this?
It disagrees with many of the Bills tabled by opposition parties, but because it is in a minority, it can’t stop them in Dáil votes. So it has relied on the money message device to block them from progressing through the Dáil’s legislative processes – even when they are not tax or spending bills. Amongst the list of blocked Bills are ones to legalise the use of cannabis for medicinal reasons; to ban the import of goods from Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories; prevent evictions; ban fossil-fuel exploration; and many others.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/what-is-the-d%C3%A1il-money-message-argument-about-1.4073511

Here's a different link:

Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin said he had some sympathy with Boyd Barrett’s position, adding that the government consistently abuses the money message mechanism “to prevent good legislation getting through the House”. He said this government has abused money messages to stall legislation.

Meanwhile, Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald said it was “astonishing” that Solidarity-PBP scheduled their motion on money messages 11 days ago, but only learned yesterday that it was ruled out-of-order.
https://www.thejournal.ie/money-message-bills-blocked-dail-4879157-Nov2019/

So, every party and some indies are calling out FG for misusing the 'money message' to stall bills. Good on them. Shame on Fine Gael.

Topgear on Dave · 07-11-2019 11:17pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So, every party and some indies are calling out FG for misusing the 'money message' to stall bills. Good on them. Shame on Fine Gael.

Well they should get together and boot them out then, form a government themselves.

But they wont. They're all bluff and hot air.

Talk is cheap.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments